Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7]   Go Down

Author Topic: A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy  (Read 31716 times)

Condon

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 112
  • Tim Condon, ALR (Alien Literary Representative)
A word with you all, please?
« Reply #90 on: January 18, 2003, 06:36:31 pm »

Sheesh. I've just read this entire forum thread. As a member of the FSP board of directors and as an "old guy," I'd like to ask that everyone tone down the volume and the rhetoric a little; it doesn't help us at all to get seriously pissed off at one another.

Let me say a few things here, for everyone. First of all, I'd request that everyone kindly cut out the personal attacks. That kind of stuff doesn't help, and we all know that we all want the same thing ultimately. The debate is over how to get there, and because some of us disagree with others doesn't mean the others are jerks or idiots or plotting to undermine the organization.

Next, a word about leadership and decision-making. It is clearly stated on the web site that the FSP is a private corporation and decisions are made votes of a five-person board of directors. Each of the board members has an equal vote to the other four. Two of the board members---me and Matt Cheselka---were elected to the board by the other board members when vacancies appeared, in accordance with the corporate by-laws. The other three board members---Jason, Elizabeth, and Debra---are original members of the board from when the corporation was formed a little over a year and a half ago. Although all votes on the board are equal, I tend to defer to Jason (despite the fact that I'm a practicing lawyer and easily old enough to be his father) because he came up with the idea, he founded the movement, and he has pulled the people together, amazingly enough, to actually start making it happen. *Nevertheless*, Jason has continuously shown himself able and willing to listen to alternate views, and in fact he has been voted down on issues in the past. So he's not "the boss" or any kind of "dictator" by any stretch of the imagination. Nor is Elizabeth "his lieutenant," any more than any of the rest of us are. We have disputes and debates on the board, like any corporate board, and they are decided by a vote among the five of us, as is required by the by-laws and the law of the state of Nevada where the organization is incorporated.

Now, allow me to continue blabbing for a little more, about the very subject of this thread, the notion of a "two-state strategy." Believe it or not, I kind of liked the ida; it is facially appealing on the surface, and I'm therefore sympathetic to it on a notional (i.e. theoretical or speculative) basis. However, on a real-world strategic *and* tactical basis I must tell you all that officially splitting our forces in any way now would be a kiss of death to the Free State Project. If we were to actually entertain such a plan, the whole foundation of the movement would be undermined; we have birthed a plan to choose a "single state" only. Anything in addition to or in alternative to that---whether it be dual-states or considering islands or foreign lands or the such---would essentially gut the project, which we all see and know is starting to enjoy phenomenal success. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A VOTE *THIS YEAR* EVERYONE! THE FREE STATE IS GOING TO BE CHOSEN IN A FEW MONTHS! And that, in and of itself, is an extraordinary triumph. We must not now dilute the power that is ours by even thinking of fundamentally changing the idea undergirding the organization (okay, it's a rhetorical flourish; debate is okay, but we need to keep our eye on the ball).

Because of the above, I give extra thanks to Zxcv. Although you were a little bit mean in your characterization of Jason and his position (not to mention mistaken), you have essentially said "Let's put this discussion away, since a decision has been made, and move forward to making the FSP a success on its own terms." Ted, as a fellow Floridian and someone who has met you personally (for which I am thankful), I cannot tell you how much I want you to stay and work with me in getting as many Florida Porcupines signed up as possible. It is true that your idea has been vetoed, and you have the right to be disappointed. But this movement is truly an exceptional, historical force, and you and I are in positions to help move it forward and make it successful (not to mention getting our own small footnotes in the history books). Don't fail me now Ted; don't get angry or discouraged enough to stop working with me. We're making history here, and all of us needs the help of all the rest of us.

My last thought, and I'll shut up: Delaware and Vermont and New Hampshire are all *good choices*, as I've said publicly and repeatedly about *all* the FSP candidate states. Ultimately, if the Free State Project is successful and one of them is not chosen in the vote, I would expect them to be "next in line." In fact, if we're successful in the Free State, I'd expect them to start having their own "homegrown free state projects." But to have that happen, it is crucial that we pioneers first demonstrate it in ONE STATE...the state that will be chosen and transformed by our migration. I have no idea what state will be chosen (although I doubt it will be my article's choice of North Dakota), but I do not think that the so-called "east-west split" is serious or widespread. Of course there are people who prefer an eastern state to a western state, and vice versa. That's to be expected. But I and *most* Porcupines will move to either *any* state chosen or just about any state, whether we're easterners or westerners. And I here and now pledge yet again, publicly, that *whatever* state is chosen, I will be moving to it and working to create Liberty in Our Lifetime. Stay with me you guys!  ---Tim Condon, FSP member services
Logged

TedApelt

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
  • Free 50 states - one at a time.
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #91 on: January 18, 2003, 09:28:44 pm »

I would like to apologize to everyone if I was out of line, and I suppose that this kind of thing is inevitable in any political movement of this size.

Zxcv, and Mary Lou Seymour, I do admire your political experience, and I was not trying to criticize either of you, just in case I gave you that impression.  (I don't think I did, but I am trying to be careful here.)

Jason, I do not think that you are stupid.  In fact, I have found your analysis of voting methods to be absolutely the most brilliant writing on the subject I have seen anywhere.  It even beats the heck out of a similar article in a science magazine a year or so ago, and that article was one of the best I've seen.  However, I do know that people that are really great in some areas fall apart in others.  Remember Isaac Asimov?  Absolutely brilliant in the hard sciences, but his understanding of economics was horrible.  Fortunately, he wrote very little on that and spent most of his time writing about what he knew best.

And, while I am concerned that many of us are charging ahead into something they know little about without first doing the necessary homework, I do not think, nor have I ever thought that anyone is deliberately trying to wreck things, trick people, or hide things, other than in strategic voting, and this problem seems to have been solved by the current voting method, and also by making our votes public so that no one can accuse anyone of voter fraud.

One more thing.  This thread, and others like it, are nothing compared to the kind of bickering that went on in the last two LP national conventions.  We are all around the campfire singing when compared to that group!
Logged
How much political experience do you have?  Probably not enough.  Get some!  DO THIS NOW!!!

nonluddite

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1242
  • Caveat Emptor!
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #92 on: January 19, 2003, 12:12:21 am »

Obviously, this would have been better if it was purely philosophical thread.  

Anyway, people did bring up a really great idea--if you have 2 states, can bring in much more than the 20k people, and reconcile the East/West "split", how can you lose?

At the very least, this shows that single state ~larger than the consensus Wyoming/Delaware 1.2 million people (New Hampshire, Maine, and Idaho), should probably be axed, pronto.
Logged
"I'm trying to free your mind, but I can only show you the door.  You're the one that has to walk through it."- Morpheous, The Matrix

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #93 on: January 19, 2003, 12:35:42 am »

I suppose I should chime in with Ted here and say that nothing I posted was intended to be personally disparaging in any way.  I tend to avoid hostilities whenever possible, and posted my response only because I believed that those of us who were involved in this discussion were wrongfully accused of being underhanded, manipulative, and disruptive (if even only by simply discussing the matter).

So, let's chalk it up to the sort of thing that happens when fiercely independent-minded people get together, and move on to other things.

Newt

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
  • Oregon pioneer family
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #94 on: January 19, 2003, 10:50:50 am »

As an aside, I think it's understandable why the FAQ didn't have anything about Participation Guidelines changes, because we never expect the Guidelines to require any changes at all!  

UNBELIEVABLE!!!  I simply can't believe what I am reading here!

I don't see how ANYONE, no matter how smart, can do a project like this without making a lot of changes along the way.  This has happened with the voting method.  I'm sure other changes need to be made as well.

The thing that scares me the most is the way it is becoming more and more clear that you haven't a clue of how to run a project of this kind.  You just don't get it.

I really hope that this problem with the FSP is fixed before we move anywhere, or the project will end in disaster.

The problem with the FSP is this kind of disrespectful discourse, it is not even civil.   It is desctructive in the most malignant way.

I think Jason and the others have done a marvelous job of constructing this whole thing.   As a life long participant in Politics (the local kind that Joe is talking about)I've run into my share of abuse.  I was the Chairman of the only school district to ever(at the time) close it's doors due to a funding crisis (in Sandy, OR)  you wanna talk about abuse.  

I am impressed with the INTENTION it takes to make a project like this actually go anywhere.  If you want to understand intention and the craft of visualizing success, read:  Think and Grow Rich by Napolean Hill.
Logged
"As one comes to penetrate deeper into the intimate thoughts of these parties, one sees that some parties are working to restrict the use of public power and the others to extend it."
Alexis de Toqueville

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #95 on: January 19, 2003, 03:26:20 pm »

I suppose I should chime in with Ted here and say that nothing I posted was intended to be personally disparaging in any way.  I tend to avoid hostilities whenever possible, and posted my response only because I believed that those of us who were involved in this discussion were wrongfully accused of being underhanded, manipulative, and disruptive (if even only by simply discussing the matter).

Yeah, I read your post, Robert, where you objected to my characterization of this idea as somehow underhanded... That was not my intention at all.  I stated my arguments somewhat strongly in that post, but I was intending it to be matter-of-fact or incisive rather than emotional.  I certainly don't think the idea of a 2-state strategy is itself dishonest or underhanded or anything like that.  Just misguided. ;)
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #96 on: January 19, 2003, 03:33:14 pm »


However, I do know that people that are really great in some areas fall apart in others.

Well, God knows I'm not perfect; heck, I never wanted to be "head" of this thing.  Go back and read the article in TLE that started it all! :P But I'm learning.  (And I do think you took some of my quotes well out of context.)  Nevertheless, if there's someone out there who can do a better job than I and the rest of the Board, I would be ecstatic to bring him in.  The FSP is probably damaging my "real" career, and my wife isn't too happy that I work 60 hours a week (on the FSP & research).
« Last Edit: January 19, 2003, 03:43:05 pm by JasonPSorens »
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

cheselka

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 106
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #97 on: January 19, 2003, 06:59:03 pm »

I'm not gonna add any real value to this discussion beyond what's already been said, except to underline Jason's characterization of a two-state strategy as being very misguided.  If we are successful with one state, no doubt in 100 years no one will have to move anywhere becuase the entire country will be a Free Country.  The people of the FSP are pioneers in the true sense of the term in that we are gonna pack our bags and move somewhere that we hope will be a better life.

So please let's not dilute ourselves!  We MUST stick together!

See you all there...

Matt Cheselka
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #98 on: January 20, 2003, 06:21:34 am »

Yeah, I read your post, Robert, where you objected to my characterization of this idea as somehow underhanded... That was not my intention at all.  I stated my arguments somewhat strongly in that post, but I was intending it to be matter-of-fact or incisive rather than emotional.  I certainly don't think the idea of a 2-state strategy is itself dishonest or underhanded or anything like that.  Just misguided. ;)

Thanks for the clarification, Jason.  No hard feelings.   :)

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5726
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #99 on: January 20, 2003, 12:22:42 pm »

Thanks for the clarification, Jason.  No hard feelings.   :)

Nope.  :)
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

redbeard

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
  • Damn, it feels good to be a gangster.
    • henerd
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #100 on: January 20, 2003, 03:12:11 pm »

How about this: I'm against a two state plan as long as the one state turns out to be WY!

Jason, I think this whole project is an amazing endeavor. Thanks for your work.
Logged
I understand, and not knowing how to express myself without pagan words, I'd rather remain silent.
Arthur Rimbaud - A Season in Hell

MouseBorg

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 104
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #101 on: February 05, 2003, 06:04:41 am »

Quote
author=JasonPSorens
I noticed that Mouseborg left and was wondering why; I assumed he had gotten very busy.  I didn't know that he deleted his posts; I wonder why he did?

Yes, very busy as of late... up to my neck in fact and barely time to sneeze. Actual hands on political stuff is quite time consuming, as is fishing, hiking & biking (along with a bit of work here and there just for fun.) ;)

Posts were deleted for several reasons. One being excessive clutter, many being rather off-topic in some way or the other. Other possible reasons I will leave to the reader's imagination. ;D
« Last Edit: February 05, 2003, 06:07:13 am by MouseBorg »
Logged
The penetrating brilliance of swords
Wielded by followers of the Way
Strikes at the evil enemy
Lurking deep within
Their own souls and bodies.

-- O' Sensei (Morihei Ueshiba)

Hank

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • "The Men That Don't Fit In"
Re:A possibly workable 2-state FSP strategy
« Reply #102 on: August 04, 2003, 10:18:20 pm »

Ah, Hah!

Here is an explanation from MouseBorg why he deleted his over one thousand posts.  His involvement in "hands on" political stuff probably also meant cleaning out of the old closet (of stuff his opponents could use against him).  Frustration with which direction this project was being pulled probably also contributed to him getting off of this wagon.
« Last Edit: August 04, 2003, 10:20:41 pm by Hank »
Logged
There's A race of men that don't fit in,
A race that can't stay still;
So they break the hearts of kith and kin,
And they roam the world at will.
http://www.internal.org/view_poem.phtml?poemID=295
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 [7]   Go Up