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
