Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[exitus]

Let's take on both Idaho and New Hampshire.

They have the ammenities, the jobs, the much-vaunted liberty-oriented population.  The Eastern advocates all move to New Hampshire, the Westerners to Idaho.  Each of these states could get us lots of signers.  Both of them together, even more!  If each of us commits to inspiring one other activist, and we are sure 20,000 is only a portion of the potential pool out there, we could have 40,000 signers with this two-state option.   There would have to be certain guarantees built-in that enough people would sign, of course.  

Let's improve the situation of the two largest liberty-oriented states, with more chances for interaction with more people.  We won't be putting all of our eggs in one basket, so to speak, and there is always the other state to go to.  We will prove that a mass-exodus of liberty seekers can work, that people are willing to move and work for freedom, we will inspire thousands of others to do the same.  Let's make the FSP work big-time by going big-time; let's train ourselves and fellow thousand of new activists for what it takes to knock doors, open our mouths, take on the system and the political machinery, run for office, man phones, solicit contributions, write letters to the editor, take advantage of media opportunites, get out the vote, lobby politicians, and everything that it takes to be a good and effective activist.


Then, with both NH and ID making the good fight and making gains in a momentous achievment for liberty from the membership of the FSP, on the way to state liberation, on the 20- year plan towards free-state-hood, and an army of activists being raised, FSP II: Wyoming will get underway, seeking to recruit the most dedicated and effective activists, perhaps only 3,000 highly dedicated individuals would be needed with all the inspiring gains and noise coming out of next-door Idaho.


Far-fetched?

Sometimes you've got to dream big to get the most out of life, I for one, think such an ambitious plan could work, but is  it really so far fetched?  Many people here honestly believe that we might actually get most of 20,000 activists to move to Alaska, if we voted for Alaska, so why can't we dream big and believe that 40,000+ activists could move to two  different states with lots to offer? -- or that a highly successful FSP I wouldn't inspire an FSP II?

Food for thought.

[varrin]

If you read the article at "Activists and population issues" you might conclude that if we're highly successful, this could be done with only 20,000 people instead of the 40,000 (or more) you suggest.

I'm not convinced there are 40,000 out there (or, more importantly, 3000 - 5000 activists on our side), but this strategy would be sure to bring more than any single state strategy.

However, I *do* believe the synergy of a successful project would likely make it possible to pick a larger state for our 2nd state rather than a smaller one.  Hence NH then ID or ID then NH could be possible within a relatively short period of time (shorter than I suspect most people are thinking at the moment).

Good thought...  You know, I like optomism ;-)

V-

[glen]

Good idea.

I have long felt that there will be a cultural west – east split and that an Idaho – New Hampshire two state strategy would be the best of the available choices.

[Zxcv]

exitus, you are thinking too small on your two-state strategy. How about New York and California?  

[craft_6]

While we're being optimistic, why settle for two Free States?  Why not all 10?  Why not 50 Free State Projects?

One of the big advantages of the FSP, besides getting libertarians to focus their efforts on one state, is to get us thinking critically about what strategies might actually work to advance the cause of freedom, and how many people would need to be active in the struggle in any given state.

Once Idaho or New Hampshire or Wyoming is annointed as the Free State, all those who can't or won't move there should immediately start a Free California Project, a Free Tennessee Project, a Free Minnesota Project, etc.  They could use Jason's formula to determine how many liberty activists would be needed, then start organizing, and tracking membership in that state.  

What would be required of activists?  The same things mentioned in the FSP FAQs:  contributing time and money to pro-freedom campaigns, candidates, and think tanks, writing letters to newspapers and legislators, running for office, participating in demonstrations, or some combination of those activities.

If 20,000 liberty activists can free a small state, what could 2,000,000 liberty activists accomplish?  Aren't at least 1% of Americans interested enough in liberty to do something about it?

[varrin]

Vin will be peeved when we all vote for NV as the 2nd FSP state ;-)

V-

[Elizabeth]

Hi --

This has been suggested before, and in the following threads you will find discussion of why the FSP is not going to split up.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=779;start=0

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1227;start=0

[exitus]

I apologize for some of the wording in the post that started this thread that alluded to changing the charter of the FSP.  I do not mean to try to do that.  The FSP should maintain its course under this contractual relationship with one state.

However, with all of the dissension going on over which state, which philosophy and which criteria for viability; I can't help but think that this project will continue to suffer over these differences long after the vote, no matter which state is chosen.

What to do?

Elizabeth,
You are right that this topic has been suggested already before.  In addition to the threads you brought-up I found about five more, some with very vigorous discussion of this matter with many thoughtful and/or passionate replies.

So far, this thread is the most outrageous of them all: to suggest taking on two of the largest states now as well as a third as soon as we begin and to suggest we should get 43,000 signers with as much ease as our expected 20,000!


Craft_6 said it best:

While we're being optimistic, why settle for two Free States?  Why not all 10?  Why not 50 Free State Projects?

One of the big advantages of the FSP, besides getting libertarians to focus their efforts on one state, is to get us thinking critically about what strategies might actually work to advance the cause of freedom, and how many people would need to be active in the struggle in any given state.

If it takes outrageous, wildly optimistic statements to get us to think critically about what strategies might actually work to advance the cause of freedom, so be it.  The fact is, the idea behind the FSP is brilliant.  It has already given hope and encouragement to thousands of liberty-seeking individuals.  It has reinvigorated many former activists and inspired new people to take the first steps towards becomming liberty activists.

Sometimes, it just some group of resourceful and dedicated individuals need to start a competing organization modeled after the FSP to get this immigration-revolution started!

I even think that if some socialists were to begin a similar project in another state, maybe Vermont once again, it would be a net benefit to us, not only to help us focus our efforts better, but to help bring about greater federalism and state competition in the states.