Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Concerns  (Read 4871 times)

schm00

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • 3583 Bytes Free. OK.
    • Lair of the wiley schm00
Concerns
« on: September 20, 2002, 09:51:59 am »

Hello, I have recently joined the project, and would like to throw a few concerns out for discussion. I am not looking so much for 'answers', as I don't believe that there are any to had at this point. While I realize that all of these issues have probably been brought up many times, please humor me, as I cant possibly read all the archives.

It strikes me that the demographic appeal of the project would largely be to those who are unmarried, without children, and without significant ties to their respective communities (such as property ownership, or business owners). I find myself to fit this criteria well, and while I am sure there are many  exceptions, such as Sorens who is married, I wonder what the likelihood of follow-through for those who do not fit the criteria as much will be. Have there been any polls from within the group to find this type of information?

Another key issue seems to be whether this project needs to be done "loudly" or "quietly". Does anyone know how the Vermont situation was carried out? Was that a widely marketed plan, or more of an underground movement? I would be very curious to know some of the similarities/differences from what was accomplished there to what is being undertaken here. One thing that they certainly had going for them would seem to be that they were part of a mainstream political party, whereas a political party almost needs to be created in this situation. I wonder if maybe the government and local resistance might have been much stronger, had the takeover party not been democrat. On a side note, if anyone has any more detailed information about what took place in Vermont, please let me know. The internet seems to be fairly sparse on the subject, or I am looking in the wrong places.

I also am unclear whether the political candidates we would need to carry this out would come from within the FSP, or is consensus more to convince local politicians to help realize our goals. I realize that none of this is decided, and it helps me to step back and look at the project more from the simple viewpoint of 'move a lot of people with similar beliefs to one place and see what they can do'.

Any responses appreciated,

Schm00
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Concerns
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2002, 12:04:14 pm »

My rough impression of the demographics of the FSP is that about 50% are married (and married couples count as 2 people for the purposes of the FSP if both support our ideals, so something like 35% of total FSP households are married households) and 50% are single.  Of the single ones, about 80% are male, I'd say.  These are totally off-the-cuff figures and could be wrong.  I would personally like to increase our appeal to families with children especially, as this is a demographic we aren't really appealing to right now.  The nature of the Project may make this impossible, but if we were able to attract families with children, it would bode well for its long-term success, since we would have several generations of politically favorable people who are emotionally and psychologically attached to the territory we are targeting, if that makes sense.

Joe Swyers has calculated that about a fourth of all FSP'ers would have to be officeholders, most of these being at the *very* local level (Justices of the Peace, school boards, Soil & Water Commissions, etc.).  Most FSP'ers will be of the sort of activist I described in the "How is this going to work?" thread: financial supporters, demonstrators, people who write letters to the editor, and so on.  The research I have done to arrive at the 20,000 figure indicates that 20,000 activists in the sense of "paid-up party members" or their equivalent would be sufficient to generate electoral majorities; some of Joe's rantings notwithstanding, we should need only about 5,000 people who are willing and able to be candidates at some point.  When we first arrive in state, we will want to use people who have already been there a while to be our candidates, so as to avoid the "carpetbagger" accusation as much as possible.
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

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:Concerns
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2002, 04:30:15 pm »

I would personally like to increase our appeal to families with children especially, as this is a demographic we aren't really appealing to right now.


Homeschoolers, homeschoolers, homeschoolers.
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:Concerns
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2002, 04:43:38 pm »

Hello, I have recently joined the project, and would like to throw a few concerns out for discussion.

Hi schmoo!  I have a brother-in-law who goes by scoo, so we're probably related... ;)

Quote
I am not looking so much for 'answers', as I don't believe that there are any to had at this point. While I realize that all of these issues have probably been brought up many times, please humor me, as I cant possibly read all the archives.

If you have suggestions for the FAQ, please let us know.  I suspect our FAQ is going to become quite large, but at least then it might be more helpful.  Another poster has pointed out -- correctly -- that our FAQ is too vague.  Maybe we should think about white papers on various larger questions... hm.

Quote
It strikes me that the demographic appeal of the project would largely be to those who are unmarried, without children, and without significant ties to their respective communities (such as property ownership, or business owners). I find myself to fit this criteria well, and while I am sure there are many  exceptions, such as Sorens who is married, I wonder what the likelihood of follow-through for those who do not fit the criteria as much will be. Have there been any polls from within the group to find this type of information?

Gosh, I wish.  This is a topic that has been brought up several times, and with good reason -- we really should have this info.  Problem is, we didn't ask for it in the beginning, and even now, I'm not sure how to ask for it without tripping privacy alarms.  I'm sure we could get it anonymously, but we'd really need a pretty high response rate for it to be meaningful.

Quote
Another key issue seems to be whether this project needs to be done "loudly" or "quietly".

This is another topic of debate -- but only in part.  I think just about everyone agrees that we need to get the word out, loudly, to "sympathetic" media -- libertarian media, and certain liberal (e.g., NORML) and conservative (e.g., The Federalist) media.  This is to get the "brand awareness" to the level need to for 20,000 people to commit to moving their lives.

The big debate seems to be about whether or not to let a state know it is the target state -- but I think we have time to worry about that, because I personally believe it will depend largely on the state itself.  (There are certain downsides to not having a state decided upon, I am finding.  :P)

Quote
I also am unclear whether the political candidates we would need to carry this out would come from within the FSP, or is consensus more to convince local politicians to help realize our goals.

Again, I think the answer is probably both, but will depend largely on the state chosen.  In a state that has a party that opens its arms to the FSP, we might find that working with a local group which already has some credibility is the best option.  In another state, starting a new party -- the Free Dakota Party, as a hypothetical example -- might make the most sense.

EDIT: Typos.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2002, 04:45:52 pm by Elizabeth »
Logged

schm00

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • 3583 Bytes Free. OK.
    • Lair of the wiley schm00
Re:Concerns
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2002, 05:30:10 pm »

Gosh, I wish.  This is a topic that has been brought up several times, and with good reason -- we really should have this info.  Problem is, we didn't ask for it in the beginning, and even now, I'm not sure how to ask for it without tripping privacy alarms.  I'm sure we could get it anonymously, but we'd really need a pretty high response rate for it to be meaningful.


If looked at from a planning and strategic political analysis standpoint, these would be excellent variables to play with when calculating things such as employment feasiblity, political candidacy (minimum age reqs. for offices), housing situations etc. For example, if like Jason says, the FSP consists of 50% married couples, the housing market in the target state should be conducive to 10,000 couples likely looking for homes, and not just apartments. Likewise, if say for example 60% of the FSP consists of students, who might just be looking to rent or even share housing with other FSP'ers. Or, say for example 15% of the FSP are software programmers - we might to take these variables into analysis when choosing a state for its employment purposes.

Although there is something to be said for privacy of personal data here, and certainly no one _must_ give any personal data, I would think it would be to all of our benefits to know these types of things about the organization both for the strategic and planning reasons listed above, and for the fact that it would just be nice to know the kinds of people we will be living with (IMO).

Logged

schm00

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 81
  • 3583 Bytes Free. OK.
    • Lair of the wiley schm00
Re:Congratulations
« Reply #5 on: October 10, 2002, 12:14:09 pm »

You've now entered the hallowed halls of non-lurker!
Congrats!


Yes, thanks - I was wondering what those things meant. I dont like being called a 'lurker', kinda makes you think of some kind of perverted deviant or something.

Quote
Thank you for being a voice of reason in this menagerie.


I try to, even though some of the religion/morality threads tend to bring out the devil(?) ::) in some of us.

Quote
And that reminds me, I still need to find out how Vermont was taken and how it might be re-taken with our help.


Yes, I have looked everywhere for this information to no avail. Maybe Jason can access it through the Yale online archives, because you need a student logon to get to them.
Logged

JMC

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 26
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Concerns
« Reply #6 on: October 10, 2002, 12:29:12 pm »

I would hope that there are many others like my self that have joined the FSP because we have families.  I have looked at many other groups and even countries to try and find a place to keep my family free as well as safe and happy.  A long time ago I came to the same conclusion that the FSP represents, we have to move to a place within the US where the individuals outnumber the sheeple.  It does not exist anywhere at this time.  My thought is that people with families would be more interested in a place where your children could not be taken away because someone video tapes you from behind when you are disciplining your child and some liberal social worker or political fills in what they can't see and labels you an abuser.  Where you don't have to worry if next year some politician will be paid off and home schooling will no longer a legal option.  A place where you teach your children what is right and wrong and not the latest PC whim.

The only disadvantage of someone having a family would be the need for longer-term stability.    I won't get into that her or now, but I look to the FSP as a long-term solution not a hit or miss test.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Concerns
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2002, 01:48:15 am »


I would hope that there are many others like my self that have joined the FSP because we have families.  I have looked at many other groups and even countries to try and find a place to keep my family free as well as safe and happy.


I have roughly the same concerns as you describe, JMC, and look at the FSP as the best means of securing individual liberties to pass on to my kids.  But that's certainly not to say that people who don't have families would not find benefits in the FSP.  Anyone who is in any way concerned about individual liberties would stand to benefit from the FSP's mission.  Their focus might be somewhat different, but the end result we're working toward is the same.

kesthesculptor

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
  • I'd move anywhere for a free state.
Re:Concerns
« Reply #8 on: October 11, 2002, 08:01:04 am »

One of the reasons I do not have a family is because I cannot imagine raising children with all the worries of today.   I joined the FSP for the prospect of having a place where I would feel more inclined to establish a family.  

Being under 30 gives me time to help see this goal started, then start thinking about a future family.  

Aaron
Logged
Artist/Blacksmith
Electronic Engineer

Jeffersonian Democrat

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • The Truth will set you free
Re:Concerns
« Reply #9 on: October 19, 2002, 08:33:13 pm »

And that reminds me, I still need to find out how Vermont was taken and how it might be re-taken with our help.

Joe, in the 60's and 70's a lot of the flower children and hippies, primarily  from NY, started moving to Vermont.  Ben & Jerry being a couple of better known ones.  Most of them headed to the only big city in Vermont, Burlington, although some communes were established in the hinterlands.  Then in the 80's a yuppie wave came in, again mostly from NY although MA, and CT did contribute.  By this time there were enough flatlander's to take over Burlington.  Woodstock was always a liberal bastion and the folk from the peoples republic of MA got a pretty good lock on Bennington down in Southern VT.  Most of rural Vermont is pretty conservative but politically powerless.  And the section of VT known as the Northeast Kingdom is the poorest section of New England kind of like a piece of Appalachia and fairly politically apathetic.  Basically you had a lot of people fleeing from surrounding heavily urbanized areas to the perceived rural bliss of VT who immediately started to make it look politically like what they left behind.    
Logged

Mega Joule

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 291
Re:Concerns
« Reply #10 on: October 20, 2002, 01:44:26 am »

I have a family too and I am desperate to find a place where I can finish raising my kids without the ever-increasing intrusion into our lives by the Socialist Repulik of Kalifornia.  I have aging parents, adult and minor children, and two grandsons that I would like very much to see living some place free.  My parents are already planning to follow when we go and hopefully my grown kids will consider moving with us as well.  I talk to them about FSP often and they are showing some interest.  Of course it is ultimately up to them, but I would not feel right going off on the freedom trail without having at least introduced them to the FSP.  I tell everyone I can.

Meg
Logged
"One essential of a free government is that it rest wholly on voluntary support.  And one certain proof that a goverment is not free, is that it coerces more or less persons to support it, against their will."  (Lysander Spooner, 1867)
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

anything