Byron,
We are in a similar circumstance. I have an elderly mother who would not adjust to a change in location or lifestyle at this stage of her life. Similarly also, I was a health care professional for 30 years, but I decided I'd had enough of that, and I won't be going back into practice anywhere.
I don't know what I consider myself politically--but anti-state sums it up fairly well.
One of the things I am finding in this forum is a lot of people who insist on a government so there is a mechanism to force their ideas of morality, proper behavior, and standards on everyone else, even though their freedom, life and property are not in danger.
It appears they think the Constitution contains an article that guarantees them the right not to be offended, so there has to be laws and a strong-arm entity to ensure that.
I like your approach to intolerable laws. Problem is, I wonder if you would be given the opportunity to ignore the intolerable ones. Apparently, the operating theory is that, under a democracy, it's OK for the majority to vote things into existance that violate other peoples' rights. That's where we are in the US right now. A majority votes that it's OK to rob the productive people in the country of the fruits of their labor and redistribute it to the lazy or unproductive ones. It's OK for the majority to decide that people can't take certain chemical substances into their bodies, but other chemicals are permitted. And finally, if a person does these proscribed things, the state has the right to lock you in a cage, steal your property, ruin your family and business, or kill you.
I wonder why people think a democracy is an acceptible form of government. The virtues of the early American Republic was NOT that it was a democracy--it was that it
guaranteed the rights of every individual, and put it in writing.
The next illogical response to this post will be--the free state can't be free without laws and some way to enforce them. The implication apparently is that either there will be a lot of laws controlling every aspect of a person's life, or there will be none at all. Some peoples' concept of freedom is beyond me. Laws don't stop criminals from plying their trade. And many and more intrusive laws don't do anything to turn sociopaths into model citizens.
Here's an idea. Everybody get your own personal little "state", make yourself King or Queen or Emperor, or dictator or whatever makes you feel comfortable, and you can have any damn laws you want, because you won't be violating anyones' rights-- unless they volunteer to submit to your tyranny.
Are we going to repeat the errors of the past in the new free state? Free State? Free of what?