I actually think this is a pretty interesting experiment.
Do you think they’ll be successful? What are the odds of it working?
Could Libertarian policies be successfully implemented? If those policies are implemented and fail can non-libertarians all say “we told you so?” If they are implemented and they work, can libertarians say “neener, neener, neener?”
Is there anything improper about a bunch of activists moving in on a state in the proposed fashion?
And as an aside, this is the great thing about the federal system: state governments can act as individual laboratories to try whatever wild-assed things they want. The things that work eventually get picked up elsewhere; the things that fail limit their damage to one geographic area.
I’m not sure what the idea is with the porcupine logo.
I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for it to happen, though. 3,100 people willing to send their name and contact information to a college student based on a few articles at a website doesn’t necessarily translate to 3,100 people (much less 20,000 people) who are actually willing to make the move. When push comes to shove, few people would actually be willing to give up career, family, or education to pursue this.
Libertarian principles are not about “success” only. That’s for the people who masquerade as “pragmatists”, which is code for “I have no principles but that of expedience.” Libertarian principles are about what is right to do, and what is right is for the government to back off from it’s excessive use of force and let the people have freedom from coercion. What determines “success”? Libertarians dont’ subscribe to utilitarianism, so success is not a measure of “is everybody better off now?” So I don’t understand how you could determine if it does or doesn’t “work”.
Well, my state had a bit of a fight over that with Kansas, and the resulting hatred has lasted to this day. I dunno if it’s improper, but it could generate resentment.
This is indeed a good thing about the federal system. But again, I don’t know how you are supposed to measure the success of the experiment. Libertarians believe our principles should be enacted because freedom from coercion is inherently right, we’re not waiting with baited breath to see if everyone’s happy with it. Some people, those who are unable to support themselves without using the gun barrel of government force to get what they want, will be quite unhappy with libertarian principles in practice.
However, I suspect that a state that brought true freedom to it’s denizens would attract alot of business, and the resulting general prosperity would make the ideas attractive even to pragmatists. I’d be afriad that Idaho is too remote and there would be a lag time while commercial enterprises took advantage of what libertarian freedom has to offer. I think Rhode Island would be a better target, because it has ports.
Maybe not to you guys. But to others considering whether or to what extent a libertarian society makes sense to them, “working”, in some pragmatic sense, is what it’s all about. If an attempt at a libertarian society resulted in a state where 2% of the population had all the land and power, and the other 98% were essentially their slaves, it would ‘unsell’ libertarianism in the same way that Communism was ‘unsold’ by the Soviet experience.
The problem is, the same thing could be said about a lot of -isms, political, religious, or whatever. When ideas become more important than people, it’s time to run for cover.
In politics, purity is for those who do not have to make decisions.
In the event that libertarians become a serious political force in Idaho, they will have to come up with a reform programme. They will have to decide on priorities. And they will have to articulate how to implement their programme in great detail. That takes patience, skill and above all compromise.
I think this idea is pretty cool, but I’m skeptical (to say the least) that it’ll ever get off to a good start. As ITR said, there’s a big difference between signing a petition and moving, and getting 20,000 people to relocate is no small task.
And it seems to me that even 20,000 people isn’t that many, really. The libertarians in question seem to believe that everybody (or at least a majority) would agree with them, if only they understood. In reality, I think only a small percentage of people in the US would subscribe to libertarian philosophy, regardless of how much they’re versed in its ideas.
That being said, I would love for these guys to succeed. It would be extremely interesting to see such an experiment in progress, and I would love to see such a state prosper. Personally, I love the ideals of libertarianism, even if I think many of them are inherently unworkable (which is why I’m not a “big-L” Libertarian). I’d love to be proven wrong, though.
Jeff
Aren’t a number of the laws that they are talking about overturning federal laws, not local/state ones? Out here in sunny California (currently grey and rainy) for example we have Santa Cruz which voted about 77% to decriminalize marijuana for medical use, the whole state passed a similar law a few years ago, but the DEA still came in and applied federal anitdrug laws and busted a bunch of folks down in Santa Cruz for distributing pot to some sick folks.
A porcupine is made up of thousands of pricks too.
(JOKING! I DIDN’T SAY THAT! SOME GUY CAME UP AND TYPED IT REALLY QUICK AND THEN RAN OFF!)
I just wonder what 5,000 to 20,000 moving to a small state would do to the economy, in the short run at least. You could argue that such an influx might provide a consumer boost that would help local business, but i wonder what all those libertarians are going to do for work. Especially given that some of small states that they are considering also tend to be the ones that suffer from some of the country’s highest levels of unemployment.
As a Libertarian, I believe that you are incorrect.
In Alabama, the Libertarians have been a political force for years, patiently facing down opposition from the Republicans and the Democrats, who all believe that we are formidable enough to be dangerous. We have been planning for many years, coming up with all sorts of protests (Case in point; the Montgomery Tea Party to protest an occupational tax whose legality is currently being decided in Supreme Court. Again, contested by Libertarians.), and puuting up candidates for most races.
In Alabama at least, Libertarians are a die-hard breed that find it hard to give up. If Idaho needs any of us, I’m sure someone will be willing to plan everything. Maybe more someones than the major parties would feel comfortable with.
Where do you get the idea that this has anything whatsoever to do with libertarianism?
The free state project is about doing whatever they can. If that’s only a small difference for the better, that’s still making a difference.
Last I heard we did still have freedom of movement in this country. These things to change quickly these days though…
The porcupine logo is explained thus: “the first suggestions centered around the Gadsden flag and the “Don’t Tread on Me” snake. Then we thought we wanted something a little more original and PR-friendly, to emphasize the freshness of our approach, while still indicating the same idea. Porcupines are certainly cute and non-aggressive, but you don’t want to step on them!”
As for the effects of a group moving to one state, some of the states they’re considering are already not only growing but encouraging growth. There’s lots and lots of good jobs available here in NH for instance.
As far as 20,000 (If they get that many which I admit is doubtful since they don’t seem to have much PR) not being enough, realize that this is almost 2 percent of the population of the state. Effectively they would be even more, since what counts is not their size relative to the whole population, but to those who vote and are politically active. Plus, in most of the states they are considering, many of the locals who vote and are active are already on their side on manby issues.
I think it’s a good idea. I want to see what true libertarianism in action looks like. If Idaho is made into a laboratory to test whether it works, more power to them.
I agree with ElJeffe (there’s a first time for everything) that while the principles of Libertarianism are quite appealing in the abstract, I think a lot of it would be largely unworkable in the real world. That said, I’d love to see the results of such an experiment. Libertarianism is a valuable enough philosophy, at least on paper, that it would be eminently worthwhile to see which aspects can be adapted and adopted in a larger forum. It seems to me like some of their better ideas have been pushed aside along with the loonier ones, baby-and-bathwater style, and it would be fascinating to see them get an honest laboratory-style workout, particularly the narrowing or abandonment of morality laws (prohibitions on drugs, prostitution, etc.).
You don’t want to adopt them as the logo of your fabric softener, either.
I want to see what happens when the first candidates out of this merry band of immigrants are asked how they feel about farm subsidies. Nothing like a little political reality running headlong into ideology.
