The Free State Project

Great Debates
1

Wow.

Looks like a bunch of mostly Libertarian types are planning to amass enough folks together, all move to one state, and then use their numbers to vote in legislation creating a “It aint nobodies business if I do” type of community. No gun laws. No drug laws. No asset forfeiture. No abuses of eminent domain.

Is such a thing possible? How many people do they need? Which state would be the best candidate (I’m assuming the one with the lowest population, no?)? How will the federal government respond?

Democracy. She sure does allow for some interesting developments. As a person who is repulsed by the recent erosion of freedoms and incredible increase in governmental power recently (such as sentiments like "we arrested em, we’re holding em, but we won’t tell anyone what they did or why we’re holding them, never mind how long we’re going to hold them, and we won’t tell you or their families where we are keeping them), I must say I find the whole notion fascinating.

Things I am most interested in discussing:

What are these people’s chances?
How many people do they need?
Who will fight against them and how?

DaLovin’ Dj

2

That webpage doesn’t load for me at the moment. However, I’ll give you my two dirhams based on what you’ve said.

The easier state would probably be rhode island. It’s population is slightly over a million so i guess they would need the same number of people to take control. I’m assuming a slight percentage of the existing population there would vote for them.

Their chances are slim. America is a fairly conservative country compared to it’s european counterparts. And to gather a million people that support the idea is already hard. Imagine getting all those people to move…(and vote :smiley: )

The federal government will do everything in it’s power to stop them and i would not be surprised if they did it the good old way. Paint them as traitors to the rest of the americans, change whatever laws they need,etc. You name it, they’ll do it.

As to who else would fight them…well, pretty much all insecure, intolerant, fearful and patriotic people who represent a much greater number than a million hippies (each group is independant. don’t come misquoting me!).

Too bad, I would like such a state to exist, maybe not to live there but at least go on vacations or something.

3

The second they declare independence there will be US tanks and troops rolling down the streets. Not that this thing would ever get near that far along…

4

Ahem, no mater how many people you have, it is illegal to simply declare seccession without the consent of the federal government. And as far as I am concerned, yes, they are traitors.

5

Very Interesting.

I don’t understand why Gozu and Opengrave seem to the think the federal government would do so much to stop them. They plan to take a very civil and legal approach, and will wrap themselves in the concept of liberty. It is SO American, I can see little basis the federal government would be able to much (with broad public support) to stop them. And smiling bandit, they are not talking about declaring secession, they are proposing to remain part of the US and work within the system.

What are these people’s chances?

Close to zero, in my estimation. I think their flaw can be found in the answer to Question 16 of their FAQ. But I wish them success.

Of course, I would have put the same chance on Jesse Ventura getting elected governor of Minnesota, six months prior to the election.

How many people do they need?

They think 20,000, and they may be right. They talk about 20,000 activists, assuming each activist can cajole another vote or two for their side. However, I think if they can get 20,000 folks to move into one state, they will be demonstrating a chance for success, which I think will greatly improve their ability to draw even more like minded folks.

Who will fight against them and how?

Everyone who represents the establishment (we can call them the antidisestablishmentarianists :wink: ). As I already mentioned, the federal government itself would be hardpressed to find much leverage with them, particularly the courts. But the Democrats and Republicans would certainly feel threatened and oppose them strongly. Another flaw of their plan is that their success in contingent on the two parties spending roughly the same as they have for previous elections in the selected state. I think if they are successful in getting anywhere close to 20,000 activits to one state, the parties will shift signficant funds to that state to defeat them.

Interesting concept. Thanks for the post.

6

Right on, AZCowboy. You already addresed these points, but I will too.

No secession is planned. They are planning on changing the laws using votes and the US democratic system. You know, the system the founding fathers set up in the constitution.

I assume this statement is based on the same misconception. They are not planning on leaving the US, they are planning on changing the state laws in a particular state via legal methods. Armed with this knowledge, if you still maintain that they are traitors, then you are greatly mistaken. Please clarify what part of their plan would make them eligible to be labeled traitors. Thank you.

I think I need a little legal education here. What laws do states control (what powers are reserved for the state)? What does it take to change a state law? A vote I imagine. What does it take to get a vote to take place? A bunch of signatures?

DaLovin’ Dj

7

From the website in the OP opting out of federal mandates such as Income Tax maybe? The second the feds think there will be a one cent in decrease in tax revenue, queue the tanks. I think it is a great idea but i don’t think you can unilaterally repeal Federal laws. I’d love to see this thing fly because I think it is the direction we should be going. I’m so much of a constitutionalist I make my libertarian friend (IRL friend not the famous Libertarian of SDMB fame) look like Al Gore doing readings of The Communist Manifesto but I think it will take more like 20 million, not 20 thousand before anyone could even think about this working.

More from the site linked in the OP:
opting out of federal mandates
Which part of a mandate is optional?

negotiating directly with the federal government
The Feds will label these folks not as liberty minded people but as sepratists and finally terrorist. Last I heard the US 'doesn’t negotiate with terrorists.

end the collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional laws
I’m sure the feds will think this is a great idea.

As much as I’d like to see many of their goals enacted my fear is that this whole thing will get lots of publicity and everyone with slightly Libertarian views will be labeled as an extremist and that this will only serve as fodder for arguments supporting the far liberal-left.

8

Wow, this thread is filled with some reactionary bullshit. If they are moderately successful the main parties will start trying to buy them off politically. Look at the greens in New Mexico if you need an example of that type of behavior.

I don’t think the federal government will react badly to them. It will just be another movement. If it’s peaceful, then the government will probably regard them peacefully. It really depends on how much rabble rousing they intend to do. I’m wondering what their plans are regarding the fact that most states economies cannot handle a sudden influx of 20,000 people into the area.

It’s an idea that’s interesting but will never work. Good luck to them, and I don’t think anything extreme will happen.

As far as the traitor idea. In my mind, anyone who DOESN’T do what they think is right to try to change the nation to fit the times is a traitor. Anyone who stops progressive movements is a traitor. This nation wasn’t founded on being static, it was designed with change in mind.

Erek

9

ahem; let me clarify. Anyone who stops progressive movements through any non-democratic method, is a traitor. If you think it’s wrong and speak out against it, by all means continue.

Erek

10

“I think I need a little legal education here. What laws do states control (what powers are reserved for the state)?”

Simply put, the states can do anything but what the constitution says they can’t do.

To be a bit more specific, this would include marriage laws, certain taxes, fullfilling vacancies of congress, appointing officers to a militia and conducting that militia, and any law seem fit to govern that state provided it doesn’t clash with the constitution.

11

Hmmm…well, it does sound like they’re a step or two above the so-called “sovereign citizen/free man” movement.

12

So would it be true to say that, if successful, they could repeal all state taxes, but not federal ones? What would the results of this be? I’m thinking they have to keep SOME taxes. Who will maintain the roads for example? How do people in the legal system get paid (judges, public defenders, police officers)? Realistically, if they were able to gain a voting majority, what form of taxation could they repeal without crippling the states infrastructure? I’m all for repeal of gun control laws, and drug laws, and victimless crime laws, but I’m a little skeptical about the benefits of “no state taxes at all”.

What happens when they make laws that contradict federal laws? The feds trump em’, right? Just look at California and Medicinal Marijuana. The federal govt (enforced by the the DEA) has pretty much said no matter what laws the state make, they will come in and arrest these folks anyway. The state of Cali is now considering having the state grow the herb themselves. Does this mean the feds will bust in on the state-controlled gardens? I find the line between state and federal jurisdiction very interesting, and a bit blurry, if not confusing. Especially after the last presidential election.

I am unfamiliar with this movement. If you have the time, Guin, could you explain this bit and why “The Free State Project” seems better? Thanks.

DaLovin’ Dj

13

Just to side-step the question of right or wrong, this doesn’t have much hope of working, even if they get 20,000 volunteers. From the Census web site, the five least-populated states are:
Wyoming 494,423
Vermont 613,090
North Dakota 634,448
Alaska 634,892
South Dakota 756,600

Let’s take 40% as a reasonable turnout for each state election. In non-presidential years, I think this is a good enough approximation. As for percentage of a population that is eligible to vote, I couldn’t find that number, but Wyoming has 352,795 citizens over the age of 18. If another 20,000 “Free Staters” move in, they will represent 12.4% of the voting population.

20000/((352795*0.4)+20000)

I think this would be similar in strength to many other marginal-but-noisy goups. They would likely have an effect on state policy, particularly in alliance with other groups, but they could not take over completely.
YMMV

14

How many would they need? Math aint my strong suit.

15

Well, Wyoming would be a great state to try it in as Wyoming tends to be fairly libertarian as it is.

Erek

16

Other than the specifics of “The Free State Project”, a very interesting question is at the heart of this. Regardless of the specifics of a group’s legal plans (assuming they plan to use the legal system to change the laws - as is allowed by law), how many people do they need to take over the state legislature and decide what the laws are?

Basically, how many people would I have to convince to join me and move to Wyoming to take over the joint? I need numbers here people. It aint easy taken over the world without good data. I just gotta remember: baby steps . . . take over a state . . . .baby steps . . … take over a country . . . . baby steps . . .take over the galaxy . . .baby steps. . .meet Cecil. . . .

DaLovin’ Dj

17

It’s much easier to take over the world as a capitalist these days. Becoming a tycoon would be your best bet.

Erek

18

OK, Wyoming.

You have about 358,000 voting age residents.

Wyoming averages about 60% turnout in presidential election year, and about 50% in non-presidential election years.

So if you planned it right, you’d need about 190,000 of those votes to be absolutely sure of victory. HOWEVER, since we are simply adding more voters into the mix by transplanting them, you may not actually need that many votes in order to win. The question is how many people that ALREADY live there are sympathetic to your cause. Now, this is tricky.

My guess is that Wyoming would be very sympathetic to libertarian concerns on things like land use and taxes, but not so libertarian when it comes to drugs and other social issues. Especially if the libertarian was seen as being “soft on crime.” Which he probably would be. So, I don’t know.

My estimate is that you would need to move in about 100,000 people to Wyoming to guarantee control of the legislature.

19

I certainly wouldn’t advocate or support any attempts by any state to secceed from the union these days. I just find it hilarious that someone from a nation founded by rebellion would say something like you just did. So what if it is illegal?

Marc

20

I can’t remember the specifics, but wasn’t there a cult in Oregon that had enough numbers to take over the local county government (sheriff, etc.), and the state government stepped in to stop them?