Enjoy Freedom During Your Own Lifetime!

[Radar]

Imagine you're in a state filled with tolerant people who allow you to live your life any way you want as long as you give them the same respect. Imagine a state where government intervention into our personal lives is virtually non-existent. Imagine doing anything you want with your own mind, body, and other possessions without anyone saying anything about it whether it's drug use, medical procedures, prostitution, suicide, gambling, etc. Imagine keeping what you earn so you can have the best healthcare, secure retirement, superior schools, and still have enough left over to give to your favorite charities knowing the vast majority of what you've given will actually make it to those it's intended to reach. Imagine being able to have more than one husband or wife if everyone involved is a consenting adult. Imagine getting a drivers license without taking a test or giving a social security number. Imagine rave promoters throwing parties without permits, security searching you for drugs, etc. Imagine opening a coffee shop like those in Holland. Imagine actual freedom to do anything you like as long as your actions don't physically harm non-consenting others or their property? Sound like a far off, fictional, utopian fantasy? It's not.

This may very well be a reality during our own lifetimes, especially if you take part in the THE FREE STATE PROJECT.

What is the Free State project you might ask? You can find out all you want by following the link I just provided, or you can read my brief explanation.

The Free State Project is a group 20,000 freedom-loving small government advocates who will all move to a sparsely populated state in order to make changes to the local laws. This isn't a TAKE OVER of a state. The States in question are all chosen because the local population has shown an outward display of contempt for large government intrusion into their lives and a desire to live both freely and privately. You may ask, "What Can 20,000 Liberty Activists Accomplish?"

The states in question are Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

The vote on which state will be on August 15th long after we've hit 5,000 people. All of these states have a small enough population give us an opportunity to make a powerful impact on every election in the state. The entire state of Wyoming has less than half a million people and not all of them vote. Also the people taking part are mostly activists who will spread the word among the locals. This coupled with the influx of others who will come seeking freedom after the laws become more relaxed will give us more than enough people to control, or more accurately reduce control, over the entire state and to keep the federal government's influence to a bare minimum on our private lives.

Eventually when other states saw how prosperous, free, and happy the people of the Free State were, they would want to become additions to the project. At the very minimum we'll have one state in the union that is genuinely free.

I encourage all of those who value freedom, liberty, privacy, and personal responsibility to take part in the Free State Project. If you sign up in the next few weeks you can still have a say in which state is chosen. Personally I would prefer a Western state, but that's just me. If you’re smart enough to realize the valid role of government doesn’t include making our choices for healthcare, charity, retirement, or education for us, the Free State Project is for you. If you’re a socialist who supports government-sanctioned theft or racism and charity at the point of a gun, the Free State is most definitely NOT for you.

I hope to see some of you in the Free State. I intend on buying some land (it's cheap in the Western States), building myself an EARTHSHIP, and opening my own business. I'm thinking a bar called the Porcupine Pub (the symbol of the Free State Project is the Porcupine) or a bar/laundromat called the Rub a Dub Pub.

I hope you don't miss this chance to experience actual freedom during our own lifetimes. If you do, I'll try to enjoy my freedom that much more for you.

Too long.

[vsp]

Originally posted by Radar
If you’re a socialist who supports government-sanctioned theft or racism and charity at the point of a gun, the Free State is most definitely NOT for you.

Oh, well. I'm out!

[elSicomoro]

Leave poor Delaware out of it. Alaska too.

You guys can have North Dakota all you want.

[Radar]

It won't be Delaware, we want states where people actually value freedom. And even though Alaska is a good choice, it probably won't be Alaska either. I doubt it will be either of the Dakotas either. I'm fairly sure it will be either Wyoming, Montana, or Idaho.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by Radar
Imagine getting a drivers license without taking a test...

Well, I imagine the roads would be full of dangerous drivers, so operating a car wouldn't be very appealing. That's assuming there are any usable roads in this "Free State," since the government can't exactly build or maintain roads without sufficient money (I assume "Imagine keeping what you earn" implies that there is no income tax).

The problem with a lot of these ideas is that they just won't work. Like the statement "Imagine you're in a state filled with tolerant people who allow you to live your life any way you want as long as you give them the same respect." No change in goverment will bring this about, the problem is the result of human weakness. There will always be assholes and inolerant people, and as long as those people possess the freedom to be assholes, they will be. Do you suggest stripping them of that right? Or do you propose to somehow change human nature? Or maybe make all the mean people go away? Who decides who is "mean?"

It's a nice utopian fantasy in some ways, but a fantasy nonetheless.

[Gomez da Killah]

just because the federal government is not involved does not mean that daily life would have to change. people are quite capable of governing themselves and their public works on their own and possibly more efficiently because public funding could be used more for public interest and not to line the pockets of politicians.
as far as the roads and drivers are concerned: the roads are already there, and having a license does not qualify one as a good driver. just look around you as you drive home from work today.
it wouldn't be an easy system to establish, but its not impossible

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by Gomez da Killah
as far as the roads and drivers are concerned: the roads are already there and having a license does not qualify one as a good driver. just look around you as you drive home from work today.

Dropping the requirement to prove one's abilities to drive safely will hardly improve the situation. Some people make it through the system and get a license due to blind luck or because they know how to play the system, but despite that it does manage to filter ouit a large number of unsafe drivers. And the roads are aready there because the government built them... and they stay there because the goverment maintains them. That takes money. Taxes.

I won't opine about the anarchist views... I'll just agree to disagree there. I dislike some aspects of the way goverment works now, but I still think it is MUCH better than no goverment.

[vsp]

You want to see anarchy? <a href="http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp12102002.html">Here's anarchy.</a>

[Gomez da Killah]

the lack of federal intervention does not neccessarily mean anarchy and especially doesn't suggest chaos. as stated in my prior post, people are more than capable of governing themselves without cops and politicians. you just have to first establish a strong community that possesses an open forum and commitee that makes decisions for the community and not the individual.
on a side note, there are several communities in america that not only live without aid from the federal government, they have prospered and progressed. communities that use only "eco-friendly" power sources and grow food useing safer and healthier organic methods, and educate their children with a much broader perspective than can be found in most any public schools. they are few and scattered, but they're there, and they're flourishing

[Radar]

Well, I imagine the roads would be full of dangerous drivers, so operating a car wouldn't be very appealing. That's assuming there are any usable roads in this "Free State," since the government can't exactly build or maintain roads without sufficient money (I assume "Imagine keeping what you earn" implies that there is no income tax).

The roads wouldn't be any more dangerous than they already are. I can see giving people an eye test or something but driving is a RIGHT, not a priviledge as some states would have you believe. We are born with the right to travel freely, especially on roads we paid for. And your comment about no income taxes leading to insufficient money to build roads is ludicrous. I pay gas tax, electricity tax, telephone tax, sales tax, property tax, cable tv tax, etc. There is PLENTY of money for roads, schools, and essential (Constitutional) parts of government. Of course the roads, schools, etc. would be handled by the state, not the fed. And a driver's license hardly qualifies you as a good driver. In California recently a teacher gave the DMV written test to a bunch of 3rd grade students after letting them read the manual and every student passed the test. I'm not suggesting we allow blind people to drive on roads, and I'm not suggesting we allow people to ignore the rules of the road. Just that they don't have to provide a social security number, provide insurance, etc. Even if they did have some test to prove you can drive, that's not the main thrust of the campaign for a free state. It's just one issue.

The problem with a lot of these ideas is that they just won't work. Like the statement "Imagine you're in a state filled with tolerant people who allow you to live your life any way you want as long as you give them the same respect." No change in goverment will bring this about, the problem is the result of human weakness.

Agreed. But we're talking about going to a state where most people already have the "live and let live" attitude, and we'll be adding 20,000+ to that mix. So no, EVERYONE who't live and let live, but enough of us will to control the laws.

There will always be assholes and inolerant people, and as long as those people possess the freedom to be assholes, they will be. Do you suggest stripping them of that right? Or do you propose to somehow change human nature? Or maybe make all the mean people go away? Who decides who is "mean?"

Yes, there will always be assholes, and I support their right to be assholes. But unlike the other states, the assholes won't be in charge.

It's a nice utopian fantasy in some ways, but a fantasy nonetheless.

It's neither utopian, nor a fantasy. This will be a reality very soon for those who value freedom enough to do something about it. Utopian fantasies don't require personal responsibility and don't have people who suffer from their own poor decisions. This is a real world solution to real world problems and it's already in the works.

And the roads are aready there because the government built them... and they stay there because the goverment maintains them. That takes money. Taxes.

The roads are there because the STATE governments built them and the money came from the STATES in the first place. They just get a portion of it back from the fed after they've taken a healthy chunk out so they can work on thier own roads. We had roads long before there was an income tax and we'll have them long after it's gone. I am not suggesting we don't pay taxes, just that we don't pay income taxes which amount to nothing short of slavery, armed robbery, and extortion.

I won't opine about the anarchist views... I'll just agree to disagree there. I dislike some aspects of the way goverment works now, but I still think it is MUCH better than no goverment.

Who said anything about "no government"? I am for having government. Government has a valid purpose; to defend our rights and property from those who would violate them. Government is not here to provide healthcare, charity, foreign aid, retirement, etc.

Government should be as the founders planned it. Small, de-centralized, and extremely limited in scope, cost, power, and intrusiveness. We shouldn't have government telling us what we can eat, what medicines we can take, what medical procedures we can have, what we can own, what we can do with what we own, what we can do with our bodies, what we can read, watch, or listen to, or how much water we put into our toilets.

We'd still have roads, police, fire fighters, defense of our rights and property, etc. We'd just be able to enjoy our lives more without Uncle Sam or other statists intruding into our daily lives.

vsp: I LOVE that anarchy link!

Gomez: You're absolutely right. The Free State will flourish because people will flock there when they see freedom is possible in America, businesses will re-locate there when they realize they won't be regulated and abused to death by the state, and they will bring jobs, and markets with them. The Free State will most likely have gambling, tourism, and other draws to bring in people and their money.

If I were the governor of the free state and the Fed tried to come into the state to bust people for using marijuana like they do with cannibas clubs that provide cannibas for medical patients in California, I would call out the national guard to defend the clinics and tell the Fed our state would no longer send them money to be used in the drug war. I would also pardon 100% of non-violent drug offenders and release them from jail immediately.

Radar -

Since you are obviously psychic, can you please PM me the winning numbers to the next >$200 million lotto?

[Radar]

You don't have to be a psychic to know someone will run faster without an anchor tied to them and if I knew the lotto thing, I wouldn't tell anyone.

[hot_pastrami]

Originally posted by Radar
Who said anything about "no government"? I am for having government.

That was in reply to Gomez 's post, actually.

Originally posted by Radar
The roads wouldn't be any more dangerous than they already are.

That's an interesting assertion. One which, as far as I can tell, is contrary to intuition. If the government just gave drivers' licences to people freely and without testing, trusting that everyone figures out the traffic laws and how to drive safely on their own... that's a recipe for disaster. How could a goverment uphold laws that it made no effort to educate the people about? Particularly laws which involve operating a 2000-pound hunk of metal at high speeds, which is a very effective deadly weapon. The system that is there now is poor in many ways, but to have nothing would be worse.

Sure, this is just one issue, but it's logic reflects that of many of the others... it is flawed.

Originally posted by Radar
But unlike the other states, the assholes won't be in charge.

Here is another problem. Assholes are sometimes quite ingenious about concealing the fact that they are assholes. Indefinitely. They lie, they manipulate, they distract people from what is really going on. That is exactly how each and every dirty politician got into power. Do you think most people knowingly vote for someone they consider to be an asshole?

I agree with some of your sentiments, the goverment is imperfect and has its fingers way too deep in personal lives. Too many laws are besed on Christian morals, which are not shared by all (like the anti-sodomy laws discussed in another thread). But there are too many people who are ignorant, mean, or stupid in this world for this sortof idea to work large-scale... it just falls apart once the community grows to a certain point.

Originally posted by Gomez da Killah
the lack of federal intervention does not neccessarily mean anarchy and especially doesn't suggest chaos.

...I never suggested that (anarchy == chaos). Just that a goverment was a necessary fixture for a large, successful, advanced society.

[headsplice]

I can't find the link anymore, but a while back (last summer?), some Libertarians got elected to office in a town in Colorado. It was a big deal because they were the first town in America to have an all Libertarian executive and legislature (such as it is). Unfortunately, the first thing they did is vote themselves out of existence. The nullified the portion of the town charter that gave them the power to do anything as a government. So, they had a special election and recreated the town.
Now, what's the point of this story? A Free State is one that is filled with questions about day-to-day existence in the United States. The most tricky one, and the one that FSP folks haven't answered as far I know, is how do you expect to interact with the Feds? On a bunch of levels, the difference between the Federal and State government is much like the difference between the right testicle and the left. They're distinct, but they fulfill many of the same functions and they're still intrisically connected.
I would also like some real specific answers to the issues of modern governance (like relations with the Feds) before I would commit to what sounds like an interesting experiment. The FSP reminds me of a lot of other revolutionaries that want to overthrow (or, in this case, minimize the influence of) government, but don't really know what's going to happen after the fact.
If I'm wrong, please, point me in the right direction.