Enjoy Freedom During Your Own Lifetime!

[hot_pastrami]

Also, I find these statements contradictary:

Originally posted by Radar
driving is a RIGHT, not a priviledge

...and...

Originally posted by Radar
I'm not suggesting we allow blind people to drive on roads

If driving is a RIGHT, then why are blind people not allowed to drive in this utopia? Ooooh, because that woud be dangerous, much like letting people who can't pass a driving test get behind the wheel. Makes sense.

Cough.

[Radar]

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

The logic isn't flawed, your perspective is.

The roads are filled with people on drugs, people talking on cell phones, eating, drinking, putting on make-up, changing diapers, really old people, really young people, people without a drivers license, people who rarely drive, people who don't speak English, people who don't know where they're going, people getting blowjobs, etc. Do you really think it will be any more dangerous if a ridiculously easy drivers test is administered by a poorly educated government flunky?

I sincerely doubt the drivers test weeds out very many (if any) of these people. I recentlly saw someone move to America who didn't speak a word of English get in a car for a week (having never driven one before) and get her drivers license because she was cute. She is a genuinely scary driver.

Headsplice, I can't honestly tell you everything that will happen with the relationship between the Free State and the Fed, but the FSP does have a board like this one. I'd suggest you get online and ask a few of these questions to various people and see what they say.

The best way I can answer them is to say, the state will avoid taking (or giving) money from or to the government as much as is possible. That means we don't give the fed money for the drug war and we tell them not to spend any money on the drug war in our state, etc. We make it very clear to the Fed that we are a sovereign state and we won't tolerate any unconstitutional intrusion on the part of the Fed into our state. We're not looking to secede from the union but we want it to be clear we can under the Constitution if the Fed doesn't keep their act straight.

America was created to have a de-centralized government where states mostly govern themselves. This allows people to move to the states with laws they prefer. We will ensure the Fed sticks to the Constitution in their dealings with our state and we won't enforce any unconstitutional federal laws or allow the Fed to bring people into our state to do it.

[Radar]

Also, I find these statements contradictary:

They are not contradictory as I will explain.

If driving is a RIGHT, then why are blind people not allowed to drive in this utopia? Ooooh, because that woud be dangerous, much like letting people who can't pass a driving test get behind the wheel. Makes sense.

Again, it's FAR from being a utopia, and it's not intended to be a utopia as there is no such thing.

You're rights end where mine begin. You are legally allowed to do ANYTHING you want as long as your actions don't PHYSICALLY endanger or harm a non-consenting other or thier property. A blind person driving would indeed endanger others. A person with sight who has never taken a simple driving test that 3rd graders can pass is no more dangerous on the road than someone with sight who has taken it. Try again.

[hot_pastrami]

I think we agree that the current system of licencing drivers is shitty. Where we disagree is that I think the theory is sound, and I think that something to filter out the incompentent drivers, even if not completely effective, is better than nothing.

To suggest that no license, no mandatory education, and no proof of one's abilities should be necessary in order to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, potentially endangering innocent lives... that, my friend, is ludicrous.

[Radar]

I think we agree that the current system of licencing drivers is shitty. Where we disagree is that I think the theory is sound, and I think that something to filter out the incompentent drivers, even if not completely effective, is better than nothing.

Perhaps we can come up with a better system. Maybe you take the test once and you're good for life. I'm not sure.

To suggest that no license, no mandatory education, and no proof of one's abilities should be necessary in order to operate a motor vehicle on public streets, potentially endangering innocent lives... that, my friend, is ludicrous.

I am not saying we shouldn't have a license because we will have to drive in other states. I'm just saying we shouldn't require people to provide a social security for it, and shouldn't make them renew it, etc. We should also not make agreements with other states to hold up someone's license if they don't pay a ticket in another state as nearly all states do now.

And we could easily force the other states to accept our driver's license under article 4 of the Constitution.

This thread has gone off into a totally different tangent than what I had originally posted it for.

All I was doing is educating a few people about the Free State Project and inviting those of you who value freedom and want a chance to experience true freedom in America before you die, to take part in it.

Let's not focus on a single part of what I've said because the license thing is just an issue I was talking to someone about. It's not a part of the Free State Project official platform, if they even have one other than the goal of small government with limited powers that's less intrusive.

[xoxoxoBruce]

OK but keep in mind a drivers test is to prove you are aware of the laws and have the RUDIMENTRY SKILLS to go out on the road and learn how to drive. That's all.
Well Radar, I hope your dream comes to fruition because it sounds like a great place to vacation.

[Whit]

     Let's get past the drivers license thing. I kind of like the idealism at work here. It shows a strong belief in an idea that really sounds nice. To bad I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist. The only way a state is going to be found is if they find one with a small enough population that it can be outvoted, and this goes against everything the Project claims to stand for. So, much like the second revolution idea, I suggest that everyone involved hold their breath waiting for this to occur.

     Have a nice day.

[99 44/100% pure]

Originally posted by Radar
. . . The roads are filled with people on drugs, people talking on cell phones . . . people getting blowjobs, etc. . . .

Shit, honey, I think someone saw us!

[Radar]

To bad I'm not an idealist, I'm a realist. The only way a state is going to be found is if they find one with a small enough population that it can be outvoted, and this goes against everything the Project claims to stand for.

I'm also a realist. And the Free State Project is very realistic. I've already given an example of how it can and probably will work:

http://www.freestateproject.org/strategies.htm

But you have to keep in mind the states in question won't have to be outvoted. They are already populated with people who despise large government and the people moving aren't your regular joe blow off the street, we're talking about hard-core activists. 20,000 will REALISTICALLY turn into 100,000 within 3 years not including the additional people who will move there after the initial 20,000. We won't have to outvote these people because they'll be voting with us.

[Whit]

     Sure, okay realistic, gotcha. Oh, any word on a timeframe? I scanned the link and didn't see it, I must have missed it. I was just wondering. As a realistic plan it must be on a timeframe to live up to the claim it'll be in our lifetime. I understand there's something about when you get so many signatures, how long is that going to take? How long before people are actually moving to said state?

[juju]

I think you're going to seriously piss off the current residents of whatever state you decide to declare war on. They are definitely not going to take this lightly.

[Radar]

I was just wondering. As a realistic plan it must be on a timeframe to live up to the claim it'll be in our lifetime. I understand there's something about when you get so many signatures, how long is that going to take? How long before people are actually moving to said state?

The time frame is as follows: There are just under 5,000 members right now. On August 15th (after we reach 5,000 people) we're going to vote on which state we'll move to. After that we have 3 years to get to 20,000 and at the current rate this will happen very quickly. It might be before 1 year. At that point we'll all move (although some will move right after the vote) and the project will be under way. If we don't reach 20,000 members by September 1, 2006 the project will be cancelled.

I think you're going to seriously piss off the current residents of whatever state you decide to declare war on. They are definitely not going to take this lightly.

We're not declaring war on anyone. We're going to move there peacefully, share information with the locals who already value freedom and hate government intrusion on thier lives (all of these states fit that qualification but Montana and Wyoming moreso), and we'll work with them to make things better. We're not "taking over" a state, or doing anything the local people don't agree with. We're just going to show them how to do it better and faster. Will they all like it? Of coure not. Will some be hostile towards us? Definately. Will most embrace the idea? We hope so.

[juju]

If you're not doing anything they don't agree with, then why would they be hostile towards you? Whoops, sorry about that. It appears that I've stumbled onto another Radar contradiction!

[vsp]

So what happens if some merry prankster starts the Slave State Project, dedicated to gathering 5,000 like-minded individuals who will move to your state and vote AGAINST whatever your group is for, just to piss you off?

The net result would be that your votes would be cancelled out and you'd be stuck living in Montana. Sounds more like penance than utopia to me...

[xoxoxoBruce]

After a state is chosen, the real estate speculators will have a field day.
I think the locals might be a little concerned about you bringing the wrath of Bush down on them.