Enjoy Freedom During Your Own Lifetime!

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.

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!

Leave poor Delaware out of it. Alaska too.

You guys can have North Dakota all you want.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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?

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. :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Have a nice day.

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!:blush:

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.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;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?

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.

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.

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!

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...

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.

lol @ "the wrath of Bush".

I know Bush is the enemy of freedom in America, but he won't be around much longer. He's got as much chance of being elected as OJ Simpson, Gary Condit, or Scott Peterson.

Sept 1st 2006....Hmmmm....if you wait a couple years you won't have to worry about W. Of course then Jeb might send a couple hundred thousand troops to vote changes in your state unless you raise the voting age to 30 or so. But that might not work either, because you can't trust anyone over 30.:D

Originally posted by Radar
[Bush has] got as much chance of being elected as OJ Simpson, Gary Condit, or Scott Peterson

... or Richard 'I am not a crook' Nixon? None above invaded another sovereign nation, without good reason, then lied about the act. None conducted warfare based upon outright lies and deception. Nixon did and got relected in a landslide when too many Americans would routinely believe what a lying president claimed. So what has changed?

New generation again so naive as to believe aluminum tubes are for weapons of mass destuction - or that Saddam is consirping with Ossama bin Laden to attack America.

History says that every 30 years, a new batch of Americans may be so naive as to believe a blatantly lying president - facts be damned.

You have a point tw. But I have to believe most American's aren't THAT stupid. Hopefully the public fool system hasn't deterioriated their minds quite that much.

But that might not work either, because you can't trust anyone over 30.

I used to think that until I turned 30. :p

Wyoming. I heard about this on NPR coupla mornings ago; I still need to check out the site. We need an industry. We need to startup a software company, something like Cowboy Hat Linux -- Free as in beer and as in speech. The Live free or die Linux distro.

I'd like to see this succeed, but no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, as it were. If it worked well [aluminum foil hat]it would attract attention[/aluminum foil hat]

I like the earthship idea in that once completed, they need little from the outside, except for some sun and some rain. I've heard of earthships keeping 65 degrees in 14 degree weather. Cool beans.

More if you install a fireplace or two.