Montana [ Free State Project - Liberty in Our Lifetime ]

Montana

Original article:	www.sierratimes.com/03/05/27/article_mt_marbut.htm
Date:	05/26/03
Title:	MT: Free State Project Report
Author:	Gary Marbut
Publication:	Sierra Times

MT: Free State Project Report

By Gary Marbut • 05/26/03

Over this past weekend I attended the Grand Western Conference of the Free State Project here in Missoula.

The Free State Project (FSP) was initiated by Dr. Jason Sorens, a political scientist from Yale. FSP is now a nationwide organization. The object is to determine which of the U.S. states offers its citizens the greatest climate of individual liberty. A complex matrix of factors is used to evaluate the quality of personal freedom, including economic factors, population and cultural factors, and, of course, the freedom of people to keep and bear arms.

Once the FSP has accumulated 5,000 members who have pledged to move to the chosen state, the project will allow its members to vote among the best states, especially to vote directed by the state-by-state freedom analysis done by the FSP. See their Website at:

http://www.freestateproject.org

After the freest state is chosen by FSP members (probably this Fall), they hope to eventually persuade at least 20,000 FSP members to move to that state to enjoy freedom, and maybe also work to enhance the quality of freedom there. While there is officially a list of ten states on the final selection list, practically the list is down to the frontrunners of New Hampshire, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana.

This conference drew about 150 freedom-minded people from across the U.S., but especially from western states. Presentations were made by J.J. Johnson (publisher, Sierra Times), Dr. Jason Sorens, editorialist Vin Suprynowicz, author Claire Wolfe, and Montana state senator Jerry O'Neil. These presentations were dynamite!

This conference was held especially to showcase and examine top-listed western states. There were panels to make arguments to conferees for selection of Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, and Montana. I sat on the Montana panel, as did MSSA Board Member, Rep. Joe Balyeat.

Conferees came from as far away as Massachusetts, Kentucky and California, however most were from Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, and Alberta (yes, Alberta, Canada!)

There was a run-off election straw poll taken after the state panel presentations, and Montana received by far the greatest number of straw votes from conferees (in case you wonder if Joe and I did a good job for Montana).

This was a tremendously stimulating conference. You will not be surprised that perhaps the foremost issue on the minds of conferees was the health of the right to keep and bear arms in the states examined. Conferees were impressed with the status of gun laws in Montana (few).

This conference was a tremendous experience. If the FSP picks Montana, we should welcome these freedom-loving people with open arms. They will help us make Montana even more free than it already is.

Although this event has been billed by the media as a Libertarian effort, less than 1/4 of conferees claimed in a show of hands to be members of the Libertarian Party. The FSP is declared to be non-partisan, attracting freedom-loving people of all parties, or of no political party.

Since only FSP members committed to move to the chosen state (not including me, FYI) get to vote in the selection of that state, and since the distribution of FSP members is more or less uniform across the U.S., it is anticipated that the final choice will be between New Hampshire (Easterners voting) and Montana (Westerners voting). It will be VERY interesting to see how this vote comes out!!

See the Missoulian story about the conference here:

Learn More About the Free State Project Here: http://www.freestateproject.org

More media articles about the FSP

These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by The Free State Project, a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship, and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107).

Original article:	www.helenair.com/articles/2003/10/02/ opinions_top/a04100203_01.txt
Date:	10/02/03
Title:	Montana loses one. Good
Author:	Editorial
Publication:	Helena Independent Record

Montana loses one. Good

Editorial • 10/02/03

One of life's earliest lessons is that you win some, and you lose some.

Fortunately for Montana, it lost one this week.

New Hampshire's win is Montana's gain.

New Hampshire, whose motto is "Live Free or Die, was revealed as the first choice of a group of libertarians nationwide that has been conducting a well-publicized hunt for a state with a low population to which it can move and start getting rid of a bunch of pesky laws.

The Free State Project's 5,000 members already have pledged to move to the state of choice, and they hope to attract a total of 20,000 libertarians within two years. They think that's enough of a critical mass of voters to transform it into a model of small government, few laws, and unfettered individual liberty.

The project made news here when Montana was mentioned as a likely target. After all, a state made famous by the Freemen had to be fertile ground for the freedom the members seek, like ending government restrictions on such things as gambling and other "vices," and making sure that civil authorities are basically limited to keeping the peace.

As it turns out, Montana came in third in the voting, right behind Wyoming. We beat out Idaho, Alaska, Maine, Vermont, Delaware, South Dakota and North Dakota.

But as much as we're pleased to lose, there is one lingering concern. New Hampshire, after all, is the state that holds the influential first presidential primary every four years. Uh, oh.

More media articles about the FSP

Original article:	www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews/ 2003/07/29/build/opinion/edit.inc
Date:	07/29/03
Title:	Free State Project will likely fizzle
Author:	Editorial
Publication:	Billings Gazette

Free State Project will likely fizzle

Editorial • 07/29/03

Gazette Opinion

The patient Free Staters say they'll wait until they have 20,000 advocates before they'll move in.

We're not holding our breath for the moving vans to arrive in Wyoming or Montana. It is a kooky idea and much overblown.

You've no doubt read about the Free State Project, an effort to persuade 20,000 like-minded advocates of limited government to move to a lightly populated state and, essentially, take over the workings of government, putting a Libertarian stamp on the machinery of state.

Keith Carlsen, a spokesman for the project, visited Wyoming last week talking up the initiative and why the Cowboy state is an attractive option for the group, which boasts about 5,000 members across the nation.

"We like Wyoming," Carlsen told reporters during a stop in Cheyenne. "it's not only a beautiful state, but it has the lowest population. It's easier to persuade less people."

If Gov. Dave Freudenthal is representative of Wyoming residents' opinion of the idea, the Free Staters may not be welcomed with open arms. He said organizers "are overestimating the receptivity of their ideas in the state."

No hanging chad, yet

Voting is under way to determine which of 10 states the Free Staters will target. Joining Wyoming in this sweepstakes are Montana, Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Vermont. Balloters are asked to rank all 10 in order of preference. The ballot says votes will not be counted if received after Sept. 8.

Carlsen says in an online report to members that "several critical factors combine in Wyoming to make it one of the most likely states to succeed."

Those factors?

Smallest number of people, registered voters and actual voters.
Smallest number of teachers and unionized teachers.
Highest vote for small government candidates.
Highest percentage of gun ownership and gun shows.
Only candidate state without a budget deficit.
Access to large metropolitan areas (Denver, Salt Lake City).
No personal income tax, low property tax rates and low sales taxes. And those sales taxes, Carlsen says, are often avoided by residents who use "planned purchasing strategies" and drive two to three hours to Billings or Bozeman where there is no general sales tax. And in Wyoming, he writes, "people routinely barter for goods and services."

Glacier or Tetons?

In head-to-head competition, Montana doesn't fare well against Wyoming in this beauty contest. According to Carlsen, Montana has stronger labor unions -- apparently a bad thing. Wyoming has a "more pro-freedom" ideology -- a good thing.

And this: "Montana has a big problem with liberals from California moving to the entire western part of the state; as opposed to Wyoming, where California liberals are only moving to Jackson Hole."

Given the natural beauty and great lifestyles enjoyed in both Wyoming and Montana, we expect both to do well in the balloting. And both states would welcome with open arms people who'd like to move here to create well-paying jobs and help move their communities forward.

But a Free State haven? We think a 10th place finish in this horse race may not be such a bad thing.

More media articles about the FSP

Original article:	www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/07/08/news/wyoming/ 4f8b9da9b9e870baecf20a54a5516986.txt
Date:	07/08/03
Title:	Free State Project vote set for August
Author:	Nadia White
Publication:	Casper Star Tribune

Free State Project vote set for August

by Nadia White • Star-Tribune staff writer • 07/08/03

Liberty-minded activists will choose which sparsely-populated state will be the focus of their collective political might in a vote beginning in August.

Members of the Free State Project will have until Sept. 8 to vote on which of 10 states they would like to move to in order to advocate for limited government. Wyoming and New Hampshire are top contenders in the effort.

The Free State Project is an effort to sign up 20,000 advocates of limited government to move to a single state in which they can incrementally reduce the reach of government. That effort passed the 4,000-member mark earlier in June, prompting organizers to set a vote date.

The deadline to sign up to participate in the vote is Aug. 15, by which time the FSP should have more than 5,000 members, according to the group's projections. The deadline for members to return their ballots is Sept. 8, and the selected state will be announced on Sept. 15, according to a press release from Jason Sorens, the Yale University doctoral student who founded and leads the effort.

Tom Parker, a Louisville, Colo., resident who serves as the group's liaison to Wyoming, said the movement is a reaction to the current government climate.

"In terms of liberty, we see things drifting away with the latest moves like the USA Patriot Act, and the various wars, now Liberia, we feel our government is not playing by the rules of the Constitution so we're hoping to change things," Parker said. "By concentrating our numbers in one state we're hoping to have more influence and move things more toward liberty."

Eligible voters will be able to choose from among Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. Once the group reaches 20,000 commitments, members have five years in which to move to the chosen state. Some members have already indicated that they will move as soon as the state is chosen, Parker said.

Dennis Brossman, a Wyoming Libertarian, said the project is very appealing.

" I am tempted by the project even if Alaska or Vermont were to try it. I prefer Wyoming, the climate and terrain and being in the heart of the 48 states, but the freedom experiment is very alluring to me," Brossman said. " I'd be willing to move to Alaska."

Brossman said the idea of newcomers changing the way things are done in Wyoming is nothing new.

"I think it's done in other realms, but not so openly and honestly," he said. "For example, in Lander and Jackson in the last 10, 15 years, we've had a large number of environmentalists move in and they heavily affect the policy in these areas."

He said he thinks the plan has a shot: "I think it's something that would be workable and doable. I don't think it's a pipe dream."

The Free State Project posts additional information on its Web site, (http://www.freestateproject.org).

More media articles about the FSP

Original article:	www.proliberty.com/observer/20030611.htm
Date:	06/11/03
Title:	Montana Libertarians host Free State Project conference in Missoula
Author:	Richard Reiben
Publication:	Idaho Observer

Montana Libertarians host Free State Project conference in Missoula

By Richard Reiben • 06/11/03

The Free State Project's Grand Western Conference over this past Memorial Day weekend in Missoula, Montana, provided a series of astounding crystallizations in advancing political liberty.

But rather than a sudden shift or one clear message, it came through a series of subtle clarifications. The possibility of actually applying libertarian ideals in a free state, seemed to bring the speakers and participants to a more cogent view of what liberty would actually mean.

There was still the occasional flighty notion, but these were few.

In July 2001, I published Handbook for Liberty. Within a few months, two related, but independent, events occurred. Sobering events, which gave greater focus and immediacy to the drive for liberty. One was 9/11. The other was the idea of a youngish Yale graduate student to use the Internet as a tool for gathering liberty lovers in a practical effort to turn the tide.

Jason Sorens, 26, who received his doctorate May 26 of this year, envisioned a plan in late 2001 to move at least 20,000 liberty-minded folks to a single state, therewith affecting the political climate of that region.

Sorens put his idea into action, on the Internet. So far, the Free State Project has gathered over 3,700 members committed to moving to a single state. When the number reaches 5,000, a vote will be taken to select the state (from a short list of 10 likely candidates). Once that is decided, the migration will begin.

Sorens' plan is not contingent upon specific political actions or ideals – "freedom-minded" or "liberty-oriented" is sufficient qualification for membership. The project is discussed in greater detail at its website: www.freestateproject.org.

In Handbook for Liberty, I streamlined my philosophical works into a guide for the practical application of liberty. I suggested that the Internet could be an excellent tool for such an application, but the guide was not dependent upon any particular plan.

In the Coda to Handbook, I wrote: "The principles of liberty are natural principles. They do not depend upon a particular technology, but upon our ability to grasp what they are and what is needed to fulfill them. I am confident this Handbook will prove a ready reference for understanding and pursuing liberty regardless of the paths we take to get there."

But once a path is chosen by a group of individuals, the recognition of what's really essential to the undertaking comes to the foreground.

The speakers at the conference were of stellar quality in the libertarian field: Claire Wolfe, J.J. Johnson, Nancy Lord Johnson, Vin Suprynowicz, and Jason Sorens, himself. Their message was "understand this process; it's not the same-old party-politics type thing; it is larger, broader and deeper. It is also, notably, slower."

Some of the speakers and other presenters still indulged in some storytelling (from "The Horror File"), but out of habit, it seemed – this is the usual sort of thing at a Libertarian conference. One had a feeling that the focus on our "loss of freedoms" was mistargeted to this audience of 100-odd freedom-moving people – and the speakers and the audience both sensed it.

The audience seemed, if not indifferent to, then unconcerned by the tales of injustices in a "regulatory state out of control." They were not much interested in negative assessments of our present condition. Perhaps they were simply beyond that. They seemed more aware of themselves as a growing community, and of their present and future needs, as such.

The commonality of this community was defined by the priority they gave to recognizing the boundaries (rights) of individuals above all other concerns.

Claire Wolfe

Co-author of The State Vs. the People: The Rise of the Police State and solo author of I Am Not a Number, Claire Wolfe's topic was identifying a "culture of freedom." Not just literature, art and music, but the culture of "assumptions and presumptions" that people make about their social context. She spoke of the need to change culture – to impact the way people think about government and their responsibilities for themselves and others.

Don Harkins of The Idaho Observer added a comment to Wolfe's presentation in the form of a sage quotation: "Love people enough to leave them alone."

It is about love and community, but, moreover, it is a recognition that people are at their best (and community is at its best) when individual boundaries are respected. Wolfe noted that, in conventional, statist culture, people presume they must restrict others from doing harmful things, whereas in a culture of freedom, harmful actions (violations) are penalized, but people are presumed to have no inclination to do harm (presumption of innocence). Further, that it is the natural inclination of people to do good, and that this does not need to be hurried along with a stick: "A civilized society always takes care of the poor and the old and the sick; and it doesn't take government to do that," she said.

Wolfe also noted the importance of a "shared purpose," without compromising the application based upon our conventional cultural assumptions "that the government must do certain things and take care of us."

Indeed, what we share, and perhaps our only commonality in a social or political group, is our respect for the rights of one another as individuals. As I wrote in Handbook, "What you would have in common is the universal human base of liberty; all else is diversity." And what this conference demonstrated, was that this base is sufficient for a very strong sense of community, composed of people who otherwise have very little in common – in their interests, beliefs and values.

With this single base, uncompromised by foggy thinking, a networked, supportive, enabling, helpful, friendly and respectful community develops that is deeper and has more goodwill than any other group organization I have ever seen or experienced before – including my 10 years of living in the third world, where the sense of community is very strong (but also very restrictive).

This common base of mutual respect of rights and boundaries gives rise to a sense of community that is very supportive, but the nature of that "support" is not as conventionally understood. This is not an in-your-face, gonna-make-you-a-better-person, do-it-for-you, rescue-you social force. The goodwill – and feeling of buoyancy – derives from being both valued (as a human being) and respected (being left alone). It is a subtle backdrop – not a "safety net," but an "integrity net." One feels respected as a human being; and one feels clean interacting with others on a natural base of mutual respect. On the basis of this alone, goodwill rears its impish face.

Vin Suprynowicz

Las Vegas Tribune editorial page editor and author of the novels "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Ballad of Carl Drega" Vin Suprynowicz, a Libertarian, addressed the sense of embattled community by examining the origins of the term to "close ranks." Essentially this is a military term of arranging battleground forces to protectively shield themselves, including their wounded and other vulnerable assets. The only danger, then, exists through being "stabbed in the back" by one of your own, violating the integrity of the shield. This analogy stresses the fragility of community – even one that is otherwise strong and vibrant, being based on a respect of individual rights and boundaries.

To this danger, Suprynowicz gave advice on two parallel courses of action: Don't compromise; "bury nuts"; survive (the present system). And: Find each other; support each other; build a Freedom Tree – network.

J.J. Johnson

Sierra Times Editor J.J. Johnson made the point that a free state will be a "rebellious state," perhaps it could also be added, from the perspective of the bureaucrats, a rogue state. Johnson stressed that the pursuit of liberty is not an easy endeavor. Things will not automatically or easily – or "somehow" – become better. If anything, in the immediate future, things will be tougher for people who value freedom. Confronting the antagonism, handling it, surmounting it, and surviving it will entail personal hardships and inner conflicts (between our programmed cultural presumptions of society-government and our belief in a hands-off government/culture of liberty).

Johnson also pointed out that we are already in the midst of World War III. And things will be tougher for everyone soon enough. Standing for freedom is not the easy choice, nor the expedient choice, but it is the only choice that has the potential for a clear road down the trail.

Nancy Johnson

Attorney Nancy Lord Johnson stressed the importance of "staying out of jail" – of not needlessly baiting the tyrant, or trying to "make a point" or "win justice" under constitutional guarantees, against a bureaucratic system that does not value the Constitution or honor its guarantees (or possess much honor of any sort). When you do, inadvertently, run up against the tyrant, pay the fine, apologize – and walk away to fight another day (in battles that count).

Jason Sorens

Dr. Jason Sorens is neither a powerful speaker nor a powerful, charismatic presence. He is one of the nicest, most decent, good-hearted guys I've ever come across. Sincere, reserved, friendly and intelligent. Just your average, regular good-guy, not a leader, hero, or guru. Well, I like him, anyway. Hard not to.

He spoke, not modestly but realistically, of the Free State Project as "this little idea" – which it is. Simple and obvious, but for the present context a little idea that is functional, act-on-able, practical.

Sorens stressed that Free-Staters (or Porcupines) hold many different personal values, but hold-fast to the core value of freedom. "Without freedom, all our other values are meaningless," he noted.

He commented on the need for a gradualist approach, with the importance of intermediate stages in the process of moving toward greater freedom. And the importance of not neglecting these stages, nor of assuming that momentum is going to carry us to success. He noted, based upon his doctoral research on secession movements, that it generally takes about 20 years for a grassroots movement to come to fruition. This observation underscores both Mr. Suprynowicz' advice: Don't compromise; "bury nuts"; survive (the present system), and Mrs. Johnson's advice: stay out of jail; don't bait the system; choose your battles and retain your options.

Dr. Sorens also reinforced Mr. Johnson's commentary that things would not be easy or "better" in the short term, referring to freedom fighters generally as "glass-eaters" – willing to eat glass for freedom; that the quality of life is not so important.

Dr. Sorens noted that we need to reinforce our pre-existing freedoms, and to emphasize the principles of freedom. He believes that the U.S. Constitution is "resilient" and is "compatible" with a libertarian community.

The Free State Project, at first glance, is a simple little idea with limited potential. What empowers it is the sensibility of the people guiding it and participating in it. One would not necessarily get this impression from the Free State website, nor, less, from the website's forum (not to discount the value and importance of that forum in any way).

The conference in Missoula was a demonstration of the caliber of people involved – in the "bringing together" of many pigeon-holed, niched categories of liberty-minded thinkers and activists in a sober, focused, commitment to "do something" – and, I think, to "do it now." The power of the "little idea" lies in its appeal to diverse interests, beliefs and values, and in its ability to focus on our single commonality (liberty) in a practical application.

Liberty, today, thanks to a "little idea" and a bright, capable lad, has a purchase on becoming a reality. If the focus can be maintained, perhaps we will achieve political liberty for the first time ever on this planet. If not, perhaps we will muddle along, as the United States has done for two hundred years, with a mixed-system of some sort.

My instincts, however (and various ancient prophesies), suggest that we are presently living in Armageddon – and there will be 1000 years peace following that. There is no other socio-political road that will or can lead to long-term peace and prosperity (in human measure) other than the establishment of a base of political liberty.

I believe we are on the road to that future right now – out of Armageddon – and that the Free State Project is paving the way.

Thanks Jason.

More media articles about the FSP

Original article:	www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=3276
Date:	05/29/03
Title:	Invasion of the Libertarians?
Author:	Mike Keefe-Feldman
Publication:	Missoula Independent

[Cover]

Invasion of the Libertarians?

By Mike Keefe-Feldman • 05/29/03

Photos by Chad Harder

Jason Sorens, the founder of the Free State Project, is confident that his group will reach 5,000 members in four months. At that time, they will vote on which state to "settle."

Getting to the heart— and possibly the Montana home— of the Free State Project

The busy traffic of Brooks Street in Missoula buzzes past the Best Inn, unsuspecting. Inside, an invasion is being plotted. The hotel's conference room hosts a group of approximately 151 people. They mull about, filling paper cups with coffee, looking for their nametags, checking the conference schedule. On another day, the hotel hallways might be filled with accountants or computer technicians. But on Memorial Day weekend, the hallways are lined with rebel Libertarians. Some greet each other with big handshakes. Others check out the merchandise tables, considering whether or not to buy a book by an author named "Boston T. Party," an imitation Wyoming Sheriff's badge, or altered dollar bills featuring George W. Bush's profile underneath the words "The United States of Aggression." There's a unique feeling to this conference—an intriguing mixture of idealism, anger and desperation. Unlike most conference center gatherings, the common bond linking these attendees is not their profession. Rather, this is a conference for people who are tired of the government telling them what they must and must not do. What's more, this is a conference of people who intend to do something about it.

The group spans a broad array of individuals: A gun rights leader, an anarchist, a homeschooling advocate, parents with children, a man who has skipped paying taxes for five years and turned his skin blue by overdosing on colloidal silver in preparation for Y2K, the black editor of SierraTimes.com who jokes about being accused of advocating white supremacy, a man with a swastika tattooed on his forearm, a devout Jewish couple, a closeted Wisconsin environmentalist in league with Earth First!, an angry Californian who is ready to start shooting environmentalists, secessionists from the U.S. and Alberta, a staunch constitutionalist, a man who thinks the Bill of Rights should be truncated to its first five words ("Congress shall make no law"), a guy who came to "meet chicks," two Montana Republican legislators and somewhere, doubtless, a partridge in a pear tree. They have come together for what was billed as the Grand Western Conference, and the common link among the lot is that they are all eager to discuss the most ambitious and possibly politically savvy move that Libertarian-minded citizens have ever come up with. It's called the Free State Project. Acknowledging that Libertarians don't have enough numbers nationwide to create much impact on the national political scene, these staunch lovers of individual rights have gone back to the drawing board and come up with a new plan of political attack. The project's goal is to gather 20,000 people from across the U.S. who are willing to move to one state where they can then infiltrate local and state governments in order to make the state "more free," which, to Libertarians, means much less government. The idea is a revolution of the ballot rather than the bullet, though to be sure, most have plenty of bullets stashed away, too. So far, the Free State Project has just over 3,700 members, and once they reach 5,000, which organizers expect to do in about four months' time, members will vote on which state should be selected for the project—Montana being one of four prominent frontrunners. Yet, as Libertarians hold the individual on high, different members have different ideas on which state should be their destination, what "more free" means in implementation, how the free state would work and just how far it would go.

Man with the plan
Jason Sorens missed his Yale graduation ceremony to speak at the Grand Western Conference. He has just earned his Ph.D. in political science, but rather than walk across the stage and pick up his diploma, he is wasting no time in putting that degree to use. This wispy twenty-six-year-old with thin, straight black hair founded the Free State Project with an essay he wrote in July of 2001 that was published in the online journal The Libertarian Enterprise. Within two weeks, Sorens received 200 e-mails from people who were interested in his idea of forming a "free state." Two months later, he began signing people up.

"The idea is to work for a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty and property," Sorens says. "That basically means that we think government should be in the business of protecting individuals, but should not be in the business of providing for them or punishing them for their vices…We basically think government should just be there to prevent people from doing bad things to each other."

This philosophy is what has attracted so many Libertarians, commonly known as porcupines—the official symbol of America's third largest political party—to sign on to the project.

The idea for the Free State Project came to Sorens after he read a column by Walter Williams, the syndicated conservative columnist who has been known to fill in for Rush Limbaugh on the radio. In the column, Williams suggested that Texas and Louisiana should band together and secede from the union.

Sorens says that the Free State Project has officially disclaimed secessionism. On the other hand, he says, "As Libertarians, we acknowledge a right to secession if people fairly and democratically decide that they want to form an independent country…but we're not advocating that."

One doesn't have to go all the way back to the Civil War to find a model for the kind of movement that Sorens and his Free Staters are advocating. In the early 1970s, the Movement to Open Vermont to Experimentation (MOVE) was founded by James Blumstein and James Phelan, who, like Sorens, had just graduated from Yale. Unlike Sorens, however, their politics were closer to the left side of the political spectrum than to the right. MOVE's goal was to transplant 225,000 counterculturalists to Vermont for a social experiment. They didn't reach that number, but by 1976, they had attracted 125,000 newcomers—enough to significantly sway Vermont's politics to the left, a shift that is still felt today, as evidenced by the state's recognition of gay marriages. The success of MOVE was in its ability to draw special interest groups such as feminists, Nader environmentalists and consumer advocates, and drugged-out Yippie followers of Abbie Hoffman and the Black Panthers, to name a few. Once Vermont was "settled," however, there was much infighting between the special interests (the Weatherman irked moderate liberals, for example, by blowing up a G.E. armament systems department). If Sorens is to accomplish his goals with the Free State Project, he will have to deal with the same issues that these earlier social experimenters found.

The Montana candidate
The Grand Western Conference was held in Missoula due largely to the work of Montana Libertarian Party Chairman Mike Fellows. Once Fellows sent out the signal, Free Staters from all over (but particularly from Montana, Wyoming and Idaho) hopped on board. Fellows is not your typical party leader. He drives a scrappy old VW bus and avoids wearing a tie as much as possible. His speech is not smooth, but often mumbled. He also indulges a level of direct eye contact that can be discomfiting. Still, he delivers a strong pitch that Montana become the home of the Free State Project.

"Everybody points out that we're kind of more liberal on social issues," Fellows says, pointing to the state's open container laws, as well as loose restrictions on gun ownership and registration and the state Supreme Court's dismissal of sexual deviant laws.

"I think we're in the top four with Wyoming, Idaho and New Hampshire, so we've got a good chance," he says.

The ten states in the running—Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware and Vermont—were chosen based on their small populations as well as their politics and culture. While Sorens won't say which state he's pulling for, he admits that Montana has a lot of positive draws.

"One good aspect of Montana is that it has a lot of land available, and a lot of our members are interested in that," says Sorens. "Wyoming has less land than Montana, so Montana has an advantage in that respect. Montana's also got a smaller government than a lot of states. Its taxes aren't too bad. It has no sales tax, and that's an advantage."

Sorens also agrees with Fellows' assessment that the state is more lenient when it comes to personal freedoms.

"Montana also has a reputation for being a little bit independent and willing to go against the grain, so a lot of people who are interested in decentralizing policies from the federal government to the state government are supportive of Montana for that kind of approach…It may be a more tolerant state than any of the other Rocky Mountain western states," says Sorens.

Quincy OrHai, a Free State Project member from Bozeman, is more direct.

"I think Montana is going to be it," OrHai says. "I think once people understand the level of freedom that Montana has, and the willingness of Montanans to accept newcomers, it's a shoo-in."

Out of all the states considered by the Free State Project, Montana has the highest per capita number of signees with approximately 50, according to Sorens. But not everyone is as enthusiastic as OrHai about a Montana home for the Free State Project. Chuck Butler, Gov. Judy Martz' director of communications, has suggested that Sorens and his Free Staters might do better to go to Idaho. A spokesman for Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne recommended in turn that the Free State Project would be better off in Montana.

The "not in my backyard" reaction doesn't surprise Sorens, who believes his group is more popular with political underdogs.

"Politicians who are in power may worry about losing their jobs, whereas politicians who are out of power may see us as a potential interest group that could be used."

Fellows argues that the Martz administration's cold shoulder is based on a lack of understanding of the Free State Project's goals.

"I think they've got a misconception that if you have a Libertarian society, you're going to have everybody shooting up and there's gonna be prostitutes on the street and those kinds of things, and that's not really the case."

Of course, the only real way to see if the scenario Fellows describes would or would not be the case would be to let the experiment form and then analyze the results. Fellows believes that such an experiment will indeed materialize, though he won't speculate on the time frame.

"I think it will happen," he says. "It's just a matter of to what degree. It's hard to predict the future, but there are a lot of us who do believe that the Free State Project could actually work. If you get enough people in a locality to change things, it's just a matter of time."

Quincy OrHai (at right) attends the Grand Western Conference with his wife, Rae, and son, Avi. The Bozeman family has signed on to join the Free State Project, and OrHai believes the project will ultimately settle in Montana.

Have cause, will travel
The whole idea of the Free State Project is something of a catch-22. On one hand, Libertarians (and like-minded sympathizers) are coming together to talk about making personal compromises—including where they will choose to live—for the collective good. On the other hand, libertarian philosophy is founded on a bedrock of individualism. So who are these Montanans that are willing to pack up their bags and head yonder en masse for the sake of unencumbered personal choice?

One is Quincy OrHai, who takes a break from tuning up his camper to talk about the Free State Project, of which both he and his wife are members. OrHai owns a ranch and an entire valley just east of Bozeman, and is, in a sense, a modern day bounty hunter. His company, Western Justice LLC, purchases and processes judicial judgements. In layman's terms, when a "deadbeat" rents a house, trashes the place and skips town without paying, OrHai buys the court ruling against the deadbeat from the property owner for a small sum. Then he sets to tracking that deadbeat down. He does this with only two tools: a phone and the Internet. Because these are the only things OrHai needs to do business, he is a quintessentially perfect candidate for the Free State Project. He can move anywhere in the country and continue to do business.

"In the new economy, there are hundreds of new positions like what I have where people can work anywhere," he says.

OrHai is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association (NRA) and an observant Jew who wears his yarmulke at all times. Along with the NRA, OrHai counts himself a member of Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership (JFPO), a group that is currently working on a documentary detailing the registration of firearms that led to the eventual confiscation of weapons from Jews by the Nazis in post-WWI Germany. OrHai and JFPO contend that WWII could have been avoided if a handful of determined Jews had not allowed themselves to be disarmed.

It is along similar lines that OrHai sees guns as an important aspect of the Free State Project. At the conference, OrHai lunches with his wife and son and Sorens at the Golden Corral on Brooks and, between bites of salad, offers several reasons as to why Montana should and will be "the place."

Like OrHai, Robert Jacobs is able to conduct his business from anywhere, so long as he has a phone and a computer. Jacobs, a 58-year-old single man, works for D.A.J. Direct, a direct marketing firm. When you get junk mail, the list you've been put on may have come from D.A.J. Direct. Jacobs moved to Whitefish from California a year ago, grew his hair out and skiied frequently. When he learned about the Free State Project on the Internet, Jacobs didn't have to think twice.

"I was raised with the concepts of libertarianism, but never figured it would work on a national level. When I moved to Montana, I was joking with friends calling it the 'Free State of Montana,' and then all of a sudden here was the Free State Project, so I thought, 'Well, somebody else has got the same idea and is actually doing something, so let's see what happens,'" he says.

Jacobs sees the Free State Project as a moderate approach to the current level of government intrusion into people's lives.

"Whatever state is chosen, we're still going to be part of the United States. We just happen to be trying to establish a different style of government so that people have some choice to move to a place where there's a little less intervention and regulation, that's all. It's not like a big revolution."

But the Free State Project is like a big revolution to member Rich Angell, who envisions the project as the dawning of a second American Revolution.

"If you read the Declaration of Independence, the only thing that's different now is a few names and a few details. Instead of the king, it's the corporates in our government and the banking cartel, the Federal Reserve," says Angell. "You just change the names and you've got the same situation: taxation without representation."

Angell is a Missoula resident. Asked what he does for a living, he describes himself as a "free spirit" and a "jack-of-all-trades master of Zen" with an amiable chuckle. Over the years, he's had a number of jobs, from teaching English as a second language to marketing nutritional products to helping a friend run a hydrocolonics clinic to helping another friend run a yoga studio. Because he's bounced around so much, Angell doesn't think he'll have a problem living wherever the Free State Project might lead him.

"Back when I was in the Marines, the motto of the company I was in was 'Semper Gumby.' That means 'always flexible.'"

Angell is active in various causes. A registered Libertarian, he includes himself in the genital integrity movement, which is aimed at stopping the circumcision of infants, and the natural health movement, which advocates individuals taking their health care into their own hands.

When one signs up for the Free State Project, one is given the option to check off any of the ten finalist states that he or she is not willing to move to. Both OrHai and Jacobs have indicated that they have no intention of moving to, for example, New Hampshire. Angell also selected a few states he would be unwilling to move to.

"But you know what the truth is?" Angell asks. "I'll go anywhere. Because this is something that I believe in, and nobody said this was going to be easy."

Angell hopes that other members of the Free State Project will be as willing.

"If people balk at the idea because they don't want to leave their state, my argument would be, 'You know, it's not convenient for everybody, but it wasn't convenient for our founding fathers to flee religious/corporate persecution in Europe to establish a free state here. It wasn't convenient for them to sign their own death warrant, known as the Declaration of Independence.'"

One Free Stater who's not willing to move is Maria Folsom. Unlike the upwardly mobile work-from-anywhere contingent or the free spirit wanderer crew, she and her husband Roy represent another significant chunk of the Free State Project's membership: the retired. The Folsoms spend their retirement years in the majesty of East Glacier, and stipulated when signing on a year ago that they would only participate if the chosen state was Montana, Idaho or Wyoming.

"Truthfully, our lifestyle and personal lives are much more important to us than any movement," Folsom says.

At the conference, the Folsoms are full of smiles and affection, holding hands frequently. Maria's graying hair matches the color of Roy's beard. They feel comforted to be in a room full of liberty-minded individuals, and Maria mentions that she has never seen so many Libertarians in one place in her entire life. While she is strongly drawn to the Libertarian ideas intertwined in the Free State Project, she admits that the idea is not without its problems.

"Perhaps the biggest downside to the project would be lack of intellectual diversity. That is, if you have all Libertarians in one state, I think it would probably be a very boring place. My husband and I enjoy arguing or debating with friends in a friendly spirit and I guess, truthfully, if we were all Libertarians and surrounded by them, it would be a dull life."

Folsom has struck on the central balancing act necessary for the Free State Project's success—how to collaborate while maintaining the reign of the individual.

"To achieve our goal we need to get together," Folsom says, "but I don't want so much togetherness that we don't have that mental diversity."

Not your typical party leader: Mike Fellows, chairman of the Montana Libertarian Party, was the driving force behind the organization of the Grand Western Conference.

How do I look?
Montana legislators Joe Balyeat (R-Bozeman) and Jerry O'Neill (R-Columbia Falls) hope the Free State Project will move to Montana, as it is in line with their libertarian principles. Both representatives emphasize the importance of shaping public perception of the project.

"The one problem in Montana is we have a liberal media that will probably go out of its way to focus on the most extreme members of your group," says Balyeat. "They will probably even paint you in an extreme light with stereotypes."

J.J. Johnson, the editor of SierraTimes.com, a politically-contentious Web site that rants on subjects such as police corruption and the war in Iraq, agrees on the importance of image.

"The biggest challenge will be how things are viewed," Johnson says.

In this vein, Rep. O'Neill urges the members of the Free State Project to portray themselves in the light most favorable to the audience at hand.

"When I go to the veterans' home," says O'Neill, "I don't say I'm here to take away your medical aid. I say I'm here to protect your gun rights."

O'Neill's comment draws a big laugh from the audience. Syndicated columnist, author and speaker Vin Suprynowicz tells the conference that even the particular words they choose to use will be of the utmost importance. For instance, says Suprynowicz, they should talk not about shutting down public schools, but closing "monopoly government youth propaganda camps."

If the project is successful in attracting 20,000 members, public perception will become an even more important issue with the chosen state's natives. Bozeman's Quincy OrHai says that it is important that the newcomers don't come off as invading know-it-alls.

"It would be a mistake for people to move here with the Free State Project and immediately begin to try to change things. That's the one good way to alienate everybody. The first thing you do is you settle in and you find out what the locals do. And then, after you find out what they do, you find out why they do it. And that usually takes at least five years. And then after that, you begin to think that you could be of help changing this or that."

Sorens takes OrHai's idea a step further, saying that there's no reason Free Staters have to announce to their native neighbors that they are indeed Free Staters.

"We're just people moving in," says Sorens. "They don't have to know why."

The best way to create a positive image may be to find local allies, a process that's already begun in Montana. Gary Marbut, the president and founder of the highly-effective Montana Shooting Sports Association (MSSA), is not a member of the Free State Project, but Marbut spoke on the Montana panel during the Grand Western Conference and could clearly be a local aid to incoming porcupines.

Another ally for Free Staters in Montana may be found in activists such as John Masterson, who leads the Missoula-based chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), and says that he works with anyone who will work with him.

Yet, no matter how the Free Staters craft their image, opponents will portray them in a different light. One such opponent is Brad Martin, executive director of the Montana Democratic Party. Martin says that the reason Montana is in its current fiscal troubles in the first place is an overabundance of Libertarian philosophy.

"The Libertarian wing of the Montana Republican Party has been in the lead for years. They want to cut provisions that protect workers' wages, fair pay. They're the wing that wants to cut programs like Meals on Wheels. They're that group of Republicans that doesn't believe in government providing support for our neediest citizens, while at the same time advocating tax breaks that will mostly benefit the wealthy."

Martin says that when Libertarians use the term "small government," the words are "code" for a lack of responsibility to help citizens who cannot survive without government aid in their lives.

If it faces in-state opposition from either the media or politicians in power, the project may encounter an even larger battle looming on the horizon with the federal government. In the midst of the Patriot Act and other federal restrictions on civil liberties, Free Staters are mindful that the feds didn't just sit back and nod while the Branch Dividians went their own way in Waco.

Approximately 151 libertarian-minded individuals gather inside the Best Inn's conference center in Missoula to plan the rise of a state where government's only job would be to protect people and property.

Freedom's pricetag
There is no way to know exactly how the free state would work, or if it would work at all. That's what makes it so exciting to members and curious non-members alike: it's an experiment, so by definition the results are uncertain. Yet it remains clear that freedoms come at a price. This is classic Libertarian dogma. If you want freedom, you'd best accept the responsibility that comes with it. As the conference draws to a close, the man who started it all steps to the podium. Jason Sorens talks to his fellow Free Staters about responsibility, tells them that things will not be easy, that the status quo is comfortable to most people. He also says that his group will never be able to reach the kind of widespread consensus that Republicans or Democrats manage. To Sorens, this is both the strength and the weakness of the Free State Project. The majority of the interested faces before him belong to white males, but when it comes to exactly how the project should function, they're a diverse bunch. Still, Sorens points to some common links among all the conference attendees.

"We're all just American citizens living the American dream, doing what Americans have always done, from the Pilgrims to the Mormons."

In the end, it is the American dream that is ultimately the goal of the Free State Project: the idea that individuals should be free to fly an F-15 fighter over Montana, shooting at clouds while snorting coke and shagging a prostitute and no one can tell you "no." Or the dream could be raising and teaching one's kids alone in the countryside on a diet of Whitman and the Bible without worrying about child services knocking on the door to see what's going on. It could mean a hundred different things to a hundred different people, and that's the whole point.

But the freedom to pursue the American dream has always required money. Fortunately for them, most of the conference attendees have it, which is another common bond linking them. The conference has drawn those who own entire valleys of land, but not those who accept food stamps to feed their kids. It has drawn able-bodied travelers, but not the handicapped person in the wheelchair who counts on government to tell businesses that they must make their entrances accessible. And as diverse as the crowd is, the working poor are noticeably absent.

Well, almost absent.

After a day of discussion, several porcupines walk to a fast-food restaurant abutting Brooks Street. If any of them had struck up a conversation with the women and men behind the counter before ordering their burgers, they might have found Missoulians working two jobs for a total of seventy hours a week just to stay broke and not fall into the red. These are the people who benefit most from government aid, and who would suffer most from its withdrawal. But they can't make it to the Grand Western Conference to argue their side of the story. They're working weekends.

# # # #

More media articles about the FSP

Original article:	www.sierratimes.com/03/05/27/ar_fsp_2.htm
Date:	05/27/03
Title:	The Grand Western Conference Report
Author:	Ben F. Irvin
Publication:	Sierra Times

The Grand Western Conference Report

By Ben F. Irvin • 05/27/03

The most significant libertarian event of the year has just concluded in Missoula, Montana (May 24 and 25). Almost two hundred freedom seekers from around the nation and Alberta attended.

Fantastic presentations were given by the main presenters: J.J. Johnson, Nancy Johnson, Senator Jerry O'Neil, Jason Sorens, Vin Suprynowicz, and Claire Wolfe. All the presenters, save Jason (being neutral) agreed that liberty has the best chance surviving and expanding in the West. A couple of the main speakers indicated that freedom as sought by the FSP can only be procured in the West. A consistent point emphasized by the speakers was the idea that liberty needs elbow room to expand, and that the tiny Seaboarder states lack both the space and motivation for freedom to flourish. Jason seemed impressed by the attendance and enthusiasm of the gathered.

The Missoulian (Montana's second largest newspaper) and the Missoula Independent covered the event. The Montana Television Network and KPVI television from Pocatello, Idaho videoed parts of the event (video tapes were made of all activities by the MTLP).

State panel discussions were given by Idaho, Montana, South Dakota and Wyoming. In the final session on Sunday, the four Western state panels answered questions by participants. To demonstrate Instant Runoff Voting (another type of ranked choice voting called "Condorset's Method" will be used to select the free state), all porcupines (that's what FSP folks call themselves) were asked to gather around the table of the state they desire to be the free state. In the first round, South Dakota was eliminated and its supporters were asked to select their second choice. In the second round, Wyoming ended up with the short stick. A third round was not done as even if all of Wyoming's supporters moved to the Idaho table, Montana still had a majority. Indeed, Montana almost had a majority in the first round. It was observed that all of the presenters, save one (who was in the lobby in deep discussion) voted for Montana.

It was difficult to get many of the GWC participants motel/hotel rooms; however, most finally got accommodations. Nearly a dozen porcupines camped out. Most camped on Gary Marbut's ranch just a few miles north of Missoula. Gary was nice enough to provide free lodging for Jason. Both Gary and I supplied transportation for Jason.

A surprise at the GWC (Montana's winning was expected) was the six or seven Albertans that drove down to attend. Jim Turnbull explained in informal gatherings the Alberta plan for independence and liberty. It seemed to most that the Albertan political philosophy was compatible with that of most porcupines. Towards the end of the GWC three young Albertans told the Montana table that they intended to move to Montana regardless of which state becomes the free state and whether or not Alberta gains independence.

It took the work and effort of many people to make the GWC the libertarian event of the year. Special appreciation should be given to Mike Fellows (MTLP Chair), Gary Marbut, Andy Lochridge, and Mykl Meagher. Numerous others, too many to list, contributed heavily to the success of the Grand Western Conference.

I should also mention that my youngest son and I did manage to get Jason away from Missoula just long enough to see the National Bison Range and a panoramic view of the Mission Mountains and Flathead Valley.

More media articles about the FSP

Original article:	www.greatfallstribune.com/news/stories/ 20030429/opinion/204364.html
Date:	04/29/03
Title:	Libertarians should go (farther) west
Author:	Editorial
Publication:	Great Falls Tribune

Libertarians should go (farther) west

Editorial • 04/29/03

Montana's been on some pretty exclusive lists in the past few years -- states with the lowest paid workers, the least restrictions on drinking and driving, the lowest taxes on gambling, tobacco and booze, and among the fewest people.

Now we've made another exclusive club: the list of "candidate states" that might make good targets for takeover by libertarians.

The so-called "Free State Project" propounded by a Yale student has come up with 10 such states, places with populations below 1.5 million and residents that might be friendly to the idea of a "libertarian utopia."

Libertarians come in many flavors, but the general idea is the more individual freedom and less government, the better. God for many libertarians is the free market.

The Free State movement claims 3,100 adherents so far, and they say that when they reach 5,000, they'll choose their state and start moving there -- all of them within five years.

The idea of 26-year-old political science doctoral student Jason Sorens is that 20,000 activists would constitute critical mass to sway the politics of a state with fewer than 1.5 million residents.

"We're not going to be a large enough group to take over," Sorens said.

Other candidate states are Idaho, Alaska, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware and Vermont.

Free Staters say they'll work to have their chosen state get rid of all regulation of drugs, gambling, prostitution, guns, drinking and other individual activities.

One of them, an Idaho anthropologist named Ben Irvin, said the group likes the libertarian streak already evident in Montana, where "they have casinos and no one ... can remember the last time a prostitute was arrested."

But even libertarians have their limits. Irvin said the state's small economy wouldn't offer much in the way of employment for 20,000 outsiders.

We agree with Chuck Butler, Gov. Judy Martz's spokesman, who noted that while Montana welcomes newcomers, "Idaho is more inviting."

More media articles about the FSP

Original article:	www.washtimes.com/national/20030425-25239572.htm
Date:	04/25/03
Title:	Libertarians plot takeover
Author:	Associated Press
Publication:	The Washington Times

Libertarians plot takeover

By Associated Press • 04/25/03

COEUR D'ALENE (AP) – Limited-government advocates have their eyes on Idaho. Or Montana. Or New Hampshire.

All are among 10 lightly populated states known for small-government politics that could end up being a Libertarian utopia.

A movement called the Free State Project has registered some 3,100 people who would help choose a "candidate" state and move there in hopes of canceling laws against drugs, prostitution, guns and other individual liberties, while privatizing current state functions such as schools.

"Rather than change the whole nation, it makes sense for all of us to gather in one place," said Elizabeth McKinstry, 33, of Hillsdale, Mich., the project's vice president.

The project identifies 10 candidate states – Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Maine, Delaware and Vermont. All have populations below 1.5 million.

The project is the idea of Jason Sorens, 26, a doctoral candidate in political science at Yale University. After the 2000 elections, he said, he felt Libertarians needed a new way to promote their cause.

When the number of registered Free State supporters reaches 5,000, likely by the end of the year, they will vote on which state to target. Then supporters will have five years to move, with a goal of 20,000 Free Staters living there.

Mr. Sorens said he believes 20,000 committed activists in a state of fewer than 1.5 million is enough to sway the minds of residents. That is necessary, he said, because "we're not going to be a large enough group to take over."

Miss McKinstry said the group was "mostly antiregulation."

Which state is a favorite? Project officials say a major downside for Idaho is its Mormon population, which isn't likely to support legalizing prostitution and drugs or drop taxes on booze and tobacco.

Montana? A small economy.

Wyoming? Maybe too rugged.

Ben Irvin of Pocatello, Idaho, who calls himself the project's lead promoter for the Western states, also figures North Dakota won't win because "no one wants to go out there."

Mark Snider, spokesman for Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, a Republican, said he was sorry to learn that Idaho was on the list. He warned the Free Staters not to confuse Idahoans' love for small government with a desire for nearly no government.

"The majority of Idahoans want safe streets, and not to be under the threat of drunk drivers, drug addicts or criminals," Mr. Snider said.

Chuck Butler, a spokesman for Montana Gov. Judy Martz, a Republican, said Montana is a huge state that welcomes newcomers. But he encouraged the Free Staters to take a closer look at Idaho.

"Idaho is more inviting," Mr. Butler said.

More media articles about the FSP

Original article:	billingsgazette.com/index.php?tl=1&display=rednews/ 2002/10/14/build/local/free-state-movement.inc
Date:	10/14/02
Title:	Montana a candidate for separatist takeover
Author:	Associated Press
Publication:	Billings Gazette

Montana a candidate for separatist takeover

By Associated Press • 10/14/02

Montana is one of 10 candidates in a developing plan to take over a state by the ballot box and wean it from federal control.

The Free State Project hopes to enlist 20,000 "liberty-oriented individuals" to move to a state and reform its laws, tax structure and political culture.

The government's only role should be to defend citizens from force and fraud, says project founder Jason Sorens, 25, a graduate student at Yale University.

All 10 states identified as candidates by the project have populations of less than 1.5 million: New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Delaware, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, North and South Dakota and Wyoming.

Four are considered most promising: New Hampshire, Wyoming, Delaware and Alaska.

Two small states, Hawaii and Rhode Island, were cut because they have exhibited "big-government tendencies."

If the takeover succeeds, drug and gun laws would be repealed, and asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain would end, according to the project's Web site. Utilities would be privatized, and inefficient regulations and monopolies would be eliminated.

The plan includes opting out of federal mandates and ultimately negotiating with the federal government for appropriate political autonomy. The threat of secession would be used, if needed, as leverage.

"We think government is too large, too distant, and we also think that we need to get back a bit more to our constitutional principles and start to take the Constitution seriously," Sorens said recently from his home in North Carolina.

The project's Web site has detailed reports on each of the 10 states. The report on Montana says "experienced or real freedom is higher in Montana than any other state ... If freedom is the primary objective of the Free State Project, then Montana is the best place to locate. It is the place Thomas Jefferson would live in if he were alive."

A poll on the Web site, asking visitors which state they would like the project to move to, has Montana and Wyoming tied for second with 13 percent of the vote.

The group wants to have 5,000 members by fall 2004, when it plans to chose a target state. It wants 20,000 members by fall 2006.

Sorens said changes in the targeted state would not be immediate or sweeping.

"We're looking at states that are already pro-freedom and pro-small government," he said. "Of course we will be interested in making some changes; however, these aren't going to be drastic changes, and we're going to start very humbly.

"We're not going to come in like gangbusters, obviously."

More media articles about the FSP

Main Menu

Montana

MT: Free State Project Report

MT: Free State Project Report

Montana loses one. Good

Montana loses one. Good

FSP will likely fizzle

Free State Project will likely fizzle

No hanging chad, yet

Those factors?

Glacier or Tetons?

Media Article

Free State Project vote set for August

Montana Libertarians host

Montana Libertarians host Free State Project conference in Missoula

Invasion of the Libertarians?

Invasion of the Libertarians?

The Grand Western Conference Report

The Grand Western Conference Report

Libertarians should go (farther) west

Libertarians should go (farther) west

Libertarians plot takeover

Libertarians plot takeover

Montana a candidate for separatist takeover

Montana a candidate for separatist takeover