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).
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
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).
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
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).
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
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).
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
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).
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
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).
[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
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).
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
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).
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
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).
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
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).
Participants
in New Hampshire
Facebook
YouTube
Twitter
LinkedIn