Freedom, ho!

Original article:	www.lasvegasmercury.com/2003/ MERC-Sep-11-Thu-2003/22112884.html
Date:	09/11/03
Title:	Freedom, ho!
Author:	Larry Wills
Publication:	Las Vegas Mercury

---

Freedom, ho!

Libertarians prepare to haul ass for a guv'ment-free clime

by Larry Wills • 09/11/03

Debra Ricketts, national treasurer of the Free State Project, and her husband, Torry, are Las Vegans who don't plan to stay. Photo by CHRISTINE WETZEL

Like the Mormons of the 19th century pushing their carts along the Platte River, as many as 100 disgruntled Nevadans soon may be driving their U-Hauls out of town, singing "I'll Fly Away."

They are among 5,000 Libertarians nationwide who are searching for the state with the most freedom and the least government. Just where that'll be--New Hampshire, Montana, Wyoming and Alaska are in the running--depends on the outcome of the members' vote Oct. 1

"It's quite thrilling to be part of this," says Debra Ricketts, national treasurer of the Free State Project. "This is unusual."

She and her husband, Torry, are methodically making preparations to move from Las Vegas. "There definitely are some economic considerations," she says. "We are even asking people to pay off their debts and get their financial houses in order. There's a lot of talk about career changes."

Debra and Torry aren't going to rush their move. They'll wait until their teenage children graduate from high school. "We're looking at a seven-year time frame." Others could move as early as this year.

She says the number of Nevadans joining the Free State Project was boosted by the record tax increases approved this past legislative session. "We have more and more conservatives who can't justify supporting this," she says. "We see a lot of those people coming in."

The top-ranked states have small populations with lots of unofficial Libertarians, she says, and with the influx of immigrants, the anti-government sentiment will only get stronger. "Population is an important factor," says Ricketts. "Most states considered already have an atmosphere of live and let live. Montana is wonderful."

But Nevada, the supposed cradle of rugged individualism, is not. The population is too large and the Libertarian Party is in shambles, which is also spurring the exodus.

Party candidates do miserably in Nevada elections. With 5,000 members statewide, fewer than 2 percent of voters choose Libertarian candidates. Even in Nye County, a hotbed of free-thinkers, the Libertarian turnout was 2.15 percent in the last election. Brendan Trainor, the party candidate for the 2nd Congressional District, drew 1.68 percent of the vote in his race against Republican Jim Gibbons.

In Elko, another supposed hotbed, the Libertarian Party has ceased to exist. "The party disbanded up here due to poor leadership," resident Lana Noland says. "But individually, people have signed up for the Free State Project."

The poor performance of the national party forced Elizabeth McKinstry, vice president of the Free State Project in Detroit, to call the exodus an indictment. "We believe the Libertarian Party has done a lousy job of educating the public," she says. "We're trying to get the message out that liberty isn't scary. It's good for everyone."

James Dan, unsuccessful Nevada Assembly candidate in the last two elections, has given up on the party and understands the desire to move elsewhere. "After 12 years, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that it's a lost cause," Dan says. "They don't have the competence needed to run a political organization. The party attracts people who are anarchists at heart. They cannot follow orders or work as a team." For example, backing the legalization of drugs attracts users, who, Dan says, are not reliable party workers. "We need to believe in the principles the Libertarian Party espouses," he says. "It's sad. The party has a lot of good ideas." Dan's now looking at the Free State Project. "My wife and I sent in the paperwork," he says.

But the great Libertarian march hasn't deterred Joe Silvestri, Clark County Libertarian Party chairman, from trying to rebuild the organization. He concedes that things were a mess when he first joined the party. "Two and a half years ago, there was a lot of infighting," says Silvestri. "Now we're slowly working at rebuilding the party membership."

And he believes many Nevadans will vote for the party once the word gets out. "There are a lot of people who are philosophically Libertarian but are not prepared to join the party," he says. "Most Nevadans have a Libertarian streak even when they don't know what it is."

As for Republican and Democratic politics: "It's an elitism: I should have the power to mother you," he says. "Folks have given up on big parties--socialism and socialism light."

Silvestri's epiphany came five years ago, far from Nevada. The Long Island, N.Y., native read the book Why Government Doesn't Work, by Harry Browne, which details the rise of regulation and the decline of freedoms over the past century.

"Everybody has a right to live as they wish," Silvestri insists. He advocates dismantling regulating agencies, privatizing public lands and ending overseas provocations. He wants business to be left alone to compete. He also believes entitlement programs, such as Medicare, should be gradually phased out. Other regulations irritate him, such as the motorcycle helmet law. "I'm a firm believer in wearing a helmet, but I'm against being told to wear one," Silvestri says.

Silvestri, a Clark County schoolteacher, is particularly hard on public education. "Our school system is an utter disaster," he says. "We have illiterate graduates." He believes administrators stifle education. "In public schools there is a loss of innovation and creativity. Teachers teach in fear. I would be content with gradually backing the government off education, keeping elementary schools, but no longer secondary and college education. Let's do it for a generation. They [children] should go to charity schools, church schools and apprentice schools. End compulsory education. If they don't have schools, tell them to get jobs."

Michael Bowers, a UNLV political science professor, believes inflexible thinking may be the Libertarians' undoing. "The true believers are unwilling to compromise," Bowers says. "If you're Democrat or Republican, you have to compromise. Those are big tents. They are willing to compromise to win elections, not just win points."

Bowers also sees big parties stealing third party thunder. "Major parties tend to absorb third party issues," he says. "One reason they haven't done too well is that much of their platform has been taken by major parties."

But the nature of the Libertarian mentality doesn't bode well for the party's future success. "We are the liberty people," Silvestri says. "Getting Libertarians together is like trying to herd cats."

But don't tell that to U-Haul drivers in search of a freer land. You can almost hear the screaming kids dragging their toys while Mom and Dad pile furniture on the truck. Then a hundred engines kick over and it's off to Blue Dome, Idaho, Ten Sleep, Wyo., or Two Dot, Mont.

"It's something whose time has come," Ricketts says.

---

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).

Local Groups

Local Groups

• To find your Local Group, click on your location in the map below!
• Want to learn how help your Local Group become better?

State Report NV 1: Nevada Report

Nevada Report

by Anita L. Joule

Nevada can be a fun place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. It offers ample opportunities to indulge in guns, gambling, and girls. One would think that a state with legalized gambling and prostitution would be extremely liberty oriented. This however is not the case in many areas that FSP members would be interested in.

Homeschooling Regulations

One area of concern is the hostile homeschooling regulations. For a child to be legally exempted from compulsory attendance in a government (public) school, the parent may seek a waiver of attendance by submitting a "Notification of Intent to Provide Home Instruction" form. This form must be accompanied by "evidence to the local school district that their child will be receiving appropriate instruction at home." The following criteria are considered evidence of qualification for providing "appropriate instruction."

1. A teacher, other than the parent, who possesses a NV teaching license OR;
2. The parent, when a parent qualifies for a teaching license for the grade level to be taught OR;
3. The parent, in consultation with a person who possesses a teaching license or who has provided instruction in the home for the grade level to be taught for at least three years OR;
4. The parent, when the child is enrolled in an approved (licensed by the state board) correspondence program.

Drug Laws

Another area of concern for many is the fairly strict marijuana regulations. It has been said that you can get falling down drunk, frequent the whore houses, and lose all you money in the casinos, but let them find a single marijuana seed in your ashtray and its off to jail you go.

Fortunately there has been some progress in this area. According to NORML, the decriminalization of marijuana in Nevada has begun. "The state has decriminalized marijuana to some degree. Typically, decriminalization means no prison time or criminal record for first-time possession of a small amount for personal consumption. The conduct is treated like a minor traffic violation." There has also been progress in medical marijuana legislation in Nevada. For Nevadans, "the law removes state-level criminal penalties on the use, possession and cultivation of marijuana by patients who have 'written documentation' from their physician that marijuana may alleviate his or her condition."

Even so, the fines for misdemeanor marijuana violation are fairly high and subsequent violations result in increasingly harsh fines and eventual incarceration. This however, applies only to adults, age 21 and older. Those who are under 21 years and possess less than 1 oz on their first or second offense, will be found guilty of a felony, punishable by one to four years of incarceration. Additionally, anyone found in possession of paraphernalia is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine and 6 months in jail and paraphernalia sale is a felony punishable by a fine of $5,000 and 1-4 years in jail.

Demographics

Nevada State Demographer estimates the state population at 2,066,831 indicating that Nevada's population has passed the limit originally set for our target states. Nevada's population growth over the past decade makes it the fastest growing state in the nation. Population increase estimates for 2010 would place the total statewide population at approximately 2,710,000 far exceeding our population limits for the project.

This leads to another obvious concern, employment in Nevada. As reported by the U.S. Department of Labor, Nevada ranks 33rd among the states with a jobless rate of 5.5 percent. The 1.1 percent annual job growth pitted against the projected average population growth of 2.6%. An influx of 20,000 unexpected and unforeseen new residents flooding into the state could spell disaster for Nevada as well as the FSP.

Taxation

In 1981, Nevada switched from a property-tax based system, to one based on gaming and sales taxes. But those tax revenues are highly susceptible to economic downturns -- a problem some classify as a structural defect that will result in a $1.2 billion deficit in coming years.

The Nevada Task Force on Tax Policy, created by the Legislature when the 2001 session ended without any major proposals to address the state's economic shortfall that currently sits at $270 million, is readying a recommendation that is expected to propose:

• Creating a broad-based business tax.
• Increasing the current cap on how much property tax a local government can charge.
• Expanding what's covered under the sales tax.
• Increasing "sin taxes" such as those on cigarettes and alcohol.
• Increasing certain fees businesses pay and possibly ask voters to approve a lottery.

However, the Legislature and Gov. Guinn worry that increased taxes will ruin what makes Nevada attractive to so many newcomers.

Pro-business Nevada has a constitutional prohibition on income taxes. The state does not tax the income of its corporations or its state's citizens. A Nevada corporation is also not subject to any other hidden taxes such as franchise taxes, capital stock taxes, or inventory taxes. Sales tax applies only to products sold within the state.

Selected Taxes Common to Many of the 50 States But Not Nevada

Type of Tax	Number of States Using
Franchise	26
Corporate Income	46
Personal Income	44
Special Intangible	10
Capital Stock	2
Admissions	36
Excise	16

Because Nevada has no state income tax, and because Nevada does not keep much information on their own residents or their corporations, it has steadfastly refused IRS requests for reciprocity. Most other states freely exchange all of the information they have on every resident and corporation.

Incorporation

Nevada has developed a corporate structure that is unique. Nevada began with corporate statutes based on Delaware's and then went further, establishing a corporate structure that allows investors and owners of Nevada corporations to remain completely private. Since these changes in Nevada's statutes came into effect in 1991 the number of new incorporations in Nevada has exploded.

To ensure privacy, Nevada is the only state that allows its corporations to use bearer stock certificates. It is virtually impossible to prove the ownership of a Nevada corporation handled in this manner. Since the state does not require a corporation to list with it the corporation's vice-president(s), a vice-president utilizing bearer shares can have complete control and ownership while remaining anonymous.

Health Care

Currently Nevada is experiencing a medical crisis caused by the withdrawal of the largest medical malpractice carrier from the Nevada malpractice insurance market. The company, which had covered 60 percent of the state's doctors, cited large malpractice awards. Nevada's only top-level trauma center closed for 10 days earlier this month in Las Vegas after 58 orthopedic doctors temporarily quit. Legislators are considering a number of proposals.

Nuclear Waste

President Bush formally approved Nevada's Yucca Mountain as the nation's high-level nuclear waste dump on 7/24/02, ending a 20-year political fight and shifting the battle to the courts. "Our best chance in defeating Yucca Mountain is in the federal courts, where impartial judges will hear the factual and scientific arguments as to why Yucca Mountain is not a safe place to store this nation's high-level nuclear waste," said Nevada's Republican governor. Bush hopes the move will pave the way for more nuclear energy production. Government planners have set a 2010 opening date, but the General Accounting Office has said the target cannot be met.

Conclusion

All in all, I would not rank Nevada very high as a choice for the Free State Project. There are a number of huge problems that would need to be addressed and frankly given the large percent of federal land, the projected population increases, the unemployment rate, and the nuclear waste project, not to mention the lack of water, poor soil, and extreme heat I do not believe we should waste our time with further consideration of this state.

July 28, 2002

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Free State Project, its Officers, or Directors.

Speech to the Clark County LP

NOTE: The opinions and commentary expressed in this essay are those of the author and are an exercise of free speech. They do not necessarily represent the views of Free State Project Inc., its Directors, its Officers, or its Participants.

Speech to the Clark County Libertarian Party

Debra Ricketts • May 2003

Thanks for having me here. My name is Debra Ricketts, and I'm with the Free State Project

How many of you are familiar with us?

For those of you who are not, the Free State Project is an ambitious but practical plan to move 20,000 libertarian activists to a single state of the US. Once there, those activists will work together toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property.

Just looking at your faces, I can see objections. There are a lot of them, and they aren't unreasonable. I want to go into them, but first, I want to tell you a little bit about our Project's beginnings, its evolution, and its status.

The Free State Project is the brainchild of Jason Sorens, a Yale graduate student majoring in (not surprisingly) Political Science. He wrote an article for the Libertarian Enterprise in July of 2001, noting the lack of progress the Libertarian Party has made in politics on a national level. While there are a number of factors at play, it can be argued that it isn't working for a reason few of us like to admit: there just aren't that many people who really want to be free.

Although it is inimical to those of us in this room, most people, I'm sure you'll agree, like laws. They like regulations. They like order, and control, and telling other people what they can and can't do. As we've seen since 9-11, they like to be "safe", even at the cost of their own freedom.

One of our members, a Libertarian city council member in Leadville Colorado, astutely observed:

The majority [of the public] want government to provide for them and their pet programs. They want "publicly funded" employment security, health care, transportation systems, education, recreation, water supplies … sewer systems and garbage collection. The majority want laws against their neighbors doing anything with their property that might be "unsightly", "lower property values", or "be unsafe". They want building, planning and zoning codes. They want government to prove that people are qualified to be a driver, teacher, health care provider, day care provider, and a myriad of other professions. They want the government to inspect and certify their meat, vegetables, fruit, medications, water, buses, planes, and toys. Their all-to-frequent plaint is "there ought to be a law".

He's right, of course. Ask 10 random people what should be done about a particular cause or social problem – whether it's crack babies, kids on skateboards, or rude drivers with cell phones – and at least 9 will respond, "There ought to be a law". We may not like that, but it's the truth.

But what about those of us who do want to be free? Who look at a prostitute and shrug, "It's a living"? Who bitch about the mess in their neighbor's yard, but never consider calling the cops over it? Who, upon noticing a gun strapped to their coworker's hip, say, "Hey, is that the new Ruger semi-auto?"

Well, maybe there aren't enough of us to change the world, or even a country, but maybe...just maybe...there are enough to change a small state. And that's what Jason proposed in his article. Moving freedom-seekers to a single state where we can work to remove those immoral, unethical, aggression-based laws.

The idea hit home with a number of us, particularly those of us who just aren't willing (for whatever the reason) to shoot the bastards. Working within the system, to bring down the system, though, was something else. Jason received a number of emails from people who were interested – myself included, formed a group on Yahoo, and the Free State Project was born.

In the year and a half since its inception, the FSP has grown to over 3,500 members, 1,000 of those just in the last few months. We've run ads in the LP News, Reason magazine, and Liberty magazine. We've also advertised in the online venues of Sierra Times, Doing Freedom, The Libertarian Enterprise, and the late, great Free-market.Net [now back in business, as part of ISIL].

We've been mentioned in Newsweek, the Boston Globe, the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, Reno News & Review, and the Associated Press. We've been interviewed on dozens of talk-radio shows, and spoken at numerous conferences. And just last week our vice-president was interviewed on MSNBC.

We've been endorsed by celebrities like economist Walter Williams, authors Claire Wolfe and Boston T. Party, Sierra Times editor JJ Johnson and Las Vegas' own Vin Suprynowicz, who unexpectedly joined up during the New Hampshire Libertarian convention. The Maine, Delaware, Alaska, and New Hampshire Libertarian parties have endorsed us as well.

We've gotten interest. And we've gotten noticed.

Claire Wolfe once stated "Bright-eyed libertarians propose, 'Gosh, let's all move to a state and take over the government!' as often – and with as little thought – as actors babbled, 'Hey, let's put on a play!' in an old Mickey Rooney movie."

That's true. There's been the Fort Collins project, the Sealand project, the Limon Real Project, the Freedom Ship, and Oceania, among others. And, of course, let's not forget the granddaddy of all leave-me-alone attempts, the War Between the States. So how is the Free State Project any different?

From the beginning, our project has been based on pragmatism. First, we've chosen our candidate states based not on where we already live, or want to live, but on where we think we can actually pull this off. For example, a bloc of 20,000 people isn't a drop in the bucket in California. But it's 5% of the entire population of Wyoming. So we've limited our candidates to just ten states, none of which have a population over 1.5 million. The states, if you're interested, are New Hampshire, Delaware, Maine, Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska.

Not that population is the only criteria. If you visit our website, www.freestateproject.org, you'll find comparison tables on everything under the sun: schooling laws, midwifery laws, voting patterns, tax rates, federal control of land, population density, crime rates, median income, even the percent of residents born in-state. You get the idea – we're trying to take into account every possible factor that might be relevant to our goal. We think that armed with these data, our membership will be able to select the very best possible state for our project.

We're also looking at the native culture of the candidate states. Even if we had 50,000 activists, it's unrealistic to expect that we could effect change in, say, Massachusetts. Why? The local culture would not be amenable to our proposed changes. So our candidate states are those with a history of independence and support for individual freedoms. Delaware and Wyoming, for example, have some of the loosest incorporation laws in the country. Vermont doesn't require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Alaska and Idaho don't require notification if you choose to homeschool your child, and so on. This is one of the reasons that the terms "take over the government" or "invade the state" are somewhat misleading. We want to work with the locals to implement a freer society, not work against them. If we don't have the support of the local populace, we won't succeed.

Next, we don't ask for money. Like any other movement, the freedom movement has been the target of scam artists who propose wonderful, magical plans, demand investment money, and then disappear, never to be heard from again. That's not the Free State Project. Oh, don't get me wrong. Donations are *always* appreciated. But there are no dues or other monetary investments required in order to join; in fact, that's in our bylaws. For that matter, why would we need it? We have no offices and no paid staff. Our only expenses are for advertising the project, which can be increased or decreased based on our donations.

We don't ask our membership to join a particular political party. While we tend to have a large number of Libertarians, our members' propensities include classical liberals, anarchists, constitutionalists, conservatives and independents. As we've seen with Democrats and Republicans, labels mean little. As long as you're working toward minimal (or no) government, you can call yourself whatever you'd like.

We have a definite timeline. If we don't have 20,000 signatures in 5 years (that's September of 2006), we close up shop. So this won't turn into an unattainable pipedream endlessly sucking away the time and resources of our members.

We get commitments ahead of time, limiting the risk to our members. I don't want to sign onto a project and move across the country, only to discover that I'm the only one who did. So we're ensuring that a large number of people – people whose word is their bond – commit prior to the move.

We allow opt-outs. There are many freedom lovers who simply won't move to Alaska. Or east of the Mississippi. Or west of the Mississippi. So when they sign up, we allow members to designate states that they would not be willing to move to. The only caveat to this is that we don't allow someone to opt out of all states, or out of every state except the one they live in. If they do this, we consider them to be friends of the Project, rather than members. The only difference between friends and members is that members get to vote on which state, and count toward our goal of 20,000.

We're not asking you to go to jail. Many movements suggest that the participant do something illegal, whether it be smoking pot on the county courthouse steps or refusing to fill out a tax form. Now believe me, I have the utmost respect for those people who have the guts to do that sort of thing. But not everyone is cut out for it. This project is for them. Everything we're doing is both peaceful and legal.

We're sensitive to our members' privacy. We don't ask for demographic information, much to the dismay of many journalists, pundits, and academics. So we have no idea what percentage of our membership is male or female, no figures on our ethnic diversity, no list of religious or political affiliations. We don't sell, rent, or give away our membership list. We don't even insist on having your "real" name. Why? Well, we don't care. If you want freedom – for others as well as for yourself – we want you. Besides, the last thing we plan to do is start demanding ID and notarized affidavits to prove who you are!

Now, for those of you who are really curious, we have anecdotal evidence, of course. Visit our online web forum and you'll find members who are gay, straight, polyamorous, Christian, pagan, atheist, ethnic backgrounds of every hue, and from every state in the union, as well as from other countries.

Finally, one of the really unique and gratifying attributes of our membership is that they are active, not passive. For example, in the next two months, two FSP conferences are taking place, one in New Hampshire and one in Missoula, Montana. These gatherings were created in order to promote their respective states to other members. A kind of "get to know us" event, to encourage other members to take a look at their locale as a possible Free State. These gatherings were organized entirely by members of the FSP, without input or direction from the FSP board.

The Missoula gathering – called The Grand Western Conference – has lined up many of our celebrity endorsers as speakers. In addition to Jason Sorens, speakers include Vin Suprynowicz, JJ Johnson, and Claire Wolfe, as well as Montana State Senator Jerry O'Neil.

The New Hampshire Meeting – referred to as "Welcome to the Granite State Event" – has arranged a meeting with NH Governor Craig Benson. Governor Benson was recently in the news for establishing a "Tax Me More" account to accept donations from people within the state who kept complaining that taxes ought to be raised. Sounds like our kind of guy.

Another activity our members undertake is handing out flyers and pamphlets at local events, such as LP meetings like this one or other freedom-related events. This particular activity recently backfired for our Director of Member Services, Tim Condon. He was arrested for "trespassing" while handing out FSP flyers on public property outside the NRA's National Convention in Florida, apparently at the behest of the NRA itself. What's interesting is that Tim is an attorney, a two-tour Marine Vietnam Veteran … and a member of the NRA.

He's contesting the charges, of course, and we're all waiting to see the results. In the meantime, it's produced some fun publicity for us.

So the Free State Project is different. So what? It's still just a single state. Aren't most laws federal?

Yes, and no, but not really. Let me clarify. First, there are a great number of local or state laws that affect everything you do more than federal laws.

Homeschooling regulations? Local
Gun registration? Local
Gambling? Local
Election laws? Child support laws? Marriage laws? Local, local, local.

To illustrate, the Nevada Revised Statutes are 51 volumes in length. 51 volumes! And those are just local laws and regulations. So there are a lot of changes we can effect without ever coming into the slightest conflict with the federal government.

But what about things like drug laws, speed limits, and driver's license requirements?

Well, this is where the fun comes in. Some of you may know that many of these laws are actually the results of federal blackmail. Take, for instance, the drinking age of 21. This is the law in all fifty states. But is it a federal law? Surprisingly, no.

In 1984, under President Reagan, the federal government enacted the Uniform Drinking Age Act, which reduced federal transportation funding to those states that did not raise the minimum legal drinking age to 21. If a state refused, the state received no highway funds. Naturally state legislators – practitioners of the world's oldest profession who are far less honorable than their colleagues in Nevada's brothels – couldn't institute the laws fast enough. By 1988, every state in the union had implemented a minimum legal drinking age of 21.

But what if there was a state that refused to comply? They'd lose the blood-money, sure. But that state – and its citizens – could determine for themselves the age at which its citizens could drink alcohol.

This same blackmail scheme has been used to implement many of the pseudo-federal laws currently in place. Refuse the money, keep your soul. And your autonomy.

Well, then what about drug laws? Look at Ed Rosenthal, after all, convicted under federal drug laws for something that was perfectly legal – authorized, even – in his state. How could the Free State combat that? The Federal government, as we know, has no constitutional authority to prohibit the use of any drugs. So in addition to state officials refusing to cooperate with federal agents, the state itself could file Tenth Amendment suits against the federal government. We may lose the first one, and the second, and the third. And the tenth. But we only need to win one to get a chink in the wall, and eventually bring it tumbling to the ground.

So a single state can do quite a bit. But how realistic is it that 20,000 people can trigger those kinds of changes?

First, you must remember that these 20,000 people are likely going to be activists, not just voters. For every activist you get several voters. How many? It's difficult to say, but one way to quantify it is to look at campaign expenditures. In 2000 during a four-year election cycle the Libertarian Party had 40,000 members and spent $5 million. So a party with an equally dedicated membership of 20,000 could expect to spend $5 million over any two-year election cycle. There are several states in which $5 million would be enough to outspend the Democrats and Republicans put together.

In other words, with dedicated activists, we can easily ensure liberty-minded people are elected to every office from governor down to dog-catcher...presuming we even *want* a state-employed dog-catcher in the first place, of course.

Probably the most common objection to the concept of the Free State Project is that the feds will never let it happen – they'll Waco the Free State.

Mmmmm. Maybe, but highly unlikely. To the best of our knowledge, no modern, democratic government has used force to prevent secession since 1933, when Australia used fiscal appeasement to forestall Western Australia's secession.

This scenario – appeasement – is the most probable response of the US to the Free State. While they may in fact never "allow" the Free State to secede (and we may never want to do so), the federal government may be forced to offer many concessions in exchange. A very good example of this phenomenon is Quebec. Although they've never seceded from Canada, they are nearly politically autonomous.

But how about closer to home? What about the Branch Davidians?

In addition to being a very small group to begin with, the Branch Davidians made the fatal mistake of openly thumbing their noses at the establishment. As you know, the State's response to the challenge of "Liberty or Death!" has traditionally been, "Um … the second one."

Now does the Davidians' non-aggressive defiance justify their murder? Of course not. But the sad fact is that it permitted the federal government to marginalize them easily, justifying their slaughter under the guise of "keeping the peace". The average American, carefully manipulated with images of gun-carrying weirdos, fell hook, line and sinker for the government's propaganda, and chose to believe that the Davidians brought their destruction upon themselves.

In contrast, look at the Amish, who enjoy unusual freedom from laws governing such things as child-labor, compulsory schooling, taxes, and social security. No Amish enclave has been firebombed for its lawlessness. Why not? Primarily because the freedoms the Amish enjoy were gained by going through the system, utilizing their First Amendment right to petition the government through the courts. In addition, while their practices are considered odd by many, the Amish just aren't scary. No amount of spin control would be able to contain the public outcry that would arise from the wanton state-sponsored killing of these peaceful folk.

The Free State Project, like the Amish, is peacefully operating within the law, and we have representatives from every strata of society. In short, we will not be perceived as threatening by the average American. We'll be as respectable as the Cato Institute.

This desire for respectability – and to avoid frightening the populace – is one of the reasons we selected the Porcupine as our mascot. While the Gadsen flag aptly depicts our "Don't Tread on Me" attitude, using it would allow us to easily be dismissed as "one-a them militia groups". The porcupine however – a peaceful herbivore that is uniquely American – symbolizes the same philosophy without the aggression-based overtones. As John T. Kennedy wrote, "The lesson the porcupine teaches is that you don't have to be strong enough to defeat a predator to avoid being that predator's lunch. It suffices to be an expensive meal. Predators tend not to dine on porcupines because a serving of porcupine tends not to be worth the mouthful of quill that it costs."

So we've established that we're viable and that we have a good shot at making some significant changes. But how, exactly? The plan is to vote on which state, at 5,000 members, and after reaching 20,000 members we move. Then what?

To quote Jason Sorens, "One of the roles of the FSP will be to help build a genuine local culture of liberty, without which our gains will never be secure. Protecting this culture will involve appeals to the state's particularism and its rights vis-à-vis the federal government."

Consequently, there are several strategies open to us. The most immediate strategy would be forming an endorsement group to rate candidates and issues, and keep the membership informed. We could work collectively on particular issues, such as initiating referendums for elections, submitting petitions, and so forth. All of our members would be encouraged to proselytize to friends, neighbors, coworkers, and business associates on all the issues that we support.

Alternately, each of our members could join a cause or group that they favor, like NORML, GOA, FIJA, whatever, and then work for that cause within the state. The activists keep the FSP informed of their progress, and the FSP keeps the rest membership informed. As you can imagine, this might work better than attempting to centrally control the activism efforts of our members, which with Libertarians would be like herding cats.

A third idea – and the most popular – is for individual FSP members to run for office – school board, county commission, state senate and such. This could be done under a newly created Free State Party or in conjunction with the state and local Libertarian party. One interesting and amusing suggestion has been to have FSP members join both the Democratic and Republican parties and run against each other in the same race. While running candidates for office is probably the most effective long-term strategy, successful runs are unlikely until we as residents have integrated into the community.

Anyway, those are just a few ideas on how we can begin to use the system to reduce laws and regulations; I'm sure there are many others. What I'd like to do now is open the floor for questions and answers. I'll try to answer them as best as I can, but remember that our website has a wealth of data for you to look at as well.

[Open for questions]

# # # #