2003-11 Varrin Swearingen's NH Trip Report

Many of the links in this needs fixing... mostly minor ones.

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.

Contents

Introduction

Purpose

I am writing this report with the hope that it will help others out who are exploring a move to New Hampshire.  It is a detailed account of our trip there in early November, 2003.  On that trip we learned more than we could have possibly learned without a report like this.  As far as I am aware, nobody has yet written this detailed of a report about their New Hampshire exploration.  We would have found this useful and it is my hope that you will too.

Background

In order to better understand the perspective of this report, I'll relay some important background information about myself and my family.  Edi (my wife) and I were both born in 1974 and at the moment we have two children, a son, Edison, born in 2001 and a daughter, Erin, born in 2002.  We would consider ourselves Christian and regularly attend church, however we are not particularly closely tied to any specific denomination.  We normally find ourselves most comfortable in Baptist, Evangelical Free or non-denominational churches.  Our circle of family and close friends includes protestant Christians, Catholics, Orthodox, Muslims, and a variety of 'other' religious backgrounds. 

I work as an airline pilot for World Airways.  I also play the drums and percussion professionally part time (mostly jazz and Latin jazz) and enjoy working with computers (we use Linux in our house).  Edi is a homeschooling mother, currently serves as the coordinator for two MOPS (Mothers Of PreSchoolers) groups, and is a Mary Kay Independent Beauty Consultant.  Edi also sings, most recently with the Choir at our church and two different opera companies in Fresno.

I was born in Hayward, California and moved to Fresno at age 3.  Edi was born in Maryland and moved to the San Francisco Bay Area in grade school and to Fresno in High School.  We met in High School and were married in 1993 at age 19.  We moved to Florida (I had actually moved there a year earlier to go to flight school) and lived there between 1992 and 1996.  We moved to the Cincinnati, Ohio area (we actually lived in Northern Kentucky) in 1996 and lived there through mid-1999.  We moved back to Fresno, California in 1999 after deliberating much like we are now as to where to relocate to.  Edi and I have both lived in several different states.  She has visited many of the states and I have visited almost all of them (45 of the 50).  We have been to Canada, Mexico and the Bahamas together, and I have traveled to over 30 different countries around the world while playing music and flying for a living.

Our personal living preferences lean towards newer suburban living with creature comforts (shopping, etc.) relatively nearby.  We gravitate towards larger more utilitarian housing and don't necessarily prefer to have a lot of land (we prefer indoor square footage to land).  I enjoy the outdoors (I like to backpack) but, honestly, we spend most of our time inside.  Edi enjoys movies (much more than I do) and we both enjoy live music and eating out.  As a result of having kids, much of our free time activities lately revolves around them.  When they're asleep, we enjoy playing games (I enjoy online gaming occasionally but we both enjoy board games), cards, and good conversation. 

We first heard of the Free State Project in mid-2002.  At the time I first visited the website, there were 400 or so people signed up.  After researching and discussing the project, Edi and I decided to join.  By the time we signed up, the project had grown to over 1600 members.  We opted out of 7 states including New Hampshire.  Some time before the vote, we decided that we would at least go look at the winning state.  The vote results were announced October 1 and we began our visit to New Hampshire on November 1.  The information in this report is one of the results of that visit. 

Organization

Because of the complexity of providing this information in a most usable format, I will organize it in two ways:  First, chronologically on this page as an overview, and Second, by geographic area.  Providing a third level of organization (topical, for example) is more than I have time to do right now.  If you want to know about real estate (for example), you'll have to search for that by location.  I'll use the same topical format on each area page to make finding the information topically easier.  Some information will be statewide and will be included in the statewide information page.

Each detail page will contain all the details we discovered about each location.  They will not include details about 'events' unless those events were associated with characteristics of the area.  An example of details that would not be included would be details about dinner conversation with various FSP people or the details about my son's finger injury.  Those details (if included at all) will only be on the chronology page below.  Examples of details that would be included would be details about the places we ate at with the FSP people or the emergency room experience as a result of my son's finger injury.  Some pages will be dramatically more detailed than others, since we learned more and/or spent more time in some places than others.  Generally speaking, I'll include all the detail I have.  If you have questions, please feel free to ask, but I probably don't have any more detail than you can find here.

The detail pages will have the following headings (assuming information is available):

1. Real estate - information about land, new homes, and pre-owned homes
   
2. Commerce and Restaurants - information about stores, restaurants, and other places of business
   
3. Churches - information about churches
4. Events - information about or related to events
5. Other - other information that doesn't fit the above (look and feel, etc.)
   

Conspicuously missing is climate and job information.  On the chronology page I'll include weather information about our trip, but because our trip isn't necessarily representative, I'd urge you to do your own climate research.  With few exceptions (Lebanon, for example), I don't have any job information, and in those cases that I do, it's very general.  I am not looking for a job so I didn't do any research about the job market at all. 

Chronology

Saturday, November 1 -  location details here:  Statewide, Nashua

We flew America West from Fresno through Phoenix to Boston.  We arrived in Boston around 11:00 p.m.  We rented a Chevy Venture minivan from Alamo.  The rate was reasonable and we liked the van.  I have now driven all of the 'big-3' minivans (Ford, GM, and Chrysler).  This was the best of those I've driven yet.  I still prefer the Honda to all 3 of them.

We drove from the Boston airport to our hotel in Nashua.  The drive took roughly an hour.  We didn't time it exactly.  There was construction on a bridge on 3 south of Nashua which required us to exit and re-enter the highway.  The weather was cool but not terribly cold.  Upon arrival in Nashua we found a 24 hour McDonalds drive through and a 7-11 to get supplies for the evening and morning.

We checked into our hotel around 12:30 a.m. that night.  We stayed at the Extended Stay America hotel in Nashua.  That location turned out to be perfect for our entire trip.  The hotel is in a business area right off exit #8 (101A bypass) which is near the north end of Nashua.  We could not find a better rate for a newer chain hotel with 'kitchen' facilities, hence our choice.  We booked a Queen room because that's the best room the website showed.  Upon arrival we discovered that the room was a little bit too small for us.  There is no couch, just a recliner.  The kitchen facility is small but functional.  We all went to bed knowing we had all had a long day and needed to get up the next morning for church.

Sunday, November 2 - location details here:  Statewide, Nashua, Manchester

We got up in the morning and got ourselves ready to go to church.  We attended Grace Fellowship Church in Nashua.  We went to the Burger King drive through, Market Basket (for 'supplies') and then returned to the hotel.  When we began to do our paperwork we found out that there were King rooms available.  We switched rooms which gave us a bigger room with a bigger bed.  That wound up being just what we needed for the rest of the trip.  We all napped, then got up and headed to Manchester for dinner.

We had been emailing with several people who were going to be in NH while we were there.  We had Alan Weiss's cell phone number so we coordinated what ultimately turned into dinner with Alan and some others.  We drove up to the Highlander Inn near the Manchester airport.  We met with Alan, Amanda Phillips, Tony Lekas and another gentleman whose name I didn't catch enough to remember (pleeeease forgive me... and because of the seating arrangement I didn't get a chance to talk much with him - rats.).  I sat between Tony and Edison and across from Edi and Alan.  The dinner conversation covered all kinds of topics.  Probably my most important observation is that, though email is a spectacular tool for meeting people and coordinating activities, there's no substitute for meeting in person.  I really enjoyed the dinner and feel as though I've made some friends that would be great to live near.

Among other things, we talked quite a bit about education.  Amanda mentioned the Sudbury Valley School which struck a chord with me.  Tony is a homeschooler so we had plenty to talk about with respect to the practicalities of homeschooling in New Hampshire.  It sounds to me from our conversations that New Hampshire does not have the best homeschooling environment in the nation (compared to, say, Idaho), but it's good enough to get started and, of course, we can improve it (I believe easily).

At the end of the dinner we exchanged some contact information.  Tony invited us over to his place for dinner which.  Unfortunately, due to our ridiculous schedule we ultimately had to pass on that generous offer.  We headed out and drove back to Nashua and went to bed.

Monday, November 3 - location details here: Statewide,Nashua, Southeast, Manchester

We hadn't set up any meetings so we decided to use Monday to make phone calls and then tour the southeast part of the state.  We had also contacted Kelton who was staying until Tuesday.  We did have a Monday evening meeting set up with Eric Knight in East Derry and Kelton also wanted to meet Eric.  Ultimately we devised a plan where we would meet up with Kelton in the evening, go to Eric's, and visit for a while.  Since Kelton was going west that day we didn't attempt to spend more of the day together.

We left late morning and headed on a church drive-by trip that would ultimately take us on a substantial driving trip through much of the southeast part of the state.  We headed east from Nashua first to Pelham, then Salem, then to the coast, up 1A from the MA border to the ME border, up to Dover, then Durham, then back to Manchester for dinner.  After dinner we went down to Derry to visit Eric.  As you can see we covered a lot of ground.

Among the things we did while we drove: looked at a church in Pelham, looked at a church in Salem, got some info about a house in South Seabrook, drove the entire NH coastline (save a few feet between 286 and the MA border), drove around New Castle, drove into Maine, drove by a church in Dover, drove by a church in Durham, took 101 back to Manchester.  Details about all that are on the respective detail pages.

We ate dinner at McDonalds near the airport in Manchester and at the end of dinner Kelton showed up.  He grabbed a bite and we headed to Eric's house in Derry.  We were a little bit late for our 7:00 appointment.  Kelton had gone all the way to Keene and back and we had gone all the way to Portsmouth and back (with plenty of stops along the way), so we were simply running late after packed full days.  We arrived at Eric's around 7:30.  Unfortunately it was dark while we drove through Derry.

We spent, if I recall correctly, a little over an hour at Eric's house and visited with Eric and his family.  He told us some things about the Derry and Londonderry area as well as some general NH things which were helpful.  We also got a tour of his house which, if things went on schedule, he has likely now moved out of.  Among other things, we discussed towns, zoning, property taxes, and education with Eric.  We headed out sometime shortly before 9:00 p.m.  Kelton had an early flight home the next day so he went his way and we went back to the hotel in Nashua.

Tuesday, November 4 - location details here:  Statewide, Nashua, Western

Some of the days flow together but I believe we started Tuesday out with Denny's for breakfast in Nashua.  We spent a lot of time that morning figuring out where we wanted to go and made some more phone calls.  We didn't get on the road until 2:30 p.m.  We had planned out a road trip for that day to look at land.  Most of the day was simply spent driving.  By that time we had set up a Wednesday appointment to tour a manufactured home factory and wanted to have some insight on land prices and locations. 

We drove north from Nashua, through Manchester, through Concord up to Tilton.  We had seen some lower price land listings in Franklin which appeared to be closer to I-93 than some other less expensive places.  Franklin, however, was not a very attractive town.  We looked at a couple of pieces of land and then drove south on U.S. 3 back to Concord, checking out the towns along the way. 

Tilton was a nicer looking town, though small, and had some important stores (Wal-Mart, for example).  Franklin (as I mentioned above) wasn't so attractive.  Going south from Franklin, we saw Boscawen (or some of it anyway), then parts of Concord, some of which were nicer.  We took 202 west from Concord through Hopkinton to Henniker.  Hopkinton was very nice looking to me.  For some reason, Henniker just seemed small and isolated to me.  From there we went south on 114 to Weare.  Weare was what I might call 'average'.  Decent town, not much there though.  From there, we went through Goffstown to Manchester.  Goffstown was larger and had a few more 'things' there as I recall.  By the time we got to Henniker, it was dark, so we didn't have a great look at Weare or Goffstown.

Wednesday, November 5 - location details here:  Statewide, Nashua, Western

We set up a meeting with Bob Lebel of RML General Contractor who builds Epoch manufactured homes.  Our meeting was to take a tour of the Epoch factory in Pembroke, near Concord.  The previous day we had ruled out Franklin as a town to live in so we decided to investigate another area that has low land cost: Hillsborough.  Details of our findings are on the 'Western' page.  After touring Hillsborough, we returned to Pembroke for our meeting.  The tour went well.  The factory looked like a suitable place to build manufactured homes and it appears to me (I'm no expert) that they build great homes there.  We also toured their model.  Their model was set up with lots of fancy upgrades in the downstairs to showcase what they can do and basic trip for part of the upstairs to show what a base house looks like.  Both looked great, though some of the nice touches in the kitchen and dining room were really nice.

After we finished our tour, we headed back to the hotel.  That evening, after doing some research, we decided to tour a couple of more expensive lots in the Nashua and Hudson areas.  Because of the land prices and locations, we figured it would be worth taking a look just to see if it would somehow be 'worth it' to pay more money and be closer to a bigger city.  We looked at several lots and called it a day.

Just as an aside, pretty much every day (or, more accurately, night), we spent a considerable amount of time researching our next moves based on what we found during the day.  That meant pretty much a short night of sleep every night.  I was typically up until at least midnight or 1:00 a.m. every night and we were out of bed by roughly 8:00 a.m. every morning (sometimes a little earlier).  With all the driving, looking, thinking, eating, diapering, talking, meeting, and so on, it was a pretty tiring trip.  But it was well worth the time and money.  There's no way we could have learned everything we did just over the Internet or looking at pictures from a real estate agent.  Now, on with the show!

Thursday, November 6 - location details here:  Statewide, Nashua, Western

Thursday brought us 'more of the same'.  Having seen a couple of lots in Nashua, we decided to look both at lots and at houses in Nashua as well as a few in the surrounding area.  After a 'relaxing' (read me doing research while we all get ready) morning, we headed west towards Wilton and Milford.  We looked at a piece of land there and then a couple more in Nashua. 

When it got to be nap time, I took the family back to the hotel for a nap and then went to visit another builder.  I went to the Value Homes.  Value Homes is a builder for Excel modular homes of PA.  Their model was nice and I was able to get more specific pricing information than I was from RML/Epoch.  It appears to me that Excel and Epoch are fairly direct competitors.  I haven't examined the spec sheets to the finest detail, but it appears both are very nice, well built homes which rival or exceed the quality you'd get in a site built house. 

I returned to the hotel, picked up the family and we toured a little bit more, this time heading over towards Hudson.  I don't recall now where we ate, but it may have been Denny's again.  Throughout the course of the week we ate at Denny's probably 3 times, Pizza Hut once, a local pizza place once (Papa Gino's, I think it was called), and several fast food establishments.  Overall, we were happy with the food. 

Friday, November 7 - location details here:  Statewide, Nashua, Western, Manchester

Friday we got a late start on our day.  We decided to go back up to Tilton to look around in a little more detail.  There were a couple of lots for sale that were less than what was available in Hudson or Nashua.  Nearby is Wal-Mart and the outlet mall and Concord is just 20 minutes away.  Tilton is right off I-93 and is at the 'base' of the lakes region.  We looked at some lots there and then headed back towards Nashua. 

We did make an addional quick trip up to Manchester later in the day to look at a house in town there.  We drove around the neighborhoods in the center of town and found them very pleasant, though older.  In the evening on the 7th, I started working on putting together our trip for the next day.  We decided to go to Keene for a tour and a visit with a friend.

Saturday, November 8 - location details here:  Statewide, Nashua, Keene

We got a late start (I don't recall why now, other than doing more research) and were under way to Keene in the early afternoon.  We went by way of Manchester so that we could time the Manchester - Keene drive.  That added about 15 minutes to the trip which was almost 1 1/2 hours (including the detour).  On the way, I spoke with our friend (amidst losing cell service off and on).  I got some church information from him and we looked as we drove by at the church we wound up going to the next day (Monadnock Congregational Church).  When we arrived in Keene, we got right into looking at land and homes.  We had mapped out about a half dozen places to look and drove fairly quickly around town checking them out (with a stop at the UPS store downtown along the way).  Keene has much more to offer than Tilton (details in the Keene page) and the property prices are a little lower, I presume because of the 'perceived' distance from the metro areas.  There are several brand new stores in Keene and they're building more by the minute.  The Borders is brand new and the Wal-Mart opened within the last year. 

After we had toured the town, we arranged to meet our friend at Uno's (yes, there's an Uno's in Keene).  We enjoyed a great dinner there together and he was able to tell us a few more things about the town and we talked about several other things.  Among them were the Acton Institute, Keene State College, Economics, the relationship between liberty and Christianity, and churches.  After a great dinner we headed back to Nashua.  On the way back we were able to observe a full eclipse of the moon.  We were right on the outside of the area where it was actually totally eclipsed but it went from totally full to totally eclipsed in such a way that it was just a tiny sliver of 'halo' around the bottom part of the moon.  The kids particularly enjoyed the eclipse.

This brings to mined one important facet of our trip: weather.  The first several days it was rainy and cloudy.  By late in the week it had cleared up and was a little bit cooler (lows in the 30's v.s. 40's).  That particular night it was crystal clear.  It stayed clear until the day before we left when it started raining again.

Sunday, November 9 - location details here:  Statewide, Nashua, Western, Keene

Sunday, we went to Monadnock Congregational Church in Peterborough.  We arrived around 10:00 a.m. for their 'coffee' time and then attended the 10:30 service.  Details about the church are on the 'Western' page.  On Saturday, I had observed a sign at the Colony Mill Marketplace indicating that Sunday, the 9th, was going to be the Taste of Keene event.  I assume that event happens annually so I'll include the details about the event in the Keene section.  We enjoyed our lunch and shopping time there.  The Colony Mill Marketplace is a nice mall and the feel of the event reminded us of a smaller, indoor version of the Taste of Cincinnati.  We were particularly pleased with our experience that day.  The food was outstanding, the atmosphere was wonderful and the people were friendly.

After the Taste, we headed back to Nashua to do some more research and get another big night of sleep.

Monday, November 10 - location details here:  Statewide, Nashua, Lebanon

We planned our Monday around the idea that we would do our last big 'tour' and save Tuesday for any last minute visits we needed to do and/or just relaxation.  That turned out to be a good plan since we had a little accident on Monday night.  We put together a list of properties in and near Lebanon and hit the road in the morning.  After a stop for breakfast (Denny's again), we got a late morning start up I-93.  It took just over an hour from Manchester to Lebanon.  We decided to drive beyond Lebanon (across the river) to Vermont since Edi had never been there before.  We came back into Lebanon (what they call West Lebanon) and drove around the 'commercial' area.  Lebanon has pretty much everything Keene has plus a Denny's and a Best Buy.  The town itself probably isn't quite as nice, but it's not bad.  We went up to Hanover which is much nicer (and much more expensive) and is home to Dartmouth. 

We looked at a couple of houses in Lebanon and West Lebanon and went to Enfield to look at both houses and land.  Enfield is about 15 minutes from the shopping (depending on where you are in Enfield) and land prices there are very reasonable.  It's primarily a Shaker community.  Details about the land and area are included with the Lebanon section.  We had attempted to make some phone calls on the way to Lebanon but discovered that T-Mobile's service ends shortly after leaving Concord on I-89 and doesn't pick up again... ever. 

After we finished our Lebanon and area tour we headed back to Nashua.  The drive was easy and quick.  We went briefly to the hotel and then went out to dinner at Bickfords.  This was our second trip to Bickfords and though the food was generally decent, both times what we got wasn't exactly what we expected.  I guess they just do things a little differently there than we anticipated.  After dinner we headed back to the hotel.

When we arrived at the hotel we had an unfortunate accident.  As Edi and Edison were getting out of the car, Edison got his finger (the middle one on his right hand) caught in the car door as Edi was closing it.  He apparently reached in quickly at the last second, probably not realizing the door was closing.  Fortunately, only the tip of his finger was caught in the door.  Unfortunately, the small area of his finger tip that was injured was injured very badly.  We quickly went in, got paper towels from the very helpful and nice lady at the desk and I got directions to the Emergency Room.  We got back in the car and rushed to the ER at St. Joseph Hospital in Nashua.  I took Edison in while Edi parked and got Erin out.  Because he was screaming and there was blood all over his hand (and mine), the staff figured out there was a pretty serious problem.  After a very brief wait (it seemed like 10 minutes so it must have only been one or two), we were taken in to a room.  I'll spare all of the details of the care, but we're extremely pleased with the quality of the care we got.  They re-wrapped his injury after a doctor examined it.  They gave him some Tylenol with Codine, took and x-ray, determined that the bone at the tip of his finger was broken (and the nail was missing), and ultimately came and gave him four stitches. 

Edison had calmed down substantially prior to the local, but that made him very unhappy again.  Then, a few minutes later, the doctor and a nurse came back to stitch up his fingertip (what was left of it, which I think was most of it).  Edison was a trooper but he screamed quite a bit throughout that procedure.  I'm not 100% sure the local completely numbed the pain, though I'm confident the Tylenol/Codine was helping substantially by that time.  They wrapped it up with tube gauze, gave us some instructions and we headed out.  I think we were there something like 3 1/2 hours.  The whole time, Erin was as well behaved as I've ever seen her.  It was obvious she knew something was wrong and she did just exactly what we told her the whole time.  That was particularly amazing considering we didn't get out of there until after 11:00 p.m.

Having gone through that experience, we knew we would want to just take the next day off.

Tuesday, November 11 - location details here:  Statewide, Nashua

We slept later on Tuesday than we did any other day of the trip, mainly because Edison wasn't interested in getting up before 8 a.m. as he had been every other morning.  He was obviously feeling substantially better but was very tired and occasionally still in a little bit of pain (we'd have to ask him about it to find that out though).  We mostly slept, did research, and got ready to go home the next day.  We took advantage of kids-eat-free-night at Denny's and called it a day.

Wednesday, November 12 - location details here:  Statewide, Nashua

We got up early Wednesday and checked out of the hotel.  There's lots of construction on 3 between Nashua and I-95.  As a result, the drive time from the hotel to the Boston airport was about an hour and a half instead of the hour we planned.  Fortunately we had left enough time to make our flight.  We returned our rental car (loved it) and headed to the America West ticket counter.  We discovered upon check in that there would be a tech stop for fuel on the way back in Denver.  That caused us to miss our connection in Phoenix, but they were able to accommodate us on a flight three hours later. 


Copyright 2003 Varrin Swearingen - to reproduce in any way (in whole or in part), please contact the author at: varrin at varrin dot com.

What can 20,000 Liberty Activists Accomplish?

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.

What Can 20,000 Liberty Activists Accomplish?

by Jason Sorens – December, 2001

Note: A significant revision of this article entitled "What Can 20,000 Liberty Activists Accomplish in New Hampshire?" (April 12, 2004) is available here.

Thanks to Caroline Dufour for helpful comments!

The Free State Project (http://www.freestateproject.com/) calls for 20,000 libertarians and fellow-travelers to move to a single state of the U.S. to create a free society there through the electoral process. The purpose of this essay is to examine more closely exactly what 20,000 people could accomplish in a state. The first part will examine the question from the perspective of mathematical possibilities, while the second part will involve speculations about how to take advantage of those possibilities.

The figure of 20,000 was derived from the fact that it represents about half of paid Libertarian Party membership. Obviously, many of the people participating in the Project are not LP members, so that the pool of potential participants in the FSP is much larger than just 40,000. Thus, 20,000 seems like a realistic and attainable goal, though it will require much effort and dedication to get that many signatures.

Now to the primary question of this essay: What can 20,000 people accomplish? One way to look at this question is to examine membership figures for other parties around the world and how these figures translate into votes. Our neighbor to the north, Canada, has a similar, first-past-the-post electoral system and in any given geographical region, basically two competitive parties. In Quebec one of those two parties is the Parti Quebecois (PQ), which advocates independence for Quebec and contests provincial elections only. The PQ seems to be an appropriate analogue for the FSP. What can the FSP learn from the PQ's electoral success?

The PQ was started in 1968 by dissidents from the Liberal Party of Quebec, which is still today the other of the two major parties in Quebec provincial elections. These dissidents had realized that the reforms they wanted could not be enacted while Quebec remained a part of Canada. Accordingly, they joined with smaller pro-independence parties that already existed in order to form a major sovereigntist force. By the provincial election of 1973, the PQ was the second-largest party in the province, although it still trailed the Liberals by a wide margin. This was an important development, because it meant that voters dissatisfied with the Liberals' performance in government were likely to turn to the PQ rather than to other parties, which had no chance of winning. The PQ also allayed voters' worries about sovereignty by promising that they would not declare independence unless the voters gave their approval to the idea in a referendum. Accordingly, the PQ benefitted from dissatisfaction with the Liberals in the 1976 election and won a majority of seats in the provincial parliament with 41% of the vote.

At the time, the PQ had a paid membership of roughly 100,000, while the population of Quebec at that time was 6.2 million. (In 1973, paid membership was 60,000.) In other words, having a paid member for every 62 citizens of the province gave the PQ a parliamentary majority. Applying the same ratio to the FSP's membership goal, we get 1.2 million population for a state in which 20,000 party members could win majorities at the state level. The following states have less than 1.2 million population: Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island (Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire, and Maine are close). [Note: on August 31 the Research Committee decided to include all states under 1.5 million population on the final state ballot - except Rhode Island and Hawaii, which were eliminated outright due to their hopelessly statist political cultures. The 10 states meeting the Research Committee's criterion are Alaska, Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, and Delaware.] Obviously, this is a very rough figure and not to be taken too precisely, but it does indicate that there are several states in which the FSP should be large enough to win elections. Furthermore, after the PQ's 1976 victory, they showed the voters that they were capable of governing, and membership and vote totals rose in future elections. Though Liberals won back a majority in the mid-1980s, the PQ governs Quebec today.

Of course, Quebec has some differences with American states. Most importantly, their parliament is unicameral, and they have no independent executive: the Prime Minister of Quebec is chosen by the National Assembly. In most American states legislatures are bicameral, and all American states have an independently elected governor. This means that while in Quebec all provincial parties focus all their resources on winning a majority in the National Assembly, in American states parties have to divide their resources among winning the governorship, the lower house of the state legislature, and the upper house, not to mention federal offices. The implication for the FSP is that by focusing most of our resources on winning just one of the branches of government at first (I would suggest the state lower house), we would have even better odds than the PQ did in 1976. Winning a majority in the state legislature would provide respectability and a base of support that would allow the FSP's political vehicle eventually to secure all the branches of state government.

But the data from Quebec are far from conclusive; it would be much better if we could predict the FSP's success from American data. One way of doing this is to look at campaign expenditures. While victory does not always go to the highest spender, votes and spending are correlated in American elections, all else held constant. If the FSP's political vehicle could continuously outspend both the Democrats and Republicans at the state level, its chances for eventual victory are high. How much could the FSP's political vehicle spend in the beginning? The national Libertarian Party spent $5.2 million in 2000 with 40,000 members. If that ratio holds for the FSP, then the FSP's political vehicle could spend $5.2 million over a two-year cycle with 20,000 members.

Accordingly, the FSP should be looking at states where Democrats and Republicans regularly spend less than $5.2 million each election cycle. According to FEC data, in the following states Democrats and Republicans combined spent less than $5.2 million on federal races all of the last four election cycles (1993 to present): Wyoming, North Dakota, Vermont, Hawaii. In the following states Democrats and Republicans combined spent less than $10.4 million on federal races on all of the last four election cycles: the above four plus Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, New Hampshire, Mississippi (Montana: $10.9 million). Several notes here: these figures include only federal elections, not state elections. But state elections aren't currently very expensive (with the exception of gubernatorial races, which can range up to $1-2 million in some states), so that the total state and federal figures probably aren't much larger. In addition, these figures are for all the last four election cycles: in almost all these cases, the numbers were much smaller in three out of the four cycles. Finally, these numbers include PAC contributions, not just contributions from individuals. Currently, the LP receives the vast majority of contributions from individuals, but if a libertarian party were to have a chance of winning, undoubtedly contributions from PACs would increase.

Accordingly, it appears that there are several states where the FSP would have a chance of winning majorities in the state legislature and the governorship. States that fulfill the criteria of less than about 1.2 million population and less than $10.4 million or thereabouts major-party spending in any of the last four election cycles are all potential targets: Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, Idaho, New Hampshire. Of course, some of these states may be less desirable on other grounds: in socialistic Hawaii it's unlikely that any libertarian party could get many more votes than its core membership number. [See note above.]

So much for the mathematical possibilities. Possibilities, however, are not the full story: they must be actualized. The histories of the PQ and of American third parties give some indication of what we should try to effect. In 1960s Quebec, the population was moving dramatically to the left and toward sovereignty. The conservative, autonomist Union Nationale disappeared, while the formerly left-wing and pro-Quebec Liberals found themselves relatively conservative and anti-nationalist in the new milieu, as the PQ staked out a social-democratic and pro-sovereignty ideological position.

The one American third party that has succeeded in becoming a major party, the Republicans, likewise accomplished their feat by destroying an existing party, the Whigs, but in a somewhat different manner. The American political system in the late 1850s had become polarized, with the Democrats as defenders of slavery and states' rights. The Republicans were more radically anti-slavery than the Whigs and also incorporated anti-immigrant elements via fusion with the Know-Nothings. The Republicans became even more radical through the War between the States and into the Reconstruction period.

What lessons can we derive from these two examples for the FSP? They present two possible scenarios: if the Quebec analogy holds, the FSP's state moves dramatically liberty-ward, making the Democrats irrelevant with the Republicans left as relative defenders of big government and centralization while the FSP's political vehicle stakes out a libertarian, pro-autonomy position. If the Republicans analogy holds, the FSP's state becomes polarized, with the Democrats stubbornly defending the status quo but failing to win elections, the Republicans disappearing, and the FSP's political vehicle becoming more radical with time in government.

The latter scenario is, I believe, more likely. The Democrats are closely tied to labor unions, government employees, and the black establishment. I cannot see these special interests moving to the Republican party, which is more reliant on support from middle-class individuals and small business. It is more likely that the Democrats will hold onto their core demographic, while marginalized from the majority, and most of the former Republicans will migrate to the FSP's political vehicle.

I have so far been cagey about describing what the FSP's political vehicle will look like. The truth is that no one can predict exactly what it will look like at any given point in time. The FSP itself is a coalition among libertarians, classical liberals, constitutionalists, and others who believe that, at maximum, the role of civil government should be "the protection of citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property." This principle should guide the FSP's political vehicle throughout; however, there will undoubtedly be internal debates over issues like abortion, children's rights, and immigration. There may also be internal debates over how far to push the issue of autonomy or even sovereignty. However, much more will unite the participants in this Project than will divide them. The FSP's political party will be a bigger tent than the current Libertarian Party, because its goal is winning major elections, not just education, but the radicals can well hold out hope that over time the party will be forced to move their way.

The FSP's political party will also differ from the current Libertarian Party in its decentralist and cultural emphasis. 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. In a sense, decentralization represents a "stealth libertarian" strategy, because it can command support beyond those who adhere to certain abstract moral principles, yet it ends up favoring a regime of fairly pure liberty-under-law insofar as it is fully pursued. Intrusive governments usually also have to be distant, centralized government. Radical decentralization dismantles apparati of state control.

What are some other "stealth libertarian" strategies? The ingenious idea of Bill of Rights Enforcement (http://www.lneilsmith.com/bor_enforcement.html) is one. It's not as stealthy as decentralization, but almost. Who's against the Bill of Rights? Another good strategy would be to defend the autonomy rights of Native American tribes. As colonized peoples, Native American tribes essentially enjoy a right to independence under international law if they desire it. The federal government has been doing their best to downplay this possibility. If we stand up for Indians' rights, they could become a key constituency for us. The PQ has had problems with the Indians of Quebec, mostly because they want to build huge hydroelectric projects on their land. A "small is beautiful" libertarian party shouldn't have such problems. Finally, another "stealth libertarian" strategy is institutional reform. To break the two-party establishment and to cultivate a "modernizing" image among the voters, we should favor changes in the electoral laws and make it easier for citizens to promulgate initiatives for referenda, recall petitions, and the like.

The question of electoral laws is sufficiently interesting as to deserve its own discussion. Proportional representation would not be the way to go. PR is a great idea for the U.S. as a whole, but not for our state, because we will be trying to win majorities. PR would make it likely that the Democrats and Republicans would form coalitions to oppose us, gridlocking the system. PR would be a good thing to institute after we've made all our policy reforms, because it sets up so many checks and balances and instabilities. But when our goal is radical reform, we don't want PR's frequent coalition requirements standing in our way.

A better kind of electoral reform would be "alternative vote" or "instant runoff voting." This kind of system allows you to give preference rankings to all of the candidates. The candidate to get the least number of first-preference votes is eliminated, and his second-preference votes are distributed. Then the candidate with the least number of first-preference votes after this distribution is eliminated, and his second-preference (after the first distribution) votes are distributed. And so on, until a candidate gets an absolute majority of first-preference votes. This method eliminates the "wasted vote" problem, because if your favored candidate doesn't have a chance of winning, you can still vote for him, and your second-preference or third-preference vote will still count for someone else who may. In addition, there's already a significant nonpartisan institute in the U.S. pushing this reform, the Center for Voting and Democracy (http://www.fairvote.org/). The danger in this system is that Democrat and Republican voters could team up to oppose us. However, I think this is unlikely -- currently, third-party candidates do very well when they are facing just one other candidate, because many (most?) Republicans and Democrats would rather vote for a third-party candidate, any third-party candidate, than the candidate of the opposing party. I anticipate that those voters who don't give the FSP's political party their first-preference votes will give them their second-preference votes.

Notwithstanding all these strategies for electoral success, it will be best for the FSP to begin humbly, by participating in the existing structures that we find in our state. FSP members will become active in whatever community activities they currently favor and will participate in whatever political vehicles to which they are currently accustomed. No one can dictate a single strategy to everyone, but ultimately, history provides ample support for the idea that a single, new political party, designed to replace one of the existing parties, will eventually be a necessity for the movement. I have no doubt that it will arise naturally, as events demand. When it does, the evidence indicates that, if we choose the right state, it will succeed.

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

Back to Essays

Strategy of Strategies

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.

The Free State Project as a Strategy of Strategies

Delivered by Jason P. Sorens to the Greenville County (S.C.) Libertarian Party, October 3, 2002 and in modified form to the South Carolina League of the South annual convention, October 12, 2002

Good evening, and thank you for having me.

Tonight I will be speaking on ?the Free State Project as a strategy of strategies.? I will make the case that no matter what political strategy you personally favor for achieving a free society, the success of the Free State Project will make that strategy much more powerful than it would be otherwise.

First let me explain what the Free State Project is in a nutshell. According to the website, ?The Free State Project is a plan in which 20,000 or more liberty-oriented people will move to a single state of the U.S. to secure there a free society. We will accomplish this by first reforming state law, opting out of federal mandates, and finally negotiating directly with the federal government for appropriate political autonomy. We will be a community of freedom-loving individuals and families, and create a shining example of liberty for the rest of the nation and the world.?

The way it works is that we are circulating a Statement of Intent - I have some with me tonight - among libertarians, classical liberals, and other advocates of strictly limited government. Once we obtain 20,000 signatures, everyone who has signed up begins to move. We have a five-year ?grace period? in which to move after we reach 20,000. We decide on the state to move to once we reach 5,000 signatures, and we currently have over 1,200 signatures. We are considering ten states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Alaska. These were chosen as the candidate states because they are all under 1.5 million population and are relatively pro-freedom. Our research indicates that 20,000 activists would be able to win statewide majorities in these states.

So why the Free State Project, and why now? Because the federal government continues to usurp powers from the states, and because more and more decisions are being made by supranational entities like the UN, the OECD, and the EU, we feel that the window of opportunity for effecting real change through the political system is gradually closing. If we do not do something now, our children and grand-children may be locked into a system that they can do nothing to change. States still have significant legislative powers and are the fundamental units of our American polity; therefore, we should make use of the federal system to achieve liberty in at least one place. If we continue to be spread out all over the country, and to aim our efforts at bringing Washington, D.C. to the light, then we will surely fail.

By contrast, if we focus our efforts on a single state, we dramatically increase our chances of winning significant victories for freedom. Typically, people advocate three different strategies for obtaining freedom: education, political action, and privacy protection. These strategies are by no means exclusive, but many people tend to emphasise one over the others. I believe that the Free State Project will dramatically increase the impact of all three.

First I will deal with privacy protection. Many libertarians are interested in dropping beneath the government?s radar and simply living their lives as if they were already free. They tend to use cash in their transactions whenever possible, to homeschool their children, and to practice self-sufficiency techniques by relying on their own resources, rather than government or corporations, for water, electricity, food, and sanitation. They don?t do these things because they?re involved in illegal activities; they simply believe it is their right to ignore the state if they want to. The Amish and Hutterites are examples of people following this strategy: they don?t want to overthrow the government, but they want to be able to live their lives undisturbed by the government.

This strategy has significant costs - there is no doubt about that. Not many people are willing to give up most modern conveniences in order to live a life of anonymity. However, there are quite a few people who are willing to do this, and their lifestyle becomes a great deal easier in a Free State. First of all, they would not have quite as many government restrictions and requirements hedging them in and making their lives difficult. Perhaps more importantly, they could call on over 20,000 other sympathetic people in their state to assist them in whatever they need: buying their products, investing in their businesses, selling to them at discounts, and even providing legal services if need be.

Others are indeed interested in changing the society around them, and they believe that a prerequisite for making changes is educating people about the benefits and justice of liberty. Some even go so far as to say that we should not even attempt political action unless we have already completed the task of education. I believe that we need to have the political vehicles there, ready to carry our ideas into practice as we accomplish the task of education. Whatever you believe, it is clear that the Free State Project would dramatically improve the outlook for the educational strategy.

When it comes to politics, most people simply believe whatever they were told growing up. The modern welfare-warfare state did not develop because people all over America were clamouring for it; rather, the politicians took every opportunity to expand their power and appease special interests, while Americans were apathetic and eventually became real believers in the big-government ideas crammed into their heads by the media and government schools. But among our 20,000 will be teachers, professors, writers, journalists, and ?idea people? of all kinds. Once we are concentrating our educational efforts in a single state, especially a state that already feels it is somewhat ?different? and alienated from Washington, DC, ordinary people will view our ideas as a relevant alternative. They will take them seriously and over time will question what they grew up believing. Their children will be energised by the new ideas being disseminated in our communities, and they will grow up believing that they can and should make significant changes, bringing decisions back home where they belong, and out of the hands of a distant, bureaucratic federal government.

Once we have established significant political reforms, the educational benefits for defenders of freedom around the globe will be immense. We will finally have our ?city on a hill,? a case study in what mere freedom can do for a people - and for an economy.

The most apparent benefits of the Free State Project come in the realm of political action. Can you imagine what 20,000 people financing political campaigns and thinktanks, volunteering their time for everything from putting up posters to participating in street demonstrations, writing letters to newspapers and to legislators, and - yes - running for office would do for a political movement? I can. We?ve crunched the numbers, and we?ve found that 20,000 political activists could elect a governor, a state legislative majority, and even a couple of U.S. Senators and a U.S. Representative in the states we?re considering. Of course there may be accusations of carpet-bagging, of ?outsiders trying to take over.? For that reason we have to start humbly, by supporting the local freedom activists already there. After a few years many of us will start running local candidacies, and then we can work up from there. We also have to make it clear that we love the state we?ve chosen, that we don?t want to change its lifestyle or traditions, and that our goal is not to ?take over? but to make politicians more accountable and put more decisions back in the hands of the citizens of our state.

Currently libertarian activists are spread out all over the country. As a result, the only races we can regularly win are for local, non-partisan offices. I?ve calculated that if Libertarian Party election results in federal races increase at the same rate as they have for the last few years, it will take over a century for us to have a shot at winning a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. With the Free State Project we can virtually guarantee ourselves a Representative or two and a Senator or two within a couple of decades. They will not necessarily be Libertarian Party candidates, but they will espouse libertarian ideas, as Ron Paul does now. Imagine if we had several Ron Pauls in both the House and Senate. We might well hold the balance of power on a lot of key votes, and our ideas about drastically cutting government and restoring constitutional limits on spending and taxation will take center stage.

In closing, I would like to note what our ancestors did for freedom over 200 years ago, giving up their homes, their fortunes, and even their lives. Today, Americans are more oppressed than they ever were under King George, but the sacrifices we need to make for freedom are so much less than what our forefathers had to endure. For that reason I believe the Free State Project is something every lover of liberty should seriously consider joining or supporting. As a strategy of strategies, the Free State Project should yield immense benefits, but the costs of participation are low. Thank you.

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

Speech to the Wyoming 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 Wyoming Libertarian Party

Debra Ricketts • May 2003

Good morning and thank you 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.

The 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 in America, 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.

Ask 10 random people what should be done about a particular cause or social problem – whether it's second-hand smoke, 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 50 caliber?"

At one time, that was the prevailing attitude in the US. A man – or a woman – minded his own business and took care of his own. Things have changed. And while there may not be enough of us to preserve that streak of independence throughout the country, maybe … just maybe … there are enough to preserve it in a single small state. And that's what Jason proposed in his article. Moving freedom-seekers to a single state where we can work to preserve the freedom that was the foundation of this country.

The idea hit home with a number of us. Jason received emails from people who were interested, 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 re-born as part of ISIL].

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

We've been endorsed by celebrities like economist Walter Williams, Sierra Times editor JJ Johnson, authors Claire Wolfe, Boston T. Party, and 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.

The interest and publicity that has been shown seems to indicate that this is an idea whose time has come. Not that it's original, by any stretch. There's been any number of freedom projects, including the Fort Collins project, the Sealand project, the Limon Real Project, the Freedom Ship, and Oceania, among others.

So how is the Free State any different? There are a number of ways:

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.

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. While donations are appreciated, there are no dues or other monetary investments required in order to join; in fact, that's in our bylaws. 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. For those interested, we post our finances quarterly on our website.

We have a definite timeline. The plan is to wait until we have 5,000 members before voting on which state; we had to have those 5,000 signatures no later than 3 years from the start of the project. That's September of 2004, and we currently anticipate reach 5,000 by September of 2003. Once the state has been chosen, we will wait until we have 20,000 members before initiating the move; if we don't have 20,000 signatures in 5 years (that's September of 2006), we close up shop. Finally, members have 5 years from the time the 20,000 mark is reached to move. The reason for these deadlines is so this won't turn into an unattainable pipedream endlessly sucking away the time and resources of our members.

We are purposely getting these commitments ahead of time in order to limit 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.

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.

In addition, our members are encouraged to form local groups, distribute handouts, participate in interviews, and otherwise get involved in publicizing the organization, which they do on a regular basis.

But even with 20,000 new activists, could much be accomplished? Many people are skeptical of the potential results, saying that it's just a single state. What impact could we have?

A considerable one, we think. Despite growing federalization, states still have a great deal of power in some areas.

Homeschooling regulations? Local
Gun registration? Local
Gambling? Local
Helmet laws? Child support laws? Marriage laws? All local.

To illustrate, the Nevada Revised Statutes are 51 volumes in length. And this in a state most people think of as laissez faire. So there is considerable internal latitude for states, 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? 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. I should note for the record, however, that Wyoming was the last to do so, and didn't institute zero tolerance laws until 1998. Good job!

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 autonomy.

Well, then what about drug laws? Look at Ed Rosenthal, 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.

Can it work? As a precedent, 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.

So what does this all mean to the state that is chosen? Quite a bit, and it's either good or bad depending on your point of view.

Probably the first reaction people have when they hear about us is, "I don't want you invading my state and taking over." Well, good. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't. 20,000 people is only about 13% of the voting population of Wyoming, if I recall correctly. That leaves 87% of the public who could easily send us packing if they don't like what we have to offer. So fears (or hopes) of creating an anarchy are unjustified at best.

But more importantly, our candidate states are those that already carry a history of independence and support for individual freedoms. 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. Delaware and Wyoming have some of the loosest incorporation laws in the country, and just recently Wyoming very publicly relieved the Feds of their "responsibility" for local wolves. In other words, the very things that make these states – your state – special and unique are the same things we want to help preserve against an ever-encroaching federal government, bureaucrats, and social nannies who believe that the average American citizen doesn't have the common sense God gave a gopher. Our goal is not to "take over" but to make politicians more accountable and put more decisions back in the hands of the citizens of our state.

Does Wyoming need our help? Perhaps not. But here's something to think about: Jackson Hole is getting to be a pretty popular vacation spot for the monied crowd. Yellowstone of course gets plenty of attention from the environmental lobby. The growing population and influence of these very small but wealthy groups can affect legislation for the entire state. This is what happened in Colorado – which became a liberal state only after it first turned into a yuppie playground.

20,000 libertarian-leaning activists could be a very valuable asset in fighting this sort of thing.

So what impact would 20,000 Free Staters have on Wyoming?

As I mentioned, the move would take place within 5 years of reaching our 20,000 mark. And some members have announced that they intend to move as soon as the vote takes place. So it's not going to be an abrupt influx; rather a slow trickle taking place over several years. All else being equal, this would approximately double Wyoming's projected rate of growth during that time.

Obviously the construction and real estate industries would feel the initial impact, as Free Staters would need homes. Services would also experience an increase in demand, stimulating the local economy.

One real concern is that the new residents would be competing with long-time residents for jobs. While this is a possibility, it should be noted that many of our members are self-employed entrepreneurs. So we would be bringing in jobs and not necessarily taking them away. Additionally, because many of our Free Staters are urbanites, they would tend to gravitate to larger towns, such as Cheyenne, or commute to nearby Colorado.

So once we move in, then what?

There are several strategies open to us, and we haven't chosen a particular one. This is due to a number of factors: first, the FSP's goal in and of itself is only to move 20,000 members to the chosen state. What happens then is up to the members. Secondly, we've been more concerned with gathering data about the candidate states so we can make an informed vote. Once the vote takes place, I'm sure post-move strategy will become the primary topic of discussion. Finally, the end result will in all likelihood be a combination of strategies.

The most immediate strategy would be forming an endorsement group to rate candidates and issues, and keep the membership informed. Jason is a vocal supporter of this particular strategy.

We could form an activist group along the lines of the ACLU, one that actually supports the entire Bill of Rights. This group could organize grassroots political activity, such as initiating referendums for elections, submitting petitions, and so forth.

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 of the 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.

The most popular idea is for individuals sponsored or otherwise promoted by the FSP 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 Free Staters 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.

In closing, I'd like to quote Jason Sorens, who said, "The federal government continues to usurp powers from the states; more and more decisions are being made by supranational entities like the UN, the OECD, and the EU [as well as non-government organizations like the Sierra Club and Green Peace International]. The window of opportunity for effecting real change through the political system is gradually closing. If we do not do something now, our children and grand-children may be locked into a system that they can do nothing to change. States still have significant legislative powers and are the fundamental units of our American polity; therefore, we should make use of the federal system to achieve [and maintain] liberty in at least one place."

Finding the Right States

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.

Finding the Right States for State Rights

by Sean Scallon

This article first appeared in the January 2003 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture (www.ChroniclesMagazine.org).

It seems more than a bit ironic that a man so identified with the cause of states rights and the South's quest for self-determination would have attended a school in the heartland of Yankee centralism.

Yet, John C. Calhoun was Yale man, a graduate of an institution set up by Congregationalists that was part of the intellectual center of what would be New England's eventual domination over the rest of America, something that Calhoun was opposed to and fearful of.

And yet, in irony still, a Yale man, a graduate student attending part of the intellectual center of the new multicultural America, is trying to carrying on Calhoun's work today, even if the Elis would be loath to admit that Calhoun even attended school in New Haven.

"My wife's a South Carolinian and she grew up not too far from where Calhoun lived and worked," Jason P. Sorens said. "From that, and my time here at Yale and through own my own views on states' rights, I'm quite aware of his legacy."

For that legacy of states rights and nullification is part of Sorens' Free State Project (FSP), a libertarian group that has a plan to put Calhoun's views on the states' right to act independently of the federal government in defense of their own interests into action. What Sorens' group hopes to do is to attract 20,000 or more liberty oriented people to join his group and agree to move to a single, small U.S. state to be able to influence that state's body politic towards the principles of a free society. The group was formed in 2001 in the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, as once again Libertarians were stuck in the mire of national third party politics.

"I was thinking about this idea after the 2000 election," Sorens said. "A column written by Walter Williams, which talked about the possibilities of secession, influenced my thinking in this direction, as did a round-table discussion in Liberty magazine about what strategies the Libertarian Party should pursue. I talked to friends and also wrote an essay in The Libertarian Enterprise, an online Libertarian magazine, and got an excellent response. That's how myself and several others first came together to form the FSP."

There are currently 40,000 paid Libertarian Party activists according to Sorens' figures, of which he believes half of that total is a potential pool for recruits to the FSP, at least from within LP ranks. It's these 20,000 members which Sorens hopes can be the activist cadre for an existing state Libertarian Party or within a new political organization, or in coalition with other existing parties within the state they choose. Using the example of the Parti Quebecois, (which the FSP cites frequently in articles on their website) Sorens estimates that the PQ had 100,000 paid members by 1976 in a Quebec that had a population of 6.2 million, or, a ratio of one member for every 62 persons when it won control of the provincial legislature. Applying the same mathematics to a state with a population of 1.2 million or less and where the two major political parties spend less than five million each for political campaigns at all levels, Sorens believes it is possible their group could achieve the same results as the PQ.

Utopian? Naive? Madness? Certainly there are those who would give this plan a first glance might think so, having seen every crackpot political venture before, like finding a deserted island in the Pacific Ocean and declaring themselves their own little nation, complete with anthem and flag and the leader enthroned as Napoleon. Or giving money to fund coups or rebel groups in third world countries in the name of democracy. Or the more usual direct mail schemes for political causes that wind up benefiting those behind them and the U.S. Postal Service rather the contributors. As a disclaimer, when this writer first ventured upon their website and read their premise, it reminded one of Jim Jones taking his People's Temple followers in the jungles of Guyana to make a socialist paradise that became a living hell on earth.

But is the FSP any more or less insane than third party politics in this country? Is it any more or less insane than Libertarians or Constitutionalists or Greens trying yet once again to elect a president, especially one that will likely be without Congressional or state office support? Is it any more or less insane than spending another year toiling in the political fields trying to cultivate another rich harvest of grassroots support just to elect an alderman? Or is it more or less insane than the old, proverbial "working with our two-party system?"

"Third parties don't work on a national scale," Sorens said. "Not just because the system is against them but the culture is too. If you look around the world, the parties and movements that are new and dynamic are the ones promoting regionalism and autonomy."

And if one looks back through American history, one finds the idea of the FSP hardly so insane after all. The migration of 20,000 or so activists into a small state pales in comparison to the migration of African-Americans from the South to Northern cities through half the 20th century. It certainly would be on par with the migration of Mormons from Navuoo, Ill. to their desert kingdom in Utah or at least on the level with recent political migrations of New York liberals to Vermont, which changed the political orientation of that state changed from cantankerous Yankee to Ben and Jerry hippie, or California conservatives to the Rocky Mountain states and Texas, which made these places even more pro-Republican than they already were. Certainly Southern politics (and culture for that matter) were never the same again with all the Yankee migrants from the East and Midwest settling there since the end of World War II to the present day.

So what would these activists in the Free State Project do with their "freedom?", i.e, what would they do in the event they were ever elected to hold public office in the state they were migrating to? For starters, they would like to repeal state taxes and wasteful state government spending programs. Then they would move to ending collaboration between state and federal law enforcement officials in enforcing unconstitutional federal laws. They would end asset forfeiture and abuses of eminent domain along with privatizing utilities and ending inefficient state regulations and monopolies. They would negotiate directly with the federal government for more autonomy, opting out of national programs and receive tax rebates or block grants instead as some provinces have done in other countries. They could also adopt electoral reform with instant runoff and preferential voting methods to elect public officials rather than first past the post. And there's more.

"There should be no federal role in land ownership and we would give federal lands back to states and local communities for more productive use," Sorens said. "We also would want to give Indian tribes living within our states full autonomy. Most of us feel that states should eventually enjoy the right to control immigration. States that would want to have a large immigrant population should have the right to do so and those that do not wish to should have the right to put up barriers."

Such autonomy, if obtained, could go in fascinating directions. Take foreign policy for example. A state that did not favor an undeclared war or military action far away from its borders could prevent the members of their national guard from taking part in it. Or not allow their citizens to participate in any reintroduction of the military draft unless war has been declared by Congress or allow their citizens tax money to fund it. They could also reject treaties that directly went their economic, political or cultural interests, especially those drawn up in the United Nations. Or negotiate trade agreements of their own with other provinces and states around the globe. Such autonomy could catch on. If the foreign policy experts and bureaucrats in the State Department, Pentagon, CIA, United Nations or in Congress and the White House, knew that an unpopular treaty, trade agreement, or military adventure would be opposed by several states, they may think twice. In fact it could break the monopoly that the current establishment has upon foreign policy of this country and put a check upon the Empire.

If migration of political, cultural, ethnic, racial and religious groups is as American as apple pie, so is the autonomy and right of dissent from federal policy. It's in the same spirit and letter as that of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which opposed and forswore compliance of the Alien and Sedition Acts that Congress passed in 1798. It was these resolutions that Calhoun drew upon his philosophy for nullification written in the South Carolina Exposition of 1828 and the Fort Hill Address of 1831. Calhoun was not a secessionist and neither is the FSP advocating secession. But the both agree the right of a state and local body of government to declare itself opposed to and withdraw from compliance of policies drawn up in Washington D.C. that are ruinous to the interests of its people is what many Founding Fathers hope would be a check upon the growth of power of the federal government. And while that check may have been removed after 1860, trying to get it back certainly wouldn't be any less counterproductive for a group of activists outside the two-party oligopoly than wasting their time trying to elect a representative, senator or president, federal offices in a federal system that's already spoken for.

The FSP took shape in the middle of 2001 and progress towards their goal of 20,000 members has only reached 2,000 plus members by December of 2002. The disaster of September 11 and the wave of nationalistic feeling afterward put a severe crimp building membership. The FSP is using their website, www.freestateproject.org along with world of mouth to gin up interest. They hope to advertise in libertarian and other political and cultural publications and members are trying to recruit and put in a good world for themselves at Libertarian Party conventions across the country. Responses have fit the range from enthusiastic volunteers to people wishing to kill them.

"We've had good responses from some of the LP membership," Sorens said. "I think their are many Libertarians out there burned out with conventional politics. They're looking for something that has a chance to work. Others are just ignoring us or giving us a polite nod and looking the other way.

"There were definitely some effects from Sept. 11 to the FSP. Some people who were interested dropped out. Some people called us traitors, and we even received one death threat. The daily rate of people signing up slowed for a while after Sept. 11 but it began to pick up again in February. I think people are beginning to realize that not much in the country has changed except for the federal government's trying to violate and take away our civil liberties in the name of our protection. And yet, as 9/11 showed, it could not and did not protect us from Al Qaida and their extremists. So we are starting to pick up members again. We would like to reach 5,000 members in three years, because that would a tipping point to show to people that we're serious."

The mixed response from Libertarians has led the FSP to look outside their circle towards others who might be even more interested in their hopes and dreams for state and local autonomy. Links towards paleoconservatives and paeolibertarians, members of political and cultural autonomists and secessionists like the League of the South or to anti-federal government groups in West, or strict Constitutionalist groups like the Constitution Party, could provide fertile ground either for potential members or inspiration and ideas for their own efforts. Members who sign up will get to choose the state they will live in and agree to live there. On their website are economic and political data on states below the 1.5 million person threshold, of which their are several. They have criteria to judge those states that remain: big-government tendencies eliminated Hawaii and Rhode Island outright and cast some doubt on Vermont and Maine. Federal dependence hurts the chances of North and South Dakota. That leaves mostly western states like Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, eastern states like New Hampshire and Delaware, and, outside the contiguous United States, Alaska.

From talking to Sorens and from reading the website, the FSP is quite aware that simply moving 20,000 people to particular state that many have never lived in before, if not even passed through, and announcing "We're taking over!" is not going to go down very well with the local populace who have lived there all their lives. So long as the FSP talks the language of "building a local culture of liberty," "appeals to a state's particularism and rights vis-à­¶is the federal government" and supporting autonomy for local groups such as Native American tribes, they're on the right track.

"We've stressed on our discussion websites how to best integrate ourselves into the community we will eventually choose. But we're not really sure how that will really work out," Sorens said. "In western states we have to make contact with ranchers, farmers and miners and talk about gun rights issues, property rights and the ownership of federal lands. In the east, we will have to take a small business approach and stress the issue of taxes. Obviously if we locate in the west and Alaska, it will be to our advantage because it's further away from the central government and that distance plays a role in issues of autonomy."

Which would leave one to believe the west would be the perfect place for FSP members to relocate. Particularly Alaska, which has a secessionist movement or at least the remnants of one, the Alaska Independence Party (AIP), already in place, which elected a governor, former Interior Secretary Walter Hickel, who served form 1990-94. But this leads to central cultural problems and challenges that are in the FSP's path. While the West might be more fertile ground politically, it's less so economically, at least as it relates to Libertarians and FSP members in general. Many work in the high-tech sectors and financial service industries, and jobs in those areas of employment are not exactly in great supply in mostly rural, mostly commodity driven Western states and Alaska. Some FSP members, according to Sorens, have made it quite clear they would not prefer to live in Alaska or Wyoming. That's why a state like Delaware, the manor lawn of the DuPont family and the home the government dependent credit card industry is still a possible FSP destination. With the interconnectedness of modern technology, having FSP members move out west to start up companies in the areas they are employed in order to give other FSP members on their way jobs to come to, is one possible solution, there are more cultural challenges waiting.

The Parti Quebecois is mentioned many times on the FSP website and is certainly the model they would like to follow as a successful autonomist political party. But the PQ had it easy. All it had to do was to rally one single, homogenous ethnic, religious and linguistic group to its cause. Herding cats might prove to be easier than trying to build a coalition of libertarians, secessionists, Constitutionalists, paleoconservatives, Greens, classical liberals, and any other groups that might have an interest in the free state cause. And then try to assimilate into a state's particular culture, make common cause and coalition with native political parties and interest groups, and finding a cultural and economic group of voters as a source for their support, would be a task that would burden even Hercules.

"Education is going to be an important part of what we do," Sorens said. "Educating ourselves on the state that we choose to live in and educating the residents there as to what we stand for. We have to focus our attention on those who don't vote or whose lives aren't taken up by politics. So much of our political debate is framed by elite opinion from pundits or experts or the media, that it's hard for regular people not to follow along, because nobody wants to be part of, or examine closely, something that polls just one percent of the population or is portrayed as being on the 'fringe.'

"That's why having so many activists in one single place, working together for what we believe in, will not only make people take a look at us, but look at us again and again. It's that second and third look that we need."

Given the announcement by President Bush of a new "Superagency" for homeland security, the transferring of so many security related bureaus of the federal government into one cabinet department modeled along the lines of NKVD or the RSHA, the Free State Project is a worthy try to accomplish the task of rolling back the state.

Sean Scallon is a reporter who lives in East Ellsworth, Wisconsin.

January 6, 2003

The views expressed in this essay do not necessarily represent those of Free State Project, Inc.