Q. I'm in the armed forces - how would I declare my move to the free
state?
A. Active-duty personnel can select a "home of record." This home
of record may be in any state, and you are allowed to vote in that state's
elections by absentee ballot. However, you may not change your home of record
after initial enlistment. If you re-enlist after leaving the military, you are
allowed to change your home of record then. There are also regulations relating
to travel while on leave.
Additional info from Don
Smith:
While it is true that the "home of record" may be selected only upon initial
entry into the military, and changed upon re-enlistment which does not apply to
officers, this does not apply to "state of legal residence". Or rather it does
not restrict one from changing his or her state of legal residence which is the
determining factor for income and personal property taxation, voting, and any
other legal resident purposes. The new legal residence then remains in effect
until abandoned through the overt act of selecting a different one.
I originally enlisted in the Air Force out of Delaware in 1961, kept that home
of record through two reenlisments and upon receiving my commission in 1972. I
moved to Nashua, NH in 1975 when I was reassigned to Hanscom AFB, MA and
selected New Hampshire as my legal residence in 1976. I retained that NH
residence status, voted there, and paid personal property taxes on my vehicles
throughout the remainder of my military career; losing it only upon my
retirement in Colorado on 1 Jan 2000. To this day I retain my NH driver's
license, stubbornly refusing to cut all ties to my adopted home.
The criteria for selecting a new "legal residence" while in the military is
having a "presence" there and actions demonstrating intent, the most definitive
of which is registering to vote. However, it is not technically necessary to
actually live there at the time of selection. Simply owning property upon which
you pay taxes can establish a legal address and then registering to vote at
that address is sufficient. I have also known folks to make the selection using
a friend or family member's address which is not actually legal; although I know
of no one who's ever been caught out at it.
Back to FAQ
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 in New Hampshire?
by
Jason Sorens April 12, 2004
This essay is a significant revision of an earlier article, "What Can 20,000 Liberty Activists
Accomplish?".
The main goal of the Free State Project is to recruit 20,000
liberty-friendly Americans to move to New Hampshire over the next several
years. The purpose of this cooperative migration is to create a freer, better
society through the electoral process and cultural change. Those of us who
believe government in the U.S. is far too involved in our daily lives and far
too removed from the control and influence of ordinary people represent a
substantial minority in the U.S., but a minority nonetheless. In all our
political efforts to date, we have been thwarted by powerful special interests
in D.C., by the ignorance or apathy of many Americans, and by the self-interest
of politicians themselves. The idea behind the Free State Project, therefore,
is that by concentrating pro-freedom resources in a single, friendly state we
will leverage our influence more effectively while also enjoying immediately
the benefits of a freer state culture.
So much is clear. But why 20,000? What is the logic behind this number?
There is certainly nothing magical about it. When the FSP started, 20,000
signatures seemed like an attainable goal, and one that would mean something.
Further research showed that
20,000 people could significantly influence several states, assuming that they
were all active in politics or civil society, not just passive onlookers. This
essay expands on that research to consider exactly what 20,000 Free Staters
could accomplish in the state we've chosen, New Hampshire.
In my first essay on the topic, I looked at two figures that seemed
analogous to what we were attempting. I examined the Parti Quebecois (PQ) and
their rise from a minor party favoring Quebec secession to the governing party
of Quebec. When they won their first absolute majority in the Quebec
parliament, in 1976, there were approximately 100,000 PQ party members in a
Quebec population of about 6 million, a ratio of 1 member to 60 residents. If
the individual-liberty movement of which the FSP is a part is analogous to the
Quebec independence movement, and the average Free Stater is as active as the
average PQ member, then the individual-liberty movement might expect to be able
to win a majority in a U.S. state of about 1.2 million population (assuming
20,000 Free Staters there). Another figure I examined was Libertarian Party
membership in the U.S. The Libertarian Party is one of the political parties
popular among FSP members, and therefore their experience certainly seems
analogous. In the year 2000, the Libertarians briefly reached a membership of
40,000 and was able to raise $5.2 million that year. If 20,000 Free Staters
could raise as much on a per capita basis, that means at least $5.2 million
raised by Free Staters every two-year election cycle. $5.2 million in an
election cycle is competitive with the entire Republican or Democratic (or
both!) expenditure in several states.
Both of those figures imply that FSP participants have the potential to
create significant political momentum in a state. However, subsequent research
shows that they may in fact be quite conservative. For instance, the PQ became
the second largest party in Quebec when they had 60,000 members, in 1973. When
that happened, their ultimate victory was only a matter of time, because the
voters would tire of the incumbent government eventually, and the PQ was the
only relevant alternative. Thus, once the PQ reached a 1 in 100
member-to-population ratio, their eventual electoral success seemed assured.
Put another way, their rise from 60,000 to 100,000 members was a consequence of
their rising popularity in the 1970s, not a cause of it. So applying the same
ratio to New Hampshire's population (just under 1.3 million), we see that under
13,000 Free Staters may be able to have the same sort of impact there.
Likewise, the comparison based on Libertarian Party fundraising does not
take into account the fact that state legislative elections are much cheaper
than federal congressional elections. The 2002 gubernatorial race in New
Hampshire was hugely expensive (over $15 million, more than $10 million of
which was spent by Craig Benson from his own fortune), but it appears that just
over $2 million total were earmarked for state house and senate elections (source).
Moreover, money does not strictly determine election results: Democrats
slightly outspent Republicans but were decimated in the election for proposing
an income tax.
The upshot of all this is that purely by the numbers, well organized Free
Staters could have a significant effect on state-level politics in New
Hampshire even if they numbered just eight, ten, or twelve thousand. However,
this purely statistical analysis also does not take into account the specific
circumstances of our state. Many of the advantages of New Hampshire for
freedom-seeking Americans are well known features that sold the state to
thousands of FSP members, but I intend to take the well-known lists of
"desirable features" to induce a more general picture of the state, a "Theory
of New Hampshire" if you will.
I class New Hampshire's advantages in two categories, cultural and
institutional. Cultural aspects of New Hampshire relate to the friendliness of
Granite Staters to our ideas. Institutional aspects of New Hampshire make it
easy for grassroots political movements to have their say in state politics.
First, cultural aspects. The litany of advantages here, well detailed in
the "101 Reasons to Vote
for New Hampshire" report, is nearly overwhelming - no state sales or
income tax, the lowest state and local tax burden in the continental U.S., no
adult seatbelt law, no helmet law, very few gun laws, a governor and many state
legislators who've been explicitly welcoming, a large percentage of political
independents, extremely low dependence on federal subsidies, low government
employment, and so forth. What has been missing from all the talk of New
Hampshire's independent spirit of tolerance and responsibility is an
understanding of the sources of this spirit. As a political scientist, I tend
to believe that broad social attitudes on these issues are often influenced by
very basic historical and socioeconomic factors.
Let's start with history. As Bryan and McClaughry point out in The
Vermont Papers, Vermont and New Hampshire historically developed a
specific type of libertarianism to match their settlement patterns, centered
around small towns occupying rills, dales, and valleys among the hills and
mountains of the area. The town meeting system allowed citizens to keep their
government officials close enough to "grab them by the scruff of their necks"
if they overstepped their power. Essentially what developed was a kind of
"communal libertarianism" different from the individualism of the West, where
one could simply escape the company of others. This town meeting system with
its emphasis on local government is still largely intact in New Hampshire
today. The libertarian frontier spirit of New Hampshire was immortalized in
the state constitution, Article 10 protecting the right of revolution and
resistance to arbitrary rule.
While New Hampshire did develop a manufacturing base early in the 20th
century, it never developed a large metropolis. The largest city in New
Hampshire, Manchester, is quite different from most other cities of about the
same size (approximately 100,000 residents). It is much more conservative in
its voting patterns. Metropolitan areas have typically been left-leaning,
because they were historically controlled by corrupt party machines or
dominated by labor unions. Furthermore, metropolitan areas have had higher
concentrations of free thinkers and people looking to shake off the values of
the past. For many of these people, "progressivism" in the 20th century meant
socialism. While this tendency is likely to change in the future (and in fact
urbanized areas in Europe already tend to be more classically liberal than the
countryside), for our purposes, the Boston-Washington corridor, the Rust Belt
states, and the Pacific coast are too heavily urbanized and thus too statist.
We could not have picked any of those states and had success.
Economically, New Hampshire has the advantage of a dynamic economy centered
around knowledge-based and service industries. Such industries tend to favor
the global economy and a leaner scale of government that makes rapid adaptation
possible. New Hampshire's high per capita income also means that residents pay
much more to the federal government in taxes than they receive in expenditures.
New Hampshire is thus quite different from neighboring Vermont and Maine, which
have struggled economically, and from the interior states of the West and
Midwest, which are dependent on agriculture and natural resources and hence
take a more insular view of the world. Such societies tend to fear change and
integration into the global economy.
Socially, New Hampshire has always ranked as one of the more tolerant
states in the country. This fact is related to its religious diversity.
States with a very high evangelical Protestant population or a very high
Catholic population tend to be socially authoritarian in different ways. New
Hampshire is not necessarily secular, but it is pluralist. The Southern states
are all too socially conservative, and most of them are also very dependent on
the federal government.
New Hampshire thus combines the best of all worlds and ends up with an
ideal socioeconomic and cultural mix. Most of the states that are socially
tolerant and economically advanced tend to be heavily urbanized and leftist,
while most of the states that are not heavily urbanized tend to be poor or too
rightist. New Hampshire is the only state in the country that I can identify
that is tolerant, advanced, not federally dependent, not too urbanized, and
historically libertarian-oriented. If a libertarian movement were to succeed
anywhere in the country, maybe in the world, it would be in New Hampshire.
Let's take a look now at New Hampshire's unique institutional advantages.
The main "institutional" disadvantage of New Hampshire is that it does not have
the absolute lowest population of any state. However, as the analysis above
shows, several thousand Free Staters should be able to influence New Hampshire
very strongly despite its small-but-not-smallest size.
In addition, a multitude of institutional advantages seem to outweigh the
population problem. First, New Hampshire has a large state house, the third
largest legislature in the English-speaking world. Low district size means that
outsiders and independents can win elections by running a good campaign. For
example, several Libertarian Party legislators won election to the NH House in
the 1990's. The $100 per year salary for NH House representatives ($200 for
state senators) ensures that career politicians do not dominate the
legislature. The practice of fusion voting, rare in the U.S., allows
politicians to run for election with multiple party endorsements, making it
easier for third parties to win votes. Biennial elections for all state
elective offices ensures strict popular control of government. Despite the
fact that New Hampshire has no initiative and referendum process, the ease of
getting on the ballot combined with biennial elections for every state office
means that virtually every statewide election is a referendum on the policies
of the incumbent government. Another institutional advantage is the
aforementioned strength of town government. Schooling is an important policy
area that activists can change at the local level in New Hampshire. The state
constitution forbids unfunded state mandates on local government.
New Hampshire's institutions thus reflect the state's history and political
culture, providing a unique opportunity for a "free state" movement.
Are you interested in helping to secure the future of individual rights,
tolerance, and the rule of law? Would you enjoy living in a society that
respected your values? Then join us in New
Hampshire! My own analysis indicates that there is no better place on
earth. Do your own analysis and discover where you'd like to be in the future.
Back to Essays
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.
50 Things ALL the States Have in Common
by Neil Alexander
The purpose of this essay is to dispel some misconceptions, or
inferences about the two front-running states. However, the
observations here also apply to ALL the states under consideration for
the Free State Project.
I would like to say up front, that my family will be moving to the
selected state, no matter which is selected. I certainly have my
preferences, but we're going!
I worry that some of the people may reject certain remote states out of
hand - especially places they have not visited. Most particularly,
places on the opposite coast from where they now live.
The two leaders, currently, are Wyoming and New Hampshire. I have been
to both states, and they both have:
- Reliable Electricity -- Don't laugh, think about it!
- Reliable Telephone Service
- Internet Service providers
- Satellite Television (200+ channels)
- Water
- Decent roads
- Fast Food (local or national)
- Grocery Stores
- Hardware Stores
- Walmarts
- Target, Sears, Ace, etc. etc.
- Quaint towns with long histories
- Medium-sized cities with long histories (pop 50,000)
- Fabulous recreation areas
- Beautiful Fall Foliage
- Snow in the Winter
- Churches of All types
- Home builders
- Manufactured Housing dealers
- Car dealers & repair
- Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Systems
- Buildings more than 3 stories tall
- Tourist Attractions
- Nearby Metropolitan Areas
- Modern Medical Facilities
- Colleges
- RV Parks
- Apartments
- Republic form of government.
- Sunshine (even Alaska, Jason!)
- County Fairs, festivals, and parades
- Kids to befriend your children
- Taverns and bars
- Mail Boxes Etc. (mail forwarding services)
- Gas Stations
- UPS, FedEx, and Airborne Express - even in VERY remote areas.
- English as an official language
- UHaul & Ryder Rentals
- Regional symphony orchestras
- Military bases (for veterans)
- Newspapers, bookstores, and music stores
- Computer stores
- Public Television and NPR
- Starbucks
- Cell phones
- Airports
- Truck Stops
- Radio Shack
- Firewood
- Other Porcupines
So, is your lifestyle really going to be diminished?
The point? Don't opt-out of a state because you think it's a "back
water". I've lived in a couple of back waters. I live in one right now.
I still have internet service, electricity, phone, etc. And it's
considerably cheaper than living in a big metropolitan area.
For everybody on the East Coast, check out Wyoming's information. Some
of those town centers look like a guidebook for New Hampshire!
Westerners? Check out New Hampshire's smaller towns and cities. Lots of
room. You can get used to looking at the news at 11PM instead of 8, I
guarantee it. You'll be hard pressed to differentiate between LA & NYC,
though.
Everybody will still get Leno & ER; phone calls from Aunt Mildred; 140
Spams a day; and tax forms at the Post Office.
Your kids will have Little League, YMCA, dance and music classes, and
public schools (if that's what you want).
If you're in high-tech, or a broker, you might be able to telecommute
(I do). If you're a doctor, you'll be greeted with open arms. If you're
a lawyer, well, I dunno.
You might have to get a different kind of work, but you're flexible,
right? Adapt!
So porcupines, don't relegate a far off state to "back water" status -
they actually have more in common than we have with most of the rest of
the world.