Onward to New Hampshire!

Original article:	www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/ editions/sunday/news_f37bf2e953a190e700e4.html
Date:	11/16/03
Title:	Onward to New Hampshire!
Author:	Mark Lisheron
Publication:	Austin American-Statesman

---

Onward to New Hampshire!

Austin's Free State members pledge to create a Libertarian bastion

by Mark Lisheron • AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF • 11/16/03

Alan Weiss, Michael Badnarik and Rick McGinnis want to experience their ideal of liberty in their lifetimes.

To secure their freedom, they have pledged to move from Austin to New Hampshire along with men and women from all over the country.

Once there, these people, members of the Free State Project, intend to set about creating a place to prosper without government interfering in how citizens live. Now, if they can only put up with the cold.

The idea for the Free State Project is not unlike that which led to the Mormon migration to Utah in the 19th century. After years of trying to effect political change in their communities, Free Staters believe that their one last hope is to gather in a state where their like-minded numbers would make a difference.

In little over a year 5,055 people nationwide, 274 of them from Texas, have joined the Free State Project. Organizers say the project can succeed if 20,000 people pledge to move to New Hampshire. Far from being political kooks, as their intellectual predecessors have sometimes been portrayed, organizers say the core of the movement is middle class, educated, high-tech savvy and entrepreneurial.

Whether the Free State Project will fail if the goal isn't reached is a matter of debate among members. Political experts doubt that the movement will succeed in New Hampshire, no matter how audacious and intriguing the idea or how many people ultimately immigrate.

But at a time when citizens debate the USA Patriot Act and the erosion of civil liberties, Free Staters believe that something dramatic must be tried.

'Fighting for an idea'

"This is very much like the Alamo," Badnarik said over a plate of crepes at a local IHOP recently. "We're fighting for an idea. The question is not whether or not this is worth it. I feel the government is so out of control that this drastic step is necessary. I'm afraid the next step would be some sort of revolution, and I don't want that."

Badnarik is one of five people running for the Libertarian Party's nomination for president of the United States. He has managed to visit 12 states on $5,000, sleeping on couches and otherwise living on the cheap.

His success campaigning at Libertarian conventions in 16 key states from January through April will determine whether he carries his party's presidential banner. The Free State Project will have to wait at least a year.

The Free State Project is a libertarian idea. Libertarian philosophy is simple in design and, for most Americans, impossible in execution.

Libertarians derive their rights and their responsibilities from the Constitution. The individual is expected to shoulder the biggest responsibility, not to interfere with the rights of other individuals.

Government's responsibility is to protect this covenant, not to protect individuals from themselves, a libertarian would say. A libertarian supports some form of national defense, for example, but does not support government-sponsored welfare or school programs.

Badnarik, 49, has twice been a Libertarian candidate for state representative, collecting nearly 17 percent of the vote in Texas' District 47 in 2000. Weiss, 44, is a Libertarian serving on the board of Municipal Utility District 41 in Austin. McGinnis, 49, is the vice-chairman of the Travis County Libertarian Party.

But though roughly half of the members of the Free State Project describe themselves as Libertarians, according to national spokesman Elizabeth McKinstry of Ann Arbor, Mich., the other half is made up of independents, conservatives and liberals, she says.

Internet genesis

Libertarianism, as a political movement, stalled long ago. After coming out of nowhere at its inception in 1972, Libertarian Party candidate Ed Clark got more than 900,000 votes, or 1 percent of the total, in the 1980 election that Ronald Reagan won. No Libertarian has amassed as many as 500,000 votes in any presidential election since.

Jason Sorens, a 26-year-old political science major at Yale University and a Libertarian Party member, critiqued the flagging fortunes of the party in an essay he submitted as part of his candidacy for a Ph.D. In July 2001, Sorens posted the essay on the Internet. It included a detailed call to all libertarian-minded people to create a free state.

McKinstry, who has a degree in philosophy and works in marketing for an environmental group, says she read the essay and immediately began discussing a move with her husband. Though he is not as libertarian as she, McKinstry's husband says, he supports a move. McKinstry is Free State Project member No. 5.

"I read the essay and thought, 'Hell, yes, this is absolutely what we ought to do,' " she said. "I told my husband that if this works, it is something I can't not be part of. This has been the most exciting two years of my life."

As membership grew, Free State Project organizers created a list of 10 states as a possible destination: Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, Maine, Montana, North and South Dakota, Vermont, Wyoming and New Hampshire.

Some Free State members complained of the remoteness of some states. Many complained about the climates. Organizers stuck with the list because the low populations of these states would make it possible for 20,000 Libertarian thinkers to make their biggest impact.

When the vote was announced Oct. 1, New Hampshire had received the most first-place votes, 749. North and South Dakota received the fewest, a combined 56.

'Live Free or Die'

"We'd love to have you," Craig Benson, the Republican governor of New Hampshire, told Free Staters at a Libertarian Party convention in Manchester in early November.

In an e-mail interview, Benson said that though Republicans are loath to consider some of the Free State platform -- repealing gun laws and legalizing drugs and gambling -- New Hampshire would benefit from new involvement in the political process.

"They indicated to me that they were small-business owners who believe in limited self-governance. These are ideals we share, and I welcome them as law-abiding citizens."

Benson's enthusiasm is one reason Free Staters are excited about New Hampshire. The state motto is "Live Free or Die." The state levies no income tax or sales tax. New Hampshire's gun laws, a threshold issue for Constitutionalists, are fewer and more lenient than elsewhere. Seat-belt laws and motorcycle-helmet laws do not exist.

Perhaps most important to a group seeking political change, New Hampshire might have the most localized government in the union. The state's 1.2 million people are represented by myriad boards of selectmen and city councils.

Voters elect 400 state representatives to the House, the largest legislative body in the country next to the U.S. House of Representatives. The average is one representative for every 3,500 or so voters. The stipend of $200 per legislative session curbs professional politicians.

John Babiarz, chairman of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, cannot believe the state's good fortune. "We're ecstatic. New Hampshire is a libertarian-leaning state. A lot of people here welcome this as a way to rejuvenate state politics," he said.

Calling Davy Crockett

What surprised Alan Weiss when he visited New Hampshire early this month was the economy's vigor and diversity, particularly in the largest cities, Manchester (population 107,006), Nashua (86,605) and the state capital, Concord (40,687).

Weiss runs two small software and hardware testing and analysis companies in Austin. One of his companies certified the vote for the selection of the Free State at no charge.

Weiss says he came to his political philosophy at 15. He fell in with free-market economic theorists at the University of California at Northridge. After a sour experience with Clark's 1980 campaign, Weiss stayed away from party politics. The Free State Project was different, a movement ready to back its ideas with action.

"This is the grand experiment of our time for a family who believes in liberty," he said. "This is the quintessential American experience. David Crockett said, 'You can go to hell; I'm going to Texas.' Well, I'm going to New Hampshire."

This is no headlong rush. Weiss' wife, Jane, has her own career, and though she has kept an open mind, she has not yet visited New Hampshire. He'd like his daughter, Robyn, to finish her senior year in high school here this year. Jane's 83-year-old mother-in-law is in a nursing home here.

Weiss says he intends to fly his family to New Hampshire in the teeth of winter before asking them to help him fulfill his commitment. The Free State Project is a pledge, not a binding contract, he says.

"I'm not moving this year," Weiss said. "Austin is my home. I love Texas. I am a Texan. But it is changing into a big government state. It isn't the state I moved to 12 years ago."

Grass roots

Badnarik shares the same concerns about the political shift in Texas but says he would be leaving for New Hampshire after his campaign anyway.

He says he fled the "socialist state of California" for Austin in 1997. A chemist by education and a former nuclear systems analyst, Badnarik lost his Web development training job two years ago. He used the time to create an all-day course on the Constitution that he teaches small groups for a fee.

Regardless of the outcome of the presidential election in 2004, Badnarik, who is single, intends to resume teaching the Constitution in New Hampshire.

McGinnis wants to use his Travis County Libertarian Party experience to help Free Staters get elected in New Hampshire.

McGinnis, who is also single, grew up in Dallas and made himself comfortable in real estate in California. He thoroughly enjoys Austin and will miss it, he says. But he will not be deterred, even if the Free State Project doesn't get 20,000 people to move.

"The reality is that this is a grass-roots movement; that's important to remember," McGinnis said, sipping tea at Threadgill's downtown. "If those of us who can easily do it don't move to New Hampshire, then what excuse is there?"

New Hampshire political leaders have thought of several excuses. Democrats have complained that libertarians will further frustrate efforts to raise taxes for schools. Republicans are worried about the libertarians' free-wheeling attitude on legislating morality.

But though the Free State Project sees New Hampshire as libertarian leaning, leaning does not necessarily promise libertarian voting. Although four Libertarians have served in the New Hampshire House at one time or another, none currently serves. And of the thousands of elected and appointed positions in the state, 29 of them are held by Libertarians.

New Hampshire residents have been decidedly restrained for all the attention the Free State Project has received, according to Richard Winters, a professor who has taught New Hampshire government since 1969 at Dartmouth College in Hanover.

Few people are aware of the Free State Project. And those who know of it are not convinced that 20,000 people are coming, Winters says. And even if the goal is reached, Winters says, Free Staters will be thwarted by a political system that appears from a great distance to offer an advantage.

"Precisely because elected officials represent so few people, government is controlled by two very strong parties," Winters said. "Voters are very well-informed on political issues but also the issues that pertain to their communities. These people coming in from the outside are going to be last in line on the ballot."

Great responsibility

Free State Project founders do not agree on whether the movement can maintain the momentum to reach the 20,000-pledge goal. McKinstry is particularly worried about the next 5,000, now that the novelty of the idea has played out.

Without the necessary numbers, McKinstry says, she is afraid that nothing will change in New Hampshire. Worst of all, the Free State Project will have sent a message that nothing will change anywhere. If that happens, McKinstry says, she won't be going to New Hampshire.

"In making these grand statements, I think we bear a terrible responsibility, not only to our membership but to the ideals of libertarianism to make this work," McKinstry said. "If we fail, I think it will doom the Libertarian movement. I find the thought of it so sad and so frightening."

Badnarik couldn't disagree more. The success of the Free State Project will not rest with numbers of people, he says, but in the conviction of those who go to New Hampshire.

"There are already people moving there," he said. "As we continue to improve life and liberty in New Hampshire, other people will come."

mlisheron@statesman.com; 445-3663

---

More media articles about the FSP

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

It Takes a Nation of 20,000

Original article:	www.blacktable.com/finley030907.htm
Date:	09/18/03
Title:	It Takes a Nation of 20,000
Author:	Adam Finley
Publication:	The Black Table

---

It Takes a Nation of 20,000

by Adam Finley • 09/18/03

The All-American bromide goes something like this: If you don't like the way things are, than get out.

Or, if you're a member of The Free State Project, gather up 20,000 like-minded individuals and move to a single state in order to encourage political, cultural and societal change. Candidate states, all with populations under 1.5 million, include Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, Delaware, Montana, Idaho, New Hampshire and Maine. Recently, Free State Project Vice President Elizabeth McKinstry spoke with The Black Table about the Project's goals, and how it hopes to accomplish them in the coming years.

BT: This whole idea seems rather tenacious.

EM: Actually, it's based on some really solid research. The project was founded by Jason Soren, who's a graduate student at Yale University, in August 2001. It's based on good number crunching. I mean, 20,000 activists can have a significant political impact in any state under 1.5 million. It's not made up; the numbers are there. In terms of 20,000 people who would be willing to move to have a better life, it's a great American tradition. People have been doing it for at least a couple of centuries in this country and a lot longer all over the world.

BT: Do you downplay connections with the Libertarian Party?

EM: There really isn't any connection. If anything, the National Libertarian Party has been less than receptive about the project. What we share with them is a philosophy, which is that people are going to lead their best lives when they're able to make decisions for themselves.

BT: So your members cover all parties?

EM: We have members who are Republicans, Democrats, Greens, Libertarians. We have lots of people who aren't affiliated with any party. I'm not involved with any party. On our board we've got a lifetime LP member, a Republican Liberty Caucus, and anarchists. We have people from all over the spectrum.

BT: Isn't it oxymoronic for an anarchist to join a political organization?

EM: It is, but for the people who believe in real anarchical capitalism, the Free State Project is, to them, a logical step along that path. Less government is still better than more government, even though it's not ideal for those people.

BT: Wouldn't this just happen naturally if people wanted it?

EM: You have to realize that of the 10 states we're looking at, they were all chosen in part because of population, but also because they already have a culture that leans this way. The reason Hawaii isn't on the list, although it meets the population criteria, is that it's not a place that has a culture of individual liberty. The other thing is, with 20,000 people you can't just go in and take over. You have to be able to persuade people. What we're looking at is opening up dialogue that isn't available now because we're too small and too spread out. Candidates from third parties don't get invited to debates, but in our state a third party candidate would get invited to a debate because they'd have enough backing. At least the kind of issues we're talking about would be brought out in public debate.

BT: Are you concerned about conflicts with the federal government? Medical marijuana was made legal in California under Proposition 215 but still remained illegal under federal law, which created all kinds of problems.

EM: We're not looking to pick a fight with the federal government. I think there will be a point in which our state laws come into conflict with federal laws. I think there are some ways to handle that. One way is that you can set it up so your local law enforcement doesn't cooperate with federal law enforcement. That's not mandatory, that's optional. If the California Drug Task Force doesn't help out the DEA, the DEA is fairly handicapped in what they can do. I also think public opinion is moving in that direction. Canada's talking about legalizing it. The more the movement progresses, the less likely the federal government is going to want to start picking fights. Everybody knows the drug war is just a big loser. Not just a loser, but a destroyer of lives and economies and all kinds of things. People are starting to recognize that. The idea of "Just Say No" is probably one of the most foolish mottos.

BT: Are you looking at the elimination of drug laws?

EM: Absolutely. Here's the thing: we're a very decentralized organization. Our mission is to get the 20,000 in one place, not to tell them what to do. We know that when they get there they're going to do the right thing. But people are going to gravitate to the issues that mean the most to them. I don't know exactly what bill is going to be first, or what law, but I can tell you that these are all things that are important to a lot of our members and so it's likely these will be issues that will be addressed. But not all at once, and not all at first. There will be things that make more sense given the state that's chosen, or recent legislation. If we were going to a state that had already been talking about medical marijuana maybe that would be one of the first things we would tackle, it would just depend.

BT: Do you feel this kind of vagueness could incite conflict within the movement?

EM: When people sign up for the project they sign a statement that says they'll work to their fullest possible effort to create a government whose maximum role is the protection of life, liberty, and property. If people go to our forum or discussion list, they'll know what we're about. You don't need to love the legalization of drugs or everybody carrying a gun on their hips, but what you need to do is be someone who's willing to accept that in order to have the liberties that are important to you, other people need the liberties that are important to them. That's the spirit that has enabled us to get as far as we've gotten. This is about, "I want to make decisions on my life and I recognize as an adult that respects you as an adult that you should have the right to make decisions about your life."

BT: Once you've chosen a state, will the citizens appreciate this kind of encroachment?

EM: I think there are some that aren't going to be really happy and some that are going to be really happy. Until there's a law in the United States saying you can't move where you want, there's not a lot they can do about it. Our goal is to communicate that we're looking at a better society for everybody, a better society for moms and dads and retired people and students and poor people and rich people, too. We want to be members of the community. We're entrepreneurial, we have lots of business owners, we're working people. We're there to make a better life for everyone. We care about what they care about. But sure, there are going to be people who are unhappy and there's not a lot we can do about that except to keep reiterating that we're peaceful. We're going to work within the government, within the political system. We want the best for everybody and we hope we can have an open dialogue about it. We're not really worried about what politicians think to be honest with you. What citizens think is important to us. We get reactions from both sides. A lot of it is going to be how we present ourselves but we aren't going to make everyone happy, and I regret that, but at the same time, it's a free country.

BT: How will the actual move be handled?

EM: It sounds like a lot of people, but if you take New Hampshire, for example, they get 20,000 new people every year. Over a five-year period, which is the window for the move, that really isn't that many. That's 4,000 people a year, roughly. Housing is going to be more or less an issue depending on what state gets chosen. In some of the western states housing might be less of an issue, in some of the eastern states it might be more of an issue. But there are people who are going to start moving as soon as the state is chosen, who aren't waiting for the 20,000. It really is going to be spread out over time. We also have members who are interested in house sharing. One of the things we're going to set up as soon as the state is chosen is a networking board where people can get together and hook up as roommates, or housemates, or buying a duplex. Lots of people have already indicated interest in that. So we're going to serve as a sort of clearing house for those kind of joint inquires. But it's up to people to make the decisions that reflect their lifestyles. Some people want to live in a house way out in the woods, some people want to live in the closest thing to a city the state has. It's up to them and what they want to do.

BT: If this fails, could it have a debilitating effect on future movements?

EM: I think that's the big risk. If we don't get this to work, it discredits the Libertarian philosophy. But I'm much more optimistic now of the Project's success than when it started two years ago, or even a year ago. The growth rate has been phenomenal. We've gotten so much press that the National Libertarian Party is having internal arguments about why we get better press than they do. I do two interviews a day with local radio stations and things like that. I think it's going to happen. Is there a risk? Yeah, but there have been plenty of places where this kind of thing has succeeded. Look at San Francisco, look at Utah, look at Vermont. These are groups of people with a particular political agenda who have all ended up in the same place and created a particular culture. It's been done before. It can be done again.

---

More media articles about the FSP

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

Is The Free State New Hampshire?

Original article:	www.sierratimes.com/03/06/27/hunter.htm
Date:	06/26/03
Title:	Is The Free State New Hampshire?
Author:	The Hunter
Publication:	Sierra Times

---

Is The Free State New Hampshire?

by The Hunter • 06/26/03

I don't remember any more exactly when I first heard about The Free State Project, though I am pretty sure it was on the Liberty Round Table "discussions" mailing list. Founder Jason Sorens was floating the idea around, and it justifiably caused a lot of excitement in the Freedom movement. The whole idea has put me personally in a bit of an ethical dilemma, and made me seriously rethink my long-term plans. This past weekend I attended the Escape To New Hampshire program presented by the Welcome to the Granite State Committee of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire. The "porcupines" of the Free State Project have convinced me that I'm already living in the state that has the best overall climate for freedom in the entire nation. Hence the dilemma.

You see, six years ago I was living in Massachusetts, better known in these parts as The People's Socialist Commonwealth. The worst part, no less, right in the middle of Boston. A nice enough city I suppose if you go in for civilization, socialism, and neighbors who can't conceive of minding their own business. Give me the woods and mountains any time; I'll leave Boston for the rats and collectivists. One night I just could not take it any more, and I packed up, dodged the commissars, wriggled under the barbed wire fences, strangled a guard dog, swam the river, and escaped to the "Live Free or Die" state. Well, all right, it wasn't quite that dramatic, but I have an artistic license and I know how to use it.

At the time, I saw this as a temporary measure until I could rearrange my life to move out west where you could really be free. Montana or Wyoming, probably, I have always loved the Rockies and spent as much time as I could hiking and riding around in them. Then along comes this sonuvagun Jason Sorens.

I eagerly poured over his data on the relative merits of the low-population states for this notion of 20,000 dedicated freedom lovers pledging to move to one of them together. The case he presented gave me great pause for thought. The more I looked at his hard numbers, and thought about my own experiences living here, the more I realized that you really couldn't find a better place to live free than New Hampshire. Much as I love the American West, and especially the mountain states like Wyoming and Montana, I've spent enough time in them over the years to have a feel for the accuracy of some of what the FSP's data reveal.

I have been going over the "Why New Hampshire" information that the Welcome to the Granite State Committee has made available with a fine-tooth comb. I learned a lot I did not know about the state I now call home, and found that the case is even stronger than I had come to believe. That was a large part of the reason I went up to Lancaster last weekend to see their presentation. I wanted both to hear the case they would present, and put in my two cents worth independently agreeing with their assessment.

There is no point in going over the case in detail here, because the Granite State "porcupines" lay out the case so well on their web page. I was especially taken with their 101 Reasons to Vote for New Hampshire, well worth a read even if you are not interested in getting involved in the Free State Project. The speakers at the "Escape" were just as informative. It was even more fun to sit around a campfire and bat ideas back and forth. There is even still time to get in on the fun, because they still have some events scheduled for the last weekend of June.

The ethical dilemma, you ask? I agree 100 per cent with the goals of the Free State Project. I think that this is probably the single most important thing happening in the Freedom movement right now. Sometime this fall the 5000th member will pledge to join the migration, and an historic vote will take place to choose their destination. Here's my problem: I already live in the state I think they should choose. To me at least, it seems rather unethical to join and take part in the vote after they have convinced me that I really would rather not move. I do really hope New Hampshire wins, though. We "Live Free or Die" sorts are really looking forward to a bunch of new freedom loving neighbors.

  Hunter's Two Hundred Thirty-Third Rule: Nobody is going to give
freedom to you, you have to want it enough to take it.

---

More media articles about the FSP

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

Invasion of the Libertarians?

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

---

[Cover]

---

Invasion of the Libertarians?

By Mike Keefe-Feldman • 05/29/03

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, almost absent.

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

# # # #

---

More media articles about the FSP

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

Move over, hippies

Original article:	www.burlingtonfreepress.com/Columnists/Sam/0427042845.htm
Date:	04/27/03
Title:	Move over, hippies, the Libertarians are coming
Author:	Sam Hemingway
Publication:	Burlington Free Press

---

Move over, hippies, the Libertarians are coming

By Sam Hemingway • 04/27/03

As swings of the political pendulum go, this one would be a lulu.

According to an Associated Press report, Vermont is one of 10 sparsely populated states that a group of Libertarians is considering fertile territory for its Free State Project.

If Vermont becomes the choice of the group when it picks its dream state this year, some 20,000 Libertarian true believers are supposed to move here by 2008.

Their idea is to concentrate enough Libertarians in one state to take it over, via the ballot box in selected races, and put in place a set of Libertarian principles. Already, 3,100 have signed on to go to whatever state the group chooses.

Imagine it: Vermont could suddenly switch from being perhaps the most liberal state in the union to being the most Libertarian one.

Hello, prostitution, gambling and unregulated drug usage. Good-bye, government regulation, public schools and smoke-free workplaces.

Will it happen? Probably not, but the interest in Vermont from the Free State Project and its mastermind, Yale University doctoral candidate Jason Sorens, is serious.

"I think Vermont has a solid chance of winning," Sorens wrote in an e-mail interview last week. "New Hampshire is the favorite of many, but Vermont is fairly high on people's lists."

Indeed, Vermont has made it to the "Final Four" of the 10 states under consideration, according to an Internet treatise by Tim Condon, director of member services for the Free State Project. Condon's other three finalists: Wyoming, Alaska and North Dakota.

Vermont Libertarians said they like the plans of the Free State Project, particularly if it ends up choosing Vermont as its destination.

"I've always felt the voting population of Vermont was more populist than liberal," said Robert Maynard of Williston. "Vermont has a quasi-Libertarian history to it."

As for Sorens, he's so taken with Vermont that he conducted a scouting mission to Vermont in February.

While here, he met with everyone from Burlington Progressive Mayor Peter Clavelle to members of the anti-Act 60 Citizens for Property Rights and anti-civil unions Take Back Vermont organizations.

Afterward, Sorens wrote about his trip in an e-mail report to the faithful. He said the journey was "fascinating," but he was uneasy about the anti-homosexual remarks of the Take Back Vermont crowd and the "blunt, oppositional approach" of the property rights group.

He also told of an exchange with Clavelle during which the mayor was asked to draw a map to show what parts of the state would be most welcoming to Libertarians.

"He drew Vermont and New Hampshire, indicated the Connecticut River as the border between the two, and drew an arrow from Vermont to New Hampshire," Sorens recalled.

"'That's where you need to go, across the river,'" Sorens quoted Clavelle as saying. "We had a good laugh about that."

Sorens' and the Free State Project's enthusiasm for Vermont is also based in part on the results of their research into the so-called hippie invasion here in the early 1970s.

At the time, news articles and an infamous piece from the April 1972 Playboy Magazine titled "Taking Over Vermont" raised the question of whether a vast influx of young people into Vermont could lead to its takeover.

A lot of Vermonters, including some aging ex-hippies, will tell you no such thing was ever contemplated. Sorens thinks otherwise. He argues the state's shift toward the left over the last 25 years is proof the takeover indeed occurred.

"I think they were certainly less organized than we," Sorens wrote in his e-mail.

Hippies not well organized?

You've got to be kidding.

Sam Hemingway is the Free Press state news columnist. His columns appear Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. If you have a comment or tip, phone 660-1850, or e-mail shemingway@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com. For past columns, go to www.burlingtonfreepress.com

---

More media articles about the FSP

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