Freedomain Radio

First of all, it pays to be familiar with what's out there, so you should wait to comment until you have checked out at least one of these suggested strategies.

The Free State Project http://freestateproject.org/ (either as an idea before their choice of New Hampshire, or afterwards as a practical plan), The Wyoming Free State Project http://www.freestatewyoming.org/ (detailed realistic scenario in the book "Molon Labe"), the British Columbia Free-Man-On-The-Land movement, of Robert Arthur: Menard, Mary Elizabeth: Croft http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6729904244308031068 .  The latter are personally religious, but politically and strategically 100% cool.  The Wyoming Project is a mix.  Alaska also remains a viable choice due to low number of voters, universal gun culture, and respect for sound money/gold and the necessity of self-reliance on the frontier.

I also strongly Recommend Marc Stevens voluntaryist Youtube vids, and website/book "Adventures in Legal Land"  http://www.adventuresinlegalland.com

It might also be helpful to read Robert Heinlein's book about the frontier's selection of rational survivalists being the only group where individualists naturally outnumber collectivists: "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"  The ideas still apply, possibly moreso since the advent of expert systems.  (and now, the world's first AGI: http://www.smartaction.com )

It seems like all of the "free state" type organizations will have the same sort of problems, due to the whack-a-mole principle.  The project gets popular, goes under the spotlight, statist jackals ridicule it, and its members get focused on for punishment.

Last I checked, Free State Wyoming was "holding the line" better in terms of freedom than the NH Free State Project, probably due to their focusing on a much smaller area (just a few counties), keeping a lower profile (the irony!), and not having a wave of socialists (massholes) greatly overpowering them.

Regardless, I'm still a member of the New Hampshire FSP.

I wonder how New Hampshire got chosen for the FSP. Seems like Vermont with a smaller population and away from Boston would have had a much larger effect.

Has the FSP at least been able to bring the free market into any local government services like roads, policing, libraries, trash services, etc?

drebelx:

I wonder how New Hampshire got chosen for the FSP. Seems like Vermont with a smaller population and away from Boston would have had a much larger effect.

Democratically chosen. Vermont may have been in the running, but New Hampshire won the vote.  It has many advantages over Vermont, such as the lack of state income tax and seatbelt laws.

drebelx:

Has the FSP at least been able to bring the free market into any local government services like roads, policing, libraries, trash services, etc?

Some choose to participate in the open carry litter pick-up, and I think the trash service in most towns there is private anyway.  Others challenge the government's monopoly on roads by shunning vehicle registration and driver's license renewal, instead excercising the "right to travel" doctrine.  I wouldn't characterize any of that stuff as "bringing the free market" to any services; It's more of an occasional reminder of the way things are supposed to work - voluntarily of course.

Barterer:

drebelx:

I wonder how New Hampshire got chosen for the FSP. Seems like Vermont with a smaller population and away from Boston would have had a much larger effect.

Democratically chosen. Vermont may have been in the running, but New Hampshire won the vote.  It has many advantages over Vermont, such as the lack of state income tax and seatbelt laws.

Yes, Democracy was partly a mistake, in terms of overall effiency of the project, but then again, it was done Democratically because most of the people moving to NH didn't want to move far away from "civilization" anyway.  The Dems and Reps always beat the libertarians in terms of organization, because they don't like to work with annoying people.  They want to voluntarily choose their friends, do fun things, and don't like the cost of associating with people who know how to politically organize.  This is why it would to libertarians a load of good to read "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie.  Also, by my stating that NH is not the best choice, don't imply that I think they will fail, or that I think that they should fail: I wish them well, and I believe that they will succeed, but just not as soon as they would have if they would have both

1) Chosen Wyoming or Alaska

and

2) Actually followed through with either one (but not both) of those choices.

Wyoming has the fewest registered voters of any state.  Therefore, due to the premise of the concept, it is the obvious first-best choice.

Barterer:

drebelx:

Has the FSP at least been able to bring the free market into any local government services like roads, policing, libraries, trash services, etc?

Some choose to participate in the open carry litter pick-up, and I think the trash service in most towns there is private anyway.  Others challenge the government's monopoly on roads by shunning vehicle registration and driver's license renewal, instead excercising the "right to travel" doctrine.  I wouldn't characterize any of that stuff as "bringing the free market" to any services; It's more of an occasional reminder of the way things are supposed to work - voluntarily of course.

The power centers are difficult to win.  Most libertarians never do an analysis of how difficult they are to win, because few libertarians understand Joe Sixpack.  The only way to get a handle on the ocean is to understand how a boat floats.  Once you can do that, you might be ready to start sailing.  But most libertarians never in their lives have spent a day talking to random voters, repeatedly, and asking them to even sign a petition. 

If you can't get people to sign a petition, you certainly can't get them to support you in a darkened booth in secret, where there is no punishment for betraying you.

I think at least 1/4 of the general public tries to be honest.  But Libertarian vote totals are nowhere near 1/4 the popular vote.  We have a holiday on for every other silly event, but people are expected to work on election day, and hustle and stand in a long line to engage in a fraud-laden activity after their commute.  ...Not likely.  Those whose votes are bought are encouraged by their workplaces to go and vote.  Honest workplaces who know enough to see that Democrat=Republican are not likely to encourage voting out of a deep understanding of principle.

And this is where the LP really royally fails to reach people.  They don't even reach their core demographic.

I think Wayne Root is better than most politicians in this regard, in that he really personally wants to spread the message of liberty, because he wants to win freedom.  He is a regular guy, not a deep philosopher, but when he was informed about how important jury rights are, he did his homework, and now fully supports the concept. (I am not implying that Root is stupid.  In fact, he's a brilliant businessman.  He just doesn't read a lot about philosophy, and isn't working to flesh out the Libertarian theory.  He's working to implement that part of the theory upon which there is consensus, ...which is logical.  Why would Harry Browne sell his ideas if it were not for the benefit of people who didn't fully grasp them?  Should every libertarian candidate reinvent the wheel, run after run?)  So, in staying on subject, the National LP has an effective messenger for 2012, 2016, and 2020.

This is a great time to be a libertarian.  To understand what the rest of society needs to learn, in order to survive well.

That is why I think that the WY LP is on the right track: They are going to a place where they only need to provide the margin of difference, not add enough pressure to equalize the weight.

The NH State Legislature has over 400 seats.  The Libertarians need to win 202 of them to gain a simple majority, yet they have not proven they can win more than 4 at a time.  In both NH and AK, the LP has had 4 elected state legislators at a time, but in NH, there are over 400, and in Alaska there are 40, a ration of 1/10 to 1/100.

The primary obstacle for Libertarians is finding principled and electable candidates (who can't be bought off or threatened once elected).  It's a zero sum game that always fails without those two rare ingredients.  No reason to think that NH will be any different.  Video technology is likely to help the LP once we have to cross that bridge (catching bribery and threats on tape).  It's a necessary part of the plan. See: http://www.kopbusters.com

But NH will take a lot longer to get there than WY will.  In a crowd of people in WY, all I need to do is talk to everyone.  In NH, I need to talk to them, and change their philsosophy (or appeal to a small part of their philosophy that is contradicted by the major remainder).

In defense of Vermont, it is allegedly the least religious of the 50 states: http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-29-faith-state-survey_N.htm

Obviously, WY FS passes more criteria than NH.  How anyone weighs that criteria is their call.

 BTW: drebelx, and Barterer, I think your replies were interesting and topical.  Thanks for replying to my post!!  As far as FSP criteria, as far as I know, the original "State Reports" of the original Free State Project are all online for free.  In addition, the fiction book "Molon Labe" outlines a possible scenario for a libertarian uprising in WY. the book contains not just the initial WY Free State Report, but also a detailed set of electoral evaluation criteria.  It is a must-read for serious analysts of the Free State Project concept.  I strongly recommend it to all who are here.

http://www.javelinpress.com/molon_labe.html

Jake, I do like BT.Party's books and have a few of them (mostly stuff about maintaining your privacy, or being assertive with cops) so next time I feel like a good BTP read, I'll pick Molon Labe.

So it is true that the FSP project has failed to bring free market principles to at least small town services.

I was trying to think along the lines of: If libertarians in large numbers want to increase their political freedom, they should see if they can do it in the easiest and smallest forum, a town with a small existing population.

Tackling NH state affairs appears to be very Quixotic especially if nothing substantial has been done on local levels.

drebelx:

Tackling NH state affairs appears to be very Quixotic especially if nothing substantial has been done on local levels.

Whatever you do, don't look into the "Free Town Project."

Sorry I didn't take your advice to not look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Town_Project

Looks like that one is not going anywhere fast as well.

 I recall that this was a project of Chuck Geshlider, and his friend, Krista who ran a printing company in Texas.  The people attempting to free Keene now have podcasts on youtube, etc...  It is actually somewhat active and interesting.  One of the guys involved I guess refused to pay a traffic ticket, and has also been featured on http://www.kopbusters.com, I believe...

Ahhh, the one I'm referring to is a different one.  Here:

http://freekeene.com/

They are also heavily on Youtube...

:D

-Jake

Jake_Witmer:

Here:

http://freekeene.com/

Right, there are lots of free-market anarchists gathering around Keene.. Ian's by far the most convincing advocate of the FSP.. I supported his radio show for years.  That doesn't change the fact that while you can get a significant number of people to agree that "the government's too big" or "we need more freedom" when it's time to take specific action, there's disagreement all over the place.  Even in small groups like the free town project, group members accuse each other of "poisoning the well" or "setting the movement back" because their specific positions are perceived as too radical.  And nobody wants the locals to come out with their proverbial pitchforks and knee-jerk response, the end result being more government than there was in the first place. 

i've always felt that the best way to approach starting an anarchistic society would be to acquire a farm, through the current system, and invite your friends to buy adjacent land or sell them some of yours. eventually there will be a great enough diversity in skillsets so the majority of daily life need not leave the community. property taxes will still be a problem, not sure how to get around this except refusing to pay and shooting the tax collector - or the army behind him.

this idea was tried, of course, hundreds of times in the form of a commune, but we all know why that never worked.

Hello, burning dragon!

I think that a "multiple approach heirarchy" towards pursuing liberty is best.  I think the FSP has things right in principle, but I think their choice of New Hampshire is regrettable.  That said, I am not saying it cannot work, or that NH is not optimal in some regards (If successful, it will have a dramatically larger impact on the East Coast than a free Wyoming would).  ...But it also is drastically sub-optimal in others (too numerous to name, in comparison to WY and AK).

Regardless, buying a farm (or even property) in either NH http://freekeene.com/2008/11/16/thank-you-mr-burke/ or WY would be smart, regardless of how near your nearest libertarian/anarchist neighbors are.  The first state to offer defense against Federal tax authorities, and the protection of metal coin alternative currencies will be a rather large development.

For as much money as the national LP spends on ballot access every 4 years, I could have likely already made WY or AK a Free State (It would take about 10 years with that kind of funding, for one determined activist).  It simply requires putting immensely popular initiatives on the ballot, and talking to everyone about them, from an informed perspective.

Six things that can simultaneously be used to bring about individual freedom:

1) Electoral - tier 1 - running articulate pro-freedom candidates

2) Electoral - tier 1 - running, promoting, and winning pro-freedom initiatives (keeping issue-by-issue concepts about individual freedom in front of the electorate)

3) Activism - tier 1-2 - performing FIJA ( http://www.fija.org ) outreach to incoming juries

4) Activism - tier 2-3 - Targeting cops, judges, politicians, and other statist law-breakers for public humiliation, when they violate others' rights, via video, or otherwise

5) Activism - tier 2-3 Socially ostracizing statists and not cooperating with them, or befriending them, if they reject the idea of individual freedom (after having been fully informed about it)

6) Action - tier 2-3 - Stop paying taxes, stop complying with the system,

7) Action - tier 2-3 File paperwork that occupies the systems time, and allows you to otherwise avoid the system (a plan for such is outlined in the google video "The Magnificent Deception" by Robert Arthur: Menard) 

8) Action - tier 3 - physically damage the system, break the system

In the above list, the "tier" is a rating for how overt your actions should be, and how acceptable they are to the general public.  If you're running for office, this is socially accepted (tier 1).  If you're breaking into a Selective Service Administrative center, and destroying draft cards, this is not socially accepted (tier 3).  This is true even though the Camden 28 jury found that those draft cards were property that had no right to exist (no legitimate purpose).  http://www.camden28.org/  At the time though, throughout the trial, the jury became more well-informed than the general public.

Tier 2-3 actions are actions that require some level of deception to those who are not aware of the larger truth, but tier 2 may be publicly disclosed, because they are not necessarily illegal.

The general public doesn't yet want liberty.  So when you encounter people who don't want liberty, as a candidate, or as the proponent of a medical marijuana initiative, etc... you can't tell them the whole truth if you want your interim goal to succeed, and they are not willing to change their philosophy on the spot.  Doing so would simply defeat your purpose (ie: the purpose of preventing an innocent person from going to prison for a long time, thus ruining their life).

Compromise is to be done when there is no other choice, not as a primary goal, sure.  Of course I agree with that.

That said, delusional short term goals are equally counterproductive.  The untimate goal should be to win freedom, and interim successes should be pursued as vigorously as the long term goals, and simultaneously.  If an approach rejects interim successes, it should be rejected (such as violently opposing fellow libertarians, or supporting "purges" from the movement, because people are "not libertarian enough").

With those assumptions in mind, I'd most prefer to be working in WY, AK, or NH towards my goals (in that order).  Those are a few states where the possibility of freedom is likely.  Jamaica is also a possibility, according to a recent post on IPR. http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/02/steve-kubby-medical-marijuana-in-jamaica/

One great thing about this forum, is that it makes possible good information about every state's willingness to embrace freedom.

-Jake Witmer

907-250-5503 (please call before 10pm Central Time)

hello jake - i think there is no point to an attempt to work within the system. steps 5, and 6 seem to be appropriate paths towards anarchy: currently i engage in step 5 in as many circumstances as possible. step 4 isn't really something i'm personally going to care about, but certainly encourage others with the patience for it. step 6 is pragmatically too dangerous for me in my current situation, but wouldn't be opposed to in a stable position.

i do not advocate sugar coating or telling partial truths. except to my employer (with whom i am not socially engaged), i am bluntly honest about my anarchy and my criticisms against statism. i don't see how honestly telling a random person i encounter the brutal truth is going to put me or them in prison for a long time. i don't expect them to change their opinion on the spot, but i dont' have to convince them of partial truths before they will except a full truth.