Attn, DC Reasonoids: Discuss the Free State Project with Its Maximum Leader, Friday, May 11, at 10.30AM
May 10, 2007, 4:28pm
Please come out to Reason's smashing new DC offices on Friday, May 11, at 10.30 A.M. to hear the head of The Free State Project, Varrin Swearingen, talk about his group's effort to secure "liberty in our lifetime."
The FSP is a radical experiment in political activism that aims to reduce the size of government--and to increase the scope of individual freedom. From the group's mission statement:
The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire. We are looking for neighborly, productive, tolerant folks from all walks of life, of all ages, creeds, and colors who agree to the political philosophy expressed in our Statement of Intent, that government exists at most to protect people's rights, and should neither provide for people nor punish them for activities that interfere with no one else.
More on that here.
In December 2004, Reason Senior Editor Brian Doherty traveled to The Granite State and reported, "Whether or not the FSP ever hits its target membership goal, much less turns New Hampshire into a libertarian paradise, it retains real significance as a thought experiment. It forces people to confront the reality of how much they are willing to sacrifice for their notions about political liberty--and how much people with different grievances against government might have in common." Read his whole account here.
And come out on Friday to learn the latest from the FSP's leader. Details:
What: Q&A with Varrin Swearingen of The Free State Project
When: Friday, May 11, 10.30 A.M. to 11.30 A.M.
Where: Reason, 1747 Connecticut Avenue, NW
RSVP: events@reason.com
James Anderson Merritt | May 8, 2007, 3:45pm | #
Lunchstealer says, "...but the idea of creating a voting majority, or even a significant voting block that would affect state politics, seems like it would at least on some level be telling New Hampshirioles how to organize their government, even if you'd actually not be telling them what to do."
And yet, the ability of people to move to places where the government WAS organized according to their liking, or where they COULD reorganize it to their liking, is central to our federal system. The states are the laboratories of democracy, are they not? If one state raises its taxes or increases its level of regulation, its citizens are able to vote with their feet. Similarly, if people live in a state that doesn't offer enough protection or social services to suit them, they can move to states that do.
The only difference in the case of the FSP seems to be that the migration is organized and purposeful: a peaceful invasion, in fact. And yet, other organized and purposeful migrations occur when big companies erect new offices or build new factories in various regions. They often import many of the new facility's workers, and those workers bring with them their incomes and often shared values (inculcated through the hiring process and corpoorate culture), too. This kind of thing can have as profound an effect on the local culture as a "political" invasion might. But towns actively COURT this kind of invasion, because they reason that some locals will get good jobs, and the participation of all the well-paid "transplants" will improve the local economy to benefit all.
So, given that NH residents do say they appreciate freedom, and nearly everyone likes a good economy, why would the arrival of FSP libertarians be of any more concern to the locals than the arrival of a fortune 500 company factory or office complex? Not to say that people DON'T have problems with such things, but I'm just wondering why anyone might be less kindly disposed to consider the FSP in comparison with corporate facility relocations, which happen all the time.
Stephen Cobb | May 10, 2007, 11:45pm | #
I'll address a few of the many fallacies above:
"I can't imagine the people of New Hampshire feeling too comfortable with the idea of a bunch of libertarians coming in to tell them what to do."
This is actually three fallacies in one sentence, quite an accomplishment. First, if the FSP just meets its target of 20K, it will amount to no more than 5% of the voting population. While that will be a significant block, we will have to rely on *persuasion* (you can forget about any notions of secession). Second, libertarians believe in an objective standard of justice (e.g. The Liberal Conception of Justice as formulated by Randy Barnett), and, while we might debate the details, we agree on its broad outlines. Third, libertarians realize that it is individuals who have opinions, not groups, and we understand the meaning "tyranny of the majority". In every state there are people who benefit from the unjust status quo, but they do not have an inherent right to continue. I am from California, and I resent its invasion by socialists, but I am willing to trade its unmatched geography, climate, and cultural opportunities for NH. Let any disaffected NH socialists move to CA.
"20,000+ every year who come here from other places...The FSPers are seriously out-numbered, and NH is turning more and more blue ever year."
Amusingly, this is the opposite of the previous fallacy, underestimating the FSP's potential influence instead of exaggerating it. The population of all states is growing. We can debate the nature of the NH immigrants, especially those from MA, whether they are political or economic refugees, but let's assume that the mix reflects NH's current population. In any event, they are voter-sheep. The FSP strategy relies on moving in *activists*. One activist is worth 100 sheep, though in the end the sheep get their vote. Furthermore, FSP movers can concentrate in certain NH communities, achieving even greater influence (or at least comradery) there.
"Their Statement of Intent is so vague as to be nearly meaningless."
So what is your proposed alternative, the NAP/ZAP? Too restrictive--we need a lower common denominator. The FSP's SoI was word-smithed at length to be easily understood and non-contentious. We are interested in results, not debate. The FSP's motto is "Liberty in Our Lifetime", which many other libertarian organizations seem not to share.
"I doubt that the number of people who are willing to pick up their life, abandoning current jobs, friends, and family, and move away to a completely new state just for political purposes is large enough to make any political diffrence."
Coming at this stage, after FSP early-movers have already made a significant difference, including one getting elected to the NH legislature, this statement is particularly silly. But from a purely theoretical viewpoint, every passionate libertarian will benefit by moving to a place where the libertarian concentration is marginally higher, especially given an expectation that others will continue to do the same, resulting in a snowball. The decision to move will be based on a personal comparison of costs and benefits. Americans are an extremely mobile lot. If someone will change states (or even countries in my case) for a marginally better job, why would he not move for other reasons, some of them with similar economic impact?
"It's a lot of effort for something that wouldn't make that much of a diffrence. ('Woo-hoo! We're a liberterian state now! Now nobody is telling me not to wear my fucking seatbelt.')"
Despite continuing centralization of power in DC, much if not most authority still remains at the state level. Sales tax, for example, ranges from 0% in NH to over 7% in CA; state income tax in NH is also 0%. Vice (prostitution, gambling) laws are set at the state level, and the struggles for educational freedom, the right to bear arms, and medical marijuana are occurring in various states. These are core libertarian issues, not trivialities like seatbelt laws.
FSP detractors are invited to suggest alternatives. ;)
