Meditations on the Free State Project

[archerships]

I've been thinking quite a bit about how the Free State Project should proceed. Here's some random thoughts that I want to jot down before I forget them. Let me emphasize that these are simply exploratory in nature.

* The Swiss have peacefully accomodated several different enclaves of French, German, and Italian speaking groups. Moreover, we shouldn't make the same mistake that other political movements have made and attempt to impose our political system on those who don't want it. Rather, we should attempt to shoot for many, small, different political systems. That way, people can choose the political system that best suits their preferences. Why shouldn't those who want tax-subsidized schools be allowed to have them, so long as those who don't want tax-subsidized schools don't have to pay for them? The problem now is that the people who don't want tax-subsidies have no where to go.



* Push as much law-making as possible to the county level. The state level should be reserved solely for making meta-rules governing intra-county disputes, enforcing contracts between the county and citizen, and negotiating with the federal government.

* Allow land-owners to choose which county they wish to be part of. If they wish to be part of a county which has tax-subsidized schooling, then let them. If they wish to be part of a county which doesn't, then let them exit and join that one. However, we need rules for proper exit and entry to a county. For example, it wouldn't be fair to join a county that had tax-subsidized schooling, then leave for a non tax-subsidized school after the children are grown. Pushing to allow for opt-out is much easier to sell than pushing to "impose" our will on those who still want tax-subsidized schools.

* We need rules for the creation and dissolution of new counties.

* Government by contract. Make the social contract explicit. When you join a new county, you agree to certain rules and regulations, which should be written down. More importantly, the social contract should specify penalties against the government if it fails to live up to its obligations. For example, politicians should post bonds that would be forfeit if they didn't follow their campaign promises.

* Pre-voting. We don't want to waste resources pushing for reforms that won't win. However, we also don't want to give up our long term goals. Instead, we should set up mini-FSP's for each issue, and only put the legislation up for vote when we know that we have enough support. For example, suppose we had a bill that would make it possible for individual counties to elect to remove themselves from the state school system. The Free School Project would sign up people in each of the communities until say, at least 60% of the peope agreed to support the proposed bill. We could then introduce the legislation in congress with the assurance that it is supported by the broad majority of the population. Doing so would also allow for incrementalism. You could sign up for the "school voucher" proposal, and the "complete voluntary" proposal, and achieve the currently politically possible goal, while still support the long term end goal.

* Language is important. We should not allow opponents to make a "public" synonymous with "tax-subsidized". A voluntarily supported school may be just as open to the public as a tax-subsidized school. (perhaps more so).

* We need to write up a series of talking points to address common objections to libertarian goals. We should not attempt to downplay our ultimate goals, just because they're currently unpopular. To do so makes us appear disingenuous, or ashamed of our goals. We must remember that we're not the one's throwing people in jail for vicitimless crimes, or trying to force other people to pay for our pet projects. However, how we phrase and introduce our ideas will have a big impact on how they are received.

Comments

[gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com]

A tax-subsidized school that isn't paid for by those who don't want it would be more of a cooperative, wouldn't it? Taxes are imposed on people whether they want it or not, and I don't believe that just because the majority of people want something that that necessarily makes it okay. Even if the majority of people in a county want to take some of my money to pay for the education of their children, I don't think they have a right to do so.

Rules for entering and exiting a county sounds like it would put a huge barrier on moving. And why can't someone move to a county that doesn't have tax-subsidized schooling after the children are grown? I'm not in favor of tax-subsidized schooling, anyway, but a cooperative system similar to the "public" schools of the pioneer days might work well. Controlled and paid for entirely by the parents whose children are attending.

I agree to government by contract.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

You could call it a cooperative. Suppose you and your neighbors all owned land next to each other. Now suppose you got together and formed a "home owners association". Suppose you agreed that from then on, everyone who bought land in your neighborhood would have to pay a "home owner's association fee", to be set by a democratically elected "home owner association board"--would that be a tax? Now expand the size of your HOA to the size of a county. Is it still a tax? Whether you call it taxes or "home owner's association" fees seems something of semantic distinction. The problem is that the U.S., and individual states are giant, monopolist HOA's--I'd like to see a bigger, more diverse market.

The rules I had in mind for exiting a county only had to do with preventing people from taking advantage of the system without paying their fair share. I'm not sure exactly what that would mean, as I said, these aren't completely worked out thoughts.

[gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com]

Well see, I disagree with homeowner's associations being able to force things like that on people. The only thing a homeowner's association ought to have any authority over is common grounds, such as roads.

I belong to a homeowner's association. They have a rule against pigs. I've seriously considered getting a few just to prove I can. Not to mention that they are cute when young and tasty when larger. ;-)

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I prefer not to live in a homeowners association either. However:

1. Libertarians agree that you should be able to do what you want with your land (even obnoxious things, such as refuse to sell to blacks), so long as you don't infringe upon your neighbors property.

2. Libertarians support the right to make contracts.

3. HOA's result from landowners making contracts with each other.

4. You weren't forced to buy a house/land that was part of a HOA.

So how are HOA's incompatible with libertarianism?

( I like pigs too. They get a bad rap. They're smart, and friendly and have an undeserved reputation for uncleanliness. Their biggest problem is noise.)

[tdj.livejournal.com]

What are the minimum and maximum size communities for which you think this would work, and what sort of services would the state or federal governments still be responsible for?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure. The transaction costs of dealing with a bunch of tiny counties seems unworkable--for example, suppose I bought 3 square feet of land, and called it Rasch County? On the other hand, I'd like them to be small enough that if a "reasonable" number of people were unhappy, they could break off and form their own community. If 150 people owning 10 square miles of land wanted to start their own county, I wouldn't object. I'd also support allowing smaller land owners to switch to existing counties--say one acre of land minimum would be required. But these numbers are very tentative. What do think?

I'm also not sure what the appropriate delegation of power should be. In principle, I'd like to see as much power assumed by the counties as possible. The role of the state government would be to resolve intra-county conflicts, and to set up the meta-rules that government county formation, and perhaps defense. The federal government would in turn be responsible for resolving intra-state conflicts, and national defense. It seems to me that welfare, social security, border control, schooling, fire control, police, zoning, pollution laws, etc. could be handled at the county level.

[tdj.livejournal.com]

Off the top of my head, environmental laws at that level would be an unholy nightmare, because (among other reasons) plenty of industries have the potential to pollute outwide of a county-sized area. I'd leave that to the states at least.

Zoning and the like would have to accomodate larger infrastructure issues...I'd need to think about that one.

The efficacy of police and fire are dependent on the minimum size of these counties. I'll admit that I'd worry about small counties forgoing police or fire almost entirely, and encouraging enclaves of lawlessness or areas risking serious blazes (which can easily move outside the county in some areas of the country) as a result.

Education, as usual, has my train of thought doing figures 8s.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

I'm not too worried about police and fire protection in small communities. Most of the blazes out west are due to "commons" problems--"everybody" owns the land, so nobody has incentive to care for it properly (such as clearing out brush, monitoring for fires, etc.) As for general lawlessness, it's not something that I think will be a big deal (and if it does turn out to be a problem, and it spills into neighboring counties, then that's something that I think would be appropriately adjudicated by the state. One of the roles of the state would be to define when a county could legally be "dissolved". What exactly those rules should be, I haven't yet thought much about.)

Most pollution problems also result from "tragedy of the commons". Longterm, I support moving to a system of "airspace" rights, and better defined water rights. Then, if you pollute into a neighboring county's airspace without permission, you would be subject to fines/jail time. If polluters had to buy the airspace rights for their pollution, I expect that we would see much less of it. (And those who are affected would be properly compensated.) I could see a role for the state in enforcing those property lines.

[tdj.livejournal.com]

That was what I'd first thought, too - that the state would have to take some role in regulating inter-county pollution issues. I worry that it could turn into a tort nightmare, with counties suing counties.

Not to be entirely negative! It's an intriguing idea; I'm just poking at the nebulous bits to see what falls out.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

* Language is important. We should not allow opponents to make a "public" synonymous with "tax-subsidized". A voluntarily supported school may be just as open to the public as a tax-subsidized school. (perhaps more so).


I want to focus on this point you're trying to make because I think it is at the heart of everything that is wrong with the approach you are taking. When you read what follows your first reaction will, I suspect, be to say to yourself, "why that has nothing to do with it at all" but I urge you to think and then think again about the real core value of what you are saying (as opposed to the ostensible core value).

Let's think about "public education."

First off, are you aware that the United States was the first country in the world to have publicly funded, universal, free to the student, education? Are you aware that it is the opinion of most scholars that this is a major, if not THE major reason why America progressed towards industrialization at a faster pace than its European counterparts?

Now, from the beginning the question was "why should I (a taxpayer) give my money to educate someone else's children." Well, clearly, part of the answer is because in the long run, it benefits the community that I live in. That is as true today as it was 200 years ago when the question first arose.

Nothing in what you say really addresses this question. There are legitimate questions about the most effective way to publicly fund universal, free to the student education. But your proposal really addresses the question "how can I avoid paying for something that I don't want so that I can buy what I do want (i.e a faster car, more DVD's, or more cups of $3.00 coffee at Starbucks).

You can describe it anyway you want but the bottom line in what you are saying is that those without children or those who can afford to educate their own children without public tax money should be provided with a mechanism for opting out of paying any portion of the educational expenses of other people's children.

That clearly would a poor public policy choice. Public education means universal education and your attempt to define it as "accessible to those who can pay" is not productive.

Now you may dress it up with all the theoretical window dressing you want but the plain fact is that given a specific, individual choice, there is little doubt that the vast majority would separate themselves based on perceived individual interest.

Now, I can already hear you saying "who are YOU to make decisions for everyone else?" Fair enough question and the answer is as blunt. I am smarter, more perceptive, better educated and more capable than 99.99% of the population. That is exactly what the Founders thought of themselves and exactly why they wanted a representative government that would keep the ignorant masses from making too many specific decisions. And if that was an important factor in the days of the Founders it is even more so today when the populace is dumber and more self centered than it was 200 years ago.

Argue if you will for vouchers, for different taxing mechanisms, for accountability, for or against standardized tests, greater disciple, school uniforms or any other means to improve the system but please give some serious thought to any notion that boils down to providing a means for a greedy, self centered, short sighted, ignorant public to opt out of paying for universal, free to the student, education.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the detailed response! You're right that I'm interested in avoiding being forced to pay for something I don't want in order to buy something I do want. I also admit that I'm ignorant about much of history, economics, law and many other fields. Unfortunately, that means that I'll often come to conclusions at variance with other people of intelligence and good will, such as yourself. I suspect that I could write a book length exegesis on why I prefer voluntarily supported schools to tax-subsidized schools, but in the end, you would remain unpersuaded.

I don't know what political system is best. Perhaps you're right, and most people are better off with current tax-subsidized system school system. Perhaps I'm right, and we would have better schools and society if people weren't forced to pay. Under my proposal, people would be given the opportunity to vote with their feet and their land. If I'm wrong, the counties that force tax subsidies, will grow in size. If I'm right, the opposite will occur. Either way, people who believe as you do, and people who believe as I do will both get what they want.

One of the principles that the founders tried to implement is the notion of federalism, the idea that most laws should be made at the state level. That way, if a state becomes too authoritarian, or otherwise harmful to the citizenry, the citizens could move to another state more to their liking. I'm merely expanding upon that idea.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

Its intuitively obvious that if you give the masses the option of spending money on something that will benefit society in the future and buying themselves a new car then they buy a new car every time unless the need is immediate and seen as personally threatening.

That sad truth is one of the reasons that socialism can never work. We build our capitalist system on the rock solid notion that people are greedy scum.

But that also means we have to have a mechanism that does the right thing even when the wretched masses are too stupid and short sighted to vote for it.

THAT is the principle which motivated the Founders, a group of superior men who recognized that their countrymen were not of their caliber. Federalism is just one expression of their belief in that reality.

This country was devised to be an democratic oligarchy and not a participatory democracy.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

People are "greedy, ignorant, scum". Socialism will never work. Yet you seem to be arguing for the continuance of a socialist education system* controlled by legislators elected by those very same "greedy, ignorant, scum." How odd. If the people are too stupid to make wise decisions for themselves--why do you expect them to elect legislators who are any better?

*Recall that "Free education for all children in public schools." is the tenth plank of the Communist Manifesto.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

And Stalin gave medals for Motherhood while Hitler was a big fan of chocolate pudding.

Free to the student, universal education is indispensible to a prosperous capitalist society.

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Yes, just because evil men are for something, doesn't mean it's bad. However, state control of enterprise is the defining characteristic of socialism. State control is the primary reason socialist states were such terrible places to live. I find it odd that someone who recognizes the horror of socialism in general, is such a supporter in this specific instance.

I note you also ducked the main question.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

The response deserves some time to write and at the moment I'm doped up on pain pills. I'll get back to you when I'm somewhat more coherant.

[spotboy.livejournal.com]

Government schools are staffed and run by government employees, who have every incentive (and history bears this out) to teach that more government is great.

[heliosapien.livejournal.com]

for being so perceptive, you seemed to have missed the "Here's some random thoughts that I want to jot down before I forget them. Let me emphasize that these are simply exploratory in nature" intro. you bring up some interesting points, but perhaps you are overstating.

i believe crasch is in the right - part of the point of this country was for people to find opportunities for new society and government. while the founders may have desired to exclude "the ignorant masses" from the decision making process, their vaunted system of representation seems to have warped into a greedy, self-centered and short-sighted system that is itself working to detach itself from the public it supposedly serves. how's that for foresight? if those masses feel abused, who are you to say they shouldn't be able to group together and see if there's a better way of doing things, so long as they're going about it in a fairly reasonable manner?

there is an imbalance of power and a lack of accountability when a president with less than half of the popular vote is making decisions with which over a hundred million people in his constituency are unhappy, and the system that gave rise to that can bear a little rethinking.

also, to address your second comment, it is "intuitively obvious" that you are focusing too much on "the masses". the point of the ideas here is to dissolve those masses back into individuals. i think it's possible that "the masses" are a direct function of such a centralized state - when you take away their responsibilities or even the perception of those responsibilities, you take away their ability to think for themselves. that, i think, is a catch-22 that afflicts your position.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

I know he's not writing a doctoral dissertation or putting forth the final draft of a position paper, neither am I. We're just bantering as we are wont to do from time to time.

I understand that "those masses feel abused" but I'd assert that their feelings are the results of their ignorance and self centeredness and not any rational, reasonably assessed, factually correct abuse.

The problem that we have is not, as is so often asserted, that we suffer from a dearth of democracy or that elected officials ignore the wishes of the people. Our problems result from the fact that politicians are all too willing to accede to the wishes of their constituents and that their constituents are, for the most part, a bunch of self centered, ignorant, morons.

The solution is not a more direct democracy nor more low level decision making which is too easily influenced by said ignorant masses.

There are many solutions of varying practicality. Ideally the voters would be improved as individuals so that they took a more active interest in public policy, were better equipped to understand it, and would stop being the wretched little shits they are. Ideally, of course, I'd also like to be able to flap my wings and fly to the moon.

Consider that in the first century of the Republic, activities like the Lincoln Douglas debates drew mass audiences, that people traveled at great trouble and often at considerable risk to attend the debates, that the nuances of the arguments were endlessly rehashed with great passion by quite ordinary folk. Today, that same audience would tune out to watch the latest episode of Friends and most people understand the Constitution no better than they understand the Talmud.

And this is the group that you want to empower to make more decisions?

[heliosapien.livejournal.com]

i think you may have missed the gist of my words. my point is two-fold.

firstly, i do not believe a more direct democracy handed to today's populous is any kind of solution. i'm not sure how you inferred that from what i said. what i was pointing at was that the larger the scale of the representative system, the more potential there is for detachment between the individual and the government. you talk about how "wretched little shits" (and man, what's up with the bitterness) acting on their own making poor large-context decisions, but you ignore that the individuals leading our government are both capable of and practiced in making similarly bone-headed moves - the main differences are that those at the top do so with some semblance of majority support, and much greater impact.

the numbers work out thusly: when you double the size of the populous, you double the number of people who get out-voted. conversely, as you split up the people, there is some duplication of effort, potential loss in opportunity for collaboration, etc. i think there are probably ideal equilibrium points along that scale, and above a certain point you no longer approach another equilibrium, you merely degrade. i am thinking the current government is either too large, or ill-designed, or simply unkempt, and that distributing the power via more localized gov't is probably the way out of the morass.

note how this is different from giving individuals more power in a large context - it is about giving individuals more power in a smaller context.

secondly, i will make an analogy: a child raised to clearly understand the nature and benefit their personal responsibilities (actually speaking, not propagandistically speaking) will likely be far more productive and contributive than will a child raised with little responsibility, in whom will likely be fostered less motive and concern, or a child raised with little understanding of their responsibility, who will likely have inaccurate ideas about the effects of their actions. i say "likely" because nature and nurture are sometimes at odds, and an environment that would seem likely to foster one attitude may actually produce another.

this is to say that people would be less likely to become such "self-centered, ignorant morons" (your language seems telling of someone fed up and not very conciliatory) if they hadn't been led to feel that the core responsibilities had been offloaded to other, relatively inaccessible people. you believe people need to be more pro-active, and i believe that the current system (in both scale and construct) inherently drains people of the notion that they need to be so.

your example of the Lincoln Douglas debates possibly strengthens what i'm saying - perhaps the audiences of that age felt more like they were being spoken to, instead of at. perhaps the division between audience and orator was not so great. perhaps the time has come to re-bridge that gap.


"There are many solutions of varying practicality."

you've yet to name one. and i think your condescending tone (not to me, but to "the masses") belies your ability to effectively do so.

[rillifane.livejournal.com]

My bitterness, and indeed, it is bitterness, comes from likely being considerably older than you and therefore having had the opportunity to be disappointed more often.

I'm sitting here watching Glory for the umpteenth time and trying, once again, to figure out what went wrong with this country. When the Matthew Broderick character, Colonel Shaw says "The 54th requests the privilege of leading the assault" (as he just did) I always begin to cry. Why have those who walk in the shadow of greatness and sacrifice become such self centered wretches?

Is there really a practical solution? I don't think so. While I don't think the Republic is going to collapse or be supplanted by some monstrous dictatorship and while I believe that the United States will continue to lead the world for good or ill for the foreseeable future, I despair of the possibility of ever seeing that place "where alabaster cities gleam untouched by human tears."

Bring the government down to whatever level and people will still prefer Monday Night Football to exercising their intellects. I've lived in big cities and now reside in a small rural town. It is no better in either place in this regard.

People have become intellectually and politically lazy. The average American will not read a single non fiction book this year. Most will not read a newspaper except to devour the sports section or consult the TV listings. They have reached this state entirely on their own hook. No one and no institution of government is to blame.

Nothing that either one of us can do can change this fundamental problem. And that is cause for such tears as might fill an ocean.

[rachelmills.livejournal.com]

Education could be entirely re-imagined in the Free State. Take a look-see at this:

www.sudval.org

I'm guessing this innovative educational concept will go over *hugely* with porcupines. And something like 90% of their graduates go to college. Here's a quote from the home page:

"The Sudbury Valley School is a place where children are free.

Their natural curiosity is the starting point for everything that happens at the school.

Here, students initiate all their own activities. The staff, the plant, the equipment are there to answer their needs. Learning takes place in formal and informal settings, in large and small groups, or individually. All ages are free to mix at all times. The dynamics among students of different ages, helping each other learn about everything from human relations to math, is one of the greatest strengths of the school.

Students share responsibility for their own environment, and for the quality of life at school. The school is managed by the weekly School Meeting, where every student and staff member has a vote: an education
at Sudbury Valley is also an education in hands-on democracy."

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I agree with you. Although I'm probably going to homeschool (assuming my mate wants to as well), I'm a fan of the Sudbury model as well. I believe amanda42 and David Friedman send their kids to Sudbury-style schools.

[spotboy.livejournal.com]

Hey, I'm looking at 50+ acres in southern NH, and wanna home school too (my kids are 5 months & 2 years). Wanna bang heads about this?

[crasch.livejournal.com]

Sure. However, you're probably further along the path than I am right now. I'm not married yet, and I won't be moving for at least 3 years (until my options vest).

Language is almost everything.

[bhv.livejournal.com]

I think Crasch is right in saying that language is very important. If the FSP supporters allow their opponents cast them as anti-children because they don't support government indoctrination mills (public schools) then freedom and the FSP will lose every time. Humans have a very hot "Help the Children" button.

The FSP and freedom will win every time if they can clearly and warmly show how government indoctrination mills (public schools) are bad for children and how students are much more likely to get a world class education if they go to schools that are paid for by people who love the children and not by people who "invited" to pay for their schooling at the barrell of a gun. "If you love your children, won't you help me work to pay for their education without resorting to threats of violence."