Answers to (some) criticisms of the Free State Project

[archerships]

rumspringa makes several criticisms of the Free State Project in a recent post. Since they're common criticisms, I decided to respond.



A friend recently asked me if I could explain how privatization of fire departments would work.

Perhaps you could point them to the existing private fire companies of Denmark and Scottsdale, AZ

This battle was lost somewhere around 1856. Feds got power.

Yes, and...? Times change. Just because you lose one battle doesn't mean that you should give up the war, does it? It took several hundred years (and lot's of bloodshed) for the monarchical system of government to be replaced by democracy. It will probably take as long for democracy to be replaced with something better (hopefully with less bloodshed).


Federal government has a monopoly of power over all entities within its geographic area. Just talk to the Southern States about school desegregation, to pro-lifers about Roe v. Wade, to medical marijuana proponents about federal drug laws, etc. etc.


Yes, this is true. However, in the long term, FSP participants would like to reduce the federal government's power. Assuming that this is the goal, how else would you recommend that they proceed? You may be right, and the FSP may not enjoy much success at reducing the government's power (at both state and federal level), but I haven't yet seen anything else that I thought had a better chance.


What specific grants of individual rights and powers can/will FSP give individuals to attract them to NH?.


* Gun aficianados will be attracted by the gun culture.
* Home schoolers will be attracted by lack of home schooling regulations.
* Businesses will be attracted by low taxes.
* Recreational drug users will be attracted by no state laws, and lax enforcement of federal laws.
* Back to the woods types will be attraced by liberal zoning laws.
* Libertarians will be attracted by the general culture of freedom.
* Gays will be attracted by liberal marriage laws.

I would lay money down that there is absolutely no way that the 20,000 pledges will indeed move. If someone wants to take that wager, and we can stick our money into escrow, I'll even get specific on the % of original pledges who _did_ move.

I don't think that all 20,000 initial pledgers will move either. I expect that probably 3 - 5,000 will move within the first 5 years after reaching 20,000, and that somewhere between 10 - 12,000 of the initial 20,000 will ultimately move at some point in their lifetime.

However, I don't think that it needs to immediately be a success to still be worthwhile. I look at the FSP as small motor turning a large flywheel. It concentrates and provides direction to a libertarian movement that has hitherto proven too diffuse to be effective at the state level. Even if only 5 K people move there initially, they will form a nucleus that will attract others. Eventually, with luck, it will be self-perpetuating. Just as San Francisco and New York became mecca's for the gay population, I expect that New Hampshire will eventually become a mecca for the libertarian community.

At the least, even if we fail, I would prefer to be surrounded by people like amanda42, perich, octal, etc.

There is a distinct lack of unified undertanding as to what FSP means by a "Free State".

Yes, people have different ideas of what it means to be "free", and this will create conflicts as FSP members form coalitions to work for practical reform. However, I think anyone who responds positively to this answer to the question "Who is welcome to participate?":

"...In essence, this includes everyone who wants to cut the size and scope of government by about two-thirds or more. Put in a positive way, most FSP members support policies such as abolition of all income taxes, elimination of regulatory bureaucracies, repeal of most gun control laws, repeal of most drug prohibition laws, complete free trade, decentralization of government, and widescale privatization..."

...is going to agree with me on far more issues than they are going to disagree.

..you get no value from moving to NH

Some people derive value from being in a community of fellow nutjo...I mean, like-minded individuals.

At least in the non-free state I don't have to worry about them shooting my dog over barking too loud, and whether my "private police force" can do anything to stop him from shooting my dog outside having to shoot my neighbor..

Yes, nobody ever shoots their neighbor's dog in the non-free state. And the police always respond to your calls. And there's no evidence for the efficacy of private police services.


At any rate, I never wanted to put down FSP...I've never wanted to be less than supportive of FSP.

Hmm... you associate FSP supporters with Jim Jones style religious cults, express relief that they won't live near you, worry that they would shoot your dog if they did live near you, and imply they're nutjobs. Gee, if this is you "wanting to be supportive", I hope to never see your critiques of something you really disliked.

Comments

[pentomino.livejournal.com]

OK, then:

How are you going to find gainful employment for 20,000 new residents who are smart enough to know their politics, and hence too smart to work at Wal-Mart?

[contrariandoer.livejournal.com]

We can create businesses and export our products and services
outside of Free State.

This is one of the reasons I am devloping entrepreneurial skills
so that I'll be able to use or teach it when I move there.

[tinymammoth.livejournal.com]

Bustling economies absorb this percentage of workers all the time, and many of the free staters are entrepeneurs and will create jobs. This doesn't worry me at all.

The problem I continue to have with the Free State project is that even if everybody moves as they promise to, it's still such a small percentage of the total electorate that their influence will be small. It may be nontrivial, but it's inconceivable to think that 20,000 people in a state with more than a million residents will have any shot at repealing Federal drug laws, for example. I think it's possible that an organized interest group could do something like keep state income taxes from rising so much, or draw attention to noxious state regulations, but their influence will not be that extensive.

crasch says:

"Yes, this is true. In the long term, FSP participants would like to reduce the federal government's power. Assuming that this is the goal, how else would you recommend that they proceed? You may be right, and the FSP may not enjoy much success at reducing the government's power (at both state and federal level), but I haven't yet seen anything else that I thought had a better chance."

It's natural to be attracted to the grand solution that will fix everything, but I think there are plenty of effective ways to proceed that are less dramatic but perhaps more likely to pay off. I have a friend who has gotten dozens of Libertarians elected to local office, where they are slowly gaining political experience. Over time, some of them will continue in their political careers and can hope for higher and higher office.

How does he do this? He focuses on small, unglamorous races, and uses the same kind of tactics any candidate would use. It's a lot of work and no one gets to say, "I'm running for governor," but instead people actually get elected.

The Institute for Justice, the Libertarian ACLU, has won many high-profile cases for liberty, and argued before the Supreme Court. Thirty years ago think tanks were dismissed as political masturbation for policy wonks; today think tanks routinely work with lawmakers, including the increasingly influential Cato institute, which went from a fringe organization to a major player around the time of the 1994 Republican triumph in Congress.

The terms of debate on many issues have changed radically in the last fifty years, moving towards both a greater respect for free markets, and a greater appreciation of at least some personal freedoms (freedom of expression, especially). There are lots of places liberty has lost ground, of course, but my point is that the political climate is dynamic and it does respond to new ideas.

The highest marginal income tax rate in the fifties was 90%. Reagan was the driving force behind tax reform, and he was seriously influenced by Hayek. Reagan was no libertarian, but he was drawing on a tradition of libertarian thought and at least on this issue, it paid off big.

These gains are the result of people engaging with the *mainstream*, making arguments and fighting legal battles and telling their pals that they've just got to read Hayek. Small, incremental battles that will never result in Libertopia are a lot more likely to result in greater liberty than any Libertopian scheme I have yet seen.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

it's inconceivable to think that 20,000 people in a state with more than a million residents will have any shot at repealing Federal drug laws . . . their influence will not be that extensive:  How many of those million residents actually bother to get to the polls for anything other than the Presidential election every four years? Are you aware of how many people show up for the Presidential race and ignore most of the ballot? How many Democrats do you think the state sports that oppose drug prohibition? Do you really think that, of 20,000 libertarian-minded people that are willing to uproot their lives and move hundreds or thousands of miles to build a better government for themselves, only the national average voter turnout percentage will be added to the active electorate? Don't you think that you might get 19,987 people (give or take) that had never before voted in that state showing up at the polls to repeal marijuana prohibition legislation? I think their influence will be quite a bit greater than you believe, and I'm probably going to join them the moment I can afford the move.

I have a friend who has gotten dozens of Libertarians elected to local office, where they are slowly gaining political experience.:  Good. I hope your friend keeps at it. We need more libertarians like him or her. The Free State Project, meanwhile, can serve as a blatant reminder of the possibilities inherent in liberty-minded government to help sway the vote of the rest of the nation. It takes marketable spectacle to motivate most Americans to pay attention to a possibility they hadn't considered before. Aside from the benefits to 20,000 people moving to a place that will likely become a noticeably more free place to live, the major benefit to the nation at large will be advertising. New Hampshire may well become the reason that a lot of liberty-minded Republicrats and Demmicans jump ship.

Frankly, I think that every effort that is available, short of the unethical, is valid and, indeed, needed. I also think that, though it's possible something else will ultimately help more, the FSP will also help. That, my friend, is a good thing.

[tinymammoth.livejournal.com]

Maybe we're talking at cross purposes. By drug laws, I meant heroin and cocaine and so forth. Repealing marijuana laws does in fact have some political momentum, perhaps there could be an impact there.

If you're realistic about what you can accomplish, great. I am really just responding to what I think are unrealistic expectations. Also, I was listing other projects specifically because crasch said the FSP was the best plan he knew of. It's one of many, I think it might do some good, I think others are ultimately more likely to have a large impact.

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

Heh. Now that the two duplicates have disappeared, I'll respond.

I understand your points. I don't think that crasch suffers from unrealistic expectations, though. Further, I referred to marijuana prohibition because we'll never get total repeal of the prohibitions en masse, short of overthrowing the entire government. It will have to start out piecemeal. By decriminalizing marijuana, the first steps can be taken. By way of legal precendent, then, we can move on to other controlled substances.

[tinymammoth.livejournal.com]

I think the scenario you propose is a possible one, and I hope it plays out that way. I have no objections to the FSP and I think it might have a small impact, which is a good thing. If I weren't really intolerant of cold, I would consider going myself.

The reason I raise objections is that I have seem some really wild claims among FSP supporters, and I think these come from some pretty naive ideas about electoral politics. I do not think 20,000 people will be able to turn New Hampshire into a haven against drug laws, for example, without a huge cultural shift that will happen nationwide. 20,000 people can bring issues to the forefront that already have cultural resonance, like excess regulation or taxes, or give a push on an issue that has momentum, like school vouchers.

I was responding to crasch's claim that it was the best scheme he had heard. I think it really depends on an individual and their talents and disposition to use them as to where they can make the biggest impact, and maybe the FSP is that choice for some people, but there are many others and I think some are better choices for those with the talent and inclination. If anything comes out of it, it may just be the potential positive unintended consequences of putting that many libertarians together.

[tinymammoth.livejournal.com]

To clarify: I am referring to laws regulating hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, not marijuana. I don't know New Hampshire's culture well enough to say, but there are states where an activist group might hope for victories on marijuana.

[contrariandoer.livejournal.com]

Well responded.

[gentlemaitresse.livejournal.com]

Recreational drug users will be attracted by no state laws, and lax enforcement of federal laws.

A better argument, or at least an additional one, is that those of us who like to be self-sufficient and use herbal remedies are less likely to be hassled.

I would prefer to be surrounded by people like amanda42, perich, octal, etc.

And ME! You forgot ME!!! <grin>

I really enjoyed reading this. Thanks! :-)

[apotheon.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure he'd prefer I live on the far side of the state from him. Heh.

[sofaking-par.livejournal.com]

I raised a lot of these questions myself when I was skeptical of the FSP. I believe most are valid criticisms. But we have to try. To fail in a noble course is preferable to passively watching evil win.

What I never see raised in any discussion of FSP and NH, is how important this state is in choosing a president. If FSP takes root there, every four years a candidate, hat in hand, is going to have some explaining to do about how s/he is going to get off our backs.