Live Free or ... Move?
---
Letters ... we get letters:
Let's begin at the beginning. I've been to New Hampshire. I have a good friend who lives in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire sucks.
With that out of the way -- why bother?
There are two broad reasons why the Free State Project is a bit silly. Let's start with the micro-cosmic reason.
If libertarians want to live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune / autonomous collective, then why do it outside an empty castle in New Hampshire? Find a tract of land wherever you please and develop a planned community, complete with governing agreements and a network of voluntary contracts.
Like, say, what's been happening with retirees, first in Florida and now in Nevada and Arizona. Or like, say, my co-op here in Manhattan. (Or, cf., Ave Maria, Florida.)
If a bunch of people want to get together and form a private community, then they can do it anywhere. Apparently the only reason the Free Staters particularly prefer New Hampshire is because of the low taxes. Fair enough, but Florida and Nevada have low taxes too.
Now consider the macro-cosmic factors. Wherever libertarians congregate to build their Utopia, it's still going to be a part of a county, and a school district, and a state, and a country -- all of which have, under current thinking, nearly unlimited authority to nullify those libertarian principles that Free Staters are seeking to preserve.
Build your Free State paradise in New Hampshire -- the state may still try to tax your scenic view. Build it in Kansas -- the state may still try to ram creationist gobbledygook down your kids' throats. Build it in a Manhattan co-op -- you're still going to pay for 12.2 million condoms to "cover the city in latex." Build it in Utah -- no, don't even try to build it in Utah.
Or build it anywhere else, and Congress will still reserve the right to nullify any private agreements it doesn't like, such as (entirely voluntary) restrictions on flag displays on your property.
I mean really, what's the point?
No, I think it's better (from a collectivist perspective, somewhat ironically) for the "libertarian diaspora" to continue. Even if we're a perpetual minority everywhere we go, at least we'll be heard everywhere we go.
That's my idea of a "free state project."
Hey, Kip,Actually I've briefly visited the issue previously. See also here.
Have you heard about this?
www.freestateproject.org
Curious as to what you think. I must admit it's tempting...
(No, I do not have a connection to the project. Just thought you'd find it interesting.)
Let's begin at the beginning. I've been to New Hampshire. I have a good friend who lives in New Hampshire.
New Hampshire sucks.
With that out of the way -- why bother?
There are two broad reasons why the Free State Project is a bit silly. Let's start with the micro-cosmic reason.
If libertarians want to live in an anarcho-syndicalist commune / autonomous collective, then why do it outside an empty castle in New Hampshire? Find a tract of land wherever you please and develop a planned community, complete with governing agreements and a network of voluntary contracts.
Like, say, what's been happening with retirees, first in Florida and now in Nevada and Arizona. Or like, say, my co-op here in Manhattan. (Or, cf., Ave Maria, Florida.)
If a bunch of people want to get together and form a private community, then they can do it anywhere. Apparently the only reason the Free Staters particularly prefer New Hampshire is because of the low taxes. Fair enough, but Florida and Nevada have low taxes too.
Now consider the macro-cosmic factors. Wherever libertarians congregate to build their Utopia, it's still going to be a part of a county, and a school district, and a state, and a country -- all of which have, under current thinking, nearly unlimited authority to nullify those libertarian principles that Free Staters are seeking to preserve.
Build your Free State paradise in New Hampshire -- the state may still try to tax your scenic view. Build it in Kansas -- the state may still try to ram creationist gobbledygook down your kids' throats. Build it in a Manhattan co-op -- you're still going to pay for 12.2 million condoms to "cover the city in latex." Build it in Utah -- no, don't even try to build it in Utah.
Or build it anywhere else, and Congress will still reserve the right to nullify any private agreements it doesn't like, such as (entirely voluntary) restrictions on flag displays on your property.
I mean really, what's the point?
No, I think it's better (from a collectivist perspective, somewhat ironically) for the "libertarian diaspora" to continue. Even if we're a perpetual minority everywhere we go, at least we'll be heard everywhere we go.
That's my idea of a "free state project."
Posted by Kip on
29 August 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.
