Free State Project (10/22/02)

> What do you think of this project?
> http://www.freestateproject.org/

I've been following them since the beginning, I think they are great. Much more realistic than the Libertarian Party. There are not enough L's to seriously affect nationwide politics, but there might well be enough to affect a state. Its the most realistic libertarian project I've seen. I'm still going to analyze its flaws of course, cuz I always do that with other people's projects ( :) ), but I am doing so with great appreciation for its merits. Note that a discussion of the FSP's strategies can be found here. I think their main problems are:

1. Getting enough people to sign up
2. That number of people having as much of an impact on politics as they hope
3. You can only do so much at the state and local level

As regards #1, the FSP says:

"To get 20,000 signers by September 2006, we will need approximately 15 new signatures per day on average. In the month of September 2002 we averaged 7 new signatures per day, while in August and October we have averaged about 20 signatures per day, compared to 4 per day in February and below 1 per day before then. As we continue to expand our publicity and advertising efforts, a constant average of 15 per day should be well within reach."

The FSP was slashdotted in october, and has seen a greatly increased media exposure in general. However, due to their limited market, it seems as though saturation may occur. Once most of the (small number of) libertarians have heard of it, new membership will require previous non-joiners changing their minds or the conversion of non libertarians. Both of these are possible but harder. There may only be a small number of people willing to move to a state, and the sign-ups may tail off. On the other hand, momentum and snowballing are very important for a project, and it may be that the more people sign up, the more others are willing to. This force could maintain a high level. We'll have a lot more data about that in another year.

As regards #2, I had a brief argument on the subject with the founder. One thing to note is that the number of people moving into the state are nowhere near enough actual *voters* to elect libs to state office, rather they depend on these being *activists* who have a much larger impact in terms of votes than just themselves:

"...look at campaign expenditures. While victory does not always go to the highest spender, votes and spending are correlated in American elections, all else held constant. If the FSP's political vehicle could continuously outspend both the Democrats and Republicans at the state level, its chances for eventual victory are high."

I think their major flaw is in thinking that a certain number of volunteers and dollars, when devoted to libertarian causes, will result in the same number of votes as if those volunteers and dollars were devoted to republicans or democrats. The problem is, the demopublicans have a receptive audience. They don't have to change anyone's worldview. They can find the people who are on the fence, or who are on their side but don't vote. The libertarians have to pull people much farther from where they started, I find it only reasonable to assume that this takes more resources. It may be that 20,000 porcupines can swing state elections their way - but don't count on it.

The problems with medical marijuana initiatives illustrate #3 clearly. Many states have clearly ruled that marijuana should be legal for medical purposes, yet the federal government has flexed their muscles, raided the growers, and said that it is not allowed by federal law. Most of our taxes are federal, not state or local. Many of our onerous rules are federal. I totally agree that libertarian control of a state (if #1 and #2 are solved) would make lives much better for its residents than for those in other states. And it may be possible, by rejecting federal funds, to establish some independence from even federal laws (I have not looked into the subject, I don't know how much federal control is "voluntarily" accepted in return for the state getting $$$). Still, they are getting rid of the leech attached to their wrist and leaving the one on their neck. The BATF, DEA, IRS, FBI are all federal agencies.

While these problems are significant, they are not impossible to overcome. By shooting for a moderate increase in liberty in a smaller area, the FSP greatly increases their chance of success. I would certainly encourage those with the appropriate qualifications to sign up.

Some advantages to a realistic new country plan like seasteading over the FSP:

It will take 30-150 people to start, not 20,000.
Those people will not have to fight or vote for sovereignty.
They get far more freedom for moving - no US fedgov, no DEA, no FBI, no BATF.

Disadvantages:

Its harder to convince people to move someplace wacky and distant.
It is more expensive to do things on water without infrastructure.
There are technical challenges as well as political ones.

Conclusion:

Seasteading is more difficult, perhaps much more difficult, and potentially has a far higher resulting level of freedom, although at the price of higher expense, higher isolation, and less comfort. It is a lower-probability, higher-utility line of approach. Personally, I'm going to stick with it. But if seasteading doesn't happen and I don't find a country I prefer living in, I know which state I'll be coming back to. Seems like the perfect place to plot the next attempt...

<< Thoughts on Econ: Deflation When Economic Efficiency Is Increasing Is An Accurate Price Signal (10/27/02) << || >> Fair is Fair (10/7/02) >>

Up to Index of Entries
Back to Journal Index