http://www.missoulanews.com/News/News.asp?no=3276 In the end, it is the American dream that is ultimately the goal of the Free State Project: the idea that individuals should be free to fly an F-15 fighter over Montana, shooting at clouds while snorting coke and shagging a prostitute and no one can tell you “no.” Or the dream could be raising and teaching one’s kids alone in the countryside on a diet of Whitman and the Bible without worrying about child services knocking on the door to see what’s going on. It could mean a hundred different things to a hundred different people, and that’s the whole point. But the freedom to pursue the American dream has always required money. Fortunately for them, most of the conference attendees have it, which is another common bond linking them. The conference has drawn those who own entire valleys of land, but not those who accept food stamps to feed their kids. It has drawn able-bodied travelers, but not the handicapped person in the wheelchair who counts on government to tell businesses that they must make their entrances accessible. And as diverse as the crowd is, the working poor are noticeably absent. Well, almost absent. After a day of discussion, several porcupines walk to a fast-food restaurant abutting Brooks Street. If any of them had struck up a conversation with the women and men behind the counter before ordering their burgers, they might have found Missoulians working two jobs for a total of seventy hours a week just to stay broke and not fall into the red. These are the people who benefit most from government aid, and who would suffer most from its withdrawal. But they can’t make it to the Grand Western Conference to argue their side of the story. They’re working weekends. Discuss.
The media and joe schmo's skepticism will doom this, as well as, and perhaps mostly, because the less affluent didn't really seem to be represented. Perception will hurt the group; it'll be seen as a rich, bored, club by many. Disclaimer: I lean to the left so I'd never go for something like this. They may find sympathetic people in Northern New Hampshire, when Idaho or Montana doesn't work out. Southern NH? Forget about it, it's an extension of Boston. And we haven't even gotten into applying for soverign status or anything like that.
This guy is idiot. I don't mean to dismiss him so out of hand because some ideas about less government and more personal responsibility make sense even to my liberl SS, but peep the following: “That basically means that we think government should be in the business of protecting individuals, but should not be in the business of providing for them or punishing them for their vices…We basically think government should just be there to prevent people from doing bad things to each other.” Umm. Right. You can't have protection without punishment. If there is no punishment I can expect from killing my hypothetical mother in law, and I kill her, how did the government protect her? It didn't threaten to punish me, and thusly didn't stop me from doing "bad things" to her. I like simplistic ideas, but this is just laughable. This is really the "Freeloader State Project". You can't have an entire anything (city, state country) that is just the upper crust. Even in Monaco someone has to be willing to work the 4-12 shift at McDonald's. It's a group of people that want the protection of government without the taxes (that are necessitated by things like welfare and social security), the ability to run their lives and the lives of others according to their beliefs (no state pension for you!) and a government with no foreign policy (and the nasty defense budgets that go with it). I'm liberal enough to support things like legalized "working girls" , but I don't understand the gun ownership people (your 26 guns are no protection against a government with nuclear powered intercontinental ballistic missile submarines, they're just not) and the free state types mentioned in this article who want a government with no laws. Sure, no taxes would be nice, but without taxes you have no country. Governments have to provide for people. Without laws you have no structure for society to peacefully operate. I agree that liability lawsuits and corporate lobbying and a lot of other things are out of control, but I don't think there are many examples in history where separating yourself from a problem has ever made it go away (Arab and palestinian relations in the middle east, for one). I think this is the National Selfish Front.
jamison hits the nail right on the head here, better than I could. This looks like a live free until we run out of resources mentality.