What Does the Free State Project Really Give Us?

[Elwar]

The Free State Project creates a crucible of liberty which can then be used throughout the rest of the country.

Instead of:

"If you don't want any laws, why not just go to Somalia!"

You would have:

"If you don't want any laws, why not just go to New Hampshire!"...with the highest quality of living, lowest school dropout rates, best job rate, etc..

 

[Keith and stuff]

I thought the seat belt law passed?

Here you go. A national news story confirming that NH is the only state without a seat belt law for adults.

US seat belt use at all-time high
Posted: Friday, November 16, 2012 12:15 pm | Updated: 11:37 am, Fri Nov 16, 2012.
By Richard Simon Los Angeles Times
http://www.sentinelsource.com/news/...cle_cca53759-eeb0-5445-91f7-adb1ab064314.html

In the new report, observations of drivers and front-seat passengers show seat belt use nationwide reached an all-time high of 86 percent last year, up from 75 percent a decade ago.

The biggest increase in seat belt use came in the South, increasing to 85 percent, up from 80 percent in 2011.

Seat belt use was highest in the West, at 94 percent, and lowest in the Northeast [folks in NH, MA and ME aren't friendly to seat belt use requirements], at 80 percent.

New Hampshire is the only state that doesn’t require seat belt use by adults.

BTW, last I checked MA and WY have the lowest seat belt use rates in the US, despite having laws requiring them. I guess seat belt laws is the 1 thing that folks in MA and WY can agree on

 

[tremendoustie]

I want to pose a very serious question about what the Free State Project gives the Liberty Movement as we think about new ways to libertarianize (nice word, huh?) government.

Suppose we get a good majority in the New Hampshire General Court which is made up of 400 house seats. To do so, we need at least 200 winners. That gives us control of one state.

But how much does it really help insofar as changing things on a national scale? There are a total of four federal seats that come from New Hampshire - two in the House of Representatives, two in the Senate.

Work vs. Reward

Wouldn't it be better to have candidates take local offices in other states? If we dedicate resources to a single state (New Hampshire) the best that we could get on the federal level is only 4 seats out of 535. Do we really need 200 people in the state house just to win 4 federal seats? Really?

Justin Amash and Thomas Massie both "upgraded" from state and local positions into the federal government. This should be our way of taking over DC. It seems to me that allocating resources to take over a whole state is quite wasteful - 200 people in 50 different states with Republican leaning districts seems a hell of a lot more useful than 200 people in a single state with only 4 federal positions.

Just my opinion. I'm interested in hearing the viewpoints of others.

In my opinion nullification and independence are much more feasible ways out from under the federal thumb, than trying to somehow change the culture of 300 million people to elect a vastly different congress and president. Frankly, at this point, I don't pay attention to federal politics; they're a lost cause imo. My only goal regarding the feds is to get my state to say "no" to them.