The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 pro-liberty activists to move to New Hampshire, where they will exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property. The success of the Project would likely entail reductions in taxation and regulation, reforms at all levels of government to expand individual rights and free markets, and a restoration of constitutional federalism, demonstrating the benefits of liberty to the rest of the nation and the world.
The pop-up did not appear when I viewed the video. I was logged in to a YouTube premium account via Google Chrome. (Interestingly, when I launch YouTube, it warns me that YouTube GB may show adverts because my premium account is registered with YouTube CH. I have not, however, yet seen an ad inserted by YouTube.)
Reminiscent of the plan (back long ago when San Francisco was cool) by hippies to move en mass to low population Wyoming and democratically vote in a hippie state government. Apparently the project initially was going fine – and then came Winter.
At the origin of the Free State Project (FSP), the founders and initial members did not specify a state, but rather criteria of a total population of less than 1.5 million and total combined spending in 2000 by the Republican and Democrat parties less than national spending by the Libertarian party in that year (US$ 5.2 million). In September 2003, the state was chosen in a vote, which was closely split between New Hampshire (57%) and Wyoming (43%), Many people, including me, considered the Project to have beclowned itself by this choice, as a New England, East Coast (yes, it has an Atlantic coast—check the map!) state would have an inescapable tilt toward collectivism—just look at bordering states Massachusetts and Vermont, while Wyoming’s tradition is much more gun totin’ individualism. But the FSP seems to have achieved many of their goals, probably aided by the ability of those who have migrated to the state and telecommute to jobs elsewhere, which was not foreseen in the early 2000s.
My main criticism was not the choice of state but rather the belief that a state could withstand the power of Leviathan when the latter has gone absolutely mad and admits no constraints on its power. About that I remain highly sceptical.
My identical critique. Basically the 14th Amendment has been interpreted in such a manner as to effectively nullify the 10th Amendment entirely. It is entirely a matter of the Supreme Court’s whims unhinged from anything less than the threat of violent revolt. In the current situation this would probably mean shutting off the life support systems for the urban areas and killing people as they flee.
This is why I try to warn people about the rhyme with the 30 Years War that seems to be the primary agenda for the West. I seem to be the only guy talking about this and offering specific proposals about what to do to mitigate the loss of life in advance and recover with a fix to the Treaty of Westphalia once the Bloodshed is over.