I kind of wondered if this would come up here.

>What kind of nutjobs believe strongly enough in Libertarianism to sign up for this thing?

Well, me. Except never with a capital L. I'm what Stephen would call a classical liberal, and I joined the FSP over a year ago. Also, I'm from rural Oregon and studying to be a biomedical engineer, so I *have* to move *somewhere* when I graduate.

From Stephen's response:
>I think you're sort of missing the point here, Sam, which is that the Free State Project *isn't* all that interested in furthering the national aspirations of the Libertarian Party (the two have no official connection or anything). I've been semi-following these guys for a while, just because I think they're funny, and the conclusion I've come to is that they want to live in a state relatively unencumbered by governmental regulations and taxes.

The LP officially is opposed to the Free State Project. The last bit is entirely correct. My family started our own business back in Oregon a few years ago. It failed, as some do, and we lost a lot of money in it--but we were paying thousands in state taxes on it for years afterward. In general, Oregon's governments have squandered everything for decades, and the economy is wheezing. Basically *everyone* I've talked to back home, regardless of political persuasion, considers moving to a less restrictive state.

> This tactic is, in a word, invasion.

Well, more like mere influence. 20,000 is not enough, and not intended to be enough, to take over anyplace.

> Anyway, hardcore Libertarians came up with an idea of picking a state and encouraging Libertarians to *move* there, thereby concentrating their numbers in one place, thereby increasing the odds of some Libertarians being elected to local offices, where they can put some of their ideas in place.

Yes, assuming all those capital L's go away. Many or most seem not to be members of that somewhat loony party.

>Meanwhile, the increased percentage of Libertarian voters in that state will earn them some monetary support for national elections.

Nah. There might be some national influence, but not likely.

> Anyway, they want to have 20,000 people signed up in order for this to work, and they've only got about a quarter of that, so it may not happen. However, within the past couple days, they have made a decision on a state. That state is New Hampshire.

The original plan was to vote at 5,000 members, which happened a year ahead of schedule. We'll probably make 20,000 by September 2006, which is the official deadline.

> My first thought is, ok, there are 1.3 million people in New Hampshire. 20,000 people would account for roughly 1.5% of the population. With about 40% of those 1.3 million voting, that's still less than 5%. By contrast, Wyoming, the least populous state in the country, has 400,000 people, where 20,000 would be 5% of the population and something like 13% of voters.

The numbers are off, but the general theme is correct. Wyoming's a *beautiful* state, very receptive to newcomers and ideas, but they've got a miserable job outlook. We're not so hardcore that we'd move and all take ditch digging jobs. Most members are either in the tech field, self employed, or retired.

> (2) In light of the above, New Hampshire is one of the dumbest choices ever for this project.

Every aspect under the sun was discussed at nauseating length. New Hampshire is a wonderful place to live, has a great job market, is decidedly more free than most other states, and, most importantly, has been welcoming. The NH governor signed onto the FSP as a friend (not a member), and there are a number of FSP members in the state legislature. The governor has personally met and spoken to a great many FSP members and has extended his personal welcome.

>There is no area of the United States less warm to "outsiders" than New England. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying there is this mass prejudice or coldness toward tourists.

Compared to the *nasty* press elsewhere, New Hampshirites have been positively affectionate.

> (3) Continuing that thought, I have to figure a lot of the reason

Again, there were probably a few score reasons New Hampshire edged out Wyoming. My personal favorite was Alaska, but people wrongly perceive it to be a frozen wasteland. It's often warmer than NH.

>Moreover, we have the motto "Live Free Or Die," which, if it does not embody Libertarian ideals, nothing does. But despite the bold motto and the fact that a large portion of the population *is* pretty darned resentful of freedom-restricting legislation, we're not mavericks. We don't go around with six-shooters and figure we'll change the world by telling big governments and their taxes and their helmet laws to shove it.

That's fine.

> What I'm trying to say is that our state image and motto and so forth fit its population, but not in the way I suspect Libertarians are counting on.

We're counting only on the fact that it will be a lot nicer in New Hampshire than in California, Massachusetts, or Oregon. In all likelihood, based on several statistical looks at other migrations through history, 20,000 serious people will influence a state with less than 1.5 million population.

> (4) Should the Free State Project happen and work, and somehow we get a viable new party in our government system,

Unlikely. Most will probably join the Republicans or stay independent, as most libertarians already do. The only sure-fire plan that's been started is a Non-Partisan league, sort of like North Dakota's, that would endorse candidates regardless of party.

I'll answer more questions if there are any.

-Gabe