Your vision for Liberty in your lifetime

I will do outreach and try to educate people about liberty

6 (21.4%)

I will work within the system until Libertarians get control of my City

0 (0%)

I will work within the system until Libertarians get control of a City in New Hampshire

0 (0%)

I will work within the system until Libertarians get control of my State

1 (3.6%)

I will work within the system until Libertarians get control of New Hampshire

9 (32.1%)

I will declare myself sovereign and ignore the government and its laws

3 (10.7%)

I will move to some unoccupied area and spring up or join an independant Libertarian community

3 (10.7%)

I will do something else

5 (17.9%)

No thanks, I enjoy my shackles

1 (3.6%)

Total Members Voted: 11

[iWantToLiveFree]

What will you do to live Free?

Please read the following before your vote...

1: I will do outreach and try to educate people about liberty
For those who consider that educating their fellow americans is the best thing to do. It's a long term effort and includes protests, educational outreach, internet activism and the like.
The goal is to convince as many voters as possible to first identify, and then renounce the use of force to attain political and social goals.

2: I will work within the system until Libertarians get control of my City
This choice would include the first option but would focus on one city and include activism in election campaigns and ballot initiatives.
It would also imply working within the system and accepting, at least temporarily, to play by the established rules so that one day, they may be changed by a Libertarian majority.

3: I will work within the system until Libertarians get control of a City in New Hampshire
Essentially the same as choice #2 but instead focusing on one city in New Hampshire. Current residents of New Hampshire should select this one.

4: I will work within the system until Libertarians get control of my State
This choice would include the first and second options but would also target politics at the state level. The goal is now to free the entire state by getting Libertarian candidates in office locally and statewide plus having a Liberty friendly majority of residents in the state.

5: I will work within the system until Libertarians get control of New Hampshire
Same as choice #2, including option 1 and 3. Current residents of New Hampshire should select this one.

6: I will declare myself sovereign and ignore the government and its laws
For those who will do anything to personally get rid of the state now or in the very near future. This could include a bit of outreach and other political activities but would mailnly consist of getting off the grid completely, refusing to pay taxes or get the proper licenses... and physically resisting arrest should it come to that.

7: I will move to some unoccupied area and spring up or join an independant Libertarian community
Quite different from the other options. This one concerns individuals who believe that no other option can be realistically successful in a time-frame that they are willing to accept.
They also believe that it is next to impossible to convince enough people (and make them become principled) in a country where socialists live side by side with religious fundamentalists, green zealots and Libertarians. They believe it is in their best interest to leave these people alone and not vainly try to influence their political views.
It would consist of gathering a few Liberty minded individuals and starting a Libertarian community from scratch, in an area of the country with little intrinsic value and where no current population exists. They view informal secession as necessary as they do not wish to abide by current local, state or federal law.

[error]

I wrote last weekend on what I would do. Much to my surprise the Free State Project put it on their Essays page and on the front page of their site!

[eukreign]

Mine wasn't on the list. I think I will do the following things:

1. After giving time to myself and my family I will give time to activism (attending protests, donating money/time/resources to freedom related causes).
2. I will try to limit my interaction with the government as much as possible but I will pay property taxes, have a drivers license, etc. Until enough people around me stop doing those things and then I will also stop.
3. In case of SHTF (economy crashes, government crashes, etc) I will go into survival mode and only interact with people I know and warn off/shoot anyone trespassing on my property that I don't know.

I personally don't think aligning yourself with any political party or working "within the system" will every achieve anything useful. Give me one example in history where a major change occured in government because people decided to change it by working within the system and that this change lasted at least a decade or two without falling back to opression.

[error]

Who voted for "No thanks, I enjoy my shackles"?!?

Anyways, I can't think of any examples of events in history where people successfully worked within the system to make a major change in government. It's always required war or some other violent revolution.

I for one would like to TRY it. Even the founding fathers tried working within the system, until it was clear there would be no way to change the system from within. Only then commenced the violent revolution.

[eukreign]

I don't think that a violent revolution is required but definitely some kind of revolution is necessary.

Also, it was very odd to see that most of the options in the list mentioned "working within the system". I think just one "working within the system" option would be more than enough.

[Jiperly]

I might sleep in.

[iWantToLiveFree]

I wrote last weekend on what I would do. Much to my surprise the Free State Project put it on their Essays page and on the front page of their site!

I take it you voted #5...

Anyways, I can't think of any examples of events in history where people successfully worked within the system to make a major change in government. It's always required war or some other violent revolution.

I for one would like to TRY it. Even the founding fathers tried working within the system, until it was clear there would be no way to change the system from within. Only then commenced the violent revolution.

...but you don't seem to be very confident that the project is going to succeed without violence (which I would assume, is out of the question).
Perhaps I misinterpreted your post though.

I don't think that a violent revolution is required but definitely some kind of revolution is necessary.

That is if you wish to take control of the political process and state aparatus in order to impose a Libertarian government to your city, state, or to the entire country with a really overwhelming popular support (which will take sometime to build). In that case, I would say you are probably right (although I'm pretty sure we would see sporadic violence here and there), but if you only get a majority to agree, then it's gonna be bloody.
Either way, Liberating anything more than a small group of like minded individuals in a previously uninhabited area, is going to prove outrageously long and possibly bloody (assuming it could work at all).

Also, it was very odd to see that most of the options in the list mentioned "working within the system". I think just one "working within the system" option would be more than enough.

Only one would have been fine sure... but I thought it'd be interesting to provide more options and differenciate between city and state level (and NH).

[ladyattis]

Freedom is as freedom does. I need no government or entity to sanction it. ^^;

-- Bridget is dreaming of Galt's Gulch...

[eukreign]

That is if you wish to take control of the political process and state aparatus in order to impose a Libertarian government to your city, state, or to the entire country with a really overwhelming popular support (which will take sometime to build). In that case, I would say you are probably right (although I'm pretty sure we would see sporadic violence here and there), but if you only get a majority to agree, then it's gonna be bloody.
Either way, Liberating anything more than a small group of like minded individuals in a previously uninhabited area, is going to prove outrageously long and possibly bloody (assuming it could work at all).

Imposing a Libertarian government on others isn't any different from the current government imposing itself on us. Besides I'm an Anarchist, not a Libertarian.

[iWantToLiveFree]

Imposing a Libertarian government on others isn't any different from the current government imposing itself on us. Besides I'm an Anarchist, not a Libertarian.

Then I'm sorry if I wrongly assumed that's what you wanted to do (I knew this was coming  my mistake).

For the record, I do not wish to change America, nor do I wish to "take control" of any existing community, large or small. I only wish to provide Liberty for myself.
I would band with like-minded individuals and spring up a Libertarian (I am not an anarchist, but anarchists could do the same if they wanted to) community where no other community existed before.
And I would certainly not impose a Libertarian government on anarchists, socialists, green zealots or religious fundamentalists (or on other Libertarians for that matter).

Anyone joining this community would do so because they espoused the ideals of the community (thus making it perfectly legitimate for everyone within the community).
This is in stark contrast with other attempts at reforming existing political entities.

I'm just trying to test the waters here... I see someone else has already voted #7, I wish we could discuss this a bit more.
Also, it'd be great if everyone who voted "something else" gave their own plan.

[ladyattis]

I'm building an evil Dark Elf Inquisitor to liberate the US govt of its souls... Oh wait, Satan already did that, damnit! *walks back to Freeport to torture some kids over looking at nude pictures of the Overlord* *shudders*

-- Bridget

[BenTucker]

I would band with like-minded individuals and spring up a Libertarian (I am not an anarchist, but anarchists could do the same if they wanted to) community where no other community existed before.

dominion over all territory is asserted via force...

[eukreign]

I would band with like-minded individuals and spring up a Libertarian (I am not an anarchist, but anarchists could do the same if they wanted to) community where no other community existed before.

How will your Libertarian government be better than the current government?

How do you determine that, for example, paying a $5 tax is bad but a $4.99 tax is freedom? Which services will your libertarian government offer and how do you determine that these services are in fact Libertarian in nature?

Also, on the flip side, you said that you do not want to impose your Libertarian government on anyone, thus it seems to me that every individual in your Libertarian society will have to agree to your rules voluntarily. I would say this is Anarchy because if ever person agrees then they have no feeling of confinement, thus no feeling of someone ruling over them, thus no rulers (even though technically I guess you will have a president or whatever). So if you can do whatever you want (following your rules was their voluntary desire) then isn't that Anarchy?

[iWantToLiveFree]

How will your Libertarian government be better than the current government?

This would not be MY Libertarian government per say... but you are correct in the sense that it would suit my particular Libertarian philosohpy (heck, I would not start nor join a Libertarian government that I would not agree with).

How do you determine that, for example, paying a $5 tax is bad but a $4.99 tax is freedom? Which services will your libertarian government offer and how do you determine that these services are in fact Libertarian in nature?

I do not. Taxes are slavery when not agreed upon by -- needless to say, voluntary -- contract. Since this government would only exert its jurisdiction by consent of the individual, then it could require taxes be paid if there were such provisions in the charter. But I DO NOT want to introduce taxation powers in the charter (none at all).
The only services offered by this government will be protection from the violation of the individual rights as defined in the charter (ie. initiation or threat of force and fraud). Whether these rights are considered god given, natural or just fiat does not matter at this point. You do not have to join the community and you can leave it (I can elaborate on these rights if you want, but I'm pretty sure we do agree).
All other services will be provided on a voluntary basis as well, but by separate entities (businesses, associations etc...).

Also, on the flip side, you said that you do not want to impose your Libertarian government on anyone, thus it seems to me that every individual in your Libertarian society will have to agree to your rules voluntarily. I would say this is Anarchy because if ever person agrees then they have no feeling of confinement, thus no feeling of someone ruling over them, thus no rulers (even though technically I guess you will have a president or whatever). So if you can do whatever you want (following your rules was their voluntary desire) then isn't that Anarchy?

This government would not be named "government of blablaLand" but "protection forces of blablaLand" or something like that. I would not want it to contain "government" in its official title because it would not be governing but protecting by consent.
It is my belief that most anarchists would find such a government very similar to a DRO whose rules (elections, founding charter..) would mostly match that of an ultra limited government. So I guess we do agree to some extent.

[eukreign]

How are you going to pay to protect peoples rights if you aren't going to collect taxes?