FSP opinions.

The FSP is our best shot. I have moved or am planning to move at some point.

28 (53.8%)

The FSP is important, but I am not interested in joining/moving to new hampshire any time soon.

8 (15.4%)

The FSP is an okay idea but I don't think it will work and I have no intention of joining or funding it.

4 (7.7%)

The FSP will fail. It's a waste of time/diversion.

6 (11.5%)

Other

6 (11.5%)

Total Members Voted: 30

[DogOn]

If you actually read the pledge of intent behind the FSP you'd know that.

Ahahahhahahahahahaah...

you make a persuasive argument.

[jimmed]

If you actually read the pledge of intent behind the FSP you'd know that.

Ahahahhahahahahahaah...

you make a persuasive argument.

I know the pledge, boy.

[MobileDigit]

My goal is a free society. Do you really think Nevada will have a free society before NH?

Does NH have legalized prostitution, gambling, indoor smoking in private establishments, and medical marijuana? Nevada even had a ballot measure to decriminalize all marijuana possession. Seems like a hell of a lot more on the way to "freedom" than NH. Unless you define "freedom" as not wearing a seatbelt.

You didn't answer my question.

Sorry, toots. Yes.

Maybe you're right. I don't see it.

Define "active".

A group that has meetings and assists people though a network of members to move to a specific town.

So does that exist anywhere?

Not that I'm aware of.

Isn't a defunct FTP better than nothing?

[DogOn]

If you actually read the pledge of intent behind the FSP you'd know that.

Ahahahhahahahahahaah...

you make a persuasive argument.

I know the pledge, boy.

If you knew it why the fuck would you say :

"I thought it's current goal is 2,000 people? If that. The 20k requirement expired in October of 2006."


You got schooled. Stop trying to "win", you're not bringing anything funny or factually correct to the table. If you're going to try and do the cool cynical forumite thing you might want to make sure you actually know what you're talking about.

[jimmed]

If you knew it why the fuck would you say

If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know that the FSP basically ceased to exist on Oct 1st, 2006 because the quorum of 20k members had not been reached by then. So the 20k number is technically off, which is why they're having these small pisspoor goals now.

P.S.: PWNED!

[DogOn]

If you knew it why the fuck would you say

the FSP basically ceased to exist on Oct 1st, 2006

No.

and i have no idea where you are pulling this Oct 1st deadline from, all i have ever seen from the FSP is that anyone who signed the pledge of intent should move when it hits 20,000, if you want to move earlier then go ahead has been the message i've seen, but nothing about if we don't have 20,000 by date X all bets are off.

As for the "pisspoor goals", the first 1000 wasn't thought up by any FSP head honchos, it was, if my memory serves me, thought up by our very own Ian Bernard, I have never seen or heard of anyone from the upper echelons of the FSP talking about the 20,000 number being scrapped for the first 1000.

If no one was even planning moving until 20,000 members joined, which by any ones estimate would have taken at least 10+ years since inception, how is it a "pisspoor goal" to want to move 1000 straight away?

I've tried to find this requirement thing you are talking about but I'm not having any luck, please actually source me something that backs up what you're saying.


There is no better chance for liberty in USA than the FSP, if you think what you have posted counts as a sufficient rebuttal to that then you need to seriously up your standards of evidence.

[Alex Libman]

I joined FSP over a year ago, but I've recently changed my mind.  I ain't a sucker for lost causes no more!  I hope it'll become viable in the future, but right now I just don't see it.  After all that fuss, Ron Paul getting 8% in a state once won by Buchanan with a similar platform is inexcusable!

From another thread:

NH is also the first primary, after which, like you said, a lot of people abandoned hope.  He also spent the most time & money there.  The big-L Libertarian Party of NH (or other third parties) isn't even on the ballot in NH.  Most libertarians seem to vote Republican, but your state has a popular Democrat governor, and a growing Democrat dominance in the legislature, with just 0.25% Independents.  As a matter a fact, the NH board of elections has some sort of a weird conspiracy against third parties - in 2004, LP candidate Michael Badnarik only got 372 write-in votes in NH, less than any state both as an absolute number or a percentage!  (Except Oklahoma, where he also wasn't on the ballot.)

If a libertarian POTUS candidate gets 8% of the NH vote in 2008, then we'll talk.  Until then, it's just a McCain / Romney / Clinton suburb of Boston.

[MobileDigit]

I hope it'll become viable in the future, but right now I just don't see it.

What has a better chance of achieving a free society?

[jimmed]

I hope it'll become viable in the future, but right now I just don't see it.

What has a better chance of achieving a free society?

The People of Nevada.

[MobileDigit]

I hope it'll become viable in the future, but right now I just don't see it.

What has a better chance of achieving a free society?

The People of Nevada.

Why do you think they have a better chance?

[jimmed]

I hope it'll become viable in the future, but right now I just don't see it.

What has a better chance of achieving a free society?

The People of Nevada.

Why do you think they have a better chance?

They have approved more freedom then any other state so far. Seems like they're in the lead to me.

[jimmed]

and i have no idea where you are pulling this Oct 1st deadline from

Then you know not what you're talking about.

Pretending it doesn't exist doesn't mean it didn't. Sorry, i got the date wrong. September 2006:

"Q. What is the time frame for the Free State Project?
A. The Participation Guidelines state that a signature on the Statement of Intent becomes void, and must be renewed by the signer, if three years pass before we reach 5,000 members and select the state. The Participation Guidelines also state that once we reach 20,000 members, everyone has five years to move to the selected state. The Participation Guidelines do not specify a requisite time period between reaching 5,000 members and reaching 20,000 members. However, the assumption has always been that if 20,000 is not close at hand within five years of the launch of the Free State Project (officially September 1st, 2001), the Project will fold. To get 20,000 signers by September 2006, we will need approximately 15 new signatures per day on average. In the month of September 2002 we averaged 7 new signatures per day, while in August and October we have averaged about 20 signatures per day, compared to 4 per day in February and below 1 per day before then. As we continue to expand our publicity and advertising efforts, a constant average of 15 per day should be well within reach."

http://web.archive.org/web/20030812172804/www.freestateproject.org/faqs.htm

[jimmed]

Isn't a defunct FTP better than nothing?

No, because that means it has failed and discourages anyone else from trying.

[jimmed]

Dissagree with this, ha:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=1017.msg13413#msg13413

"Title: Re:What if we can't get 20,000 members by 2006?

Post by: JasonPSorens on December 10, 2002, 09:23:22 pm

If we don't get 20000 by the end of 2006, the FSP itself will fold, but mayhap a new organization will take its place.  If we've reached 10,000, we may start something new focused on Wyoming - where 10K would be enough - and ask all our members to commit to the new Project.  This is just speculation at this point, however.  I do think we definitely need to get to 5000 by September 2004 for this idea to continue."

[jimmed]

I love these old BBS threads:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=10883.msg147768#msg147768