New Hampshire's Free State Project

[Blackfish64]

Anyone looked into New Hampshire's Free State Project?  

 

I've known about it for years.  It has its share of problems, but it's growing.  That's always a good sign.  Getting into actual situations where we can practice what we preach is always a good thing.  I am always looking for ways to do just that.

 

Nick Gillespie over at Reason Magazine piqued my interest in the project again when he recently posted this YouTube video covering the FSP.  I liked the video, so thought I would post it here.  If nothing else, New Hampshire sure is pretty! 

 

[dsayers]

Many years ago, when I first learned of FSP, I was bothered by the fact that I couldn't afford to make the move at that time. In retrospect, I'm glad I wasn't able to as I too would've become mired in ideas such as minarchism, the Constitution, and political activism. I wouldn't mind being a part of that community since that would likely be the ripest batch of people to encourage to take the final steps towards freedom*. However, I do believe I would rapidly become an outcast there since I wouldn't be participating in any activism and would disagree with ideas such as voting to effect change and/or changing the system from within.

 

*

[AynRand]

That is very interesting I had heard of the Free State Project, but didn't know very much about it. I wonder what are some of the negatives to moving to New Hampshire any ideas?

[Blackfish64]

Some of the negatives of moving to New Hampshire are the same as some of the negatives of moving anywhere!  You have to move!  I hate moving!

[J. D. Stembal]

Porcfest is held there every year. I wouldn't want to go because it sounds a little too much like Burning Man but with larger quantities of less watered down alcohol.

 

Wyoming would have been the better candidate selection for the FSP, in my estimation. With nearly 90,000 more square mileage, and 750,000 fewer people, there's a lot more room to grow.

[luxfelix]

But New Hampshire isn't landlocked? 

[Blackfish64]

Porcfest is held there every year. I wouldn't want to go because it sounds a little too much like Burning Man but with larger quantities of less watered down alcohol.

 

Wyoming would have been the better candidate selection for the FSP, in my estimation. With nearly 90,000 more square mileage, and 750,000 fewer people, there's a lot more room to grow.

 

 

 

Wyoming was rejected by the FSP for several reasons.  Hard to get people to move to the least populated state and the highest suicide rate.  But, yes, you are correct, Wyoming definitely has its advantages, some of them by default.  

 

Montana was another consideration.  

[Blackfish64]

But New Hampshire isn't landlocked? 

New Hampshire has fourteen miles of Atlantic coastline.  That was a big consideration.  The idea is that if they seceeded from the union, they could continue trade with other countries.

 

[luxfelix]

New Hampshire has fourteen miles of Atlantic coastline.  That was a big consideration.  The idea is that if they seceeded from the union, they could continue trade with other countries.

 

 

That's right; it was a response to EndTheUsurpation when compared with Wyoming. 

 

From what I could gather in the video, they put a lot of thought into the choice (geography is destiny?), and it's paying dividends for them now. 

 

The part about the state's size really stood out to me as well, since when you look around the globe, those small states that lack the capacity and/or the bad character to domineer the citizens living therein prove more prosperous; even if it's not a stateless society, these places like New Hampshire will, I imagine, have the means to withstand government collapse and start with a substantial economic advantage.

[fractional slacker]

Downsides: it's cold in winter, a free state is a contradiction, and they will kick you out if you are Chris Cantwell or express  sympathy to his views on self defense ie consistent to include defending yourself against guys in costumes.

[alwazqestion]

I live in NH, and haven't seen where the FSP had much or any impact. If anything, there has been a much faster growth of liberals. A lot of democrats from Mass have moved here to get away from the high taxes ... and then vote for people who raise taxes. Maybe the FSP folks in office have stemmed the tide a little bit, but they're fighting a losing battle.

[Kevin Beal]

My impression was that most of the people who live and participate in the free state project are political activist type, getting involved in the system, doing protests, etc.

 

I've met anarchists, and I've stopped caring if people are anarchists. One anarchist I knew was absolutely convinced that most people need to die, telling me so with a look of contempt.

 

I hear Porcfest is really fun, so maybe it's not all bad.

[luxfelix]

I live in NH, and haven't seen where the FSP had much or any impact. If anything, there has been a much faster growth of liberals. A lot of democrats from Mass have moved here to get away from the high taxes ... and then vote for people who raise taxes. Maybe the FSP folks in office have stemmed the tide a little bit, but they're fighting a losing battle.

 

Oh, well there ya go...  (that's a shame...)

 

Could this project work somewhere else I wonder, or is the method itself flawed?

[shirgall]

Oh, well there ya go...  (that's a shame...)

 

Could this project work somewhere else I wonder, or is the method itself flawed?

 

Well, there is a problem with the method, in that one is trying to forestall  state control by controlling a state. How many people are going to risk their livelihood for that?

[J. D. Stembal]

Wyoming was rejected by the FSP for several reasons.  Hard to get people to move to the least populated state and the highest suicide rate.  But, yes, you are correct, Wyoming definitely has its advantages, some of them by default.  

 

Montana was another consideration.  

 

I've never been to Montana, but WY and MO would be better breeding grounds for "off the grid" anarchist communities, although you could probably accomplish anarcho syndicates and communities in remote areas of NH, too. I've heard that Wyoming has some of the greatest elk hunting in North America. That was also a consideration in my mind because you could maintain a nearly constant food supply even if there is a trade embargo imposed or total economic collapse. You may not get a water port there, but at least you can do something about going hungry. NH, if they did secede form the States, would probably face a naval blockade. Fresh water might be a concern depending on the rate at which local populations begin to rise, assuming the rest of the states do not prevent emigration to the new free state.

[papatree84]

Have any of you guys looked into Blue Ridge Liberty Project? Its a Voluntaryist/Anarchist community centered around...drum roll please....peaceful parenting! Looks pretty cool, albeit small. 

[J. D. Stembal]

Have any of you guys looked into Blue Ridge Liberty Project? Its a Voluntaryist/Anarchist community centered around...drum roll please....peaceful parenting! Looks pretty cool, albeit small. 

 

I've heard of it in passing. Why do they bother with picket signs, though? Almost no one driving or walking by is going to be able to read, let alone comprehend most of those messages of non-violence. While it's probably fun freaking out the local statists and engaging semi-hostile people in conversation or debate, their time would be much better served raising their kids peacefully, apart from the state, and then spreading the message in viral fashion via the internet.

[luxfelix]

Well, there is a problem with the method, in that one is trying to forestall  state control by controlling a state. How many people are going to risk their livelihood for that?

 

That makes sense, like trying to join the KKK and turn it into the NAACP... (by trying to control the state with a state.)

 

Would it work if they gave up trying to influence any state in particular toward libertarianism, and instead be prepared to periodically migrate to wherever is already (comparatively) the freest (while practicing peaceful parenting, etc.) like liberty gypsies or something?   (maybe an even less attractive option?) That way states will need to compete... for... (already second-guessing...) immigrants?

 

I dunno, if a liberty-minded, peaceful parenting, and prosperous local community is in demand, then maybe there is a market solution here: an industry dedicated to purchasing land completely from a state (no government fealty whatsoever), selling the parcels (also in their entirety), and servicing/sub-contracting to the community there a la carte?

[Blackfish64]

I'm with Albert J. Nock all the way.  There isn't anything that can be done about the State.  It will run its course, ruin everything in its path, and the dumb people will simply set up another one in its place and start all over again

 

Meantime however I do think NH is gorgeous, and that it is better to be surrounded by those who are like-minded than it is to be surrounded by those who are not.  We need not look far to find the irrational.  They're everywhere.  It's nice to find a little common sense somewhere.  

 

I've also liked the look of much of what has been done in Arizona, and I have spent a lot of time there.  But the big wins are mostly taken up by religious nuts and authoritarian arseholes.  So, as soon as they kick out the Feds from an area and get some property rights there, they turn it all back to the way it was before with state intervention.  The state government can be every bit as tyrannical as the Federals. 

[MagnumPI]

Anybody can go hide away in the sticks with hillbillies in New Hampshire. Try San Diego, Santa Monica, Irvine. Some kind of challenge. Like, "Free Keene". Right, get 20,000 people to vote you to mayor and you're done. And they can't even do that.

 

The failing of the FSP is that they need people to move there first. And of course, anytime between November and March, most people would take one look and run as fast as possible in the other direction.

 

I've already got 40 million people in my state. Seems to be easier to interact with them in the sun than hunting down the people who are already half way there, too busy prepping in the cellar to have any progressive, philosophical discussion. And then what does that accomplish anyway? Now we can all smoke dope and protest the meter maids... together!

[luxfelix]

Relevant topic:

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42688-panarchism/

[J. D. Stembal]

Anybody can go hide away in the sticks with hillbillies in New Hampshire. Try San Diego, Santa Monica, Irvine. Some kind of challenge. Like, "Free Keene". Right, get 20,000 people to vote you to mayor and you're done. And they can't even do that.

 

The failing of the FSP is that they need people to move there first. And of course, anytime between November and March, most people would take one look and run as fast as possible in the other direction.

 

I've already got 40 million people in my state. Seems to be easier to interact with them in the sun than hunting down the people who are already half way there, too busy prepping in the cellar to have any progressive, philosophical discussion. And then what does that accomplish anyway? Now we can all smoke dope and protest the meter maids... together!

 

Why would you want to interact with the forty million people, assuming nearly all of them want to use the force of the state to compel you to give up your money and your freedom? How are you going to find the 1 or 2% that do not? Also, why are you suggesting that preppers are too busy for philosophy?

[Jeff_NH]

I'm not a free state project participant but I'll do my best to answer some of the topics from this thread.

 

First, to those who express concerns that they are anarchists that are not interested in activism or changing the system or voting and thus would not fit in. This is not true. Certainly there are lots of personalities so you'll find someone that gives you grief over it but there are a mix of people involved in inside the system, outside the system and ignore the system and in general, people tend to not spend a lot of time trying to convince other libterarian types to try their 'brand' of freedom.  Most are pretty much over that... People are who they are and do what they do.

 

Fresh water is unlikely to be a concern. There is a crap ton of water in NH.

 

As for the loosing battle, wrong state, etc....First point is that the idea behind the FSP is to get 20,000 people to sign, and then withih 5 years of signing, everyone moves. They are only at 16,000 signers so to express concern that they are not changing things is a bit...odd.  Now, it is absolutely true that 1600+ have moved already and this has resulted in there being a pretty vibrant liberty 'community' in the state... We could look at there successes but then there is the anarchist trap because "ah ha they are working inside the system I knew they were statists all along"...  but ok I'll bite.

 

FSP participants stopped real ID, repealed all of NH's knife laws. Eliminated the laws on the books outlawing adultry, passed a pretty good jury nullification bill (not good enough). Have certainly stemmed the tide of some statist initiatives and failed at others.

 

These are all interesting things...but really the best thing is the community, friends, social events and being surrounded by people that get it.

 

It is certainly much easier to sit at home on the keyboard and complain about people who are doing something than it is to uproot your life and move across the country. Its also fun to sit back and plan out the way we are all going to starve or die of thirst when 'the big event' happens... By all means, if you're happy where you are with the people that surround you or wandering the wilderness of Wyoming looking for a community that does not exist (or looking to stay away from a community that does) by all means do so. If however you want to change your life for the better, move to NH - whether part of the FSP or not there are lots of worse places in the world.

[luxfelix]

 

These are all interesting things...but really the best thing is the community, friends, social events and being surrounded by people that get it.

 

That's the most appealing part for me. 

 

(Whether the community is in New Hampshire, North Carolina, Singapore, Monaco, or Panama, that social capital among ethically like-minded individuals will fertilize liberty's growth.)

[dsayers]

FSP participants stopped real ID, repealed all of NH's knife laws. Eliminated the laws on the books outlawing adultry, passed a pretty good jury nullification bill (not good enough). Have certainly stemmed the tide of some statist initiatives and failed at others.

 

I get what you're saying about the community aspect of it and agree that that can be a very big deal. However, this quote here just sounds like, "They pruned a few leaves of the weeds" or "They killed a few of the cancer cells." I argue in this thread that "step in the right direction" is a myth.

 

First of all, if they're not accomplishing these things by helping people to understand that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral (and therefore all government is), then they're just managing the symptoms and not the problem. Secondly, statists are being churned out of government schools at a rate far greater than the FSP is enticing people to be responsible for their own actions. From these, we understand that the symptoms they're trying to manage are coming to fruition much faster than they're experiencing these isolated "victories."

 

So I'm sorry, but this quote is a strike against them in my book, not selling points. In fact, I'd even go so far as to suggest that GENERALLY speaking, they're worse than statists because they understand that there's a beast to be slain and are making no effort to identify the problem before pretending to address it. At least most statists don't understand that they're initiating and encouraging the initiation of the use of force.

[Blackfish64]

I get what you're saying about the community aspect of it and agree that that can be a very big deal. However, this quote here just sounds like, "They pruned a few leaves of the weeds" or "They killed a few of the cancer cells." I argue in this thread that "step in the right direction" is a myth.

 

First of all, if they're not accomplishing these things by helping people to understand that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral (and therefore all government is), then they're just managing the symptoms and not the problem. Secondly, statists are being churned out of government schools at a rate far greater than the FSP is enticing people to be responsible for their own actions. From these, we understand that the symptoms they're trying to manage are coming to fruition much faster than they're experiencing these isolated "victories."

 

So I'm sorry, but this quote is a strike against them in my book, not selling points. In fact, I'd even go so far as to suggest that GENERALLY speaking, they're worse than statists because they understand that there's a beast to be slain and are making no effort to identify the problem before pretending to address it. At least most statists don't understand that they're initiating and encouraging the initiation of the use of force.

Your capacity for error has caused you to get a couple of ideas thoroughly mixed up here. It is the State that is impractical and immoral. Not government. To say that government is impractical and immoral is to say that every human being is, by nature, impractical and immoral. Human beings are self-governing, self-inhibiting. So, at the very least, there will always be self-government.

 

Anarchy is a myth.

 

I can't think of an instance where a rape would be practical and moral, but assault, theft and murder can be both practical and moral, as in self-defense. Indeed, it may be the only course one can take in saving his own life and/or property. Theft of the trespasser's property in compensating a victim or victims also practical and moral.

 

So, the State and government are two entirely different things. We need to govern ourselves. We need to apprehend and stop criminals. Their behavior most definitely needs to be governed. Now, setting up a State in accomplishing that goal has turned out to be a bad idea, I agree. The dynamo we have set in motion as a means of protecting us has clearly come to work against us, against productivity, against the nature of the individual, which is freedom.

 

We don't carry guns to protect or to defend anything. We carry them to destroy our enemies. Pulling a trigger is not protecting anything.

 

A most excellent discussion can be found in Isabel Paterson's "The God of the Machine". Paterson absolutely nails it in this work.

[shirgall]

We don't carry guns to protect or to defend anything. We carry them to destroy our enemies. Pulling a trigger is not protecting anything.

 

It is the capability for destruction that deters others from becoming enemies. Having to pull the trigger is failure. Being able to is not. Not being able to when it's necessary is tragedy. Forcing the virtuous to be unable is malice.

[Blackfish64]

It is the capability for destruction that deters others from becoming enemies. Having to pull the trigger is failure. Being able to is not. Not being able to when it's necessary is tragedy. Forcing the virtuous to be unable is malice.

Sounds like good old school gun philosophy that's good for getting people killed.

 

Having the capacity for destruction certainly can be, but is not always a deterrent. Plenty of people running around who just don't give a damn about your capacity for destruction. We call them criminals, psychopaths, narcissists, among other names.

 

Having to press the trigger is not failure nor success. It is simply having a trigger to pull. A gun is merely a labor-saving device. They're good to have when you need one. But chances are pretty good you won't have one when you need one. Chances are pretty good, matter of fact, you won't need one at all. Let's hope it stays that way. But in the event I could use a gun, yes, I do hope to have one. And I will press the trigger for the purpose of killing my enemy and for no other reason.

 

When it comes to violence, unfortunately the philosophy goes straight out the window. If you want to live, you will act accordingly. Taking the self-defense mindset is only going to get you killed. In violence, there is a winner and there is a loser. The one who is still alive is the winner. The one who is not alive anymore is the loser. I choose to be the winner.

 

Save all the finery, the "justifiable", the "self-defense" nonsense, the "virtuous" for the lawyers and the courts. That's where that stuff belongs. In violence, only violence belongs, and only violence can get you to where you want to go. Anything less is gibberish. Gibberish is for the losers. Violence is for the winners.

[shirgall]

Sounds like good old school gun philosophy that's good for getting people killed.

 

Not an argument. Poisoning the well.

 

Having the capacity for destruction certainly can be, but is not always a deterrent. Plenty of people running around who just don't give a damn about your capacity for destruction. We call them criminals, psychopaths, narcissists, among other names. 

 

Quite of a few of the above choose areas for their crimes that are less likely to have armed defenders. Even the orange-haired assailant in Aurora, Colorado bypassed closer movie theaters to choose one with a "no guns" policy.

 

Having to press the trigger is not failure nor success.

 

If you have to deploy your deterrent then it has failed to deter. Sure, you have to back it up, but I think we'd all rather not.

 

I would rather see my daughter unharmed because a rapist might think she would defend herself, than see her standing over the body of the rapist she just shot, and both are preferable to her being raped and strangled to death in an alley. I would certainly not tell her she is wrong for wanting to be able to defend herself if she had to.

 

 A gun is merely a labor-saving device.

 

It is a force multiplier. It allows someone weaker to overcome someone who is otherwise stronger. Some have called a wide variety weapons "equalizers" for this reason.

 

When it comes to violence, unfortunately the philosophy goes straight out the window.

 

This is an unsupported assertion.

 

I have on this board made several philosophical statements about violence that I'm perfectly happy to back up, for example, "the circumstance the justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent."

 

Why does philosophy have go out the window? Because there is little time to decide? Not everything has to be decided in the moment. Just like parenting, you take the time to prepare. You figure out your route to your car. You figure out you responses to threats and figure out where those threats are likely to emerge.

 

The people who don't plan are the ones the freeze or submit instead of fight or flee in stressful situations.

 

Save all the finery, the "justifiable", the "self-defense" nonsense, the "virtuous" for the lawyers and the courts. That's where that stuff belongs. In violence, only violence belongs, and only violence can get you to where you want to go. Anything less is gibberish. Gibberish is for the losers. Violence is for the winners. 

 

This does not support your argument. It is ad hominem.

 

The statement I responded to was that "we don't carry guns to protect or defend anything" and I disagreed. I thought I gave a reasonable structure as to why I disagreed, and I don't think your response has dismantled that structure.

Edited December 8, 2014 by shirgall

[MagnumPI]

Why would you want to interact with the forty million people, assuming nearly all of them want to use the force of the state to compel you to give up your money and your freedom? How are you going to find the 1 or 2% that do not? Also, why are you suggesting that preppers are too busy for philosophy?

They have plenty of insight to offer on all kinds of topics, wisdom to share, etc. Life isn't all about "the state" and while I enjoy my time alone, I really like having someone to talk to.

Who says I'm looking for them?

Haven't met a prepper who wasn't simply following a trend or very loud recommendation to prep, out of fear.

[dsayers]

I can't think of an instance where a rape would be practical and moral, but assault, theft and murder can be both practical and moral, as in self-defense.

 

Your capacity for error has caused you to get a couple of ideas thoroughly mixed up here. The words "theft, assault, rape, and murder" all denote a lack of consent. Defensive force is consensual because the assailant voluntarily creates a debt with their aggression.

 

We don't carry guns to protect or to defend anything. We carry them to destroy our enemies. Pulling a trigger is not protecting anything.

 

Speak for yourself. 100% of the time an assailant FORCED me to draw a firearm against them, I wasn't once forced to pull any trigger. It protected me every single time. I accept the potential for the eventuality of having to pull the trigger, but I don't want to have to destroy anybody. And you can rest assured that if that ever happens, it wasn't my choice.

 

Your differentiation of State and government is being obtuse. Yes, I understand that a voltage regulator governs the voltage. In this place, people use the term "government" in the context of the State and you know it.

[Blackfish64]

Your capacity for error has caused you to get a couple of ideas thoroughly mixed up here. The words "theft, assault, rape, and murder" all denote a lack of consent. Defensive force is consensual because the assailant voluntarily creates a debt with their aggression.

 

 

 

 

Speak for yourself. 100% of the time an assailant FORCED me to draw a firearm against them, I wasn't once forced to pull any trigger. It protected me every single time. I accept the potential for the eventuality of having to pull the trigger, but I don't want to have to destroy anybody. And you can rest assured that if that ever happens, it wasn't my choice.

 

Your differentiation of State and government is being obtuse. Yes, I understand that a voltage regulator governs the voltage. In this place, people use the term "government" in the context of the State and you know it.

 

You do what you train.

 

Enjoy your training.

 

I do indeed enjoy mine. I train to win and nothing else. I train for violence and nothing else. Always works for me.

 

Yes, people do use State and government interchangeably. They are not the same thing however. When we understand the difference (though I suspect we never will) the world will be quite a different place. You are one of the few I have ever read who is even capable of making the distinction. Cheers.

[Jeff_NH]

 

I get what you're saying about the community aspect of it and agree that that can be a very big deal. However, this quote here just sounds like, "They pruned a few leaves of the weeds" or "They killed a few of the cancer cells." I argue in this thread that "step in the right direction" is a myth.

 

First of all, if they're not accomplishing these things by helping people to understand that theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral (and therefore all government is), then they're just managing the symptoms and not the problem. Secondly, statists are being churned out of government schools at a rate far greater than the FSP is enticing people to be responsible for their own actions. From these, we understand that the symptoms they're trying to manage are coming to fruition much faster than they're experiencing these isolated "victories."

 

So I'm sorry, but this quote is a strike against them in my book, not selling points. In fact, I'd even go so far as to suggest that GENERALLY speaking, they're worse than statists because they understand that there's a beast to be slain and are making no effort to identify the problem before pretending to address it. At least most statists don't understand that they're initiating and encouraging the initiation of the use of force.

 

How very collectivist of you. As I pointed out FSP participants are individuals - each with their own lives and ideas. Some are anarchists and don't get involved in politics at all and they just try to live their lives and ignore the state while others do try some things that I've indicated. Some do in fact try to get others to understand the root causes of the problems before accepting lesser/partial solutions. You presuppose that each is 'making no effort to identify the problem' without any evidence or experience to back it up. I've certainly not offered compelling evidence to the contrary but the audacity to believe you know the actions and intent of 2,000 individuals who you quickly dismis as 'they' is fairly amusing.

[dsayers]

Yes, "FSP" is a concept, not a person. Ideas regarding FSP can only be expressed in a collectivizing manner since the mantle of "FSP" is itself collectivizing. I do appreciate the feedback though as I try to be careful with my word selection, particularly by way of text. I will try to keep this in mind moving forward since I've looked back, and I could've been less ambiguous. Allow me to clarify...

 

For the sake of accuracy, it was you who said:

 

 

 

FSP participants stopped real ID, repealed all of NH's knife laws. Eliminated the laws on the books outlawing adultry, passed a pretty good jury nullification bill (not good enough). Have certainly stemmed the tide of some statist initiatives and failed at others.

 

That was the origin of collectivizing in our exchange. What I was trying to say is that these actions, which presumably were put forth for the sake of shining a positive light on "FSP" do not make steps towards identifying or addressing the problem. In fact, they detract from it since the time spent doing those things could instead be spent identifying the problem and helping others to also. So those actions do not shine a positive light on "FSP" in my opinion.

[Jeff_NH]

Yes, "FSP" is a concept, not a person. Ideas regarding FSP can only be expressed in a collectivizing manner since the mantle of "FSP" is itself collectivizing. I do appreciate the feedback though as I try to be careful with my word selection, particularly by way of text. I will try to keep this in mind moving forward since I've looked back, and I could've been less ambiguous. Allow me to clarify...

 

...<reasonable stuff deleted in the interest of space>

What I was trying to say is that these actions, which presumably were put forth for the sake of shining a positive light on "FSP" do not make steps towards identifying or addressing the problem. In fact, they detract from it since the time spent doing those things could instead be spent identifying the problem and helping others to also. So those actions do not shine a positive light on "FSP" in my opinion.

 

 

Fair enough. Though to be clear, the quoted subset of my post that you selected was specifically addressing the concern of another poster that the FSP had not had much or any impact. The items cited are certainly concerete differences that can be attributed all or in part to people who identify as FSP participants.

 

I live in NH, and haven't seen where the FSP had much or any impact. If anything, there has been a much faster growth of liberals. A lot of democrats from Mass have moved here to get away from the high taxes ... and then vote for people who raise taxes. Maybe the FSP folks in office have stemmed the tide a little bit, but they're fighting a losing battle.

 

I also said in that original post:

First, to those who express concerns that they are anarchists that are not interested in activism or changing the system or voting and thus would not fit in. This is not true. Certainly there are lots of personalities so you'll find someone that gives you grief over it but there are a mix of people involved in inside the system, outside the system and ignore the system and in general, people tend to not spend a lot of time trying to convince other libterarian types to try their 'brand' of freedom.  Most are pretty much over that... People are who they are and do what they do.

 

And in fact I was opening with the argument that there are FSP participants who's chosen path is to work outside the system or ignore the system. While I agree to some extent that the concept of 'FSP' is collectivizing, as a concept, it is only slightly more so than somewhat less specific concepts like  'anarchists'.

 

The legislative examples are the easiest to cite because they are observable diffences. It is far less clear what evidence one could offer to show that individual participants have had success in helping to 'identify the problem'. It is also a bit of a false dilema to offer that because someone spends time achieving a marinally improved outcome, they have done something positive because they could have spent that time doing something else. You're going to really upset with me when you find out that I spend time skiing, running, hiking and even occasionally watching TV when I could be taking steps to 'identify the problem' or 'address the problem'.

 

Of course as you've stated what we are (primarily) arguing about here is a matter of opinion over the the overall level of positive or negative impact of either the concept of the FSP or the actions of those who identify as participants. It's not entirely clear to me that there is an objective measure by which we could determine the validity of your (or my opinion) in this case.

 

Is there some metric that you can suggest that you use to measure the effectiveness of actions that you believe to be positive that we could use to weight the relative impacts your preferred actions have had over those that i've enumerated?