November 19, 2003

In a recent article posted on the Fox News web site, a researcher is quoted as saying that "Citizens [are] 'mugged' by the state" with regularity, and that a growing number of Americans are beginning to realize it. The researcher, Randall Fitzgerald, has written a book that details what he says are dozens of citizen "muggings" stemming from eminent domain declarations and the so-called war on drugs. He also claims that citizens are becoming frustrated and resentful, and that they're beginning to take action to rein in an over-powerful government.

Certainly his words are borne out in the number of Fourth Amendment cases the Supreme Court is hearing this session. The High Court will be hearing arguments on matters ranging from informational police checkpoints, to blanket arrests as an interrogation technique, to bad warrants and the appropriate execution of good warrants. The Supreme Court has also decided to take on a number of high profile First Amendment cases, the majority of which seem very much to be an attempt to overturn unconstitutional local laws and ordinances.

The appeals process is one way of working within the system. But it's slow, often taking many years to reach the level of the Supreme Court. Even then, there's always a chance the High Court will turn the case away without considering it at all. Worse, it's possible the Supreme Court will decide a case based more on politics than on justice (although Supreme Court justices are supposed to be non-partisan, take a look at any split decision and you'll observe clear-cut party lines in virtually all of them), and there's no redress for those on the losing side of a Supreme Court ruling!

Another sometimes quicker way to work within the system to change the system is to vote for issues and candidates that you favor come election day. But there, too, there's no guarantee that people en masse - too long used to government intervention and handouts - will vote according to the Constitution rather than in line with their own greed or self-interest. (In a good example showing the kind of bizarre results a local electorate can generate, my own local elections resulted in a new property tax to benefit our mediocre city schools, but also saw every candidate elected for city office win based on a promise to repeal an unpopular tax without which the city claims it will have to cut services.)

And then there's a third way to change the system. It's not as widely espoused as the others I've mentioned because it involves commitment and responsibility. But it's gaining both popularity and credibility as it's more frequently publicized (and it benefits from the publicity surrounding every latest government abuse of power as well). I've written about it before on these pages. It's called the Free State Project . I've openly endorsed the FSP and its goals in the past, and I continue to be supportive of it. But now there's a second Free State Project in the wings, and some in the original FSP are concerned that the addition of a "competing" project will weaken the chances of success for either of them.

In a nutshell, the Free State Project idea says that, if enough freedom-loving people move to a single low-population state, they'll have sufficient numbers to work within the system to change and reform it. Political activists can campaign and vote. Those so inclined will run for office and cast votes in Councils and Legislatures, or become sheriffs who choose to uphold their oath of office. Some will promote new legislation; others will work to repeal existing unconstitutional laws. It's a great idea, and it could very well be successful.

The members of the Free State Project voted this fall to move as a group to the state of New Hampshire to set their plan in motion. New Hampshire had many things to recommend it as the object of the FSP including a relatively low total population and an existing political mind set that opposes big government. The state that garnered second place in the voting process was Wyoming. It, too, had things to recommend it, including an even lower population and a largely freedom-friendly political climate. (Reports on both New Hampshire and Wyoming, as well as eight other states under consideration, were compiled by members of the Free State Project. General comparisons between the ten states were also published online.)

I've written several times about the Free State Project, including an endorsement of the concept itself as well as, after the vote was cast, a plea for those who didn't want to move to New Hampshire to reconsider. Many of those who preferred Wyoming have, however, remained steadfast in favor of the western state (most had opted out of New Hampshire and other eastern states from the beginning, as permitted by the FSP's own guidelines). As a result, there has now been formed a second Free State Project with its focus on Wyoming.

After having read more about Wyoming in recent weeks, as well as having had discussions with some of those who are adamantly in favor of Wyoming over New Hampshire, I'm about to do something I didn't expect I would do: I'm also endorsing the Wyoming Free State Project. My reasons for doing so are several, and, I think, convincing.

First of all, as Lady Liberty, I'm not about to condemn anybody for trying anything that works toward regaining our liberties in this country. The people who support both projects are universally in agreement that we've lost a good deal of freedom in America over the years, and that we deserve to get it back. Everyone believes it's going to take some work to do so, however, and each and every one of them is willing to pitch in their share and more.

Secondly, I believe that a Wyoming Free State Project is not a competitor for the New Hampshire group. I think it will prove to be complementary instead. I've been to Wyoming, and I've lived in New England. I can tell you that they are culturally two very different places! I've talked with Free State Project members who favor New Hampshire, and have had discussions with those who plan to move to Wyoming as well. I've found that, for all of their similarities, they're quite different in some very basic and innate ways. Consider for a moment the differences between the states, and you'll realize as I did that those who are attracted to one of them would almost certainly find themselves uncomfortable in the other.

Finally, those in favor of Wyoming are just as dedicated and as freedom-loving as their eastern counterparts. Alienating or ignoring them is as partisan as the corrupt political system so many of us wish to change. Because the two states appeal to different types of people, the two membership drives aren't going to have less success because there's some other state out there that also wants freedom lovers to relocate there. In fact, they could actually be more successful. Referrals could be made between the projects; publicity for one could prove beneficial to both if the groups are willing to work in parallel if not in tandem. Ideally, if everyone is made welcome in either project, both will enjoy added numbers of people who, because their destination suits their own desires best, will prove even more willing to take on the great responsibility - and opportunity! - offered by a free state project. Certainly, I can't imagine that any member of either group would suggest that someone stay home and keep quiet merely because they chose the "other" state!

The column I wrote chastising those who refused to move to New Hampshire was aimed squarely at those who complained that "moving is just too much trouble" or "I don't want to go that far from home," and I stand by everything I said. Those unwilling to endure some inconvenience or make some sacrifices are frankly not those who would be real assets in either of the Free State Projects. After all, east or west, there's going to be a move and some real work involved! And had New Hampshire been the only option, I would have continued to urge people to move east even if only for the short term. But now that there's a second potential place to go, those who opted out of New Hampshire or who have declined to relocate to New England, have somewhere else to give serious consideration.

For all of those who find New England's beauty and historic culture a potential home, New Hampshire awaits. But for those who want to live a more rugged lifestyle in a state that can still remember when it was a frontier of another kind, Wyoming is there for you. Those who favor each have valid arguments as to how and why they can prove successful. Both states could, together and separately, write a new and wonderful chapter in the history of American freedom.

Thomas Paine said, "Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." I know it will require effort, and realize that sometimes we'll be exhausted by those efforts. But at least the choices we have are now expanded slightly. We can choose east or we can choose west. Just remember: whichever direction you point your moving van, choose freedom.

NOTE: The Wyoming Free State Project doesn't yet have a web site, but you can make initial contact via e-mail to wyoming_freestateATyahoo.com.

Lady Liberty is a pro-freedom activist currently residing in the Midwest. More of her writings and other political and educational information is available on her web site, Lady Liberty's Constitution Clearing House. E-mail Lady Liberty at ladylibrty@ladylibrty.com

Archives

We Hardly Knew Ye

Winners and Losers

Springtime in New England

An Interview with Matthew Bracken

The Frontlines of Freedom

Rights and What's Right