Yesterday, the Star Tribune contained a political news article Libertarians aim to take over a state...but where? by Bob von Sternberg, about the Free State Project. I'm a member and volunteer for FSP, so I naturally have a few comments about the article.

The article itself was no more biased than libertarians have come to expect. Bias can be subtle, with the use of words chosen to give an impression, rather than just neutral reporting.

Jason Soren, Ph.D., the founder of the Free State Project, was quoted in the article:

Although many press accounts call the Free Staters' plan a "takeover," Sorens said "that's just the easiest way to describe it. I'd prefer to call it a migration of freedom-loving people."

Despite that preference by Sorens, von Sternberg still used "take over" in the article title, and elsewhere in the article, giving an inaccurate impression... an impression that some sort of FORCE would occur. Those of you who read this blog know by now that libertarians are opposed to force, except in defense.

Wordplay aside, von Sternberg chose, as reporters often do, an "expert" for comments... Lisa Disch, a political scientist from the University of Minnesota who specializes in political "third parties". Disch certainly has the credentials to be an expert on something like this... but she unfortunately seems to know very little about libertarians.

"It seems pretty impractical to me," she said. "Normally you try to take over an existing party. How do you impose discipline on members if you don't know whether they agree with what the leadership wants to accomplish?"

Take over? Impose discipline on members? Libertarians (or anyone who knows a libertarian well) will get a big chuckle reading that. Libertarians persuade others, and each other, of the rightness of a position. There is no such thing as "imposition of discipline" among libertarians. Libertarians disagree often, but usually about minor points. The amount of broad agreement among those who call themselves libertarians is impressive... far greater than among other ideological groups.

Disch warned that, "Leave us alone' is not a viable political strategy".

Libertarians would be quick to point out to Disch that "Leave us alone" was precisely the basis on which this nation was founded. That was the message to King George.

Disch, continuing... "It's simply impossible in this day and age to dismantle all networks of a state's responsibility. You're not going to get rid of the garbage collection."

I hardly know where to begin... Impossible? Difficult, yes, but far from impossible. Such dismantling has taken place in a number of other countries, and it CAN happen here. As for garbage collection... that was an unfortunate example by Disch. Garbage collection is usually done at the city level, but in a great many places it has never been a function of government. Where it is done by government, it's very easily privatized (and improved).

"Where would you find 20,000 people so committed to politics that they would stage such a takeover? Most people can't be bothered to go to the polls in their own neighborhood."

Again... takeover... the power-politics and manipulation of the other political groups has become expected of everyone involved in politics... but not libertarians.  Libertarians are not 'most people'... but it's also true that a great many people don't go to the polls simply because they don't think their vote will make a difference. Given that, ask yourself why in the world 40,000+ Minnesotans would vote for libertarian candidates they hadn't heard of, knowing they couldn't possibly win?

If you can imagine an answer to that, perhaps the idea of 20,000 libertarians from across the nation packing up and moving won't seem so unlikely.

To a large and growing number of people, libertarianism means something. To some it only means "Live and let live" (or "Leave us alone"). To others it has more specific meaning, such as the expansion of the "No Force, No Fraud" belief. There is a large segment of our citizenry that silently holds libertarian beliefs... that quietly longs for a return to the free society that we once had. Yes, many have "dropped out", fed up by the major parties, but their hope lies just beneath the surface, waiting for an opportunity. Every day, government abuses bring more people to that position.

I'm concerned that a Political Science professor specializing in third-parties and teaching young citizens, would know less about libertarianism than so many ordinary citizens... especially since the political branch of libertarianism, the Libertarian Party is, by any measure, the most successful of all current political "third parties".

Those committing to the Free State Project simply want an opportunity to live free and form a demonstration "Free State" that will show the rest of the nation how marvelously freedom works... how superior freedom is to the soviet-style central planning we've been subjected to for the past few decades.

The Free State Project may not succeed, but that is no reason to not try. The downside isn't serious and the upside could set this nation on it's ear... returning us again to being "the land of opportunity" that once beckoned people from all over the globe.

Isn't that worth taking a chance on?