Talk:Free State Project

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Copyright issues

In response to the Article Removal Request by Maveric149 due to Copyright Infringement:

I have no explicit permission to use the original F.S.P. self-description under the GPL specifically.

However, I have permission to spread at least an almost identical version of the description "wherever":

Distribute information about the FSP to friends, family, or fellow pro-freedom political activists at liberty-friendly events, gun shows, rallies, meetings, wherever. [1]

The above statement regards, amongst others, this brochure specifically.

-- 6birc 09:29 Dec 31, 2002 (UTC)

I would like to add a link to a 'sister project' in recently staring in Europe: http://www.europeanfreestate.org/ Where should I put it? In the external links section, ar in some above section? You can contact me with Jabber: miernik@histeria.pl

[edit] Number has already been purged

"but this number is expected to go down for one time when the number of members who didn't vote for the state and didn't confirm their commitment in time are substracted."

I think the number has already gone down in this way; my understanding is that the FSP has already purged those members who opted-out of New Hampshire. (BTW, it's not members who didn't vote for NH who will be removed; just those who opted-out of going. And even they can rejoin now that they know what the state is.)

This statement was only true for a brief period of time, in October 2003, and I believe it can and should be removed now.

It's true that the number went down once after such a purge, but there were members who simply signed up and never bothered to vote which made them suspicious enough for a request for confirmation. Those who didn't comply were supposed to be stricken from the record around this time. -- Dissident (Talk) 02:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarians: Not exception to the rule

It's important for people to see that this is a NON-Governmental organization. Although Led by libertarians because of their natural leadership and moderation skills this project wants people of all viewpoints and religions etc. to join in the fun. The purpose is to moderate an environment where not one group rules over another similar to a message-board or forum environment. Libertarians are good at this but their not the exception to the rule.

[edit] Migrations: NPOV violation

Someone has chosen to only list migrations which would put the FSP in comparison to theocrats, racists, supremacists, and genocidal maniacs. This is POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.13.183.96 (talk • contribs)

Exactly.FSP is peaceful community building effort and has little to do with forced migrations,population transfer,or political migrations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.206.44 (talk • contribs)
Removed. -- Миборовский 03:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the point had anything to do with racism or genocide, which were just historical facts in those cases. I agree that there were too many examples given, but I think at least a handful are useful. And to reiterate, I don't think the section was there to imply that FSP is in some way or another evil -- to me it's not POV. --Daniel11 03:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I could see including any migration that was undertaken voluntarily, with coordinated planning, and for a political aim, regardless of what that aim might be. --Jsorens 21:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I've added some clarification to the section introduction, and trimmed down the list. Would something like this satisfy everyone? The list could still be cut down more (say, to meet Jsoren's criteria, although I personally think that's unnecessarily restrictive), but I think it's germane and informative, and shouldn't be deleted entirely. How would that work for all of you?
By the way, assuming you're the Jsorens, I guess I have the opportunity to thank you for the idea and the work you've put into it, I think it's a brilliant idea, and I hope your research and FSP activity are going well! --Daniel11 23:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Daniel! :) --Jsorens 19:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible antecedents

Is there any evidence that anyone has actually compared the FSP to any of these or is it more or less self aggrandizing original research? Its also inherently NPOV to go out and compare yourself to any historical migration before any of the migration has taken place or any real history has been made. This MAY have a historical context many years down the road, but that would be crystal balling. My feeling is that the section should go. Don't get me wrong, I actually empathize the movement to concentrate libertarians so that they actually have an impact on even a small area. But c'mon Viking Settlements and American Colonization? Montco 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that some member of the FSP has to express an intent to imitate, say, the Viking Settlements, in order for the latter to be a historical political migration that was an antecedent to the FSP. Maybe the section heading should change, though. --Daniel11 02:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying the FSP is trying to imitate these migrations. The article implies that there is some sort of link to this various historical migrations. Is this a link asserted by any verifiable source or is this some sort of original research or did the authors just make this up? Montco 02:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The section reflects antecedent movements of the same type. I don't see why it would imply that there's a direct link of any kind. An entry on a modern religious reformation might describe the Protestant Reformation, since it's an important historical precedent, even if the modern one is some New Age thing and bears no relation to the Protestant one, and hasn't achieved significant success yet, etc. I think that's a pretty good comparison, although others would do, too. I agree that any language in the section in question that asserts some original research like an otherwise non-existant direct link to the previous movements should be removed, but I think otherwise it's fine. Thoughts? --Daniel11 20:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If there is no link then why is it in there? This is an article about the FSP not political or religius migration. And again, its you (or the article creator) making the comparison, rather than unbiased research. That constitutes original research.Montco 21:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It's there because it's relevant background information, even if the FSP doesn't directly derive from it. It's hardly original research to provide information on political migrations in an article about a political migration. --Daniel11 22:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You are asserting that these migrations bear some relevance to the FSP. You are asserting that there is a link. And you can't draw that link without any evidence. You have no evidence of a link to any of these unless you do historical research. I would say that if you want to do that, you should use Political migration and place it under a See also header. Montco 22:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As I explained above, the FSP is a political migration, and thus there is no original research involved in discussing the FSP's background as an aspect of the FSP. Similarly there is no original research involved in discussing a lager as a kind of beer, and mentioning that other types of beer include ales, lambics, etc. If you're still insistent, how about this as a compromise: we move a brief part of the antecedent political movements section under the history of the FSP as a subsection, and move the rest of the text to the entry on political migrations? --Daniel11 06:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Town Project is bogus, not related to the FSP

I removed the reference to the Free Town Project. They have nothing to do with the FSP, and the FTP members have no intention of moving to New Hampshire as part of the Free State Project. (Since they had no intention of moving, I can only speculate that their intent was to stir up trouble, but who knows?) Those responsible for the FTP are not participants in the Free State Project.

The fact that the FTP isn't officially connected to the FSP doesn't mean that they don't have anything to do with each other. The FTP is very clearly inspired by the FSP and, while not as well-known, has been in the public eye and appeared in multiple non-trivial media venues. It's probably not big enough to sustain its own article, but it's definitely notable. Verifiability, not truth, is the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia; it's certainly verifiable that a bunch of people said they were going to move to Grafton and form a libertarian paradise and that the mainstream media gave them a fair bit of attention. As you're better-versed in the specifics than I am, I invite you to make the distinction between the two organizations clearer and, if you have reputable sources, establish that it the project is intended to stir up trouble. Stilgar135 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I moved the Free Town Project to it's own article. As it was, the projects are confusingly similar, except in the fact that the Free Town Project is much more radical than the Free State Project, and thus casts it in a bad light. For example: on this recent blog post mocking the Free Town Project, a comment reads: "Sorry, the Wikipedia article on the FSP mentions this and in no way indicates it wasn't serious. If you know more about it and have facts, the article could probably use some edit love." Indeed it could. I replaced it with a splinter groups section. Also, that postings allege it was never serious, that it was just meant to discredit the FSP, an accusation brought by the FSP's former president.TheWama 08:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The FTP is not bogus. Robert Hull has several hundred acres of land , and has sold to several FSP members, including Tim Condon. Robert Hull lives in Grafton, NH. The only thing that indicates that the FTP is over, is that the FSP says it is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoneyDollars (talk • contribs) 01:54, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Less emphasis on the 20,000 number

I think there should be less emphasis on the 20,000 number - it was an initial estimate, not a definitive goal. Thanks for fixing the project motto, which should be ""Liberty in our Lifetime", not "20,000 People Can Make a Difference" [2]. -AlexLibman 20:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

That number *is* in the mission statement, which seems pretty goal-like to me. But I have removed the number from the paragraph that I recently added (about the Jan. 2007 figures) because you're right, it was excessive / redundant. - DavidWBrooks 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro Header Text Change

Suggest changing:

"The Free State Project (FSP) is a plan to have 20,000 or more libertarians move to a single state of the United States, with the intent of influencing local politics and policy."

to

"The Free State Project is an effort to recruit 20,000 liberty-loving people to move to New Hampshire."(1)


Reason for changing:

The Free State Project is not affiliated with any single political philosophy or the Libertarian Party(2).

References:

1. www.freestateproject.org - quote from front page under "A New Strategy For Liberty In Our Lifetime."

2. http://www.freestateproject.org/about/faq.php#who

Also see: http://www.freestateproject.org/about/faq.php#where Q: "Why don't we try "taking over" a city, a county, a group of counties, or a foreign country?"

--Scudiac 00:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FSP not a secessionist organisation

The article was marked as pertaining to the category "Secession in the United States". I removed this tag, as the official stance of the FSP is that it is not a secessionist organisation.

Q: Does the Free State Project promote secession?
A: No, the Free State Project is not promoting secession.

--Naconner 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] News

Where should we put the latest news about the Free State Project. It seems a shame not to have anything about the upcoming Porcupine Festival June 18-24 at Gunstock.

Wikipedia's not an announcement board, so I'd say no. We don't list every gathering organized by every group that has an article. If this is an important policy gathering - if they were, say, discussing whether to disband the group or switch to another state, or something like that - then it would be worthy of mention, but if it's just a whip-up-troop-morale get together it doesn't belong here. - DavidWBrooks 11:31, 19 May 2007 (UTC){{subst:image source|Image:1st1000.gif)) Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

{{missing rationale|Image:1st1000.gif

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Fsp.jpg

Image:Fsp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Free Talk Live on satellite radio?

I think that it should be pointed out that while you can listen to free talk live via sattilite with Required equipment - S.C.P.C. receiver (analog) and a C-Band Dish. Or 12 foot stationary dish, and Starguide III receiver. The show is not available on XM or SIRIUS satellite stations. - 24.7.172.208

[edit] Let's dump those antecedents

It has been discussed by others above, but I think the "Antecedent political migrations" list is all wrong, both too much and too little. I'd like to ditch it and replace it with something like this. It's a first draft - i.e., it's too long - and it may verge on original research:

Many groups throughout history have moved to a new place to create a new society from scratch, ignoring or displacing any existing people. Famous examples include the Pilgrims in what is now the United States, the Great Trek of Boers in what is now South Africa, and the Green March of Moroccans into Western Sahara.
Many groups throughout history have tried to reshape an existing society where they are already living, through peaceful, democratic means. Examples include all newly created political parties.
The Free State Project appears unique in combining these two: moving to a new area to create a new society, but doing it by reshaping an existing society through peaceful, democratic means.

Are there any examples that fit both, rather than just one, of the defining criteria? I can't think of any but am not a historian; any that exist should be listed as true antecedents.

The current list is pretty irrelevant, I think, because the examples destroyed or ignored any existing society, rather than reshaping it through voting. The creation of the Republican or Democratic parties is just as much an antecedent as the Vikings or Pilgrims, because new political parties have the aspect of "our group tries to reshape society through voting together", which is just important as the aspect of "our group moves somewhere together".

Obviously, this would be a big change and needs some support before it's done.- DavidWBrooks 13:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

So far the idea doesn't seem to be generating a lot of heat. Anyone? - DavidWBrooks 01:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Guess not. I'll make the replacement and see what happens. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I like the edit in general. I can think of one antecedent to the FSP that fits both of the criteria: the Georgist effort to concentrate in Delaware in the late 19th century. Don't know if there's a Wikipedia article on that, though. The town of Arden is apparently still run on Georgist principles.--Jsorens (talk) 15:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing little-known information like that is one of the things that keeps me playing around with - er, contributing to wikipedia. I look forward to the addition. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I liked the old antecedents section better. The new one talks about "displacing or ignoring" people already living in the target area, which is NOT what the FSP is about. Second, it says that some people use democratic means, "examples include political parties." How is that information helpful. I think the older version was more informative and interesting. user:tekken_warrior

Maybe it's not clearly written, but I think it agrees with you, saying that "displacing or ignoring" is not what FSP does. That's exactly why the previous list of antecedents was pointless or misleading: All of them did displace or ignore the existing population, and therefore were not true antecedents of FSP. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I've tried re-writing it, putting the FSP's uniqueness first, to avoid that confusion. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

While I am relatively ignorant on how the other movements progressed, I believe that the Green March shouldn't be listed here. The Green March was a deployment of colonists from the Moroccan government into the Sahara to displace the saharian people living there, and is more akin to the situation in Gaza with the israeli colonists. If the Green March is listed here, so should the Israel colonies be (and that will bring much heated debate, I foresee). Gatonegro (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The list isn't supposed to be exhaustive, so listing one does not mean we have to list the other. We can pick and choose; it's just a short representative sampling. The main point of including the Green March, IMHO, is that it doesn't involve a Western government, which makes it different. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lauren Canario's arrest is not relevant to the FSP

I think the new section regarding Lauren Canario's arrest should be removed for 3 main reasons

1 - It's not particularly relevant. It has very little to do with the FSP as a whole, especially since the FSP doesn't endorse any form of activism or take positions on issues. This snippet is misleading, and may lead people to think the FSP supports the actions of Lauren Canario.

2 - Why report just on civil disobedience? Free staters are doing a lot of different kinds of activism, and civil disobedience is just one type of way that a handful of free staters go about it. I think mentioning the civ dis, but not the political activism gives a skewed picture

3 - Why report just Lauren's arrest? FSP participants have been arrested numerous times for numerous acts of civil disobedience. - Tekken_warrior

Only because it was recent and well-publicized, at least in New England. But you may be right. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
It's old news now. I think it should be dumped, especially since there was public disagreement in the FSP about her protest [3]