Linda quits FSP

Source = FSP forum

I am disgustedby the lack of integrity shown by Jason & some of the other FSP "leaders"/"organizers" in this situation & others that have occurred over the last few months. I have sent the following letter to Amanda [whom I do feel still does have integrity]:


I have thought long & hard regarding my FSP membership. Several things have occurred over the last few months regarding policy/mission changes. I did not want to take rash action, so I gave myself a lot of time to think it through. But I cannot, in good conscience, continue as an FSP member because the current organization is no longer the one that I joined.

The FSP website specifically states:
"If these Guidelines are amended, anyone who has signed to an earlier version shall be given an opportunity to withdraw his consent"

The mission of the FSP has changed significantly & this, among other things, violates the spirit of the agreement. So much so that I feel that I must cancel my membership in the Free State Project. I did not want to do this without extending you the courtesy of giving you my reasons.

1) I joined what I thought was a political movement. The intent, or so I believed (the original statement to this effect has been removed from the website), was to "take over a state" (as per Jason Sorens). Because of the desire to obtain 501(c)3/4 status, the claim is now being made that it is not a political organization. It is also no longer "politically correct" within the FSP to use the term "take over" &, in fact, the website has been amended to specifically state that this is not the intent. These are changes that I cannot agree with.

2) I am concerned by the attempt to knowingly mislead by keeping the membership # at approx. 6,000. There has been evidence presented on the forums that there are ~2,000 names still included of people who cannot be confirmed despite repeated attempts to contact them in several different ways. There has been additional evidence that the true membership # is actually closer to 1,700. To give the FSP leadership the benefit of the doubt I have referred to it as misleading. But it is pretty close to being fraud.

Additionally, the guidelines stated that if 20,000 members were not achieved by 9/1/06, then the commitment was null & void. Now, FSP leadership is acting as though membership is an open-ended commitment that will continue indefinitely. Again, this changes what I committed to. And the phony membership # still on the website would cause me to seriously doubt the validity of any claim of having achieved 20,000 members.

3) It was ultimately revealed that only around 2,300 people voted regarding the state selection. Some people did not receive their ballots in time. In hindsight, the membership should probably have been confirmed prior to taking the vote. I'm not sure that this vote should be considered valid.

Add to that the information that we have learned about NH since then:

a) NM was not included in the vote because the population was approx. 1.5 million. Even though NH was approx. 1.2 million at the time of the vote, the projections for NH, given the continuing influx of people from MA, is that it will be far more populous than NM within a few years. 20,000 people wouldn't even make a dent, especially if the plan is specifically to NOT concentrate (ie. take over) any specific areas/towns.

b) NH is too expensive for most people to be able to move to, which would eliminate many people who might otherwise be a part of that 20,000. I asked very specific questions of a prominent LPNH member prior to the vote & was literally lied to re: real estate prices. I now know that I could never afford to live in NH. I can't possibly follow through on a commitment if I am literally unable to do so.

c) Statist attitudes are far more entrenched in NH than we have been led to believe. Most of the NH people whom I have come in contact with on the various FSP egroups (George Reich being a notable exception) are not people that I would ever want to live near or work with. They seem to merely want to change from the current mode of statism & control to their own version. They find it perfectly acceptable to support those laws that they are in favor of [& find it all too easy to threaten those who disagree with them]. And these are the "locals" who supposedly support the FSP goals! I am not looking to go to the expense & extreme effort of moving merely to exchange one version of statism for another. I have come to believe that NH is the wrong state & wish that the FSP leadership could acknowledge that before it is too late.

4) I am deeply disturbed by the way the FSP leadership has handled the so-called "Grafton incident", the Free Town Project, & Zack.

The Free Town Project is merely an informal group of individuals who believe in taking the "concentrate in one state" premise to it's logical conclusion of concentrating in a town [or county]. The people involved all agreed that they essentially wanted a truly libertarian town. Despite the fact that the FSP advertises any number of groups/organizations on the website & in announcements, it has consistently refused to mention this group [even prior to the "incident"].

The membership director of the FSP (Tim Condon) prematurely announced the selection of Grafton without consulting any of the other people involved. HE posted his "report" on public egroups & the FSP website. Had he not done this, the interest in Grafton might not have become noticeable to the residents of that town. I told him at the time that I disagreed with his decision to do this.

The incident also occurred because Zack publicized some illegal actions by the Grafton selectmen and their clerk - who was instrumental in organizing the meeting in Grafton & their campaign against Zack strictly for revenge. He never made ANY negative comments directed at "Graftonites" & his comments were no worse than those made by other people encountering similar problems (ie. Mike Lorrey's difficulty with a local police official regarding a permit.) Yet Zack is publicly crucified for his comments, while others are not.

I have to also wonder how the FSP leadership would have reacted had it been their personal info posted on the forum in a misleading way. Anything can be twisted to make someone look bad. And most activists are activists for a reason & have had run-ins with gov't bureaucrats. Let he who is without any history cast the 1st stone.

The incident was further complicated by the FSP leadership decision to essentially take over the Grafton meeting. Several members of the FTP had intended to attend that meeting until it became obvious that the FSP had decided to take over the "defense" & that it would be nothing more than a witch hunt if they did attend. Since they no longer intended to attend the porc fest at that point & lived far enough away that it would be a considerable expense for them to come merely to be publicly offered up as scapegoats by the FSP, it became no longer worthwhile for them to attend the meeting.

The FSP site specifically says it will expel members for promoting violence. Zack has never promoted aggression or the initiation of violence, yet he was expelled. On the other hand, Dave Mincin - the NH FSP liaison & co-organizer of the Porc Fest - is considered a valued member of the FSP leadership & has not been expelled - despite threats of violence he has made directed at other FSP members (& which has been pointed out to the FSP leadership). The standards for being welcomed - or expelled - are obviously inconsistently applied at the whim of the leadership.

This situation was made even worse, in my view, when Jason decided to go onto non-FSP related lists, under an assumed alias! - to attempt to discredit Zack with information presented in a knowingly false & misleading manner. Prior to that I had a high degree of respect for Jason. Unfortunately, I can no longer say that now. I would also have to wonder what other subterfuge is occurring & who else will be attacked - publicly or via assumed aliases - for disagreeing.

Then, Tim Condon - speaking for the FSP - goes on a radio show to publicly proclaim that the abolition of victimless crime laws (like prostitution) is not what the FSP is about. References to wanting to repeal laws relating to specific victimless crimes are no longer "politically correct" & have pretty much been removed from the FSP website - as has any reference to "taking over" & any reference to the FTP [including Tim's report].

This is NOT the same organization or project that I signed up to support. I am therefore rescinding my FSP membership.

I still support the original goals of the FSP, but I cannot support the project in its current revised form. I am willing to uproot my life & go to the effort & expense involved in moving for real freedom - but it's not worth it for just another version of lib-lite. Unfortunately, I do not believe that NH can ever be anything more than lib-lite. Nevertheless, I hope that I am wrong & you succeed.

Amanda - I personally like & respect you & your commitment to the FSP. I wish you well in your endeavors, both personally & professionally.

Sincerely,
Linda