Originally posted from 10-31-04 to 11-07-04
See Instructions Before Beginning
by Lady Liberty

This past week at work, we got some new equipment at the office. If you ever want to see a couple of adults act like it's Christmas and Santa Claus was very, very good to them, just show up to see us when those big colorful boxes arrive at our door! With great anticipation, my boss and I stopped what we were doing so that we could open a few packages. But the excitement lasted just until we had the first of the boxes open and its contents spread out on a table. You see, under all of the pretty pictures on outside of the box, there was some small print that said: Some assembly required.

If you've ever bought toys for a kid or some of that inexpensive pressed-wood furniture, you know exactly what the problem is with "some assembly required" goods. It's not that it's safer to ship delicate parts and pieces unassembled in in their own protective styrofoam cocoons. It's not that bookshelves take up far less room in the box when the component boards can all lay flat against one another. No, the problem typically lies with the instructions intended to help you through that "some assembly" that's required of you.

I'm not a stupid woman. I can handle simple tools such as hammers and screwdrivers with ease. I think I speak and understand the English language with some fluency. But when I see a sheet of instructions flutter out of a box of whatever it is I've purchased, I positively cringe. In far too many of my own experiences, the instructions appear to be put together by someone for whom English is not a first language and not a particularly fluent second language, either. And the translations all too often strike me as having been written by engineers in the first place. In other words, they're hopelessly—needlessly!—complicated, and the confusion is only multiplied when there's some question as to the sensibility of the words themselves.

Some months ago, I bought an exercise bike knowing full well that there was "some assembly required." That was the price I paid for getting a good deal as well as something I could fit into the trunk of my car. I did manage to put some of it together, but then found myself stuck. Even with an accompanying illustration (see fig. 12a) including tiny arrows showing direction and motion, I was lost.

"Put now the coupling (part 27) over the bolt (part 19, shown on the parts list as a screw rather than a bolt) and mount it to assembly from sec. 5 (which, by the way, was an upcoming section rather than one I'd completed). Place assembly on the correct side of the structure it goes (which was the "correct" side?). Do it for the other side the reverse of what you did to first." And then I was done with that part of the process. Except, that is, for "Take washer (part 52) for go between bolt and shaft and prior to connection with frame so assembly (see section 5) can move free and in proper range of motion for function (refer to fig. 20, a photo of the completely assembled product which didn't show what it was I was working on)." Huh?

I read and re-read the instructions. Finally, I put the paper down, picked up a couple of parts and pieces, put them together the way I thought they should probably go together, and attached them to the frame. Perfect! Well, okay. The first time I attached the pedals, they turned out to be on backwards. But by switching sides, everything worked flawlessly. It would have been so much simpler to package the parts for each side together in a little plastic bag labeled "left pedal assembly" and "right pedal assembly." And a little picture of the assembly spread out so that I could see which part went together in which order would have been invaluable.

Back at the office, I stared at an instruction sheet the manufacturer had kindly blown up to poster size. I caught glimpses of "insert anchor post (part 19) firm into base taking care to be frontward facing (part 2) until snap together is solid (caution to be careful post does not break)" and "refer fig. 17a on reverse" and I shuddered. Why does something that could be so simple have to be made so needlessly complex? Hours could be saved; frustration could be minimized. And if the instructions were simple and easily understood, the product would almost certainly work as advertised the first time you finish building it.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least that many of these assembly instructions are written by exactly the same kind of people who author legislation or government regulations. By trying to address specifically every possible contingency, the verbiage is almost always overly complex. Debate and compromise doesn't lead to consensus but rather to added layers of nuance (...not permitted under statute except when capitulated under conditions as described in part 17, paragraph 4 and within the parameters further defined under the itemizations of attachment D which is in effect for the first 120 days of the transition to...)

To add insult to injury, a tendency toward couching such statements in specialized terminology rather than in plain English means that most individuals and businesses alike have to hire interpreters (also called "lawyers") to translate for them (frequently with different lawyers resulting in different interpretations). As a direct result, we all too often don't get the product as advertised, or we end up with one that doesn't work at all. When that's an exercise bike, we sigh and start over. But when that's the government, disassembly is a little more difficult.

The government smothers its citizens in page after page of instructions intended to "help" us build our lives. From our families to our businesses; from our property to our health; and from our creative ideas to our civil liberties; we're folded, bent, stapled, and mutilated to fit into the assembly guidelines established by lawmakers and regulatory agencies. Within the thousands of pages of IRS code alone, sufficient contradictory rules exist that every taxpayer breaks some law merely by obeying others. Across the country, there are more than 22,000 laws and ordinances that are all basically intended to enforce the simple fact that it's illegal to shoot somebody except in self defense and to say that you should be careful with loaded guns. Why, we lament, can't the instructions be in plain English? Why don't we have some directions that we can easily understand and which aren't too complicated to implement?

The sad irony here is that we do have a well written set of instructions for a federal government. The verbiage is simple and can be understood by virtually anyone who has a basic education. The mechanics of the government assembled under such instructions are lean and efficient. Best of all, if we follow those instructions precisely, the government we build will work just as advertised (assuming, of course, that the parts and pieces aren't broken even prior to insertion into structure—but let's not get started on individual politicians). These instructions are, of course, better known as the Constitution.

Unfortunately, though the instructions aren't complicated, the resulting structure they were intended to build has become very much so. That's not because of a flaw in the instructions but rather in a longtime tendency of those in power to augment the parts and pieces with still more parts and pieces and plenty of bells and whistles. While you can add streamers to the handlebars of a bicycle or buy an optional but sturdier part for a piece of playground equipment without damaging the function of the finished product, there comes a time where random substitutions and overwhelming fillips will so interfere with the basic construct that they'll ensure the finished product won't work at all. Where the federal government is concerned, we're not quite to a state of complete non-function, but we're very, very close.

If you keep changing, replacing, adding, and revising the parts of something you're building, it could still serve some purpose though likely not the one intended. Modern sculpture, perhaps, or a boat anchor if nothing else. Our republican form of government is already so modified that it no longer functions at all the way it was intended. Sometime soon, it will likely stop functioning as anything resembling a republic all together and become instead the anchor that will drag liberty underneath a wave of socialism and, not too terribly long after that, some kind tyranny (even if many rules are ostensibly "for your own good," the resultant loss of freedom must be called tyranny by any definition).

The bookshelves are crooked, the bike won't ride, and the playground equipment is neither safe nor fun. So let's take them apart and start over trusting our "practice run" will help us to put it together correctly this time. We can do much the same thing with the government. Oh, it'll take awhile to unthread the nuts and bolts and to set things in proper order before beginning again. But it can be done. We can begin by demanding our politicians follow the instructions provided us to build a government based on the premise of liberty for all. As politicians new and old gear up to take the oath of office in a couple of months, what do you say we agree to actually hold them to that oath this time around?

Originally posted from 10-03-04 to 10-10-04
More Than Words
by Lady Liberty

Recently, I took a brief vacation to Washington, DC. I've been to the capital before, but I try to make a point of seeing different things every time I'm there—there's so much to see, and never enough time to visit more than a fraction of the many sites and attractions. I admit that I did duplicate a couple of stops from previous visits this time around. But despite that, I saw something different anyway. Actually, it might be better put to say I saw something differently. Let me explain.

The first time I went to Washington was some years ago. At the time, I prioritized a list of things I wanted to see from the substantial possibilities. A few sites were more important than others as far as I was concerned. Among those things at the top of the list was the National Archives where the original Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights are displayed. Seeing what the Archives calls the Charters of Freedom was an incredibly moving experience for me. I remember other things from that trip of course, including my disgust at walking past the building housing the Internal Revenue Service just a couple of blocks away, but the visit to the Archives stands out in my memory to this day.

Washington DC is an amazing place to visit. Whatever your politics, the sense of history and import is palpable there. If you ride the Metro (the DC subway is, believe it or not, largely a model of efficiency, cleanliness, and safety, and I can't say I recommend driving downtown) and disembark at the Smithsonian stop, you'll see a stunning view of the mall and the US Capitol Building when you reach the top of the exit. Turn around, and there stands the Washington Monument (something I've not yet seen up close myself since my timing for being in the area is apparently closely linked to various construction and improvement projects there). To your right is the distinctive original Smithsonian building, often referred to as the "red castle," and just a few buildings toward the capitol you'll see the gigantic Air and Space Museum. A block to your left and across the mall are more Smithsonian museums; one block more and you'll find a whole line of buildings on Constitution Avenue boasting marble statues and pillars enhancing their impressive edifices. One of those is the National Archives.

This time around, I visited a couple of other places before I headed over to the Archives. I saw the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum for the third time (ostensibly the most visited museum in the world, its contents are awe-inspiring and its IMAX and planetarium shows both educational and entertaining). I went shopping at the Museum of Natural History (aside from dinosaur skeletons and gemstones, exhibits which I also stopped to visit briefly, the museum store there has a very nice selection of jewelry which I'm forced to confess I can't resist). Then I crossed the street, walked up the block, and...but wait!

Yes, the IRS is still housed not far from the National Archives, and yes, I was still disgusted. But what apparently didn't sink in the last time I was there is any consideration of which government entity resides in a building even closer to the Archives. And that, my friends, is the US Department of Justice. I stopped dead on the sidewalk and stared at the signage. The current Department of Justice—the one with so little apparent respect for the Constitution and Bill of Rights—is barely a hop, skip, and a jump from the building housing the originals of those admirable documents! I was stunned at the obvious implications.

I walked the next half block in a fit of pique. And then I stopped walking again because another revelation occurred to me. Just a short distance away on the other side of the National Archives is the US Capitol building. You know, the place where most of the rest of the people in Washington who have no respect for the Constitution spend much of their time. And I was appalled. In fact, I was so unhappy about it that I resolved to ask a few questions of Archive employees once I got inside.

The National Archives is currently being renovated (18 months ago—the last time I visited Washington—the building was closed entirely), so you can't enter by climbing the impressive wide marble steps and walking between massive pillars to the main entrance. But onobtrusive side doors offer entry to the building, and an interior staircase will take you to the rotunda where the Charters of Freedom rest in dimly lit air tight glass cases. Security guards flank either side of a strip of the five pages comprising the original Constitution. Tourists, despite having small children with them, are uniformly hushed and respectful. The rotunda of the National Archives is very much a shrine of sorts, and it seems even foreign visitors are affected by its gravity.

After offering a brief and silent homage to the Declaration of Independence, I walked slowly past the parchment pages of the Constitution. And when I reached the end of that short distance, I looked one of the security guards right in the eye and said, "So, like, do any of the politicians from down the street ever come here to read any of this stuff?" (Yes, that's really what I said; no, I don't really talk that way under normal circumstances.)

"Huh," said the guard. He looked up at the ceiling. "Uhm," he said.

"I mean," I added, trying to clarify an apparently confusing question, "it might be good if some of them actually knew what this stuff said."

"Well," answered the guard, finally looking directly at me, "I think there was a Congressman here last week."

"Really?" I asked, a little surprised.

"Yes," the guard responded, a little more sure of himself now. "He was from...Arizona? I don't remember. He was tall and had glasses."

"I, uh, I'm not from Arizona," I told him, "and I don't really recognize anyone from that general description, but..."

"Okay," the guard agreed, "but he was here."

"Why?" I had to know, just to see if there was at least one politician who worked down the street who showed some interest in knowing what it was he'd sworn to uphold.

"Press conference," the guard told me.

Gee, what a surprise.

"He was here," continued the guard, "when Congress was talking about the Pledge of Allegiance and the 'under God' thing. He was looking for all the places it said 'God' in the Constitution."

Now, having actually read the Constitution, I snickered at that point. But the guard gave me a bit of a dirty look as he went on, "...and he said that, if mentioning God is unconstitutional, then the Constitution is unconstitutional!"

I actually doubted myself and my own memory for a moment. "I think it might mention 'creator,'" I ventured, "but I don't think it says 'God' anywhere..." ("Creator" is, of course, the terminology from the Declaration of Independence, but I was reaching here, so give me a break.)

"Oh, yes, it does," the guard nodded his head sharply. "At the end, it says 'in the Year of Our Lord!'"

Somehow, I managed to mumble my thanks to the guard and move on before either rolling my eyes or laughing. For those few of you who don't get the joke here, the letters "AD" often seen following the designation of a given year are the abbreviation for the Latin "anno domini," or "year of our Lord." Just as calling one month in the summer "July" or "August" no longer honors Julius Caesar or Caesar Augustus, so, too, has AD entered into such common usage that even the most litigious of atheists has not (at least not that I'm aware of) thought to sue any entity for the use of the designation. Saying "in the Year of Our Lord" is just a fancy way of saying "AD." (Science began some years ago using "CE" meaning "current era" rather than AD, but most of the general public remains accustomed to seeing the latter, and I suspect many neither know nor care what it actually translates to mean.)

I was too amused and too wary of getting into an argument in a building I was searched before entering to ask any other questions (yes, most places in Washington now search your bags and use metal detectors—although, strangely enough, the Metro doesn't—but that's the subject of another essay for some other time). If I'd had the time and the nerve, I might have continued my line of questioning with, "So, like, does anybody from the Department of Justice ever come here to read any of this stuff?" But it was becoming obvious to me that even the men guarding the precious documents weren't clear as to what they said, let alone those men (and women) who work a whole block or two away on either side of the building, so I didn't pursue the matter.

Instead, I found my sight blurred by tears as I considered just how faded and now largely illegible the original Declaration of Independence has become. I swallowed past the lump in my throat as I replayed in my mind the sight of those documents that were to have been instrumental in establishing an unobtrusive federal government and preserving our liberty for posterity. And I felt an ache inside at the careful preservation of the Bill of Rights that, while the paper exists in surprisingly good shape, has seen the sentiments written there become as faded and oftentimes illegible as has become the ink on the older Declaration.

On my way back to the Metro station, I found that I was still disgusted when I walked by the Internal Revenue Service building. But walking by the Department of Justice actually made me feel ill. I was, to be honest, astounded at just how sickened I was. I stopped briefly to stare at the building and fully appreciate the feelings, unpleasant as they were. If the irony of the proximity of the Department of Justice and the National Archives doesn't make you feel queasy, surely the hypocrisy must.

For just a moment, I pondered strolling over to the door. I considered finding a security guard and giving him a business card with Lady Liberty's name and mission statement on it along with a polite request to deliver it to Mr. Ashcroft's office. But only for a moment. Rational thought prevailed when I realized the guard would likely just throw the card away and, even if he managed to get it where it was going, Mr. Ashcroft would surely ignore that little piece of cardboard just as cavalierly as he's ignoring the old parchment down the street.

Originally posted from 07-04-04 to 07-11-04
Wyoming or Bust:
Boston T. Party's Q&A on Free State Wyoming
 by Lady Liberty

More than 200 years ago, a group of people who had relocated from their homes to a place they hoped would prove more free were disillusioned by a government that - though largely out of touch with the common man - continued to rule the people unbendingly. Most tried to be reasonable and patient; but those things having failed, a significant number of them eventually rebelled. The result of that successful rebellion was the United States of America.

As we once again celebrate the anniversary of the public Declaration of Independence of those brave men and women, we find ourselves come full circle. We are presently closer to being subjects than citizens of a government that cares far more about power and authority than it does about freedom. Today, rather than revolution and bloodshed, some are intending to rebel via the political system in consolidated areas. The Free State Wyoming project is one such effort.

The founder and director of Free State Wyoming is noted libertarian author and firearms expert, Boston T. Party. Although he has written his first novel to feature a general "blueprint" for such a pro-freedom project and has previously presented his detailed reasons for favoring Wyoming over other possible locales, this interview marks the first time he's gone on the record to discuss not only the FSW itself but his own involvement in this pro-freedom movement.

Lady Liberty: There's already a Free State Project. So why another one?

Boston T. Party: Because many people desire it. New Hampshire is not the best choice for thousands of western free staters. Wyoming is for many of us, including myself. And even if NH was viable, many free staters are losing faith in the FSP's leadership and direction. For example, the recent Grafton, NH town meeting was an unmitigated public relations disaster for the FSP, and one which could have been largely avoided with better marketing to the locals.

LL: Didn't you used to be a member of the Free State Project?

BTP: I did, though I had opted out of all ballot choices but Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming [an option that was permitted by the FSP bylaws prior to the vote selecting the Free State. LL]. When the FSP chose NH over Wyoming by just 251 votes, the FSP and I parted ways. This has been poorly taken by much of the FSP hierarchy, past and present.

LL: You've gone to great lengths to explain on your web site why you chose Wyoming from a numbers point of view (click here for those details), but in a nutshell: Why Wyoming?

BTP: A free county or free state effort is first and foremost a numbers game. Wyoming has 2.7 times fewer voters than NH, thus Wyoming would be only 37% as difficult a place to create an effect as would be NH. Also, Wyoming has only five people per square mile vs. the 140 people per square in NH. Only in Wyoming is there room for thousands of newcomers who can arrive without elbowing the locals. Having plenty of space is vital to us easing into Wyoming without local antagonism and resistance. What happened in Grafton, NH is not likely to happen in Crook County, Wyoming - simply because there is so much more space there.

The final reason why Wyoming is the best free state choice is because of its rugged Western culture and values. It still retains much of a frontier ethos even into the 21st Century. To any potential free stater torn between Wyoming and NH, I say only this: Visit both states extensively, and the choice will become obvious. The FSP is somewhat targeting Grafton County, NH (pop. 80.000). The Free State Wyoming will begin in Crook County, Wyoming (pop. 5,900). Tour both counties, and decide which has the best chance of success.

LL: Do you believe a free county or a free state is really possible?

BTP: Without question. Probability, however, is another question. A Wyoming free county is extremely likely. A successful free state Wyoming will require many more people and a greater time horizon.

LL: Are you moving to Wyoming yourself?

BTP: Absolutely! This will happen very, very soon. I've been to Wyoming three times already this year, and it feels like I'm leaving home when I sadly depart. While I've very much enjoyed life in Colorado over the years, I prefer Wyoming even more. When Colorado Prop 22 passed in 2000 (which prohibited most private gun show transactions), that was the last straw for me. Wyoming has no Boulder/Denver urban/liberal equivalent to rule over the state. In fact, it's about the only western state without a top-heavy urban/liberal component (beating even Montana in that regard).

LL: The FSP is quite organized in an official way, with a Board of Directors and many Committees; it's working toward a paid presidency, getting 501(c)(3) status from the government, etc. Will the FSW be organized in a similar way?

BTP: Granted, little gets done in life without organization, but to me the FSP have exchanged titular organization for leadership. They have no real leader. Committees don't have followers - only leaders have followers. While Jason Sorens is the founder, this 26 year-old scholar is, by his own admission, no leader, much less a dynamic one. What any movement requires for leadership is the personality of a combat company commander. "We're taking that hill, straight on. Follow me!" He's picked the right hill, and his troops know it. He's dedicated and competent, and his troops know it. He has the will to take that hill, and his troops know it.

The FSP does not have, to my knowledge, a single prominent libertarian personality signed on to actually move to New Hampshire. Not Claire Wolfe, not L. Neil Smith, not Aaron Russo, not Gary Nolan, not Vin Suprynowicz, not J.J. Johnson. And why not? Two words: New Hampshire. Nonetheless, this doesn't dissuade the FSP from still using many pre-NH vote quotes, even though the authors (e.g., Claire Wolfe) are not moving to NH. Generic support for a free state effort (back when there was only the FSP, versus a western alternative in the FSW) is not the same as actually declaring, "I'm going to NH, come and join me there!"

Regarding the FSP's recent fetish for 501(c)(3) status so that they can pay their Director an annual salary of up to $60,000, this new and unfortunate plan was not in the pre-vote brochure. If it had been, I never would have joined. It would have precipitated my membership resignation had I still been in the FSP. For a libertarian think tank to have tax-exempt status may be one thing, but I find such wholly incompatible with a free state organization which is supposedly trying to avoid any government nexus or "benefit." I give my public word that the Free State Wyoming will never seek IRS tax-exempt status.

Regarding the Free State Wyoming's table of organization, it will be as minimial as possible. The FSW is a means to an end, and not a primary end in itself. We want to be good neighbors and have good neighbors. I don't imagine that such a goal requires a NASA-level of complexity. I favor Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne approach. Putting Melville into space for $20M was what NASA spends on a simple study. We will have more local effect in Wyoming than the FSP will in NH, and more quickly.

Perhaps I shouldn't be too hard on the FSP's internal complexity, for the unwieldy choice of NH may indeed require it. Wyoming, however, does not.

LL: Some critics have said the competition between the free state projects could cause neither project to get "enough" support. The FSP says it needs 20,000 members. How many does the FSW need? And do you agree that recruiting for one project is harmful to the other?

BTP: Last year, before the vote, I thought that getting 20,000 to move to Wyoming under the FSP would be difficult even with my novel and my direct personal involvement. But, in my mind, it was possible. So, I joined the FSP in the hopes that, with my help, Wyoming would be chosen. Wyoming was not only the FSP's best chance, it was likely their only chance.

Now, with their NH choice, the FSP has a nearly impossible challenge and is very sensitive to Free State Wyoming competition as the FSP needs more than even 20,000 to make a dent in NH's 1,300,000 people. So, one can understand their mindset on this matter, especially since the Free State Wyoming has a prominent leader and the FSP does not. However, the Free State Wyoming (beginning with 1-3 counties) needs no such numbers. About 1,000 newcomers/county will see actual political results - which can be maintained without any larger statewide success. So, we in the FSW are not at all paranoid about free state competition. In fact, there still exists a significant Montana free state faction, and nobody has ever heard a harsh word about it from me.

In short, recruiting for the Free State Wyoming may hurt the FSP, but not vice versa. If any potential free stater is ambivalent about the choice between Wyoming and NH, then by all means move to NH! We're looking for very enthusiastic newcomers, not those who must flip a coin. Western free staters were never going to NH anyway, though the FSP hierarchy has trouble accepting this. I mean, what was the point of the pre-vote opt-out? Did they imagine that the 1,000 who had opted out of NH would rejoin after NH was mistakenly chosen? How are they at all surprised, much less bitter, that western free staters are going their own way? The bottom line is this: NH is unlikely to get the numbers, even if the Free State Wyoming did not exist. Conversely, the FSW will see local results even with FSP competition.

LL: Speaking of recruiting, some accusations have floated around the 'net and at some gatherings that you're trying to recruit Free State Project members for the FSW. Can you, on the record, tell us if that's the case?

BTP: Certainly. It's not the case, and never has been.In fact, we explicitly dissuade pledged FSPers from even general inquiries (much less actual Free State Wyoming membership) on our website.

Those who signed the FSP's Statement of Intentment and had not opted out of NH are clearly morally bound by their agreement (unless they believe that the FSP unilaterally changed that agreement, or barring some significant moral or ethical qualms). I have never tried to cleave such FSPer from their pledge. The 1,000+ FSPers who opted out of NH are, however, fair game for the Free State Wyoming - as are any potential free staters not signed onto the FSP and NH.

Nonetheless, FSP founder Jason Sorens erroneously lambasted me for my "public attempts to persuade FSP members to abandon their commitments to New Hampshire and join [my] movement instead." He had no evidence to support this claim, because there isn't any - thus he had to know that his allegation was false. Unfortunately, Sorens copied his email to several people, including a magazine reporter contracted to pen a story about the free state movement. (This, by the way, is libel.) I was naturally aghast at his false public accusation and I immediately, explicitly denied it:

To: "Jason P Sorens"
<jason.sorens@yale.edu>

Jason, you are woefully misinformed on this point. I have NEVER, publicly or even privately, asked or urged any FSP member committed to NH to break their pledge--for any reason, including to join me in WY. ...My "public attempts" dealt only with the 1,000 FSPers who had opted out of NH, and free staters not signed up elsewhere. They are totally up for grabs. ...

When you've researched this matter and have concluded that I am telling the truth, I would appreciate it if you would publicly correct this to the FSP with the same vigor as its rumor was spread.

After weeks of silence, I emailed him again...

"...I am still awaiting evidence or public apology regarding your accusation that I have acted to lure pledged FSPers from NH. Your false and malicious allegation has defamed my good reputation which has been deservedly earned over 11 years. I regard this a very grave matter, and I want it resolved..."

...and to date have received neither evidence nor an apology. (Perhaps now folks can understand what I've been through with these people since October.)

On an ironic final note, some apparently false rumors about Jason Sorens's past are floating about, and he is vigorously and profanely demanding a retraction without success. Now, there's a very young man who doesn't like his own cooking.

[For the record, I spoke with Boston T. Party shortly after the Free State Project vote to let him know I agreed with his assessment that Wyoming presented a more viable opportunity. At that time, although he was very gracious, he pointed out that I had signed onto the Free State Project in good faith and that I was bound to the FSP accordingly. In subsequent discussions, he spoke not only of my own, but of the moral obligation of all those who'd signed an agreement to participate in the FSP. I did, of course, agree with him.

Although I openly worked for a number of pro-freedom organizations as time and talent permitted, I continued to support the FSP both in front of and behind the scenes, and including the donation of professional services. More recently, when the FSP announced that it was seeking 501(c)(3) status, I vigorously protested the decision both publicly and on a personal one-on-one basis with some members of the Board. The Board was not dissuaded. Once it became clear that the application was moving forward, and amidst various more personal difficulties with the FSP, I tendered my resignation on the grounds that the FSP no longer resembled the organization I'd pledged to support. That resignation, while freeing me to pursue an FSW affiliation if I choose one, had nothing to do with the FSW or with Boston T. Party. Instead, it had everything to do with what is, in my opinion, the FSP's breach of its own commitment to its cause and its membership. LL]

LL: Last November, I saw a post by an FSPer who claimed that "the problem the FSP had with the Western Free Staters was all about timing," and not necessarily about the establishment of other groups. According to that post, the FSP leadership asked you to wait two years to announce any project of your own so as to let the FSP garner the publicity and momementum it needed to "really make it all happen." Is there any truth to that?

BTP: Absolutely none whatsoever. Nobody in the FSP (leadership or not) had asked me to wait, much less for any specified length of time. It's simply untrue. There was never any such discussion, either before the vote or even before my public announcement. Between 1-19 October 2003 (i.e., the NH vote and my Freedom Summit announcement of my Wyoming effort). nobody from the the FSP contacted me - about anything - much less to procure any kind of understanding or agreement from me to delay. There was nothing but complete silence from them, even though they knew that I was still set on Wyoming.

Even if the FSP had asked me to delay, I'd have politely refused. Some have termed my 19 October announcement as ungraciously hasty, but people must remember that I delayed my 1997 Wyoming plans for two years while I gave the FSP its chance from July 2001 to September 2003. Had I started my own Wyoming organization back then, the FSP would still be scraping for its first 5,000 members in order to even vote!

So, I don't much care for FSP whining that I didn't wait even three weeks after the NH vote. I gave them the previous two years, without any appreciation on their part. Some FSPers need to cultivate a larger perspective on the matter. After 1 October I was no longer a member, owing the FSP nada, and having wasted over two years. As a free agent, I've a right to act, and expeditiously so, for time is running out for all of us.

Before making that post I wish its author had first confirmed that rumor with me. But since it has by now received wide circulation and festered into "fact," my reputation has been sullied. Some FSPers now see me as a bitter spoilsport who didn't have the grace to allow the FSP a requested head start after I "used the FSP solely to sell books." It's just not true.

I gave the FSP more than they will ever understand. They had their chance, and blew it. Now, those of us favoring the West and the best choice of Wyoming must make up for much lost time. I apologize to them for waiting as long as I did.

LL: I've personally said in a couple of past commentaries that I think the free state projects - which have essentially the same end goal - should work together rather than at loggerheads. Do you agree? If so how do you think the two might join forces?

BTP: Until recently, I'd have welcomed a joint effort with the FSP. I even said so in my Open Letter #1. Today, however, I'm not as amenable to any significant public collaboration - for two reasons.

First, I'm not convinced that we need FSP help. We've already cleared a few high hurdles without them, and we've become accustomed to running this race on our own. Second, given how it's going with the FSP lately (e.g., Grafton), I'm uneasy about any public association. They have a few loose cannons they should dump overboard, and I disagree with the FSP strategy (if it may properly be termed as such).

Still, I am on cordial terms with their VP and a few others, and am open to favorable FSP developments which would engender Free State Wyoming collaboration. However, in the final analysis, I'd be amazed that the FSP would ever publicly support the FSW for our "product" of Wyoming is clearly superior to theirs of NH. (You'd be shocked at who within the FSP has personally admitted this to me!) I don't think they'd risk losing the random free stater to Wyoming because of an FSW link on their own website. Conversely, I've no generic problem with the Free State Wyoming telling website visitors about the NH option of the FSP. In fact, we've had an FSP link on our site for months. Since we're talking about peoples' lives, free staters should be informed of their choices and not kept in the dark about both movements.

LL: What kind of person is, in general, attracted to a free state project? Do you think the kinds of people attracted to the FSP are different from those who have an interest in the FSW?

BTP: Most free staters are extremely well-studied into our national predicament, and have correctly concluded that libertarian politics will continue to have little/no effect in Washington, D.C. However, our numbers are sufficient to contemplate geographical concentrations in states and counties for local political effect. It's really our only hope.

Beyond that, free staters must have a pioneering spirit. It's one thing to champion merely the concept (e.g., L. Neil Smith), but it's quite another to actually live it by uprooting your life and moving to Wyoming or anywhere else. It's easy to vote with your mouth. Voting with your feet is what really matters. I think the FSP ratio of mouthvoters to feetvoters is extremely high (recall that only 46% even sent in their preprinted ballot last October). This is not to disparage the feetvoting FSPers, as they no doubt exist. They're just likely outnumbered, that's all.

Those who have contacted me about joining the Free State Wyoming, however, are very action-oriented. Of them, I have a few dozen who are literally panting in anticipation of moving to Crook County! One man is already in Sundance, looking for a home and job. And I'm not even there yet!

LL: Of the people attracted to the concept of a free state project, who would you most want to welcome into the Free State Wyoming effort?

BTP: First, I want people with a history of action, not talk. Then, I want people with a great deal of reasonableness and perspective. While I appreciate the pure principles of many libertarians, it is locally counterproductive to blather on about the right to use drugs, own brothels, etc. Just ask the FSP after their Grafton, NH town meeting. Free staters need to keep a larger perspective in mind. While every individual indeed owns their own body and has the right to control their own diet, many locals have an understandable concern that a wave of libertarian migration will negatively affect their quality of life regarding moral issues.

Folks in rural Wyoming are not going to welcome what is generally considered skanky behavior, and who can blame them? Libertarians have a perception issue to overcome. Few locals want to prohibit what goes on in your own home, but why publicly antagonize them with things you already know will offend? Look, concentrate on first being a good neighbor. When they are convinced of that, then you have a chance of making your point about the drug war or zoning or privatizing education. We have to sell ourselves before the locals can buy our beliefs.

With the above in mind, the Free State Wyoming is open to all voting-able adults of any color, race, creed, or religion who will honor their word and pull their own weight.

LL: When will the FSW get underway beyond the preliminary planning stages?

BTP: First, the Free State Wyoming needs a place to land in Crook County. Currently, there are very few homes and small ranches for sale - far too few for us. So, in order to attract even a couple dozen newcomers, we must buy a large acreage and develop it for our needs. This is already well in the works. Exciting details forthcoming soon! Also, I am putting together a Free State Wyoming Jamboree this year, most likely over Labor Day weekend. We'll formalize this in the next couple of weeks. The FSW Jamboree will be a great chance for us to get together in our future home of Crook County, tour the area, and meet the locals.

LL: What should people interested in the FSW idea do first to learn more?

BTP: To become a member they need to sign and mail in the Free State Wyoming Statement of Intent found on the temporary Free State Wyoming web pages [the Statement of Intent will be available soon. LL]

Then they should email me at wyoming_freestate@yahoo.com and describe what they can bring to the table, and what they'd like from the Free State Wyoming. I'm only leading this thing. It'll take a lot of work from many dedicated people to pull it off, and all of us are crew. The FSW is not a passenger ship.

LL: You have a full plate simply keeping up with your writing and teaching activities. Why are you signing on to lead the FSW?

BTP: Because it needs to done, and nobody else was poised to accomplish it. I gave the FSP their chance to grab the low-hanging fruit of Wyoming, and they blew it. Often, when you want something done, you simply have to do it yourself. I've become accustomed to that. Most of my books were written primarily because I wanted to read them myself, such as You & The Police!, Hologram of Liberty, Boston's Gun Bible, and Molôn Labé!

Regarding the Free State Wyoming, somebody had to step up and make it happen. I looked around and that somebody was me. I am happy to harness my experience and author reputation to such a worthy venture, and I am honored to enjoy such enthusiastic support from so many dedicated free staters. Come join me in Wyoming! We're all going to be neighbors!  

Originally posted from 02-01-04 to 02-08-04
Smoke and Mirrors?
by Lady Liberty

The Bush administration says that its "War on Terrorism" is an ongoing success. It claims that such successes are due to various laws and programs implemented since 9/11. While I don't disagree that 9/11 served as a catalyst for the passage of several laws and the institution of several programs, and I don't even argue that a terrorist or two may have been caught in the law enforcement net of one of these programs, I will say this: I believe that the measures taken by the Bush administration in the name of preventing terrorism are less about stopping terrorists than they are about asserting an ironclad authority over American citizens.

Some of the most well known laws and programs having directly to do with alleged terrorist interdiction are the USA PATRIOT Act, CAPPS II, and MATRIX. None of these have had particularly smooth sailing, due in large part to their inherent unconstitutionality and extreme invasiveness. All, unfortunately, are either in effect or gearing up for implementation. The latest status of each offers little hope for those who love liberty:

Despite ongoing criticism and escalating defiance by local governments of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bush administration continues to defend the law as "necessary" to prevent terrorist attacks on American soil. In fact, the White House has let it be known that if Congress takes any action to repeal or mitigate any portion of the PATRIOT Act, President Bush will veto the legislation. Officials are also working to expand the Act.

A strong public backlash against Delta Airlines caused it to pull out of testing for the federal government's CAPPS II (Civilian Air Passenger Profiling System) program, and it wasn't too much later that JetBlue Airlines suffered a similar fate after it was learned the airline had given passenger data to a Pentagon contractor for "testing" purposes (in fact, the JetBlue incident was serious enough that the company is now the subject of a Congressional investigation). Airlines in general have now refused to participate in the program.

The MATRIX (Multi-state Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange) program was originally to have been tested using the data from some thirteen states. Initially begun with virtually no publicity, the news eventually got out and now widespread criticism of the database, its over broad anticipated contents and the likelihood of erroneous data, the developer's shady background, and fears for privacy have (to date) winnowed the testing states down to seven.

And now, in the midst of claiming that terror prevention is of paramount importance, President Bush is proposing an immigration plan that he says will reform and make more compassionate existing law. While his plan has been endorsed by some business owners and (somewhat reluctantly) by Mexican President Vicente Fox, immigration reform groups, migrant groups, conservatives, and the majority of Americans in general, do not support the plan (objections are, in some cases, from opposite sides of the concept). In fact, conservative radio talk show host Michael Savage has gone so far as to suggest the president be impeached for the plan which he considers a threat to national security.

Obviously, although the administration is nowhere near throwing in the towel on these and many other programs, protests and criticism are having some effect. And the government's attempts to assuage fears or convince the public of the programs' efficiencies and benefits, are going largely unaccepted.

Consider, for example, the two biggest news stories concerning the PATRIOT Act. Neither is a particularly convincing point in favor of the law. One involves an investigation in Las Vegas that was wholly unrelated to terrorism (despite government assurance that the Act's provisions would be used only for terrorism investigations), essentially making the case a better argument against the PATRIOT Act than in favor of it. And there's an ongoing case in Florida where the information gathered in criminal and terrorism investigations have been combined under provision of the PATRIOT Act that permit previously prohibited communication between various agencies. That sounds a little better until you know that, although it's rarely pointed out, both investigations were proceeding apace - and with success - long prior to any invocation of the PATRIOT Act.

MATRIX, meanwhile, claims to offer only information already publicly available or on law enforcement databases. The program, backers say, simply merges such data and provides authorities with a quick way to efficiently mine the information. But the same man who created MATRIX was also intimately involved in the company and computer programming that was charged with "scrubbing" Florida's voter records of criminals ineligible to vote. The program did its scrubbing, but it wiped out thousands who were not criminals and who were thus denied their right to vote in the 2000 presidential elections. Computer databases inherently contain errors; computer programs always contain bugs that may or may not show up depending on an endless variety of possible data combinations. That may be acceptable for a word processor or a web browser, but it's not okay when such mistakes - whether human or machine generated - will cause innocents to be labeled as criminals and the guilty to be given a free pass (you can find various links to MATRIX-related stories here).

Take a look as well at the case of a 21 year-old college student who was stopped from boarding a plane over the holidays because she was on a list of suspected terrorists. She had no idea what might have prompted the designation, and insisted it had to be a mistake. Eventually, the Department of Homeland Security did admit there'd been an error and that it was taking steps to correct it (the woman is now suing DHS). Now imagine the repercussions of data multiplied by millions of bits of information, and know that the error rate percentage invariably holds steady. Once CAPPS II goes into effect, literally thousands of innocent Americans will be forbidden the convenience of air travel, and the refusal of officials to discuss determining data points means they'll never even know why. Meanwhile, anyone with a few pieces of fraudulent ID and a little falsified background information will move freely through the jetways and onto planes loaded with unsuspecting passengers. Despite the obvious flaws, the administration has determined that, rather than scrap or modify the program, it will simply force unwilling airlines across the board to participate against their will.

Even his immigration plan's general unpopularity has not stopped President Bush from continuing to tout his idea of reform as being compassionate, and risking the alienation of a respectable number of his Republican supporters Whether he is doing this in tacit acknowledgement that immigration authorities are unable to deal with an estimated 8 to 12 million illegal aliens already in the country, in an attempt to curry the favor of a significant Hispanic voting block, or for some other more subtle reason is immaterial to the probable devastating effects - on many levels - of the implementation of such a plan. Already, illegal entries into the country have risen by 15% in reaction to the administration's plan.

All of these laws and programs are being described as "necessary" and "important." While their necessity and importance is arguable, certainly their value in comparison to their cost, inefficiency, and danger to civil liberties shows precisely where the administration places its concentration: on itself and on its own powers. Not convinced? Well, if the administration is truly concerned about terrorism, and if it genuinely believes in liberty, before it institutes expensive and freedom-foiling programs, why doesn't it consider some relatively cheap, far less invasive, and significantly more efficient ideas?

If we want to prevent any more airplanes from being used as missiles, why aren't pilots armed so that they can shoot anyone attempting to illegally enter the cockpit? Oh, the Transportation Security Administration does claim to have a program to do just that. Unfortunately, the TSA is hindering volunteer pilots at virtually every step, including a recently revealed memo many consider an active threat against pilots who try to participate. An armed pilot program is inexpensive; efficient; and offers a very real deterrent. But the government agency charged with implementing the program is actively working to see that the program never (pardon the pun) gets off the ground. Why?

If we're looking for likely hijackers, why are we conducting random searches at airports in the name of political correctness rather than using our knowledge to profile likely candidates? Some people will cry "racism" at the first appearance of such profiling, but the bottom line is simple enough: If I report to the police that an Asian man robbed me or that a black man raped me, is it racist when police don't bother to question any white men? To date, I'm unaware of a single terrorist attack conducted by a little old lady or a kindergarten student. No one has mentioned to me a family accompanied by young children attempting to board a plan with bombs hidden in a teddy bear. Yet stories abound of people just like these being searched while young Arab men move through security with only a cursory glance. And if we want real security for public air transportation, is there a reason we'd rely on an all-too-fallible database system when we can simply use existing security measures which are both more reliable (I'm aware that there are obvious loopholes to be addressed, but I'm talking about systems as a whole, here) and less expensive?

If police are truly sworn to uphold the law, why are they so anxious to circumvent it by relying on error-prone databases rather than doing the thorough work investigators used to be justifiably proud of doing? (If they don't have time to handle the many cases on their desk with that kind of care, then perhaps we're spending too much time prosecuting things that shouldn't be called crimes...) And if law enforcement agents are remotely interested in protecting the Constitutional rights of innocent Americans, how come they're seeking still more exceptions to Fourth and Fifth Amendment protections in a supposed effort to make catching the bad guys easier?

If the federal government really wants to stop terrorists from coming into the country where they can roam freely and wreak havoc at a location of their choice, why aren't authorities appreciative of the help in maintaining the integrity of our borders offered by local citizens' militia groups? Along the same lines, why isn't the government significantly beefing up its own border patrols? And why would the administration propose a plan that offers all of those already here illegally a de facto amnesty? (The White House doesn't like to use the word "amnesty," but that's pretty much what the plan entails even if it does preclude a direct path to citizenship.) Why are states worried about providing all of the extra funding they need to maintain social services for illegal aliens when it would be both cheaper and closer to the actual law if they put them on buses or planes back to wherever it was they came from instead? (To be fair, several states - Arizona, California, and Colorado - are floating bills to prohibit all but emergency services to illegals.)

I don't debate the need to protect ourselves against terrorist attack. It just seems to me that there are plenty of things that could and should be done that would be reasonably effective, cost-efficient, and which would not represent threats to liberty. And then there are those things which are expensive, inefficient, and invasive of civil rights in the extreme. And the fact that our government has chosen the latter rather than the former makes the conclusion - the one with which I started this essay and the one with which I'll finish it - an easy one to draw: The measures taken by the Bush administration in the name of preventing terrorism are less about stopping terrorists than they are about asserting an ironclad authority over American citizens.

Originally posted from 01-25-04 to 02-01-04
Who's Scary Now?
by Lady Liberty

Every holiday season, I do the same thing that millions of Americans do: I prepare a kind of "newsletter" recapping the year, and I include a copy of it with my greeting cards. This past Christmas, I also sent a copy of an editorial I had written entitled Thanks and Giving. I thought it was appropriate since I mentioned in my newsletter that I wrote regular commentaries, and because it talked both about what I was thankful for in 2003 as well as some things I really would have liked to receive as Christmas gifts.

Just a week ago, I was chatting with a family member on the phone when I was more than a little taken aback by something she told me. She advised that a relative who had received the card and newsletter had contacted her and wondered about me. I was, said the relative, apparently involved in something "really scary."

Well, obviously, I went right back to my essay archives to see just what on earth I'd said that was so frightening. And here's what I found:

I said the PATRIOT Act, despite the government's promises it would be used only for terrorism-related investigations, had already been overtly misused. I wrote that the MATRIX database program was even worse than the now-defunct Total Information Awareness program. I lamented the thousands of eminent domain abuses that had occurred within the last five years. And then I said that these bad things were actually good things because they served as lessons that the government promises had proved meaningless, and that our privacy, property, and liberty remained in grave danger.

I wrote that there were ways that citizens could work to overturn - or at least to mitigate - the anti-freedom effects of some of these things. I suggested to my readers that they educate themselves, and that they vote. I offered some ideas as to reference material they might use to learn more. I said people ought to exercise their First Amendment rights and get in touch with their political representatives to let them know what they thought about various programs or pieces of legislation. I told everyone that joining an activist group of one kind or another - and in accordance with their own personal interests - might also be a good idea.

None of the bad news I shared should have come as a surprise to anybody. The events I mentioned weren't taken out of context or made up out of some fabric of paranoia. Each has been widely publicized on the Internet and elsewhere, and that's one reason I chose to use those examples. None of the things I suggested that people do about the bad news were in any way questionable. They're not illegal (not yet, anyway). They're not subversive (well, unless you take an almanac with you to meetings or to your local polling place). In fact, those suggestions were all entirely run-of-the-mill for any citizen willing to undertake even the most bare bones involvement in their own government.

And yet I'm apparently involved in something "really scary."

If you distill down all that I've said, you can put it into these few words: I want everyone, even government officials - hell, especially government officials! - to obey the law. And I want the laws at every level to fall squarely within the parameters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as they were originally presented to "the People" whose unalienable rights they were supposed to protect.

And now I'm given to understand that that very notion is "really scary."

Once I'd determined that everything I'd written was as I intended, and that none of it was particularly controversial (do you think I would have sent it out to a number of starchy relatives if it hadn't been fairly low key?), I started to think about something else. What kind of person would think that a return to liberty under the Constitution is a frightening proposition?

I suppose that a law enforcement agent more enamored with power than with justice would be unhappy if he lost many of the unwarranted powers he's somehow managed to assume over the course of the years, and most particularly since 9/11.

I imagine that a man or woman accustomed to a lifestyle based on government hand-outs might have some issues with taking on responsibility for him- or herself.

I can see that a given politician might worry for her job if she didn't occupy herself inventing all sorts of additional unnecessary laws or pricey and inefficient new government programs.

But my relative is none of these things, so I realized I needed to reflect further. And I think I've finally got it. My relative thinks I'm into something "really scary" because my relative is really scared. The threat of terrorism has frightened her. The idea of violence - whether in self defense or in offense - appalls her. The (often dubious) good of the many outweighs the good of the few, even at the expense of the liberty of all. She wants the government to "make it all go away" so that she doesn't have to be afraid any more. Since it's clear that I'm opposed to some of the very things she thinks will "make it all go away," my ideas are just one more thing for her to fear.

The truth is that many of the efforts the government has made over the years "for your own good" or "for your safety" have been abysmal failures. They've cost a lot of money. They've created more problems than they've solved. They've chipped away at our freedom until parts and pieces of the Bill of Rights are falling away in hefty chunks. And in the end, they're markedly inefficient. 100% security and safety simply isn't possible, not even if we sacrifice all of our freedoms in the attempt (something I still wouldn't consider worth the trade, by the way). And frankly, while my relative is worried about me, I'm scared of her and people like her.

I'm afraid they'll never truly realize that their ultimate goal is unachievable, and so they'll keep stripping freedoms from us in a futile attempt to reach it. I'm afraid that, because they want somebody else to take care of them, they'll insist on taking care of me even to the point of constant monitoring, draconian regulation, and back-breaking taxation. And I worry that, to add insult to injury, they'll say that's a good thing, and if I dare protest they'll silence me and call me ungrateful, or worse (to me, at any rate) they'll say I'm un-American.

In his classic novel 1984, George Orwell wrote of something called "doublespeak." A fictional government ministry issued reports that renamed war as peace and bad as good. Anybody who dared see through the "doublespeak" was promptly coerced and conditioned otherwise. When people who are otherwise intelligent say that a desire for liberty is something to be feared, and that limiting the law according to traditional Constitutional restraints is a bad thing, it's clear that "doublespeak" has taken hold.

You know what scares me most? If "doublespeak" is truly believed by some, as soon as it becomes believed by enough, the coercion and conditioning will follow. Let's see anybody call that proposition anything but terrifying.

Originally posted from 01-18-04 to 01-25-04
An Ounce of Prevention
by Lady Liberty

Recently I wrote about "Warning Signs," some of those indicators that our liberty is under serious and immiment threat. Almost all of the e-mail I received in response to that column agreed, and lamented that things are the way they are. But one of those e-mails was written by a man who, while he also agreed the warning signs were definitely of the red-flag variety, challenged me by adding, "So what can we do about it?" Good question. And certainly one that deserves an answer.

The answer, of course, is at least as complex as the problem: a government out of control on virtually every level, and freedom under seige at almost every turn. But, simplistically speaking, there are still things that can be done even by those who (for reasons I'm sure I don't understand) don't want to do all that much. Of course, before you do anything else, you need to commit to working for those things that are Constitutional, and against those things that are not. Next, and in escalating order of commitment, I'd suggest that the following are among things we can do to regain at least some of what we're losing:

1. Educate yourself about those issues you're most passionate about. You can't make any kind of intelligent decision without knowing and understanding the options between which you're to choose. Read your local newspaper (yes, most are biased, but you'll still get a flavor for what's going on in area politics). Search the Internet. Go to the library. Read about similar incidents in other places, and see how those played out to give yourself an added perspective as well as a taste for what works and what doesn't in such campaigns.

2. Vote. Although I've come to believe voting doesn't make much of an impact on a large scale, on a local - and even occasionally a state - level, just a few votes can draw the line between candidates or issue passages and failures. But note that I've listed "educate yourself" before "vote." That's because an uneducated voter can easily vote for the wrong thing, and it's better to sit out the election than to cast your ballot for something you'd oppose if you knew the details.

3. Join an activist group such as the Institute for Justice or Gunowners of America. Even if all you do is pay your dues and read the subsequent literature you receive, you'll be helping to further educate yourself as well as being supportive of those who are willing to do even more than you can commit to doing at this stage of your life.

4. Educate others in your circle of friends and acquaintances. Once you know enough to take a stand, it goes to follow that you'd like to see things come out your way in the end. After all, you're right...aren't you? (If you're not sure, go back to Number 1 and begin again.) So if others have the wrong idea, gently introduce counterpoints to their viewpoint. If they want to learn more for themselves - and they should if they have any sense of responsibility - refer them to sources of information you've found. Although it may be a naive, I'm still a firm believer that, if people only know all of the facts, most of them will make the right choice in the end.

5. Join a campaign. Whether you contribute time or money for a candidate or cause, you'll be promoting what you know to be the right thing. Better still, volunteer to place yard signs, pass out literature, or man an information booth at an event.

6. After elections are over, monitor those candidates and issues that won. Remind candidates of their campaign promises and urge them to work to keep them. If they don't fulfill, or actively break, those promises, work to ensure they don't get elected again (you'll have the most fun if you tell the official that's what you're doing, by the way). If your candidate or issue lost, examine the vote margin, find out why voters weren't convinced, and try again next time. Nobody said it would be easy!

7. Remember that activist group you joined back in Number 3? Get active within the group. Participate in local meetings and/or online discussion groups. Volunteer to spread the word on a specific campaign. Any such group will have plenty of suggestions for ways you can help. Take some of them.

8. Educate others on a broader scale. Write letters to the editor of local or regional newspapers, and even national magazines (if you're great at passion but not so hot at spelling and grammar, have somebody check your contributions before you send them). Offer to be a local representative for your selected activist group, and speak about the group at various local forums such as civic club meetings or political campaigns.

9. Make sure your voice is heard. Attend City Council or County Commission meetings. Whenever your state or federal political representatives hold local Town Hall meetings, be there. If you can, visit your state legislators in the state capital and while the legislature is in session. If you can manage a trip to Washington, DC, contact your Congressional Representative and Senators offices for a face-to-face meeting with each of them (they'll be surprisingly willing to accommodate your request - just be sure to call well in advance of any trip).

10. Run for office yourself. If you promise to act according to Constitutional principles, you may have a tough time getting elected, but at least you'll be bringing the idea some badly needed publicity. And if you do get elected, you'll almost certainly have a hard time convincing other elected officials that compromise isn't the way to go where principle is concerned, and an even more difficult time getting re-elected (although the fact that no one is running against Congressman Ron Paul [R-TX] this year shows there's an exception to every rule). But again, and for as long as it lasts, you'll have a public platform to use to do whatever good you can legislatively, and to offer a great deal of good where educating citizens is concerned.

I was recently told by a longtime pro-freedom activist that it was no longer possible to affect real change via such actions as I've listed here. I'm hard pressed not to agree, though I do believe that engaging in the activities listed above will at least work to slow down the rapid slide from freedom to fascism that seems underway. Some other suggestions - these are the ones that require a little courage to go with your commitment - include:

11. Have you ever read a book entitled "101 Things To Do 'Til the Revolution" by Claire Wolfe? If you haven't, get yourself a copy (it's available from various online sources including via Claire's own web site, as is a follow-up book). It's full of suggestions for "monkeywrenching" officialdom. (I've personally had more fun than I should probably be allowed to have by refusing to hand out my Social Security number to those who request it and then using Claire's suggested responses when the usual argument ensues.)

12. Don't cooperate with officials when the officials are in the wrong. A prime example involves the increasingly common use of roadblocks. Yes, if you say "no" when an officer asks to search your vehicle, you've just given him what some courts have ruled to be "probable cause." But imagine what would happen in the wake of a "just say no" campaign when almost everybody stood up to authority and just said "no!" The police don't have the time or manpower to search every vehicle, so something's going to have to give, and we can hope that what's given is something back of our Fourth Amendment rights. (The Roadblock Registry web site offers helpful information for those intending to take such a stance, and I'm going to extend my own personal caution here, as well: I don't know for a fact that this has actually happened, but I've been bombarded with anecdotal accounts that say some law enforcement officers don't take kindly to this affront to their authority, and have planted evidence to "get back" at those who would question their actions.) The same tack - just say "no" - has also worked with Fifth Amendment fights against inappropriate application of eminent domain (a garage in Mesa, Arizona and a neighborhood in Lakewood, Ohio are a pair of recent success stories).

13. Commit yourself to the efforts of the Free State Project, Free West Project, or Free State Wyoming Project (no web site is available yet for the latter, but interested persons can e-mail wyoming_freestate@yahoo.com for information). Each of these groups is recruiting individuals to move to a specific locale and then to work through existing political processes to reform bad laws and restore good ones. (There's nothing questionable about the legality of any of these projects; it's listed here, however, because such a commitment does require that you pack up and move to one of the selected regions. For many, that's a risky proposition in and of itself.)

NOTE: I do not personally recommend Number 14 because that would be to encourage breaking extant law. I cannot tell people that's a good idea because a) that would be breaking the law in and of itself, and b) the negative repercussions of doing so can be substantial, and such risks aren't mine to take on another's behalf. There are, however, people who are willing to take the risk when they view the law itself as being wrong (unconstitutional). For them, I offer the following:

14. If the law is wrong, don't obey it. A New Hampshire man, recently arrested in Ohio for carrying concealed firearms says he plans on fighting the arrest based both on the fact that the traffic stop that started the incident was unwarranted and on Second Amendment grounds (a list of related news reports has been posted online; those interested in perhaps committing so far as Number 3 above can contribute to a legal defense fund). There is also a growing tax resistance movement in America, and although the price can be high, such battles can be won (Vernie Kuglin is currently viewed as something of a hero by those who agree with her stance).

Will any of these things work? To an extent. Some bad things (the MATRIX database comes immediately to mind) will fall flat without adequate political will and so could be avoided or repealed as a result of activist protests. Att the very least they'll stall off what now appears to be the inevitable. It seems to me that, ultimately futile or otherwise, until we can cure the disease, we'd best take advantage of what preventive measures we can. After all, if the patient is dead, no cure in the world will bring him back.

Originally posted from 01-04-04 to 01-11-04
Warning Signs
by Lady Liberty

I've been politically active for some years now. At various times, I've lobbied my representatives on behalf of the space program and on Second Amendment issues. I've written letters concerning immigration and foreign policy. I've made phone calls and sent faxes regarding privacy matters. Sometimes I get answers I appreciate. Other times, I get answers I don't really appreciate, but at least I get satisfaction from knowing my views were heard and considered. Occasionally, I get no answer at all. But no matter what topic I'm addressing, or how any response is framed, I've never felt any more or less than a participant in the political process. At least, I haven't felt anything other than that until recently...

As time has passed, it should come as no real surprise to anyone that my activism has increased. The more I learned about the activities of my legislators and our law enforcement authorities, the more I could see needed to be changed. I'm now so vested in working to restore liberty in America that I strongly support the Free State Project as well as the Free West and Free State Wyoming projects. How strongly? Strongly enough that I fully intend to relocate and do my part for freedom.

I have a close friend who's very unhappy about my plans to move. I thought it was because, well, I'd be moving. But no, she says, that's not it at all. She fears that any Free State, no matter where it's located, will prove a target for the federal government. In her words, she says she's afraid there will be "another Waco" and that I'll be caught up in it. I believe that her worries are greatly exaggerated. But when I asked her if she truly thought that might happen, she said she did. I gave her the only answer I could: If she's right, how could I not work to mitigate a government that would do something like that?

Of course, while I do continue to believe that my girlfriend is worrying over something that's not going to happen, I've found that other friends of mine have concerns of their own. In speaking with an acquaintance who is also something of a political activist, he confided in me what he called "an embarrassing incident." He was out target shooting on private property (with permission) when he and his friends heard helicopters overhead. Although none of them were breaking any laws, and despite the fact that none of them were wanted by any authorities for any reason, several of them had the initial urge to duck and hide from view. When they saw each other's reaction, they laughed it off. But now these men no longer need to imagine what it would be like to live in a country where they fear their government.

It's not so hard for the rest of us to imagine any more, either, especially when so many of us have now been at least loosely designated as some sort of enemy of the state. WBAI Radio in New York City referred to "Hoover's Long Shadow" when it told its listeners and online readers about an FBI memo that detailed surveillance of anti-war protesters. In a nutshell, the memo "urged police to keep close tabs on protesters." This is much the same instruction FBI agents were given in the Hoover years, and why guidelines were subsequently framed to prohibit the FBI from syping on domestic organizations. Those guidelines, however, have been essentially trashed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, and the repercussions for free speech, freedom of assembly, and the freedom to petition the government for redress are endangered as a result. If you've spoken out against the War in Iraq or the War on Terrorism, chances are good the FBI knows who you are. What they'll do with the knowledge remains to be seen.

More recently, the FBI decided that people carrying almanacs might prove to be a threat. CNN reported that the FBI issued a bulletin to some 18,000 police organizations telling them that "terrorists may use almanacs" in planning their attacks. The memo suggested that police pay attention when they conducted traffic stops or drug searches to see if anyone was carrying an almanac. The FBI did say that the use of almanacs or maps "may be innocent." But anyone who carries an almanac or a road atlas with them in their car (and don't many of us?) faces the threat of additional investigation merely because of their reading or reference material. (I can't wait to see what happens when the FBI finally realizes that almost anyone can go to a public library and learn about almost anything.)

These, and many other matters, were topics of conversation this weekend as I enjoyed a get-together with a friend I only rarely see. We made up for lost time by discussing matters ranging from the separation of church and state to the most politically incorrect t-shirts we'd seen lately. We talked about the holidays, and we engaged in some mutual "let's solve the problems of the world" brainstorming. But perhaps our primary subject matter involved a man - another political activist - who was recently arrested on a routine traffic stop in Ohio. He is now facing numerous felony charges based on that traffic stop. I don't know many of the details as I write this column, but I do know the man involved, and you can believe one thing with utmost certainty: he's not a criminal. I also know, however, that the fact he and I have exchanged e-mails could mean I'm now being painted with a similar - and similarly unfair - brush.

I've long been exasperated and frustrated by many of the things the government says and does. But I'm now, and for the first time, becoming truly afraid of what the government is becoming. In recent weeks, Supreme Court decisions have curtailed our rights under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. The Department of Justice is continuing to make its own inroads into the Bill of Rights. More and more Americans are being labeled as subversives or worse because they dare to publicly criticize one government policy or another. And me? God help me, I own six almanacs.