[Radar]

Well, I imagine the roads would be full of dangerous drivers, so operating a car wouldn't be very appealing. That's assuming there are any usable roads in this "Free State," since the government can't exactly build or maintain roads without sufficient money (I assume "Imagine keeping what you earn" implies that there is no income tax).

The roads wouldn't be any more dangerous than they already are. I can see giving people an eye test or something but driving is a RIGHT, not a priviledge as some states would have you believe. We are born with the right to travel freely, especially on roads we paid for. And your comment about no income taxes leading to insufficient money to build roads is ludicrous. I pay gas tax, electricity tax, telephone tax, sales tax, property tax, cable tv tax, etc. There is PLENTY of money for roads, schools, and essential (Constitutional) parts of government. Of course the roads, schools, etc. would be handled by the state, not the fed. And a driver's license hardly qualifies you as a good driver. In California recently a teacher gave the DMV written test to a bunch of 3rd grade students after letting them read the manual and every student passed the test. I'm not suggesting we allow blind people to drive on roads, and I'm not suggesting we allow people to ignore the rules of the road. Just that they don't have to provide a social security number, provide insurance, etc. Even if they did have some test to prove you can drive, that's not the main thrust of the campaign for a free state. It's just one issue.

The problem with a lot of these ideas is that they just won't work. Like the statement "Imagine you're in a state filled with tolerant people who allow you to live your life any way you want as long as you give them the same respect." No change in goverment will bring this about, the problem is the result of human weakness.

Agreed. But we're talking about going to a state where most people already have the "live and let live" attitude, and we'll be adding 20,000+ to that mix. So no, EVERYONE who't live and let live, but enough of us will to control the laws.

There will always be assholes and inolerant people, and as long as those people possess the freedom to be assholes, they will be. Do you suggest stripping them of that right? Or do you propose to somehow change human nature? Or maybe make all the mean people go away? Who decides who is "mean?"

Yes, there will always be assholes, and I support their right to be assholes. But unlike the other states, the assholes won't be in charge.

It's a nice utopian fantasy in some ways, but a fantasy nonetheless.

It's neither utopian, nor a fantasy. This will be a reality very soon for those who value freedom enough to do something about it. Utopian fantasies don't require personal responsibility and don't have people who suffer from their own poor decisions. This is a real world solution to real world problems and it's already in the works.

And the roads are aready there because the government built them... and they stay there because the goverment maintains them. That takes money. Taxes.

The roads are there because the STATE governments built them and the money came from the STATES in the first place. They just get a portion of it back from the fed after they've taken a healthy chunk out so they can work on thier own roads. We had roads long before there was an income tax and we'll have them long after it's gone. I am not suggesting we don't pay taxes, just that we don't pay income taxes which amount to nothing short of slavery, armed robbery, and extortion.

I won't opine about the anarchist views... I'll just agree to disagree there. I dislike some aspects of the way goverment works now, but I still think it is MUCH better than no goverment.

Who said anything about "no government"? I am for having government. Government has a valid purpose; to defend our rights and property from those who would violate them. Government is not here to provide healthcare, charity, foreign aid, retirement, etc.

Government should be as the founders planned it. Small, de-centralized, and extremely limited in scope, cost, power, and intrusiveness. We shouldn't have government telling us what we can eat, what medicines we can take, what medical procedures we can have, what we can own, what we can do with what we own, what we can do with our bodies, what we can read, watch, or listen to, or how much water we put into our toilets.

We'd still have roads, police, fire fighters, defense of our rights and property, etc. We'd just be able to enjoy our lives more without Uncle Sam or other statists intruding into our daily lives.

vsp: I LOVE that anarchy link!

Gomez: You're absolutely right. The Free State will flourish because people will flock there when they see freedom is possible in America, businesses will re-locate there when they realize they won't be regulated and abused to death by the state, and they will bring jobs, and markets with them. The Free State will most likely have gambling, tourism, and other draws to bring in people and their money.

If I were the governor of the free state and the Fed tried to come into the state to bust people for using marijuana like they do with cannibas clubs that provide cannibas for medical patients in California, I would call out the national guard to defend the clinics and tell the Fed our state would no longer send them money to be used in the drug war. I would also pardon 100% of non-violent drug offenders and release them from jail immediately.