yes, Jason... the plan would obviously be for the folks who love the fsp concept, but refuse to move to the first chosen state, whatever that might be.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jason P Sorens
Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [FSP] Re: [fspcrackerbarrel] Re: FSP--a question of policy
The problem I have with serious planning for a second FSP in a second
state by the people who have already moved to the first state is that it
looks bad. To be successful in our first state we have to persuade the
locals that we choose their state because it is unique, we like it, & we
want to make it "more like itself." If as soon as we get there, we're
planning to "take over" some other state across the country, it looks like
the power play that it is. So I think after we choose our state and move
in, those who decide that they will absolutely not move with us should
start their own project under their own efforts. The only way I could
imagine that close cooperation between the 1st and 2nd projects would work
& not be regarded with suspicion by local populations is to have the 2nd
state adjacent to the 1st (say, Wyoming and Montana, or Maine and New
Hampshire). But this would essentially defeat the point for those people
who are completely opposed to moving to the other side of the country
(about 10% of our membership right now). So we're back to having them
design their own project for whichever part of the country is not chosen
by this project.
Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>
<http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]