My apologies if this topic has been already discussed.
Could it be a possible reality for a group of folks to create their own self reliant community, free from most of the federal and state regulations, rules etc. I would imagine they would have to pay property tax on the land. If a group purchased a bare track of land (approx 2000 acres) could they form their own "free community" or would this be totally impossible. Has this ever been attempted before anywhere in the USA? Is this too far-fetched of an idea?
Kola
If you wanted to do this within the borders of the lower 48 contiguous states, the only remotest chance you have for something like that is within the LAKOTA OYATE (http://www.lakotaoyate.net/) borders. And I must emphasize how remote of a chance you have of doing this without federal troops raiding you.
Like the free town project?
There is some unincorporated lands in Success, NH. I can check, but I belief several religious factions are largely outside these controls.
If it's in Success, doesnt that make it incorporated?
A good example is the Amish/Mennonite communities. Although I am not very knowledgeable about all of the specifics, they seem to do quite well with the system they currently have in place.
just some thoughts,
Kola
Quote from: kola on January 09, 2008, 03:02 PM NHFT
A good example is the Amish/Mennonite communities. Although I am not very knowledgeable about all of the specifics, they seem to do quite well with the system they currently have in place.
Free Talk Live recently talked about how the Amish have been butting heads with the statists lately. Having grown up not far from their settlements in Pennsylvania, I can say that what freedom they do have they have to continually fight tooth and nail for, and they might not have quite as much freedom as many think.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on January 09, 2008, 02:55 PM NHFT
If it's in Success, doesnt that make it incorporated?
No, certain areas are named... but not incorporated.
Success, New HampshireFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Success is an unincorporated township located in Coos County, New Hampshire, USA. It is located directly to the east of the city of Berlin, New Hampshire, and borders on the state of Maine.
As of the 2000 census, the township had a total population of 2. According to the United States Census Bureau it is one of only 5 places in the United States with a population of two people. The others are Twombly, Maine, Hove Mobile Park, North Dakota, Oil Springs Reservation, Cattaraugus County, New York, and Monowi, Nebraska.
As of 2005, one of the larger land owners in Success is the Androscoggin Valley Regional Refuse Disposal District.
Success was granted in 1779 and contained about 90,472 acres (366 km²). The grantees were Benjamin Mackay and about seventy others.
According to the United States Census Bureau, the township has a total area of 59.2 square miles (153.4 km²), of which, 58.8 square miles (152.2 km²) of it is land and 0.5 square miles (1.2 km²) of it is water. The total area is 0.81% water.
The highest point in the township is Mount Success (3,565 feet / 1,087 meters above sea level), a peak in the Mahoosuc Range.
Oh! I must have misunderstood! Nevermind!
I thought it was Free Grafton .... but then again ... it doesn't exist
The hush-hush project :)
What were the reasons for its failure and how come very few people participated?
KOla
Quote from: kola on January 10, 2008, 10:01 PM NHFT
What were the reasons for its failure and how come very few people participated?
KOla
Town not so keen on Free Towners (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73176638055559&Avis=CM&Dato=20040620&Kategori=REPOSITORY&Lopenr=406200379&Ref=AR)
Residents demand answers on project's intentions
The Free Town Project wants to settle 200 libertarians in Grafton.
By BEVERLEY WANG
The Associated Press
June 20. 2004 12:01AM
GRAFTON - About 200 Grafton residents packed a town meeting yesterday, demanding to know what libertarians in the Free Town Project are planning for their quiet New Hampshire town.
"Why are you moving here? Why?" several people shouted.
The Free Town Project wants to plant 200 libertarian settlers in Grafton, population 1,200.
The weekend meeting drew a record turnout, forcing organizers to move from the town hall to the fire station. Grafton Focus, a community group, called the meeting to let Free Town Project members answer residents' questions.
Some protested the Free Town Project by parking a hearse outside the town hall with a sign that read "RIP Free State Project, Free Town Project."
For three hours, Grafton residents peppered Free State and Free Town representatives with questions about school funding, zoning and taxes.
But most of all, they asked why Free Towners want to move to Grafton en masse instead of individually.
One Free Towner, Bob Hull, has purchased 237 acres of land in Grafton, which he intends to subdivide and make available to people coming from other states.
"Some of the opposition's been painting a lot of nasty pictures of compounds and cults and really offensive characterizations like that," said Free Towner Mike Lorrey, who is also a Free Stater. "People just want to live in a neighborhood with people they can be neighbors with."
But some Grafton residents weren't ready yet to welcome them with open arms.
"What we're not really hearing from you is what you are all about," said Nancy Warren to cheers and applause.
The Free Town Project is a splinter group of the Free State Project, which is trying to lure 20,000 libertarians to New Hampshire by 2006. Free Staters insist their group has nothing to do with Free Towners, although their memberships overlap.
Many townspeople said they left the meeting with their questions unanswered.
"I don't think that there's a lot of thought given into the impact on the town," said Sue Jukosky, a 26-year Grafton resident.
Residents were upset by a Web site (http://freetownproject.com/) maintained by Larry Pendarvis, a Florida libertarian, that promises to pull Grafton from the school district and suspend the planning board, among other things.
The Web site reads: "We also intend to ensure that the Town Police are never allowed to waste valuable town resources . . . to oppress our residents by the investigation or enforcement of violations of Compulsory Schooling Laws, Drug Laws, Prostitution Laws, Obscenity Laws, or other Victimless Crime Laws."
Other Free Towners and Free Staters have tried to distance themselves from Pendarvis, also known as Zack Bass, an Internet consultant who runs a Filipina mail-order bride business.
"He's not the kind of person that represents the Free State Project," said Amanda Phillips, president of the Free State Project.
"We have 6,000 people who are great, responsible people who want to be good neighbors, and it's unfortunate we're being judged by one person,"said Phillips.
Free Staters last year chose New Hampshire as its staging ground, attracted by the state's "Live Free or Die" slogan and independent outlook. Loosely aligned by a desire for a society with smaller government and fewer laws, Free Staters advocate the legalization of "victimless crimes"such as prostitution and personal drug use. They also support home schooling, lowering property taxes and protecting Second Amendment rights.
This article is: 1300 days old.
Quote from: kola on January 10, 2008, 10:01 PM NHFT
What were the reasons for its failure and how come very few people participated?
KOla
It was never intended to be as the idiot from FL described it. The plan was to maintain the good parts of Grafton like no of Zoning and such and neutralize the few statists.
It hasn't failed. The proportion of Freeststers to population is higher than any other NH town. It i
s rural. Some Freestaters complain about that, just as many complain about NH for various reasons.
Anyone curious about G should contact me about a visit. Don't forget about Burning Porcupine Festival in Grafton in July.
Its funny in a way as natives are very suspicious of 'imports' looking to make changes... but these were in fact trying to maintain our traditional structures.
Heck, my father even remembers the days when a DWI just got you a ride home. Even myself a generation removed remember speeding would just result in a 'flash' of the headlights as a signal to slow down.
Is there a freestater presence in Berlin? What about littleton? I saw some great (on first superficial glance) real estate opportunities in both those spots.
Just to show you how mis-perceived some things can be, a local Grafton guy, Neil Kinney, was quoted as saying: "You're not going to come here and shove freedom down our throats!"
I attended that town meeting and it had the highest turnout of any Grafton town meeting, ever! Zack Bass (Larry Pendarvis) certainly has a way of "winning friends and influencing people." I think the Free Town Project Yahoo Group thread might still be online somewhere, though the owner shut it down. Some of the Graftonites joined the list - I just stopped reading the posts because there were too many per day. Zack Bass was thrown out of the Free State Project in a controverted decision by the board.
Interesting times...
Quote from: Eli on January 11, 2008, 08:59 AM NHFT
Is there a freestater presence in Berlin? What about littleton? I saw some great (on first superficial glance) real estate opportunities in both those spots.
Steve Villee lives in Berlin. I don't know about Littleton.
Quote from: kola on January 09, 2008, 12:53 PM NHFT
My apologies if this topic has been already discussed.
Could it be a possible reality for a group of folks to create their own self reliant community, free from most of the federal and state regulations, rules etc. I would imagine they would have to pay property tax on the land. If a group purchased a bare track of land (approx 2000 acres) could they form their own "free community" or would this be totally impossible. Has this ever been attempted before anywhere in the USA? Is this too far-fetched of an idea?
Kola
There is the whole "intentional community" movement (as opposed to most towns being "unintentional", eh? or accidental?). It's a good point that you might have a more peaceful community if the people all have some basics in common (a lot of intentional communities are religious-based).
See the Intentional Community DataBase (http://icdb.org) for some interesting community experiments.
As far as being independent of some existing state organization that surrounds you, that's a challenge. There have been numerous small new country projects - see: micronations (http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/enter.html) as a starting point.
David (moderator of the Voluntaryism/Anarchism boards) has been wanting to do something like this in the Keene area. It is probably just a matter of obtaining the funds to purchase the land, and finding enough interested parties.
Caleb spoke of establishing somethng like this, as well, under the umbrella of a church organization. Unfortunately for us, he has gone in search of greener pastures... :(
Quote from: kola on January 09, 2008, 03:02 PM NHFT
A good example is the Amish/Mennonite communities. Although I am not very knowledgeable about all of the specifics, they seem to do quite well with the system they currently have in place.
just some thoughts,
Kola
Sure, if you want to live in the stone age.
Even while living out of the back of my truck in the middle of the New Hampshire winter, I have absolutely no nostalgic desire to return to the primitive Amish lifestyle I grew up in :D
There is a lot to be learned from the Amish, though, about self-sufficient living. It is just their extreme avoidance of modern conveniences, and their harshly authoritarian attitude toward each other, that I object to.
Quote from: srqrebel on January 11, 2008, 11:27 AM NHFT
David (moderator of the Voluntaryism/Anarchism boards) has been wanting to do something like this in the Keene area. It is probably just a matter of obtaining the funds to purchase the land, and finding enough interested parties.
Caleb spoke of establishing somethng like this, as well, under the umbrella of a church organization. Unfortunately for us, he has gone in search of greener pastures... :(
Tax-exempt 'fraternal' organization.
Quote from: srqrebel on January 11, 2008, 11:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: kola on January 09, 2008, 03:02 PM NHFT
A good example is the Amish/Mennonite communities. Although I am not very knowledgeable about all of the specifics, they seem to do quite well with the system they currently have in place.
just some thoughts,
Kola
Sure, if you want to live in the stone age.
Even while living out of the back of my truck in the middle of the New Hampshire winter, I have absolutely no nostalgic desire to return to the primitive Amish lifestyle I grew up in :D
There is a lot to be learned from the Amish, though, about self-sufficient living. It is just their extreme avoidance of modern conveniences, and their harshly authoritarian attitude toward each other, that I object to.
I do not think one has to live "primitive" or in the "stone age". Many modern aspects could be implemented and I would think it would be encouraged. And the community doesn't have to abide by the strict amish religion. I just used them as an example and it wasn't meant that a new community follow specifically in their footsteps.
Kola
There were the Shaker communities. They did not eschew modern conveniences. They just decided celibacy was the way to go.
They definitely did not eschew technology. They invented a lot of things. The idea of a circular saw has been attributed to a Shaker woman. I have often wondered if celibacy wiped them out or, the growing welfare state. They took in orphans and, I believe, others who needed homes. I can't figure out why they didn't last, or, even grow, particularly during the Depression.
I haven't visited Shaker Village (Cantebury), just a few minutes south of here, for many years. But I believe the guide at that time stated there was a change in adoption laws that made acquiring new members impossible.
Well......There ya go!
LAST OF THE SHAKERS (http://www.discovernewengland.org/press/press09.shtml)
QuoteOne of the community's most poignant exhibitions is one dedicated to the Shaker children. Where did they come from, you may wonder, as the Shakers were celibate. The answer is from converts' offspring or from orphanages. These children were given a loving home and an excellent education, including useful skills. When they reached the age of 18, they could choose freely to stay with the Shakers or to go out into the world. Sadly, for the Shakers, a change in US law in the 1960s prohibited further adoption, and there have been no Shaker children at Sabbathday Lake for 40 years.
Quote from: kola on January 10, 2008, 10:01 PM NHFT
What were the reasons for its failure and how come very few people participated?
It hasn't failed.
Because some people are still living in Colorado talking about a free community.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 12, 2008, 09:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: kola on January 10, 2008, 10:01 PM NHFT
What were the reasons for its failure and how come very few people participated?
It hasn't failed.
Because some people are still living in Colorado talking about a free community.
Tell me Russel, before you buy a car, do you discuss it with Kat and/or with a salesmen or do you just buy one on a whim from an internet picture? Before you take a vacation do you discuss it with anyone or talk to others who have travled to the same place or do you just hop in your car and go without any thought or plans and without a map?
Well Russell, IMO talking about something(or researching) is just the beginning to making plans and especially if one would be adhering to a committment. Do you dissaprove of me discussing this? or would you rather have me sell the farm, pack up and head for NH without looking into any factual history regarding communities that attempted to live free?
I started this topic to gain info. But your only reply was a derogatory one and had nothing to offer pertaining to any information that a free community is even a possibility.
Russell, my only intent was to start a topic to see if there has ever been a free community anywhere in the USA. My apologies for the disruption and your disapproval of my personal views and actions have been acknowledged.
Kola
Russell moved Twice for the Free State Project. He's a little sensitive. This forum is, after all, NH centric.
I think you totally misunderstood Russell. He just meant that it's good that people are still wanting to do this.
my comment had nothing to do with the topic ... it was in response to you assuming that the FTP failed. You are listening to our critics and the media. :)
plus I was giving you the business because you are in CO in a TP. ;)
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on January 12, 2008, 07:26 AM NHFT
They definitely did not eschew technology. They invented a lot of things. The idea of a circular saw has been attributed to a Shaker woman...
The Shakers were also enthusiasts for mechanisation and progressive technology, and their inventions included the circular saw (credited to a woman of the Harvard Community), the flat broom, the automatic spring, the first screw propeller, and the first washing machine - still useable in the laundry at Sabbathday Lake.
Russell and Kat, I am sorry.
I thought Russell meant I was just "all talk" and avoiding any type of commitment to "free living" by staying here in Colorado and not moving to NH. That is the prob with internet discussions as it is often difficult to interpet the message by words alone. I had no idea NH had a lot of diehard folks looking to free themselves from big gov until I stumbled onto his site regarding the Browns this past summer.
Thank god I have Joe on ignore because this will be another topic he will attempt to heckle.
again, my apologies, :)
Kola
I have particularly liked this thread. This is just about exactly what we are all about. :)
Leaves us all moving to Grafton, silly!
Except Kola,anyway
I like Jack's idea of creating a semi religious community.
Quote from: Scott Roth on January 14, 2008, 07:49 PM NHFT
So, where does that leave us?
You can work through the thread and develop a charter for a possible incorporation of an associatied group, get supporters like the FSP, then look to lease/purchase unincorportated lands.
This would leave you under some county/State jurisdiction, but it could be minimalized with proper planning.
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 11, 2008, 11:08 AM NHFT
Quote from: kola on January 09, 2008, 12:53 PM NHFT
My apologies if this topic has been already discussed.
Could it be a possible reality for a group of folks to create their own self reliant community, free from most of the federal and state regulations, rules etc. I would imagine they would have to pay property tax on the land. If a group purchased a bare track of land (approx 2000 acres) could they form their own "free community" or would this be totally impossible. Has this ever been attempted before anywhere in the USA? Is this too far-fetched of an idea?
Kola
There is the whole "intentional community" movement (as opposed to most towns being "unintentional", eh? or accidental?). It's a good point that you might have a more peaceful community if the people all have some basics in common (a lot of intentional communities are religious-based).
See the Intentional Community DataBase (http://icdb.org) for some interesting community experiments.
As far as being independent of some existing state organization that surrounds you, that's a challenge. There have been numerous small new country projects - see: micronations (http://www.angelfire.com/nv/micronations/enter.html) as a starting point.
I missed this. I just seen it today. Thanks for the links Jack!
Kola
I like Kola's idea of creating a community. :)
My first attempt to do this. My website in the signiture line is an attempt also.
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=6432.0
Quote from: David on January 18, 2008, 01:30 AM NHFT
My first attempt to do this. My website in the signiture line is an attempt also.
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=6432.0
A little over done. One doesn't actually 'create' a community, its organic... its simply comes about.
As for a village or town, that involves incorporation and thus the decision by the founders at what individual sovereign power will be sacrificed for the benefit of all.
This might be as simple as deciding that everyone stay right during travel...
The tricky part is to instill in the founding document (charter) a sense of that anarchy.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 22, 2008, 11:03 PM NHFT
A little over done. One doesn't actually 'create' a community, its organic... its simply comes about.
Actually, the word David used was 'start', not 'create'. It is pretty self-evident that it can only succeed if others desire the same thing.
Most communities are indeed organic. They come about without any conscious planning toward that end. How much more likely for such a community to take shape when conscious thought is applied to that end, especially if sufficient thought is given to what others want, and developing a plan based on what appeals to
them.
Coming from an Amish background, I know that can work spectacularly well, and it can also be a complete flop. It depends largely on how well the proposed community meets popular demand.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 22, 2008, 11:03 PM NHFT
As for a village or town, that involves incorporation and thus the decision by the founders at what individual sovereign power will be sacrificed for the benefit of all.
This might be as simple as deciding that everyone stay right during travel...
The tricky part is to instill in the founding document (charter) a sense of that anarchy.
Say
what??
You can call any community whatever you want, including 'village' or 'town'. A village is comprised of individuals who peacefully co-exist. All that is required for this is a mutual understanding, in this case the common objective to illustrate peaceful co-existence on a voluntary basis.
A charter accomplishes exactly the opposite. It seeks to impose the mutually agreed upon values of the founding individuals upon any individuals who succeed them. This is a violation of the sovereignty of those individuals -- and completely foreign to a community of individuals who understand and honor the equal sovereignty of their fellows.
My main objection to the idea of having a pocket of 'anarchy' within the current anti-civilization is this one:
Quote from: David on December 16, 2006, 12:18 AM NHFT
A couple of important things to consider:
The gov't regulates everything, so much of what would go one in our agression free village would be 'illegal'.
It would be a target for the police to shut down.
My focus is on achieving
freedom. Peaceful 'anarchy' is the condition of universal freedom. It can only come about by rendering impotent the Authoritarian Model of Government.
An anarchic community in an authoritarian world would only invite violent attacks from the prevailing crime syndicate, thus discouraging observers from giving further thought to such a lifestyle. This is why my focus remains squarely on initiating a mass transition away from the AMOG -- which is the most direct route to rendering it impotent, and making the lifestyle of freedom available to all.
Quote from: srqrebel on January 23, 2008, 11:47 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 22, 2008, 11:03 PM NHFT
A little over done. One doesn't actually 'create' a community, its organic... its simply comes about.
Actually, the word David used was 'start', not 'create'. It is pretty self-evident that it can only succeed if others desire the same thing.
Most communities are indeed organic. They come about without any conscious planning toward that end. How much more likely for such a community to take shape when conscious thought is applied to that end, especially if sufficient thought is given to what others want, and developing a plan based on what appeals to them.
Coming from an Amish background, I know that can work spectacularly well, and it can also be a complete flop. It depends largely on how well the proposed community meets popular demand.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 22, 2008, 11:03 PM NHFT
As for a village or town, that involves incorporation and thus the decision by the founders at what individual sovereign power will be sacrificed for the benefit of all.
This might be as simple as deciding that everyone stay right during travel...
The tricky part is to instill in the founding document (charter) a sense of that anarchy.
Say what??
You can call any community whatever you want, including 'village' or 'town'. A village is comprised of individuals who peacefully co-exist. All that is required for this is a mutual understanding, in this case the common objective to illustrate peaceful co-existence on a voluntary basis.
A charter accomplishes exactly the opposite. It seeks to impose the mutually agreed upon values of the founding individuals upon any individuals who succeed them. This is a violation of the sovereignty of those individuals -- and completely foreign to a community of individuals who understand and honor the equal sovereignty of their fellows.
The topic was to 'Create a Community'... so I was answering several things at once. Sometimes a developer tries to 'create a community', but it usually entails restrictions, and exists within a prior incorporated region.
If one were to build/lease land in the unincorporated regions of NH, you would slowly become part of the 'community' of others that have done the same... (no planning, just organic growth).
But the thread moved toward the Shakers and such (Incorporated village)... so I reasonable went along and explained how to achieve this. My comprehension of David's thread was to move somewhat in this direction, but I might have misunderstood.
Topic: "create a community"
and here I thought it was a simple basic presentation that would provoke positive ideas.
dang,
Kola
It did.
Just to remove some of the oversight requires a little outside-the-box thinking.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 23, 2008, 06:39 PM NHFT
The topic was to 'Create a Community'...
OOPS... my bad! I was referring at the initial post of the thread that David referenced above. Here is the quote:
Quote from: David on December 16, 2006, 12:18 AM NHFT
This is not another free town project. I don't care about 'taking over' any of the statists precious municiple gov'ts.
There is no community in the whole of the US that is totally free of first strike force or fraud. I'd like to start one.
...and
now I notice the title of that thread is
Creating a city of non agression. So much for being aware of what I'm reading! ::) :D
I suppose the word 'create' is not too far off target, though 'start' and 'plan' would probably fit better -- unless every participant is fully included in the 'creation' process.
I try to keep things positive, but sometimes I get a bit zealous about going after ideas that seem irrational to me. I apologize for any negativity this may cause, and will try to pay closer attention to what I'm reading before I respond. :)
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 24, 2008, 03:43 AM NHFT
It did.
Just to remove some of the oversight requires a little outside-the-box thinking.
LOL, by 'oversight' are you referring to 'overseeing' the creation of a community, or the stupid 'oversights' in my earlier posts? :P
Either way, well stated! :)
Quote from: kola on January 23, 2008, 08:05 PM NHFT
Topic: "create a community"
and here I thought it was a simple basic presentation that would provoke positive ideas.
dang,
Kola
More and more I find you and I on the same train of thought. Keep plugging away. I ignore much of the point, counter point debating, most of the time.