I've been thinking some more about the Free State Project. I won't quite say it's insane to propose that 20,000 people move to a certain US state in order to sway the political balance there towards liberty (and perhaps separation), but I will say that the proposal doesn't take into account the complex interrelationships between politics and culture. To give a simple example, immigrants to an area usually do not become active politically right away, and if 20,000 newcomers suddenly showed up in New Hampshire or Alaska or wherever and started agitating for the classic libertarian, right-wing hippy program of "Freedom Now!", reaction would likely be swift and mostly negative. The best prospects for a movement toward a more free state (is that a contradiction in terms?) will occur in a place that possesses its own unique culture (or at least the perception of such, in opposition to outsiders), a tradition of freedom, and most probably a history of previous independence. In the USA that would exclude most of the states listed by the Free State people (such as Delaware and North Dakota, neither of which has anything distinctive about it). The only places in North America that might fit the bill are Texas (which is too big to influence with the insertion of a mere 20,000 freedom fanatics) and Alaska (high temperature yesterday in Anchorage: 1° F).
Peter Saint-Andre > Journal