The Free State Project vs. Federal Reform: Which Path to Liberty?

The question of how best to advance liberty in America has long been debated within libertarian circles. Should libertarians focus their efforts on reforming the federal government from within, or on building freer societies at the local and state level? A recent debate between Eric Brakey, executive director of the Free State Project, and Andrew Heaton, host of the Political Orphanage podcast, explored this question in depth.

The Case for Local Action

Eric Brakey argued forcefully that libertarians should prioritize building "liberty for real societies" like the Free State Project in New Hampshire, rather than trying to reform what he called the "ever-expanding, uncontrollable federal government."

Brakey contended that libertarians have limited time and resources, so they need to focus on areas where they can have the most tangible impact. In his view, that means concentrating efforts at the state and local level, particularly in places like New Hampshire where there is already a critical mass of liberty-minded individuals.

He pointed to several concrete achievements of the Free State Project and other state-level efforts:

• New Hampshire consistently ranks as the freest state in America on various metrics
• The state has robust homeschooling networks and school choice programs
• It has become a hub for cryptocurrency and Bitcoin adoption
• About 25% of the state legislature votes consistently libertarian
• The state has nullified various federal laws, like cannabis prohibition

Brakey argued that these types of tangible wins for liberty are much harder to achieve at the federal level, where entrenched special interests have outsized influence. He contended that even when libertarians do get elected to Congress, like Rand Paul or Thomas Massie, they are often limited to "throwing the occasional monkey wrench into the gears of the imperial machine."

Instead of banging their heads against the wall in DC, Brakey urged libertarians to focus on building freer societies from the ground up. He suggested this approach could ultimately be more effective at restraining federal power through nullification, as states refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws.

The Case for Federal Reform

Andrew Heaton pushed back against the idea that libertarians must choose between local and federal activism. He argued that both approaches are valuable and complementary.

Heaton contended that the federal government remains the biggest threat to liberty, so libertarians can't simply ignore it or try to opt out. He pointed out that most Americans pay far more in federal taxes than local taxes, and are subject to a vast array of federal regulations they can't escape.

While praising the achievements of the Free State Project, Heaton argued that libertarians have also notched important victories at the federal level in recent years:

• Expanding gun rights through Supreme Court rulings
• Curtailing NSA surveillance programs
• Legalizing hemp nationwide
• Passing "Right to Try" legislation for experimental medical treatments
• Repealing the Obamacare individual mandate

Heaton suggested these wins show that federal reform is possible and worthwhile. He argued that having libertarian voices in Congress and national media is crucial for shifting the Overton window on key issues.

He also expressed concern that if libertarians abandon the national stage, it will be filled by less liberty-friendly voices. Heaton contended that having libertarians involved in debates over issues like war, monetary policy, and the national debt is essential.

Finding a Balance

While Brakey and Heaton disagreed on where libertarians should focus the bulk of their efforts, there were areas of agreement and common ground:

• Both praised the concrete achievements of the Free State Project in New Hampshire
• Both agreed that some libertarian presence in Congress and national debates is valuable
• Both supported state-level nullification of unconstitutional federal laws
• Both saw the federal government as the biggest threat to liberty currently

The core disagreement centered on the viability of federal reform and whether libertarians should make it a major focus. Brakey was deeply skeptical that libertarians could achieve meaningful change in DC given the entrenched special interests. Heaton was more optimistic, arguing that libertarians have already notched important federal victories and shouldn't cede that ground.

Ultimately, both agreed that building freer societies at the local level and advocating for liberty in national politics are not mutually exclusive. The question is one of priority and emphasis.

Key Takeaways

Some key points that emerged from the debate:

• Local/state-level activism often produces more tangible wins for liberty in the short-term
• Federal politics has an outsized impact on liberty that can't be ignored
• Nullification and state resistance to federal overreach is a powerful tool
• Having libertarian voices in Congress and national debates remains important
• Building parallel institutions and systems (like cryptocurrency) can advance liberty
• Libertarians likely need a mix of local and federal approaches to be effective

Conclusion

The debate highlighted the ongoing tension in libertarian circles between engaging with federal politics and building freer societies from the ground up. While both approaches have merits, libertarians must wrestle with how to allocate their limited time and resources for maximum impact.

The Free State Project and other local liberty efforts have demonstrated the power of concentrating like-minded individuals to create tangible change. At the same time, the federal government's vast power means it can't be ignored by those who value liberty.

Moving forward, libertarians may need to find ways to pursue both local and federal activism in parallel, rather than treating them as an either/or proposition. Building strong liberty-oriented communities can create a base for affecting national politics, while maintaining a voice in federal debates can help clear obstacles for local freedom.

Ultimately, advancing liberty will likely require a multi-pronged approach - combining grassroots activism, nullification, parallel institutions, and federal advocacy. By pursuing liberty on multiple fronts simultaneously, libertarians can work to expand freedom at all levels of society.

Article created from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08kU6Zuizg0