I know that this idea has been around for a very long time (probably since representative democracy), and that there are current attempts at it. The Free State Project considered Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska (amongst others), the least populous states in the Union, before settling on New Hampshire almost 20 years ago. They are maybe the most successful version of this, with a little over 5,000 members now residing in NH (out of the desired 20,000). It seems as if they have a total of 17 seats in the State House of Representatives, giving them a little over 4% of the 400 member House. This is an order of magnitude greater than (FSP population/NH pop), showing the outsized influence of a small group of politically oriented individuals who placed themselves strategically.
So, with remote work in vogue, with living costs climbing astronomically in liberal bastions, what do you see as the main limitations on politically motivated relocation?
And as a second question, what would your personal limitations be?
Coordination is hard. Free State Project had a nice solution (you sign a pledge that if N people sign the same pledge, you will all move to the selected place), but even that was ultimately honor-based, and as far as I know out of 20K people who signed the pledge only 5K have actually moved. Which I suppose is also a big success (given how hard these things are, and the possibility of the 4% to influence local politics), but smaller than originally planned.
Moving is costly, both financially and socially. If you are the kind of person who hates moving, well, then you hate it. If you are the kind of person who loves moving, moving to the place according to your political beliefs has an opportunity cost; you could have moved e.g. to a place that maximizes your income instead. Your political conviction must be strong in order to believe that the cost is justified.
This is an order of magnitude greater than (FSP population/NH pop), showing the outsized influence of a small group of politically oriented individuals who placed themselves strategically.
Yes; a coordinated group is way more powerful than an uncoordinated mob of the same size. If people have moved somewhere just because of their political beliefs, you can expect them to vote reliably.
what would your personal limitations be?
My personal limitation is that I am not an American, and I would be scared of living in a place with American healthcare system. Within Europe, I would not move because of a political party; I am not that interested in politics. I would be tempted to move to a place with 20K rationalists, but I am not sure whether 20K rationalists even exist worldwide. (Also given that the Free State Project only had a 25% compliance with the pledge, and our kind is famous for being unable to cooperate, I would expect that if 20K aspiring rationalists sign the pledge, maybe 1K will actually move. This could still be awesome though.)
The fact that FSP had a pledge wasn’t something I was aware of, which is a relatively clean solution to the coordination issue. Maybe a financial cost/reward to cement the pledge? If you don’t move after x years, you pay y amount (perhaps increasing from year to year?), which is distributed to all the members that have moved already?
I agree with the rest of your points, especially how moving just to vote somewhere else can feel very marginal in comparison to the financial/social costs. (Although I think that New Hampshire probably cost less than wherever FSP members were living before, and the social scene there is probably fascinating) So I agree with that point, but think that it’s circumventable/flippable, by moving somewhere cheaper, doing remote work, and moving in a socially interesting bloc.
The personal limitation is an interesting one as well, especially because it almost (but not quite) translates to a financial reason. And, it made me realize that my question was quite American-centric, which was not my intention. There is a FSP Europe (in Montenegro, though not very successful as of yet), if you follow the ACX post, and I think that there’s a number of countries around the world where the financial incentives would be quite high if you could work remotely (reduced taxes, cheaper land, cheaper food).
[Question] What are the limitations on politically motivated relocation?
I know that this idea has been around for a very long time (probably since representative democracy), and that there are current attempts at it. The Free State Project considered Wyoming, Vermont and Alaska (amongst others), the least populous states in the Union, before settling on New Hampshire almost 20 years ago. They are maybe the most successful version of this, with a little over 5,000 members now residing in NH (out of the desired 20,000). It seems as if they have a total of 17 seats in the State House of Representatives, giving them a little over 4% of the 400 member House. This is an order of magnitude greater than (FSP population/NH pop), showing the outsized influence of a small group of politically oriented individuals who placed themselves strategically.
So, with remote work in vogue, with living costs climbing astronomically in liberal bastions, what do you see as the main limitations on politically motivated relocation?
And as a second question, what would your personal limitations be?
Coordination is hard. Free State Project had a nice solution (you sign a pledge that if N people sign the same pledge, you will all move to the selected place), but even that was ultimately honor-based, and as far as I know out of 20K people who signed the pledge only 5K have actually moved. Which I suppose is also a big success (given how hard these things are, and the possibility of the 4% to influence local politics), but smaller than originally planned.
Moving is costly, both financially and socially. If you are the kind of person who hates moving, well, then you hate it. If you are the kind of person who loves moving, moving to the place according to your political beliefs has an opportunity cost; you could have moved e.g. to a place that maximizes your income instead. Your political conviction must be strong in order to believe that the cost is justified.
Yes; a coordinated group is way more powerful than an uncoordinated mob of the same size. If people have moved somewhere just because of their political beliefs, you can expect them to vote reliably.
My personal limitation is that I am not an American, and I would be scared of living in a place with American healthcare system. Within Europe, I would not move because of a political party; I am not that interested in politics. I would be tempted to move to a place with 20K rationalists, but I am not sure whether 20K rationalists even exist worldwide. (Also given that the Free State Project only had a 25% compliance with the pledge, and our kind is famous for being unable to cooperate, I would expect that if 20K aspiring rationalists sign the pledge, maybe 1K will actually move. This could still be awesome though.)
Thanks for the response, Viliam!
The fact that FSP had a pledge wasn’t something I was aware of, which is a relatively clean solution to the coordination issue. Maybe a financial cost/reward to cement the pledge? If you don’t move after x years, you pay y amount (perhaps increasing from year to year?), which is distributed to all the members that have moved already?
I agree with the rest of your points, especially how moving just to vote somewhere else can feel very marginal in comparison to the financial/social costs. (Although I think that New Hampshire probably cost less than wherever FSP members were living before, and the social scene there is probably fascinating) So I agree with that point, but think that it’s circumventable/flippable, by moving somewhere cheaper, doing remote work, and moving in a socially interesting bloc.
The personal limitation is an interesting one as well, especially because it almost (but not quite) translates to a financial reason. And, it made me realize that my question was quite American-centric, which was not my intention. There is a FSP Europe (in Montenegro, though not very successful as of yet), if you follow the ACX post, and I think that there’s a number of countries around the world where the financial incentives would be quite high if you could work remotely (reduced taxes, cheaper land, cheaper food).