Submitted by resident Kristine Perez
The Free State project did not begin in New Hampshire. It began in academia in the mind of a young political scientist named Jason Soren. In 2001, Sorens, published an essay proposing that libertarians abandon national politics and concentrate their efforts in a single small state. Sorens, a graduate student, argued that if enough ideologically committed activists moved together, they could “take over” a state government and implement a radically limited form of government that had never succeeded at the national level.
Announcement: The Free State Project, by Jason Sorens “What I propose is a Free State Project, in which freedom-minded people of all stripes (libertarians, anarcho-capitalists, pacifists, even people who just call themselves liberals or conservatives – the only requirement is that you pledge that you will work to reducing government to the minimal functions of protecting life, liberty, and property), establish residence in a small state and take over the state government.“
“Once we’ve taken over the state government, we can slash state and local budgets, which make up a sizeable proportion of the tax and regulatory burden we face every day. Furthermore, we can eliminate substantial federal interference by refusing to take highway funds and the strings attached to them. Once we’ve accomplished these things, we can bargain with the national government over reducing the role of the national government in our state. We can use the threat of secession as leverage to do this.”
Sorens and the early supporters of the movement were imagining a political laboratory and New Hampshire, unfortunately, was the petri dish.
When Sorens and his collaborators chose New Hampshire in 2003, it was not because they admired the state’s traditions of moderation, community, and shared responsibility. Opponents say it was because they believed New Hampshire’s small population, accessible government, and low barriers to political entry made it strategically vulnerable. In their own writings, they described the state as fertile ground for a libertarian “laboratory,” a place where they could test ideas that had failed to gain traction elsewhere. New Hampshire didn’t volunteer to be the test subject it drafted.
The first wave of Free Staters arrived quietly. They bought homes in small towns, attended meetings, and built networks through social gatherings and online forums. Many had the financial stability to volunteer full time in political organizing, run for office, or dedicate themselves to activism without worrying about the economic consequences. This gave them a significant advantage over long time residents juggling jobs, families, and the daily realities of life in a working state.
This is the part of the story most residents never saw: New Hampshire did not organically produce the Free State movement. It was selected by people who believed they could reshape it. And the people who made that decision were not the ones who would bear the cost if public schools lost funding, if zoning protections disappeared, or if municipal services were cut to the bone. Those costs fall on working families, renters, seniors, and the poor, not on the ideological founders who arrived with the privilege to experiment on a state they did not grow up in.
As the movement grew, it aligned itself with organizations such as the Liberty Alliance, a political group that grades legislators, pressures candidates, and promotes policies designed to shrink government, weaken public institutions, and shift power toward private interests. The Alliance’s messaging is polished and appealing lower taxes, more freedom, less government but the policies it promotes often have consequences that fall hardest on the people least able to absorb them. It’s the kind of “freedom” that sounds great until you realize it means freedom from services your family depends on. Londonderry’s Town Councilor, Shawn Faber, is the Chair of that organization and therefore more than likely a Free Stater.
Critics say the movement’s most powerful tool is its approach to taxation. By pushing aggressively for lower property taxes, reduced state spending, and the elimination of public services. Free State aligned groups create a financial environment where towns are forced to cut programs, close facilities, and reduce support for families who need it most. On paper, it looks like tax relief. In practice, it shifts the burden downward onto working families, renters, seniors on fixed incomes, and the poor. Meanwhile, developers and large landowners often benefit from the very policies that strain local budgets. When zoning is weakened or eliminated, land becomes more valuable for high density development. When public services are cut, private companies step in to fill the gaps for a price. And when towns are pressured to make dramatic cuts, it is not the wealthy who feel the impact. It is the families who rely on public schools, libraries, community programs, and basic municipal services.
Across New Hampshire, residents say the effects are being felt. School districts are facing cuts that threaten programs and staffing. Municipalities struggle to maintain roads, emergency services, and public facilities. Long‑time volunteers are stepping down, exhausted by the constant battles. As local governments weaken, private interests, including developers and politically connected groups gain more influence over how communities grow and who benefits from that growth.
What makes this story uniquely New Hampshire is the bipartisan alarm it has raised. Republicans and Democrats alike, often divided on National issues, have found common ground in their concern about a movement that uses both parties as vehicles rather than identities. Many lifelong conservatives, who value fiscal responsibility but also believe in strong communities and public institutions, say the Free State agenda goes far beyond traditional New Hampshire values. They see a deliberate effort to destabilize local government, reduce public oversight, and shift power away from residents and toward a small group of ideologically driven activists and their financial allies. For a movement that talks endlessly about transparency, it is striking how rarely it introduces itself honestly to voters.
The Free State Project’s stated goal to radically shrink government and reshape society stands in sharp contrast to the practical, community minded approach that has defined New Hampshire for generations.
Most Granite Staters did not ask for this experiment. Many do not realize it is happening. But its effects are becoming harder to ignore.
The information posted above was submitted by a Londonderry resident. The views and opinions expressed are not necessarily the views and opinions of the TownUnderground Staff and should not be considered an endorsement by the TownUndeground.
Related Posts:
Letters to the TownUnderground