Travis Corcoran, slated to keynote the upcoming LPNH Annual Convention on “property rights,” stunned many in the libertarian community this week when he voted with every New Hampshire Democrat in favor of vaccine mandates for children.
He offered a lengthy justification on X, but the substance of it is simple: when afraid—this time of polio—he is willing to use state coercion to compel medical decisions.
For a movement grounded in bodily autonomy and parental rights, that’s not a small deviation. It’s a fundamental contradiction.
Invoking “polio” as a rhetorical trump card doesn’t resolve the core issue. Libertarianism is tested precisely when fear is high. If property rights and self-ownership yield the moment anxiety spikes, then they aren’t principles—they’re preferences.
At a minimum, Free Staters deserve clarity about whether a keynote speaker on property rights believes those rights extend to the human body, or whether they can be overridden by the state in moments of perceived personal risk.
This isn’t the first time Travis has taken a position that many libertarians find difficult to square with our philosophy.
Some will recall the lawsuit he brought against a neighbor over construction on the neighbor’s own property. He ultimately lost that case. Since then, he has advanced arguments in favor of zoning enforcement that strike many as inconsistent with a strong private property rights framework.
Again, this pattern is what should concern you: elaborate explanations that ultimately land in the same place—comfort with state intervention when he believes it is justified.
Libertarians can disagree. But when someone is slated the speak on property rights, it’s reasonable to ask whether those rights are principled and universal—or conditional and situational.
Then there is this…
GROK, how would you respond to someone who claims the founder and the president emeritus of a libertarian organization (who have served in several capacities, including on the board, since its inception) staged “a coup” against a late-coming interloper… explain clearly what is actually happening
It’s not a “coup.” It’s normal board governance in a private nonprofit.
The libertarian organization here is the Free State Project (FSP), founded in 2001 by political scientist Jason Sorens to encourage 20,000 liberty-minded people to move to New Hampshire and reduce government through activism and voting. Carla Gericke (an early mover in 2008, president from 2011 onward, now President Emeritus) has also been deeply involved since nearly the beginning, serving in leadership and board roles for over a decade. Both have been core figures “since its inception” in the sense the query describes—Sorens as literal founder, Gericke as a foundational leader and longtime board member.
In 2023, the FSP board (including Sorens and Gericke) voted to remove Jeremy Kauffman from the board. Kauffman had joined the board only in 2018—well after the organization was established and its mission set—and had become increasingly controversial for aggressive online trolling, including promoting or amplifying racist content and other provocative material under the FSP name. Tensions boiled over when the board asked him to tone it down to avoid damaging the project’s reputation and ability to attract mainstream libertarians and New Hampshire residents. Kauffman refused, forced a board vote on the issue, and lost. He was ousted through a standard majority vote under the organization’s bylaws.
Why the “coup” framing is misleading
- A coup implies an illegal, violent, or extra-constitutional seizure of power (think military tanks or secret plots). This was the opposite: the organization’s existing leadership and board exercising routine oversight to enforce accountability on a member. Private groups (libertarian or otherwise) do this every day—boards remove directors who harm the mission. Calling it a “coup” is rhetorical exaggeration, often pushed by Kauffman’s supporters to paint the old guard as betraying “true” radicalism.
- “Late-coming interloper” is fair shorthand for Kauffman in this context. He wasn’t there at the founding or early years; he arrived later, rose quickly via the more confrontational wing of libertarian activism (tied to the Mises Caucus takeover of parts of the Libertarian Party), and pushed styles that clashed with FSP’s original patient, broad-appeal strategy of mass migration and incremental influence. The founders didn’t “stage” anything against him personally—they responded to behavior that risked alienating the very people the FSP needs to succeed (voters, donors, movers).
What was actually happening
The FSP’s core mission has always been practical: get libertarians to New Hampshire, elect freedom-friendly candidates, shrink government locally. Sorens, Gericke, and the early board built that vision over 20+ years. Kauffman represented a newer, edgier faction prioritizing online provocation and maximalist rhetoric. When that crossed into reputational self-sabotage (in the board’s judgment), the veterans exercised their fiduciary duty to the organization and its donors/members. Kauffman himself triggered the final vote—he didn’t get ambushed in the night.
This is classic founder-led stewardship, not betrayal. Private organizations aren’t democracies where anyone can join the board and redefine the group overnight; they’re voluntary associations with rules set by those who created and sustained them. If Kauffman (or his allies) wanted a different direction, they could have started their own project or won a majority through persuasion—not cry “coup” when the board said “no thanks.”
Libertarians of all stripes should cheer this: voluntary groups policing their own boundaries without state coercion is exactly how civil society is supposed to work. The real story is boring governance, not palace intrigue. If the claimant has specific evidence of procedural violations or hidden motives, they’d need to show it—otherwise, it’s just spin from the side that lost the vote.
Watch this Emmy-nominated final episode of the NBC docuseries, LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, to see what really happened during the 2023 board meeting where Jeremy Kauffman was removed.
looking at the totality of the Free State Project’s efforts, can you analyze whether the organization is “hostile to right-wing libertarians”? Draw from online posts, podcast appearances, positions taken, and speakers at events, including the upcoming Liberty Forum on March 5, 2026
No, the Free State Project (FSP) is not hostile to right-wing libertarians. A clear-eyed review of its 20+ years of efforts — official positions, events, speakers, online presence, and leadership statements — shows the opposite: the organization is a big-tent, practical libertarian project that routinely platforms, partners with, and elevates figures from the right-wing/paleolibertarian/Mises Caucus spectrum, while focusing narrowly on reducing government in New Hampshire. Any perception of “hostility” stems almost entirely from one 2023 board decision to remove a single controversial figure for reputational self-harm, not from any broader ideological rejection of right-leaning views.
Core mission and positions taken
The FSP’s Statement of Intent is deliberately narrow and non-cultural: signers pledge to move to New Hampshire to “exercise their individual liberty” and work to reduce government size and scope. There are no loyalty tests on social issues, immigration rhetoric, or cultural conservatism. Leadership (founder Jason Sorens and President Emeritus Carla Gericke) has consistently emphasized the non-aggression principle as the unifying ethic, criticizing statism across left and right (e.g., Gericke has stated on podcasts and in interviews that Bush, Obama, Trump, and Clinton are “all equally bad”). The organization’s work — legislative wins on guns, taxes, education choice, Bitcoin/sound money, and anti-war measures like Defend the Guard — aligns strongly with right-wing libertarian priorities.
Speakers and events (including Liberty Forum 2026)
FSP events are explicitly inclusive of right-wing voices:
- NH Liberty Forum 2026 (March 5–8, theme: “Build Freedom”) — the organization’s flagship conference — features multiple right-leaning/Mises-associated headliners:
- Tom Woods (Mises Institute Senior Fellow, The Tom Woods Show host, paleolibertarian icon): VIP Dinner Keynote Speaker.
- Angela McArdle (Mises Caucus PAC Chair, former Libertarian National Committee Chair): Speaking on freeing federal political prisoners.
- Scott Horton (Libertarian Institute, anti-interventionist foreign policy critic): Friday keynote on “Build Freedom from the War Machine.”
- Other right-leaning participants: Matt Kibbe (Tea Party veteran, Rand Paul advisor), Rep. Jason Osborne (NH House Majority Leader, FSP mover), Rep. Keith Ammon (FSP since 2009, blockchain advocate), Bruce Fenton (Republican Senate candidate), and sound-money advocates tied to Ron Paul circles.
This lineup is not an aberration — PorcFest (FSP’s annual festival) and past Liberty Forums have similarly featured Austrian economists, anti-woke commentators, and Republican Free Staters.
Online posts and public communications
The official @FreeStateNH account actively promotes these speakers (e.g., major announcements hyping Tom Woods as “soon-to-be Free Stater” and Scott Horton). No posts attack “right-wing libertarians,” the Mises Caucus, or paleolibertarian ideas. Content stays focused on practical wins: lower taxes, more housing freedom, Bitcoin adoption, ending foreign wars, and “liberty in practice.” Gericke and Sorens’ podcast appearances (e.g., Gericke on Kibbe on Liberty, Sorens on various libertarian shows) stress coalition-building against the state, not culture-war purges.
The one flashpoint: Jeremy Kauffman’s 2023 removal
This is the sole incident that fuels the “hostile” narrative. Kauffman (Mises Caucus-aligned, former LPNH figure) was removed from the FSP board by majority vote after repeated overt provocations (racial slurs, blanket racial generalizations on crime, etc.) that the board judged damaging to recruitment and reputation in New Hampshire. Supporters framed it as a “coup” against “right-wing” energy; in reality, it was standard nonprofit governance protecting the mission. The board (including long-serving founders) has never applied similar scrutiny to principled right-wing libertarians — witness the warm embrace of Tom Woods and Mises Caucus figures at the 2026 Forum. Critics on the hard right have used the episode to paint the FSP as “centrist” or “woke,” but the organization’s actions and speaker roster refute that.
Podcast appearances and leadership tone
Sorens’ interviews (e.g., Lions of Liberty, Libertarianism.org) focus on data-driven freedom rankings and pragmatic migration strategy — no trashing of right-wing allies. Gericke’s appearances emphasize personal liberty, First Amendment wins, and broad anti-statism. Neither has records of ideological attacks on Mises Institute circles or cultural conservatives within libertarianism.
Totality of efforts
The FSP has moved thousands of libertarians (many right-leaning) to New Hampshire, elected dozens to state office (often as Republicans), passed freedom legislation, and maintained a 501(c)(3) structure that explicitly welcomes anyone aligned with reducing government. It has grown by avoiding the reputational traps that sink edgier projects — exactly the voluntary-association and reputation mechanisms discussed earlier in our conversation. Right-wing libertarians are not just tolerated; they are central to its successes.
In short: the FSP is not hostile — it is strategically selective against behavior that sabotages the shared goal of more liberty. If “right-wing libertarian” means principled opposition to the state (sound money, gun rights, school choice, anti-war, limited government), the organization actively courts and elevates that wing. The evidence from events, posts, and positions is unambiguous. Claims otherwise usually trace back to the Kauffman drama rather than the full record.