All of the other states fall way behind SD and WY when it comes to location with 3 of the states (AK, ME, and NH) having extreme costal locations. I feel that being on a coast is bad because of travel time when flying and inablility to take bus or car in most inter-state travel situations. I think being on the Canadian boarder causes the same problems. The far north states (all of them except WY and SD) are too far north for most people to drive to and take extra air travel for many people.
I'm leary of coastal and border areas right now because of the increased measures with regard to homeland security in particular. Scrutiny is the word of the day when it comes to areas of access into this country, and this ideology conflicts heavily with our goal of setting up an environment where the people are free to come and go as they please without being treated like a bug under a glass. I think we would run into disproportionately heavy opposition in such places for that reason. State and local governments, trying to hold onto their power in the face of serious challenge by FSPer's, could use such things to paint us as extremists, thus possibly frightening people into not supporting us. The feds could also clamp down on us by appealing to security concerns that would give them an excuse to intervene on behalf of the entire country.
Not locating near borders or port access could potentially take potent weapons out of the hands of local, state, and federal officials. They'll still find reasons to oppose us of course, but at least we will have narrowed down the list, and what basis for opposition does remain to them will not impact the rest of the country as much either. People in New York would not be as concerned about our more open society because they won't have to worry about terrorists being able to able to blow up NY buildings after entering the country through lax security in North Dakota or Maine, for example.
Consider other examples even aside from homeland security as well, such as the drug war. If we don't have border control, the feds won't be able to cry havoc against us because of Canadian marajiuana making its way through our territory. The same drug problem could also haunt us in port cities as well, leading to greater regulation of commerce, which could turn businesses against us.
So avoiding borders and ports would, I believe, potentially help us build the case that whatever it is that we do in, say Wyoming, is not anyone else's business because it doesn't affect them. This would give us the ability to defend a smaller front against a smaller foe with less in the way of ammunition and reinforcements to throw against us.