Free State Project Forum
271218 Posts in 22215 Topics by 36606 Members / Latest Member: have_pen_will_travel
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 21, 2014, 11:45:25 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search

Join the FSP

POSTING GUIDELINES and ADVICE FOR NEW MEMBERS

NOTICE: The forum will be down for maintenance beginning at 7PM (NH time) this evening. It should be up again by 9PM. Please forgive the inconvenience and feel free to e-mail arick@freestateproject.org if you have any questions or support requests.

+  Free State Project Forum
|-+  Archive
| |-+  Which State?
| | |-+  Wyoming or Montana
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 16  Go Down Print
Author Topic: Wyoming or Montana  (Read 41974 times)
debra
FSP Participant
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 287





Ignore
Wyoming or Montana
« on: July 23, 2002, 03:03:23 pm »

One of the big drawbacks to Wyoming is that it is land-locked.  Montana, however, shares a wonderful, huge border with Canada.  For the Wyoming contingent (Wyomites?), what advantages does Wyoming have over Montana?

Logged

"Society has always honored its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
JasonPSorens
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5229


Neohantonum liberissimum erit.


WWW
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #1 on: July 23, 2002, 07:02:01 pm »

I actually now believe Idaho is better than either.  Idaho has a small border with Canada, it is less dependent on the fedgov than Montana (but more so than Wyoming), it has a far better jobs situation than either, and it has smaller government & a more conservative-libertarian electorate than Montana (about the same as Wyoming).  On just objective characteristics, Alaska and Wyoming of the Western states are better than Idaho, but the jobs situation in Wyoming is terrible - so bad in fact that if 20,000 people moved there right now most of them would probably starve, and the remoteness of Alaska is a potential problem for that state.
Logged

"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism
admin
FSP Participant
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3





Ignore
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2002, 08:53:38 pm »

One thing with Wyoming: just looking at the map, both Denver and Salt Lake City look to be within 100 miles of the Wyoming border.  In the Denver case, Cheyenne is right there on the same interstate.  It isn't real appealing, but you could make the commute into these cities and reside in Wyoming.

Personally, I'd be happy in WY, MT, ID or AK if I could find a job.

Charles
Logged
percy, aka tntsmum
FSP Participant
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


SEE YOU IN THE FREE STATE!!!!




Ignore
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2002, 06:33:43 am »


One of the big drawbacks to Wyoming is that it is land-locked.  Montana, however, shares a wonderful, huge border with Canada.  For the Wyoming contingent (Wyomites?), what advantages does Wyoming have over Montana?




Wyoming had been a close second in my mind to N.H., but the landlocked situation bothered me tremendously.... Montana sounds good... does anyone out there have first hand knowledge about Montana? lived in or near? Or Idaho? Both sound like good possibilities.
Logged
debra
FSP Participant
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 287





Ignore
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2002, 11:12:50 am »



Wyoming had been a close second in my mind to N.H., but the landlocked situation bothered me tremendously.... Montana sounds good... does anyone out there have first hand knowledge about Montana? lived in or near? Or Idaho? Both sound like good possibilities.


You know, Idaho does sound pretty good. It is really cool in several ways. Geographically speaking, it is nearly as diverse as California. Colder, granted, but some areas are milder than others. In the north and central areas, there is enough precipitation that one could grow a garden or orchard (or a lawn, for that matter) without worrying about irrigation, as well as plenty of ground water in the form of lakes and rivers.  Living in the desert, that's become a big plus to me. Idaho has mountains, snowy areas, green areas, desert-like areas...  The Couer d'Alene area is *incredibly* beautiful.

The job market is booming in larger areas, particularly in tech jobs (weird, huh?), and it's very close to Spokane, WA. There's a heavy "freedom movement" already in place. And as mentioned, there is a shared border with Canada.

On the negative side, there's no coastal access (except via a river) and the large amount of government owned land (nearly 2/3 of the state, IIRC).

But, oh yeah, I'd LOVE Idaho! In a heartbeat...
Logged

"Society has always honored its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
orgile73
Guest


Email
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2002, 01:35:14 pm »

 What I'm struggling most with is the trade offs. NH would be excellent if a Free State were established. The problem is it would be more difficult politically for 20,000 people to impact and work for that establishment. Wyoming and N. Dakota, on the other hand, would provide a more immediate and more grand FSP impact with the same level of effort because of a much smaller population, but once established may not be as secure by its economies and resources.

I think it comes right down to establishment vs. duration.
Duration of a hard fought for free state is obviously better than easy come easy go, but you dont want it to be so difficult that it's not possible to establish in a lifetime.  

I have a habit of thinking waaaaay too much, and "things" crossed my mind. If we reach the goal of 20,000 and initiate the migration, that'll certainly be news worthy. It may be the best free publicity we can ever hope for, reaching the widest audience we can ever hope for, far better than ads and webrings. It may be an option to revive the current effort then as a second wave. I think if we look to states like Wyoming, this would likely limit such options in the future because we hardly believe WY can support one wave, let alone two.
Logged
admin
FSP Participant
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3





Ignore
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2002, 03:53:17 pm »

Are you trying to live in a free state, or change the whole country?  If I live free, the rest of the country can have their stinkin' welfare socialism.

Charles
Logged
Eddie_Bradford
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 567





Ignore
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2002, 05:17:32 pm »

Sorry guys I really just don't see 20,000 people moving to any of the western states.  I just don't think the jobs are there, anywhere period.  The most mobile people other than students are urban professionals who bounce between big cities to advance their career.  I guess I'm one of them now technically but the point is that this group and I think many to most jobs are dependent on big cities being within reach.  Strangely enough (to me anyway) it seems like there are some of these "big city" jobs in Omaha but not in any of the other western states.  Charles I was interested in Wyoming for awhile because it looked kinda close to Salt Lake City and Denver until we had a detailed disscussion about driving through the snow up there and the terrible moutainous terrain and etc. etc. and it became obvious that comutting simply wasn't an option from Wyoming to these places (Maybe Salt lake).  Idaho also maybe could commute to the northern suburbs of Salt Lake City but still I think it would be very difficult.  I still think Delaware and NH are the two places we'd most likely get people to move to, simply because of the hugely greater access to jobs there.  Anyway I'm sure you guys are tired of me rambling about this agrument because I always post it when we're seriously talking about states.  I agree that there's something romantic about having a big old Montana with all this pristeen land and a size that big enough to show up on a world map if we ever want to seceed but I don't think the feasibility is there.  I say if you want a country that looks good on a map go for HN and expand into Maine.  We've go Canda access and water access and we're not surrounded by the U.S.
I say this even though I reject that whole idea anyway because Switzerland is landlocked, Luxemourg and other small countries are landlocked and they work fine.  I also reject the idea of secession but everyone still likes to talk about it and fantisizing about it anyway so go ahead but at the end of the day we need a place where 1. people will go and 2. those people will have a large impact.  I don't feel other criteria are very important.
-Eddie
Logged
admin
FSP Participant
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3





Ignore
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2002, 09:03:26 pm »

Eddie,

I can't disagree with what you say.  It'd be tough to employ everyone someplace like Wyoming.  I'm not sure what Boise has to offer, but probably not enough.  

For me personally, going northeast would be a real stretch.  I'm from the west and I get claustraphobic (sp?) just thinking of those big cities.  I've gone to Boston on business numerous times and I hate it there.  I like the "wide open spaces" and besides that, the northeast and California seem like "the belly of the beast" politically.

I don't have the answer.  Huh

Charles
Logged
JasonPSorens
Administrator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5229


Neohantonum liberissimum erit.


WWW
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2002, 09:08:01 pm »

Well, Debra also mentioned the possibility of commuting from Idaho to Spokane...
<p>
Though I've always lived in the East (mostly Southeast), I've been to some areas of the West and wouldn't mind living there at all, provided my wife and I wouldn't starve.  We're both thoroughly urbanized, educated into white-collar service-sector employment, which you basically get in the big cities of the two coasts.  Having said that, I really like the small-town/rural ideal and believe with Jefferson that large cities tend to be sinkholes of statism.  The appeal of Idaho and Wyoming (and maybe Vermont too) has to do with that ideal - but on objective characteristics Delaware and New Hampshire continue to seem extremely strong.  This choice will come down to the wire, I predict...
Logged

"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism
stpeter
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 104


If you want justice, work for freedom.


WWW

Ignore
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2002, 11:36:36 pm »


I really like the small-town/rural ideal and believe with Jefferson that large cities tend to be sinkholes of statism.  The appeal of Idaho and Wyoming (and maybe Vermont too) has to do with that ideal - but on objective characteristics Delaware and New Hampshire continue to seem extremely strong.

As far as I can see, almost all of the states under consideration live up this ideal. There are no cities with more than about 100k population in NH, VT, Maine, Montana, Wyoming, etc. Idaho has one mid-size city (Boise) as does Delaware (Wilmington). People talk about the density of the northern New England states but having grown up in Maine I can tell you that it's just a lot of small/rural villages. The only difference from the West is that in Wyoming or Montana these villages would have 50 miles of nothing between them (most of it federally owned, I might add). My $0.02. /stpeter
Logged
percy, aka tntsmum
FSP Participant
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108


SEE YOU IN THE FREE STATE!!!!




Ignore
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2002, 05:07:52 am »


I agree that there's something romantic about having a big old Montana with all this pristeen land and a size that big enough to show up on a world map if we ever want to seceed but I don't think the feasibility is there.  I say if you want a country that looks good on a map go for NH and expand into Maine.  We've got Canada access and water access and we're not surrounded by the U.S.
I say this even though I reject that whole idea anyway because Switzerland is landlocked, Luxemourg and other small countries are landlocked and they work fine.  I also reject the idea of secession but everyone still likes to talk about it and fantisizing about it anyway so go ahead but at the end of the day we need a place where 1. people will go and 2. those people will have a large impact.  I don't feel other criteria are very important.
-Eddie



Ditto -  I love the idea of Montana, there's nothing I would like more than lots n' lots of beautiful land.... but lets not underestimate the "smaller" states. In the northern half of N.H. (and I'm guessing Idaho) you can drive forever without seeing another soul, you'll be lucky to see a logger or hunter.
HOWEVER... I'm a little concerned about Idaho regarding it's reputation for having a large militia & neonazi/white supremicist contingent.... (honestly I don't really have any concern re: the militia except as a possible P.R. problem should they align themselves with us - BUT the other groups give me pause. Let's just say I and my family would, at the least, be extremely unwelcome there.
Does anyone know to what degree Idaho has earned this reputation?
I have a sneaky feeling there may be others among us who would share similar concerns about Idaho.
Logged
Eddie_Bradford
FSP Participant
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 567





Ignore
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2002, 11:08:59 am »



For me personally, going northeast would be a real stretch.  I'm from the west and I get claustraphobic (sp?) just thinking of those big cities.  I've gone to Boston on business numerous times and I hate it there.  I like the "wide open spaces"
Charles


I hear you Charles but listen to what St. Peter said.  On the Yahoo group I was having a discussion with people who wanted wide open spaces and so I went to research the population densities of the NH an Delaware counties.  Turns out there was one county in NH that made up about 30% of the state that had something like 10 people per square mile.  That's really really few people so I think you would be at home there if you didn't mind the cold.  Seriously though if you don't think it's sparse enough for you then you should go visit there some time and see for yourself.  If a sparse population is what you want you can certainly find it in NH.  Maybe there are some other criterias that you miss like driving for 100s and 100s of miles with no towns or civilization but I really do think you could be at home there.  Oh and also they have trees there, and I'd think being right next to Vermont it should be really beautiful in the fall with the Vermont maples and all.
-Eddie
Logged
orgile73
Guest


Email
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2002, 12:02:47 pm »


Are you trying to live in a free state, or change the whole country?  If I live free, the rest of the country can have their stinkin' welfare socialism.

Charles


What I meant by "reviving" was a second effort to get another group to come into the same state as the first group, not one state after another.

-Mike
Logged
davieguy
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


I'm a llama!




Ignore
Re:Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #14 on: July 25, 2002, 02:13:44 pm »

 Between Montana and Wyoming I would have to give Wyoming a major thumbs up. First of all, it only has half the population that Montana has so 20,000 people would make a far greater impact. Second, Montana does have a major anti-government, pro anarchist, white supremist, militia problem. The current state government is already having serious problems with thease groups. And if we go there, then they will be our problems. Keep something in mind that alot of you seem to be overlooking. No matter how many of us there are, we will still have to live by the rules of the Costitution and the decisions of the supreme court. We will not be allowed to get rid of thease groups or violate their rights any more than the current government can.
I would also like to ask everyone, why is it important to have port acces? Why does it matter if the state is landlocked or not? You are not going to go to a state and seperate from the rest of the country. A state can not unjoin the union like the south did in the civil war. No matter how many people you get in this group, and no matter what state you go to you will still be in the United States. So why is not being landlocked by other U.S. states considered a good thing?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 16  Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!