Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: Robert H. on December 11, 2002, 06:14:55 am

Title: In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Robert H. on December 11, 2002, 06:14:55 am
At this point, roughly half-way to the number required to vote on a state, our "which state?" debates seem to be stalled on two major areas of contention:  1)  Population  2)  Urban density.

There are those who insist upon more urbanized and rapidly growing states because of the amenities they offer, and also because they feel that we must demonstrate that our ideas can succeed in dense urban areas (an "America in miniature" as one put it) in order to vindicate those ideas to the rest of the country.  Then there are others who feel that we must start off in less densely populated areas so that we can gain access to the system faster, and also gain experience by taking on smaller challenges first and then working our way up to larger tasks.  The relative availability of jobs (and what type of jobs) and housing also factors into this.  It seems that states that would be best in terms of population and political access are questionable in terms of jobs and housing, while states that have more in the way of jobs and housing are questionable in terms of population and political access.

Neither side is really willing to move very much because each considers its point of view crucial to creating a free state.

So, there are three possible solutions:

1.  Both sides can keep slugging it out in the hope of convincing a majority to sign on to their view, giving us a "may the best man win" situation.
2.  We can try to find a compromise state that more people on both sides might find acceptable for whatever reason.
3.  We can divide our efforts among two small states:  one with low population, low urban density, the other with low population and high urban density.

Suggested Criteria for a Compromise State[/color]

Looking at the compromise aspect first, let's see what criteria might do the trick and what states they give us (any thoughts on this out there???):

1.  A state with an overall population of one million or less.
2.  A state with a voting-age population of 800,000 or less.
3.  A state with at least no MSA smaller than 100,000 and none greater than 300,000.

These criteria leave us with:  

States with One Million or Less Inhabitants:

Wyoming - 493,782
Vermont - 608,827
North Dakota - 642,200
Alaska - 626, 932
South Dakota - 754,844
Delaware - 783,600
Montana - 902,195

States with 800,000 or Less Voting-Age Inhabitants:

Wyoming - 364,909
Alaska - 436,215
Vermont - 461,304
North Dakota - 552,195
South Dakota - 552,195
Delaware - 589,013
Montana -672,133  

* States with No MSA smaller than 100,000 and none greater than 300,000:

123,138 North Dakota part of Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN  MSA (ND part)
129,352 Montana (Billings, MT  MSA)
169,391 Vermont (Burlington, VT  MSA)
172,412 South Dakota (Sioux Falls, SD  MSA)
243,537 Maine (Portland, ME  MSA)
260,283 Alaska (Anchorage, AK  MSA)

*  From Ranking States by City and County Populations (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=569)

States that Meet all Three Criteria:

Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, and Montana.
Title: Comparing Possible Compromise States
Post by: Robert H. on December 11, 2002, 06:23:45 am
Pro and Con[/color]

Weighing the Above Five States in terms of their various amenities (and distinguishing them from one another):

Here are some measurements as taken from the "Accessing the System - Critical to Our Success" thread and the State Data Page.  This is not meant to be all-inclusive.  If have you more pro's and con's for each state, by all means add them and we can create a more comprehensive list.  Also, feel free to group the criteria according to some hierarchy of importance.

Vermont:

Pro:

1.  Lowest overall population (of these five states).
2.  Inexpensive elections (2nd lowest of all ten states).
3.  Canadian border
4.  Proximity to east coast population centers.
5.  Famous "Vermont carry" law.
6.  Low federal dependence (3rd lowest of all ten states).

Con:

1.  High taxes
2.  Poor history of voting for conservative and libertarian candidates (worst of all 10 states).
3.  A more poorly managed government.
4.  Low long-term growth expectation.
5.  2nd highest number of welfare recipients of these five states (2.74% - 16,695 out of 608,827).
6.  Very strong native movement in a state where over 50% of the population is native.
7.  High degree of state-wide land-use planning (2nd highest of the ten states).

North Dakota:

Pro:

1.  Inexpensive elections (lowest of all ten states).
2.  Canadian border.
3.  A large amount of non-government owned land.
4.  Relatively high votes for conservative and libertarian candidates.
5.  Prudently managed government.
6.  Actively trying to keep people in the state.
7.  Low degree of state-wide land-use planning.
8.  Low crime rate (3rd lowest of all ten states).

Con:

1.  Heavily dependent on the federal government (particularly with regard to farm subsidies - worst of all 10 states for dependency).
2.  Over 70% of its population is native.
3.  Remote (even when compared to Vermont and Wyoming though not as much as Alaska).
4.  Notorious for harsh weather conditions.
5.  Low projected job growth (2nd lowest of the ten states).
6.  Missle silos.
7.  Low per capita income (2nd lowest of the ten states).

Alaska

Pro:

1.  Fewest voting-age inhabitants of these five states (2nd lowest of all ten states).
2.  Longest coastline in the United States.
3.  Long border with Canada.
4.  Permanent Fund (this is ify).
5.  No state income tax.
6.  Lowest % of native-born inhabitants of all ten states (38.1%)
7.  Oil reserves could be a basis for autonomy under the right circumstances.
8.  AIP (Alaskan Independence Party) could be a basis for support.
9.  May have claims to autonomy under international law.
10.  Highest per capita income of the ten states.

Con:

1.  Remote.
2.  Very harsh winter conditions (moderate zones in panhandle but high cost of living there).
3.  Higher cost of living due to dependence on shipping.
4.  Heavy military presence/federal dependence.
5.  Growing Green movement/environmental lightening rod.
6.  Oil reserves could be a political lightening rod under the right circumstances.
7.  Highest crime rate of the ten states.

South Dakota:

Pro:

1.  Moderate projected job growth.
2.  Moderate votes for conservative and libertarian presidential candidates.
3.  Low state and local taxes.
4.  Smaller state and local government sector.
5.  Second lowest crime rate of the ten states.

Con:

1.  No border or coastal access.
2.  High campaign expenditures (2nd highest of all ten states).
3.  Lower per capita income.
4.  High % of native born residents (2nd highest of all ten states:  68.1%)

Montana:

Pro:

1.  Relatively strong projected job growth (3rd of the ten states).
2.  Long Canadian border (with most libertarian provinces).
3.  Relatively low state-wide land-use planning.
4.  Moderate climate zones.
5.  Surrounded by friendly (FSP candidate) states.
6.  No state sales tax.

Con:

1.  Relatively high federal dependence (2nd highest of all ten states).
2.  Lowest per capita income of the ten states.
3.  Relatively high crime rate (3rd highest of all ten states).
4.  Highest state and local government sector of the ten states.
5.  Growing Green movement (largest in the western states).
6.  Silos.

Thoughts???
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Robert H. on December 11, 2002, 06:27:22 am
And if compromise states for all FSPer's don't seem to fit the bill, there is still that third option of pursuing a two-state emphasis, which is being discussed here:  http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=779 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=779)

It all really boils down to how important you feel the various criteria are for the prospects of creating a free state, whether or not they should be compromised on, and if so, to what degree.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Anti-Federalist on December 11, 2002, 07:16:48 am
What about a single island/county in Hawaii?  Maybe Maui... (I’m already licensed to practice law there  :))

Pop. approximately 132,000.  Approximate number of Registered Voters equals 73,000.  We could theoretically take control of the County Gov't with less than 20,000 Free State people.

Sixty-one percent of the population is of legal working age (64% of the US population is of working age).

In 1995, the breakdown of ethnicity was 42% White, 19% Filipino, 18% Japanese, 14% Hawaiian, 2% Chinese, and 5% Other (Bisignani, 1995). Because of the influx of immigrants and also a large number of marriages between ethnic lines, it is becoming more difficult to assign people to a single ethnic group.


More demographic info about Maui is available from the Maui County Data Book:
http://www.hawaii-sbdc.org/brl/mcdb/mcdb.htm
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Tyler on December 11, 2002, 11:07:02 am
I hate to pop in to say this, but I think Hawaii was decided against several months ago. I still like Wyoming, though. However, your movement would probably do well in New Hampshire, Montana, or Vermont as well (I'm thinking you folks are just too radical for those in the Dakotas).
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on December 12, 2002, 12:54:45 pm
I think people habitually overanalyse the wrong criteria for choosing a state.  The objective is to get people to move to a state and have a large impact there.  There is no logical reason we need massive amounts of land or a foriegn border but often people seriously get into conversations about these things which I think really don't matter at all.  
The only things that matter are this:

1. Voting population
1. Availability of jobs (this means lots of diversified job meaning a VERY large metropolotin area within commuting distance)

5. Native voting sentiments

The only choices still on the list where this project could possibly suceed are New Hampshire and Delaware.  20,000 People just won't be able to find jobs in their field in Boise.  Sorry guys.  This thing is a pipe dream already with only a small chance for sucess.  Don't crush all hope by picking a place where no one can find jobs.  According the "Western" faction's criteria the surface of the moon would be the best place of all to take over.

-Eddie
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Robert H. on December 12, 2002, 03:01:53 pm
According the "Western" faction's criteria the surface of the moon would be the best place of all to take over.

-Eddie

And what, precisely, is your basis for making such an outlandish statement?
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: NHArticleTen on December 12, 2002, 04:27:01 pm
Personally, we feel very strongly about the Vermont selection...in fact, we may even relocate before it is selected as a target state for FSPers...It is important to us to have both a foreign border and close access to an ocean...Also the unusual fact that Vermont allows true concealed weapons carry following, most accurately, the Second Amendment...Something else that we must consider...even though it's not a "pretty picture"...We must acknowledge the fact that Vermont is very close to other major metropolitan states/areas...This is important because we would be subject to a lower probability of nuclear, biological, or chemical attack due to the close proximity to these major metropolitan areas...and we are talking about attack from "within" our national structure...Randy Weaver and the Branch Dividians both found out the hard way that trying to "get away" from everyone else...makes it much easier for the "powers that be"...to assault and destroy...Sorry to point this out...but we must include all concerns and possible situations in our selection methods...Thanks, Rob and Beth Jacobs - Cincinnati Paraflight,Inc. - www.cincinnatiparaflight.com
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: RgnadKzin on December 12, 2002, 04:36:46 pm
Target map:

http://www.parowanprophet.com/Nuclear_War_Comes/target_map.htm (http://www.parowanprophet.com/Nuclear_War_Comes/target_map.htm)

Fallout map:

http://www.parowanprophet.com/Nuclear_War_Comes/fallout_map.htm (http://www.parowanprophet.com/Nuclear_War_Comes/fallout_map.htm)
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Racer X on December 12, 2002, 05:04:11 pm
Well, I guess none of this really matters anyway.  According to the links posted above, the Russians are going to launch a nuclear first strike before Christmas. :o

Racer X
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Zxcv on December 12, 2002, 05:21:24 pm
Robert, where did you get that Montana has moderate climate zones? The Sunset Western Garden Book puts the entire state in zone 1.

In your general criteria, I can see looking at overall population, or voting age population, but not both (they are pretty redundant).

Quote
A state with at least no MSA smaller than 100,000 and none greater than 300,000.
Don't you mean at least one MSA greater than 100,000 and none over 300,000?

Ugh, who wants to think about compromises? That's no fun.  ;)
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Robert H. on December 13, 2002, 04:05:40 am
Robert, where did you get that Montana has moderate climate zones? The Sunset Western Garden Book puts the entire state in zone 1.

Refer to Joe's maps in the above post.  Wyoming and Montana have the same three zones that New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine do.  North Dakota has only two zones, and of course Alaska has quite a few.  Delaware is solidly in one zone.

Quote
In your general criteria, I can see looking at overall population, or voting age population, but not both (they are pretty redundant).

Joe makes a good point here as well.  Again, see the above post.

Quote
A state with at least no MSA smaller than 100,000 and none greater than 300,000.

Don't you mean at least one MSA greater than 100,000 and none over 300,000?

Yes, I goofed up the wording there.  At least one MSA of 100,000 and none over 300,000.  There are some who feel that a city is not a city unless there's at least 100,000 people there, and anything over 300,000 is just getting too huge, in my opinion.

Such is compromise, which as you state, is no fun.   ;)  The lines you are forced to draw in doing so are far less objective than they might otherwise be.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Kelton on December 13, 2002, 05:34:46 am
John C. Calhoun said, “A defeat on principle is not an overthrow, while a victory by compromise is a defeat.”

Successful selection of any one state is going to result in thousands of compromises by the group and several compromises on our own comfort, even if our favorite state is chosen. Even if we already live in the state that is chosen, we will need to make some personal sacrifices to make this project work!  

There are however, certain principles we should never compromise, one is identifying a culture of liberty:  since we are about 40 years too late for a move of 20,000 to much affect the statewide vote just by moving there,  we should be looking, first and foremost, for that state which will be most responsive to our activism, based on how they already vote, the existing laws of the state, and based on issues most important to the populace.  Based also on how much the populace regards the government as a solver of problems.  
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Kelton on December 13, 2002, 09:31:08 am
Suggestion, officially call the governor of each state now.
Don't just get their spokesperson --- talk to the Governor!
And maybe their Speaker of the House too.

And the State Chamber of Commerce. Get them on your side.
Sell them on the idea that the FSP is bringing them benefits -- jobs, businesses, industry, home construction, etc.
Those states that say "no way in heck are you welcome here" are stricken from the list.
Those that are the most enthusiastic about the movement coming to help their state go to the top of the list.
           

My experience with politicians has been that in person, they usually try to tell you what you want to hear, and rarely give a straight answer.   OK. Joe, but you do bring out an good point and a practical step we could do.

Let's draft a letter, have it sent officially by FSP leadership.  Wait a week.
 Any state that responds immediately scores extra points. Then we all start calling and faxing and demanding a response from the laggards.  Then any responses we post  here for everyone to analyze.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: William Bryan on December 13, 2002, 09:48:09 am
I think they'll treat us more seriously and with more respect if we wait until it looks like we were going to choose the state.  Maybe between 3500 and 4000 signed and sealed as a goal to draft the final revision and send it out.  We'll also have a better idea of the knowledge and skills we'll our membership has to offer and will be able to offer.  Then, after we got 2 or 3 letters back, we could have a group of about 5 people to go meet the people we corresponded with.  
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Zxcv on December 13, 2002, 12:29:51 pm
Quote
Delaware is enviably located in the middle of the country;"
Yeah, but what country?  ;)

I don't know where you guys got that climate zone map. It appears to use a different system than the Western Garden Book, which is as far as I know the real authority in the west. See the reviews on this page:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0376038756/ref%3Dnosim/teijn-20/104-2081885-3531159
Here are their zone maps:
http://www.sunset.com/sunset/Sponsors/Garden/sunsetmonrovia_r1/htmlfiles/zone_map2.html#

As to the total population vs voting age population, I did not mean to say they were perfectly redundant, just that they are close enough that if you are going to pick only 3 criteria to look at, you might find another one a little less tied to the other two. In math terms, you've chosen 2 independent variables, not 3. Of course your choice of variables will certainly scramble the list, so I'm not sure how scientific an exercise this is.  ;)

I'm against sending a letter (unless convinced otherwise) to governors, Chamber of Commerce leaders and the like.

Think of it. Every FSP member gets one little vote about what state we go to, but you are giving governors a veto over the choice all of them make (in effect, anyway). Why would you trust a governor, or a chamber spokesperson, with that much power? These may be the last people we should listen to.

I agree we should hope to find a state where we will be welcomed, but that has little to do whether a particular governor welcomes us. We need to find this information, but let's be a little more creative about digging it out.

Actually, I can't think of a reliable way to do it, at the moment, but I'm pretty sure asking the governor ain't it!

Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: RgnadKzin on December 13, 2002, 01:10:41 pm
I disagree with the premise that we should request "assistance" from the myriad of municipal corporations that masquerade as governments.

I am not in the habit of asking the Beast and its minions for permission to exist.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Robert H. on December 13, 2002, 01:53:12 pm
I don't know where you guys got that climate zone map. It appears to use a different system than the Western Garden Book, which is as far as I know the real authority in the west.

Here's another climate zone map for the entire country showing roughly the same thing (from a different source):

http://www.mooarhillfarm.com/Climate_Zones/climate_zones.html (http://www.mooarhillfarm.com/Climate_Zones/climate_zones.html)
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: redbeard on December 13, 2002, 11:07:19 pm
I have to go with WY. I think the native population is the key to success. If they are put off by 20,00 newbies who don't share their political philosophy it could be disastrous. WY is already a conservative bastion, much more likely to welcome freedom activists. And tough weather is a good thing. It keeps out the riff raff.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Greggers69 on December 13, 2002, 11:32:28 pm
Yes I have to agree with ol redbeard.  I was also looking at the LP home page.  seems to be a good grounded place for everyone and as long as we are freedom lovers and not liberals we will be accepted with graciousness.  Greg ;D
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: TedApelt on December 15, 2002, 05:46:24 pm
I lived in one of the "moderate climate zones" of Montana (Billings), and it was FREEZING.  We had several weeks straight of sub zero weather many times, sometimes going to 40 or 50 below zero.  It was so bad that pipes would freeze even with heat tape around them and heavy insulation around the tape, and this was even when they were kept running to prevent freezing (dosen't work).

True, I would move there if this was the one that was chosen, but I would really prefer Delaware.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Zxcv on December 16, 2002, 12:57:55 am
These places can get cold, but I don't know that they get that cold. Billings had a high of 50 and a low of 33 today.

The average low gets down to 13 degrees F. The record low was -32 F back in 1983:
http://weather.yahoo.com/climo/USMT0031_f.html
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: glen on December 21, 2002, 04:00:38 pm
I am not yet convinced that the relatively high population levels of Idaho will be a barrier to the development of a free state. On the other hand, I am concerned that Wyoming does not offer enough in the way of employment opportunities. On these issues in both states, more facts and strategic thinking are needed.

However, one issue is very clear: the initiative and referendum process is an extremely valuable a tool to have available in the effort to grow a culture of freedom. It is as important as running FSP candidates for office and using the open market to test out alternatives to government power.  

The states with the least restrictive initiative and referendum laws are Idaho and Montana. Unfortunately, Wyoming is one of the states with the most restrictions to this process.

RobertH and Jason have pointed out that if the western FSPers cannot find some a workable compromise the eastern FSPers will win by default.

If Idaho cannot gather enough western support, I am willing to consider Montana as a compromise state.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: JasonPSorens on December 29, 2002, 02:29:06 pm
Actually, the new voting system makes it unnecessary for regional blocs to agree on compromise states.  In fact, trying to do so can hurt you.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: glen on December 29, 2002, 04:52:32 pm
Hi Jason

Well, that’s what I get for using the fallacy of appeal to authority.

Is the new voting method posted and useable for a straw vote?
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Zxcv on December 29, 2002, 05:21:49 pm
glen, I live in the state that uses Initiative and Referendum more than any other (Oregon), and I cannot share your enthusiasm for it, for these reasons:

1) As many (if not more) statist measures get on the ballot as pro-freedom ones.

2) When statist measures pass, they usually have smooth sailing. When pro-freedom ones pass, they are invariably challenged in court and often overturned.

3) There is a potential for very bad measures to pass. One example is what happened in Florida recently (I'm working from memory here) mandating a certain low ratio of students to teachers in govt. schools. Things like these are very expensive and play havoc with any tax-reduction agenda.

4) At least in Oregon, the requirements for passing a measure modifying the constitution are hardly worse than a simple statutory measure. The result is a state constitution with all sorts of ridiculous warts, gargoyles and complexities in it.

Maybe a more detailed analysis would give a different answer, or maybe the character of the state population would affect the value of the initiative process, but for now I am not convinced it is a plus for us.

I'm interested in somehow putting the veto power in peoples' hands, though. That would be interesting to consider.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: JasonPSorens on December 29, 2002, 06:20:23 pm
We don't have a straw poll set up yet, though we hope to get one within a couple of weeks.  There is a ranked-ballot calculator which shows you how our method works:
http://www.onr.com/user/honky98/rbvote/calc.html
On this page our method is called "Simpson."
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: TedApelt on December 30, 2002, 01:30:48 am
glen, I live in the state that uses Initiative and Referendum more than any other (Oregon), and I cannot share your enthusiasm for it, for these reasons:

1) As many (if not more) statist measures get on the ballot as pro-freedom ones.

2) When statist measures pass, they usually have smooth sailing. When pro-freedom ones pass, they are invariably challenged in court and often overturned.

3) There is a potential for very bad measures to pass. One example is what happened in Florida recently (I'm working from memory here) mandating a certain low ratio of students to teachers in govt. schools. Things like these are very expensive and play havoc with any tax-reduction agenda.


Yes, and there was also that stupid train, which was such a bad idea that even the state leglislators were voicing their opposition.

"No new taxes with voter approval" got sunk by the state supreme court - would you believe because of "multiple subjects"???  (The initiative affected all types of taxes, therefore it had multiple subjects!!!)  That was the reason!  I am not making this up!

Ironically, the very same year, another referendum passed that allowed multiple subjects.

On the plus side, we did get Revision 11 through, which allowed all political parties to play by the same rules.

I guess that what I am trying to say is that you get both good and bad with initiatives.  It can get complicated.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Solitar on January 29, 2003, 02:18:42 am
Quote
glen, I live in the state that uses Initiative and Referendum more than any other (Oregon), and I cannot share your enthusiasm for it, for these reasons:
1) As many (if not more) statist measures get on the ballot as pro-freedom ones.
2) When statist measures pass, they usually have smooth sailing. When pro-freedom ones pass, they are  invariably challenged in court and often overturned.
Initiatives are what the activists can make of them, and how well they can educate the voters versus having the voters pushed around by the fear mongers and emotional manipulators.

We in Colorado have had both good and bad. We've had good stuff overturned by the courts. We've had good stuff turned down by the voters because of manipulative and downright lying ads by the opposition. We've had bad stuff passed by the voters. If the electorate have the initiative power, hopefully they know enough to use it wisely.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Zxcv on January 29, 2003, 02:08:57 pm
I have to question that.

I think the initiative 20 years ago was a good deal; a lot of tax limitation measures got passed. But lately, the courts have gotten a lot more brazen in overturning government-limiting measures, so it's the bad measures that predominate. Unless this court bias issue gets cleaned up, I'm thinking the day of the initiative has passed, at least as a check on government.

There was an article in Liberty Magazine 5 or 10 years ago, I wish I could find it, that likened this to an arms race between the pro- and anti-government crowd. First one side dreams up a tool, then after a while the otherside neutralizes it. It's a great way of understanding what is going on over the long term.
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Robert H. on January 30, 2003, 05:57:38 am
I think the initiative 20 years ago was a good deal; a lot of tax limitation measures got passed. But lately, the courts have gotten a lot more brazen in overturning government-limiting measures, so it's the bad measures that predominate. Unless this court bias issue gets cleaned up, I'm thinking the day of the initiative has passed, at least as a check on government.

The initiative process could still be a useful tool if we first addressed the current problems with the judiciary, which are, in my view:



With these two elements under control, the initiative process would become much more viable again.  Any disputes in regard to the government's proper role in a given situation (such as a highly controversial state supreme court decision) should be resolved by the people themselves instead of taking it to the United States Supreme Court.  This would serve as a check on the state judicial process, and would also rob the US Supreme Court of a chance to usurp more 10th amendment liberties from the states and the people.

"But the Chief Justice says, "there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere." True, there must; but does that prove it is either party?  The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States.  Let them decide to which they mean to give authority claimed by two of their organs.  And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force." - Thomas Jefferson
Title: Re:In Search of a Compromise State
Post by: Hank on August 04, 2003, 10:25:43 pm
Redbeard said:
Quote
I have to go with WY. I think the native population is the key to success. If they are put off by 20,00 newbies who don't share their political philosophy it could be disastrous. WY is already a conservative bastion, much more likely to welcome freedom activists. And tough weather is a good thing. It keeps out the riff raff.

The political philosphy of the urban, suburban and north eastern people could be a porcupine disaster in any rural western state.