Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: Zxcv on December 21, 2002, 01:37:25 pm

Title: Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Zxcv on December 21, 2002, 01:37:25 pm
One thing we ought to think about, although it seems impossible to quantify, would be informal immigration.

I'll show an example. I live in Oregon and I know there are a lot of (frustrated) libertarians living here. There's ample evidence of this; for example we recently passed an initiative eliminating regulatory takings (since batted down by the court) and another eliminating asset forfeiture.

Just looking at my state, what do I think the potential is for migrating to Idaho, if it becomes "the state"? Quite large, since it is right next door. Not too far from family and friends, some high-tech industry like Oregon has, so jobs would work out; and Oregonians just like Idaho a lot.

Doesn't Montana have a fair-sized libertarian or freedom-loving population? They'd be attracted to Idaho as well.

Now what is the potential for Oregonian libertarians to migrate to North Dakota, or Delaware? I bet it is much less.

I'm not talking here about our hard-core activists, some of whom would go to the south pole to be free. This is more the "friends of FSP" kind of people, who we also need. Our state will become a beacon of freedom and we need to have a healthy influx of people who are interested in it generally, especially when you consider that our action there might pick the economy up. We don't want to be swamped by job-seeking economic immigrants who don't have a clue about liberty.

The bottom line here is the potential for neighboring-state immigration.

If anyone can quantify this it would be great. My intuition is that Idaho would be a strong draw for the healthy population of libertarians in Oregon and Washington state (those in Spokane could just hop across the border). Vermont would draw NH libertarians, but that might have to wait for NH freedoms to fail over time; while going the other way (VT libertarians migrating to NH if we selected NH) would be more immediate since the socialists in VT are already making a mess of things.

I can't think of any other states that would work as well with this criterion. Looks like Idaho and New Hampshire are the best for it.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: varrin on December 21, 2002, 05:14:39 pm
This is most visible in Nevada.  It is *the* fastest growing state mainly because it's significantly more free than its neighbors, particularly California.

I don't think we'd have too much trouble getting Californians to move to Idaho.  I'm not sure about the rest of the states.  North Dakota is definately a no-no for weather-spoiled Californians.  From my perspective, ID and DE are the only real options from a weather standpoint.  Idaho borders a lot of other states (more than any other FSP candidate, IIRC) and, hence, would have the best odds for neighbor-state draw.

V-

Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: JasonPSorens on December 29, 2002, 02:35:48 pm
Another thing to think about is discouraging non-libertarian immigration.  It seems that statists are drawn to beautiful areas and end up taking them over.  To discourage people from moving to a state just because of the good economy we'll create and the natural beauty, perhaps we should consider choosing a cruddy strip mall state like Delaware or a frozen hell like the Dakotas or Alaska. :P
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Zxcv on December 29, 2002, 04:47:30 pm
Wups, now you've done it! A fan of North Dakota is going to give you hell.

We do have a fan of North Dakota, don't we?  ;)

That problem will exist even if we pick unpretty states, because people follow jobs too. Last I checked, freedom causes jobs...

I think the trick will be to put up barriers so that even if statists come, they won't be able to hurt anything. Constitutionally-protected tax and spending limits, elimination of a property or income tax, that sort of thing.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: MLiq on December 30, 2002, 08:26:33 am
That's exactly right Jason, no one wants to live in Delaware, they just want to establish their companies there for the tax benefits.  If Delaware had many benefits for individuals, people would be more likely to move there, but only for those reasons, because otherwise Delaware is not especially appealling.  On the other hand, it isn't bad weather wise like all the other unappealling places are.  Ugly architecture can be changed, weather patterns cannot.

The point about Oregon is well taken.  However, we should consider that there are probably more frustrated libertarians in NYC than in all of Oregon, just by sheer numbers.  I don't know, but I think having a location within driving distance of a huge swath of the population will pay huge benefits for membership growth and that cuts out all Western states.  This is a make it or break it thing.  If Wyoming is the state, only outdoorsmen gun-rights people will move there and it will turn into a strange militia type organization the government will want to shut down.  We have to stay near urban areas so that we can have a varied membership that includes many professionals and people who are in the mix of power and media and money that goes on in the northeast and controls the whole nation.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Robert H. on December 30, 2002, 09:03:46 am
Another thing to think about is discouraging non-libertarian immigration.  It seems that statists are drawn to beautiful areas and end up taking them over.  To discourage people from moving to a state just because of the good economy we'll create and the natural beauty, perhaps we should consider choosing a cruddy strip mall state like Delaware or a frozen hell like the Dakotas or Alaska. :P

Reminds me of a line from the movie Maverick where an Indian chief threatens to move onto a piece of swamp land next just to keep the white man from taking it from them.   ;D

While we do want people to be drawn to us, I would think we wouldn't want to make it too easy; that way those who do join us will probably be more solidly in line with us.  Otherwise, we're liable to get a lot of immigrants interested in making a fast buck or thinking that we'd protect them while they engage in illegal activities, but not necessarily those interested in contributing to the maintenance of a liberty-oriented society.

This is part of our immigration problem now in the U.S. We have a lot of people coming here because we're the richest nation on earth, not necessarily because they value our heritage or culture, and the net effect is beginning to weaken us.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: redbeard on December 30, 2002, 05:40:08 pm
This is part of our immigration problem now in the U.S. We have a lot of people coming here because we're the richest nation on earth, not necessarily because they value our heritage or culture, and the net effect is beginning to weaken us.

Amen. Like they used to say in MN, the cold keeps out the riff raff. Maybe a tough environ would do the same thing to socialists.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Zxcv on December 31, 2002, 05:42:32 pm
Quote
This is part of our immigration problem now in the U.S. We have a lot of people coming here because we're the richest nation on earth, not necessarily because they value our heritage or culture, and the net effect is beginning to weaken us.

OK, I have to take a whack at this one.

I've known a lot of immigrants in my time. Yes, some are socialists (just like the rest of the population), but some are the exact opposite. My wife's parents were driven out of China by the communists, and you can bet she's not one! (That was actually a favor in disguise for them, because they missed fun things like the Great Proletarian Revolution.)

I had a conversation with a friend of mine, who talked about his friend, a Mexican who had his own business doing yard work, good old-fashioned manual labor. This guy told my friend, "America is wonderful! There's money all around here, just laying on the ground. All you have to do is bend down and pick it up!" I had another conversation with a recent Russian immigrant, who said something like "I love this place, you can go into a store and buy anything you want!" He too had his own business.

Personally, I think the real problem with socialists are the home-grown ones. The ones who have never had a child go hungry because of a completely broken economic system; the ones who have not had a boot on their neck. It's luxury that makes socialism possible, luxury and ignorance.

Let's not be too hard on our immigrants.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Robert H. on January 01, 2003, 04:56:49 am
Let's not be too hard on our immigrants.

I'm not trying to be hard on immigrants per se, but I am concerned about growing trends with regard to those immigrants who are coming in today.  Many coming up illegally from Mexico are hard workers, but it sits badly with me that their first act upon our country's soil is a flagrant violation of its laws.  Then we have the problems caused by non-citizen, non-English speaking children in the school systems, etc.

At one point in this country's history, people who came to our shores came here to be Americans.  Now it seems that they're coming and setting up special interest groups that issue demands or otherwise lobby for special favors.  I understand that this doesn't apply to a large number of them who do come here for freedom; coming from an area where there are enormous numbers of resident aliens (legal and illegal alike - the Washington metro area), I've seen both.

I used to work as an automobile insurance claim representative investigating vehicle accidents in Northern Virginia (where there is an exponentially growing hispanic community).  One of the things that used to really upset me was when a hispanic policyholder (living and working in the US for years) would describe the other person who was involved in accident (if they were white) as "an American."  I thought it spoke volumes about what they thought of themselves as well as those around them, and I heard this reference used constantly.

I guess we're straying off the topic here, but I just wanted to clarify that I am not "anti-immigrant."   :)  I just think it's alarming that so many are refusing to integrate into our culture today, and I see this already beginning to weaken us as a country.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Zxcv on January 01, 2003, 01:19:33 pm
Quote
I guess we're straying off the topic here, but I just wanted to clarify that I am not "anti-immigrant."    I just think it's alarming that so many are refusing to integrate into our culture today, and I see this already beginning to weaken us as a country.

Maybe its because our culture is no longer attractive to them.

People used to love to become American, because that was synonymous with being free. Now it just means being another member of a command-from-the-top statist nation, just like another part of Europe.

If we ever rid ourselves of this statist nonsense, you will see a lot more of what we used to see in immigrants, people coming to be free.

BTW, remember the "official" libertarian position is open borders. I don't actually agree with that completely, I thought I'd just bring the point up...

Anyway, we will have the same problem in our free state: how to encourage immigration of freedom-seekers while discouraging statists.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Robert H. on January 02, 2003, 05:45:39 am
Anyway, we will have the same problem in our free state: how to encourage immigration of freedom-seekers while discouraging statists.

For the moment, I imagine all we can really do is chose what most people would consider a more inhospitable or remote location.  That way, those who join us are more likely to do so because they really identify with us and our efforts.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Zxcv on January 02, 2003, 12:08:35 pm
Actually, elimination of government programs will itself discourage some socialists. If there's no slop trough to feed at, they will go somewhere else.

Our state needs to get a certain reputation (one the "caring classes" would consider to be unsavory). People need to know when they come here, they are on their own.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: freedomroad on January 03, 2003, 06:00:17 am
Our state needs to get a certain reputation (one the "caring classes" would consider to be unsavory). People need to know when they come here, they are on their own.

What you describe is the exact opposite of VT.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: freedomroad on January 04, 2003, 03:46:12 pm
Quote
Our state needs to get a certain reputation (one the "caring classes" would consider to be unsavory). People need to know when they come here, they are on their own.  
Quote
What you describe is the exact opposite of VT

I don't mean to insult anyone, but I can't help but think of some of these types of posts as a little childish.


I am not insulted.  People actually move to VT (and CA) because the states provide a lot more welfare to people than most states.  I've been to VT and I have seen the street people.  Even the churches in Burlington area (I have not been to churches in other parts of the state) are very liberal and do a great deal to encourage the street people.  For decades my grandmother’s church would let these people sleep inside the church at night but after years of problems the church quit that failed program.  VT also has very socialized med.

Quote
Some of the posters here need to realize that their libertarian paradise already exists.  It's called Somalia, or maybe Afghanistan.  No laws, no healthcare, no public schools, no zoning, no lawyers, and you can blow up whatever you want.  Oh, and here's a bonus, it looks like the Western U.S. (and I bet the land's cheap). ;D

I have read 1/2 a dozen or so stories about how things are getting better in a certain parts of Somalia.  About how services like phone cost less than they used to and work better.  However, even those parts of the place still have increased crime rates while much of the rest of the country is doing very poorly in most regards.  I did not know that any libertarians were trying to influence Afghanistan like many libertarians are working with parts of Somalia.

Quote
I'm all for reduced government, but I'm not for turning America into the third world.  

I cannot agree with you more.  I do not want America to become like much of Africa and Latin America.

Quote
For example, how about tax credits or rebates for health insurance rather than throwing people on the street.

I am not sure what this means.  In America we have socialized med.  This means that anyone with a life threatening problem must be treated by the nearest hospital.

When I worked with the special burn care unit of the hospital at Ft. Sam Houston, TX (inside the San Antonio area) we would treat almost everyone we had space for.  We did this free of charge to the mostly Hispanic clients.  Yes, even if they person had no money, future promise of money, or i.d.

In TN, there is a program where almost 1/4 of the people of TN (even illegal aliens) are on state care.  Everyone that is middle income or less may have state care.  The less money someone makes the less it costs.  Many people get it free.  Also, most of the companies like Wal-mart and Costco provide insurance to there employees, in TN.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Zxcv on January 04, 2003, 10:24:02 pm
Yes, the medical establishment is by now a quasi-governmental agency. That's why it has gotten so expensive.

"Tax credits" and "rebates" are leftist-speak for subsidies. You know, welfare. RacerX, I think you can be pretty sure FSP will not institute new welfare programs - even if we end up in Vermont. They are just not our thing.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Robert H. on January 05, 2003, 05:47:05 am
I don't mean to insult anyone, but I can't help but think of some of these type of  posts as a little childish.  Some of the posters here need to realize that their libertarian paradise already exists.  It's called Somalia, or maybe Afghanistan.  No laws, no healthcare, no public schools, no zoning, no laywers, and you can blow up whatever you want.  

To date, I have not seen all that many pure anarchists in the FSP; I think that most people realize that pure libertarianism and anarchy won't work.  No laws?  Certainly we need laws.  Freedom can only exist in the true sense if it is defended as being a corporate extension of individual right.  The alternative is either tyranny or vigilantism, both of which will ultimately destroy the very thing they are instituted to protect.

Public healthcare (I assume you mean "public" here), and public schools?  This is a totally different issue.  These things are not established as extensions of individual rights, they are established as infringements upon individual rights in the name of corporate philanthropy and "the general welfare."  My parents sent me to private schools all of my life, but this didn't stop the state from taxing them for public education (money they could have really used, by the way).  But they weren't using the system; why should they have had to pay for it?  This amounted to an infringement on their individual rights to keep what they earned.  The same thing would apply to healthcare.

I'm not an anarchist, and I don't advocate tearing down these systems over night and "throwing" anyone into the street.  But to my way of thinking, part of working for a free society is scaling back these "forced philanthropic" and "general welfare" schemes until we can ultimately get rid of them, at least at the state level.

We've discussed "communes" to some extent on these threads before, and it's possible that some counties might vote to continue public education or provide for public healthcare at the general expense of tax payers within their boundaries.  That's fine by me because it's a matter of choice.  Right now though, we have no choice at all, and that is what matters most to me.  There should also be havens for those who object to such coercion, and I think that both of these may naturally develop over the course of time.  Again, the key element would be that state government didn't force the same agenda on everyone.

Quote
I'm all for reduced government, but I'm not for turning America into the third world.  For example, how about tax credits or rebates for health insurance rather than throwing people on the street.

Zack Bass would be ashamed of me, but I would say that any attempts to scale back or eliminate these systems should certainly be incremental, and that we should be working diligently at finding market solutions.  For one thing, tax reductions should greatly assist the average person in being able to afford that which they otherwise would not be able to.  The methods that you suggest still employ government control in an area that I think government ought not to be involved, but they may represent examples of such incremental steps as may be necessary to transition to a state where individual communities would be granted the freedom to decide these matters for themselves.  At the very, very least, we would need individual opt-outs to be available.

Quote
At the risk of drawing some flames, I have to say that the Western FSPers still seem to cling to romantic or survivalist fantasies, while ignoring the enormous federal dependance of the western states.  The people pushing for the East(even those against Vermont)seem to be much more realistic, IMHO.

Well, until now, I hadn't seen anyone, east or west, advocating the continuation of "forced philanthropic" or "general welfare" programs as being a permanent part of our entire society.  I haven't see anyone here who advocates a western state "clinging to romantic or survivalist fantasies" either, but maybe I missed something and you can point out an example.  And the homesteading issue (if that's what you're thinking about) is not a survivalist fantasy; it's about getting "off the grid," not going into the bunker with Eva and Adolf.   ;)

If, on the other hand, what you say is true, and many here do wish to see such programs continued at the forced expense of the entire tax-paying population, then I would say that they're "clinging" to statism.  If so, then we have a serious ideological breach here, and FreedomRoad's suggestion for splitting our efforts between left and right libertarian state efforts is the correct one.  Otherwise, we'll ultimately end up fighting one another, dividing our ranks, and marginalizing ourselves by our own hand.

If this is the case, maybe we need to set up a poll and try to determine this right now because I believe the FSP is currently laboring under the assumption that this is not the case.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Newt on January 05, 2003, 12:22:28 pm
If this is the case, maybe we need to set up a poll and try to determine this right now because I believe the FSP is currently laboring under the assumption that this is not the case.

I've seen a number of transitionary state arguments such as you have made, but I haven't seen anyone ague for the eventual state to run social service programs, ect.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: ida dawn on January 09, 2003, 03:02:32 am
My two twenty cents :

Seems that there are three important characteristics for informal immigration, as well as for FSP migration :
 whether the place is inhospitable or attractive, and in what way, and to whom.

 I am not convinced that bad weather is needed to weed out the unserious.  In spite of the fact that they have worse weather (numbers don't relay wind chill and sudden change like the real thing), would I go from MN to ND or SD, IF they were seen to be the best choice ?  Yes; it's close to home.  Would folks come from far western MT ?  Maybe.  From WI, where I suspect there a many libertarians ?  Yes.

  My guess would be that distance from friends and relatives would be a more important factor, especially for the non-FSP folks. Those from the east coast or the west coast who are non-FSP may not move the distance. So there may be some value in proximity. if we can get  a handle on the  numbers of probable joiners in nearby states.

I  believe  there is a more important kind of attractiveness, for the wrong kind of immigrants, as Zxcv says, a "slop trough to feed at." Example : MN has spent  30 years determining the threshold level of welfare payments which would get people to come to the frozen North from Chicago, Gary, and Milwaukee. When they found out what that level was, they decided to see what level of payment was required to get people to come from West VA, and St.Louis.  (We are told Greyhound had to add extra runs to some of these cities on the days prior to check dispersals.) Eventually, of course, it was just easier for them to stay here. So people WILL put up with very cold weather, far colder than they would otherwise accept, when motivated.  

Bad weather is not needed as a disincentive as there will  be migration out from a properly run state.  However,  making a state inhospitable for economic/philosophic undesirables will be difficult in a place where many of the inhabitants are not of a freedom mindset.   Which is why I am not in favor of many of the eastern states: the battle to become  "unattractively" free will be severe and the effort will be endless, given the mindset of the surrounding neighborhood.  

Those who want all the advantages of living  near a huge city which is in large part dependent on a massive government apparatus are possibly unwilling to make the FSP their first priority. Strict opportunists will certainly be a help, but  our core must be comprised of those with strong principles.  For  non-FSP immigration,  just as surely as for FSP success,  we should try to be near those whose principles are more near our own.  

As an aside, before I heard of the FSP, I was searching for the most hospitable state for a person who is tired of the socialists of the north country (McGovern, Daschle, two Mondales, Wellstone, MN Public Radio, et al), while also finding weather that is less severe.  My conclusion : Wyoming. Though my mind is open, after reading all the posts here.  

So to MLiq (Dec. 30)  : Not everyone going to WY would fit your stereotype. I am fond of walking in the woods and fields, but certainly do not think of myself as a gun-toting outdoorsman  about to be sucked into a rabid militia group.    :D   I tend toward Shakespearean comedy and tragedy, and musicals, and the St.Paul Chamber Orchestra, and books.  As to "a varied membership that includes many professionals"....I once lived in a town of 1,000 that had nearly a dozen doctors and about seven lawyers and lots of professional transplants from Chicago.   Course I thought the place was boring because there were no Great Books Discussion Groups....  :)















Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Robert H. on January 12, 2003, 05:59:03 am
I  believe  there is a more important kind of attractiveness, for the wrong kind of immigrants, as Zxcv says, a "slop trough to feed at."

Welcome, Ida Dawn!   :)

In regard to the "wrong kind of immigrants," I think that there are basically two types that will be attracted to the free state:

1.  Those who just want to make a fast buck off of a growing economy.
2.  Those engaging in illegal activities who think we'll cover for them.

Both types are opportunistic groups that must be discouraged if their activities threaten our objectives.  I have less of a problem with the first group as I fully understand the desire to make money, and they could contribute to our economy - as long as they don't try to undermine the foundation of liberty we're working to establish.  The greatest danger they'd represent is forming a class of persons who employ significant portions of the voting population.  If they're not liberty-minded, they may try to use government to protect their business interests against competition, and their efforts could spur their employees to activism in the hope of cashing in on the benefits.

If we've managed a sufficient level of reforms to accomplish heating up the economy though, we should also be able to enact provisions to prevent corporate welfare and such, so I don't consider this group to be as much of a threat as the latter.  We'd be most at risk of this sort of problem cropping up in the beginning of an economic growth spurt due to outside investors and entrepreneurs throwing their hats into the ring before we've had a real chance to fully institute other necesssary measures.  So we should do our very best to attract liberty-oriented business owners and entrepreneurs first if at all possible.

The second group could represent a significant threat to us by ushering in federal action or bad publicity, or possibly undermining the voting population's confidence in us (if they think their children, or their own well-being, are at stake).  Let's face it:  if we're emphasizing liberty and personal freedom above all, then we are at risk of nefarious groups setting up in our midst to take advantage of that.  It's one of the risks that make true freedom so unacceptable to so many, in my opinion.  They love the idea of freedom for themselves, but they just don't trust others with it, and don't want to risk the possible consequences of it.

We must do whatever we can to discourage such groups from setting up shop in our state in the belief that they can best hide out there.  At the very least, we risk the possibility of an undesirable element growing in our midst, and at most, we risk action being taken against us on the grounds that we're a lawless state.  Even if the feds are not a concern here, such a perception could lead to the loss of business, tourism, etc.  After all, even if we are successful in setting up a free state, we still have to deal with the fact that we'll be surrounded by a world that doesn't think like us, and may never think like us no matter how much we demonstrate the value and impact of freedom.

It'll take us enough to time as it is just to try and influence the next generation within our own borders.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Zxcv on January 12, 2003, 01:50:59 pm
Robert, one example of a solution to the problem you mention would be to keep penalties there for export across state lines, of drugs, at the same time we are working toward decriminalizing them internally. I don't know how that would fly constitutionally, but it's something to think about.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Robert H. on January 13, 2003, 06:46:59 am
Robert, one example of a solution to the problem you mention would be to keep penalties there for export across state lines, of drugs, at the same time we are working toward decriminalizing them internally. I don't know how that would fly constitutionally, but it's something to think about.

Constitutionally speaking, the crossing of state borders would certainly come under federal jurisdiction.  So, if we prosecuted someone for transporting something across state lines, the feds would the right to take the case from us if they wished and prosecute it themselves.

At the same time though, we could certainly work to discourage it in some way.  I just can't think of anything off-hand that would prevent transporting items across state lines without setting up checkpoints and invading privacy without probably cause - which probably wouldn't be practical on interstate highways even if we wanted to do it.

I suppose we could regulate certain substances even if they were decriminalized (specifically to keep them from being transported out of state), but then we'd have our own scaled-down version of the drug war and invasion-of-privacy issues to contend with.  Quite a Catch 22, isn't it?

Any ideas?
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Zxcv on January 13, 2003, 01:59:10 pm
No. But this is off-topic, so that's a good reason to drop it.  ;)
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Zxcv on January 15, 2003, 04:17:36 pm
Quote
Some libertarians seem to love the idea of no government, but places with no government tend to be hellholes.

This sounds like a logical fallacy to me; perhaps the "fallacy of exclusion"? http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/exclus.htm

Just because various places in the world (which were hellholes even when they had government) remain hellholes without it, does not mean that would be the case were it tried with the proper culture (one of freedom and respect for others) or with the proper tools (Internet, guns, libraries, etc.)

I don't claim a decent anarchism is as easy as falling off a log, but I don't eliminate it as impossible either. On even numbered days I am an anarchist, odd numbered days a minarchist. Are you either of those, Racer?

Quote
tax credits or rebates for health insurance rather than throwing people on the street

My comment was a linguistic one. Don't use orwellian terms for subsidies, it just confuses the debate. BTW, the above is a logical fallacy called "false dilemma" http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.htm

As to people without insurance clogging emergency rooms with sort throats and runny noses, throw them out! Or at least charge them before serving them. The reason we have these problems is because insurance is not used the way it was intended to be. Its original intent was to share the risk for unusual, terrible events - not as simple pre-paid medical care. As Mises said, shortage of any resource is a sure sign it is not priced correctly.

Quote
Western FSPers still seem to cling to romantic or survivalist fantasies

Here's your flame: you are the one with the fantasy, a paranoid fantasy about westerners. You'd better not come to Wyoming...

The dependence on fed subsidies is not being ignored. That is the prime reason SD and MT don't get much play here.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Robert H. on January 16, 2003, 08:45:06 am
Quote
RobertH, if you can't find examples of extremism in the pro-west FSPers, you're not looking very hard.

RacerX, I think you may be trying a bit too hard.  Yes, the group that Exitus referred to is controversial, and he stated as much in the following:

Quote
His following is about as diverse as this group, there are soccer-mom homeschoolers to objectivists to pro-militia groups hanging around that water-cooler, they share having read something by Mr. Skousen.  Sometimes the group is a little loopy, and they like to dwell on preparing for calamities, UN police state/ New World Order/ conspiracy ideas.

Exitus clearly stated that "sometimes the group is a little loopy," and then provided examples.  I think the basic idea he was intending by providing that link was that we might still find a few good apples on even a generally loopy tree.  After all, there are people out there who may be confused about various issues and looking for some viable answers.  Sometimes when people are highly upset about something (such as creeping socialism), they'll display some extreme reactions and ideas concerning what to do about it.  We could help some of those kinds of people sort things out a bit.

What I objected to in your original post was this:

Quote
"I have to say that the Western FSPers still seem to cling to romantic or survivalist fantasies, while ignoring the enormous federal dependance of the western states."

This language seems to be an attempt to paint the entire western FSP contingent with one broad, extremist brush-stroke.  If what you say were true, then you'd see this forum filled with threads on militarism, how to build your own bombs, etc (evidence of the extremism you claim is so prevalent).  Instead, you've pointed to a few threads on secession and how to deal with the feds.  Sure, there've been a few pro secession NOW types who have come here, but you'll notice that they've been rather quickly disappointed with us and don't bother to come around much anymore.  You'll also notice that various prominent pro-westerners were involved in arguing against their ideas.  

The same thing applies to the feds.  Concerns have been voiced over what part they could potentially play, but this is hardly a number one topic of discussion, nor has it been all that militant in general.  Again, the militants have mostly been run off; often by pro-westerners.  And they usually preferred to push Alaska, not one of the more popular western choices.

I'd also remind you that secession has been mentioned more than once with regard to New England as well, including Vermont.  In fact, there have been suggestions that they are actually superior for the purposes of secession because no western candidate state (other than Alaska) has a coastline.

And as it stands, the FSP itself is viewed an extremist organization even in the eyes of some libertarians and conservatives who seem to think we're trying to start a cult.  We're going to have to deal with that stigma as best we can until we have an opportunity to prove otherwise by our actions.

Quote
As far as your comment about "forced philanthropy", does that mean you would not support my bare minimum example?  If so, I would love to hear how you would sell that to mainstream voters, in any state.  I still think most people here think we're moving to an empty state.

I would support it as a stepping stone to working for a state where no one was forced to pay for social programs, which I believe government has no business being involved in managing.  But I would not support it as an end in and of itself.  Incrementalism is another thing, and your thoughts might possibly be a useful idea for getting where we eventually want to go.

Are you libertarian, Racer?  Or even conservative?  I ask because of your comments about appealing to "mainstream" voters and turning America into a "third-world country."  These are usually phrases used by leftist-"progressive" types.  You may be a left libertarian, and that's fine; I was just curious.  Overall though, I don't think you'll find many here who are in favor of such things; nor do I think it is hopeless to pursue a long-term Jeffersonian agenda aimed at eliminating welfare and other forms of good-intentioned redistribution.  Jeffersonian ideals have not been given much of a fair airing-out since the founding of this country, and I believe that we will eventually be able to appeal to many voters, if for no other reason than because we will offer them the chance to protect themselves from the whims of others.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Kelton on January 16, 2003, 10:47:43 am
RoberH--
I resist being labeled Jeffersonian even though I cherish most of  T.J.'s writings.  Mostly because too many people do not have an understanding of historical context.  Also, revisionist and skewed- viewpoint history combined with just plain ignorance might paint me as racist or even pro-slavery and isolationist or pro-public education (Jefferson was a man of some contradictions, he actually did support many public school initiatives in Virginia that were contrary to his core philosophies).        
 Saying this was not meant to be off-topic, no, rather to illustrate the many problems we have with labels:

I am personally aware of many successful California business-persons moving to Idaho, Utah and Nevada to escape the failed socialism of California, but I also observe that many people like this tend to demand the same socialist tendencies in a smaller degree after relocating.  
(I know this general topic has been discussed around here already, but one more point to show where I'm going with this, if you please . . .)
I know of many people on the religious- right who instantly go into authoritarian, non-thinking lock-down at the prospect of voting for a pro-life candidate, even though they may be pro- homeschool, pro- gun, anti- socialism, and pro-freedom on so many issues.  I also understand many people vote for Democrats only because of the abortion issue too.

 What the pro-freedom movement needs to do is shed labels in general and re-frame the issues and let people understand what kind of MONSTERS they are voting for when they vote single-issue.

Not as a plug for Idaho, but to demonstrate my point, I fully believe that Idaho could readily become a free state with enough properly- focused activism on everything libertarians in general wish,  well. . . some sticking-points there might be  abortion, possibly some public-land issues and maybe certain worker- protection laws.  ---But I say this because of the way that Idaho people tend to think in general, both the native population and the recent 'strategic re-locators' but then the way they tend to not think in general when they get near a ballot-box and see that Republican label.

I think we are going to have to resist being labeled pro-drug, pro- gun or pro- anything, but instead repeat the mantra of pro- freedom for individuals in an effort to garner support and understanding on our other issues, particularly those issues that are 'sticking-points' on issues particular to the state we chose.
Something like instead of being for 'gun-rights' being 'pro-freedom, meaning pro- self defense' focusing on the right of people and not the thing intended, but this topic I bring here needs to go up somewhere else, so I'll quit now.  And by the way, maybe I did intend to put-in a plug for Idaho after all, I really do like that state :)

     
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Robert H. on January 17, 2003, 03:56:34 am
RoberH--
I resist being labeled Jeffersonian even though I cherish most of  T.J.'s writings.  Mostly because too many people do not have an understanding of historical context.  Also, revisionist and skewed- viewpoint history combined with just plain ignorance might paint me as racist or even pro-slavery and isolationist or pro-public education (Jefferson was a man of some contradictions, he actually did support many public school initiatives in Virginia that were contrary to his core philosophies).        
  What the pro-freedom movement needs to do is shed labels in general and re-frame the issues and let people understand what kind of MONSTERS they are voting for when they vote single-issue.

Yes, Jefferson was a man of some contradictions at times.  I suppose that in our reverence of the Founding Fathers, we sometimes forget that they were all too human.  After having drafted a document that explicitly limited government to various enumerated powers, some of them almost immediately took up trying to get around its various provisions to advance their own agendas.  Hamilton did this for one, and has been praised for it in various circles.  Joseph Ellis, in his book Founding Brothers takes up the familiar, statist view that men like Jefferson who insisted upon strict construction were actually obstructionists who stood in the way of the federal government's natural rise to power and America's natural rise to greatness in the world.  He doesn't put it quite like that, but that's still not very far off at all, and I believe it is actually quite a fair representation of what he intends to convey in his book.

I do prefer the "Jeffersonian" label to "libertarian" though because most Americans do not readily believe the ideas that revisionists have been trying to champion in regard to Jefferson and the other Founders (as much as most of them have probably thought about it, that is).  Most still see Jefferson as just being the author of the Declaration of Independence and a man who believed in limited government.  He owned slaves, that is true, but most understand that this was a common contradiction of the Revolutionary generation that had raised its banner on the right of all men to be free and equal.  They may not understand it, but most of them don't appear all that worked up over it either.

Ultimately, I feel that we must stand firmly behind some given set of principles in spite of how they are labeled by our opposition, and one tactic that we can use in doing so is a very strong, very public refusal to be labeled by anyone else in the first place.  We ought not to play word games with our enemy's dictionary.  Otherwise, they'll label our plans to privatize education as being "anti-poor" or "leaving some children behind," and we'll be forced to choose a new label for our plans, one that they will promptly brand with the very same epithets, causing us to retreat once again in search of a new identity.

"Libertarian" currently comes with so much familiar, modern baggage that I would discourage its use outside of libertarian circles for fear that it simply causes the average mind to slam shut with a "no soliciting" sign on the door.  "Jeffersonian," on the other hand, although familiar to the American lexicon already, is not currently in wide use in any meaningful way, but still conveys the power of the Jefferson name in relation to all things fundamentally American.  We could pick up this label and defend it as being the essence of the vast majority of Jefferson's political philosophy while still acknowledging the imperfections of the man himself.

And Jefferson's name, while occasionally the center of controversy, is otherwise so commonly tied to the defense of state's rights and limited government that using it amounts to waving a crucifix in the face of the statist Dracula.  It gets about the same reaction too.   ;D  No other Founder's name gets quite that much of a rise out of the Left, and I think that this may be a good bit of the reason why so many are now so quick to try and re-write the life and legacy of Jefferson.  It's their way of trying to come to terms with their own personal boogeyman.

That's why I refer to myself as a "Jeffersonian."  It amounts to being a libertarian to a great degree, but it doesn't immediately alienate so many who might otherwise be sympathetic.  It also references the listener/reader back to the time of America's founding, and thus, to her founding ideals.  As for those who are not sympathetic anyway, his name might as well be Mr. Cold Shower.  Using his name with a statist is much like sneaking up behind someone and yelling "Boo!"  It's good for a grin at the very least, especially when they so richly deserve it.   ;D

Anyway, I didn't mean to write a book here.  The "Jeffersonian" label is just a personal preference.   ;)
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Kelton on January 17, 2003, 06:03:36 am
I wonder sometimes if the Intermountain West isn't experiencing a surge of Jeffersonian- minded individuals already making a migration ahead of the FSP, trying to escape the dens of failed socialism, (albeit they still carry the baggage of a certain amount of 'mini-statist' contradictions and expectations with them).  I have observed it personally and now I read this article by Joel Kotkin, entitled,  "A Valhalla unwilling to face the future?" on Colorado Central Magazine, dated June 1996.
http://www.cozine.com/archive/cc1996/00280137.htm (http://www.cozine.com/archive/cc1996/00280137.htm)

Some excerpts:

This rural population shift is also having an impact on the political arena. Traditionally, political scientists have thought the migration of Easterners to the South or Californians to the Intermountain West would bring a more centrist or even left-wing political flavor to those conservative strongholds. With their urban sensibilities, the thinking went, they would help "tame" the traditional conservatism of these regions.

"In the past, even right-leaning Utah would back moderate Democrat Scott Matheson. But today's flood of in-migrants, notes the Wayne Brown Institute's Bertoch, have tipped the scales distinctly toward the right. Utah's politics, like that in North Carolina, Idaho, and other Valhallan states, reflect a more conservative monoculture than at any time in recent history."

"You think you're getting liberals going out here but for every one liberal you're getting 20 conservatives," Bertoch says.



I detect a certain amount of cynicism in the author (being a cynic myself at times) and a certain bent on equating the 'flight to rural' with racism.  I also note that someone I once used to follow in the news, --I do not support him-- and that person is colonel Bo Gritz, (he helped negotitate the remaining Randy Weaver family out for the FBI because he was their hero) was mentioned in the same race paragraph which would make you assume he was racist.  I wish to point out that Bo Gritz, while certainly a survivalist- militia- type leader, is not a racist.  His whole family was adopted from southeast asia and he speaks out against racism.  (He also ran on a presidential campaign of abolishing the federal reserve and restoring liberty and gained tens of thousands of votes in Utah and Idaho).[/i]


One more plug for Idaho, if you please, from the article:
As Larry Echohawk, a Democrat who lost his 1994 bid for the governor's job in Idaho, puts it: "Idaho is what America once was, and what the rest of the nation now wants to be."
   
Title: Re:Potential for informal immigration... and best state
Post by: DadELK68 on January 17, 2003, 08:15:58 am
I agree that Idaho and NH are probably two of the best choices - of course, having grown up in ID and now living in NH, I can't say that I'm completely unbiased!

One point you made about which I would raise concerns - while the FSP is focused on shifting the balance in one state, in order to allow that one state the freedom required (without excessive federal intervention) to demonstrate the principles of a free society, there still has to be enough presence/force of the movement in other states to elect relatively benign candidates at the federal level.

In other words, it would be most important (and, given the relative level of frustration likely) to draw FSP supporters from states where they already have the least influence, while not drawing too many from states where they have the most influence. It may be counterproductive to strengthen the movement in one state while weakening it nationally in any significant way, making it more difficult for that one state to implement changes consistent with a free society.

If Idaho is selected, I suspect that many in MT and WY would feel that they are close enough (and not too dissatisfied with their lot) - but FSP supporters in WA, OR, CA, NV, CO and other Western states who are more frustrated (and less effective due to relative numbers) would be more likely to jump at the opportunity.

Similarly, if NH is selected, FSP supporters from all over the Northeast and into the Mid-atlantic states and even the midwest (remember that distances out here seem different - in the 9 hours it took us to drive from the Boise area to visit my brother in Portland OR, out here I could start in ME and drive through parts of NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, and into MD) would be most likely to jump at the move, and because ME and VT are more evenly split between conservatives and socialists (with VT having been tipped to the left by the socialist influx of the last 20 years or so) there would either be migration from these states or an 'overflow' effect which might tip them more toward freedom, strengthening the movement in the region.

This is one of my arguments in favor of NH - the movement (notice, I'm not talking about the Libertarian movement - while the FSP is largely dominated at this point by 'capital L Libertarians', if it's going to succeed it has to attract many more 'small l libertarians') is already stronger in the West, and therefore people may be less likely to want to move from those Intermountain states. If one of the Western states is selected and many people move from the East - particularly Northern New England, which is the 'freest' region left out here - in essence it's as if we're abandoning the East and retreating into the mountains to consolidate our forces.

As far as I'm concerned, if we can draw enough people (20,000) to NH as the first choice, then the best thing that could happen would be for those remaining who indicate that they will only move to a Western state to move the the runner-up state, which I think should be ID, MT or WY (probably in that order).

I know that we're not advocating a 2-state approach, but practically speaking I suspect that's what will end up happening. Therefore, the best thing for the movement nationally is to have NH win the vote as 'the free state' with one of those three Western states coming in second.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: ida dawn on January 19, 2003, 12:29:49 am
Exitus  --

Thanks for the reference to the Colorado Central Magazine article. It't very informative, and one certainly does get a feel for the author's bias. I wonder whether anyone has done a more complete and more recent survey on the cultural (philosophical) migrations.


If it is true that such people already have been migrating in large numbers to the mountain states, and if it is true, as he surmises, that the intellectual, commercial, and technological capital will stay mainly on the urban coasts, then it may be more important than I at first thought to have access to a border.  Still, that assumes an eventual total breakdown in relations with those other areas of the country, or the Feds.

Thanks to all of you for your intelligent thoughts.  
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Kelton on February 20, 2003, 06:14:04 pm
In regards to informal in-migration, there seems to be another aspect that may be even more powerful than actually moving people into a free state, and that is moving money into the free state.

Look at all of the examples in Delaware, Oregon, New Hampshire, The Internet, and other places of where people come and shop in tax-free zones.  Look at how entrepreneurs set up their businesses along the borders of states to take advantage of the tremendous arbitrage of laws between states.  Border cities in the desert built just for gambling in Nevada is one example.  Wyoming has fireworks stands at every border town.  The huge shopping malls in Wilmington are strategically located along the borders.

Now look at all of the off-shore countries like Bermuda with strong and growing banking businesses.  Consider Switzerland and Luxembourg and Australia with more bars of gold in their vaults than there are people in the country.  Then consider all of the ships owned by U.S. companies but registered in Liberia.  

Then consider that the single largest aircraft registration state is Nevada, and all of the tremendous number of businesses registered in Nevada and Delaware.  Wyoming has recently become one of the most strongest contenders for corporate registrations, as several online incorporation sites reveal.  Then there used to be a tremendous amount of people in the West who registered their cars in Idaho and Oregon because of the low registration taxes, most especially in Idaho, where they do not require an inspection; that was until other states started raising the fines for improperly doing so.  And the lawmakers in California are not entirely stupid , recently passing laws to promote stem-cell research.

With all of the above ideas in mind, consider a very important consideration more important than actual libertarian migration :

Every campaign season, there are many high-profile state political races that bring in lots of out-of state money.  One was the one that senator Clinton won, but then there are many that are not so high profile:  I remember sending about $5 to a campaign in Vermont between a Libertarian and a gun-grabbing Republican back in 1996, --I don't remember any other details, anyways some gun-rights group recommended sending the money and that was it.  Then my dear old New Deal Democrat grandmother sends a $10 check to any group out there that asks for it, provided that they put the words "Social Security" on the request.

The fact of the matter is that money moves faster than people.  This may be especially true in our case, where we will be less than 20,000 members strong for the first five years after organizing, and just getting started for all of that time and for several years beyond.  We will need to be raising campaign funds for years before all 20,000 members and other informal participants move with us, because our enemies surely will be raising that money, especially with something so high-profile as the Free State Project.  It will undoubtedly catch nationwide attention when we attain 20,000 members all ready to move.  All of these factors will surely raise the bar of campaign spending in our state.

For these reasons dealing with 'money in-migration' and especially that of campaign finance, I am starting to re-think states that are highly polarized politically, even low-voting population states like Vermont and Delaware.  The idea that we need to find the state with the most favorable political climate seems even more highly critical than ever.      
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Robert H. on February 21, 2003, 09:10:56 am
For these reasons dealing with 'money in-migration' and especially that of campaign finance, I am starting to re-think states that are highly polarized politically, even low-voting population states like Vermont and Delaware.  The idea that we need to find the state with the most favorable political climate seems even more highly critical than ever.      

A more static, mellow political environment could serve us well by allowing us to set our own direction and momentum as opposed to trying to catch a ride on someone else's train.  This would also give us the luxury of defining ourselves and actually standing out as something distinct instead of just another movement vying for attention in an already crowded, noisy arena.

It's easier to be heard when you don't have so many other loud voices to try talking over.

Of course, this would apply to our non-partisan league that we would create with the help of local Jeffersonians, and not to the FSP itself.  I think it's good to be different in a way where you demonstrate that you have something to offer as opposed to coming off as another special interest group out to take what it can run off with.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: craft_6 on February 21, 2003, 11:48:20 am

A more static, mellow political environment could serve us well by allowing us to set our own direction and momentum as opposed to trying to catch a ride on someone else's train.  This would also give us the luxury of defining ourselves and actually standing out as something distinct instead of just another movement vying for attention in an already crowded, noisy arena.

It's easier to be heard when you don't have so many other loud voices to try talking over.


I think that the opposite might be true.  If a state is solidly Republican (say 70%-30%), the FSP will have significantly less influence than it would in a state that is more evenly balanced (say 50%-50%, or better yet, 45%-45%-10% with some third party.)  

Conservative Republicans will not need to change their platform to appeal to a libertarian movement if they already have every election locked up.  If they are in danger of losing control to Democrats, Greens, Socialists, or other Progressives, they will listen carefully to what the FSP has to say.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Robert H. on February 22, 2003, 08:47:28 am
You have a good point there, and political disaffection could serve us well in some ways, but I think a polarized environment would make it more difficult for politicians and voters to move toward our agenda because they would have so much less of a solid support base to start with.  The more threatened they already feel, the more dug-in they will probably be.  I'm sure they'd love our support; but in that case, we would probably have to move more toward them or else stay on the outside.  

Who knows though?  Depending on the nature of the threat, they might actually be willing to at least compromise with us.  Although I believe the likelihood of such a compromise would probably depend on how large a percentage the FSP itself made up in terms of the voting population and likely voters.  The larger we are as compared to their overall constituency, the more likely they are to take us seriously.

On the other hand, a generally static political environment might offer us more in the way of voter complacency, and this could help make up for our lack of numbers somewhat by itself; possibly making us more relevant in terms of a force to be reckoned with.  Again, politicians and voters that enjoy a broader, more secure basis of support may be willing to take chances that others might not because the risks would not be as dire in terms of opposition forces taking the opportunity to undermine their support and move in on them.

Perhaps a state that is generally in safer hands but still has some potential upset counties might be in order - that way we don't have both local and state level party machinery regimented along one hard, fast agenda.  It might keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot by risking too large of loss to statists while working to bolster our support.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: exitus on March 11, 2003, 03:57:59 pm
Here is my stab at a "report" of the positive and negative aspects of informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration. Please critique it with substantive arguments and, if you can dig them up, experience and facts.

DELAWARE
The best potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from neighboring states without tilting nearby liberty-leaning states into the liberal statist camp by draining vital support -- because Delaware’s neighboring states are already lost cause. Pennsylvania is not quite there yet and losing it would be a big hurt (I admit to bias here since I grew up in PA and my remaining family still lives there and someday I could find it necessary to move back there if my dad needs home care).

Pulling too many northern New Englanders down to Delaware seems unlikely given the New England attitude toward people south of Massachusetts or west of Vermont or maybe the Adirondacks if they stretch it. Thus, perhaps, northern New England would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

Pulling too many westerners to Delaware also seems very unlikely given the western attitude regarding the humid, densely populated east coast. Thus the western northern plains states would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, MAINE
A large potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from New York and Massachusetts and, unfortunately, also from New Hampshire, Vermont or Maine. Loss of libertarians from New York is not a loss since New York is a lost cause anyway. But New Hampshire is just on the edge and Vermont and Maine are just over the edge but rescueable. In time a Free State success in any of these three could help pull more libertarians to the region, but in the short term we could lose the other two and allow the opposition to consolidate their positions. Also, eventually, Massachusetts seems possibly redeemable. Even Rhode Island was a FSP candidate for a short time. Connecticut could possibly be rescued but it may be too close to NYC for anything but perhaps a Free Massachusetts to pull it back from the brink.

Pulling too many libertarians from Delaware seems unlikely simply due to climate. The few who would move would likely not change Delaware’s chances for holding the tide against statism since that tide there seems likely to swamp Delaware soon anyway.

Pulling too many westerners to northern New England also seems very unlikely given the western attitude regarding the humid, densely populated east coast. Thus the western northern plains states would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

ALASKA
Very little potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from Delaware. Some potential for draining some vital support from both northern New England and the western states.

Negligible chance for success in Alaska overflowing into other states except through simply distant example. All the candidate states, except Delaware could try to emulate an Alaskan success.

IDAHO
Idaho may be most likely of all the western states to draw vital libertarian support from northern New England and possibly even Delaware. Could it be too much of a draw and thus tilt those eastern states over the edge? Possibly, though New Englanders moving west is almost as hard to fathom as westerners moving east.

Great potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from the Pacific coast states and especially California. Unfortunately also good potential for pulling libertarians out of Montana and Wyoming and thus pushing these states over the edge -- especially Montana which is the most precarious both due to present liberal in-migration and its poor economy. Some potential for loss from the Dakota’s since they, like Montana, have economies that are badly hurting. They are already seeing an out-migration. We could gain Idaho but lose several others.

Potential for beneficial influence on neighboring states? Could Idaho influence Jackson Hole? I doubt it. Could Idaho turn Washington and Oregon? Possibly but it would be a stretch. Idaho could definitely influence Utah for the better.

MONTANA
Pulling too many northern New Englanders out west (except to Idaho) seems unlikely given the New England attitude toward people south of Massachusetts or west of Vermont or maybe the Adirondacks if they stretch it. Thus, perhaps, northern New England would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

Good potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from the Pacific coast states and especially California because they already have been moving there. Unfortunately also great potential for pulling libertarians out of Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas and thus pushing these states over the edge -- especially Idaho which is the most precarious. The Dakota’s especially have economies that are badly hurting. They are already seeing an out-migration. We could gain Montana but lose several others.

Potential for beneficial influence on neighboring states? Could Montana influence Jackson Hole? I doubt it. Could a Free State Montana help its neighbors by example or overflow? Unlikely since it may drain more than it helps unless those states get very desperate.

WYOMING
Pulling too many northern New Englanders out west (except to Idaho) seems unlikely given the New England attitude toward people south of Massachusetts or west of Vermont or maybe the Adirondacks if they stretch it. Thus, perhaps, northern New England would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

Unfortunately also great potential for pulling libertarians out of Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas and thus pushing these states over the edge into liberal statism. North Dakota especially has a badly hurting economy and is more susceptible to such a move than stronger South Dakota. The Dakotas are already seeing an out-migration. We could gain Wyoming but lose several others.

Great potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from Colorado’s front range metro areas and from Salt Lake City /Provo/Ogden metro region. Unfortunately that could hurt the teetering cause for liberty in Utah and Colorado  (I admit to bias here since I live in CO and we are just barely holding on to even a “Libertarian Lite” version of liberty).

Some potential for beneficial influence on Utah. Idaho and Colorado likely won’t be hurt much by free market Wyoming and thus likely won’t have much incentive to change their present drift toward liberal statism.

NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA
Pulling too many northern New Englanders out west (except to Idaho) seems unlikely given the New England attitude toward people south of Massachusetts or west of Vermont or maybe the Adirondacks if they stretch it. Thus, perhaps, northern New England would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

Unfortunately also great potential for pulling libertarians out of Wyoming, Montana and the other Dakota and thus pushing these states over the edge. Montana and both Dakota’s especially have economies that are badly hurting. South Dakota could hurt North Dakota more than vice versa with such a drain of libertarian support. We could gain a Dakota but lose several others.

On the other hand, either Dakota, could pull a lot of liberty-hungry people from Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska. Minnesota may not miss the loss but Nebraska and Iowa may be harmed (Nebraska was an FSP candidate for a short while).
Joe, after thinkinng about the theme of this post for several weeks now, I think that all of your analysis lacks one important point.  That is that bad states *must* fail, to some degree, if liberty-loving people are going to migrate elsewhere.
The FSP has focused so much on finding and building that one free state, we have kind of lost focus on the fact that we must take some good talent out of states on the decline.  Of course, that point has not been lost on the New Hampshire contingent.
Now I realize that you speak mostly of adjoining states, and I do realize that it would be better to have freedom be more of a regional thing than just one-state-specific.
What I am saying, maybe not addressing your points completely, is essentially hurray! if California goes into receivorship with its creditors for flirting too hard with socialism!  (Just today in the news, California legislators are working to introduce a new gourmet vegetarian cuisine to complement the fresh organic produce salad bars in public school cafeterias, offered below cost or free, despite the fact that the state can barely pay its bills)  . . .

In the book, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand envisioned not only creating a place where property rights are respected in the utmost, the main theme seemed more to me to be that the "workers of the mind"  must go on strike for freedom and leave the looters and the moochers to their own devices.

I like what was recently said on another thread:

Sometimes I think the real value of FSP is not so much choosing a specific state, but of getting people to think about moving specifically to increase their freedom.

I think if we can get informal FSP attitudes going everywhere, that alone could increase the return to constitutional federalism in this country.  
 
Maybe it will be the FSP that will inspire more people to just let some states that deserve to fail, to actually fail. . .
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Zxcv on March 11, 2003, 05:47:07 pm
I certainly agree with letting some states go down the tubes. California deserves that in spades!   ;)

Joe mentioned that Wyoming might draw off libertarians from Idaho. Actually I think this possibility is remote. Libertarians are most likely to abandon their current state if it is a statist hellhole. They are somewhat likely if it is teetering. They are not likely if it is already quite free; it makes more sense to stay in a state like that and work to keep it free.

I think the most danger is drawing down states on the edge, that are salvagable.

But on the whole, we really need a few shining examples out there, no matter what. If that sends a few teetering states over the edge, it can't be helped. Bad examples can sometimes be as useful as good ones.
Title: Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
Post by: Hank on August 13, 2003, 10:31:48 am
Zxcv said:
Quote
I think the most danger is drawing down states on the edge, that are salvagable.

Delaware won't do that. The states on its edge are already lost. Those states won't miss tens of thousands of liberty-starved people fleeing to Delaware.  With that much help Delaware could be turned around.

On the other hand, picking any of the other states except Alaska would only push other FSP candidate states over the edge, as other posters stated above.