Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: Solitar on August 21, 2002, 09:15:45 pm

Title: Vermont
Post by: Solitar on August 21, 2002, 09:15:45 pm
Jason,
For its Constitution--especially the original versions and the amendments thereto
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/statutes2.htm

for an article on growth which any of the eastern states are struggling with,
Vermont is an example in this report.
http://www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings98/Daniel/daniels.html

More on growth in this Vermont town meeting
http://town.colchester.vt.us/select/may8-01.htm

more sites
http://www.state.vt.us/vtne.htm
http://members.aol.com/frotz/places.htm

The lack of large metro areas in Vermont is a benefit because urban/metro areas have generally been breeding grounds for statist authoritarians and the laws and regs they brew up. This lack may also be a disadvantage because of the difficulty in sustaining an hi-tech economy and lots of jobs. Does anyone from Vermont have more to add to Jason's report?

edited to update Vermont link
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 21, 2002, 10:57:12 pm
I would like to echo the call for a Vermonter to enhance my report.  I think a very strong case can be made for Vermont.  Even on the state comparisons matrix, it consistently comes up in the top 6 or so, and it has some more "subjective" benefits as well.
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: craft_6 on November 04, 2002, 10:10:57 am
An interesting tidbit on Vermont election rules, from the Associated Press:

"In Vermont, two minor party gubernatorial candidates, independent Cornelius Hogan and Progressive Party candidate Michael Badamo, could put the outcome in limbo until January. Vermont's Constitution requires that gubernatorial candidates win with more than 50 percent of the vote; if not, the Legislature selects the governor."

If the FSP were to select Vermont and form a new third party, or reinforce the local LP, a strategy of targeting state legislature districts first could establish a majority or strong minority position.  An FSP gubernatorial candidate would then only have to do well enough to keep the front-runner below 50%, throwing the race into the legislature.  Even if the FSP did not have a majority in the legislature, Republicans might side with the FSP candidate, to avoid a Democrat/socialist from winning.

Vermont has often been written off as a candidate state because it is notoriously left-leaning, but it does have low population and small size in its favor.  Some left-liberals could probably be converted to support libertarian candidates, if the FSP could make a case for private alternatives to current government programs, since the libertarian candidates would already be strong on social issues.



Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: George Reich on November 04, 2002, 10:29:42 am
A Vermont resident who is a member of the Vermont LP posted on the Yahoo group Friday or Saturday. Maybe one of the moderators could get in touch with him/her.

 :)
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Mark Alexander on November 05, 2002, 04:53:42 pm
More on growth in this Vermont town meeting
http://www.colchestervt.org/select/may8-01.htm
This web page has been moved here:
http://town.colchester.vt.us/select/may8-01.htm (http://town.colchester.vt.us/select/may8-01.htm)
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Chuckster on November 05, 2002, 06:32:20 pm
I am not, at present, a Vermont resident.  Having said that however, I do know quite a lot about the state.  I am a native Vermonter and my family goes back at least four generations in the state.  About four years ago, long before I heard about FSP, I started investigating the prospects for relocating to the mainland ( I have been living and working in Hawaii for the past 25 years).  My criteria were similar to the FSP with the added condition of my wife's desire to raise and train horses.

We went through many of the same arguments presented in the FSP forums and, not surprisingly came up with a short list of states very much like that of the FSP.  MT,WY, ID and SD were on the list.  Also on the list were VT, ME and NH.  Since I am near my early retirement goal, employment prospects were less of a concern than availability of good land suitable for raising horses and living in a rural environment far enough out of the way so as to limit the likelyhood of development in the forseeable future. We considered the political climate and what kind of people we would have for neighbors as well as cost of living and other things that are important to us.

We did considerable research on all of the states on our list and got down to three, Montana, New Hampshire and Vermont. I was leaning towards VT because of my family history, Laura was favoring Montana because she didn't know any better (Being from BC).  After a two week visit to VT including a day at the UVM Morgan horse farm, Laura was convinced.

To make a long story a bit shorter, we found a very nice piece of property in Orleans County, 38.7 acres with power and phone lines along 300 feet of road frontage (Town road, gravel surface, plowed in winter), 900 feet of river frontage on the Missisquoi, a stream with an old beaver dam, at least two springs, 20 acres of woods, mixed hard and soft, maples, raspberries, apple trees and more, about 18 acres of meadow/old pasture.

See 7 pages of photos at http://groups.msn.com/SVLealeaandCrew/vermont.msnw

Oh yeah, almost forgot the best part - $34,000 :D

Our place is almost exactly half way between the two villages that make up the township of Troy, 3.5 miles either way on the River Road to the Post Office, bank, general store, cafe, restaraunt etc. and about 12 miles to Newport for major shopping or 8 miles to Jay Peak Ski Areas.

During our search for a place we found land (Undeveloped) from $500 an acre and houses in the village with anywhere from 1/2 to 5 acres from about $45,000 for a 100 Y/O fixer upper on a 1/2 acre to a brand new 2 B/R ranch on 5 acres for $65,000.  We were shown several HUGE houses on really big lots, 5 or more bedrooms on 20 acres seemed to be the norm, for under $100K.

Burlington is the only city in the state worthy of the name with about 65,000 population.  Montpelier, the capitol, has a population of only about 12,000.  I've seen mention of concern for jobs itn the IT field so I'll remind everyone that IBM is in Burlington and is the major employer in the state.  Burlington is a pretty and bustling little university town on the shore of Lake Champlain, very attractive as towns go IMO, much improved over the days I lived there as a child in the fifties.

 It seems to me that Vermont is best suited for folks who want to do a little subsistance or hobby farming or entreprenureal (sp?) types.  Vermonters are fiercely independent and liberty loving folks with a colorful and fascinating history.  The one down side is the apparent leftist political climate.

On the politics of Vermonters, all I can say is that in all of my visits and correspondence with Real Vermonters (tm) I saw none of the big government/welfare state mentality that one might expect.  These people more readily fall into the category of "Classical Liberal".  Without exception I found the people there to be, above all, INDEPENDANT, liberty loving and active participants in the democratic process.  I LOVE the town meeting system!  When I asked how, given how everyone I talked to seems to feel, the state has such a reputation as a hotbed of liberal activism, they all said just one word..."Outsiders".  It seems the leftists recognized the vulnerability of Vermont and exploited it.

I think that Real Vermonters(tm) would welcome the Free State Project.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Chuck

Title: The Vermont Papers
Post by: Mark Alexander on November 08, 2002, 11:01:58 am
In a thread that I can't find now with Search, someone recommended the book The Vermont Papers, by Frank Bryan and John McClaughry.  I bought a copy and have read only the first four chapters, but the authors have already half-convinced me that Vermont might be the best choice for the FSP.  They make a convincing case based on the state's unique history and geography, which gave it a strong dedication to both liberty and a vibrant community life.

The authors don't pull any punches describing the threat to Vermont, however.  This is what some folks on this forum refer to as the state's creeping socialism.  The book describes this as the result of the influx of "flatlanders" in the 70s, who came with good intentions and reasons, but who also brought with them the seeds of their new home's destruction, an addiction to anti-democratic urban modernism and the nanny state.

Still, the book seems hopeful for Vermont's prospects, and it spells out a program for renewal of democracy that is remarkably similar to the FSP.  It may be that the state's existing emphasis on decentralization in government could give the FSP a bigger advantage than in big western states that have less focus on community involvement.
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: JT on November 12, 2002, 12:52:07 pm
Where would I go to find info on VT?

How big is the state LP, just how Socialistic are they, level of taxation, Homeschool laws, etc...
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 12, 2002, 02:03:41 pm
As for all candidate states, most of this info is available here:
http://www.freestateproject.org/state.htm

;)
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: BillG on January 09, 2003, 11:36:33 pm
Hey Mark that was me that recommended The Vermont Papers

I am glad you liked it!

You may also be interested in another post of mine that starts to weave some of the ideas in the book to a Green Party platform in NH:

Quote
Here in NH - which is one of the most Conservative (of the Yankee variety - fiscally prudent) & libertarian states in the nation. W/ no broadbase taxes only local property tax and many towns still being governed via the local town meeting (plus 1 state rep/3,000 citizens). This is what a basic Green Libertarian platform might look like (with a decidedly Geoist slant).

1. shift all taxes off of buildings and onto land (collecting "economic rent") to end speculative profiteering by individuals of socially created wealth.
- housing (single family homes & apt.) prices would drop
- construction jobs would increase
- sprawl would be curtailed while downtowns revitalized.
2. gradually start collecting "environmental utilization rents" (put into a trust) from activities known to pollute our air and water which keeps us all from the enjoyment and right to a healthy world.
- alternative/decentralized energy systems would be encouraged cutting down on foreign oil dependence.
- trust would rebate to all a "citizens dividend" directly bypassing gov't coffers.
3. end all corporate tax breaks/subsidizes and challenge the corporate "personhood" status.
4. devolve power from the state to "shires" (small groups of towns based on bioregions) that encourage face-to-face participatory democracy.
- create locally based currency to stimulate local economy
5. in exchange (voluntary) for "citizens dividend" encourage everyone to participate in the creation of a vibrant civic & artistic culture to counter the growing influence of corporations in our political institutions.


You may also be interested in a book called The Breakdown of Nations by Leopold Kohr.

Here is an excerpt:

Quote
There seems to be only one cause behind all forms of social misery: BIGNESS.

Oversimplified as this may seem, we shall find the idea more easily acceptable if we consider that bigness, or oversize, is really much more than just a social problem. It appears to be the one and only problem permeating all creation.

Whenever something is wrong, something is too big.  And if the body of a people becomes diseased with the fever of aggression, brutality, collectivism, or massive idiocy, it is not because it has fallen victim to bad leadership or mental derangement. It is because human beings, so charming as individuals or in small aggregations have been welded onto overconcentrated social units. That is when they begin to slide into uncontrollable catastrophe.

For social problems, to paraphrase the population doctrine of Thomas Malthus, have the unfortunate tendency to grow at a geometric ratio with the growth of the organism of which they are part, while the ability of man to cope with them, if it can be extended at all, grows only at an arithmetic ratio. Which means that, if a society grows beyond its optimum size, its problems must eventually outrun the growth of those human faculties which are necessary for dealing with them. Hence it is always bigness, and only bigness, which is the problem of existence.

The problem is not to grow but to stop growing; the answer: not union but division.  

Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: freedomroad on January 10, 2003, 04:04:32 am
Here in NH - which is one of the most Conservative (of the Yankee variety - fiscally prudent) & libertarian states in the nation. W/ no broadbase taxes only local property tax and many towns still being governed via the local town meeting (plus 1 state rep/3,000 citizens). This is what a basic Green Libertarian platform might look like (with a decidedly Geoist slant).

Just for the record.  NH has a state property tax which is broad based.  Also, NH has a state corporate tax.  Certainly, the taxes are higher in NH than a couple other states.  Also, NH has 1 state rep for every 5000-20000 people or so.  The number varies.  In fact, NH is worst or 2nd to worst in this important considering factor.  VT does best, I think.  However, VT is worst in taxes (or it could be ME, that other state next to NH.  Both VT and ME are 1 and 2 worst for taxes).
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: BillG on January 11, 2003, 01:23:28 pm
NH recently enacted a state wide property tax to pay for local schools but will be repealed shortly by the new incoming governor who believes the state has no constitutional role in educating our children - this should be a local issue.

Quote
Certainly, the taxes are higher in NH than a couple other states

from the Free State project website:

Low State and Local Taxes ("Tax" variable)
1. Alaska
2. New Hampshire
3. South Dakota
4. Wyoming
5. Montana
6. North Dakota
6. Delaware (tie)
8. Idaho
9. Vermont
10. Maine

Keep in mind that Alaska rebates all of their citizens from an "oil trust"

Quote
Also, NH has 1 state rep for every 5000-20000 people or so.  The number varies.  In fact, NH is worst or 2nd to worst in this important considering factor.

From the NH Legislature's website:

Quote
NH has the third-largest parliamentary body in the English speaking world. Only the U.S. Congress and British Parliament are larger

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/history.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/history.html)

There are 400 members of the house and 24 members of the senate and a population of 1.235 million (2000 census)

That works out to 1 politician to every 2,914 citizens - the best out of any other state on the list!

Now would you like to comment on any of the other subject matter which were the main points of the post?
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: BillG on January 21, 2003, 09:09:08 pm
Read the Vermont Manifesto and reconsider Vermont as the best place for the Free State!

Quote
If your nation is making itself into a big target for hate, and if its apparent priorities run counter to your values, would you consider rebelling or seceding? What if your very survivial depended on it?
 
Here is an interesting article, reprinted last summer by the Texas Observer after originally running in "Vermont Green Mountains - A Voice.

http://www.progress.org/2003/vermont1.htm (http://www.progress.org/2003/vermont1.htm)
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: freedomroad on January 22, 2003, 01:30:13 am
NH recently enacted a state wide property tax to pay for local schools but will be repealed shortly by the new incoming governor who believes the state has no constitutional role in educating our children - this should be a local issue.

Quote
Certainly, the taxes are higher in NH than a couple other states

from the Free State project website:

Low State and Local Taxes ("Tax" variable)
1. Alaska
2. New Hampshire
3. South Dakota
4. Wyoming
5. Montana
6. North Dakota
6. Delaware (tie)
8. Idaho
9. Vermont
10. Maine

The FSP data seems to be wrong.  The FSP data does not include corporate tax and other taxes, as far as I can tell so that might be why.  I have done the math several different ways and WY always seems to have the lowest taxes.
Quote

Keep in mind that Alaska rebates all of their citizens from an "oil trust"

AK does not rebate its citizens.  AK gives the people of AK their money.  AK acts as a distributor.  This money is not a rebate.  The AK people never paid this money in as taxes.

Quote
Quote
Also, NH has 1 state rep for every 5000-20000 people or so.  The number varies.  In fact, NH is worst or 2nd to worst in this important considering factor.

From the NH Legislature's website:

Quote
NH has the third-largest parliamentary body in the English speaking world. Only the U.S. Congress and British Parliament are larger

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/history.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/history.html)

There are 400 members of the house and 24 members of the senate and a population of 1.235 million (2000 census)

That works out to 1 politician to every 2,914 citizens - the best out of any other state on the list!


If that were true it would be the best.  Joe already explained all of this data.  He was the one that first thought NH was good because it had a low citizen to house member ratio.  We later found out that VT was the best and NH was at the bottom of the list.  NH's seats are at large with many people running and the top vote getters winning.  Check out the thread that was started to explain this.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1002;start=0

Also, for the record, I think a 400 member house is a bad thing.  In fact, I want around a 100 member House.
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: JasonPSorens on January 22, 2003, 09:02:50 am
The FSP data contain all taxes as a percentage of income, which is the right way to calculate the variable.  (Some would make an argument for taxes per capita as well, which closely tracks taxes as % of income, except that SD slips ahead of NH.)
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: Zxcv on January 22, 2003, 10:46:26 am
But it does not contain taxes slipped in under the guise of "user fees", a point I raised before, and a tactic increasingly popular in states that want to expand government under the radar. (Or does it? I'm sooo confused...  ??? )

In Alaska, there is such a thing as a free lunch. The problem is, some day that oil will run out. At that point, with all the social programs that have been bought with it, there will be hell to pay. Unless they are paying for them entirely out of interest from the fund - something that's probably been covered here already, but I'm simply incapable of keeping up with it all...
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: JasonPSorens on January 22, 2003, 11:00:59 am
Well, the spending measure takes both taxes & fees (& debt, if any) into account.
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: 5pectre on January 23, 2003, 07:21:55 am
After reading that, I may have to reconsider Vermont as my first choice.  What a bunch of anti-capitalistic nonsense.

Doesn't look anti-capitalist to me. Looks pretty sensible.

We believe the time has come for all citizens of Vermont peacefully to rebel against the Empire by (1) regaining control of their lives from big government, big business, big cities, big schools, and big computer networks; (2) relearning how to take care of themselves by decentralizing, downsizing, localizing, demilitarizing, and humanizing their lives; and (3) learning how to help others take care of themselves so that we all become less dependent on big business, big government, and big technology.

Anti-big-government, Anti-big-business, sounds like a plan.
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: JasonPSorens on January 23, 2003, 08:47:22 am
I've had conversations with the author, Thomas Naylor, before.  He knows about the FSP and supports it.  He's unclear about whether he wants the government to break up everything "big," but he does use that same phrase, "big government, big business, big cities, big schools, and big computer networks" over and over, indicating (it seems to me) an overly simple anti-bigness ideology.  (I'm generally anti-bigness too, but bigness is not inherently bad.)  He's a retired economics professor from Duke who moved to Vermont & is active in the tiny independence movement there.  Even if he's not perfect, he's generally on our side and is the type of voter, if not activist, we'd want to attract.
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: Robert H. on January 24, 2003, 07:06:10 am
Vermont and Maine are the two northeastern states that I've looked at most realistically for a number of reasons.  Maine sports regional conflicts and has a reputation for supporting third parties although its independents tend to vote to the left, while Vermont has more favorable population stats.  Joe's legislative analysis of Vermont also seemed to present a good opportunity for us as far as state level government is concerned.

That said, Vermont's taxation levels, and the possible implications thereof, are troubling.  Vermont ranks second only behind Maine for its burdensome taxation levels (among our candidate states), and has something of a national reputation in this area. I have seen information indicating that property taxation, which was recently reintroduced in Vermont, now exceeds the state income tax as the primary source of state-level funding.  And according to the following site: http://www.act60.org/vpvr.htm (http://www.act60.org/vpvr.htm):

"When all taxes are combined (property, sales, income, and others), Vermont's taxes are 5.8 percent above the national average on a per-capita basis, and 17.5 percent above the national average as a percentage of income." This was in 1999.  

Another site I came across some while back stated:  "Past estimates have placed the state's average property tax burden at the second or third highest in the nation."  Source:  http://www.retirementliving.com/RLstate3.html#VERMONT (http://www.retirementliving.com/RLstate3.html#VERMONT)  (Note - I just went back to this site and checked it again and can no longer find this reference).

Naturally, I have a desire to keep more of what I make, but the taxation scenario is also worrisome because of what those taxes are being used to support and who might be benefitting from them.  The political sensitivity of the public institutions and benefits sustained by those tax dollars could well curtail our chances for success in scaling back the size and growth of government.

For instance, Vermont's Act 60, passed in 1998, took local property tax dollars out of the hands of communities and routed them through Montpelier where they were to be equally distributed throughout the state's public education system on a per student basis.  It was a blatant redistributionist scheme designed to "equalize" education spending in the name of "fairness."  The result created something of a tax war in Vermont, which continues to this day, but the reality of the matter is that public education is now firmly in state government hands (with over 30% of the state's annual budget committed to it at $8,462 being spent per student).  Thanks to Act 60, state funding of public education grew from 32% of total public education funding in Vermont to 79% in one blow!

Needless to say, trying to reduce property taxation in Vermont would be inextricably tied to an enormous percentage of public education funding and thus a real lightning rod of an issue.  Nor would local or county level activism be sufficient as this money is now routed through the state capital.  So much for the chance of making reforms in one county and telling the rest of the state to mind its own business...

Vermont tax dollars also go to support the second largest number of welfare recipients of all of our ten candidate states (again, second only to Maine).

Anyway, these are a few of the thoughts I had about Vermont in regard to the taxation issue.  We have a relatively high tax burden state in which those tax dollars go to support some extremely sensitive political issues.  Could we succeed in accessing the state legislature and getting some reforms through (or at least making some noise), only stir up a fatal backlash in the meantime, or in the next election?

Sources:

http://www.act60.org/shlaes.htm (http://www.act60.org/shlaes.htm)
http://www.act60.org/index.html (http://www.act60.org/index.html)
http://www.goodschoolspa.org/downloads/how_does_pa_compare.doc (http://www.goodschoolspa.org/downloads/how_does_pa_compare.doc)
http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/neei/articles/fisccond/ (http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/neei/articles/fisccond/)
http://www.retirementliving.com/RLstate3.html#VERMONT (http://www.retirementliving.com/RLstate3.html#VERMONT)  
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=828 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=828)
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: Zxcv on January 24, 2003, 03:16:04 pm
Quote
Naturally, I have a desire to keep more of what I make, but the taxation scenario is also worrisome because of what those taxes are being used to support and who might be benefitting from them.  The political sensitivity of the public institutions and benefits sustained by those tax dollars could well curtail our chances for success in scaling back the size and growth of government.
You hit the nail on the head, Robert. Spending constituencies develop, "rent-seeking" behavior expands. If we went there we'd spend a significant amount of effort and time digging ourselves out of the hole, just to get to the place we could start from in a state like WY or ID.

As to Act 60, Oregon did the same thing. There is a silver lining to that cloud, though. It generally increases public discontent with government education, which will speed the day we separate school & state. Just look at it as part of the necessary process of decay of this institution.
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: BillG on January 26, 2003, 12:41:14 am
Quote
I agree that the "big business is bad" idea is over-simplified.  While I agree that no one wants to go to war for Exxon, I don't see McDonalds and WalMart as a global problem.  When they build outside the U.S , they are providing jobs for many who are unemployed and raise their standard of living.  I do agree that big corporate monopolies that reduce compitition & consumer choice are bad.

Talk about over-simplified..."providing jobs and raising standards of living"

What do you think about moving a McDonalds and Walmart into Bagdad after the war? It is a "global problem" because (if you remember) the islamic world feels a little "threatened" by our western culture's "over the top" bombardment (pun intended) of images, ideas, and products.

IMHO Walmart is one of those big corp. monopolies that reduces competition & consumer choices...it reeks havoc on locally-owned, usually downtown operated stores. When you purchase something from these large corporation a small amount of money stays in the local economy the rest leaves.

A Low-Down Pricing Strategy:
The Wall Street Journal says, "Walmart uses its size and clout to bleed rivals dry" (11/18/93). They've been sued and convicted ($289,000 penalty) for unfair trade practices (WSJ 10/13/93). "Wal-Mart's hidden prices, not shown on tags, are the costs already mentioned, to the city, to the environment, and to the community."

"Walmart uses a price stacking strategy. Only around 1,500 items are below the average retail price. Deeper into the store about 80, 000 items are actually at par or more expensive. Walmart regularly uses this "price-stacking". In the US, Walmart has been forced to drop its 'Always the lowest price' slogan because it was misleading. To kill local competition, Walmart sometimes subsidizes losses at one store with high prices elsewhere. "

http://www.nuro.com/stopthewal/mit.htm (http://www.nuro.com/stopthewal/mit.htm)
http://www.sprawl-busters.com/caseagainstsprawl.html (http://www.sprawl-busters.com/caseagainstsprawl.html)

Here is another big way money "leaks" out of a local economy:

http://www.progress.org/archive/js02.htm (http://www.progress.org/archive/js02.htm)

Think about this - if the cost of our imported oil were based on true cost accounting (adding in ALL the externalities that are currently socialized - like pollution) rather than being subsidized by our tax/military/foreign/transportation policies would these large, multi-national corporations be able to compete (even on price alone) with locally owned and operated companies producing goods from local resources?  

There is a difference between state sponsored capitalism and a free market - don't you agree?

Quote
After reading it again, I now see that he is a geolibertarian, which explains some of his views.  5pectre, you're in that camp, right?(the whole "can't own land" thing).  So it makes sense that you would agree with him.  I guess I'm a royal libertarian because they still seem like socialists to me.  I don't fully understand that group yet.

As far as I know the author is not a geo-libertarian - this was just posted on a geo-libertarian website (where I captured and posted it) because the ideas resonate with the "geo" view of the world. This whole "can't own land thing" (aka socialism) is a mis-understanding (common) on your part. Private property (title) is preserved - unearned income (socially created)of the landowner is captured as economic rent and distributed back to the community on a pro-rata basis.

http://www.henrygeorge.org/isms.htm (http://www.henrygeorge.org/isms.htm)

Here is a quote from a Ronald Reagan speech in Chicago of 1975 - arguable one of most 'socialist" presidents in modern history, right? ;)

"I am calling for an end to giantism, for a return to human scale - the scale that human beings can understand and cope with; the scale of the local fraternal lodge, the church congregation, the block club, the farm bureau. It is the locally owned factor, the small businessman who personally deals with his customers and stands behind his product, the farm and consumer cooperative, the town or neighborhood bank that invests in the community, the union local. In government the human scale is the town council, the board of selectmen, and the precinct captain.

It is this activity on a small human scale that creates the fabric of the community, a framework for the creation for the abundance and liberty. The human scale nutures standards of right behavior, a prevailing ethic of what is right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable".

taken from The Vermont Papers - page 23.

Giantism here at home and it's natural outgrowth globalism abroad destroy local communities and traditional cultures - something it appears muslims (and others) are growing a little upset about...

Jason wrote:

Quote
He's unclear about whether he wants the government to break up everything "big,"

Well how about just giving the free market a chance first?

Let's deal with the externalities questions to level the playing field, plus the corporate welfare & "personhood" issue. Then how about creating local currencies to keeping money circulating locally and land value taxation for efficient use of land to combat sprawl without gov't regulation? Why don't we encourage alternative forms of business ownership (co-ops, worker owned, etc)to discourage absentee ownership who aren't accountable to the community for their actions?

sounds like a good start - what do you think?

In the words of another famous person named King (Rodney): "can't we all (geo-greens & libertarians) just get along people?"

Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: Zack Bass on January 26, 2003, 03:45:32 am
Why don't we encourage alternative forms of business ownership (co-ops, worker owned, etc)to discourage absentee ownership who aren't accountable to the community for their actions?

Feel free to encourage whatever you like.
Oh wait... did you mean the GOVERNMENT ought to Encourage this crap?  Nah.

How about if we let property owners do whatever they like with their own property.  It's their property, not the "community's."

Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: Mark Alexander on January 27, 2003, 11:24:56 am
How about if we let property owners do whatever they like with their own property.  It's their property, not the "community's."
While I certainly agree with the first part, I do feel that what people do with their property often has some effect on their community.  If I were to build a slaughterhouse in my backyard, I'm sure my neighbors would notice and have something to say :) .

The real question, to my mind, is: what is the government's role in regulating what people do with their property?  I believe that this role should be devolved to the state and local governments as much as possible, giving citizens, not large distant government bureacracies, the final say in how much or how little regulation they want in their neighborhoods.
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: Kelton on January 27, 2003, 02:47:07 pm
Quote
Read the Vermont Manifesto and reconsider Vermont as the best place for the Free State!
http://www.progress.org/2003/vermont1.htm

After reading that, I may have to reconsider Vermont as my first choice. >:( What a bunch of anti-capitalistic nonsense.


 After doing much research on the states and reading the Vermont Manifesto, I realize that if there was any state today that would be a good candidate to secede from the Union, Vermont would be it.
 The stated goals of the FSP however, are not to foment secession.  With the current political movements as they are, and gaining momentum, an independent Vermont might very well resemble an anti-bigness/ socialism-light Finland with a gun-rights and foreign policy a la Switzerland along with a certain sense of limited-left-wing-anti-big/Kaczynski-styled* independent culture.  In other words, a beautiful and pleasant place to visit, but not exactly something most of us here in the FSP are seeking to create.

 The Vermont Manifesto brought up the issue of there being no military bases in Vermont.  After looking at listings online, I see that all of the other 9 candidate states have significant military bases.  Among them, Alaska being the most militarized, followed by Wyoming, Maine, North Dakota, Montana, Delaware in having multiple or strategically significant bases.  Then there is the issue of non-militarized privately-contracted military-industrial centers, such as in Idaho and Delaware.  All of this to which I must ask the question, how is this significant?  Should these factors have anything to do with selecting which state?  Interesting questions.

*Most anti-technology and luddite movements actually oppose  leftist big governments.  Even Kaczynski wrote in his Unabomber Manifesto that leftists were more in favor of 'bigness' and the use of anti-human technology than even the right- wing idealogues.  
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: Zxcv on January 27, 2003, 03:08:46 pm
Isn't military presence (at least in terms of money) handled with the Gov1 or Dep variable?

Obviously it is better to have no military bases!
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: Zack Bass on January 27, 2003, 03:42:00 pm
The real question, to my mind, is: what is the government's role in regulating what people do with their property?  I believe that this role should be devolved to the state and local governments as much as possible, giving citizens, not large distant government bureacracies, the final say in how much or how little regulation they want in their neighborhoods.

When I think "Government," it matters not to me whether it is local or not.
Government is FORCE, and must not be used except when well-justified.
Telling me what to do with my land, or taking tax money by Force and "Favoring" certain kinds of uses, is evil unless I am physically endangering a neighbor.

Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Chuckster on February 14, 2003, 02:28:47 pm
I like to read the Caledonian Record http://www.caledonianrecord.com/ to get a better feel for rural Vermont and because it covers the area where my property is.  I especially enjoy the editorial and letters sections.  Since the Caledonian is rather conservative, I also read the Rutland Herald http://rutlandherald.nybor.com/ occasionally.  The Herald is far too liberal in its editorial slant for my tastes but, still, I like to get a look at all angles of an issue so I force myself  :P
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Greggers69 on February 14, 2003, 03:08:09 pm
Actually all these posts are pretty much save VT from the leftist.  And vermont has the lowest firearm incident rate in the nation.  Of course the Gun snatchers Rated them a D for thier laws.  What a joke!!! Greg
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Racer X on February 14, 2003, 06:11:43 pm
I originally posted this on the internet access thread but I'll repost it here since it's on topic.  Internet access will be a very important issue for many FSPers who will tele-commute or work from home.

Vermont is Wired

Vermont has excellent high-speed internet access.  Here are some facts taken from www.thinkvermont.com

Did you know that ... Vermont has an all-digital switching network? And, we have 2 fiber networks that reach into almost every corner of the state. And in 2000 alone, Vermont's telecom service providers invested over $100 million to upgrade the State's telecommunications infrastructure!

Here's a map of the DSL coverage area(shaded).
http://www.thinkvermont.com/telecommunications/pdf/dsl.pdf

Here's a map of the ISDN coverage area(shaded).
http://www.thinkvermont.com/telecommunications/pdf/isdn.pdf

Here's a map of the cable modem coverage area(shaded).
http://www.thinkvermont.com/telecommunications/pdf/cable.pdf

Here's a map of the T-1 coverage area(shaded).
http://www.thinkvermont.com/telecommunications/pdf/t1.pdf

If your town is shown to have access to interoffice fiber, it means that this state of the art technology has been deployed into the town, probably at the central office of the Independent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC). It is probably used to connect voice traffic to the worldwide network, and, if you are a small business with high-speed data connection needs, it means that the infrastructure is well positioned to meet your needs.
Although many telecommunications services can be offered over either fiber optic or copper cables, fiber optic lines provide a relatively inexpensive way to transmit very large amounts of information, and they perform especially well over long distances. They are generally preferred to copper cable for new installations of high-capacity lines.


Here's a map of the interoffice fiber coverage area.
http://www.thinkvermont.com/telecommunications/pdf/interoffice.pdf

One of the concerns businesses may have is how well connected the Vermont network is to the worldwide network. For many businesses, 100% service availability is a key objective, so they want to ensure that they can connect their Vermont operation with the rest of the world via multiple, separate facilities. This can help ensure that if service on one facility is interrupted somehow, they can maintain their operation via a second or third route. The map shows Vermont has multiple connections thus enabling this arrangement

Here's a map of the inter-state fiber connectivity.
http://www.thinkvermont.com/telecommunications/pdf/interstate.pdf


Vermont looks pretty good in the internet department . :)  There are more specific town by town listings on the web site if you need them.  Look under the "Technology" section.

www.thinkvermont.com (Vermont Department of Economic Development) is a pretty good resource if you're looking to start a business there.


Racer X
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Zxcv on February 15, 2003, 12:47:00 am
I wonder if there is some way to quantize accessibility to legislative seats in the states, without it being a completely subjective judgement call? I have a feeling Vermont and a couple other states are standouts in this department, and it's a shame we can't factor that into the spreadsheet somehow.

Might make up somewhat for all the effort we'd have to invest in a place like Vermont, digging ourselves out of the statist hole the leftists have so thoughtfully provided.  ;)
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Solitar on February 15, 2003, 01:21:52 am
Zxcv,
I too have tried to figure a way to quantify the legislative data. Each state is so different!
Perhaps the percentage of "accessible seats" -- defined as within five percentage points of a win or, in other words, up to 55% in a two-way race, or 38% in a three-way, or 30% in a four-way.
(now you've added another incentive for me to complete Alaska and thus have all ten states done).

For an absolutely awesome, huge wealth of detailed information for every  city, town, village, grant, and gore...
http://maps.vcgi.org/indicators/
The above source is so addictive to this data junkie that I have to keep trying to focus back on how it applies.
Sheesh!
For each and every of the above it has data on population from the beginning - 1790
education attendance scores
planning and zoning and other plans -- whether they have it or not
and more, and more, and more stuff...
A month's worth of stuff...

And for info on how those towns, grants, and gores came to be
http://all-ancestors.com/vermonttowns/vermont.htm

And for Vermont towns - with hyperlinks (one of which led me to the first site above)
http://www.vermont-towns.org/

Vermont Local Government which includes a wealth of info such as:
*Brief Overview of Selected Town Offices
*What is Town Meeting?
*Open Meeting Law
*Access to Public Records Law
*Vermont Local Government
*Associations
*Running for Local Office (pdf format)
http://www.vlct.org/local.htm

For a pdf file on all the place names that the Vermont Sec'y of State could find
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/VTPlaceNames.html

And election info
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/electionstopics.html

And links that I used for the Vermont legislative analysis
http://www.politicsvt.com/
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/legdir/legdir2.htm
http://www.sec.state.vt.us/seek/database.htm
http://www.sec.state.vt.us/results/02ghouse.html.
http://vermont-elections.org/2003BioSketchWeb.pdf
http://vermont-elections.org/elections1/2002gecand.htm
http://www.leg.state.vt.us/reports/02Redistricting/

WHY all this?
Because knowledge of the chosen state gives activists the POWER to effect change
by knowing exactly what the job entails, who's who, demographics, history, etc., etc.
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Zxcv on February 15, 2003, 02:04:47 am
Yeah, Joe, but you know it's a lot more complicated than that. Here are some other factors that affect accessibility:

1) Term limit laws, and whether they've actually been permitted to operate by throwing people out of office (before the courts overrule them, as happened here in Oregon)

2) Primary margins of victory

3) District populations

4) Money spent

5) Multiple seats per district

6) District geography

and on and on. It would be tough to put a number on it.

Maybe another way of looking at it is just plain old turnover, which should more-or-less be the result of all these factors. Or average length of service, something along those lines? Got anything like that? You'd have to look at several election's data though, sounds like a lot of work.   :P
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Kelton on February 19, 2003, 02:35:51 pm
Actually all these posts are pretty much save VT from the leftist.  And vermont has the lowest firearm incident rate in the nation.  Of course the Gun snatchers Rated them a D for thier laws.  What a joke!!! Greg
Actually, even better, Greg, Vermont scored a D- on that report, not just a D as you had thought :)
 

Here's an old news story from Vermont I thought humorous:

Unusual Vermont bill would require registration of all NON-gunowners (http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=178)
Quote from the article:
"If you outlaw not having a gun, only outlaws won't have guns"
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: freedomroad on February 20, 2003, 12:51:12 am
[quote author=exitus link=board=5;threadid=282;start=0#msg18639

Here's an old news story from Vermont I thought humorous:

Unusual Vermont bill would require registration of all NON-gunowners (http://www.lp.org/press/archive.php?function=view&record=178)
Quote from the article:
"If you outlaw not having a gun, only outlaws won't have guns"

Quote

If that story is true it hurts VT evermore.
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Kelton on February 20, 2003, 01:43:43 am
Quote
If that story is true it hurts VT evermore.

From reading the article I gather that the Vermont representative presenting the bill is only half serious, mostly using it sarcastically as an educational tool to make people think about the absurdity of the sophism of advocating gun registration.

This demonstrating absurdity by being absurd is similar to the free-trade activist Frederic Bastiat who petitioned the French government in the nineteenth century to block unfair competition coming from sunlight in his "Candlemakers' Petition'' (http://www.byui.edu/Ricks/employee/NATER/petition.htm)


It is interesting to note, however, that a few years ago in the town of Virgin, Utah, they passed an ordinance requiring every family to own a gun.  They did not attempt to enforce the law, and the state recommended that they repeal it, but it made for a lot of publicity (I heard about it on National Public Radio News).
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: freedomroad on February 20, 2003, 07:42:06 am

It is interesting to note, however, that a few years ago in the town of Virgin, Utah, they passed an ordinance requiring every family to own a gun.  They did not attempt to enforce the law, and the state recommended that they repeal it, but it made for a lot of publicity (I heard about it on National Public Radio News).

They also did this in an Atlanta suburb.  They also do not intend to actually collect the fines that many of the families in GA legally owe the government because of this very bad law.  If they tried to collect the fines, the laws would be thrown out by the courts.
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Kelton on February 20, 2003, 12:04:13 pm
The Free State Project and Property Rights
by Jason Sorens, Keynote address to 2003 annual meeting of Vermont Citizens for Property Rights:

http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/feb16/property.html (http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/feb16/property.html)

From the speech:
In Vermont, we would be entering a more polarized situation, but one with perhaps more possibilities. As everyone knows, Vermont has been trending hard to the left over the last three decades, while pockets of the state remain staunchly conservative. However, the Free State Project could bring Vermonters together by offering a creative synthesis of its values both new and old: a respect for individual liberties and the full Bill of Rights, an emphasis on localism and decentralization, and the use of private, cooperative solutions as an alternative to bureaucratic, governmental methods.
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Zxcv on February 20, 2003, 12:51:26 pm
Keith, Kennesaw, Georgia is not such a small suburb any more, over 20,000:
http://www.kennesaw.ga.us/default.asp?comp=HTML&Page={5A7956B7-66C8-11D5-8F77-00E0291018DF}&SiteId=35&SessionId=

Their crime is really low, too.  ;)

While the idea of making people pay money, who don't live up to their civil duty to defend themselves, is very satisfying (and a good educational tool, as you say, exitus; a better tack would be to prohibit municipalities from accosting individuals who choose to carry openly. And for leaders to encourage open carry. That would be much more effective.
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Otosan on March 14, 2003, 02:03:09 pm
Vermont Senate passes medical marijuana bill
    Marijuana Policy Project

"The Vermont Senate today passed S. 76, the medical marijuana bill,
by a vote of 22-7. In the wake of this resounding endorsement,
supporters are increasingly optimistic about the measure's prospects
for becoming law this year. 'Last year, the Vermont House passed a
nearly identical bill ... the first Republican-controlled state
legislative chamber ever to pass a medical marijuana bill,' said
Billy Rogers, director of state policies for the Marijuana Policy
Project ..." (03/13/03)

http://www.mpp.org/releases/nr031303vt.html
Title: New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: George Reich on April 07, 2003, 09:32:13 pm
This comparsion between Vermont and New Hampshire was posted recently on the NHLiveFreeorDie Yahoo group:

"You can say that again, this state (Vermont) needs massive help! But as a Vermonter, I would throw my support behind New Hampshire. First of all, there is much talk here among the citizens of the advantages of NH. Many of us cross the Connecticut to shop because we save sales tax, especially for big ticket items. You'd be amazed how many people drive over 60 miles round trip to do their grocery shopping over in New Hampshire.

Businesses are at such an enormous disadvantage here, they leaving on a daily basis. Burlington lost something like 5000 IBM jobs recently. Several years ago my small business was hit by the VT tax department for $14,000 in past taxes and penalties because we failed to pay a ''Use" tax on free magazines we had printed in New York and distributed free in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Meanwhile, the State of New Hampshire sends us pamphlets on how we could benefit by moving to the Granite State. And they mean it!

As a libertarian I think sexual persuasion is your own business, but you have to face it, gay and lesbian groups tend to be on the big-government end-of-the-spectrum, and Vermont's Civil Union laws have made the state a beacon for these groups. I believe there is already a influx into Vermont that would be hard for the FSP to counter. In some of our small towns there are more gay marriages occurring than traditional ones. Over 100 in Woodstock last year.

I would just like to point out that to those of us who live next door to New Hampshire, the state is already considered a libertarian paradise. There are many, like me, who are definitely leaning to moving there. Check out the thousands who have left Massachusetts for the economic freedom of NH. In liberal New England there are thousands more in Maine, CT and RI who could pull up stakes and not have to move too far to be free. I don't think you'd see a lot of folks in the states surrounding Wyoming motivated to do the same
thing.

While I love the idea of the Free State, I hope the activists realize that there is already a demographic population shift going on: people who want to live-free-or-die move, or want to move, to New Hampshire. Those who believe the government has all the answers take to Vermont. Uh, I mean Vermonters elected Howard Dean as governor, Jim Jeffords and Pat Leahy as Senators; and, last but not least, Bernie Sanders, the Socialist, as our only representative to Congress! Man, I can't believe there is anyone who would want to doom the FSP folks to the hell that has become Vermont"
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: George Reich on April 11, 2003, 07:48:31 pm
Comments from another Vermonter:

I would LOVE it if the FSP selected Vermont, because that's where I live - and for a number of reasons, I cannot move to another state. HOWEVER, that being said, having lived here most of my life and worked as a reporter here for many years, I simply do not think Vermont is as favorable a soil to till as New Hampshire. Vermont suffers from leftist pollution. At the urging of Mother Jones Magazine in the 1960s, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of leftists moved here. They have REALLY skewed the politics here to the left, in some cases the very far left. Changing things in the direction of liberty (rather than just fighting a delaying action, which is what most of us here now do) would take an effort akin to turning the Queen Elizabeth.

New Hampshire has already elected some LP members to the state house. A large portion of the indigenous population is inclined toward liberty. Many of those folks who are moving to NH from Mass or other locations further south are doing so in part BECAUSE of this liberty atmosphere. It is no mistake that the state's license plate says "Live Free or Die." While not every resident of the state agrees with that saying, the majority apparently do or it would long since have been expunged from the plates. What a wonderful slogan for the FSP state!
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: Rearden on April 22, 2003, 12:41:09 pm
I have spent at least one week skiing in Vermont every year for over a decade, up in the Northeast Kingdom.  The state is exceptionally beautiful, and the people are very friendly.  When I was last there in January, I called the guy who was renting us the condo, and I asked him how we could get in, and he told me to try the knob.  Crime there is so rare that they don't even lock their doors.

Having said that, in talking to the natives, they generally felt very much held hostage by the socialist invaders.  The "Take Back Vermont" movement was very big in the Northeast Kingdom, and indeed the people seemed to be very libertarian in their approach to life.  Very individualistic.  

If all of Vermont were like the Northeast Kingdom, I would be there right now.  Unfortunately Montpelier is controlled by the socialist invaders to the south, and the natives are very unhappy with some recent developments, such as a new statewide planning effort (argh) and ever increasing taxes.  

In January I asked several natives I see every year what they thought of the FSP, and while they said that they wished us luck, and two even said they may join us, they uniformly shook their heads sadly and said that New Hampshire would be the best choice.  Our landlord said that he was even trying to sell his units so he could move to New Hampshire, as regulations and taxes had made profit difficult in Vermont.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: Michelle on May 02, 2003, 08:33:23 am
There is an interesting Vermont vs. New Hampshire discussion going on here:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=1686
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: jgmaynard on May 02, 2003, 10:22:03 am
"gay and lesbian groups tend to be on the big-government end-of-the-spectrum, and Vermont's Civil Union laws have made the state a beacon for these groups"

Actually, GLB groups were supporters of Michelle and my campaigns in 2000 and 01. I fully expect them to be again.
And civil unions? We can do that! The NH voter would go for it, as long as it didn't raise our taxes! lol...

JM

Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: Kelton Baker on May 02, 2003, 01:09:37 pm
I find this post from the Recruiting an PR discussion just irresistable for me to comment upon.  How much can we really compare generalities between states in the same region, an ongoing question for me. ...


Have 3,483 people really each spent 100s of hours trying to figure out which state is best for the FSP?  No.  Do all of our votes count?  Yes.

This is one of the unfortunate aspects of democracy,  the best we can do is try to inform the voters.  It applies equally here in this voluntary association called the FSP as it does out in the realm of involuntary action and force that we face.  

Personally, I do not know what people are doing by participating in the FSP vote if they don't perform the most minimally necessary due dilligence about which state, but I've long since accepted that they too will be participating in this important vote.  Cheers to people like FreedomRoad who have done a great service in compiling information for us to make a more informed choice.  


Quote
Wyoming is in the middle of nowhere with only two major cities nearby, land-locked, technologically backwards, has little job growth, and living in WY would be "roughing it" to say the least.
Some people just have different priorities when it comes to how much they desire to have a free state.  Not one of these things is a necessary ingredient for obtaining a free state.

. . .
Quote
[New Hampshire] has a strong tourism industry in relation to WY, and is more politically inviting with less political challenges to overcome.
Can you quantify these measurements?  Wyoming sees more tourists annually than its resident population, just look at the statistics for Yellowstone alone!

By some measurements, New Hampshire is much more problematic than any other state, look at the strong support NH has for Medicaid, Medicare, EPA SuperFund programs, to name a few.  The real question is, do the benefits that NH's political system offer compensate for the more-than double population?


Quote
Here in Vermont, people from all over the world visit year-round, and especially during fall foliage.  When I lived in Utah (next to WY), tourists were rarely seen, if ever.  


That is quite laughable that you did not see tourists in Utah, a major part of its economy (and Wyoming's too) is tourism.

But point taken, in Vermont, people go to see the quaint little towns and view the fall foilage and interact with the locals at bed & breakfasts and so forth.  In Utah, (and Wyoming) much of the sights are well outside of towns-- the ski resorts, the national parks: many tourists come by tour bus and stay in chain hotels.

Quote
Its police force is strict and uptight with a low tolerance for almost anything outside of normal.  Imagine city-wide curfews.  That's Utah.  It is a closed, private, conformist culture.  Although I'm not sure how similar it is in Wyoming.

While we are working on anecdotal evidence, my experience of 25 years in Utah in 14 different locations throughout the state should trump your 12 years.  My experience in Utah is that it is leaps and bounds less uptight, as you describe, than my experience so far in California.  And on the spectrum of things, Wyoming is beyond comparison to Utah, based on everything measured so far.
 
Quote
They are very accepting, helpful, forgiving, honest, friendly, and, most importantly, tolerant of one's differences.
Your words remind me of the Boy Scout Motto,  Vermont does not have a good track record of accepting groups that wish to be non-inclusive, however.


106
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: LeRuineur6 on May 02, 2003, 02:55:52 pm
For this post, I'll leave out all debate regarding a state and focus on the topic of debate itself.

Quote
This is one of the unfortunate aspects of democracy,  the best we can do is try to inform the voters.

Please do not be upset with me for my lack of research.  You people have spent hundreds of hours gathering research and trying to reach conclusions based on it, and that is what we read to determine our conclusions.  That was the entire purpose of gathering your research, was it not?

It's just not realistic to expect the same amount of research out of individuals as the Founders have done.  I just can't do it, as many FSP individuals probably can't, although I'll try to speak only for myself.

Of course I'll keep researching and I'll keep an open mind and try to reach unbiased conclusions, but if I reach a conclusion on any given day, I'll say what I think and talk it through with you people.  This should be perfectly acceptable, even if I say "this is mandatory!  we must move to NH!"

That is how strong my conviction is of the correctness of my decision at this moment in time, and nothing more.  Rather than being shot down in anger, one must accept that dozens, hundreds, or maybe even thousands of others are reaching conclusions in the same manner as I am.  Learn from me rather than angrily ostracizing me.

Next month I could have a strong conviction about Vermont instead of New Hampshire.  Then I would explain the logic behind my decision, my convictions, beliefs, personal opinions, and assumptions.  And those who disagree with it will refute it with their own statements, and so on, ad infinitum, until we finally vote on a state.  This is not unfortunate, this is a necessary, valuable tool!

Perhaps many people will simply start with arguments based on assumptions and reach their conclusions through debate.  Did I mean to insult those who have done more research than me?  Of course not.  Please don't take it that way.  Please stop being angry with me and stop insulting me.

I apologize if I insulted anyone.  Your research is invaluable to all of us.  I do not believe that your research is worthless, that I am right and you are wrong, and that it will be my way or the highway.  Instead, I believe that lengthy intellectual debate is the strongest tool to reach a conclusion.

Let's talk it through!  :)
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: Kelton Baker on May 02, 2003, 03:57:59 pm

Please do not be upset with me for my lack of research.  You people have spent hundreds of hours gathering research and trying to reach conclusions based on it, and that is what we read to determine our conclusions.  That was the entire purpose of gathering your research, was it not?


I apologize if I insulted anyone.  Your research is invaluable to all of us.  I do not believe that your research is worthless, that I am right and you are wrong, and that it will be my way or the highway.  Instead, I believe that lengthy intellectual debate is the strongest tool to reach a conclusion.

Let's talk it through!  :)

I actually agree with you, LeRuineur on the need to talk it all through.  While I praise FreedomRoad for all of his efforts, and agree with him that Wyoming is best,  I hope not to participate in ostracizing anyone.

My statement about the 'unfortunate aspects of democracy' is just that, anytime you make a democratic decision, it is prone to be made by lots of uninformed individuals.  While I sometimes spend hours researching candidates and issues, like I did before the November elections, I recognize that my vote is cast into a sea of votes made by ignoramuses.  I have much higher expectations of the FSP members than of my fellow voters in California!  
However, I fully recognize that the **wrong** state is going to be chosen, no matter which state we choose, be it New Hampshire, Wyoming (or heaven forbid-- North Dakota or Vermont).

131
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: jgmaynard on May 04, 2003, 07:50:45 pm
Has anyone else here besides me ever actually LIVED in NH and VT?

JM
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: Mister on May 04, 2003, 08:41:12 pm
Is there any comparison between NH and VT?  NH is a competitor for the free state, VT is a joke.  Aside from being left of NH on maps, VT is leftist on every economic issue EVER.  NH and WY are the two best choices.  VT ranks 51st, behind every state and the Soviet Union of 1935.  

NH is better than WY because more people will move there.  WY is better because fewer people live there to begin with.  I'd move to either if selected as the free state (as pledged) but I vote for NH.

There is a lot of antagonism and devisiveness in these boards and I think that the point is missed.  Those building the case for wyoming ought to be willing to move to NH, and likewise with those who praise NH's qualities.  We need to stick together.

It is not the be all and the end all if your state isn't picked.  Educate yourself and others, vote your conscience, and stick with the vote.  If we want this to succeed, we need to avoid internal strife.

That said, I'd like a congratulation on my first post.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: Tony on May 04, 2003, 09:34:36 pm
Are you sure that was your first post? ;D  You have some excellent points.  I seriously doubt that VT will win.  If it does I'll cry. :-[    ;)  I have a slight preference for WY, but NH is a VERY close second.  After that I prefer Alaska, and then Montana.  I really don't care, just so long as the PR of Delaware doesn't win.  That's the only state I opted out of.  ;)
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: jgmaynard on May 05, 2003, 10:50:42 am
I agree, Mister, and congratulations on your first post. This is #100 for me!!!!
I'm now a patriot (not to be confused with a certain piece of fascist legislation of the same name ;))
Vermont would be the easiest state for me to move to (1/2 hour away), but it is going to be low on my list.
I think the WY'ites who are arguing for their state, and I KNOW NH'ites doing the same are doing it because we honestly believe our states are the best choice, and we know the other one would be pretty darn good, too.
Now someone congratulate me on my 100th post. :D

JM
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: jgmaynard on May 10, 2003, 11:04:31 pm
I lived in Vermont for a year.... I am now only 1/2 hour away...  The sales and income taxes REALLY hafta go! lol...
Darn, darn purty place tho... :). Started college at Bennington, too...
As for "I wonder if there is some way to quantize accessibility to legislative seats in the states, without it being a completely subjective judgement call?", I think it would be something like total money spent in an average race, multiplied by # of voters per district, divided by 1000 or something like that...
Just thoughts....

JM
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: BillG on May 22, 2003, 10:40:10 pm
Quote
Started college at Bennington, too...


Jim-

What in God's good name was a libertarian doing at Bennington College? Is this the reason why you only started college there?

signed-

a green friend in NH...

we must have that green vs. libertarian debate soon!
Title: Why not VT?
Post by: Del on June 07, 2003, 05:48:32 pm
I think it's really strange that no one seems to have been talking about it here.  It has a smaller population than New Hampshire, and to my knowledge actually has stronger Libertarian leanings.  Plus it is IMO better than a Western state because it's right up there in the NorthEast snuggled against one of the two major cultural and economic POWER zones in the nation.

So, to review-- because of its size and current political leanings, it would be an ideal state to make an impact (plus it has some GORGEOUS scenery).  And then, although not quite as close as NH, it is still right there in the geographic zone to have easier access to economic and human capital.  Also, by being in that zone it would gain MUCH greater media credibility.. I personally have nothing against the West or other regions/states which are painted in the NY/LA controlled media as "hick" and "redneck", but the fact is.. that they are painted in the media as "hick" and "redneck", and the factor must be considered.

As far as why not NH.. it has a bigger population, I don't think the political climate would be quite as friendly.. and, I guess, I have family in both VT and NH and based on my limited experience I sort of like Vermont better.

Matt
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: RidleyReport on June 07, 2003, 07:14:31 pm
<<As far as why not NH.. it has a bigger population, I don't think the political climate would be quite as friendly.. and, I guess, I have family in both VT and NH and based on my limited experience I sort of like Vermont better.>>

Vermonters are not sympathetic to us overall comapred to most of the other candidate states.  The best thing we can do for Vermont is leave her alone and let her continue with her existing laboratory-of-democracy experiments.   Many of those experiments are not very liberty-friendly, but least she's experimenting.   I think we'd just skew the results of the experimnt.

 
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: Zxcv on June 09, 2003, 03:15:52 am
Yes, VT actually provides us protection, in a way. We can argue that states ought to be left alone to find their own political solutions to problems, not have one standardized solution from the feds rammed down our throats. And we can point to VT as picking one solution, even though we think it's the wrong one.

That advantage would be lost if we went there.

Other than that, and the fact it's not in the west,  ;) I think VT is a pretty good candidate. But we'd have a hell of a long time digging ourselves out of the statist hole they are now in. Once you develop those constituencies, they tend to be self-perpetuating. It would be tough to spend years or decades just to get back to the point where NH, ID or WY is today.

I tend not to worry about what the media think about western states. With the Internet, the old media is becoming increasingly irrelevant. People are wising up to their propaganda.
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: jgmaynard on June 09, 2003, 03:10:42 pm
I have actually lived in Vermont (Bratlleboro, for a year).
The things VT have going for it are the best gun laws in the nation (the only state better than NH!), civil unions, and it is a really pretty state.
However, after a year in VT, I quickly became a tax refugee back to NH... The sales and income taxes were too much to take, and I was running a business and losing a LOT of customers to NH, who would hop the Connecticut River to avoid the sales tax.
I found it hard to even find a REPUBLICAN there, never mind Libertarians! ;)
Hardy Macia is doing a great job, though... But I don't think the VTLP has anyone eleccted yet... NH leads the way of all states with 28.... The political climate in NH is MUCH more lib-friendly than in VT.
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 09, 2003, 03:44:44 pm
Quote
I think it's really strange that no one seems to have been talking about it here.

We could never go to Vermont!  At least, not Burlington.

Peter Clavelle is Burlington's Mayor-For-Life.

Unless VT's entire "Progressive" party croaked, we'd have no chance.  They're the greatest ultra-activist government busy-bodies I've ever seen.

I live in Burlington, VT right now, and when I think about the FSP coming to VT, I think of a tiny flea buzzing around an 80-story-tall godzilla statist swinging a tremendous fly-swatter at it.  LOL
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 09, 2003, 06:15:56 pm
Well, Ruineur, that's the exact same idea of Burlington I got when I was there a few months ago. ;)  But there are people in high places in VT who'd like to see us go there.  And the social structure and history of the place are perhaps better attuned to a certain kind of libertarianism than any other state.  Vermont is the least urbanized state in the country and has the strongest tradition of local democracy.  They also managed to "skip" the industrial era, which was full of class conflict and unionization in the larger cities in other states, legacies that remain to this day.  They went straight from agriculture to the information economy.

We'd have our work cut out for us in Vermont.  But in the northeast and center-east parts of the state, we'd probably have a lot of support.  We'd just have to stay outside Burlington city limits and a few other liberal towns like Rutland and Brattleboro.
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: robmayn on June 09, 2003, 09:51:01 pm
And the social structure and history of the place are perhaps better attuned to a certain kind of libertarianism than any other state.  Vermont is the least urbanized state in the country and has the strongest tradition of local democracy.  

This is a point that few recognize about Vermont.  The Progressives have been successful here because the have done their homework well and know how to sell their ideas in a way that makes them sound like a bunch of independent mavericks.  Libertarians could do the same if they knew how to appeal to Vermonter's self image of swimming agianst the tide.
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: HardyMacia on June 10, 2003, 06:05:09 am
Hardy Macia is doing a great job, though... But I don't think the VTLP has anyone eleccted yet... NH leads the way of all states with 28.... The political climate in NH is MUCH more lib-friendly than in VT.

We currently have several people elected at the town levels. Vermont was also the most recent state to elect a Libertarian to the state house (1998).

As for the Progressives in Burlington. Talking with a couple of my friends living in Burlington believe that 500 FSP could push control to the Republicans which would start collaspe the Progressives. The progressive get a lot of support from college students in Burlington - FSPer promoting marijuana legalization, repealing the drinking age, and other pro-student freedom issues could get the student vote.

Hardy Macia
Grand Isle VT
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: George Reich on June 10, 2003, 07:37:13 am
Vermont was also the most recent state to elect a Libertarian to the state house (1998).

New Hampshire elected a Libertarian to the statehouse in 2000.
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: jgmaynard on June 10, 2003, 09:17:39 am
Great to hear it, Hardy! You should have it on your website... I searched it high and low... :)

JM
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: jgmaynard on June 11, 2003, 06:00:00 pm
Hardy Macia is doing a great job, though... But I don't think the VTLP has anyone eleccted yet... NH leads the way of all states with 28.... The political climate in NH is MUCH more lib-friendly than in VT.
We currently have several people elected at the town levels.

Hey Hardy:

I wanted to apologize... I was wrong. I have learned (from Michelle's 101 Reasons to vote for NH report  (http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf)) that VT has 18 people elected! That is a GREAT job... I think Vermont may now be my #2....

JM
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: jgmaynard on June 11, 2003, 10:57:02 pm
I'm curious.... But keep in mind the national LP is always well behind the times....

JM
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 16, 2003, 12:26:59 pm
...
Vermont has only 12 people filling 20 offices.
Jack Simmons is filling four.
Hardy Macia is filling three.
Bradley Bender is filling two.
Dwight Duke is filling two.
Joel Williams is filling two.

Maybe Hardy can give us an updated list.


I am a little suspicious of the hullabaloo over Vermont having 12  LP members in office as Vermont maintains obsolete government positions that still must be filled.

For instance, Hardy Macia holds Grand Isle's ceremonial office for "Weigher of Coal" (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0007/macia.html)

158
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: HardyMacia on June 19, 2003, 11:59:15 pm
Quote
Vermont has 18 people elected.
According to the National LP page
http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php

Vermont has only 12 people filling 20 offices.
Jack Simmons is filling four.
Hardy Macia is filling three.
Bradley Bender is filling two.
Dwight Duke is filling two.
Joel Williams is filling two.

Maybe Hardy can give us an updated list.


I'm currently only holding one office (Justice of the Peace).
Sheldon Katz is holding one office.
Scott Berkey is holding one office.
Bradley Bender is filling two.
Dwight Duke is filling two.
Joel Williams is filling two.
Kent Wright is holding one.
Some fellow Joel Williams' town was elected to Justice of the Peace as a Libertarian.
There might be a couple more people holding offices that I can't recall.

Hardy Macia
Grand Isle, VT
ex-weigher of coal

VT, WY, MT, NH, ID, AL, ME, ND, SD, DE
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: freedomroad on June 20, 2003, 03:26:18 am
Quote
Vermont has 18 people elected.
According to the National LP page
http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php

Vermont has only 12 people filling 20 offices.
Jack Simmons is filling four.
Hardy Macia is filling three.
Bradley Bender is filling two.
Dwight Duke is filling two.
Joel Williams is filling two.

Maybe Hardy can give us an updated list.


I'm currently only holding one office (Justice of the Peace).
Sheldon Katz is holding one office.
Scott Berkey is holding one office.
Bradley Bender is filling two.
Dwight Duke is filling two.
Joel Williams is filling two.
Kent Wright is holding one.
Some fellow Joel Williams' town was elected to Justice of the Peace as a Libertarian.
There might be a couple more people holding offices that I can't recall.

Hardy Macia
Grand Isle, VT
ex-weigher of coal

VT, WY, MT, NH, ID, AL, ME, ND, SD, DE

Thanks for the update.  I guess the National LP is a little slow with the updates.  That is no big deal.

BTW, your ranking lists AK as AL.  Although I like Alabama, it is very humid.  However, if this was the 250,000 State Project, and AL was one of the choices, I would have to really think about it.  Should I pick WY or AL?
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: wolverine307 on August 02, 2003, 12:14:35 pm
jgmaynard said:

Has anyone else here besides me ever actually LIVED in NH and VT

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Well no, but I did live in Groton, CT. Does that count?

wolverine
(still doing his DD, but admittedly VT doesn't look too good)
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: jgmaynard on August 02, 2003, 12:55:40 pm
No, Wolverine. But not anything bad. It's just that VT is a LOT different from NH and both of them are way different than CT.
Personally, I think VT has a lot going for it, that many people are overlooking. It willl be higher on my ballot than in it's final standings, IMHO.... ;)

JM
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: wolverine307 on August 02, 2003, 01:19:34 pm
Personally, I think VT has a lot going for it, that many people are overlooking. It willl be higher on my ballot than in it's final standings, IMHO

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Fair enough. What are we overlooking? I want to pick VT as my in-your-face candidate, but I don't want to go broke funding Big Brother while doing so.

VT seems slightly to the left of Karl Marx.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 02, 2003, 01:21:27 pm
Quote
Personally, I think VT has a lot going for it, that many people are overlooking. It willl be higher on my ballot than in it's final standings, IMHO....

Vermont DOES have a lot going for it.

VT has a low population, an independent-minded population, a relatively successful libertarian party, etc.

But the job situation in VT, as in WY, is terrible.  This does not necessarily destroy it in my rankings, but the big-government leftists here absolutely fear us as though we are "an invading army of conservatives" as one girl put it.  That opinion probably has a lot to do with the "Move Over Hippies" article in the Burlington Free Press a few months ago, but I'm not sure.

Assuming we could get the remaining 20,000, I believe we could succeed in any state as long as we take the approach of practical libertarianism, which means to solve problems without the government's help in order to wean the population of the state from its dependence on the government.

"Success," however, will most likely be greater in states with stronger economic opportunities, a solid private investment infrastructure, and a welcoming population.  NH has all of these things.  VT has none.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 02, 2003, 01:26:35 pm
Fair enough. What are we overlooking? I want to pick VT as my in-your-face candidate, but I don't want to go broke funding Big Brother while doing so.

VT seems slightly to the left of Karl Marx.

The ISO (International Socialist Organization) has a presence in Vermont.  The recent anti-war protests included many signs provided by the ISO.  The ISO also tabled at the rally.  On their table were books by Karl Marx, etc.

However, even the leftists in VT DESPISE the Socialists.

Needless to say, the Socialists do not have any friends.  They try hard, but Americans hate the word "Socialist" so deeply because of the USSR, China, Vietnam, and North Korea, that the ISO will NEVER find success in this country.

Regardless of this fact, as a famous socialist once said, "America will one day fly the Red flag by its own will."  It's so true!  We may not call it "socialism," but that's exactly what it has become.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: wolverine307 on August 02, 2003, 02:18:47 pm
Assuming we could get the remaining 20,000, I believe we could succeed in any state as long as we take the approach of practical libertarianism, which means to solve problems without the government's help in order to wean the population of the state from its dependence on the government.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OK, so what are the odds of making VT less of a tax hell? I guess if I had to categorize myself I'd label myself as more of a right-libertarian. Helmet laws, seat belt laws and such matter very little to me in the big scope things relative to financial ones.

Before I get flamed, I strongly endorse homeschooling and am deeply pro-gun. I just don't think the cause of liberty is impaired thru such things as helmet laws. I respect the right of others to disagree with me.

If we can starve government of money, we'll force the system to prioritize where it spends its resources, thereby enhancing the cause of liberty.

More cash in the pocket will make folks more receptive to other parts of classical liberalism.

A vow of poverty and advancing the cause of liberty do not go hand-in-hand for me.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 02, 2003, 02:36:21 pm
Quote
OK, so what are the odds of making VT less of a tax hell? I guess if I had to categorize myself I'd label myself as more of a right-libertarian. Helmet laws, seat belt laws and such matter very little to me in the big scope things relative to financial ones.

Vermont's Constitution does not require public schools.  An "activist judge" determined that it does, but it clearly does not.  Property taxes are pissing off EVERYONE in Vermont, so a vote should be taken to pass a law which reverses the decision.  It's as simple as that.  If you have to amend the Constitution due to activist judges, fine.  It's possible because so many Vermonters are so angry.

The rest of taxes are due to leftism and environmentalism.  Many organizations are sprouting up in Vermont which create non-government solutions to environmental problems and other problems.  Vermont has private garbage collection, road-side coin collection to pay for roads, and some other great ideas to reduce dependence on government, but it has a lot of leftism which could only be countered with practical libertarianism.

Vermont may or may not be the most difficult state to change, but it can be done.

Quote
If we can starve government of money, we'll force the system to prioritize where it spends its resources, thereby enhancing the cause of liberty.

True.  However, there are at least a hundred and fifty million Americans which want to help others and believe the only way they can do that is through the government.

We must redirect their compassion and give them a greater sense of responsibility for themselves and their community.  We must teach them to help others without the government's help.

If we fail to do this, freedom will eventually give way to more and more government, and history will repeat itself yet again.

Helmet and seat belt laws are okay to force parents to make their children wear them, but adults should not be forced to do the same for themselves.  They should take responsibility for themselves.  If they do not wish to wear seatbelts, they should not be forced to do so.  They are old enough to determine what's best for their own safety.

It is my very strong belief that the government should not protect people from themselves because this strongly encourages dependence on the government, thus destroying any sense of personal responsibility.

Take fireworks for example.  They should NOT be banned!  In Vermont, they are illegal because everyone thinks they're too dangerous.  Parents should not allow children to do fireworks.  If they do, they should teach them to use fireworks responsibly.  If your fireworks burn down someone's house or injure someone else, that's your fault.  It's also your fault if you injure yourself, unless it's a defective firework, then it's the company's fault.

Banning fireworks is Vermont's (and 11 other states') way of protecting people from themselves, thus destroying any sense of personal responsibility.  The same goes for drugs, suicide, seatbelts, helmets, etc.  People must learn a sense of personal responsibility or big government will never subside for good.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: wolverine307 on August 02, 2003, 02:44:39 pm
True.  However, there are a hundred and fifty million Americans which want to help others and believe the only way they can do that is through the government.

We must redirect their compassion and give them a greater sense of responsibility for themselves and their community.  We must teach them to help others without the government's help.

If we fail to do this, freedom will eventually give way to more and more government, as it has always done.

Helmet and seat belt laws are good to force parents to make their children wear them, but adults should not be forced to do the same for themselves.  They should take responsibility for themselves.  If they don't want to wear seatbelts, they shouldn't be forced to do so.  They are old enough to determine that's best for their own safety.

It is my very strong belief that the government should not protect people from themselves becaue this strongly encourage dependence on the government, thus destroying any sense of personal responsibility.

Take fireworks for example.  They should NOT be banned!  In Vermont, they are illegal because everyone thinks they're too dangerous.  Parents should not allow children to do fireworks.  If they do, they should teach them to use fireworks responsibly.  If your fireworks burn down someone's house or injure someone else, that's your fault.  It's also your fault if you injure yourself.

Banning fireworks is Vermont's way (and 11 other states') of protecting people from themselves, thus destroying any sense of personal responsibility.  The same goes for drugs, suicide, seatbelts, helmets, etc.  People must learn a sense of personal responsibility or the government will never subside for good.  
 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You bring up some valid points. Thanks for the post.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: JonM on August 02, 2003, 02:47:19 pm
OK, so what are the odds of making VT less of a tax hell? I guess if I had to categorize myself I'd label myself as more of a right-libertarian. Helmet laws, seat belt laws and such matter very little to me in the big scope things relative to financial ones.

I've always thought of things like helmet laws and seatbelt laws as the state trying to thwart Darwinism.  I don't wear a seatbelt because it's the law, I wear it to stay safe.  When I rollerblade or ride a bicycle I wear a helmet not because it's the law (it probably is, but I'm not sure), but because I think it would really suck to splatter my brain all over the pavement.

But if someone else wants to do these things without safeguards, who am I to try and protect them from themselves?  It's an intrusion on their right to do with their lives as they please.  That being said, I have less of a problem with such intrusions on people under 18.  Though I know some disagree with me (and those I wouldn't have expected to have agreed with me, hi Zack!) a case can be made for the state imposing safety requirements on those not of legal age.  It's a tricky line, but I've heard of rather disturbing cases of children being subjected to their parents beliefs to their own eventual demise, and how is that fair to them?


Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 02, 2003, 04:02:48 pm
Well VT has moved up to number 2 on my list, because of a gentleman I have met from there, who I deem to be of good character, and a believer in freedom.

Sorry stat guys I truly do respect your efforts, but I must confess that I have met no one from any of the other states, and have heard precious few even post from the various candidate states.  This does not set well for me, to move to a state full of strangers.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: wolverine307 on August 02, 2003, 06:03:42 pm
FWIW, her is a link on the employment situation in one part of VT.

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.vt_barremontpelier.htm
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 02, 2003, 06:18:23 pm
FWIW, her is a link on the employment situation in one part of VT.

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.vt_barremontpelier.htm

What we cannot find any statistics on are the number of people moving out of Vermont (or any other state) due to a lack of jobs.  Vermont and Wyoming are known for this problem.  I know this is the case in VT, and according to editorials in WY newspapers, this is also the case there.  When people graduate from high school or college, they must move out-of-state because they cannot find a job here.

Unfortunately, until we have the statistics, it's all rumor.   :-\
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: JonM on August 02, 2003, 07:03:30 pm
What we cannot find any statistics on are the number of people moving out of Vermont (or any other state) due to a lack of jobs.  Vermont and Wyoming are known for this problem.  I know this is the case in VT, and according to editorials in WY newspapers, this is also the case there.  When people graduate from high school or college, they must move out-of-state because they cannot find a job here.

Unfortunately, until we have the statistics, it's all rumor.   :-\

I recall reading something about that in a report someone wrote in 2000 for Wyoming suggesting replacing the sales tax with an income tax (an idea that thankfully does not seem to have gained any traction).

But when you're just out of college, for the kids who stayed in Wyoming to go to college, how many want to hang around?  I don't find it unusual that many would go off into the larger world to find their fortune.  While those who are left behind may moan various reasons for it, kids often do want to get away.

I'd be more moved if it were stories about adults moving off.  While I think it would be more difficult for smaller population states to absorb 20,000 people, if it is done slowly over a period of time, it can probably be accomplished.  Since for any target state few other than true glass eaters, retirees and the independently wealthy will pack up and move without at least some prospect of employment, one can hope that as more porcupines move to whichever state is chosen that they will not arrive to the prospect of starvation.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: HardyMacia on August 03, 2003, 06:48:56 am
Burlington lost something like 5000 IBM jobs recently.

It was like 500 jobs. IBM has over 6500 people employeed in their Essex VT plant.

Quote
As a libertarian I think sexual persuasion is your own business, but you have to face it, gay and lesbian groups tend to be on the big-government end-of-the-spectrum, and Vermont's Civil Union laws have made the state a beacon for these groups.

Just as Vermont was a beacon for the slaves fleeing the US on their way to Canada. The Civil Union law needs some more fixing to make it so it treats all individuals equally instead of just same sex partners and opposite sex partners who want to use the term "marriage".

Quote
I believe there is already a influx into Vermont that would be hard for the FSP to counter. In some of our small towns there are more gay marriages occurring than traditional ones. Over 100 in Woodstock last year.

In my town we only had three civil unions and 20 marriages, but I knew more than three gay and lesiban couples in town pre-cu. Woodstock is a tourist town, if you going to visit Vermont and get a cu then you will more likely visit a tourist town. The state should get out of marriage entirely and leave it up to the churches and private parties, this would have passed in Vermont if it was championed louder.

Quote
While I love the idea of the Free State, I hope the activists realize that there is already a demographic population shift going on: people who want to live-free-or-die move, or want to move, to New Hampshire. Those who believe the government has all the answers take to Vermont. Uh, I mean Vermonters elected Howard Dean as governor, Jim Jeffords and Pat Leahy as Senators; and, last but not least, Bernie Sanders, the Socialist, as our only representative to Congress! Man, I can't believe there is anyone who would want to doom the FSP folks to the hell that has become Vermont"

Dean was Lt. Governor and became governor when the republican incumbent died in office.

Jim Jeffords was elected as a moderate republican in the 80s. He beat Bernie to win his seat in the US House.

It took Bernie about 10 tries for office before he actually won. He ended up winning because the gun-rights groups voted him in as a result of the incumbent republican voting badly on a gun rights vote.

Leahy is very good on personal, free speech, and privacy issues. He is bad on other issues.

All of these guys are incumbents which is why they keep getting re-elected.

When there is an open seat like for governor and lt. governor this last election we saw for governor:
2002 (http://vermont-archives.org/govinfo/elect/stoff1.htm)
James H. Douglas, Republican 103,436 44.9%
Doug Racine, Democratic 97,565 42.4%
Cornelius "Con" Hogan, Independent 22,353 9.7%
Chris Ericson, Make Marijuana Legal 1,737 .8%
Michael J. Badamo, Progressive 1,380 .6%
Joel Williams, Libertarian 938 .4%
Patricia Hejny, Vermont Grassroots 771 .3%
Marilyn "Mom" Christian, Restore-Justice Freedom 638 .3%
Peter Diamondstone, Liberty: Union 625 .3%
Brian Pearl, Independent 569 .2%
Scattering 149 .1%

Total votes cast
230,161

(The independent, Hogan had a 80-100k campaign. Hogan was going to run in the republican primary, but chose to run as an independent. Both Hogan and Badamo were invited to every debate the Dem and Rep were invited to. Badamo didn't have any money, but the Progressive in 2000 received 9.5% of the vote so they invited Badamo. The Dem and Rep who were the current Lt. Gov and Treasurer split the vote very evenly.)

Hardy Machia
Grand Isle, VT
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: Kelton on August 03, 2003, 08:47:15 am
FWIW, her is a link on the employment situation in one part of VT.

http://www.bls.gov/eag/eag.vt_barremontpelier.htm

What we cannot find any statistics on are the number of people moving out of Vermont (or any other state) due to a lack of jobs.  Vermont and Wyoming are known for this problem.  I know this is the case in VT, and according to editorials in WY newspapers, this is also the case there.  When people graduate from high school or college, they must move out-of-state because they cannot find a job here.

Unfortunately, until we have the statistics, it's all rumor.   :-\
At your service:
Components of Population Change July 2001 to July 2002
Net Migration Rate per thousand
NH 9.0
DE 9.0
ID 7.6
ME 7.3
WY 6.2
VT 4.6
AK 4.4
MT 1.8
SD -0.9
ND -6.2

Source: Census Bureau
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: Hank on August 05, 2003, 09:55:22 pm
The Vermont Manifesto
and other factors make Vermont worth a second look.
The liberals picked it because it was easy.
It may still be easy.
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: wolverine307 on August 05, 2003, 10:01:37 pm
VT is my in-your-face pick. For that reason alone I'd rate it higher. But as with my concern about AK, I am concerned about the ability of the place to support 20,000+ more people given the wealth destroying nature of the system there.
Title: Re:Why not VT?
Post by: Monty on August 28, 2003, 01:37:33 am
Vermont was picked by the liberals because it was easiest to take over.
They have not completed the job.
Vermont is still the easiest to take back. Even compared to NH.

Hardy Macia, who ought to know (see his posts on this discussion) said:
Quote
Talking with a couple of my friends living in Burlington believe that 500 FSP could push control to the Republicans which would start collapse the Progressives.
Title: Re:The Vermont Papers
Post by: Monty on August 28, 2003, 01:39:59 am
You guys want a plan for taking back a state or seeing how it was done in the first place.

Start with THE VERMONT PAPERS

Take Back Vermont
Half the price of trying to take back New Hampshire.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Vermont
Post by: Monty on August 28, 2003, 01:49:20 am
Hardy, we are outnumbered by the New Hampshire-or-else die-hards here.

In spite of that, we can take back Vermont.

The plans have been started.
We only need a few more people to take it back.
Half of the 20,000 would be enough.
The other half can try to take back New Hampshire. When they get run out by the Massachusetts tide then we'll let them take refuge in Vermont. ;)

We already have the moat built.
It's called the Connecticut River.

We kill our sales tax and Lebanon, NH will die on the vine. ;)
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Monty on August 28, 2003, 01:58:43 am
Between this and the other Vermont discussion topics
WE ARE WELL ON OUR WAY TO A PLAN TO TAKE BACK VERMONT!

YES!

We can do it.

Step one:  Kick out the Democrats (plans are in the works)
Step two:  Repeal the Sales and Income Taxes.
Step three: Finish the job of making a Free State.
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Sean Coven on August 28, 2003, 10:58:06 am
VT was the target of a similar mass relocation effort to FSP; for this reason I will not participate if it is chosen.

These people are living out their dreams in VT; it would be the equivalent of us seeing a mass surge of socialists 10 years after we free our state. It's wrong and I'd want no part of it.
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Zack Bass on August 28, 2003, 11:04:48 am


VT was the target of a similar mass relocation effort to FSP; for this reason I will not participate if it is chosen.
These people are living out their dreams in VT; it would be the equivalent of us seeing a mass surge of socialists 10 years after we free our state. It's wrong and I'd want no part of it.


Neither is wrong.  May the best system win!

Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 28, 2003, 11:25:14 am


VT was the target of a similar mass relocation effort to FSP; for this reason I will not participate if it is chosen.
These people are living out their dreams in VT; it would be the equivalent of us seeing a mass surge of socialists 10 years after we free our state. It's wrong and I'd want no part of it.


Neither is wrong.  May the best system win!


That are the people who are choosing, after all. No group can get majority anywhere.
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Monty on August 28, 2003, 11:36:27 am
The mass relocation of liberal socialist progressives to Vermont WAS WRONG They intentionally took over parts of our state and forced the rest of us to retreat into the hinterlands.
The Free State movement CAN RIGHT THAT WRONG!
Help us take back Vermont from the invaders.

There are fewer New Yorkers in Vermont than Massachusettsians in New Hampshire.
Title: Re:Vermont - more reports, articles, stories, data, etc.?
Post by: Zack Bass on August 28, 2003, 12:06:32 pm


The mass relocation of liberal socialist progressives to Vermont WAS WRONG They intentionally took over parts of our state and forced the rest of us to retreat into the hinterlands.


It was not Wrong of them to move there.  They did not take over your land, or anyone else's, did they, without mutually-agreed compensation in a voluntary sale?

Of course, every time they voted to Tax you, or Zone you, or Imprison you for a Victimless Act, they were doing Wrong then - same as everyone is doing here.  But the moving in was not Wrong.

Title: Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: Summerlin on September 06, 2003, 09:53:49 pm
Key Benefit of Vermont over New Hampshire:

Half the population size.

Why do New Hampshire supports not support Vermont instead?  It seems odd that they'd support the next State over with TWICE the population over their smaller neighbor.

Why is this?   ???
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: Bonner County on September 06, 2003, 10:21:05 pm
Vermont is full of communists
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: freedomroad on September 06, 2003, 10:44:42 pm
Vermont is full of communists

So is the entire Northeast, if you mean socialists.  Socialists do very well in elections in VT, NH, ME, MA, and all of the near-by states.  They do MUCH better than libertarians in all of those states!  This is not a Vermont issue, it is a Northeast issue.  There must be another reason, a real reason.  

Here are a few possible reasons for NH over VT:
slightly less snow
slightly warmer winters
a dozen+ miles of beach
more lakes
slightly higher mountains
a larger variety of wind speeds
closer to Boston
much less conection to CA
many more jobs
closer to NYC
closer to Maine, for vacations
much lower taxes
the challenge of changing NH's firearm laws
less regulation
less history of independence
more road traffic
a big motorcycle rally
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: johnadams on September 07, 2003, 01:08:08 am
....Why do New Hampshire supports not support Vermont instead?  It seems odd that they'd support the next State over with TWICE the population over their smaller neighbor.

Why is this?   ???
If population is your only factor then Vermont Wyoming is your state. But there are a lot more factors to consider than population, or else everyone would be choosing WY.

WY, ND and VT all are projected to maintain low populations for the near future:

Projected Population: 2025
(000's)

WY 600+
ND 650+
VT 700+

I lived in Vermont for 21 years and it would be an OK state for the FSP, but NH is MUCH better. For starters, Vermont is the ONLY state in the Union to elect an avowed Socialist (Bernie Sanders) as first mayor of its largest city and then US Congressman. I don't mean someone that FreedomRoad labels as a socialist, I mean a guy who says proudly, "Yes! I am a socialist!" The current "Progressive" mayor of Burlington, VT (Peter Clavelle) is a Bernie Sanders protege. Bernie and his gang started a "Vermont Progressive Party" that is much further to the left than the Democratic Party, and Peter is a member. You can check out all the elected Progressives in Vermont at http://www.progressiveparty.org/elected.

I know the mayor of Burlington personally, having lived in Burlington for four years. He is a very nice and intelligent guy, but he is definitely a far-left liberal/progressive/statist. When I read a newspaper article in which the FSP rep introduced himself to the mayor and told him what the FSP was about I had to laugh to myself because I KNEW what Peter's reaction was going to be--and he reacted EXACTLY as I expected--he told the FSP representatives that they should go to NH!

You might also consider reading the following article:

The Economics of the Connecticut River Valley
New Hampshire is having Vermont for lunch, and breakfast and dinner

By Joyce Marcel
http://www.vtbusinessmagazine.com/may2000.htm

Also, the current governor of NH is an avowed libertarian and an official "Friend of the FSP" and is the only governor to explicitly ask the Porcupines to come to his state.

If this doesn't convince you then you might try explaining why yourself.   ???
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: freedomroad on September 07, 2003, 01:37:37 am
....Why do New Hampshire supports not support Vermont instead?  It seems odd that they'd support the next State over with TWICE the population over their smaller neighbor.

Why is this?   ???
If population is your only factor then Vermont is your state (it's population is forecast to be less than even Wyomings within five years!).

Are you sure?

Possible population projections according to Fairus.org
http://www.fairus.org/html/042uspj1.htm

Growth from 2000 to 2025
State % new people
ND 1%  9,000 (what growth?)
ME 10% 125,000
VT 38% 132,000
SD 36% 170,000
WY 24% 117,000
NH 31% 383,000
MT 35% 320,000
AK 39% 243,000
DE 50% 392,000 (will there be space?)
ID 87% 1,128,000 (5th fastest growing in the nation)

If VT might have more growth than WY for the next 23 years and it already has over 100,000 people more than WY, how can WY have more people in 5 years?  Maybe you meant 55 years of something.  There is no way to know for sure but if neither VT nor WY is picked as the Free State, 40 years from now, based on past trends, VT will still have more people than WY.



Quote
For starters, Vermont is the ONLY state in the Union to elect an avowed Socialist as US Congressman and two avowed socialists as mayors of the state's largest city! I don't mean people that FreedomRoad labels as socialists, I mean people who say proudly, "Yes! I am a socialist dammit!" The current socialist mayor of Burlington, VT even told the FSP representatives that they should go to NH!


We are speaking of the same type of people.  Look at the support for Nader and other socialists like Al Gore and Teddy Killwomandy in the Northeast.  It is huge!  Hillary Clinton, another socialist is very popular in much of New England.
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: johnadams on September 07, 2003, 02:09:32 am
....Possible population projections according to Fairus.org
http://www.fairus.org/html/042uspj1.htm
Thanks for that reminder, FreedomRoad. It's late and I was thinking of an erroneous post in the past that made the same mistake. VT is among the lowest in population, but WY takes that crown. :) Sorry about the error.

Quote
We are speaking of the same type of people.  Look at the support for Nader and other socialists like Al Gore and Teddy Killwomandy in the Northeast.  It is huge!  Hillary Clinton, another socialist is very popular in much of New England.
I'm not talking about people who received votes, FreedomRoad, I'm talking about people who are in office and will fight the FSP tooth and nail. And I notice you failed to mention GW "Patriot Act I & II" Bush. If Al Gore is a socialist then GW is a National Socialist and a Reconstructionist.
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: johnadams on September 07, 2003, 02:35:44 am
WY is a good state, FreedomRoad, and it remains in my top three despite some concerns I have with it and the tactics of some of its proponents. What did you think of the following article?:

The Economics of the Connecticut River Valley
New Hampshire is having Vermont for lunch, and breakfast and dinner

By Joyce Marcel
http://www.vtbusinessmagazine.com/may2000.htm

It is an encouraging history of how the more libertarian state (NH) has fared much better in the areas of economics and human welfare than the more statist state (VT). I think it holds some important lessons for the FSP on how to manage the Free State for success. By following the lessons taught by the NH vs. VT [experiment], I think the FSP would be greatly helped wherever it goes, and it could use this historical example as ammunition in the campaign to promote libertarian values and policies in any state.
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: Summerlin on September 07, 2003, 04:39:35 am
....Why do New Hampshire supports not support Vermont instead?  It seems odd that they'd support the next State over with TWICE the population over their smaller neighbor.

Why is this?   ???
If population is your only factor then Vermont Wyoming is your state. But there are a lot more factors to consider than population, or else everyone would be choosing WY.

WY, ND and VT all are projected to maintain low populations for the near future:

Projected Population: 2025
(000's)

WY 600+
ND 650+
VT 700+

I lived in Vermont for 21 years and it would be an OK state for the FSP, but NH is MUCH better. For starters, Vermont is the ONLY state in the Union to elect an avowed Socialist (Bernie Sanders) as first mayor of its largest city and then US Congressman. I don't mean someone that FreedomRoad labels as a socialist, I mean a guy who says proudly, "Yes! I am a socialist!" The current "Progressive" mayor of Burlington, VT (Peter Clavelle) is a Bernie Sanders protege. Bernie and his gang started a "Vermont Progressive Party" that is much further to the left than the Democratic Party, and Peter is a member. You can check out all the elected Progressives in Vermont at http://www.progressiveparty.org/elected.

I know the mayor of Burlington personally, having lived in Burlington for four years. He is a very nice and intelligent guy, but he is definitely a far-left liberal/progressive/statist. When I read a newspaper article in which the FSP rep introduced himself to the mayor and told him what the FSP was about I had to laugh to myself because I KNEW what Peter's reaction was going to be--and he reacted EXACTLY as I expected--he told the FSP representatives that they should go to NH!

You might also consider reading the following article:

The Economics of the Connecticut River Valley
New Hampshire is having Vermont for lunch, and breakfast and dinner

By Joyce Marcel
http://www.vtbusinessmagazine.com/may2000.htm

Also, the current governor of NH is an avowed libertarian and an official "Friend of the FSP" and is the only governor to explicitly ask the Porcupines to come to his state.

If this doesn't convince you then you might try explaining why yourself.   ???

Thanks for your detailed response  :D
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: telomerase on September 07, 2003, 10:33:10 am
>By following the lessons taught by the NH vs. VT lesson

That's a very good point. It's an opportunity for a "West Germany vs. East Germany" semi-controlled experiment.

Which brings up a good point; if there were any honest Socialists they would want to see a purely capitalist country exist as a "control group" for their ideas.  

So where are all these honest Socialists?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: johnadams on September 07, 2003, 12:21:39 pm
....Thanks for your detailed response  :D
You're welcome Summerlin! I aims to please.  ;D
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: johnadams on September 07, 2003, 12:30:37 pm
>By following the lessons taught by the NH vs. VT lesson

That's a very good point. It's an opportunity for a "West Germany vs. East Germany" semi-controlled experiment.
Yes, that's a good analogy.

Quote
Which brings up a good point; if there were any honest Socialists they would want to see a purely capitalist country exist as a "control group" for their ideas.  

So where are all these honest Socialists?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I vaguely remember reading about a conversation between an American capitalist and Russian communist years ago, while the Cold War was still ongoing. The Russian said that it was inevitable that the Communists would succeed and take over all of Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, Latin America and Canada. "And then would you take over the U.S.?" says the American. "Oh no," says the Russian, "we'll need to keep at least one nation capitalist so our central planners will know how to price our goods."

But maybe it was just a joke or illustrative story, I don't remember. At least the point is valid, and if a socialist ever did say something like that then there would be at least one honest socialist.  ;D
Title: Re:Vermont has half the population of New Hampshire!
Post by: freedomroad on September 08, 2003, 12:38:57 am

Freedomroad, "We are speaking of the same type of people.  Look at the support for Nader and other socialists like Al Gore and Teddy Killwomandy in the Northeast.  It is huge!  Hillary Clinton, another socialist is very popular in much of New England."
Quote
I'm not talking about people who received votes, FreedomRoad, I'm talking about people who are in office and will fight the FSP tooth and nail. And I notice you failed to mention GW "Patriot Act I & II" Bush. If Al Gore is a socialist then GW is a National Socialist and a Reconstructionist.

Right, the people that win and are in office, like Teddy, John Kerry, Hillary, Howard Dean (not currently in office), Schumer,  Leahy, and Bernie.  These are some of the people that the Northeast loves.  IMHO, Bush is not a socialist.  He is a statist or conservative (depending on how you look at it.)  IMHO, Gore is a statist or a socialist, depending on how you look at it.  

I think Gore is much closer to being a national socialist than Bush (since Gore is a socialist).  Also, the people of the Northeast do not support Bush (as a whole), so why would I mention him if I was talking about socialists that are popular in the Northeast?