Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: Condon on March 16, 2003, 10:55:23 am

Title: More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Condon on March 16, 2003, 10:55:23 am
Well stated, Robert. I agree with just about everything you've said except for Alaska being number 2 (it has the highest number of Porcupines opting-out of any of the candidate states). As most people know, I wrote an article, "Our Most Important Decison" (found at http://www.freestateproject.org/important.htm), that argues in favor of choosing North Dakota. However, since that article was published, and with the discovery and publication of further data, I have rescinded that choice in an article that should be posted soon (tentatively titled "Our Most Important Decision, Part Deux" :--)). Instead, using the same analytical framework and value-strengths as in the first article, I conclude that Wyoming should be our first choice as the Free State. Get ready to vote! We're closing in on 3,000 as this is written, and 5,000 isn't going to be far behind.
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: craft_6 on March 17, 2003, 10:11:48 am
I find the 'poor job market' arguments against WY to be noncompelling.  It will not dissuade prospective members from joining.  

The first 5,000 members will be the most hardcore activists, ready to move anywhere for liberty.  Once the state is selected, the next 15,000 people will join or not join based on how the proposed move will affect them and their families personally.  Job availability will probably become the single biggest factor in how quickly the FSP reaches 20,000.

From what I understand, enrollment is doing great even though WY seems to be the front runner.  Are all of these new people signing up because they are sure some other state will overtake WY between now and November?

Wyoming is the front runner among those who are active on these discussion boards and doing the most research.  They are not a representative sample of the FSP membership (unfortunately), so it is not clear which state is the true front-runner.  Most people who sign up are not reading these boards at all (unfortunately.)


Do we really want to attract members who say, "great, they picked NH.  I can make 60K there, I'll sign up." only to have them say, "I'd love to help with that, but I'll be in the Hamptons all summer."  I'd rather cast my vote with the folks who say, "I'll have to take a pay cut, but the cost of living is cheaper so I won't starve--besides, FREEDOM is what is really important to me."

It's not an either-or choice, though.  The hardcore liberty activists will move to whichever state is selected, so the FSP will have them either way.  The semi-committed folks will move only if they can do so without enduring undue financial hardship.  So the question really becomes, do you want only the hardcore activists, or do you want the hardcore activists plus several thousand more somewhat committed friends of liberty?
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: Robert H. on March 18, 2003, 03:09:33 am
Well stated, Robert. I agree with just about everything you've said except for Alaska being number 2 (it has the highest number of Porcupines opting-out of any of the candidate states).

Thanks, Tim.  I guess I'd sum Alaska up as being 'the most worthy state being given the least chance.'  It would be more of a hardship to make the move, and we'd likely lose more participants after awhile due to the long winters, but I think Alaska may be one of those states where we wouldn't need as many in the long run due to its native sentiment and the AIP.

It has so many advantages but so many logistical problems...sigh.   :(
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: Aaron on March 19, 2003, 05:40:29 am
I find the 'poor job market' arguments against WY to be noncompelling.  It will not dissuade prospective members from joining.  

The first 5,000 members will be the most hardcore activists, ready to move anywhere for liberty.  Once the state is selected, the next 15,000 people will join or not join based on how the proposed move will affect them and their families personally.  Job availability will probably become the single biggest factor in how quickly the FSP reaches 20,000.

All the more reason to choose Wyoming so that those 15,000 will be committed enough to freedom to move even there instead of 15,000 fair weathered friends who decide to sign up since we didn't pick an icky state.  I am not as interested in quick as I am in quality.

Do we really want to attract members who say, "great, they picked NH.  I can make 60K there, I'll sign up." only to have them say, "I'd love to help with that, but I'll be in the Hamptons all summer."  I'd rather cast my vote with the folks who say, "I'll have to take a pay cut, but the cost of living is cheaper so I won't starve--besides, FREEDOM is what is really important to me."

It's not an either-or choice, though.  The hardcore liberty activists will move to whichever state is selected, so the FSP will have them either way.  The semi-committed folks will move only if they can do so without enduring undue financial hardship.  So the question really becomes, do you want only the hardcore activists, or do you want the hardcore activists plus several thousand more somewhat committed friends of liberty?
I would rather be with the hardcores by themselves in Wyoming (especially since the attempts to quanitify viability factors seems to point to WY as the best choice) than be with the hardcores plus extras in a huge state.
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: exitus on April 01, 2003, 11:19:20 am
I can imagine two key questions people ask themselves when ranking states:

What is the best state for me?
What is the best state for the FSP, i.e. everybody else but me?

In response, I ask this question: why are we treating these as seperate questions?  If we believe one state is best for us, why do we assume that another state is best for everybody else?  Is it not reasonable to expect that what is best for you may also be best for many others?

Good point, Karl
But I do take issue with it for one reason, my vote is something I take very seriously.  If I vote, I am taking upon myself the making of a decision for others; it is incumbent upon me to think in terms of principled and reasoned decision, what I think is the best for the whole group, not just myself.

If I thought only for myself when I voted, I would only regard Idaho:  Best weather over-all, when you consider January lows, summertime highs,combined with most sunny days, most spectacular scenery and outdoor recreation opportunities (all factors you cannot change!!!), Best job opportunities, low cost of living, low real- estate prices, family-friendly environment, best home-school laws, . . . I could go on

But If I am only going to think of myself first, why stop there?  I could be better-off voting for welfare-happy Democrats or Green Party candidates, or Socialists at least in the short-run , but knowing the danger of those types in the long-run I vote my conscience, what I think are the best out there. . .

Just the same, I regard Wyoming as best, not because it is best for me, but it seems to be the best choice for the fastest attainment of success for the FSP, which, in the long - run is best for me.

Not to put you down, Karl.  I realize that choosing the best state involves lots of other human factors.  We probably will never get into Wyoming, despite it being the best state, unless this group of 5,000 voters is as sturdy and brave as some of the most ardent Wyoming supporters are.

How I would vote if it were not a vote for the FSP, but merely a decision of which state if I only had ten choices, i.e., "What is the best state for me?"
ID>DE>NH>SD>WY . . . (doesn't make much difference after that).
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: Zxcv on April 01, 2003, 08:08:10 pm
exitus, I agree, even with your choice. If there were no FSP, but I knew what I do now, I'd move to Idaho.

But there is a Project, and it is important to succeed, more important than my personal desires (or to put it another way, my personal desire is that the Project succeed). So, WY is my top choice.
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: George Reich on April 01, 2003, 09:39:27 pm
exitus, I agree, even with your choice. If there were no FSP, but I knew what I do now, I'd move to Idaho.

But there is a Project, and it is important to succeed, more important than my personal desires (or to put it another way, my personal desire is that the Project succeed). So, WY is my top choice.

My personal top choice (for a move) is also Idaho.
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: DadELK68 on April 02, 2003, 09:11:07 am
YOU IGNORED THE MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION.
WHICH STATE IS THE BEST FOR FREE STATE SUCCESS?
Note that FSP "success" is only getting 20,000 to move.
Thereafter the FSP dissolves -- mission accomplished.

Oh, oh.
Here come the New Hampshire boosters.

Joe - realistically (given the many points which have been made in various threads), you do have to consider whether it will be better to have the FSP 'succeed' in ID or NH, or to 'fail' in WY. The odds of getting 20,000+ participants (of whatever degree of activism) to move are MUCH better with NH or ID, and the underlying cultures in NH and ID (again, as evidenced in the spreadsheet analyses and the many postings in various threads) are promising for long-term success.

Perhaps this 'success' may not reach the most extreme definition of the 'dreamers', but then again it is dreaming to think that WY will succeed in drawing 20,000 participants - and short of that goal, it's highly unlikely that anything between, say, 5,000 and 15,000 FSP immigrants will be any more (or less) successful in WY within a generation than 20,000+ in ID or NH.

Snide put-downs of others, particularly using poor/unrealistic logic, are unbecoming. The reason NH and ID have so many supporters is because they are viable options, just as the reason WY has so many supporters is because it is a viable option.
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: Karl on April 02, 2003, 02:37:56 pm
Quote
You ask us to rely on "faith" and "intuition"

NH and ID supporters are asking us to rely more on factors not easily quantifiable:  How will quality of life factors such as job availability affect the effectiveness of activists?  How many more people would be willing to join the FSP and fight for liberty if the free state were among the more "desirable" places to live?  Most importantly, how do these factors compare to those most frequently cited by WY supporters, namely the huge differences in population and population growth?

NH and ID supporters must do better at trying to meaningfully and honestly quantify these factors, as difficult as it may seem.  Otherwise, we'll continue to endure the unjustified accusations of not working in the FSP's (or the "free state's") best interest and having some other agenda, or of being spaceheads.
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: DadELK68 on April 02, 2003, 04:16:03 pm
Our logic is as realistic and reasonable as we can make it -- given what we have been given to work with. We have invited those criticized as "biased" the criteria in our spreadsheets, tables, and analyses to present their unbiased criteria for inclusion in our analyses.
Quote
The reason NH and ID have so many supporters is because they are viable options,
So the proponents believe because they want to live there and are grasping at any straw to justify their decision and to berate the other more viable choices... The latter concern is documented by others and me on several threads throughout this forum.

I'm not knocking the spreadsheets, and I'm not knocking WY - it's interesting that NH and ID do so well with so many variables in so many different permutations of the spreadsheets, so you can't hide behind the spreadsheets - yet you dismiss any challenge to WY as 'grasping at straws', and not 'making a substantial case'. I've never promoted 'faith and intuition', and note that at most a couple of people have suggested such bases for their decisions. In the face of such blatant denial of the obvious on your part, how can we take your claims to objectivity seriously?

Responses to your questions/charges, as well as viable counter-questions, have also been posted and have either been ignored or brushed off by you and a few others in the 'WY-or-bust' contingent. Instead, you keep repeating the same numbers and allegations, and have progressed to sarcasm and belittling those who may disagree with your conclusions.

The proponents of the huge populations states have not yet made a substantial case equivalent to what has been made for Wyoming and even South Dakota. You ask us to rely on "faith" and "intuition".

In other words, you are choosing once again to ignore the very serious concern that WY is unlikely to succeed because of the high probability that it will fail to draw 20,000 people, at any level of activism. This is more than just speculation - various posts from different people have indicated this is likely. What if WY wins and only 5,000 people make the move?

You can play with the numbers at 5k, 10k or even 15k, but can't simply dismiss the fact that 'failure' in the first stage is more likely in WY by insisting that population/voting population is the ultimate variable of concern. That's just as short-sighted as someone supporting a state only because it's where they currently live, or where they would like to live. My criticism isn't with your opinions and conclusions, it's with your implying that others are either hypocritical or blinded by bias while denying your own blind spots.

The logical conclusion is that any one of those three - NH, ID, or WY - as well as maybe MT, are the most viable options for the project. Please try to be a little less disrespectful of the intelligent, sincere people who look at the same data and reach different conclusions. Maybe they see something that you're missing.

Or would you suggest that such is an impossibility, that you are the ultimate repository of truth?
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: Robert H. on April 03, 2003, 04:05:32 am
Quote
In other words, you are choosing once again to ignore the very serious concern that WY is unlikely to succeed because of the high probability that it will fail to draw 20,000 people, at any level of activism. This is more than just speculation - various posts from different people have indicated this is likely. What if WY wins and only 5,000 people make the move?

Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: DadELK68 on April 03, 2003, 05:54:16 pm
Joe, are you by any chance manic-depressive?

Robert, a great deal of your last post indicates that you agree with at least some of my points, but arrive at different conclusions. I can respect that. The bottom line, as you said, is that there are two definitions of 'success' - which is the basis of my question to Joe, and which I hope he will understand.

Thank you for clarifying that you prefer 'failing' in the sense of not reaching 20k in WY to the possibility of 'succeeding' in the sense of achieving or exceeding 20k in ID or NH, and clarifying that essentially 'failing' with 10k in WY is statistically about the same as 'succeeding' with 20k in NH or ID, when it comes to the ultimate goal of having the desired political impact.

Now if Joe and a few others could just learn to respectfully disagree with those who conclude that success, by both definitions, is possible in ID or NH, but that with WY the most likely result would be 'failure' in drawing 20k even though it might still be possible to 'succeed' in moving toward the Free State - we'll be getting somewhere. Don't throw stones unless you're willing to get hit on the rebound.

Now, let me clarify a few misrepresentations:
1) Robert, you misunderstood my statement about activism - it was meant to include the concern that only a small portion of any group will be extremely active, and that others will be active to different degrees. This isn't 'patently ridiculous' My point, was that if 10k go to WY, this same spread will apply when it comes to political activism. Perhaps this core group would be more motivated and more activist, perhaps not. In any case, I do agree with your concern that less than 20k will go anywhere - and thus we need to consider the likelihood that 'x' number will go to any of the states in question, and how many may be likely to go to each. In other threads it has been discussed extensively, but seems to be dismissed by people like Joe because it's too complex to simply plug into a spreadsheet.

2) Joe, I have never expressed anything but appreciation and admiration for the extensive research which has been done, and continues to be done. My concern is that you and a few others seem to rely on spreadsheet data to the exclusion of other forms of analysis, and that you ignore the fact that, for such large-population states, NH and ID do so well even by so many of those measures you hold so dear. From there, you jump to ridiculing those who disagree with your conclusions. In spite of how well NH and ID do in the extensive analyses, you did in fact charge those who favor them with 'grasping at straws', which indicates that YOU ignore the data which supports them. Try to be consistent, okay? The data are there to support these two larger states in pretty much all variables except population, and that's where other discussions are appropriate to determine the relative impact of that single variable. Robert comes close to indicating agreement with this in his suggestion.

3) Karl, you mention NH govt spending and property taxes - which is interesting given that NH is in better state fiscally this year than most states (particularly in New England) which has been attributed to an underlying philosophy of restraint in spending, and that NH doesn't have income or sales tax, leaving only the property tax (and a few others such as hospitality taxes) as a means to collect from residents.

I'll slip back into lurkerdom for a while, so I'll drop this thread without accepting Joe's invitation to 'take it outside', in effect - I agree that this is off-topic, but because Joe started the mudslinging in his response to Karl's observation, this is where it fits in context. I have too much to do in my daily life to indulge in debate further right now. Hopefully I'll have more time in a few weeks. It's been fun, thanks everyone!
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: Robert H. on April 05, 2003, 08:34:42 am
Quote
Robert, you misunderstood my statement about activism - it was meant to include the concern that only a small portion of any group will be extremely active, and that others will be active to different degrees. This isn't 'patently ridiculous' My point, was that if 10k go to WY, this same spread will apply when it comes to political activism. Perhaps this core group would be more motivated and more activist, perhaps not.

Thanks for clarifying.  If that's the case, then I do understand your point, which would seem to address the old 80/20 issue: 80% doing little while 20% do almost everything.  I agree that this will probably apply just about anywhere we go, although I believe that certain people are likely to be more effective in certain places than in others.

By this I'm referring to what you might call the "fish-out-of-water" syndrome.  A person accustomed to big city life may seem apathetic or ineffective in Wyoming due to the cultural differences, and vice versa.  People are generally more interested and effective in familiar (or at least user-friendly) surroundings.  That was one reason why I supported the two-state effort so much: it would have divided people along the lines most conducive to their potential interest, involvement and success.

Quote
In any case, I do agree with your concern that less than 20k will go anywhere - and thus we need to consider the likelihood that 'x' number will go to any of the states in question, and how many may be likely to go to each. In other threads it has been discussed extensively, but seems to be dismissed by people like Joe because it's too complex to simply plug into a spreadsheet.

I agree that it is a complicated issue to try addressing via spreadsheet because so much of it is personal and subjective.  It would also require us to know more about our membership: where they're from, their individual preferences, etc.  Heck, husbands and wives who live their whole lives together fight over the thermostat.   :)

That's one reason why I prefer more objective criteria, among others with which you are already familiar.   ;)  To my way of thinking, the creation of a free state is paramount, and subjective factors make us rely too heavily on unknowns that could endanger that goal.

And I have to wonder if those who make their decision based on convenience and congeniality will go the distance when political activism proves inconvenient and bothersome.  If we have a large group of such persons then we may be looking at something more like a 90/10 factor, and in the higher population states this could jeopardize everything.
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: jgmaynard on April 05, 2003, 11:48:50 am
"NH doesn't have income or sales tax, leaving only the property tax (and a few others such as hospitality taxes) as a means to collect from residents."

And our new Governor Craig Benson (http://www.state.nh.us/governor/) is pushing through a 20% cut in our state property tax over the next two years.... He's already reduced the cost of state Government 10% in the first year.

Craig! Craig! Craig! Craig!

The more I hear about the guy, the more I like him. I am SERIOUSLY considering writing this guy in for the 2004 R pres primary...

From his web site:

"All across the nation, states are united in their fiscal woes. Maine, for example, is facing a $1 billion deficit; Massachusetts, $3 billion. States are facing deep program cuts, higher taxes, and massive lay-offs.

Unfortunately, tough times have also come to New Hampshire. We are facing record breaking deficits and a weakening economy. But tough times can bring people closer together. My management team put in long hours and made a lot of tough choices, but they put together a budget of which we can be proud. Just like families have to sit around their kitchen tables and make tough decisions about spending, New Hampshire's state government has to sit around its collective kitchen table to figure out how to live within its means. That's why I am calling this budget the Kitchen Table Budget. For the first time in a long time, the state budget will grow less than the rate of inflation.

My Kitchen Table Budget is the first step towards controlled spending, greater efficiency, and, of course, lower taxes. The voters came out in record numbers and their message was loud and clear: No income tax. No sales tax. No higher taxes. No way. I couldn't agree more. "

JM
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: freedomroad on April 05, 2003, 09:23:56 pm
"NH doesn't have income or sales tax, leaving only the property tax (and a few others such as hospitality taxes) as a means to collect from residents."

And our new Governor Craig Benson (http://www.state.nh.us/governor/) is pushing through a 20% cut in our state property tax over the next two years.... He's already reduced the cost of state Government 10% in the first year.

I do not know how accuate any of this is.  Almost all governments lie about most 'money issues.'  Governments tend to make up their own math system which only they understand.  However, my state is claiming similar things.  The Democratic, Pro-tax increase TN governor has rejected his salary and claims he wants to let the citizens of TN keep their hard earned money.  He also claims to be cutting the size of almost all government progams and to be cutting state spending.  Well, it seems both Pro-tax Democrates from TN and low-tax Repubs from NH do very similar things when the states start falling apart because of many past years of way to much spending.  Maybe there is a little bit of libertarian common sense in everyone.  Thank God for that.
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: jgmaynard on April 06, 2003, 12:04:56 am
Did you check out his site to judge for yourself?

He's not perfect. pretty pretty darn good, and getting better.

I dunno... I have often thought common sense is an oxymoron... lol

JM
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: Zxcv on April 08, 2003, 11:48:35 am
Hmmm, now that this thread is thoroughly off-topic, I think I'll add my 2c.

You know, I'm 53 years old now, and I can remember how many times I was elated by the election of a particular person - and how disappointed by the time the end of his term rolled around. I hope you folks in NH are not setting yourself up for disappointment. We'll see how Benson looks in a couple of years. I wish you luck.

Quote
Robert, you misunderstood my statement about activism - it was meant to include the concern that only a small portion of any group will be extremely active, and that others will be active to different degrees. This isn't 'patently ridiculous' My point, was that if 10k go to WY, this same spread will apply when it comes to political activism.
Robert bought your reasoning on this, Dad, but I don't. You NH advocates specifically went out to recruit people who would not so much as move to another state. What a level of commitment that demonstrates! Personally, I see these big-state candidates as engendering a lot of "arm-chair activists", and not only because the commitment of recruits would be suspect, but because you'd have so much less influence in the state unless your numbers were very large. Low influence translates into discouragement, which depresses activism even more.

You can look at it another way. Say this country contains 2000 "very very committed" freedom activists, and 10,000 "very committed" activists, and 100,000 "committed" activists. Say we manage to shove only 10,000 into Wyoming (despite its 27,000 jobs in the projection - already hard to believe we can't do better than that but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt) and we get 25,000 into NH. What do we have?

We would have 2000 "very very committed" and 8000 "very committed" activists in WY. On the other hand, in NH we'd have 2000 "very very committed", 10,000 "very committed", and 13,000 "committed" activists. Ignoring entirely that the population ratio puts Wyoming in a better light with this scenario (more activists overall per capita in Wyoming), you can see the average level of activism in Wyoming would also be higher.

Of course I pulled these numbers out of my hat, but this analysis works the same way no matter what numbers you want to put on the "very very committed", the "very committed", and the merely "committed". Wyoming will always have a higher average level of activism out of its FSP members than New Hampshire will.

Quote
In other words, you are choosing once again to ignore the very serious concern that WY is unlikely to succeed because of the high probability that it will fail to draw 20,000 people, at any level of activism. This is more than just speculation - various posts from different people have indicated this is likely. What if WY wins and only 5,000 people make the move?
No one is ignoring that there will likely be a differential. But it's kind of interesting you kick around numbers like 5000 for Wyoming; you have to get down to something below 7800 to be as bad off in Wyoming as you'd be with a full 20,000 in New Hampshire!

But guess what, Dad? At the time of the vote we will already have 5000 for Wyoming (minus some opt-outs, including those one-state wonders you've managed to recruit in NH). How hard will it be to get from 5000 to 7800? Especially considering people can move to Wyoming right away and start doing some good? Compared with that, how hard it will be to climb from 5000 to the 20,000 we'll need in New Hampshire? And nobody can move until we're near that total?

Hell, anyone can see Wyoming is much easier to do.

Quote
Joe, I have never expressed anything but appreciation and admiration for the extensive research which has been done, and continues to be done. My concern is that you and a few others seem to rely on spreadsheet data to the exclusion of other forms of analysis...
What "other forms of analysis" would that be, Dad? If we had something else that resembled true analysis, then we'd have something subject to rebuttal.

Quote
The data are there to support these two larger states in pretty much all variables except population...
And the data are there to support Wyoming in all variables including (especially) population. So why do we even look at these larger states, since population is so important?

Actually, NH is not all that good after all.

I just went to my big spreadsheet (which has a much more extensive collection of variables than the one on the state data page), and created a weight vector called "Social freedom", and another called "Economic freedom". I created these vectors without any reference to the data, or what state was being favored. They also have nothing to do with things like population or FSP viability.

Then I pasted them into the comparison page, and this is what I got:

Social freedom
ID 1848
WY 1760
AK 1655
NH 1652
ND 1507
SD 1467
MT 1451
VT 1356
ME 1138
DE 1036

Economic freedom
WY 1444
SD 1389
ID 1319
ND 1277
AK 1172
NH 1124
MT 1046
VT 914
ME 905
DE 869

Now you can quibble with my weighing; and clearly, by examining the data, you can always fudge weights to make one state or another move up in the rankings. But I think it is pretty interesting how poorly NH does when not trying to fudge things. NH is always inferior to ID - if we were going to pick a big state, ID should be the one. NH is always inferior to a WY/VT 2-state project - why would we do NH when that better alternative is available, and takes care of the east-west split? And NH is always inferior to WY, whether we worry about population or not.
Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: freedomroad on April 08, 2003, 03:30:37 pm
Quote

BUT, the above would be bad two-state projects
because they would still have
unhappy and whining rural westerners in New Hampshire
and
unhappy and whining city easterners in Idaho
Better for only the most committed, dedicated, ambitous, and liberty-hungry half of the 20,000 to move to Wyoming. The rest can stay home where they can go to the concerts/symphony, super-malls, warm beaches or stadium games instead of getting involved in serious politics like actually going to political meetings and seriously running for office. See this thread (and note how little has been added there)
What I learned today at my local council, board, or commission... (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=1208)

Joe, Wyoming has stadiums, it even has a pro football and pro baseball team.  Wyoming has tons of sports, hockey, baseball, football, rodeo, pro fishing, big game hunting, windsurfing, golf, wrestling...  Wyoming has concerts and symphonies.  It has a botanical gardens and many other things.  If you want super-malls, go to Denver and Salt Lake City.  Billings has a nice, tax-free mall.  Ft. Collins and Boulder have very nice outdoor malls, just like Burlington, VT does.  I have been to the outdoor malls in Burlington and Boulder, they are both very, very nice to city folks and country folk, alike.  Do you want a zoo?  30 minutes from Wyoming, in NE, you have a zoo.  Wyoming is not far from big cities.  Wyoming is not in the middle of no where.  Wyoming is very close to massive, quickly growing MSAs.

Wyoming might have a lot of country people, but so does Vermont.  I've traveled though VT, up and down, in and out, you will find many country people.  Vermont is full of farmers and the like.  
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: exitus on April 08, 2003, 09:08:21 pm

Though I've documented the following statement on the other threads (links posted above) several times...

A vote for New Hampshire
IS a vote for a two state project --

the equivalent of Wyoming in the North
AND
the equivalent of Vermont in the South.

A vote for Idaho
IS a vote for a two state project --

the equivalent of Wyoming in the Southeast
AND
the equivalent of Delaware in the Southwest.

Referencing Joe's post above, I much prefer Wyoming to take the vote with this in mind:

Let all of the fellow FSP members who happen to opt-out of Wyoming and new recruits who resist going to Wyoming go join the friendly NHLP, who will welcome them with open arms, or,  if they were unwilling to move back east, go move to sunny Boise and help us keep a sympathetic state next-door.

---How about it?
A vote for Wyoming is a vote for New Hampshire! (to welcome all the FSP remnants)
A vote for Wyoming is a vote for Idaho (to receive all those who for some reason or another refuse to make a move into Wyoming or move back East?)

I'm not proposing that the FSP do anything different, I am merely suggesting what will be done anyways if Wyoming is chosen to point-out how a vote for Wyoming is actually in the self-interest of most everyone.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on April 08, 2003, 09:40:06 pm
"This is more than just speculation - various posts from different people have indicated this is likely. What if WY wins and only 5,000 people make the move? "

That we NH Libs get the other 15,000? ;o)    

Don't bash kids, it's a joke.

Here's the problem with the population ratios - You don't need to convince everybody- Just those who don't agree with you. :o
If you wanted to get a libertarian agenda passed, would it be easier to do in a room of 100 libertarians or 50 socialists?

I know the difference is not as dramatic as pure libs vs pure socialists, but the idea is that population doesn't matter as much as starting point. A race on a 10km track is shorter than on a 5 km track, as long as you start much closer to the finish line.

PLUS OUR Governor's  (http://www.state.nh.us/governor/) better than your Governor... He wants to MEET with us!  :P

Benson's property tax relief plan:

Current law - $5.80

    2004 - $5.10    $67,347,000 in property tax savings
    2005 - $4.99    $82,810,000 in property tax savings
    2006 - $4.43    $148,316,000 in property tax savings
    2007 - $3.73    $237,428,000 in property tax savings
    2008 - $3.00    $340,000,000 in property tax savings



JM



Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on April 08, 2003, 11:27:56 pm
"Saying you'll cut taxes is easy.
Even cutting the taxes is easy -- until you face having to cut the programs or services those taxes funded.
THEN the catterwalling starts."

Catterwalling has started from some media already... :o) Benson and the legislature are going straight for it any way. The only way to be assured of losing an election in NH is to say that you are going to raise taxes...

"As to number of libertarians.
Since the numbers you are using are products of W.A.G.
Two can play that game."

Wild A-- Guess, I assume? I am only talking about what makes NH great, the fact that we are so close. I wasn't comparing it to any other state. We just elected a very small-l libertarian Governor 2:1. That means ~66% of NH voters supported a sll platform just 6 months ago...  worse is very likely to be found. No, we are too busy here in NH showing off our wonderful state to worry about bashing other states... Not worth our time.

"Wyoming has more small "l" libertarians than New Hampshire.....and other data (oops - dirty word)"

lol.... We were the first with hard, verifible, quantified data... http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm . My my, shame on you for not paying attention... And I have been spending time trying to educate myself about the west and your efforts.. Did you know we are having a week long camping trip and showing people around NH?

"You say New Hampshire has more?
Does it have two hundred and fifty thousand?"

Hard to quantify, but yes, I'm willing to bet it is in that neighborhood. Perhaps more, since I live in the southern part of the state... Up north is far more inclined in that direction...

Here are some links to our states largest media outlets... WMUR and the Union Leader (NH's largest TV station and newspaper).
http://www.thewmurchannel.com/
http://www.theunionleader.com/

That might help give you more of a feeling for the NH mindset...  Could you please do the same for me for your favorite state(s)?

Thank you!

JM
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: George Reich on April 09, 2003, 07:30:38 am
Wyoming is the best chance for a Free State.

No, Wyoming is actually among the worst chances for a Free State. All votes there are counted on machines (of some of the worst kind) and out of sight of the public.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on April 09, 2003, 09:19:06 am
Quote
No, Wyoming is actually among the worst chances for a Free State. All votes there are counted on machines (of some of the worst kind) and out of sight of the public.

Well, for one thing, there is much more to the issue of creating a free state than election law, and Wyoming consistently outperforms the competition in the broad spectrum of criteria.

For another, you have yet to present any evidence to demonstrate why we should believe that voter fraud is either: 1) happening in Wyoming right now, or 2) likely to happen, and to such an extent that it would ruin our chances there.  In fact, the available evidence points to the contrary: a minority party governor, and the LP winning major party status.  

Besides this, as others have mentioned, election law should be one of the simplest, most appealing reforms that we could sponsor.  In the meantime we'd have exit polling data and a whole lot of angry people making a whole lot of noise if something appears awry.

Wyoming is just not a state that is synonymous with voter fraud, and I believe that it's very difficult to make a case that this is something we'd have to view as a significant threat there.  Particularly when the evidence seems to be telling in the opposite direction.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Kelton Baker on April 09, 2003, 11:34:14 am

No, Wyoming is actually among the worst chances for a Free State. All votes there are counted on machines (of some of the worst kind) and out of sight of the public.

Why all this trust in the political process anyways, I wonder?

 Even if we have the world's most honest and ethical voting system in our state, in order to get our candidate elected, we still have to have a majority of people who agree with our candidate in the first place.

--but that isn't all,

  We have to find candidates who are not only electable, but honest, ethical and truly dedicated to liberty themselves or we are in for big dissapointments

--and even if we were to have a near-perfect voting system, a near-perfect majority of liberty-hungry voters, and near-perfect candidates,

   We will still have a minority of voters who do not agree with our proposed changes and will scream and assail for loss of their beloved big-government policies, possibly bringing many of the voters on our majority back to their side
 
--but, let us suppose that we did have a perfect voting system, a majority of liberty-hungry voters, perfect candidates and a largely complacent populous who did not vote for our candidates,
 
    Our candidates will still face opposition from the most dedicated statists.  Most states allow recall elections of even just 10% of the voters in the last election to oust a candidate.  There will likely be marches in the street, money flowing-in to support the flanks of the anti-liberty activists, (who already live and work in our candidate states and have favorable friendships with the media  and positions of power in each of our candidate states), and knowing the tactics of the leftists, there WILL be attention-getting publicity stunts, including threats of suicide, vandalism, intimidation from pies-in-the-face to threats of assasination, traffic-snarling  violent protests,  sit-ins, bomb-threats, strikes, boycotts, and that is in addition to the run-of-the-mill opinion articles, news blogs, the jokes about our movement on the Letterman Show, and public school-sponsored indoctrination of children to be 'ambassadors' to their voting parents

--but, let us suppose that we did have a perfect voting system, a majority of liberty-hungry voters, perfect candidates, a largely complacent populous who did not vote for our candidates, and opposition activists who fall all over themselves and let us roll over them, then what?

     It only takes one individual to launch a lawsuit arguing that their 'rights' are being violated by the state to change the interpretation of the state constitution, in which case we may be set-back by years on some issues even if we are successful otherwise.  Even if we do have libertarian judges in place statewide, our proposals will likely still face challenges in federal courts.  Will we have enough sympathy and support from the populace to spend the money necessary for legal work all the way to the Supreme Court?  So, if at every turn, the will of the majority is denied, how much opposition will we face, and how much support will we have in our state to use revolutionary tools in our state-power toolbox such as nullification?

--but, let us suppose that we did have a perfect voting system, a majority of liberty-hungry voters, perfect candidates, a largely complacent opposition populous and activists,

      Consider sinister tactics like those used against George Hansen, Republican Congressman from Idaho  (http://www.constitution.org/ghansen/hansen9-97.html) in all of his efforts at trying to put the IRS in its place.  He wrote a book early in his career called To Harass our People back  in the 1970's detailing more of what he successfully overcame in facing opposition against him then.  The website link above shows only the worst of what he faced at the end of his career.

 I believe that the sooner this movement starts to focus on gaining the hearts and minds of the people rather than token seats of power, the more successful we will be.  For me, I feel our cause for liberty will be more welcome and less outnumbered in Wyoming than any other candidate state.

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.” --Justice Learned Hand, 1944

96
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 17, 2003, 02:54:42 pm
Don't forget the Great Nekkid Wars. ;)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Zxcv on April 17, 2003, 06:06:20 pm
I feel like I missed out; I haven't seen any Nekkid Wars.  ;)

Quote
No, Wyoming is actually among the worst chances for a Free State. All votes there are counted on machines (of some of the worst kind) and out of sight of the public.
That's quite an observation, coming from the guy who tried to throw the FSP election (and found "nothing unethical" about it) by packing the ranks with non-moving "one-state wonders", to send the Project to a state famous for throwing an election via fraud to George Bush I.

Just teasing, George.

What's that you say? NH has cleaned up its election process? Why, so it has, very commendable. And if NH managed it (without an FSP), then I guess WY can (with an FSP). There is no constituency for crooked elections - except within the halls of power in such places as Florida and Chicago.

We WILL fix the voting machines if we end up in Wyoming, I promise you.  :)

NH fans, my spreadsheet is yours for the asking. I'm up to 80 rows, now.

Joe, you were exaggerating a bit when you said,
Quote
Go look at Zxcv's big spreadsheet and substract the population variables. New Hampshire loses (though not as badly as some).
It actually does quite well when you toss the SIZE and QUALITY variables, third place behind WY and ID (that's the bad news for NH proponents; the other big state is ahead of it). When I add in the QUALITY variables, SD just slightly sneaks ahead of NH, but it's really a toss-up. But that certainly calls into question your analogy, James:
Quote
I know the difference is not as dramatic as pure libs vs pure socialists, but the idea is that population doesn't matter as much as starting point. A race on a 10km track is shorter than on a 5 km track, as long as you start much closer to the finish line.
The way it looks to me, we have two races. The 10km track is having its start about half-way to the finish line. The 5km race is having its start about half-way, or even a little further, to the finish line.

Look, if you New Hampshire guys would stop and think a bit, you'd see that Wyoming is not your problem. Idaho is. People may decide to buy your big-state arguments, but pick the "wrong" big state!  :o  Here's the way it plays out, the way I see it anyway:

Scenario 1: Wyoming wins. People start moving immediately to WY because there is no fallback disaster to worry about. We start helping freedom right away. What do NH proponents get out of this? Most people who opted out of Wyoming. And some who later cannot find jobs (if the jobs issue is as bleak as you say - you do believe your own assertions on that, don't you?  ;) )  And NH may later harvest some easterners who move to Wyoming but can't fit in. And some new post-5000 recruits who would have gone Wyoming but prefer a place back east if it is a reasonable alternative. (With Wyoming's small size, losing some activists won't be a disaster.) Finally and most important, you still have Jason's idea, of moving to a place to be free, by concentrating activists. With a respectable showing in the FSP vote, which is almost assured, you can put together your own project and convince all those freedom-lovers left in that statist wasteland back east to move to New Hampshire. And we end up with a 2-state project, whether Jason wants it or not.  ;)  But only if Wyoming wins.

Scenario 2: Idaho wins. We start recruiting like crazy because we will need at least 20,000 there and even more. ID is easier to move to and find jobs, and I'll bet it's the state with the fewest opt-outs. So there will be almost no fallout left for NH to harvest. Even city-dependent easterners will have an easier time fitting in. A complete loss for NH. My guess is if we are going to hit 20,000, we will certainly do it in Idaho, so the FSP will likely "succeed", although the jury is out whether we will have an impact there.

Scenario 3: NH wins. You are fat, but you'd better hope we can find 20,000 for you, from outside the state. If not, there will be a mini-disaster and we will probably have a sort-of 2-state WY/NH project again, but it will be a shambles...

Scenario 4: MT wins. NOW we are all in deep doo-doo...   :P

To reiterate, Idaho is your problem, not Wyoming.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Dalamar49 on April 17, 2003, 06:09:23 pm
Ouch poor Zack. Not to sound like a bleeding heart liberal, but leave the poor little guy alone.  :'(

I don't think Zack's obsession with state takeover makes NH a bad choice....of course a lot of other things do, including NH's really, really, close proximity to the People's Republic of Boston and other pinko conclaves.

Even with Wyoming's provincial attitude and antidrug feelings it still wins the state contest hands down.

Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on April 18, 2003, 02:37:17 am
Scenario 2: Idaho wins. We start recruiting like crazy because we will need at least 20,000 there and even more. ID is easier to move to and find jobs, and I'll bet it's the state with the fewest opt-outs. So there will be almost no fallout left for NH to harvest. Even city-dependent easterners will have an easier time fitting in. A complete loss for NH. My guess is if we are going to hit 20,000, we will certainly do it in Idaho, so the FSP will likely "succeed", although the jury is out whether we will have an impact there.

I agree that Idaho will likely attract more activists than any other large state choice due to the fact that easterners and westerners, urbanites and suburbanites could more easily find what they're looking for there (or at least a reasonable approximation).

Reflecting on Zxcv's comments, as well as prior research and discussion, I believe that the best chance for a free state (given the unknowns that we confront) come from voting WY>ID or ID>WY.  This is more than simply a reflection of my belief that Wyoming is the best candidate for liberty in our lifetime; there are some other considerations here as well.  Let's reflect on some of those for a moment here, keeping in mind that life seldom plays out as we would have it, and that more people are likely to take the path of least resistance (or go with what suits them best personally).

Say that 5,000 or so move after the vote (which either goes to New Hampshire or Idaho), but the FSP fails to reach 20,000 and a fallback scenario goes into effect; which of the following would be most likely to work (thus doing less potential harm to the prospects of a free state)?



Idaho has a clear advantage here in terms of protecting free state success by keeping a larger number of FSPer's working together.  If the vote goes to New Hampshire and a fallback to Wyoming comes into play, the FSP is much more likely to be split as a larger number of easterners seem to object to Wyoming than to Idaho.  A fallback scenario will likely split the project to some degree anyway simply given the number who will move after the vote and will not (or cannot) move again, but I believe that a fallback from New Hampshire would split the project more deeply than a fallback from Idaho.  Remember that the SOI only requires people to move to the chosen state; it does not address fallbacks, thus all bets are off after the state vote itself.

Now, let's consider a sort of "reverse fallback" scenario...

Say that Wyoming wins and urbanites either cannot acclimate to it, or large numbers of FSPer's cannot find employment (which seems to be the number one concern expressed about Wyoming - accurate or not).  Consider another 5,000 moving to Wyoming sometime between the state vote and reaching 20,000 (or the FSP's 5th anniversary in 2006, by which time we have not reached 20,000).  

If the FSP then elects for a reverse fallback because the majority of 20,000 cannot acclimate to Wyoming or cannot find jobs there, then the FSP's most economically robust state (with all of its more urban opportunities) is right next door in Idaho.

Also, FSPer's could more reasonably start to move right away if the vote goes to either WY or ID for two compelling reasons:



And consider possible splits once again.  

If a fallback to Wyoming becomes necessary, and more early adopters or other members refuse to go along with it, such attrition will hurt Wyoming's chances less than any other state because our numbers, combined with the state's social and political climate, count for so much more there from the beginning.  If a fallback from Wyoming to Idaho comes into play, then more are likely to go along with it because anyone willing to move to Wyoming probably won't object to Idaho, and the logistics of such a move would be less strenuous.

And even if 5,000 or so cannot or will not move from Wyoming to Idaho, then the chances of a free state are more realistic once again because fewer numbers are needed for a greater impact in Wyoming, and Idaho may attract enough recruits to make up for its losses (and Idaho is another state where the social and political climate may help make up for lost numbers).

Thus, based on the above, I believe that the WY>ID or ID>WY combinations offer us the best chances for protecting the possibility of achieving a free state.  Together, they address the greatest number of unknown factors to a greater degree than any other combination I can see.  

An argument could be made for a Vermont/New Hampshire combination (using each as a fallback for the other); however, Vermont is not nearly as advantageous as Wyoming (meaning that we would probably need our full potential membership there), and more westerners are likely to object to moving to either Vermont or New Hampshire (thus potentially reducing overall participation or splitting the project more harmfully should a fallback occur).

Even if you believe that the east/west and urban/rural disputes are irrelevant to the question of a free state, their prominence in our various discussions (both here in the forum and on the state discussion lists) suggests that they are a significant factor to a number of people.  And this is likely representative of more who are not actively discussing the issues among us given that we see new recruits introducing the same arguments, objections and theories as more long-term members.  Consequently, we have to believe that these issues are going to factor into the state vote whether they should be irrelevant or not (along with issues like convenience, proximity to family and friends, "likability," etc...)  

But to what extent will they affect the vote?  Good question.

For me, the issue then becomes: how do we best protect the possiblity of achieving a free state among such a host of possible difficulties and unknowns?  Personally, I think that the WY>ID or ID>WY scenarios offer us the best chance of protecting our mutual investment in the future.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Zxcv on April 18, 2003, 09:05:18 am
Well, just to give an example, George voted this way in the "How would you vote" thread:

NH>VT>MT>AK=SD>ME>ND>ID>WY>DE

My point was, if you are a real NH proponent (and I think George qualifies  ;) ) then it makes more sense to put WY ahead of ID, because if WY wins then at least NH gets something out of it. In fact if I were an NH proponent I'd probably put WY very high, although still below NH, because of the potential to harvest some of the WY fallout if it wins. If I understand Condorcet correctly, changing your vote from this:

NH>everything else>WY

to this:

NH>WY>everything else

in no way harms NH even if you think WY is NH's greatest competitor. Putting WY at the end only harms WY's chances against "everything else", not against NH. You do not help NH by putting WY at the end.

Of course someone will probably rap my knuckles by saying I'm getting into the "strategic voting" area here, but I'd say putting WY at or near the end is pretty strategic anyway (although perhaps not well thought out) because it doesn't deserve to be there - unless you think, as George seems to do, that voting technology far outweighs everything else!  ::)

But Robert, all this talk about fallback and ID>WY or WY>ID makes my head hurt. I kinda see your point, sort of. But here's the way I look at it:

1) If we have to go to a fallback, it will be a big disaster for us. Just think of all the time wasted, all the freedom lost in the interim. <shudder>

2) We will never go to a fallback if WY is chosen, because WY is its own fallback. So we avoid entirely at least that disaster by picking WY.

3) If we pick NH or ID, and only get up to 19,000 or so, we will not fall back, unless we can round up a prior commitment from 13,000 or so to move again to Wyoming. Yes, some lesser number like 10,000 is better in WY than 19,000 is in NH or ID, but not that much better, such that it's worth the big disruption.

4) As you say, falling back from ID to WY is much easier than NH to WY, a point in ID's favor.

5) Another point in ID's favor is that it is less likely we will get into the fallback scenario than with NH, because (just a guess) it is more likely we will hit 20,000 there, ID being a more generally aceptable state. I think easterners are more likely to give a try moving west, than the reverse.

But let's be smart, and avoid these ugly fallback scenarios altogether by picking Wyoming.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: freedomroad on April 18, 2003, 10:45:06 am
But let's be smart, and avoid these ugly fallback scenarios altogether by picking Wyoming.

All of this is great.

However, the real question is, why would anyone vote for Idaho, at ALL.  Idaho has over 1,350,000 people right now but is expected to grow so fast that is has 2,600,000+ people by 2025 (with a very large amounf of these people coming from CA).  Seriously, that is TOO LARGE FOR US.  What is the point?  We will need 50,000 people and not 20,000.  Idaho is only an option if it can give up 50,000, if those population projections are correct.  I hope they are not, because if they are, it might be a REALLY BAD idea to even vote for Idaho.

What about all of these people that want to live in the West picking the leading West state, Wyoming.  Why?  Because, Idaho is growing to quickly for the FSP!!!  Wyoming has a similar climate to Idaho, is closer to really big cities and really big airports, still has some farming (if they like that), is right next to a high tech center (Ft. Collins/Loveland, CO), and has compare gun freedoms, libertarian Congressmen, and an overall feel to Idaho.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on April 18, 2003, 07:51:21 pm
But Robert, all this talk about fallback and ID>WY or WY>ID makes my head hurt. I kinda see your point, sort of...

But let's be smart, and avoid these ugly fallback scenarios altogether by picking Wyoming.

Zxcv,

I agree with you here, and I probably over-analyzed that situation in the above post.  Fallback scenarios are not optimal by any means.  Like you, I wasn't trying to get into the idea of strategic voting (it would be pointless under Condorcet anyway), but rather, I was trying to demonstrate that Wyoming and Idaho are ideally situated.

And your point about New Hamphire is very well taken; Idaho is it's main competition.

Keith wrote:
Quote
However, the real question is, why would anyone vote for Idaho, at ALL.  Idaho has over 1,350,000 people right now but is expected to grow so fast that is has 2,600,000+ people by 2025 (with a very large amounf of these people coming from CA).  Seriously, that is TOO LARGE FOR US.  What is the point?  We will need 50,000 people and not 20,000.  Idaho is only an option if it can give up 50,000, if those population projections are correct.  I hope they are not, because if they are, it might be a REALLY BAD idea to even vote for Idaho.

Keith, I absolutely agree with you.  If anything, Idaho is too much horse for the FSP, but then again, I believe that Idaho, Maine and New Hampshire are all too much horse for us.  Of the three, Idaho is the larger, but, ironically, I also believe it's the better choice.  For one thing, it's located in a better neighborhood.   ;)

Unfortunately, it appears that a sizeable number of FSPer's simply will not consider any state below a certain size, and I was thinking that they might feel more comfortable voting for Wyoming with Idaho right next door - in the event that they can't find a job or can't hack it or whatever.  It's already been made clear that legitimate hardships will not be held against FSP members who can't relocate for some reason.

But I firmly believe that our paramount concern should be which state is best for liberty overall.  Let's at least try to make it work where it has the best chance; we have too much at stake here to do otherwise.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on April 25, 2003, 05:47:48 am
We've examined personal and corporate income taxes, but I'm not certain if we've ever looked at business franchise taxes, which are typically levied on corporate assets and property rather than income.  

Here's some information in regard to business franchise taxes in New Hampshire, Idaho, and Wyoming (from the Business Owner's Toolkit (http://www.toolkit.cch.com)):

New Hampshire:

If your corporation in New Hampshire is a domestic corporation (a corporation organized in New Hampshire) or a foreign corporation (a corporation organized in a state other than New Hampshire), you must file an annual report. The annual report, along with a $100 fee, is payable to the Secretary of State.

http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P07_5263.asp (http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P07_5263.asp)

Idaho:

Income tax on business income computed based upon corporate taxable net income is required in Idaho. Although domestic and foreign corporations and limited liability companies are required to file annual reports with the Secretary of State in Idaho, there is no fee for filing the report, and there are no other franchise taxes in the state.

http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P07_4775.asp (http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P07_4775.asp)

Wyoming:

Whether you are a domestic corporation (a corporation organized in Wyoming) or a foreign corporation (a corporation organized in a state other than Wyoming), you must file an annual franchise tax report, otherwise known as the annual license tax. The tax is based on the corporate property and assets located and employed in Wyoming. The license tax is $50 or two-tenths of one mill on the dollar ($.0002), whichever is greater.

The same annual license tax applies to Limited Liability Companies (LLCs), Limited Partnerships (LPs) and Registered Limited Liability Partnerships (RLLPs).

http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P07_6008.asp (http://www.toolkit.cch.com/text/P07_6008.asp)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on April 25, 2003, 06:44:56 pm
"If the vote goes to New Hampshire and a fallback to Wyoming comes into play"

I have a feeling that is we don't reach 20k in time, then Jason is going to declare Wyoming the fallback, and NH and WY will each benefit....

Of course, then the question becomes.... If NH IS chosen, can people already living here join???  ;)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 25, 2003, 07:33:24 pm
All I can say right now is that I'm sure as heck not going to "declare" anything!  If and when we decide we won't be able to reach 20,000, those of us who decide to continue will have to get together and decide on the best course of action.  Just as we did in the early days of the Project.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Zxcv on April 26, 2003, 12:50:46 am
Quote
Of course, then the question becomes.... If NH IS chosen, can people already living here join???  

I guess that's already been settled. Whatever the chosen state is, no members after the vote may come from it. (Did I get that right, Jason?)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 26, 2003, 07:46:31 am
That's right, they'll be considered Friends, since we don't want to inflate our numbers.  Actually, there's been a suggestion to have a special category of Free Staters Already Living in State, which would go up over time after we chose the state, as people move in there.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on April 26, 2003, 05:14:34 pm
Hey Jason - I remember in one forum post lately, you said that if we didn't reach 20k in time, then we would have to choose a state, probably WY, and create a more loosely based group there.
It's a paraphrase, but I know it was something like that. if I could think of where I saw it, I'd find it. :) That's what I was basing my statement on.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 26, 2003, 05:56:27 pm
Hey Jason - I remember in one forum post lately, you said that if we didn't reach 20k in time, then we would have to choose a state, probably WY, and create a more loosely based group there.
It's a paraphrase, but I know it was something like that. if I could think of where I saw it, I'd find it. :) That's what I was basing my statement on.

Well, here's what I wrote exactly:

Quote
Nailing things down in terms of a backup plan would be desirable, but it would have to be done carefully.  The backup plan wouldn't technically be the FSP anymore, and no one would be "required" (in a moral sense) to participate in it.  But obviously, what the most active people in the FSP decide to do could have a big impact on what others decide to do as well.

But the other tricky part is deciding on what the backup plan is, because there are many other options besides those Paul has laid out, depending on where we stall out.

If we stall out before 5,000... The Project should probably disband completely, with no alternative set up.  Some people may want to start a Free Territory Project to go to the Virgin Islands.  It seems really unlikely that we would stall out before 5000.

If we stall out between 5,000 and about 8,000 (or if there's unexpected massive attrition after the state vote)... We should perhaps target a bloc of counties in a low-population state.  Which low population state?  Probably the one that wins the vote.  Low-population states are created rather equal when it comes to settling & influencing counties (you can come up with a range of counties in any state where a few thousand could have a very significant influence).

If we stall out between 8,000 and about 12,000... Falling back on WY could be the best bet, but targeting counties in the winning state would have a lot of supporters, especially if people want to start moving early.

If we stall out between 12,000 and about 16,000... The fallback options increase.  AK, SD, ND, VT, and perhaps DE could all be candidates.

If we stall out just short of 20,000... Probably best to just go ahead and try to move to the winning state & make the best of it in the long run.  We could encourage people to start moving once 16,000 had been reached.

I'm sure there are other alternatives I haven't thought of!  There's also the danger that stipulating a fallback option will really damage recruitment by reducing some of the urgency.  From that perspective, we want to make the consequences of falling significantly short of 20,000 sufficiently dire as to put fire in the belly of our activists.

I don't know what the right thing to do here is, because of the uncertainties involved.  More discussion of the idea should be helpful, though.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1426;start=15
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: vepope on May 03, 2003, 08:27:47 am
I must say that I'm partial to WY, but here is a link to a story that may affect the outcome.  It's about a forecast of  long-term water shortages that includes Casper, WY as a possible affected area.

http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20030503/D7QPOEF00.html

My concern here is that we don't want to get all relocated, and nice and cozey in our new homes, only to have fed regulators start telling us how much water we can use for pets, crops, and lawns.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: davetravel on May 03, 2003, 09:50:24 am
A few Thoughts in favor of Wyoming.

Note Admitted Bias:  Already Wyoming Resident

1)   Small population size maximizes impact of  project.
2)   No State Income Tax.  No need to change existing state tax laws.  Compelling enough reason by itself to induce people to move.
3)   Libertarian presence already exists.  I have been able to vote libertarian on the ballot for most major offices.
4)   One of the prettiest places on the planet earth.  


Dave
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on May 03, 2003, 10:06:00 am
Hi Dave:

I notice that was your first post. Welcome.

I think you'll find many of the same things you love about Wyoming, we also love about New Hampshire.

A few Thoughts in favor of New Hampshire.

Note Admitted Bias:  Already New Hampshire Resident

1)   Small voting district size and low election costs maximize impact of  project.
2)   No State Income Tax.  No sales tax. No need to change existing state tax laws.  Compelling enough reason by itself to induce people to move.
3)   Libertarian presence already exists.  The LPNH has more libertarian office holders already than any other state LP in the country.
4)   One of the prettiest places on the planet earth.  

See? Told ya! ;)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: freedomroad on May 03, 2003, 10:54:33 pm
A few Thoughts in favor of Wyoming.
Here are some other reasons why Wyoming would make a good FS:
http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming/WhyWyoming

Quote
Note Admitted Bias:  Already Wyoming Resident

1)   Small population size maximizes impact of  project.

That is a good point Dave.  Almost every member of the project already things that is the most important factor in picking the state.
Quote

2)   No State Income Tax.  No need to change existing state tax laws.  Compelling enough reason by itself to induce people to move.

Another good point.  Wyoming has the lowest income tax rates out of all 10 states, NONE.  Even NH has a handful of different income taxes or taxes on different types of income.  AK taxes corporate income and SD takes a very few select types of corporate income.

I did not plan it, but my 4 favorite states are the state I mentioned above and they just happen to be the 4 states with the lowest income taxes.

Quote
3)   Libertarian presence already exists.  I have been able to vote libertarian on the ballot for most major offices.

Although Wyoming does have a LP presense and the LP is a major party in Wyoming, I do not consider this a very important factor.  Wyoming is 4th, out of the 10 states in per capita LP membership (behind NH, AK, and VT), I think.

Quote
4)   One of the prettiest places on the planet earth.  
After looking at a 1,000 or so pictures of Wyoming I have to agree.  I would say that Alaska is the only state the is more pretty than Wyoming.  If all 50 states were being considered, I would put both HI and AK ahead of Wyoming.

Here are some pictures of Wyoming:
http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming/inpictures
Quote
Dave

Dave, Welcome to the FSP Forum.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on May 04, 2003, 02:23:30 am
Note Admitted Bias:  Already Wyoming Resident

Welcome, Dave.   :)

In addition to these forum threads, there is also a Wyoming discussion list for FSP members and friends.  You can find it here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wyfsp/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wyfsp/)

And the home address for the site that FreedomRoad mentioned is a little something we put together to showcase Wyoming for FSP members.  Being a Wyoming resident, any input you might contribute toward making that site better would be valuable:

http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming (http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: davetravel on May 04, 2003, 04:06:25 pm
Hi James:

Thank you for the welcome.  Touche on your
response for NH.  Although I have been in most of
the states, I have not made it to NH.  I have worked
for a Boston based company for many years, and
have spent enough time there to develop a
sincere negative bias to New England.  I apologize for
my ignorance showing by sub-conciously thinking of
you with the same broad stroke.  

I do live in Wyoming by choice.  Life is short, come for
a visit.

d
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: davetravel on May 04, 2003, 04:18:42 pm
Hi Jason:

In your message, you indicated a trend to start
narrowing down which county in Wyoming would
best suit our needs.  I will argue against the county
that I am currently a resident in.  I live in the extreme
southwest corner (Uinta Co.).  I love it.  Part of the
reason that I live here is the proximity to a major
airport (82 miles to Salt Lake Int'l) as a requirment to
making a living.

However, in this portion of the state there is a
heavy LDS (Mormon) population.  This is not bad, as
they are good people and good neighbors.  However,
they are a well organized block that could run
counter to efforts to maximize our freestate tenants.

Dave
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on May 04, 2003, 07:09:51 pm
Hi Dave:

Yes, I would love to visit Wyoming sometime, and I hope you take a visit to New Hampshire as well... Believe me, we are nothing nothing  nothing like Boston, and DARN proud of it. We are a fiercely independent, frugal, hard working people who want to be NOTHING like the state Government which has taken power to the south of us (though some people in Mass are nice, their Government is not even close to the way we choose to live).
I also live in New Hampshire "by choice".  I tried living in Vermont for a year, and quickly became a tax refugee back to NH.
I started in the FSP as not knowing anything about WY except my beliefs, and have enjoyed learning more. I hope you would like to learn more about NH as well by taking a look at
http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm or http://www.nhorbust.com .
Welcome again to our newest porcupine!

JM
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Joe on May 05, 2003, 03:59:13 pm
The following nested set of quotes came from the STATE TOUR thread.
It may be best to answer the question here -- look below the set of quotes.
Let's wait & see how the vote goes.  That will show us whether people remain ignoramuses, or do their research.  We're going to make it easy for them by putting the best research in the voting packets.

Do you believe that every person who does adequate research (whether that be 450 hours or 450,000 hours) will eventually rank the ten states in the same, and correct, order?
If there are people who are going to be ranking the states of ND, VT, ME, or DE any higher than last-place, they aren't letting us in on the reason for doing so!

Just about everyone who has taken some serious time to study the issues and the facts, seem to end-up thinking of NH,ID,and WY as serious contenders for upper-place, with AK,MT,SD certainly better than last.

Interesting that you responded, exitus. I asked the question of Jason this time because I have previously asked you more or less the same question three times now and have never gotten a straight answer out of you. You just made it four.

A simple "yes" or "no" would suffice...  ;)
Libertarian40,

I had the fortune to work with physicians of a great range of experience when I was a medic in a USAF Emergency Room. Older docs with decades of experience could pick out a correct diagnosis by looking, listening and judging and giving what looked to us as a "gut feel" decision. The young docs, because they did not have much experience to base a "gut feel" upon, often would order lots of tests and exams and evaluate lots of criteria.  In time they too developed a confidence in their "gut feeling" and could better order more focused tests to refine their initial judgments. In civilian practice even experienced docs may do the same in order to document their decisions because "gut feel" is not defensible to people who have lost in a medical decision. "Gut feel" is not defensible in civil or criminal court. There is also the chance that yet another mind looking at the criteria or another test will find something that even the most experienced physician has overlooked -- something that will entirely alter the decision.

Thus we, like those inexperienced doctors or those experienced doctors who realize that so very, very, much relies on a correct decision, will look at as many criteria as we can discover.  A lot is at stake with the FSP decision. Ten thousand or more families risking a major move. Perhaps more importantly, the success or failure of this Free State effort after the move will be used for better or worse for or against us everywhere else.

In the following I speak as a councilman and going by what I've learned from dealing with our lawyer-mayor and the public.

Changes to increase or decrease liberty are determined by votes where 51% beats 49%.  Yes, emotion and gut feel do play a part in those votes, but the final criteria is a number -- win or lose by a few votes as just happened to Joey in his bid for school board.  Thus we, like professional political pollsters and analysts, try to quantify as much as possible and translate even the emotional "gut feel" tendencies of the potential voters into numbers we can use to predict whether the Free State initiatives will win or lose . Hopefully we can identify those situations where just a little more effort would make a win -- and we apply that effort in time. On the other hand, hopefully we can identify those situations where a lot more effort won't make any difference -- and we can apply that effort elsewhere where it will make enough difference.

No two people who look at or use the spreadsheets and/or the many tables and analyses on this forum will come to the same conclusions regarding state choices. Different people will place different weights upon different criteria. Everybody comes to this process with different experiences. Some will have far less experience and will be going on what they hope will be the case. Others have more experience with hopes being dashed. These latter will insist on better numbers, more rigorous analyses, and then they'll apply a large amount of experience-based pessimism to even the best of the predictions -- just in case we missed something important.


Both our mayor and I, when people express a position pro or con on an issue, we want to know "why" -- on what basis are they making such a judgment?.  Them giving us an answer of "I like it." or "I hate it." is not adequate.  Maybe they have some reasons that could influence all of our decisions. Maybe they have criteria or experience that would get us to seriously reconsider our positions.  This has happened to me and thus I have changed my mind on issues. Give me reasons, give me numbers, give me concrete examples, give me theories based on evidence.  Give me something more to go on than, "faith" or "like" or "dislike".  Yet, if there are people with lots of experience which I respect, I will rely on their "gut feeling" -- though I will check with other people and look at other criteria too -- just in case.

I may not agree with other's positions or decisions but, if those decisions or positions are based on experience and/or measurable criteria that some people weigh differently than I, then I can respect their decisions or positions because I understand "why" they voted as they did.

The above is why I keep asking you all "why" and asking for data to back up your "hopes" and "gut feel".

Not all of us will come to the same decisions. Not all of us will rank the states the same way. But at least we can then understand "why" the others decide as they do.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Dave Mincin on May 07, 2003, 10:42:38 am
Pretty much in agreement with what you have to say Joe.  The why to why people act, think, or even vote the way they do, will be the key to our success.

Only by truly understanding why one votes as one does will we be in a position to change their thought.

Why it is so important for us to hear each other out, understand each other.  Even when we disagree we much understand, and respect each other, or how will be be able to work together?

As for gut-feeling, I rate that as the most important variable, and is why I support New Hampshire.

Not being a hard core political activitist like many of you, I will need people to learn from, people to bounce my ideas off, people that I am already convinced that I will be comfortable working with, and an idea what I can do when I get there.  My gut-feeling tells me that is New Hampshire!

And by the way, glad you could join us Dave, and Welcome!

David Mincin
Pittsburgh, PA
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: paul on May 08, 2003, 02:32:37 pm
Any chance some of these god awful eastern states (like NH) could be removed from consideration if their population is expected to be too large by the time a vote and a move could be complete?
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Dave Mincin on May 08, 2003, 04:55:03 pm
"god awful eastern states?"  You mean the ones who wrote and adopted the Constitution?  Perhaps we could discuss this in more detail in New Hampshire! :)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on May 08, 2003, 05:13:10 pm
"god awful eastern states?"  You mean the ones who wrote and adopted the Constitution?"

1774 - NH is the first state to declare itself free from england

No general sales nor income tax, no seat belt laws, no helmet laws, second lowest tax rate in the country (money magazine), smallest state Government, The largest, most sucessful LP in the country, the highest % of FSP members in the country, no mandatory insurance, and the ONLY constitution in the world to guarantee her citizens the right to revolution.
Oh yeah, and New Hampshire is a DARN pretty state too! :o)

THAT god awful state? ;)

JM
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: di540 on May 08, 2003, 05:50:57 pm
"god awful eastern states?"  You mean the ones who wrote and adopted the Constitution?  
.
Yes, and it was those same states who pulled a bait & switch on
those who had fought to create "Free and Independent" States, as
in the Declaration of Independence, but instead wound up with a
"Confederation and Perpetual Union" which lasts to this day, as
the Constitution only perfected that Union instead of replacing
it.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on May 08, 2003, 06:08:30 pm
There were many reasons for the failure of the Articles of Confederation, including the inability of the Feds to print money.
We tried the articles... they didn't work... BUT the Constitution as written is far superior to what we got after the expansion of the Feds after 1913 (Income Tax) and WW1....
LONG after the Feds bought the land you are living on ;)

JM
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: di540 on May 08, 2003, 06:53:04 pm
There were many reasons for the failure of the Articles of Confederation, including the inability of the Feds to print money.
We tried the articles... they didn't work... BUT the Constitution as written is far superior to what we got after the expansion of the Feds after 1913 (Income Tax) and WW1....
.
It was the Constitution that brought you the 16th Amendment,
etc, not the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union,
which didn't fail, any more than the Constitution has failed.
However, instead of trying to perfect the Confederation, the
13 States could have tried to perfect the original Federation,
and the State Constitutions. Else, if the State constitutions
were/are so great, why weren't they good enough to run "Free
and Independent States"?
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on May 08, 2003, 11:24:24 pm
Yes, and it was those same states who pulled a bait & switch on
those who had fought to create "Free and Independent" States, as
in the Declaration of Independence, but instead wound up with a
"Confederation and Perpetual Union" which lasts to this day, as
the Constitution only perfected that Union instead of replacing
it.

Well, we're straying off topic with this, but I did want to add something about the final part of the above statement.

The Constitution created a separate Union from that which existed under the Articles of Confederation; it did not merely "perfect" the existing Union, it did away with it entirely.

There are a great many evidences for this, but one which readily comes to mind is the fact that Articles stipulated a Union of thirteen specified states.  Each state was named in the document, and the so-called "perpetual" Union was established between them.

However, when the Constitution came along, it required ratification by only nine states to go into effect, and then only between those nine states "so ratifying the same."  Thus when the first nine states votes to adopt the Constitution, they voted to create a new government between themselves and with no regard to the remaining four states.  The thirteen state Union stipulated by the Articles then ceased to exist because all thirteen required members no longer acknowledged its authority, and four states were left completely in limbo with no further obligation imposed either upon or between them.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on May 08, 2003, 11:32:57 pm
Any chance some of these god awful eastern states (like NH) could be removed from consideration if their population is expected to be too large by the time a vote and a move could be complete?

I believe only Idaho is projected to be over the limit (in excess of 1.5 million inhabitants) by the time the move is scheduled to be complete.  And, oddly enough, in spite of its higher population, I believe Idaho is actually the best "large" state choice.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, ME debate
Post by: di540 on May 09, 2003, 12:30:48 am
I believe only Idaho is projected to be over the limit (in excess of 1.5 million inhabitants) by the time the move is scheduled to be complete.  And, oddly enough, in spite of its higher population, I believe Idaho is actually the best "large" state choice.

In that case, this thread should be changed to a debate of the
large (>1.25 million) states. As for Idaho, there were many
people moving there already, about 150,000 more moved in than
left in the last decade. This might indicate a strong job
market in the 90s, but a tight housing market. How are things
now?

At the other extreme Maine had a net emigration of 15,000.
NH had a net immigration of 25,000.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: larry on May 20, 2003, 03:49:06 am
Howdy, Folks,

With me taking a vacation from the group for awhile, I just returned,
and just tonight noticed this thread.   I didn't have time to read it
all, but I did read many writing that "Idaho was (their) personal choice, re quality of life factors", but, with liberty the goal they
would sacrifice for the higher value.

Uhh, first question:  Well the next 15 K do the same?

First point is:  There's no need to choose 'tween quality of life and
the state where the FSP can find the greatest success.  It's Idaho.

Idaho just did raise it sales tax by 20%, to 6%.   What's you first
thought?  Move Idaho to the bottom of the list?  Wrong!  Please
let me explain.  

Idaho has *the* most Republican Legislature in the "Union" and I
believe it is clearly the most conservative state in the "Union".  So
much so that the Democrats are flirting with minor party status.

So, what's with the sales tax increase?   Here's what.  The elected
Rebublicans know no conservative will ever vote democrat.  So, how
can they best insure their power.  By buying off potential Democrat
voters by voting as if the were liberal Democrats.

The elected Repulicans think they have the conservative voters in
their pockets, no matter how they vote.

So, this year, given this history, the state is in a bit of a financial
crises.   What did the "conservative" Legislature do.  They gave the
education monopoly, and the other bureuacracies everything they
wanted, and raised taxes.  Reason for the FSP to reject Idaho?
Far from it!!

Republican conservative voters are livid, red faced and screaming
betrayal, taken for granted as they have been, but they have no
where to go.  Nowhere!!

ENTER THE FSP, FOR A REVOLUTION!!!!!, in the near term.

Reading the FSP lists, everyone seems to be trying to select the
state which is currently the freeest.

That focus, as I see it, at least in relation to Idaho,  is simplistic, as
I see it, and overlooks factors which could give us our greatest
success.

Food For Thought,

Larry Fullmer




   











Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Dave Mincin on May 22, 2003, 09:56:06 pm
Just curious!  How may states have you opted out of?  RobertH and rest of you freedom lovers?  Maybe any state east of the Mississippi?  :)  For the record I have opted out of none.  Do you want to say? :)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on May 22, 2003, 11:44:17 pm
I have only opted out of Alaska... Just tooooo cold!

JM
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: larry on May 23, 2003, 01:03:15 am
Marsh,

Below:
Just curious!  How may states have you opted out of?  RobertH and rest of you freedom lovers?  Maybe any state east of the Mississippi?  :)  For the record I have opted out of none.  Do you want to say? :)

I've opted out of any state west of Ole Miss.

I figure you're not going to understand this.  A low population of human ant-hills, and open sky is real important to me.  

It might not be exactly libertarianism, but it's a damn close relative.

I'm an Ed Abbey influenced libertarian.

Somebody wrote the list, of the "crakers" with, who cares about
the greater Boston metro area.   WEll, i care.   20K libs could be swamped in a second by the hordes in Boston looking for peace
and quite, carrying AIDS with "em.

If the FSP decides to settle right next door to a human ant hill, failure
is what I predict, with no immigration policy.

New Hampster is a failure, as I see it, just because of the hordes of
brainwashed human ants who are only "inches" away!!!!!

But, I gotta say, we libs are on to something here.  I don't see how
we can fail.

Given that, I'm backing off on preaching about Idaho.

If we can succeed anywhere, lots better that we do it with out enticing hordes into Idaho.

So, folks, Idaho is the worst damed state you could choose.

The worst damned one!!!!!!

libertarian larry



Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on May 23, 2003, 04:57:09 am
Just curious!  How may states have you opted out of?  RobertH and rest of you freedom lovers?

Initially, I opted out of no states.  Later, after more information came to light and I had time to digest it, I decided to opt out of two states.

Quote
Maybe any state east of the Mississippi?  :)

Both are east of the Mississippi, but that fact had no bearing on the decision.  It's true that I prefer the western states, but I'm still opted in to two eastern states, so that preference is obviously not a deal-breaker for me.  I place far more emphasis on each state's individual merits and believe that my ramblings here bear that out.

BTW, I currently live east of the Mississippi.

Quote
For the record I have opted out of none.  Do you want to say? :)

What suddenly peaked your curiosity about this?  And speaking of curiosity, any particular reason why you mention me specifically?  I sense a disturbance in the Force.    ;) ;D
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Dave Mincin on May 23, 2003, 09:52:45 am
I enjoy watching your post numbers grow :)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on May 23, 2003, 06:52:49 pm
I enjoy watching your post numbers grow :)

Okay...

I trust I answered your question then.   :)
Title: NH, ID, WY comparisons
Post by: JT on May 25, 2003, 03:02:20 pm
Here is some info I gathered from the National Motorists Association about traffic laws and regulations in these three states:  
www.motorists.org (http://www.motorists.org)

speed limits-
                                WY             NH         ID
Interstate              75 mph         65        75
Ltd Access Rds       65 mph          55        65
Other Primary Rds 65 mph           55        65
Residential            30 mph          30        35



Wyoming- does not have state police patrolling between midnight and 6a.m.  They are available for emergencies and accidents.
- license to carry concealed from another state is honored
- jury trial allowed in all cases (speeding tickets, DUI, etc...)
- open intoxicants are permitted at discretion of local jurisdiction
- firearms do not have to be cased.  Handguns most be in plain view, or require a conceal carry permit
- motorcycle helmet law for those under 19

New Hampshire- A license to carry a concealed firearm issued to a nonresident by another state shall be honored if such state provides a reciprocal privilege
- jury trial only allowed on appeal of DUI
- open intoxicants are prohibited in the vehicle
- unloaded firearms permitted in vehicle.  do not need to be cased
- motorcycle helmet law for those under 18

Idaho- a license to carry a concealed firearm issued to a nonresident by another state shall be honored.
- jury trial only allowed on DUI
- Open wine or liquor is prohibited in vehicle. Open beer is permitted in the vehicle, but cannot be consumed by driver.
-Unloaded firearms are permitted in the vehicle. Loaded and cased firearms are permitted with permit and transported preferably in trunk of vehicle.
-motorcycle helmet law for those under 18

The Blood Alcohol Content for all states is .8%

Title: Re:NH, ID, WY comparisons
Post by: freedomroad on May 25, 2003, 03:43:05 pm
Here is some info I gathered from the National Motorists Association about traffic laws and regulations in these three states:  
www.motorists.org (http://www.motorists.org)

speed limits-
                                WY             NH         ID
Interstate              75 mph         65        75
Ltd Access Rds       65 mph          55        65
Other Primary Rds 65 mph           55        65
Residential            30 mph          30        35
It should be noted that WY, MT, SD, and ID have some of the vesy highest speed limits in the country while the Northeast has the lowest speed limits in the country.

Also, in Wyoming and Montana, at least, I am not sure about the other states, the cops often give people 10 mph over the speed limit on the interstates instead of the usual 5 mph over.  In some parts of WY and MT 75 mph is really more like 85 mph.

Quote
New Hampshire-
motorcycle helmet law for those under 18


motorcycle helmet law for those under 18
No age limit
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Dave Mincin on May 25, 2003, 06:55:54 pm
Ok guys more numbers more statistics!  Ok we are so right!  Woop eee!  So how does that get us, elected gain power, gain a voice in what is happening?

Victory is about people and activity!  Hell, went to a local LP meeting now I'm going to do an article in the state paper, doing a presentation for the local Thomas Jefferson Think Tank, people tell me they are rethinking there thoughts about FSP.  Hell how did that happen?  Well the folks in NH, and what they are doing got me up off of my lazy ass, and decided to do something!

Guess what I am asking is what is happen in Wy and Mt and all these states with the glaring stats in the real world?  Tell me about the organizations, the people that are out there doing it!  Can we do it without people?

They are doing it in NH...and when you can show me another state that is really showing that they want freedom, then lay it on me, not numbers, and statistics but real live people, then I am more than willing to listen.

David
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: craft_6 on May 26, 2003, 12:27:31 am
Number of jobs currently listed on monster.com for the "Final Four" Free State candidates:

NH:  1006
ID:     477
AK:     288
WY:    158

Now, which state will be easier to get the next 15,000 Porcupines to sign up for?  Which will best facilitate a migration of 20,000?
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on May 26, 2003, 12:42:36 am
Now, which state will be easier to get the next 15,000 Porcupines to sign up for?  Which will best facilitate a migration of 20,000?

I prefer to ask which state represents the best chance at a free state in our lifetime no matter how many people sign up because our success will not necessarily rise or fall on the number 20,000.  

Besides, we've already demonstrated that we can achieve an equivalent of 20,000 (1 FSP'er for every 62 residents in a state of 1.2 million) with less than 20,000 in seven out of these ten states:

Per the 2005 Census Bureau projections, here's what it would take to get 1 to 62, or the equivalent of 20,000, in each state.  Each state's projected total population is followed by the number of activists necessary for 1 to 62:

Wyoming - 568,000 (9,161)
Vermont - 638,000 (10,290)
North Dakota - 677,000 (10,919)
Alaska - 700,000 (11,290)
Delaware - 800,000 (12,903)
South Dakota - 810,000 (13,065)
Montana - 1,006,000 (16,226)
New Hampshire - 1,281,000 (20,661)
Maine - 1,285,000 (20,726)
Idaho - 1,480,000 (23,871)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: craft_6 on May 27, 2003, 04:14:41 pm
I prefer to ask which state represents the best chance at a free state in our lifetime no matter how many people sign up because our success will not necessarily rise or fall on the number 20,000.  

I agree, but just because one of the lowest-population states requires only half as many Porcupines as one of the highest-populations states to reach the desired ratio doesn't mean that it will be any easier to get 10,000 to move to that state, versus 20,000 to a larger state.  Some of the highest population states would require twice as many Porcupines to reach the 1:62 ratio, but have six times as many job openings.

The state which represents the best chance at creating a free state in our lifetime is one that's small enough for the FSP to change it, but offers enough opportunity already that 10,000, or 15,000, or 20,000 Porcupines will actually be able to follow through and move there.  I suspect they will be much more likely (and much better able) to follow through if they only have to change their address, not their choice of career and standard of living as well.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Zxcv on May 27, 2003, 07:39:57 pm
Craft_6, maybe many Wyoming jobs do not show up in places like monster.com.

I'm curious. What if there were a state out there that magically had no people, and therefore no jobs. Would you still be telling us to go to New Hampshire? Wouldn't it make more sense to move to that empty state even though it was jobless?

The job projection, in roughly the period we are moving, is 27,000 (note, this number has since been changed to 36,300, in an updated projection). We need about 8000 activists in WY to match 20,000 in NH. Of those maybe 1/4 will be retired, so we really need jobs to support 6000 activists. But some number of activists will be two per one-breadwinning household, so maybe we need 5000? And then some of our members have jobs that are transportable (libertarians tend to be self-employed far more than the average population), so they don't need to consume jobs from the projection. And moving a lot of people into a state will itself boost the job projection. And finally most of us ought to end up down in Laramie/Cheyenne, which is within reach of Fort Collins if all else fails (those jobs down there don't show up in the Wyoming projection).

I understand why you are harping on this job issue; you have to make do with what you've got. But you haven't got much!
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: freedomroad on May 28, 2003, 12:26:50 am
Craft_6, maybe many Wyoming jobs do not show up in places like monster.com.

Clearly, most jobs in most industries from most states do not show up on Monster.com.  
Quote

The job projection, in roughly the period we are moving, is 27,000. We need about 8000 activists in WY to match 20,000 in NH. Of those maybe 1/4 will be retired, so we really need jobs to support 6000 activists. But some number of activists will be two per one-breadwinning household, so maybe we need 5000? And then some of our members have jobs that are transportable (libertarians tend to be self-employed far more than the average population), so they don't need to consume jobs from the projection. And moving a lot of people into a state will itself boost the job projection. And finally most of us ought to end up down in Laramie/Cheyenne, which is within reach of Fort Collins if all else fails (those jobs down there don't show up in the Wyoming projection).

The facts are, The Ft. Collins MSA has more projected jobs than the entire state of NH.  The Ft. Collins MSA starts about 40-45 min from Cheyenne and that is quite a drive.  However, as long as someone is willing to live in WY and work in Ft. Collins, they will have no problem finding lots of jobs they like.
 
Quote
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on May 29, 2003, 04:32:29 pm
The facts are, The Ft. Collins MSA has more projected jobs than the entire state of NH.

Geez, Keith, once again you start a sentence with the phrase "The facts are..." and then you don't give a reference... I know it's a pain, but humor those of us who insist on checking facts (and I'm not talking about another forum quote!) :D

Sorry, but getting my physics degree made me learn to reference everything...
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: freedomroad on May 29, 2003, 06:19:17 pm
The facts are, The Ft. Collins MSA has more projected jobs than the entire state of NH.

Geez, Keith, once again you start a sentence with the phrase "The facts are..." and then you don't give a reference... I know it's a pain, but humor those of us who insist on checking facts (and I'm not talking about another forum quote!) :D

Sorry, but getting my physics degree made me learn to reference everything...

James, that is a good point.  Since I have already referenced this info a couple of times, I forgot that everyone has not see it.  Thank you, James.

This info is already in the Wyoming Report #2 and the FSP Forum about job forecasts, check below.  

Here is some of what I wrote in another thread, the JOB FORECASTS thread
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=918;start=0

"The Ft. Collins MSA has over 260,000 people
Here are some statistics on the Ft. Collins MSA from the Northern Colorado Economic Development Council:
The Ft. Collins MSA is one of the 10 fastest growing MSAs in the country
The Ft. Collins MSA expects 215,000  new jobs between 1997 and 2010
Median Income is $58,200
Major Employers: Colorado State University, ConAgra Beef, Hewlett-Packard, Agilent  Technologies, Poudre Valley Health Systems, Eastman Kodak, Wal-Mart, State Farm Insurance, StarTek, Inc., Woodward, Advanced Energy, Teledyne WaterPik, McKee Medical Center, Anheuser-Busch, and Celestica

According to FAIR, the Ft. Collins MSA is projected to have 533,000 people by 2025.

For more info see:
http://www.fortcollinschamber.com/
http://www.ncedc.com/
http://www.ci.fort-collins.co.us/fcfacts.php?ID=6
http://www.fairus.org/html/msas/042colar.htm"


Here is part of what I wrote in the Wyoming Report #2,

"Front-range MSAs near Wyoming:

Ft Collins/Loveland - distance 40 miles, population 260,000+
Greeley - distance 63 miles, population 200,000+
Longmont/Boulder - distance 71 miles, population 300,000+
Denver - distance 94 miles, population 2,200,000+
All of the above - population 3,000,000+
All of the above - 2025 projected population 5,000,000+

Here are some statistics on the Ft. Collins MSA from the Northern Colorado Economic Development Council:
The Ft. Collins MSA is one of the 10 fastest growing MSAs in the country
The Ft. Collins MSA expects 215,000  new jobs between 1997 and 2010
Median Income is $58,200
Major Employers: Colorado State University, ConAgra Beef, Hewlett-Packard, Agilent  Technologies, Poudre Valley Health Systems, Eastman Kodak, Wal-Mart, State Farm Insurance, StarTek, Inc., Woodward, Advanced Energy, Teledyne WaterPik, McKee Medical Center, Anheuser-Busch, and Celestica"

for more see,
http://www.freestateproject.com/wyoming2.htm#misc

I hope that helps.
Title: Recent New Hampshire Senate Actions
Post by: Robert H. on June 02, 2003, 04:02:59 am
New Hampshire's senate has recently taken some actions that are rather disturbing:

From the Nashua Telegraph (http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/Main.asp?SectionID=31&SubSectionID=358&ArticleID=80947):

Saturday, May 24, 2003

N.H. Senate OKs 2 bad power moves

Shame on the state Senate on two scores. The first is for exempting itself and the House of Representatives from the Right-to-Know Law when caucusing. The second is for approving a proposal to revise the state Ballot Law Commission, the body that rules on election disputes.

All that’s left with making both approvals official is concurrence by the House, Members of both political parties often retreat behind closed doors to get the troops in line on a particular issue or to hatch strategies. That’s been going on for years and shouldn’t have. However, the approved amendment would now legally exempt the practice in case anyone challenges it. It also exempts other partisan bodies, such as the Executive Council and county commissioners.

All 17 Republican senators voted to exempt these secret partisan confabs from public view and the six Democrats voted against.

The vote makes a sham of the Right-to-Know Law by allowing members of the Legislature to reach “deals” outside public view on matters that affect the people.

If the big boys in the Legislature can get away with this legalized loophole in making state law, can more loopholes for local officials be that far away?

Some Republicans were incensed with a couple of rulings made by the Ballot Law Commission last year.

One concerned a recount after the election for Hillsborough County attorney. Eventually, Republican John Coughlin prevailed in that contest, but some powerful Republicans decided that changes had to be made. It’s a case of their way or the highway.

Two of the three-members of the Ballot Law Commission are named by the governor and the third by the Supreme Court’s chief justice. Under the bill approved by the Senate and a similar one OK’d by the House of Representatives, the governor would appoint one member and the Senate president and the House speaker would each name two members.

The commission rules on election disputes and having politicians pick all the players may lead to a stacked deck.

Democrats were opposed to the change, but with Republicans holding a supermajority in both branches of the Legislature, they didn’t have a chance of opposing the GOP steamroller. The voters created the situation and only they can make changes to bring some balance to the Legislature.

In politics, the party that has the votes calls the shots. These are two power plays that shouldn’t have been made.

***

Another article on the Senate's Right-to-know move:  Meeting In Secret (http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/opinion/editoria2003/rtknow_2003.shtml)

***

The NH Senate Killed the House Jury Nullification Bill this past Friday:

Jury Bill is Voted Down in the Senate (http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/politics2003/053003_for_the_record_2003.shtml)
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: LibertyLover on June 02, 2003, 01:35:23 pm
I just discovered and joined the FSP a few days ago, and I'm excited about the opportunity to make my efforts toward promoting freedom more effective by joining other freedom lovers who want to do something that might actually work, rather than just talking about how horrible things are now.

I am willing to move anywhere that several thousand freedom activists believe can be made more free, even Alaska or Delaware, my two least favorites. I've been reading the research on these boards almost nonstop since Friday, and I am convinced that Wyoming is far and away the best choice. Strangely enough, the reason I feel so strongly about it now is because my initial reaction to Wyoming was very negative. With its low population and self-reliant culture, Wyoming seems like a no-brainer, but who wants to live there? Maybe only people who are really dedicated to freedom.  :D

Now that I know more about Wyoming from all this reading, I think that even a city girl like me could come to love it. The weather isn't as bad as I thought, there are more metropolitan areas nearby than I realized, and I'll have a lot of new friends who share my beliefs about individual liberty and personal responsibility. Best of all, it seems that people who want to tell other people how to live aren't likely to want to live there.

My goal is to do as much as I can in my lifetime to move my country toward liberty, but I don't think I can accomplish anything by trying to force my beliefs on other people. The FSP can't "take over" a state and force people to be free. What we CAN do is get enough people together to spread the message of freedom to a relatively small population that is already predisposed to listen. If we can find enough people who can be convinced that freedom "works," we can make voting for liberty worthwhile and make enough positive changes that will prove to even more people that freedom works. The more we prove that freedom-based solutions work better than government-imposed solutions, the more freedom will spread.

That is my vision and, unless I have misinterpreted what I have read here, that is the vision of the majority of FSP members. The most important question now is which state will give us the best chance of turning that vision into reality. There is no guarantee of success in any state or with any particular number of activists, so we each have to individually use our best judgement about which state presents the best opportunity, without worrying about whether we can convince the other members to vote for that state.

For myself, if Wyoming is selected, I won't wait for 20,000 members, because I believe I can do a lot more to accomplish my goals in Wyoming with a few thousand fellow freedom lovers than I can in California. If another state is selected, I will wait until there are enough members to make me feel that my move is worthwhile, however many that turns out to be.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: freedomroad on June 02, 2003, 01:50:07 pm
I just discovered and joined the FSP a few days ago, and I'm excited about the opportunity to make my efforts toward promoting freedom more effective by joining other freedom lovers who want to do something that might actually work, rather than just talking about how horrible things are now.

Joyce, thank you joining.  Welcome to the FSP Forum.

Quote

I am willing to move anywhere that several thousand freedom activists believe can be made more free, even Alaska or Delaware, my two least favorites...Wyoming seems like a no-brainer, but who wants to live there? Maybe only people who are really dedicated to freedom.  :D

You are very dedicated and that is wonderful.  In all fairness, maybe you should read all of the state reports, besides, you have to pick states number 2 to 10, also.  I agree, though, Wyoming seems to be, by far, the best state for the FSP's goals.
http://freestateproject.org/statereports.htm
Quote

My goal is to do as much as I can in my lifetime to move my country toward liberty...That is my vision and, unless I have misinterpreted what I have read here, that is the vision of the majority of FSP members.

My goals are very similar to yours, and I agree that many other people have similar goals.

Quote
For myself, if Wyoming is selected, I won't wait for 20,000 members, because I believe I can do a lot more to accomplish my goals in Wyoming with a few thousand fellow freedom lovers than I can in California. If another state is selected, I will wait until there are enough members to make me feel that my move is worthwhile, however many that turns out to be.


I agree with you 100%.  I will not be able to move early because of money, college, and the Army, however.  It only seems to make sense to move early if Wyoming or Alaska is selected.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: cathleeninsc on June 02, 2003, 02:02:02 pm
Welcome Joyce,
It is a pretty exciting prospect, huh? I agree on Wyoming and it would be a new experience for me as well. Seems to me that as close to a clean slate as possible is best and one that is as static as possible. Aren't moving targets harder to hit?

And if some of us differ on how and what or even where, well, then that is just a test of libertarians working together, which most of us need to practice.

Cathleen in SC

Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: jgmaynard on June 02, 2003, 03:36:39 pm
Hi Cathleen/Joyce:

Nice to hear from you both...... Have you taken a look at  http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm ?

I think you will be pleasantly suprised - no general sales OR income taxes, a great job market, lowest crime in the nation (FBI), and lots more!

Also take a look around the Granite State LIVE at http://www.freestatenhlive.com

JM
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: LibertyLover on June 02, 2003, 08:12:21 pm
Hi Cathleen/Joyce:

Nice to hear from you both...... Have you taken a look at  http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm ?

Thanks, NH is my second choice, with ID third, but I don't think anything can beat WY's small number of voters in my judgement about the most promising state. I also think being landlocked and surrounded by relatively liberty-oriented states is a plus for WY.

However, if I am over-ruled, I would be very happy to move to NH.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Robert H. on June 03, 2003, 01:33:51 am
Welcome, Joyce!   :)

I agree that Wyoming presents us with an unbeatable combination of benefits that will foster the creation of a free state in a realistic amount of time.  Wyoming's population is already such an individualistic lot, and the letters that I read in their newspapers are consistently of a higher libertarian nature than those I've read elsewhere.

Wyoming also gives us the advantage of not being surrounding by some of the most socialistic states in the country, thus presenting us with a chance to build a regional solidarity that could come in very handy in dealing with Washington.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: Hank on August 21, 2003, 02:09:51 pm
Quote
I'm curious. What if there were a state out there that magically had no people, and therefore no jobs. Would you still be telling us to go to New Hampshire? Wouldn't it make more sense to move to that empty state even though it was jobless?

You mean building a minarchist state from the ground up without all the rules, regulation, laws, taxes, permits, licenses, bureacracies, departments, legislatures, and all the rest?  You mean not having to dismantle most of these big government programs? You mean not having to  dig out entrenched politicians and career bureaucrats?

Wow!

Ohhhh, as I float back down to earth.

Too many porcupines want everything already there for them.
They are not pioneers.
Title: Re:More NH, ID, WY debate
Post by: varrin on August 21, 2003, 08:13:44 pm
I prefer to ask which state represents the best chance at a free state in our lifetime no matter how many people sign up because our success will not necessarily rise or fall on the number 20,000.  

I know this is old, but I think it bears stressing once again.  From the Project Participation Guidlines:

Quote
4. Once 20,000 people have signed the Statement, participants in the FSP shall move to the state decided upon as expeditiously as possible and absolutely within five years of the crossing of the 20,000-signer threshold. Should the Project never attract 20,000 signers, the move shall be aborted.

The success of *this project* does hinge on the 20,000 number.  If we don't attract 20,000 people "the move shall be aborted."  What's the mean even for the WY fans?  Let's assume WY is chosen and we subsequently fail to attract 20,000 people.  There are some people who will wait to move (I predict moreso with WY than with NH or ID due to job considerations).  Those people aren't committed to moving until 1: we get 20,000 people and 2: five years has passed.  It could be years before the project is officially cancelled and *then* a new WY project would have to be organized.  Everyone with a commitment here will be released from that commitment.  Getting them to sign a new one years later with significantly softer support after the failure of this project might be tougher than you all think.

I've thought from the beginning that the 20,000 number is critically important.  We're already to over 5,300 which is great.  If we need to get to 20,000 people, I honestly believe between the three likely candidates, WY is the least likely to make it.  

Having said all that......  Why do I personally rank WY ahead of NH?  Well, there's a risk in all three that we may never get to 20,000.  If similar numbers apply given a failure of *any* of the three states to attract 20,000 (i.e. some number of people will go to the chosen state before or after the failure of the project no matter what), then WY has the advantage of lower population.  ID is attracting people now at a greater rate than NH or WY, which I suspect would also apply to our group (yes, we're libertarians, however, we're also diverse, much like the population at large).  To me, that gives ID the nod over NH.  However I can't see (given the failure of the project in any of the selected states) NH attracting at least double or more the post-failure participants as WY.  As a result, I suspect the activism ratio would be somewhat higher in WY than NH and, hence, it gets a little boost as a result.

Keep in mind that last paragraph assums failure.  I'm not inclined to assume failure so my preference leans towards success: ID...

V-