Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: ZuG on May 08, 2003, 09:58:43 pm

Title: WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: ZuG on May 08, 2003, 09:58:43 pm
NH and WY "appear" to be the frontrunners for FSP voting (I say appear because the forums probably are not a representative cross-section of the FSP, and this may change things).

As such, one needs to carefully evaluate these two states for likelihood of sucess, and not necessarily things you personally desire. Markers of success can be broken up into three categories: short-term, medium-term, and long-term

Short term characteristics of a state depict what it will be doing in the next 5 years, as the 20k is gathered and the moving begins.

Medium term characteristics of a state include those things that will be affected in the next 5-15 years, as the FSP is gearing up and we begin to win elections and make changes.

Long term characteristics include those things that are going on for 15+ years, things that will affect the long-term success of the project.

The FSP is a long-term project. Thus, we must consider the effects of each of these categories. Short-term characteristics will affect the attainment of the 20k and how many actually move. Medium-term will affect encouragement/discouragement as our plans begin to work/show themselves to be not working. And long-term will be the lasting effects of our reforms.

There are two major things that FSP members are concerned with at this time: population, and economics.

Population includes such things as: total population, voting population, % people native born, etc. These numbers indicate how effective our 20k members will be in the given state.

Economics include such things as: job prospects (rural vs. urban comes in heavily here), % unemployment, business taxes, etc. These numbers indicate how easy or difficult the relocation will be.



Now, let's look at these things in context of time-frame of effect:


Population: This clearly affects the medium and long-term, as well as the short term in a round about way (finding housing, etc).

In the medium term, moving to a fast growing state such as NH will mean that we have to find and mobilize our 20k people very quickly, in order to make our plans take effect before our numbers are overwhelmed. We may be bolstered by other libertarians moving into the state, but that will only happen if those people start to see results and are confident that we will be able to produce them. WY, with it's projected slow population growth will mean that we have much more time to organize and put our reforms into effect, as we will be a good segment of the population for some time to come. Although population will be a problem for NH in the medium-term, it's not insurmountable. Thus, although it puts WY in a much more positive light in the medium-term, it does not rule out NH altogether.

In the long term, we will see our changes in law blossom into a libertarian haven, or see our short and medium term efforts be overturned by an increasing population, and thus a decreasing ratio of FSPers to statists. This is where WY really shines over NH. The increasing numbers of NH residents over the long term will mean that any reforms we do make in the medium term have a strong possibility of being overrun as soon as we are not a large enough segment of the population anymore to really even matter. Increasing migration from the bigger cities on the eastern seaboard will ensure that NH has a quickly growing population, just as migration from California and Washington will ensure that ID does.



Now, a look at economics:

Economics has it's main effects in the short and medium terms. It will affect the ability of FSPers to find jobs for several years after the move, and will effect their economic productivity into the medium term. In the long-term, however, the influx of so many entreprenuers and activists, coupled with our increasing economic freedoms and lowered tax on business should turn a sluggish economy around.

In the short and medium term for economics, WY is clearly the loser. Many FSPers will likely end up living in the SE of WY so they can commute to Ft. Collins, CO or other nearby cities, due to the lack of good high-tech jobs to be found. NH, on the other hand, has a good job outlook and will make moving there easier for potential FSPers.

In the long-term, economics are hard to predict. A booming NH economy caused by our economic freedoms may draw in job-seeking statists from the rest of New England, or it may not. This is a possible downside to NH, but it is too far in the future to possibly predict. Long-term, economic prospects for NH and WY are probably equal.


Now, here's the vital question:

Is short and medium term success more important, allowing us to draw in more people more quickly, or is long-term success more important, allowing the reforms we do impliment to last through our generation and onto the next, and possibly longer?


For me, the answer is clear. Whatever the virtures of NH, and there are many, it's probable population increase makes it unviable as a FSP choice. WY, although it will likely draw less overall people at first, and will create some hardships for FSPers moving there, really shines when you consider long-term effects, and our ability to make a difference for generations to come.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: freedomroad on May 08, 2003, 11:00:56 pm
There are two major things that FSP members are concerned with at this time: population, and economics.

In the early days, there were three main factors.  These factors are still the most important factors, at least in my mind.

1. Population or voter population

2. liberty-friendly voters

3. expense of elections

How do your two states stand up to the most important factors?

1. Population (2002)
Wyoming = 498,703
New H. = 1,275,056

2. liberty-friendly voters
a. read this report, http://www.freestateproject.com/analysis.htm
b. or this http://www.freestateproject.com/wyoming2.htm#guns
c. I wrote two additional reports on this subject, look for them in the next week or two.

3. expense of elections
Wyoming = $4,700,000
New H. = $19,600,000


Actually, Robert Hawes has already produced a very long report on the subject of this thread.  Although, he compared ID, WY, and NH.  Check it out,
"Best for Liberty? An Analysis of Three Leading States" by Robert Hawes
http://www.freestateproject.com/StateComparisons_25mar03.htm

Keep in mind that it is 24 pages long!
Short summary: Wyoming is the best state for the FSP.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Robert H. on May 09, 2003, 12:53:56 am
Zug, you've done some very good thinking here.

In terms of short and medium range success, consider one other factor related to population: when you're comparing the smaller states to the larger states, less actually becomes more.  What I mean by that is that fewer activists in the smaller states may equal or even exceed the saturation levels achieved by more activists in higher population states.  Here's a quote from some info I posted earlier in this discussion:

Quote
The figure 20,000 means nothing aside from the criteria that generated it in the first place, which is the idea of having 1 FSP activist for every 62 state residents.  At that ratio, based on the Census Bureau's 2005 population projections, we get the following number of activists per state:

State Total Pop. # of Activists required for 1 to 62 ratio

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)

These numbers satisfy the 1 to 62 ratio, and, if you equate the number 20,000 with success, then you need only get 20,000 for an equivalent degree of saturation in three out of ten states.

Compare Wyoming with Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire as they are all projected to be by 2005:

Wyoming - 568,000
New Hampshire - 1,281,000
Maine - 1,285,000
Idaho - 1,480,000

20,000 in each of these states works out as follows:

Wyoming - 1 FSP'er to every 28.4 residents
New Hampshire - 1 to 64.05
Maine - 1 to 64.25
Idaho - 1 to 74

To saturate Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire to the same level as 20,000 would saturate Wyoming would take this many activists:

New Hampshire - 45,106
Maine - 45,247
Idaho - 52,113

In other words, it would take more than two FSP's to saturate Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire to the same level as Wyoming.

So, even if Wyoming attracts fewer activists earlier on, this does not necessarily mean that the FSP's short term impact would be endangered.  At 9000 activists, we would have saturated Wyoming to the same degree as 20,000 in Maine, Idaho, or New Hamphshire.  And if you have doubts about whether the FSP will attract 20,000 actual Jeffersonian activists, then the smaller states like Wyoming are even more attractive because fewer numbers (or fewer effective activists) count for so much more there before anything else is even considered.

Then add in things like Wyoming's native sentiment, initiative and referendum, small House and Senate districts, relatively inexpensive elections, term limits, slow growth rate, and balanced budget and you begin to see just how superior Wyoming becomes in terms of short range impact.  All of these (and more that I've left out) are advantages that offer us an immediate benefit in addition to our own numbers.

Thus I wouldn't assume that Wyoming would be outperformed by higher population states in the short run just because those other states might be able to attract more activists right off the bat.  Just think about how much more an activist counts for when he or she crosses the state line into Wyoming, and then combine that with all of Wyoming's other natural advantages, which would be immediately at the disposal of those activists.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: BobW on May 09, 2003, 04:38:59 am
Hi ZuG,

You've got a solid grasp of what must be dealt with.  Here's some commentary;

Intro; population;

I'd not worry too much on the exacting categories such as "native born".  It is philosophical positions determining our concerns, not status as an original "local".

Economics;

I'd say it's not "job prospects" but rather actually getting employment.  That's why I gave my full endorsement to a participant here (do not remember if a declared FSPer) regarding a "Porcupine Employment Service", staffed by and for FSPers.

I'd never recommend someone to make a long distance move without first visiting the place.  If and when someone visits, they can stop at the FSP employment service and get a job search started. (I envision a better and more comprehensive program than what the  current employment services offer.  I've seen it done where the benevolent societies also have a driver service to run people around town to go to interviews,etc)  For someone to relocate funded off of savings is not the most feasible route.  Failures to relocate do not enhance morale nor further FSP.

From a financial and social perspective, job prospects won't count.  An FSPer needs a revenue stream as soon as possible.  Other groups establish the employment service along with a "welcome committee" as part of an "advance party".

I've read several posts regarding business taxes.  In the context of FSP, business taxes are not relevant. If account receivables are pouring in, pay the damn taxes.  Our country's concern and complaints on the entire arena of taxes are up for review.  We'll rehabilitate tax programs - - -when the collective pronoun "we" is a viable FSP group.  In the interim, the objective is to get established.  Fortunately, the tax castrophe is such a national issue that FSP can let the US Chamber of Commerce, and all the others continue working the tax issue.

I am not nor could relocate my business to Wyoming. The "constant" is the relocation.  The "variable" is the business.  One is an option; one is a necessity.

You answered the vital question.

If the short term success is a relocated group, meshing in with a new home and getting established; which is the inference I got from above, no medium or long term success can evolve without the initial nucleus.



To amplify on the "vital question";

NB: I might be out of order  and am prepared to accept constructive criticism.  

Does FSP seek threshholds to establish a short term success in eg Wyoming, by tapping the resources of eg already established FSPers in eg New Hampshire?

In year 15, I'd suspect more than SE Wyoming will have FSP enclaves.  Is it socially, economically and politically wise to disestablish a beachhead in New Hampshire to accelerate growth in the Wyoming FSP enclave - or vice versa - from Wyoming to New Hampshire?

A relocation is expensive.  I'm doing the R&D right now.  Getting employment is also a big project.

I read a lot of statistics here but believe a lot is being missed.  If someone's working, even if in a transition job, housing is available.  Even Manhattan has available housing when the price is agreed upon.

I'm glad to see your post here.  I was waiting for someone to open the file cabinet and start the work. Only the leisure class has the time to discuss the other  stuff.

Zug, are you writing from Switzerland?   Just joking......


BobW  
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: JasonPSorens on May 09, 2003, 09:10:03 am
ZuG, I think you've identified two important categories of variables: population (called SIZE in the spreadsheet) and economics (called QUALITY in the spreadsheet).  The assumption is that NH and WY represent extremes on both of these factors, with other states being combinations thereof.  But there are also two more factors: long-term autonomy possibilities (VIABILITY in the spreadsheet) and favorability of local residents (CULTURE in the spreadsheet).  Since SIZE and QUALITY are generally inversely correlated (even if it is assumed that smaller states will necessarily have fewer jobs, and that isn't intrinsically a bad thing, our smaller states still have fewer new jobs as a proportion of population than our larger states, except Maine), the VIABILITY and CULTURE factors may be the ones ultimately determining the decision.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: jgmaynard on May 09, 2003, 09:44:11 am
Freedom, freedom, freedom....

1st) Where did you get those expense reports? Benson spent $9M for Gov in '02, and that was far and away the most expensive campaign in NH history.
Trouble here is, we are NOT going for Governor right away! A primary goal is to get people in the state house! Those elections only cost a couple hundred dollars in NH, and the districts are only about 3k people, so a candidate can meet all the constituents over a few weekends.... OUR elections are darn cheap, darn small, and VERY winnable!

2nd) Liberty friendly - The reports you quote list votes for Bush/Cheney as being "liberty friendly" -  two words - John Ashcroft.
I says it before, I'll says it again.... New Hampshire HATES the Bushes! In an election between a true fiscal conservative (Benson) and a tax and spend liberal (Fernald), Benson won 2:1. Oh, and our Libertarian candidate had one of the best showings out of all the states, and then he got picked by the Governor to show him how to make Government smaller...
How about the fact that the people of NH have elected more LIBERTARIAN candidates (a TRUE measure of freedom) that any other state in the country? WY has ONE Libertarian elected. We have 28... We also have solid plans to get at least 50 in office by the end of next year, including restoring a powerful Libertarian caucus in the state house. And here's the nifty bit - The Republicans WANT us there! ;)

3) Guns - You don't need a permit to carry a gun in NH, and concealed is only a 1 page, $10 (as opposed to $75 in WY) form on a "must issue" basis; You get turned down, the courts will MAKE the police issue you a CC permit... :D
Only 1/2 of NH households have guns, but it is because our crime rate is so low (lowest in the nation according to the FBI - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm), we don't need them, except for hunting (which is very popular)... PLUS we have two gun factories in NH, including a Ruger plant! :D
And we don't fingerprint our gun owners like WY :D(http://www.lpnh.org/poptips/gunlaws.htm)

It's not hard to get more people to vote pro-liberty, when they are already doing so! :D

While the western states all tell us to go somewhere else, our Governor is welcoming us with open arms to the statehouse.

Largest percentage of FSP members in the country, most elected Libertarians in the country, highest percentage of LP members in the country, the lowest taxed state after Alaska (Money Magazine, 1st without Alaska's oil dividend http://www.lpnh.org/poptips/taxes-gr.htm), the lowest state spending in the country...

Sounds pretty darn pro-liberty to me :D

Learn more about NH at:
http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm

JM
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: vermass on May 09, 2003, 04:38:12 pm
   $20 for an out of state permit. The form IS very easy. It was easier for me to obtain my NH non-resident permit than a permit for my "home state" (I hate saying this:) MA. WY does not have non-resident permits (Someone else did mention our NH permits have reciprocity in WY). MA permits have reciprocity nowhere because MA will not give anyone other state reciprocity.
   NH, WY, one thing for sure: either of them is 1000000 times freer than MA.
   Talk about a powerfull teachers union. In MA they have several different prime-time commercials running right now. They are using scare tactics and want us to "raise the revenue". Their logic is that we'll educate more people who will get better paying jobs and therefore be able to pay more taxes or should I say "raise more revenue" so that the cycle can continue! Then they say "Duh". I'm serious they actually have a commercial like this. I wish there was a way to post a link to it or something. You all would laugh so hard you'd be crying or wait maybe you'd cry so hard you'd start laughing.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Robert H. on May 10, 2003, 04:36:40 am
In year 15, I'd suspect more than SE Wyoming will have FSP enclaves.  Is it socially, economically and politically wise to disestablish a beachhead in New Hampshire to accelerate growth in the Wyoming FSP enclave - or vice versa - from Wyoming to New Hampshire?

I believe it would be politically wisest to establish a beachhead where you can make it most secure, and from there, move on to new ground.

Wyoming is the most secure beachhead available.  Twenty thousand in Wyoming would saturate it to a degree that would take over forty-five thousand in New Hamsphire.  There's much more "bang for the buck" there, if you will.

And as far as moving on to new ground from our beachhead, well, Wyoming is bordered by South Dakota (a consistently high performer in our measurements, and low population to boot), Montana (with perhaps the most libertarian culture in the country, and certainly one of the most adamant state's rights cultures), and Idaho (which consistently performs well in spite of its high population).

Starting off in Wyoming gives us the greatest chance for short term impact and long-term influence.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: di540 on May 10, 2003, 10:49:46 am

And as far as moving on to new ground from our beachhead, well, Wyoming is bordered by South Dakota (a consistently high performer in our measurements, and low population to boot), Montana (with perhaps the most libertarian culture in the country, and certainly one of the most adamant state's rights cultures), and Idaho (which consistently performs well in spite of its high population).

Starting off in Wyoming gives us the greatest chance for short term impact and long-term influence.

If population is the overriding criterion, then you ought to
be comparing Wyoming to Vermont, and Idaho to NH or Maine, etc.
when making east v. west comparisons.

So, Vermont ought to be the leading state in the east. It does
better than NH on many other criteria too. The reason for its
being more socialistic is that a bunch of east coast elitists
decided to move in and take over, similar to the Rockefellers
moving into WV. Many of their politicians probably aren't from
Vermont.

The elitists may not have taken over in NH or Maine, but they
are still powerful. That translates into the general population
as well: you'll find fewer lawyers sympathetic to FSP causes.
If you want to reform a state, you're going to need lawyers, eh?  
It's no coincidence that the leading "country" lawyer in
the U.S. lives in Wyoming:
http://www.triallawyerscollege.com/gerry/bio.html

If Spence were part of the elite establishment, the way Nader is,
he'd get much better press than he does now, and be much better
known.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Dave Mincin on May 10, 2003, 08:58:34 pm
"A different way of looking at things?"  Really...come on sounds like spin to me.  It's really the same old same old!

The case against New Hampshire, what ever thread I go to it is always the same!

1.  NH has too many people, our best chance is to go were no people live!

2. If we go to NH our numbers will mean nothing, 20,000 freedom lovers will be swamped by all the statist moving into NH, the statistics tell us that!

3.  Even if we move to NH win control institute change become a Free State, those devils around us will surely come in and take over, within moments!

This is the same old story over and over again just with a different spin. So lets look at the real world!

1.  New Hampshire has a history 200+ years of "Live free or die."  Has a history of individual freedom.  Even today has one of the lowest overall tax rates, and least dependence on Federal government hand outs.  Look at the numbers!  People in NH already vote for freedom when give the choice!  And oh my oh my people are actually getting elected that love freedom!  Hmm best to shy away from NH because people live there!

2.  Funny all those statist, those people that will surely move to NH when we get there haven't come yet!   Two hundred years means nothing says the people with all the statistics.  What about the people of NH who have shown through the years that they believe in freedom, by their actions and their vote?

3.  Ha...surely 200 years of history means nothing!  Surely once we come to NH,   a place were we are welcome!  Begin to institute change, eliminate victimless crimes, state schools, needless government regulations, lower taxes, those dastardly statists will come by the 10's of thousand to retake control!  My question my statistical friend is why haven't  they come already?  "Oh ye of so little faith."                                                                                                                                  
 Got new reasons to throw out there, please do but don't spin the old ones in new clothing.

New Hampshire is our last best hope for freedom in our life time!

David Mincin

                                                                                                             




Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Robert H. on May 10, 2003, 09:48:20 pm
Speaking of same old, same old...

You're not responding to any of the arguments against New Hamphsire (old or otherwise); you're creating distortions of those arguments and then responding to your new creations.  If you're going to attack an opposition argument, it's usually advisable to quote the opposition verbatim and then refute what they've actually said.

I know by now that it's basically useless to discuss any of this, but this one really irks me:

Quote
Surely once we come to NH,  a place were we are welcome!

You're confusing the NHLP with the people of New Hamphshire, probably not a wise thing to do considering that only 3% of the population voted for the NHLP candidate in 2002.  I have yet to see any evidence that the people of New Hamphshire themselves are welcoming us there.  For that matter, I have yet to see any evidence that the people of any state are welcoming us there.

So, please stop saying that "New Hampshire" wants the FSP until you have some proof that this is actually the case.  Right now you have only the NHLP's endorsement, and we have such endorsements from four other states as well, for what they're worth.

I believe what you're really upset with is the fact that New Hampshire is being questioned at all, which is unfortunate.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: jgmaynard on May 10, 2003, 10:54:44 pm
"You're confusing the NHLP with the people of New Hamphshire, probably not a wise thing to do considering that only 3% of the population voted for the NHLP candidate in 2002."

Normally, that would be a good point. However the reality of the 2002 Gubernatorial election here in NH was that the Democrat was running on a pro-income tax platform, and the Republican (Craig Benson) stated (and has held to). "No new taxes, no higher taxes. No way. No how". The people of NH came out to elect Benson 2:1. People were so afraid of an income tax, very few people were willing to vote for any third party candidate. We had to make SURE Fernald (D) was defeated. And he was. Soundly.
BUT John Babiarz' vote total was still the 2nd or 3rd highest in the country. :D How many other states can state that they even got that much? Wisconsin and.....

"I have yet to see any evidence that the people of New Hamphshire themselves are welcoming us there."

Well, I live in the most liberal city in New Hampshire (Keene - site of the Jumanji movie), and our town paper has written up the FSP several times, and only had good things to say. If ANY media was going to attack us in NH, it would be them.
I have done a bunch of recruiting and publicity for the FSP, and I have heard ZERO people object to it... The reason I hear 9 out of 10 people here say they don't want to join is because they say they don't think it could work anywhere but NH (though I think it might work in a couple of the other states being considered, but I still think NH will be the easiest)...
AND I am giving away FSP materials in free newsletter stands, and there's a bunch being taken....
Plus, unlike the Montana Governor's office who told us to go to Idaho, the Idaho Government who told us to go anywhere else, and the Mayor of Burlington (?) VT, who told us we'd be better off in NH, the Governor of New Hampshire (who chose the LPNH chair to advise him on making Government more efficent) is welcoming the FSP to meet with him in June, and I happen to know that people from his office will be coming to our "Escape to NH" week.
Sounds like a nice sample to me! :D

"For that matter, I have yet to see any evidence that the people of any state are welcoming us there."

I can only speak for New Hampshire. But I too, would like to see more positive press from outside New Hampshire.

"So, please stop saying that "New Hampshire" wants the FSP until you have some proof that this is actually the case."

Not proof, but those are some pretty good signs.

"Right now you have only the NHLP's endorsement, and we have such endorsements from four other states as well, for what they're worth."

And far and away the greatest FSP membership % of any state in the country. :) We have a great number of people joining us, and if NH is chosen, all those many NH activists who don't wanna sign up for the FSP are gonna be on our side. Our numbers will be multiplied several times.

"I believe what you're really upset with is the fact that New Hampshire is being questioned at all, which is unfortunate. "

Nope. Just trying to buck the mistaken notion that the "Life Free or Die" state is ANYTHING like eastern Mass. they ain't us, we ain't them, and we both wanna keep it that way. :D

Take care,

JM

Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: di540 on May 10, 2003, 11:01:14 pm
"A different way of looking at things?"  Really...come on sounds like spin to me.  It's really the same old same old!
.
That's why advocacy for/against states is inferior to criteria.
.
Quote
1.  New Hampshire has a history 200+ years of "Live free or die."  
Ha...surely 200 years of history means nothing!  
It only had a few years as a "Free & Independent State" before it
threw that all away and joined the Union, as if it were nothing.
.
Quote
2.  Funny all those statist, those people that will surely move to NH when we get there haven't come yet!   Two hundred years means nothing says the people with all the statistics.  
My question my statistical friend is why haven't  they come already?
.
The statists are already there in the gov't of NH & let central
gov't get away with violating the laws, so it's irrelevant how
many more statists move in. You're still going to have to undo
the status quo of the current statists.
.
Quote
3.  Surely once we come to NH, a place were we are welcome!  Begin to institute change, eliminate victimless crimes, state schools, needless government regulations, lower taxes, those dastardly statists will come by the 10's of thousand to retake control!  
.
NH needs the reforms you've listed because the statists have
already beaten you to the punch by about 200 years.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: jgmaynard on May 10, 2003, 11:06:13 pm
"NH needs the reforms you've listed because the statists have
already beaten you to the punch by about 200 years."

You don't know us very well, do you? ;)

JM
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: di540 on May 10, 2003, 11:15:59 pm
Quote
"NH needs the reforms you've listed because the statists have
already beaten you to the punch by about 200 years."
You don't know us very well
.
You don't know how much freedom you don't have. What is the
% of employees in NH who don't have a SSNo?  That will tell
you how much freedom you still have.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: jgmaynard on May 11, 2003, 11:12:33 am
"What is the % of employees in NH who don't have a SSNo?  That will tell you how much freedom you still have."

You can tell all about freedom from one number? Hmmm... And to think I've been wasting my time looking at many different factors... ;)
But I DO know several people who work under the table without SSN's.

Seems to me taking as little money from the Feds as possible is at LEAST as important... And NH is #1 in that, and getting better... Our Governor is working on opting out of Fed funding even more...

I can also tell you from inside info there probably are no SSN's in libraries in the state anymore ;D

JM
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: di540 on May 11, 2003, 12:35:51 pm
Quote
"What is the % of employees in NH who don't have a SSNo?  That will tell you how much freedom you still have."

You can tell all about freedom from one number?
.
That's like Browne's Libertarian Shuffle to a simple question.
And you took it the wrong way: namely that of advocacy for
criteria. In this case I'm advocating the % of employees w/out
a SSNo as a measure of freedom. You have failed to show that
the criterion in question is not a proxy for freedom.
.
Quote
But I DO know several people who work under the table without SSN's.
.
In Montana several entire classes of people work above
the table w/out (Hutterites and Indians) esp. as the Bruce
Hanson case in Dallas (CA3-92-0169-T) proves that one still
has a right to employment w/out. (Of course, the illegal
immigrants have to work under.)
.
Quote
Seems to me taking as little money from the Feds as possible is at LEAST as important... And NH is #1 in that, and getting better... Our Governor is working on opting out of Fed funding even more...
.
That's why advocacy for a state is inferior to advocacy for a
criterion, as it leads to such 'vaporware'.
.
Otherwise, the % of workers not giving money to the feds is a
better measure than those not on the take. (On the other hand, it
might be interesting to know the % of Libertarians who are
accepting cheques from Social Security in each state.)
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Karl on May 11, 2003, 01:27:41 pm
That's like Browne's Libertarian Shuffle to a simple question.
And you took it the wrong way: namely that of advocacy for
criteria. In this case I'm advocating the % of employees w/out
a SSNo as a measure of freedom. You have failed to show that
the criterion in question is not a proxy for freedom.

mAximo, you made the original assertion that "% of employees w/out a SSNo is a good measure of freedom," not James.  James was asking you to explain your reasoning and you appear to be dodging it.  The burden of proof is on you.

As for the validaty of your assertion, I suspect this is a very poor measure of freedom.  Take for example one of the states with the highest percentages of undocumented workers in the country -- California -- hardly a bastion of freedom.  I doubt there is much statistical correlation at all.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please explain.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: BobW on May 11, 2003, 01:49:44 pm
Hi maXamo,

Do muncipal employees of Corpus Christi, Texas have SSANs?  Do they participate in the program?  Does it matter?

A US citizen working overseas is probably not paying social security.  This US citizen probably has a SSAN.

Don't know about Hutterites but the  Indian Trust Fund has identical health to the social ecurity trust fund; bad health.

Recommend you rethink "advocacy for a state is inferior to advocacy for a criterion".  America's political subdivisions control a lot more than 1 criterion.

All illegal immigrants do not work under the social security program nor have SSANs.

Acceptance of a social security check is not, ipso facto, badness. Part of the check is returned money for many of the recipients.  

BobW  
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: di540 on May 11, 2003, 06:12:26 pm


That's like Browne's Libertarian Shuffle
to a simple question. And you took it the wrong way: namely
that of advocacy for criteria. In this case I'm advocating
the % of employees w/out a SSNo as a measure of freedom.
You have failed to show that the criterion in question is
not a proxy for freedom.

mAximo, you made the original assertion that "% of
employees w/out a SSNo is a good measure of freedom," not
James.  James was asking you to explain your reasoning and
you appear to be dodging it.  The burden of proof is on
you.
.
I had already explained it, and also you're pretending that
I have not. Classic Harry Browne. In essence it was about
property rights, and inviolability of contract.
Turning down handouts from the feds is not.
.
Quote
As for the validaty of your assertion, I suspect this is a
very poor measure of freedom.  Take for example one of the
states with the highest percentages of undocumented workers
in the country -- California -- hardly a bastion of
freedom.  I doubt there is much statistical correlation at
all.  If you have evidence to the contrary, please explain.
.
I never said that there weren't other measures to consider that
couldn't also be considered & override this one, even in CA. But
I didn't say it was "the" measure of freedom & California is not
one of the candidate states. It applies as I had stated for the
states mentioned, and for the persons mentioned. If you don't
have a SSNo, then you can't get into the system to to pay FICA,
employee income tax, etc. That will guarantee that you will not
be held liable for them by a gonzo IRS agent, although
the fact that no law makes employees liable for them, ought
to be enough protection for anybody who is willing to put
up half-way decent opposition.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: di540 on May 11, 2003, 06:28:19 pm

Recommend you rethink "advocacy for a state is inferior to advocacy for a criterion".  America's political subdivisions control a lot more than 1 criterion.

.
Okay, i've repented. And the statement remains true as it stands.
The word "a" is an indefinite article. You are misinterpreting it
to mean "one" and also throwing in the restriction "only one" free
of charge. Did you take lessons from Harry Browne?
.
Quote

Acceptance of a social security check is not, ipso facto, badness. Part of the check is returned money for many of the recipients.  

.
Classic Browne. Likewise, he will not tell you if he will turn
down Social Security benefits. It is hypocritical to do so, if
you claim to be a Libertarian, (except those parts which are
refunds, but it was still your fault for letting them take it
away from you in the 1st place).
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: stpeter on May 11, 2003, 09:36:11 pm
... the VIABILITY and CULTURE factors may be the ones ultimately determining the decision.
Jason, if I recall correctly, your research indicates that regionalist movements are most successful in areas from which central governments take more than they give. By this measure, NH comes out way ahead of every other candidate state (it gets only 71 cents for every dollar it sends to D.C.); WY gets $1.14 for every $1.00 it sends, ID $1.24, and Alaska a whopping $1.63 (to choose the four states I see as the leading contenders). The other viability measures in the spreadsheet are coastal access, an international border, and the percentage of Federally-owned land. Here again NH comes out ahead on the first two (it has both a coast and a border, whereas WY has neither, ID has one, though Alaska has both); and only 13% of NH is Federal land, whereas the numbers are WY 46%, ID 63%, and Alaska 67%. Now we can argue about how valuable these viability numbers are, and about whether there are other better measures, but on the measures we have NH comes out looking good.

As to culture, we have a lot of variables to choose from (too many, IMHO -- I'm not sure how strongly each of them is correlated with the overall freedom-orientation of the local political culture, and here again we can argue about them for hours, I'm sure). However, one thing that strikes me from having researched the matter a bit over the last few weeks is that NH does have a distinctive political culture. It has a unique system of checks and balances on the power of the Governor in the form of the elected Executive Council. It has a true citizen legislature that is effectively unpaid. It spends only 6.6% of "gross state product" on state and local government (lowest of any FSP state -- compare to 9.4% for WY, 9.5% for ID, and 9.7% for Alaska). It has a strong tradition of local decision-making in the form of town meetings. It really does seem to have a "government of the people", which I'm less confident of in a place like WY (where my understanding is that large mining and oil & gas interests exercise quite a bit of control at the state level -- they do pay most of the taxes in WY, after all, and "he who pays the piper calls the tune").

I'm not saying that NH is paradise on earth -- after all, they even have state liquor stores! If NH were already a Jeffersonian utopia, there would be no need for the FSP. But I do think that NH has retained more of Jeffersonian principles than any other state -- especially because it is less dependent on the central government, and has a smaller state and local government sector, than any other FSP candidate.

Naturally, we need to balance these viability and culture measures against population, which I continue to think is hugely important. I remain skeptical of the 20,000 activist number (or 1:64 ratio), because I'm not sure that the Quebec experience is applicable to the FreeState and I doubt that all 20k who sign up will be truly active (we'll be lucky if the 80-20 rule holds and 20% or 4,000 are active enough to show up at town meetings, run for office, or write letters to the editor). Of course, even 4,000 activists will dwarf the number of freedom activists in any state right now, so I think the results will be profound no matter where we go.

Finally, I'm glad to see the focus in this thread on the long term prospects for this project. Too many people on the forums and on various email lists seem to be expecting some kind of immediate "libertopia". It ain't gonna happen, folks, and to expect that is to set yourself up for immediate disappointment. The free state is a long-term project. It will be 2010 before the 20,000 have moved, and at least another 10 to 20 years before the efforts of those on the ground truly yield fruit -- i.e., it will take until 2020 or later to build a truly free society in the chosen state. So those who join the FSP and move to the FreeState and become active there really need to have "2020 vision" and realize that it will take years and years of often-small victories (and probably lots of setbacks along the way) in order to build what we trust will eventually become unstoppable momentum for freedom.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Zxcv on May 11, 2003, 09:40:33 pm
Now that this thread has drifted, I think I can comment on this:
Quote
BUT John Babiarz' vote total was still the 2nd or 3rd highest in the country.  How many other states can state that they even got that much? Wisconsin and.....

...and Oregon, I think. Thomas Cox got 4.6%, or 47,444 votes. The total separating the D and R candidate in a very hot race was 2639 votes out of just under a million cast. Does that beat John's total or percentage?

The Oregonian (what I call our Ministry of Propaganda) was especially nice to Tom, giving him as much space as the other candidates. And he got into all the debates, too, I think. And he carried himself well.

They really wanted a D in office, and I think they figured out that Tom could siphon a lot of votes from the R candidate. And so he did, and the D was elected.

There are a lot of libertarians in Oregon.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: di540 on May 12, 2003, 12:05:11 am
... the VIABILITY and CULTURE factors may be the ones ultimately determining the decision.
Jason, if I recall correctly, your research indicates that regionalist movements are most successful in areas from which central governments take more than they give. By this measure, NH comes out way ahead of every other candidate state (it gets only 71 cents for every dollar it sends to D.C.); WY gets $1.14 for every $1.00 it sends, ID $1.24, and Alaska a whopping $1.63 (to choose the four states I see as the leading contenders). The other viability measures in the spreadsheet are coastal access, an international border, and the percentage of Federally-owned land. Here again NH comes out ahead on the first two (it has both a coast and a border, whereas WY has neither, ID has one, though Alaska has both); and only 13% of NH is Federal land, whereas the numbers are WY 46%, ID 63%, and Alaska 67%. Now we can argue about how valuable these viability numbers are, and about whether there are other better measures, but on the measures we have NH comes out looking good.
.
Very interesting. You could look at the net subsidy to a state as
an equalisation payment. Then you can ask how much of that payment
is a bribe to keep the natives from getting restless and rejecting
the system of internal colonisation, and how much to subsidise the
special interests. All else being equal, the data confirm that
Alaska has the strongest regional movement.
.
I agree that a border & seacoast are good for long term viability,
but the measure should be quantified in terms of length, or
tonnage/persons handled, etc.
.
Quote
As to culture, we have a lot of variables to choose from
.
One more: legal culture. This will include the behavior of
juries, judges, sheriffs. It would be interesting to know how
many times a jury nullified the law (good) or how many times
a judge nullified a jury decision (bad). For the federal
courts it should be sufficient to break down the analysis into
east v. west; otherwise Boston-N.Y.-Denver-S.F. since the
decisions of each circuit court will determine whether the
feds will try to overturn an adverse ruling, or cut their
losses, and just try to get their loss filed as yet another
"unreported" case, not for publication.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: BobW on May 12, 2003, 02:51:06 am
Hi mAximo,

Nothing here from me ref Harry Brown without mentioning the word "rejection".  It is my fault that I didn't properly convey my position to you.  I'm not playing semantics.  There's no restictions on my part; only dialogue.

I believe you are arguing policy positions on functional subjects.   My position - if I understand you -is the opposite.  Take a single state to try the rehab.  Californian and New York are not going to change by politics.  It will be via economics.  It's already in the news.

Re para 2 above; you're being too doctrinaire and too little pragmatic.  Conceptually I agree with your point that social security represents badness. I am a vocal opponent of the program and am glad it is currently being phased out.

If someone gets hurt at the loading dock and receives Social Security's Medicare and Medicare Part B, there is a probability of the citizen returning to society.  Rejection of  this "benefit" is a loss of the citizen.  I ask you to avoid only dealing in logic and augment your position with the experience of society.  Subject citizen did not - because of the financial inability - purchase disability income insurance.  Your theoretical position is valid and it gets my support.  Still, we're not working only in theory.  The transition out of the social security program requires pragmaticism.

It is NOT a fault of a citizen to accept a check with the stub annotated with FICA deductions and all the rest.  It's the law of the land.  

I am not a member of the Libertarian Party.  

Remember the name of the game is to win elections.  

I am new here and know little about your background and specialized interests in politics.  I do know from your posts you have an advanced background in several discipines.  You cannot persuade people to support political positions placing them at grave risk such as financial or health  loss without fully and CLEARLY explaining key aspects of your position and how support will not make them sacrifices to implimentation.

BobW

   
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Zxcv on May 12, 2003, 06:02:43 pm
Quote
Jason, if I recall correctly, your research indicates that regionalist movements are most successful in areas from which central governments take more than they give.

I'm not Jason, but I'll say something about this. Money, as you say, is one irritant. There are others, such as the feds telling states, or private land owners in the states, what to do with their land. There are plenty of irritants that way in Wyoming, and other western states (it was a "sagebrush rebellion", after all - any sage grow in New England?   ;) )

And to have a "regionalist" movement, you have to have a region. Idaho, Wyoming and perhaps South Dakota, Utah and Montana form an obvious region where federal intrusion is not appreciated, fully as much as it is resented in the South. These are areas where we can expect to see a loosening of federal control, if it's going to happen at all. NH on the other hand is isolated in a sea of statism.

Wyoming doesn't give up anything in the CULTURE variables, either. And Wyoming has the only state government in the nation that does not spend anything on frills; it is all the basic stuff ("education", transportation, corrections and public assistance). See p19 of this pdf file:
http://www.nasbo.org/Publications/PDFs/nasbo2001exrep.pdf
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Dave Mincin on May 12, 2003, 06:45:51 pm
Guess Vermont, and Maine don't count, we all know you can't have a region in New England.  By the way who is that Senator from SD, you know the one who, so loves freedom and less governement!

Guess the voters from Mass. must have elected him.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: jgmaynard on May 12, 2003, 07:02:24 pm
"Thomas Cox got 4.6%, or 47,444 votes. The total separating the D and R candidate in a very hot race was 2639 votes out of just under a million cast. Does that beat John's total or percentage?"

Nope. But as I said, the Dem wanted an income tax! Very few small Government activists were willing to vote for John, since they knew Benson is avidly anti-tax and stood a better chance of winning.
But, for $12,000 we got the 3rd best showing the country, and now John is in the Governors office advising Benson!

"The Oregonian (what I call our Ministry of Propaganda) was especially nice to Tom, giving him as much space as the other candidates. And he got into all the debates, too, I think. And he carried himself well."

Yup. That's great. John was in all the debates (or nearly so) as well. It is great exposure.

"They really wanted a D in office, and I think they figured out that Tom could siphon a lot of votes from the R candidate. And so he did, and the D was elected."

You think that's good? The Dems in NH in 2002 actually ADVERTISED and did a phone bank for Dan Belforti, L for Congress, thinking the same thing... It was humorous. :)

"All else being equal, the data confirm that Alaska has the strongest regional movement."

What data?  You don't say.... ::)

"was a "sagebrush rebellion", after all - any sage grow in New England?"

1) A pre-Revolution event occurring in New Hampshire was the removal in 1774, by a small party of patriots at New Castle, of the powder and guns at Fort William and Mary.

2) Yes, we are growning sage this year in my home garden :D

"And Wyoming has the only state government in the nation that does not spend anything on frills"

Then why is the NH state Government the least expensive of all? What are you spending all that extra tax money on? :D

Have fun, folks!

JM
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Zxcv on May 12, 2003, 07:52:45 pm
Quote
Quote
"They really wanted a D in office, and I think they figured out that Tom could siphon a lot of votes from the R candidate. And so he did, and the D was elected."

You think that's good?

No. But it does illustrate how unhelpful the LP can be at times. We are trying to loosen the homeschooling laws now and this D gov is going to veto it, which wouldn't happen with the R. It also illustrates the media does have good tools for splitting the (more or less) freedom vote.

Quote
Quote
"And Wyoming has the only state government in the nation that does not spend anything on frills"
Then why is the NH state Government the least expensive of all? What are you spending all that extra tax money on?
Here is the breakdown (percentages):

                              NH     WY
K-12 "education"       29.1     36.3
Higher "education"     4.5     15.1
Public Assistance      1.3     1.2
Medicaid                   26.9     16.4
Corrections               2.2     4.5
Transportation          12.2     26.6
Other  (frills)             23.8     0.0

Some of these are understandable. Transportation is going to cost more in a physically larger state. "Education" will cost more when you have small schools isolated by distance (so you don't have "economies of scale", although kids are harmed a little less in small schools so there is some compensation). I don't know why the higher "education" takes more unless you have a lot of private colleges in NH which is certainly a good thing.

Actually, your comment that NH state government is least expensive of all, is only true on a per-capita basis (where the economies of scale are again helpful). In total, New Hampshire spent $3425 million in 2001 while Wyoming spent $1546 million (smallest budget in the country). See p15 of that pdf file.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: stpeter on May 12, 2003, 09:33:27 pm

Here is the breakdown (percentages):

                              NH     WY
K-12 "education"       29.1     36.3
Higher "education"     4.5     15.1
Public Assistance      1.3     1.2
Medicaid                   26.9     16.4
Corrections               2.2     4.5
Transportation          12.2     26.6
Other  (frills)             23.8     0.0

<snip>

Actually, your comment that NH state government is least expensive of all, is only true on a per-capita basis (where the economies of scale are again helpful). In total, New Hampshire spent $3425 million in 2001 while Wyoming spent $1546 million (smallest budget in the country). See p15 of that pdf file.

Interesting numbers. My guess is one would have to read the actual budget to see what's going on in NH with what you call "frills" (this includes things like state parks, which WY has few of because the parks are mostly national out there). And it's not surprising that Wyoming had the smallest budget in the country -- after all, it has the lowest population. I find the per-capita numbers more helpful.

As to regionalism, that's the term Jason uses in his dissertation if I recall correctly. One could have a regionalist movement in Maine or Alaska or Texas or wherever -- you don't need multiple states to have a regionalist movement. It doesn't matter if NH is a free island in a statist sea -- you could say the same thing about Switzerland. The key is how free the FreeState is, not who its neighbors are.

BTW, you may recall that I co-authored the first Wyoming report. I still think WY is the best candidate state. But I'm also still looking at all the evidence.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: ZuG on May 13, 2003, 02:46:45 am
"A different way of looking at things?" Really...come on sounds like spin to me. It's really the same old same old!
-------------
I don't recall anybody laying out short vs medium vs long term effects here before. If they have, feel free to enlighten me.




The case against New Hampshire, what ever thread I go to it is always the same!
--------------------
Well yes, I presented what are known to be the strongest arguments for and against the two states.




1. NH has too many people, our best chance is to go were no people live!

2. If we go to NH our numbers will mean nothing, 20,000 freedom lovers will be swamped by all the statist moving into NH, the statistics tell us that!

3. Even if we move to NH win control institute change become a Free State, those devils around us will surely come in and take over, within moments!

This is the same old story over and over again just with a different spin. So lets look at the real world!
-----------------

You know, this was an essay of pros and cons of both states. My personal conclusion doesn't necessarily mean that it needs to be the conclusion of everyone. A person could read the very same data and come to the conclusion that NH was the right state, if they felt the population issues could be overcome.




1. New Hampshire has a history 200+ years of "Live free or die." Has a history of individual freedom. Even today has one of the lowest overall tax rates, and least dependence on Federal government hand outs. Look at the numbers! People in NH already vote for freedom when give the choice! And oh my oh my people are actually getting elected that love freedom! Hmm best to shy away from NH because people live there!
----------------------------------

What does this have to do with my #1, population? And WY has many of the same virtues you speak of.



2. Funny all those statist, those people that will surely move to NH when we get there haven't come yet! Two hundred years means nothing says the people with all the statistics. What about the people of NH who have shown through the years that they believe in freedom, by their actions and their vote?
-----------

I hate to say it, but NH isn't libertarian at all. It's less statist than most of the rest of the US, but less statist != libertarian.



3. Ha...surely 200 years of history means nothing! Surely once we come to NH, a place were we are welcome! Begin to institute change, eliminate victimless crimes, state schools, needless government regulations, lower taxes, those dastardly statists will come by the 10's of thousand to retake control! My question my statistical friend is why haven't they come already? "Oh ye of so little faith."                                                                  
Got new reasons to throw out there, please do but don't spin the old ones in new clothing.
---------------

You've now made the same point for the third time. Can we move onto a different straw man now please?



New Hampshire is our last best hope for freedom in our life time!
---------------

Based on what? You've produced nothing of value but propaganda to this thread thus far.

If you want to make an argument, standing up straw men and knocking them down in a rush of triumph is not the way to do it.

You're just wasting our time, making us read blatant propaganda with no logic whatsoever to back it up.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: BobW on May 13, 2003, 04:21:51 am
Hi Zug and Saint,

Zug, you've got a strong point too many are missing.  As a newcomer here it's not that comfortable for me to make statements that might appear as a direct challenge to someone's integrity.  With this as a headnote;

The comparisons are using analysis.  This yields current and past information to be converted to knowledge.  There are some exceptions to the analysis, eg a long coast line.  Although, what can be gleaned if learned that Dutch Harbor, Alaska is to be developed into a container port?  Without a copy of the business plan and budget, the info is just that.

Now, the Wyoming study # 1 is excellent.  It is also unbiased.

What you seek - and I do too - probably cannot be accomplished by FSP.  We are both looking for a prognosis instead of an analysis.  This is looking into the future based on past and current events.

What I noticed here is no mention of the status of Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming. I was looking for BRAC Commission comments. (BRAC=Base Realignment and Closure).  This is a key element for "long term efforts".  If there's a major complaint against FSP political activity , it's realistic to see a swelling civil service population at this federal reservation.  Civil servants are locals therefore allowing for voter registeration, etc.

There is so much in flux it's difficult to prepare a prognosis.  Medicare, Medicare Part B and VA programs are in the mill at this moment ready for change.  Ditto education funding.  A key to the existence of Laramie, WY is the university.  Who knows if it will contract or expand.

As an aside, I noticed a few months ago a small town in Humbolt County, California could not obtain antiterrorism insurance placing the existence of the police department and town on the line.  I believe this example might be applicable to many other places for "medium" [sic] and long-term efforts.

Both Wyoming and New Hampshire do NOT have a Washington, DC office.  Nor do the other western states except Alaska.  

Here's a saying from international marketing that's applicable to the FSP research going on now;

"Because the market anticipates, the more you know, the later it is.  The later it is, the greater the risk."

Above I wrote that I don't believe FSP can prepare a report for trends forward.  I DO believe the FSPers here have the skills and some the experience to do this. FSP lacks an infrastructure to accomplish what we both seek.

Relocations have been done before.  Nothing is new under the Sputnik. The criteria isn't strange. What's the best place for a Southeast Asia sales office?  Some say Jakarta.  Some say Singapore.  Some say non SEA Hong Kong.  Others say all 3 locations are required.  There is no answer.  Why discuss weather and climate if the constant is a venue with a small political establishment?  Why discuss business taxes?

That Wyoming report is excellent as an analysis.  Notice corporate America is in the waiting mode before making any big relocations.  If Boeing didn't move to Chicago from Seattle for political reasons, the move would have been on hold.

BobW

   
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Zxcv on May 13, 2003, 10:08:23 am
Quote
Interesting numbers. My guess is one would have to read the actual budget to see what's going on in NH with what you call "frills" (this includes things like state parks, which WY has few of because the parks are mostly national out there). And it's not surprising that Wyoming had the smallest budget in the country -- after all, it has the lowest population. I find the per-capita numbers more helpful.

Yes, of course. I was just commenting on James' somewhat extravagant claim. He would have been more correct to say NH's spending is least on a per-capita basis, rather than that "NH state Government the least expensive of all". And yes, per capita numbers are better, just as long as you recognize they themselves have limitations, and that spending can be influenced as much by external factors (like size of the state, for transportation). Just because the spending is higher, that does not mean the people are statist. Especially since things like transportation are funded by a user fee, the gas "tax".

In K-12 "education", I'm one of those dreamers who believe the states (some of them, anyway) will be out of the "education" business within a couple of decades. In fact I hope the FSP has a lot to do with that, by providing private alternatives and ending regulation of alternatives like homeschooling. If that really happened, you'd see a 36% (in Wyoming) reduction in the state budget, not too shabby!

As to frills, the point to remember is that "rent-seeking" behavior, that always builds and builds. The fewer sorts of things governments have their fingers in, the fewer constituencies are there to lobby for more spending.

It would be an interesting exercise, especially for this thread, to get into the two state budgets and do a more detailed comparison. Maybe I will do that if I can find the time.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: jgmaynard on May 13, 2003, 11:54:51 am
"1. NH has too many people, our best chance is to go were no people live!"

How can we convince people to vote for our candidates if there are no people there? ;) You can canvas a NH stste rep district in a couple weekends with only a couple volunteers....

"2. If we go to NH our numbers will mean nothing, 20,000 freedom lovers will be swamped by all the statist moving into NH, the statistics tell us that!"

20k means a heck of a lot.... Even the Repubs here (the largest party) only have about 1k paid members.... If they can take the Governorship 2:1, plus the state house AND Senate with 1k members... imagine what we can do with 20k!
PLUS you assume that EVERYONE who moves in is a statist.... You don't think any of them are tax refugees? :D

"3. Even if we move to NH win control institute change become a Free State, those devils around us will surely come in and take over, within moments!"

Hasn't happened yet.... Ask Marc Fernald ;)

"was just commenting on James' somewhat extravagant claim. He would have been more correct to say NH's spending is least on a per-capita basis, rather than that "NH state Government the least expensive of all"."

You're correct... I was refering to a per-capita basis...

Ciao!

JM
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Robert H. on May 13, 2003, 02:40:48 pm
"I believe what you're really upset with is the fact that New Hampshire is being questioned at all, which is unfortunate. "

Nope. Just trying to buck the mistaken notion that the "Life Free or Die" state is ANYTHING like eastern Mass. they ain't us, we ain't them, and we both wanna keep it that way. :D

Well, James, my response here was directed at marshrobert1's comments specificially because he seems to take such a personal objection to questions brought up in regard to New Hampshire.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: stpeter on May 13, 2003, 08:32:34 pm
What I noticed here is no mention of the status of Francis E. Warren AFB, Wyoming. I was looking for BRAC Commission comments. (BRAC=Base Realignment and Closure).  This is a key element for "long term efforts".

Speaking of military installations, I'll note that Pease AFB near Portsmouth, NH was closed in an earlier round of base closings (and turned into a successful industrial park), leaving NH with no major military presence. This is a definite plus, I think, for several reasons. By the way, if I recall correctly Warren AFB is the largest employer in Wyoming. Hmm.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: BobW on May 14, 2003, 01:14:59 am
Hi stpeter,

Yes, believe you're right. WAFB, WY is the largest employer in the state.  However, again, I want to emphasize to readers that a military reservation, as per employment, should not be viewed as solely a job bank.  A base can have the population expanded or contracted.  The civil service component has voters or eligible to vote.  

As an aside, the small shipyard in Portsmouth,NH and the Groton, Conn sub yard, might be in the mill for relocation.  The new aircraft carriers are being priced to quietly cover labor buyouts and relocation costs to Virginia.  I'm writing from Virginia where the cash cow.. er.. the Newport News, VA shipyard is actively seeking those New England businesses.  It's really a work relief act down here hidden in the "defend the nation" banner.

Ref above, that's why I was somewhat caustic in writing here about the state comparisons.  "Military expendatures" in each state is partly =disguised unemployment= and sweetheart contracts for industry.  

BobW
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Zxcv on May 14, 2003, 09:45:16 am
How much a problem would this base be for us? Any ideas on that?

I don't think the population would be that different from the rest of the people in the state. Not too many socialists and welfare queens on an Air Force base.

Although anyone working in a government job might be considered a welfare queen.  ;)  Oops, sorry, it's not kosher to make snide remarks about the military these days.  :P

We will not be seceding, so that's not an issue. Even if we were we could let them have the base, sort of like Guantanamo Bay, ha ha.

A lot of our states have bases, somehow I don't see this as a big issue unless someone can tell me why it should be. Yeah, it would be better if they weren't there, I suppose.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: BobW on May 14, 2003, 11:44:00 am
Hi Zxcv,

I don't see WAFB as a big issue.  I do say it is a "big ticket" item to be routinely monitored.

If, for example, the base is to close, smaller government folks eg FSP participants, would be in a contest with an irate population of civil servants.

Another reason to watch the place; eg if there is a President Hillary Smith, FSP demographics can be neutralized by adding to the population of the base.

Just some thoughts in the neutral category. I don't expect that place to be something like the 5 bases ringing San Antonio, where the political leverage was pretty strong, when BRAC toured the area.

For someone who watches this field, it'd be useful to know the selling points on how conversions from unnecessary military bases actually enhance the area eg the Pease AFB, New Hampshire example of conversion to an industrial park.

BobW
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Dave Mincin on May 16, 2003, 06:14:22 pm
Geez....You really think we should make our decision based on ur statistics!  If so which ones should we be most concerned about?  The largest employer in Wy or what?  Not like making a living is important!
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Karl on May 16, 2003, 07:57:51 pm
Apparently, Warren AFB has been listed for possible closure four times (http://thomas.senate.gov/html/pr5095.html), and is up again.  Given Russia's recent radification of a major strategic nuclear weapon treaty (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57367-2003May14.html) and Warren AFB's primary role as a nuke base (housing 500 Minuteman III's), the possibility of closure or severe reduction is very real.  But who really knows?

Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: stpeter on May 17, 2003, 09:56:03 pm
1. NH has too many people, our best chance is to go were no people live!

Last I saw, Antarctica and the Moon were not on the list of candidate states. ;)
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Robert H. on May 19, 2003, 01:12:55 am
A lot of our states have bases, somehow I don't see this as a big issue unless someone can tell me why it should be. Yeah, it would be better if they weren't there, I suppose.

Most military people I've known have been very responsible, self-disciplined and focused; the type of people who contribute to society instead of draining it.  People with such personal attributes could be a very useful and desirable element in creating a free state.
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: BobW on May 19, 2003, 01:39:30 am
Hi Robert,

My comments above and some of the respondents, weren't addressing MILITARY personnel but CIVIL SERVICE personnel.

The civilian employee of DOD facilities is a "local".  The Rumsfeld Pentagon is currently converting about 315,000 uniformed military positions to civilian employee positions.

Of course under the Homeland Security Dept, they lose the union power and enhanced status in the marketplace.

Our concern in discussions above was how eg San Antonio, with it's 5 bases could not be consolidated because of the civil service union positions.

Personally, it's just something to monitor.  Someone wrote here that given the chance, it's those people who will be the best allies.

BobW
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 29, 2003, 06:46:46 pm
What's with the fear of people?  To win elections guys we need people!  Are you so afraid that our thoughts and ideas are false?  The statists have some special magical power over the masses?

Come on I've been paying attention too!  All these folks have picked a state and most have not even been there!

I've been to NH and am confident that if we go there, tell our story the people will listen and support us!

Read on one of these thread that the FSP short term goal was to elect 3-5 state representative.  Geez we have 2 porcupines in the NH legislature right now!

Of course that means nothing? ;D



Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Hank on July 30, 2003, 08:15:54 pm
Quote
The statists have some special magical power over the masses?
You're darned tootin' they do.

Quote
I've been to NH and am confident that if we go there, tell our story the people will listen and support us!
Famous last words, as they pull the rope over the tree limb.

This picking on the military must be from a bunch of '60's draft dodgers and peaceniks.  The military guys and gals will be on OUR side (and least those old enough to care to vote).
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Dave Mincin on July 30, 2003, 08:20:55 pm
Ok a statist under every bush!  Know that story, hey one can believe what one choses in the Free State! ;D
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 03, 2003, 05:40:35 pm
For once we agree. :)  Some states will be easier for us to attain our goals.  NH with its culture of a motivated, and active voting population will surely be the best place for us to tell our story.

The process of establishing ourselves as a presence on the political battlefield has already begun in NH.  NH's diverse population will surely be more receptive to us!

Should we forget about all the hard work that has been done there and start over somewhere else?
Title: Re:WY vs NH: A different way of looking at things
Post by: wolverine307 on August 03, 2003, 07:35:46 pm
The average voter does support many of the government programs, regulations, and laws that libertarians would like to change or repeal.  Sure you can find voters who would repeal certain programs, but there is a different majority for nearly each and every law, program, regulation, "government service".  "Statists under every bush?"

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

I hope that those with the political savvy/experience are prepared to deal with the inevitable accusations of us trying to toss Grandma out into the snow or us wanting helpless little children to starve.

Politics is about the only field of human behavior where the most preposterous statements can go unchallenged and the author is not required to prove.

Scientists can't get away with this.