Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: glen on November 24, 2002, 12:47:21 pm

Title: Idaho
Post by: glen on November 24, 2002, 12:47:21 pm
Idaho supporters and fellow travelers are invited to post verifiable facts and factually supported arguments in favor of choosing Idaho as the Free State.

Critics of choosing Idaho are also welcome to post verifiable facts and factually supported arguments against choosing Idaho as the Free State. Critics are encouraged to present organized and self contained arguments rather than just rants.

If enough information can be collected, a web site can be build.

In my opinion, dedicated web sites for each of the candidate states are needed because the pile of information available in the forum and on the official state data pages has become to big to be useable to the general reader.

In the spirit of friendly competition, I hope that if one group of state supporters finds a better way to sort out this crazy looking pile of information, they will be willing to let other groups use it.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: varrin on November 24, 2002, 11:42:52 pm
I'll contribute a summary of the strengths of Idaho's air service here.  In this summary, I am including only airports that are within the states we're considering.  Some eastern states have some out of state options like Boston, Philadelphia, Baltomore, etc.

Idaho has 6 airports with scheduled interstate air service.  Boise is ranked #1 among FSP cities for the number of different airlines serving a single city (8), and is tied for 1st place for the number of airlines serving the state (8).  Boise is also tied for 1st place for the number of detinations served from a single city (20).  Idaho is ranked 2nd for the total number of interstate destinations served from its airports (17, v.s. 22 for New Hampshire).  Idaho does also have some intrastate destinations.  Boise is average in cost for air travel, receiving a cost index of 99.

Among western states, Idaho is hands down the winner for best air service.

There's a start! ;-)

V-

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on November 25, 2002, 12:33:46 am
Here is the ranking I did on the voter initiative and referendum process for the state data page. Idaho comes in second only because of the official comment that “any voter can bring suit to the state Supreme Court to determine constitutionality”. No doubt the same applies to Montana. In my opinion, Idaho and Montana are tied for first place on this critically important issue.

1. Montana
http://sos.state.mt.us/css/ELB/Ballot_Issues.asp
Seem to be no restrictions at all.

2. Idaho
http://www.idsos.state.id.us/elect/inits/initinst.htm
Seem to be no restrictions but any voter can bring suit to the state Supreme Court to determine constitutionality.

3. South Dakota
http://www.state.sd.us/sos/initiati.htm
“Measures which may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions are not subject to referendum.”

4. Maine
http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/elec/initpak.htm
Secretary of State either accepts it or rejects it with suggestions for modification. Revised proposals are treated the same way until the Secretary of State accepts it.

5. North Dakota
http://www.state.nd.us/sec/Measures.HTM
Secretary of State either accepts it or rejects it. The state Supreme Court can review the Secretary of States decision.

6. Alaska
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/ltgov/elections/petitions/irr.htm
Highly restrictive.

7. Wyoming
http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/initproc.htm
Even more restrictive.

8. Delaware
http://simshome.com/iandr/
No Initiative or referendum process in place. Apparently a major effort is under way to get one in place.

9. Vermont
http://www.api4animals.org/doc.asp?ID=917
No Initiative or referendum process in place. Apparently there is a bill before the legislature.

10. New Hampshire
No Initiative or referendum process in place. Apparently there is no effort to get  one in place.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on November 25, 2002, 12:40:21 am
One of the central strategies behind the FSP is based on the sad fact that most people do not become actively involved in the political affairs of their communities. As a result, it is assumed that 20,000 libertarian orientated people voting more or less in sync can then have a disproportionately large impact on state political affairs.

Unfortunately, what might be called the 20/80 rule is in full operation among the FSP as well as among the voters in the 10 proposed states.

The 20/80 rule is loosely defined as 20% percent of the people doing 80% of the work.

If this 20/80 rule continues to hold sway then it will not be realistic for the FSP to expect large numbers of its members to become involved in the years or decades long struggle of running for political office at all levels in the new free state.

An alternative to depending on fielding candidates for political office is using the initiative and referendum process to force the state / county / municipal governments to cut key or strategically important taxes. The especially nice result of downsizing government by this method is that if the anti-tax initiative is successful, the sitting politicians, who created the bloated government in the first place, then get blamed for the painful mess of the downsizing process (not, and I repeat not, the FSP members or candidates).  

20% of the FSP membership, then, can successfully have a disproportionately large impact by operating an initiative organization. The other 80% of us who are struggling to re-build our lives and careers in the new free state can then more easily, but still fully, participate by sending in a little money and getting out the vote at election time.

As shown in reply #2 of this post, Idaho is tied for first place with Montana for having the easiest to use initiative and referendum process.

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: SandyPrice on November 25, 2002, 10:22:22 am
Glen, 20/80 has always been the case in the 50 years that I have been voting.  I thought when I went on line that getting people activated into petitions, initiatives, emails, faxes would be a piece of cake but I was preaching to the wrong choir.  

I had been hearing the whines of the conservatives for 30 years and thought once we had a tool of communication like the internet all would work for us.

Here's an example of what I encountered.  Someone sent me a petition to get the Supreme Court to repeal Roe v Wade.  Okay I had access to 20 forums and I presented the URL for the petition.  In 6 months we had 745 signatures.  

Prior to the 2000 election we had the federal government close the valves on the Klamath River which stopped all water from feeding into the water sources for the ranches and farms in that part of Oregon.  I was sent a petition to demand that the valves be opened.  We turned in 3 millions signatures in 4 weeks!  If any of you are familiar with Sierra times you will see that we had a posse from Texas trailer their horses and they had a massive trail where they ended up at the main valve and physically opened the valves themselves.  This was the American way of correcting an obvious wrong.  this petition was picked up by Americans of both parties but few Conservatives signed on.

I submitted arming pilots, closing the borders, and dozens of other petitions (most were sent by the Liberty Groups of Ron Paul) again few conservatives signed on.  I finally confronted several of these groups and was told they don't want to work as teams.

I personally took out Vouchers and Death with Dignity initiatives when I lived in California and few Conservatives signed them.  I soon discovered that many didn't even vote.

If Idaho has a high concentration of Social Conservatives they won't lift a finger to help us.  If Idaho is still in the hands of the Republican Party it may work!  

I still don't know how many social issues will be addressed by the FSP I sure hope none.  Anyone who is able and willing to strike out for a new form of government should have their social issues planted firmly in their own lives without a need for the government.  
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: JayPrimePositive on November 25, 2002, 05:58:48 pm
The especially nice result of downsizing government by this method is that if the anti-tax initiative is successful, the sitting politicians, who created the bloated government in the first place, then get blamed for the painful mess of the downsizing process (not, and I repeat not, the FSP members or candidates).  
Here in WA we have Permanent Offense (Tim Eiman sp?) which has had a lot of success with tax limitation initiatives.  The residents and media are begining to see Permanent Offense as part of the downsizing problem, the blame is not sticking only to the Govt. folks.

Of course, I do support tax limitations no matter by initiative or regular legislative process.

j'
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on November 25, 2002, 10:18:48 pm
Great stuff on the initiative process but lets move on to other reasons why Idaho may be the best free state candidate. For those who are willing to work on building an initiative organization Cliff and I have posted a couple of thoughts at: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=783



Idaho still has the best job market of the states under consideration.

See reply #6 at: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=918

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on November 26, 2002, 12:26:24 am
Here is a useable but somewhat incomplete list of chambers of commerce. There have been several unsupported assertions made in this forum, to the effect, that Idaho is not a very friendly place and that newcomers are not welcome. See for yourself just how friendly and welcoming Idaho is. Just keep in mind that Idaho is full of small towns and small town people usually need time to get used to new residents.  

Statewide:
Idaho Chamber of commerce:   http://www.globalindex.com/chamber/id.shtml

Idaho Visitor Information: http://www.visitid.org/  

Idaho Dept. of Commerce: http://www.idoc.state.id.us/


Northern Idaho

St. Maries Chamber of Commerce: http://www.stmarieschamber.org/

Bayview Chamber of Commerce: http://www.makodon-east.com/bayview/

Priest Lake Chamber of Commerce: http://www.priestlake.org/

Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce: http://www.sandpointchamber.com/

Bonners Ferry Chamber of Commerce: http://www.bonnersferrychamber.com/

Coeur d’Alene Chamber of Commerce: http://www.coeurdalene.org/
(another) Coeur d’Alene Chamber:  http://www.coeurdalenechamber.com/

Post Falls Chamber of Commerce: http://www.postfallschamber.com/

Spirit Lake Chamber of Commerce: http://www.spirit-lake-idaho.com/

Sliver Valley Chamber of Commerce: http://www.historicsilvervalleychamberofcommerce.com/


North Central Idaho

Orofino Chamber of Commerce: http://www.orofino.com/

Grangeville Chamber of Commerce: http://www.grangevilleidaho.com/

Moscow Chamber of Commerce: http://www.moscowchamber.com/

Kamiah Chamber of Commerce: http://www.kamiahchamber.com/

Kooshia Chamber of Commerce: http://www.kooskia.com/

Lewiston Chamber of Commerce:  http://www.lewistonchamber.org/


South Western Idaho

Boise Chamber of Commerce: http://www.boise.org/

Meridian Chamber of Commerce: http://www.meridianchamber.org/

Garden Valley Chamber of Commerce: http://www.gvchamber.org/index2.htm

Idaho City Chamber of Commerce: http://www.idahocitychamber.com/

Caldwell Chamber of Commerce: http://www.caldwellidaho.org/

Nampa Chamber of Commerce: http://www.nampa.com/

Mountain Home Chamber of Commerce: http://www.mountain-home.org/chamber/

Emmett web site: http://www.emmettidaho.com/

Parma Chamber of Commerce: http://www.parmaidaho.org/

Cascade web site: http://www.extremecascade.com/

(another) Cascade web site: http://www.cascadeid.com/

McCall Chamber of Commerce: http://www.mccall-idchamber.org/

Riggins Chamber of Commerce: http://www.rigginsidaho.com/

Marsing Chamber of Commerce: http://www.idahogateway.com/


Central Idaho

Stanley / Sawtooth Chamber of Commerce: http://www.stanleycc.org/

Sun Valley / Ketchum Chamber of Commerce: http://www.visitsunvalley.com/


South Central Idaho

Mini-Cassia Chamber of Commerce: http://www.minicassiachamber.org/

Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce: http://www.twinfallschamber.com/


Eastern Idaho

Ashton Chamber of Commerce: http://www.fretel.com/~ashton/

Idaho Falls Chamber of Commerce: http://www.idahofallschamber.com/
Idaho Falls Convention and visitors bureau: http://www.idahofallschamber.com/visitors/main1.htm

City of Macks Inn:http://www.digital-neighbors.com/city/id/macksinn513l.htm

Rexburg Chamber of Commerce: http://www.rexcc.com/

St. Anthony C of C: http://www.stanthonychamber.com/  

Teton Valley Chamber of Commerce: http://www.tetonvalleychamber.com/


South Eastern Idaho

Downey Chamber of Commerce: http://www.downeyidaho.com/prices.htm

Pocatello Chamber of Commerce: http://www.pocatelloidaho.com/

Bear Lake Chamber of Commerce: http://www.bearlakechamber.org/

Blackfoot Chamber of Commerce: http://www.blackfootchamber.org/

Grace Chamber of Commerce: http://www.graceidaho.com/
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on November 26, 2002, 01:04:59 am
From the Camelot Index:Healthy Society Component,  "
Idaho ranks #1 overall and also has the lowest percentage of welfare recipients
"[/b] Idaho #1 at a Score of  6.4

FSP state rankings:
WY #6  at 12.6
ND #7 at 13
SD #9 at 15
MT #10 at 15.2
ME #12 at 16.2
VT #13 at 18.2
NH #14 at 20.2
AK #30 at 26.4
DE #42 at 34.4
http://www.wnpt.net/tndollars/compare_society.htm
 
Some more "disturbing trends" from the statist-leaning Children's Defense Fund  (These actually bode well for Idaho as a candidate state  ;) )

--Between August 1996 and June 1999, Idaho’s welfare caseload dropped 80 percent from 21,780 to 4,365. In the United States, the welfare caseload dropped 44 percent from 12,241,489 to 6,773,700.

--Only Idaho families with annual incomes below $20,472 for a family of three qualify for child care help. Federal law allows the state to serve families with annual incomes up to $31,511. 1999

--Idaho has no Child Access Prevention (CAP) Law and has no Trigger Lock Law.

--Idaho’s high school completion rate is 88.0 percent, compared with a national rate of 85.8 percent. 1995-1997

--In the academic year 1995-1996, Idaho spent $4,194 per pupil, which ranked 47th in the country for total expenditures per pupil. (New Jersey ranked 1st with $9,361 for total expenditures per pupil.) 1995-1996

--As of June 2000, Idaho had an estimated $4.1 million unspent Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funds from its FY 1998 allotment.
 
--In Idaho, the total unobligated (uncommitted) TANF funds for FY 1997 through FY 1999 is $19.2 million.

--Presumptive Eligibility: MEDICAID: NO

Source: Children's Defense Fund Action Council "Children in the States 2000"
_____________________________________________
Some recent accolades:

IDAHO EARNS TOP NATIONAL RANKINGS FOR ON-LINE ACCESS TO TAXPAYER SERVICES AND ELECTRONIC MAPPING TOOLS

http://www2.state.id.us/adm/about/pr_2002_1118.htm
_____________________________________________


I did an analysis of the court systems for both gaining and collecting on a money judgement in small claims court, since I have had extensive experience professionally and personally collecting on small claims in several states.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=96;start=0

(My formulations only demonstrate how successfully you should expect to have the court help you get money back that is owed you, but remember that since justice should work both ways, for both defendant and plaintiff, this needs a more careful analysis)[/b]

Idaho scored down at #7 out of 10 for small claims limits, but
Idaho tied for  #1 along with adjacent states Montana and Wyoming for ability to collect on a judgement.


One thing for certain, I was not pleased at what I saw in Vermont.  Make no mistake about it, the socialist activists in that state made a beeline for the court system and have been working busily at the halls of justice ever since they got a foothold.  

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on November 26, 2002, 11:33:34 pm
Idaho government information

Idaho State Constitution: http://www3.state.id.us/idstat/const/constTOC.html
The State Constitution does not allow for secession from the United States.

Idaho State Symbols: http://www.netstate.com/states/symb/id_symb.htm
The state is long overdue for a new license plate motto. How about a picture of a porcupine with the immortal words: “Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose”  ;)


Idaho Government

Idaho Cities: http://www.accessidaho.org/aboutidaho/cities.html

Idaho Counties: http://www.accessidaho.org/aboutidaho/county/index.html

State Government: http://www.accessidaho.org/

Federal Government: http://www.firstgov.gov/
Idaho is in Region 10.


Idaho Politics

Election Stats: http://www.idsos.state.id.us/elect/results.htm

Registered Lobbyists:  http://www.idsos.state.id.us/elect/lobbyist/lobinfo.htm

Political Parties: http://www.accessidaho.org/government/political_parties.html

Constitution Party: http://www.constitutionpartyidaho.com/

Democratic Party: http://www.idaho-democrats.org/

Green Party: http://www.idahogreens.org/

Libertarian Party: http://lpidaho.org/

Natural Law Party: http://www.natural-law.org/states/Idaho.html

Republican Party: http://www.idgop.org/

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: larry on November 27, 2002, 04:36:26 am
CHECK IT OUT FOLKS,

THIS WEEK'S (12/2) REPORT ON S.E. IDAHO FROM THE U.S. NEWS AND WORLD REPORT.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/021202/biztech/2idaho.htm

LARRY
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: SandyPrice on November 27, 2002, 09:18:38 am
What a wonderful team we have here.  Idaho sounds wonderful (in the summer time).  My family had summer homes in Coeur d'Alene and Priest Lake (way up north) as well as family members in Boise.  

If you can find a senior rental for me to live there in the Summer and I could keep my home here in Arizona in the winter.  I would then be an Idaho voter and activist in both states.  

I just have never learned to drive in the snow and ice and being a tad old, I doubt I could learn at this time.  

I have followed one of the congressmen from his first campaign and his voting record.  Butch Otter just completed his first term and maintained a good libertarian Republican voting record.  He could be a real asset!
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on November 27, 2002, 10:53:55 pm
Migrating porcupines who have recreational vehicles will be in the best situation possible for looking around the new free state and choosing where they want to live, work and raise their families.

Self contained RV-ers will be able to park just about anywhere, but the full service ‘all year’ campgrounds are generally the best choice. These campgrounds offer more than just utility services, they also offer a free form community: Like-minded people can choose to become neighbors and later choose not to be neighbors if things do not work out.

Here are a couple of general listings for Idaho.

http://www.rvpark.com/idaho.htm

http://www.gottarv.com/new_parks/idaho_rv_parks.asp

http://www.campground.com/idaho.htm

http://www.visitid.org/Database/search_camp.html

http://www.woodalls.com/

AAA members can use this link: http://www.aaaorid.com/trav/tra.asp

Good Sam members can use this link: http://www.goodsamclub.com/Index.cfm

Concerning the RV lifestyle, here is a link to my thread: The Galt Gulch RV Park: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=424;start=0

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on November 27, 2002, 10:57:19 pm
Here is the 2000 US Census report for Idaho and the surrounding States.

Idaho County Map: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/idaho_map.html

All the counties in the 6 states and 1 province surrounding Idaho have very low population levels except for Spokane County Washington and Missoula County Montana.

Montana County Map: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/montana_map.html

Wyoming County Map: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/wyoming_map.html

Utah County Map: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/utah_map.html

Nevada County Map: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/nevada_map.html

Oregon County Map: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/oregon_map.html

Washington County Map: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/maps/washington_map.html

Central Kootenay District (British Columbia) http://www.marh.gov.bc.ca/MUNFIN/RD1996/


Here is the 2000 US Census report for each Idaho county.


Northern Idaho

Boundary County - 9,926: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16021.html  
Bonner County - 37,479: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16017.html
Kootenai County - 112,297: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16055.html
Benewah County - 8,995: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16009.html
Shoshone County - 13,443: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16079.html



North Central Idaho

Latah County - 34,476: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16057.html
Clearwater County - 8,544: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16035.html
Nez Perce County - 37,095: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16069.html
Lewis County - 3,625: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16061.html
Idaho County - 15,423: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16049.html


South Western Idaho

Adams County - 3,428: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16003.html
Valley County - 7,716: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16085.html
Washington County - 9,956: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16087.html
Gem County - 15,482: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16045.html
Payette County - 20,868: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16075.html
Boise County - 7,011: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16015.html
Canyon County - 139,821: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16027.html
Ada County - 312,337: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16001.html
Elmore County - 29,157: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16039.html
Owyhee County - 11,008: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16073.html


Central Idaho

Lemhi County - 7,606: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16059.html
Custer County - 4,292: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16037.html
Butte County - 2,856: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16023.html
Camas County - 1,002: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16025.html
Blaine County - 19,798: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16013.html


South Central Idaho

Gooding County - 14,207: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16047.html
Lincoln County - 4,132: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16063.html
Jerome County - 18,449: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16053.html
Minidoka County - 19,677: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16067.html
Twin Falls County - 64,731: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16083.html
Cassia County - 21,577: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16031.html


Eastern Idaho

Clark County – 971: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16033.html
Fremont County - 11,822: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16043.html
Jefferson County - 19,578: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16051.html
Madison County - 27,327: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16065.html
Teton County - 6,419: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16081.html
Bonneville County - 83,807: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16019.html


South Eastern Idaho

Bingham County - 42,335: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16011.html
Power County - 7,468: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16077.html
Bannock County - 75,323: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16005.html
Caribou County - 7,397: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16029.html
Oneida County - 4,210: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16071.html
Franklin County - 11,590: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16041.html
Bear Lake County - 6,345: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16007.html

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on November 30, 2002, 12:53:38 am
Here is a sampling of the larger Christian churches, several non Christian religions and a couple of non religious groups. Some of the individual links will require a bit of looking to find a listing of their churches in Idaho.


Idaho Atheists Inc. http://www.idahoatheists.org/
Google Directory Listing: Atheism

Humanists of Idaho: http://idaho.humanists.net/index.html
Google Directory Listing: Humanism

Buddha - net directory: http://www.buddhanet.net/americas/usa_id.htm Google Directory Listing: Buddhism

Inland Northwest Falun Dafa: http://www.falun-inlandnw.org/
Google Directory Listing: Falun Dafa

Hindu Temples: http://www.garamchai.com/templesNW.htm
Google Directory Listing: Hinduism

Universal Unitarians: http://www.pnwd.uua.org/directory_print.html#ID
Google Directory Listing: Unitarian Universalism

Episcopal Church: http://www.idaho.anglican.org/
Google Directory Listing: Anglican

Baptist Church: http://www.uisbc.org/idahocong.html
Google Directory Listing: Baptist

Catholic Parishes: http://www.catholicidaho.org/parishes.cfm
Google Directory Listing: Catholicism

Christian Science: http://168.203.8.11/Church.qry?function=search&start=1
Google Directory Listing: Christian Science

Mormons: http://www.lds.org/
Google Directory Listing: Latter-day Saints

Lutheran Church: http://www.ewaidsynod.org/
Google Directory Listing: Lutheran

United Methodist: http://www.umoi.org/
Google Directory Listing: Methodist

Pentecostal: http://www.upci.org/  
Google Directory Listing: Pentecostalism

Seventh Day Adventist: http://mcdonald.southern.edu/churches/
Google Directory Listing: Seventh-day Adventists

United Church of Christ: http://www.cpcucc.org/
Google Directory Listing: United Church of Christ

Unity Church: http://www.unity.org/states/id.html
Google Directory Listing: Unity

And now for something completely different: http://www.churchofreality.org/
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Blayne on December 02, 2002, 05:11:38 am
Heres the start of paper I am working on:

Idaho; Gateway to Freedom

Idaho is the State of choice for the Free State Project

Economy

Manufacturing has recently supplanted agriculture as the most important sector of Idaho's economy. Cattle and dairy goods are among the leading agricultural products. Idaho's chief crops are potatoes (for which the state, easily the nation's largest producer, is famous), hay, wheat, peas, beans, and sugar beets. Electronic and computer equipment, processed foods, lumber, and chemicals are the major manufactured items.

The unspoiled quality of much of Idaho's land has nourished one of the youngest of Idaho's businesses—the tourist trade. Sun Valley, one of the nation's best-known year-round vacation spots, is an example of the development of resorts in Idaho. Mining, once the major source of income, and still economically important, produces phosphates, gold, silver, molybdenum, antimony, lead, zinc, and other minerals.

Boise , state capital and seat of Ada Co., SW Idaho, on the Boise River; inc. 1864. The largest city in Idaho, Boise is an important trade and transportation center. Food processing, trucking, lumbering, high technology, and light manufacturing are the major industries.. The region was developed for farming, and Boise drew wealth from orchards and fields rather than mines. Increased irrigation, hydroelectric power, and flood control projects associated with the Boise River have increased the area's agricultural yield. In the city are Boise State Univ. and a state penitentiary.
 
Boise Area Major Industries

Agriculture/Food Processing
Corporate Headquarters
Education
Financial Services
Government
High Technology
Manufacturing Military
Healthcare
Trade, Retail & Wholesale
Transportation
Utilities

Military
Healthcare
Trade, Retail & Wholesale
Transportation
Utilities

Boise Area Major Employers  

Private Employers

Micron Technology, Inc.
  (and subsidiaries)                            
Albertson's, Inc.                                    
Hewlett-Packard Company                  
J.R. Simplot Company                            
St. Luke's Regional Medical Center      
Saint Alphonsus RMC                          
DIRECTV                                              
U.S. Bank                                              
Idaho Power Company                        
Fred Meyer                                          
Micronpc                                              
Sears Boise Regional Credit Center    
Wells Fargo                                          

Public Employers

Mountain Home Air Force Base*  
Boise State University                  
Boise School District                    
Meridian School District                
Idaho Department of Health
  & Welfare                                  
Idaho National Guard                    
Boise City                                    
Ada County                                  
Nampa School District                  
U.S. Postal Service                      

Source: Boise Metro Chamber, collected from public & private employers, 2000

Geography
Much of Idaho has an unspoiled beauty, with rugged slopes and towering peaks, a vast expanse of timberland, scenic lakes, wild rivers, cascades, and spectacular gorges. From the northern Panhandle, where Idaho is about 45 mi (72 km) wide, the state broadens south of the Bitterroot Range to 310 mi (499 km) in width. The Snake River flows in a great arc across S Idaho; with its tributaries the river has been harnessed to produce hydroelectric power and to reclaim vast areas of dry but fertile land. To the north of the Snake River valley, in central and north central Idaho, are the massive Sawtooth Mts. and the Salmon River Mts., which shelter magnificent wilderness areas, including the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness, the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness Area, and the Idaho Primitive Area.

In the central and north central regions and in the Panhandle there are tremendous expanses of national forests covering approximately two fifths of the state and constituting one of the largest areas of national forests in the nation. Idaho's jagged granite peaks include Mt. Borah, which is 12,662 ft (3,859 m) high. Hells Canyon, which at one point is 7,900 ft (2408 m) below the mountaintops, is the deepest gorge in North America. The state also contains Craters of the Moon National Monument and a protected grove of ancient cedars at Upper Priest Lake.

Rushing rivers such as the Salmon and the Clearwater, and many lakes, notably Lake Pend Oreille, Lake Coeur d'Alene (often described as one of the world's loveliest), and Priest Lake, as well as the state's mountain areas, make Idaho a superb fish and game preserve and vacation land. The state is especially inviting to campers, anglers, and hunters (Idaho has one of the largest elk herds in the nation).

The state's climate ranges from hot summers in the arid southern basins to cold, snowy winters in the high wilderness areas of central and northern Idaho. The capital and largest city is Boise; other cities of importance are Lewiston, Pocatello and Idaho Falls.

Boise
·   Land Area Boise MSA - 1,645 Sq. Miles
·   Boise Elevation - 2,842 Ft.
·   Mean Temperature - 50.9 F. Degrees
·   Precipitation (annual) - 12.11 inches
·   Number of Sunny Days - 234


Education
Outstanding among Idaho's institutions of higher learning are the Univ. of Idaho, at Moscow; Idaho State Univ., at Pocatello; and Boise State Univ., at Boise.



Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on December 02, 2002, 11:59:54 pm
Here is a photo I took of the Frank Church Wilderness. It was taken in July of 2002 from the Continental  Divide looking west and north. To be fair, the view of Montana to the east was just as beautiful.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=21;action=display;threadid=502  Please see reply #4.

Here are a couple of web cams:

http://www.sunvalleycam.com/

http://www.mountain-memories.com/webcam.htm

http://www.brundage.com/webcam/WPage.html#top

http://www.srv.net/~jpat/teton.html

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on December 05, 2002, 12:07:34 am
Education

Joe has pulled together a broad examination of the schooling issues. Idaho ranks well in that the teachers union is considered relatively weak.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1137

Idaho seems to have one of the best home school environments of the 10 candidate states.

Here are selected Idaho links from The Home School Legal Defense Association: http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp

1) State Laws: http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp?State=ID

2) Idaho News headlines: http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/ID/default.asp

3) Organizations:

Christian Home Schoolers of Idaho: http://www.chois.org/

Idaho Coalition of Home Educators: http://www.iche-idaho.org/


Here are a few links found on a Google search:

http://www.gomilpitas.com/homeschooling/regional/Idaho.htm

http://www.inspirit.com.au/unschooling/states/idaho.html

http://integrityhs.hypermart.net/

http://home.rmci.net/portela/other_homeschoolers.html


I am not a parent so cannot judge the quality of the different schools and resources nor do I know much about the issues involved. If a more knowledgeable individual or group would like to do a study of the home school situation in Idaho and post the results to this thread, I will be happy to delete my post on the subject.  
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Blayne on December 05, 2002, 03:26:45 pm
ZC: Some of this stuff is inaccurate so you may want to check multiple sources. For one Micronpc no longer exists, for about 3 years now. Looks like you are just cutting from another website. You may want to check into that intellectual property law before you claim it as your own.

I live in Boise, Micron PC does still exist I know people who work there I drive by the place almost daily. None of this info is inaccurate accept perhaps it is dated a bit as too numbers but still reflects things quite well.

Blayne
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: RidleyReport on December 08, 2002, 06:32:42 pm
I'm fairly pro-Idaho, but my understanding is the growth rates for Idaho are more severe than for most of the other candidate states.

Is this correct, and if so would this make it too hard for Idaho to absorb the extra 20K?

Is it true that the population is expected to almost double there in the next 10 yrs?  

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Blayne on December 08, 2002, 07:43:59 pm
My premise has been no this is less of a problem then a less populated state that cannot economically support the influx of 20,000, wich could trash the economy of such a state.

Here is a couple of threads where we hashed through this you might want to check out:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=206;start=180

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=713

Blayne
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on December 08, 2002, 10:52:29 pm
Joe is doing a comparison of the state legislatures at:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1002

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on December 08, 2002, 11:38:50 pm
Idaho Employment
Here is a representative selection of job listing agencies.

Medical Jobs (by profession rather than location)
http://www.medicaljobsonline.com/

Management Jobs (by profession rather than location)
http://www.executiveregistry.com/home2.php?C=e7rKjNDMvs3

Academic Jobs
http://www.academiccareers.com/

Accounting Jobs
http://www.accountemps.com/

Computer Jobs
http://www.computerworld.com/careertopics/careers

Transportation Jobs
http://www.jobsinlogistics.com/

Camp Jobs
http://www.campstaff.com/

Temp or Contract Jobs
http://www.net-temps.com/

Flip Dog
http://www.flipdog.com/js/jobsearch-results.html?loc=ID&srch=&job=1

Career Builder
http://idahostatesman.gannettonline.com/careerbuilder/index.html

Hot Jobs
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/

Monster
http://www.monster.com/

Win Win Jobs
http://winwinjobs.com/

Fedworld (Federal Government Jobs)
http://www.fedworld.gov/jobs/jobsearch.html

America’s Job Bank
http://www.ajb.dni.us/

Idaho Zip Codes needed for searching America’s Job Bank
http://phonenumber.us/zipcodes/idaho.html
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on December 15, 2002, 12:00:07 pm
FreedomRoad started an interesting thread on the subject of the ‘living wage’ movement.

Idaho does not have any communities with a living wage nor any indication that anyone is working on such a thing but Missoula, Montana does and in Spokane, Washington someone is looking into the matter on behalf of the municipal employees.  

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1047
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on December 22, 2002, 01:30:58 am
Zxcv has started an interesting thread on the ‘Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration’. Of the western states, Idaho is thought to be in a position to benefit from this more than any of the states.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1094



Zxcv’s thread idea more or less parallels a thread I started about lone wolves and it seems appropriate to include it here.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=350
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Zxcv on December 24, 2002, 05:43:32 pm
I was just reading the opinion columns in the Idaho Statesman:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Opinion/malloy/story.asp?ID=23952
"Republicans, including Gov. Dirk Kempthorne and some legislators, are telling voters that they had no clue that the state economy was going into the tank before approving $100 million in permanent tax cuts during the 2001 session..."

Uh, let's see, this guy is saying tax cuts are bad for a sinking economy?  ::)

What reading I've done so far makes it look like the papers are predictably statist, but they tend to mute it a little more than they do here in Portland. Guess they're worried about losing readership. ;)

I have to throw a little cold water on your guys Idaho love-fest (even though I like Idaho). Picking this state would do nothing to demonstrate the effectiveness of freedom in boosting the economy, as turning things around in a mediocre state would. And that would be a big loss for us.

BTW, this looks like a very useful resource for you Idahoaphiles - the Idaho Public Affairs Digest:
http://www.ridenbaugh.com/ipad/ipad.htm
-------------------
How did Idaho change last month? What really happened, what really made a difference in Idaho?
The easy way to find out is with the Idaho Public Affairs Digest, a tightly condensed 12-page monthly report that in one comprehensive package tells you everything you need to know about what's making Idaho tick.
We tell you what's making headlines, and what isn't, and why. We tell you how debate on important topics is shifting, where the cutting edge is going - and why. We keep you up to date on Idaho's:

People - obituaries and important in-life changes for Idaho's public people.

Events - calendar items coming for the next couple of months.

Developments - tracking in many ways, including a month-to-month chronology.

Resources - state, federal and local documents, rules and government actions, and Supreme Court and other key court decisions.

Special reports you'll see nowhere else, putting change in Idaho into perspective.
-------------------
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on December 26, 2002, 01:36:07 am
This information is for the purpose of learning more about Idaho’s elected officials.

Please do not sent any of these people messages about the FSP.


Dirk Kempthorne, Governor
http://www2.state.id.us/gov/  

The official web sites for the new crop of state politicians has not been posted at this time.



Butch Otter. US Congress, Idaho First District
http://www.polisci.com/almanac/legis/district/ID01.htm
http://www.otter4idaho.com/about.cfm


Mike Simpson. US Congress, Idaho Second District
http://www.polisci.com/almanac/legis/district/ID02.htm
http://www.house.gov/simpson/


Almanac for both Idaho Senators:
http://www.polisci.com/almanac/legis/state/ID.htm

Larry Craig. US Senate
http://www.senate.gov/~craig/frontpage.htm

Mike Crapo. US Senate
http://www.senate.gov/~crapo/
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on December 26, 2002, 02:21:24 am
I got into a discussion with a Ralph-Naderite greenie who said he would give the Free State Project some good publicity, saying, "anything would be better than the current monopolistic stranglehold the 'Replutocrats' have on the political system." This curious Green Party member --who has ties to Idaho, and who probably never realized Idaho is a candidate state-- was especially fond of "getting  all of the individualist capitalists out of Idaho" he recommended "the wastelands of Nevada, since, he reasoned, Nevada is already half-libertarian anyways." :)

But aside from all this charming dialogue that I am sharing, this person I spoke with brought forward some interesting facts about people in Idaho that he swears to be fact.  --(He thinks they are all great negatives about Idaho from his Greenie point-of-view):
1. There are more @#%! millionaires per capita in Idaho than any other state.
2. There are more patents issued per capita than any other state.
3. Idaho has more people living in poverty who are "shamed out of" accepting govt. welfare aid than any other state.

I have not yet verified that the first and second statements are true, though the third statement has been discussed here before.

These seem to be positives for Idaho as being a good candidate state if they can be verified; however, just as this greenie took a different point on these facts, some may find a different interpretation of what this means for Idahoans, i.e. does having more patents mean more entrepreneurship or more trust in govt. to defend their intellectual property?
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Zxcv on December 26, 2002, 03:27:00 pm
More entrepreneurship. The system of patents may be distasteful to libertarians (actually I'm not sure what the fuss is all about - I'm sure someone here will straighten me out  ;) ) but it's the system we have, so people are going to use it.

More millionaires often means people are fiscally conservative (driving junkers when they can afford a new Mercedes) as much as it means people are making a killing on the stock market or through being enterpreneurs.

I like it that the shame level is high. That is needed if we want to be free. People should be ashamed of some things.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: phylinidaho on December 26, 2002, 09:40:58 pm
FWIW, from the Idaho Constitution:

SECTION 2.  POLITICAL POWER INHERENT IN THE PEOPLE. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection
and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted that may not be altered, revoked, or
repealed by the legislature.



ARTICLE III    LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
 SECTION 17.  TECHNICAL TERMS TO BE AVOIDED. Every act or joint resolution shall be plainly worded, avoiding as far as practicable the use of technical terms.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on December 27, 2002, 06:17:02 am
After doing some exhaustive research on the Internet, I cannot find an authoritative- enough of a source to back-up that statement that Idaho has more millionaires per capita than any other state.  What I did find was interesting, however.

Idaho, Delaware, Wyoming and North Dakota all lay claim to the same fame , and they are all Free State Candidate states! The sources about North Dakota and Wyoming were the least authoritative.  At any rate, no matter which.

Though not anywhere near a millionaire myself, (I'm still more than a year away from attaining that lofty goal of zero financial net worth).  I admire anyone who makes money through hard work and exercises their talents with determination.  I became happy the day I realized that 'the world only owes me the right to my own life and nothing more, and even that right wasn't ever going to be just handed to me'   :)
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: phylinidaho on December 27, 2002, 04:26:44 pm
As state media coordinator for Idaho, I have been asked to post a list of Idaho Newspapers on this site for those who would like to use them to learn more about Idaho.

Boise: The Idaho Statesman
http://www.idahostatesman.com/

Nampa: Idaho Press-Tribune
http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/347/public/index.html

Pocatello: Idaho State Journal
http://news.mywebpal.com/partners/669/public/index.html

Idaho Falls: The Post Register
http://www.idahonews.com/

Boise Weekly
http://www.boiseweekly.com/

Idaho Observer
http://proliberty.com/observer/

Bonner County Daily Bee
http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/

Blackfoot Morning News
http://www.am-news.com/

Challis: The Challis Messenger
http://www.challismessenger.com/

Coeur d'Alene: Coeur d'Alene Press
http://www.cdapress.com/

Hailey: Wood River Journal
http://www.wrjournal.com/

Island Park: Island Park News
http://www.islandparknews.com/

Ketchum/Sun Valley: Idaho Mountain Express
http://www.mtexpress.com/

Lewiston: Morning Tribune
http://www.lmtribune.com/

Saint Maries Gazette Record
http://www.stmariesidaho.com/

Twin Falls: The Times-News
http://www.magicvalley.com/home/

Montpelier: The News-Examiner
http://www.news-examiner.net/nex/index.cfm

Mountain Home News
http://www.mountainhomenews.com/

Moscow: Moscow-Pullman Daily
http://www.dnews.com/

Potlatch: LatahEagle
http://www.lataheagle.com/

Weiser: Weiser Signal American
http://www.ruralnetwork.net/~newsroom/
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: phylinidaho on January 08, 2003, 04:45:57 pm
Idaho Supreme Court

Article V, section 6, of the Idaho Constitution provides for a Supreme Court of 5 Justices, to be elected at large, for a six year term.

Here are excerpts from the prepared remarks of Idaho Supreme Court Chief Justice Linda Copple Trout given to the 57th Session of the Idaho Legislature on Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2003:

"We are accountable to you for our appropriation, but more importantly, we are accountable to you for the steps we have taken in the preceding year to make our court system responsive to the needs of the citizens of Idaho. This is even more critical at times like this when finances are stretched to the limit, and yet, at the same time, citizens demand that their cases be resolved quickly and efficiently, that criminals face immediate consequences and that courts provide leadership in addressing the larger issues challenging Idaho."


"I have spoken to you in the past about drug courts, and the successes we are seeing. We have drug courts operating in each of Idaho's seven judicial districts, with 30 total and 627 defendants under supervision statewide. These courts are generally the last alternative for criminal defendants who cannot or will not control their abuse of drugs. Drug use is so much a part of their daily existence, like eating a meal or watching television for us, that they simply cannot survive without the influence of illegal substances. They are defendants who, but for drug courts, would otherwise be housed in county jails and state penitentiary facilities for extended periods of time, at a tremendous financial cost to county and state government. At an estimated cost of $11.00 per day for drug court, it's not difficult to calculate the savings for those 627 people who are not incarcerated at a cost closer to $55.00 per day.
Every year I am so pleased and honored to be able to stand here before you and recount the many accomplishments of the judiciary in Idaho. Every year I have more examples of the new and innovative ways judges have found to address the myriad and seemingly insoluble problems coming before them, and I cannot thank the judges enough for their energy, enthusiasm, compassion and willingness to experiment and innovate. I also appreciate very much the support of Governor Kempthorne and all of you, because without that partnership between our three branches of government, these accomplishments would not be possible."

"Last year, I mentioned the drug court presided over by Seventh District Judge Brent Moss in Madison County. While he was seeing some successful graduates from his drug court, he was troubled by a few participants who were repeatedly on the brink of success and graduation, only to crash and fall back into their old habits of drug abuse. It became apparent that some drug court participants were not succeeding because they had far deeper problems than substance abuse: they were suffering from mental illness and were simply using the drugs to self-medicate in an effort to survive. When the drugs were removed, the mental illness became paramount and uncontrollable. After discussions and investigation, Idaho's first mental health court came into existence on Aug. 15, 2002. Mental health court is operated very much like a drug court, but the supervision is even more intensive for these criminal defendants diagnosed with severe and persistent mental illness. Participants are monitored daily, some several times a day, to make sure they are taking their medications, and are meeting the other requirements of the court: attending treatment, maintaining a job, locating stable housing, staying off illegal substances.

I attended a staffing and court session in December and two of the participants I saw that day had been unsuccessful participants in Judge Moss' drug court. Today, they are both living productive lives and are off illegal drugs."

"Also as a result of your legislative policy and appropriation to increase access to the courts, most of the counties are now served by a court assistance officer who can answer questions and make referrals for those people coming into the court system not represented by an attorney. In some counties now, up to one-half of the divorce and custody cases are being filed by litigants without an attorney, and an even higher percentage of those responding to the cases are not represented. Last year, over 23,000 people were served by these offices statewide, and at a time when people are losing jobs and facing mounting fiscal and emotional burdens, we are very pleased with the response to the Court Assistance offices and hope to maintain these critical services.

Significant progress has also been made in efficiently handling an increasing number of court cases through the use of senior judges. Over the last five years, we've seen a 60 percent increase in the number of felony drug cases filed and a 30 percent increase in civil case filings, and yet, during that same time period, no new judicial positions have been added. This would not have been possible without the extensive use of retired senior judges."

"Suffice it to say, the judicial system in Idaho is innovative and continues to seek out efficient and cost-effective ways to resolve cases fairly and efficiently and serve our citizens."

complete text at:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/legislature/story.asp?ID=29965
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: JasonPSorens on January 08, 2003, 04:57:29 pm
Oh my....

I'd love to hear what Thomas Szasz has to say about that.  "Mental health courts" indeed!
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on January 17, 2003, 01:20:03 pm
Mental health courts are still something in the works in Idaho, not yet established or entrenched in the system.

I gleaned this statistic but lost the source:  "In 1997, the latest year for which statistics are available, [as of last year] Idaho ranked 47th lowest ($29.20 per capita) in per- capita spending on public mental health services.

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on January 17, 2003, 01:21:26 pm
More and other criteria to weigh [Idaho] with . . .

Idaho River Miles: 3,100 - (more than any other state)
Idaho 'capital' destinations:
Arco - First City Lit by Atomic Energy, July, 1955
Ashton - First Dog Sled Race in the Lower 48
Blackfoot - Potato Capital of the World
Buhl - Trout Capital of the World
Bruneau - Highest Sand Dunes in America
Coeur d'Alene - Idaho's All-American City
Hagerman - World's Oldest Horse Fossil
Hells Canyon - America's Deepest Gorge
Kooskia - Elk Capital of the World
Last Chance - Fly Fishing Capital
Pocatello- First domed college football stadium
Rigby- First cathode-ray tube that makes TV pictures possible invented.
Riggins & Salmon - Whitewater Capitals of the World
Sun Valley - America's First Ski Resort
Wallace & Kellogg- Largest Silver Mines in the U.S.

Highest elevation: 12,662 ft. (Mt. Borah)
Lowest elevation: 738 ft. (Lewiston)
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on January 17, 2003, 03:14:36 pm
     After considering several things, including the history of U.S. politicians from Idaho, including Frank Church and George Hansen, I do not put much trust in changing things  at the political level, across an entire state, anywhere in this whole glorious country.

     Instead, I am going to focus on informing and inspiring the populace, aiding existing political movements, and working for liberty at the grass-roots level primarily.  This will have the advantage of challenging entrenched politicians to consider liberty and give potential candidates the necessary power and natural power to overcome statists.  I am going to be spending more time in the hallowed halls of churches, preaching liberty than at statehouses.  I am going to be spending more time and money inviting local newspaper writers to dinner or sending them flowers or donuts and letters, of course, than I am ever going to try to shmooze any politician.  I will do everything I can to audit classes at state universities and heckling the marxist professors and organizing college libertarians.  My wife is going to quit working  full-time when our children are older and she will homeschool and we will both organize and assist other homeschoolers.  I am going to create pro-liberty study guides with scripture references and quotes from the Founding Fathers,  in Spanish and English, tailored for Mormons, Catholics, Protestants and distribute them to churches.  My wife and I are going to continue the practice of not buying meat and become consumer- vegetarians, as we recently started doing here in California; whenever feasible, we will ride public transportation and build a home using alternative building materials, all so that we may gain more in-roads with that crowd (not as martyrs, so to speak, but in plans to save money) and be prepared so that whenever we may meet the more intelligent sub-set of leftists we may easily 'put a bug' in their ears.
 
That is just the beginning of my long plan and the essence of what I would hope will be the larger goal of fellow in-migrants to fulfill our "solemn intent to move to [ Idaho  ;) ] and. . .  exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.  
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Elizabeth on January 17, 2003, 05:09:11 pm
This is wonderful and exactly what we hope people will do in the FS.

The FSP is not solely about electoral politics.  It's about education, cultural shift, etc., just as you described.

Would you be willing to write an essay on this which we could post to the website?
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Elizabeth on January 17, 2003, 05:23:04 pm
Sounds good -- send it to me and Jason when you're done!
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: varrin on January 18, 2003, 02:44:40 am
exitus:

Now yer gonna make me work and write all that stuff down huh? ;-)

And for the record, though I've plugged DE some in recent conversations, I'm still definately in favor of Idaho.  Regardless of where we go, though, I agree that a change in heart among the people will be required to create and sustain long term liberty.

V-  

(good to see you're holding the fort down ;)

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on January 18, 2003, 09:42:33 am
Jason reports that a study of ‘citizen ideology’ ranks Idaho as more conservative than any of the other candidate states:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1213
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on January 18, 2003, 04:03:47 pm
Jason reports that a study of ‘citizen ideology’ ranks Idaho as more conservative than any of the other candidate states:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1213

For better or worse, the largest number of allies that libertarian and Jeffersonian- minded people have come from the ranks of those who call themselves conservatives, (like ditto-head Rush Limbaugh fans).  Idaho could be persuaded to attain the status of a free state if we could get all those Idaho conservatives to:

-Get- over Clinton and critically take a second- look at Bush.
-Rally behind the growing anti- tax political movement in Idaho
-Wake up more of the populace to the reality of those government- indoctrination centers called public schools and get more numbers into the many homeschool movements and various private schools in Idaho.
-Convince conservative Christians and others of faith to start peaceably living their lives and preaching by the power of the word of God that they claim to trust in, instead of trusting so much in the deadly force of law to convert others to their faith.

__
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on January 19, 2003, 12:33:13 am
The Cato Institute gives report card grades on how states respond to tax revenue shortfalls in our current recession.

TedApelt reports that Idaho gets a ‘C’

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1212
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Dave Mincin on January 20, 2003, 06:01:47 pm
Since Idaho is one of the states I have considered voting for I thank all for the information.

One thing that I to find troubling is the amount of land owned by the Federal Government...Something like 65+% as I recall.

Seems to me owning that much of the state could give the Federal Government a tremendous amount of power over state affairs.

Would be interested in hearing the comments of those more framiliar with Idaho than I.
Title: Federal ownership of public lands
Post by: Kelton on January 21, 2003, 11:32:29 am
. . .

One thing that I to find troubling is the amount of land owned by the Federal Government...Something like 65+% as I recall.  

Seems to me owning that much of the state could give the Federal Government a tremendous amount of power over state affairs




The answer to your question as to whether the influence of the feds could have a "tremendous amount of power over state affairs" is both yes and no.  First, answer this:  How much is the life of a citizen in Delaware (which has the least area of fed-owned land) impacted by federal mandates as opposed to Nevada (the most fed land, 83%).  

Not much difference at all.  One still has to file with the IRS, and live his life obeying (directly and indirectly) all federal mandates   (If an endangered critter shows up on his own land, citizens in either state risk losing use of their land.  If a citizen from either state is horticulturally- incompetent, so doesn't recognize an outlawed weed growing on his property, he still is at risk of losing his land and his livelihood.  If a citizen in either state ignorantly shows up at the counter of a local post office asking for a box big enough to ship his jeweled lapis-lazuli antique hand-gun in the mail,  he is  likely going to face a S.W.A.T. team within 10 minutes).

Next, this issue of federal land ownership is a real political grievance.  Several states legislatures, including Idaho have worked vigorously, looking into the legal issues as to how the states could manage land currently under federal control.  The feds simply cite the U.S. constitution;  
Article IV, section 3, clause 2, the Property clause:
Quote
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

and Article VI, clause 2, the Supremacy clause:
Quote
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

There is a matter of legally untested legislation passed by different states in the West which has been commonly called "the Sagebrush Rebellion" movement which holds that the land now in federal control was wrongfully withheld when those territories became states.  States have been timid in actually enforcing such legislation.

Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne, who is national president of the Council of State Governments and chairman of the Western States Governors Association has led the fight against federal encroachment of state sovereignty.  He has had the state of Idaho file numerous amicus curiea briefs to federal courts in matters of infringement on state sovereignty, wherever they have arisen.  Most notably, Idaho has led the urging of Alaska to appeal the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' adverse ruling against Alaska in John v. United States of America, which harms the right of states to manage their own waterways.


Read this article and consider whether or not Idaho has a true grieviance against the federal government in this issue of public lands:
  August 2001 Idaho Observer: The Big Lie: Federal ownership of public lands (http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20010802.htm)

(http://www.proliberty.com/observer/idcolor.gif)
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on January 21, 2003, 04:13:42 pm
Idaho is once again my favorite state. Not yours yet? Don't worry, it soon will be:

12th lowest crime rate in the U.S. in 2000, the lowest in the Western U.S. (Crime in U.S. 2001).
Idaho's overall tax burden per capita is the 2nd lowest in the West.
Idaho has the 2nd lowest state and local per capita debt in the nation.
Idaho has the 7th lowest overall cost of doing business in U.S., 3rd lowest in West (Economy.com, 11/ 2001).
The Boise MSA has the lowest cost of doing business among the metro areas in the 13 western states (Economy.com, 2001).
Idaho ranks 7th in the nation for the number of skilled workers it attracts from other states (Southern Technology Council of National Science Foundation).  
Between 1999 and 2000, Idaho ranked 2nd nationally in GSP growth rate (8.3 percent) (Bureau of Economic Analysis 6/2002).
Idaho's personal income increased nearly 20 percent between 1998 & 2001, ranking the state 11th nationally, exceeding the national average (BEA 4/2002).
Idaho is number one in the nation for patents issued per capita.(US Patent Trademark Office 2000).
Driggs, Idaho ranked 1st of 50 best places to live according to Men's Journal (3/2002).
Pocatello, Idaho ranked 8th best place for business and careers among small metro areas (populations below 177,000) (Forbes 5/2002).
The value of Idaho's exports increased nearly 30 percent from 1998 to 2001 (from $1.5 billion to $2.1 billion). Top export products include high tech, food & agriculture and wood & building materials.
Idaho is number one in the nation in the production of potatoes, trout and winter peas. The state ranks in the top 10 in the nation among 22 other products. One-third of Idaho's agriculture and manufactured products are shipped abroad.

In 2000, more than 86 percent of Idaho's population are high school graduates as compared to the national percentage of almost 82 percent (US Bureau of the Census, Supplemental Survey 6/2001).

Between 1997-2002, Idaho ranks fourth in growth of women-owned businesses (National Foundation for Women Business Owners).
In 2000, science and technology, including indirect impacts, accounts for 30 percent of Idaho's economy ($11.1 billion).
Idaho's technology industry output has grown rapidly, ­ 6 percent annually with over 1,600 different technology companies (Batelle Science & Tech Report 12/2000)

Idaho is eighth in the nation for being consumer friendly for Internet transactions ­ (The Washington D.C.-based Progressive Policy Institute - March 2002).
In the last decade, Idaho experienced the 5th fastest rate of population growth among states (U.S. Census Bureau).
American Demographics ranks Idaho 1st in growth acceleration in the 1990s (5/2001).
Pocatello MSA ranks 3rd in growth rate of high-tech manufacturing companies (Milken Institute).
Boise MSA is the 2nd fastest growing small cybercity (AEA 12/2000).
Boise MSA is the 13th strongest metro economy (Policom Corp 2000).
Boise and Coeur d' Alene are listed as two of 50 'Best Places to Live.' In the category of the most 'Green and Clean' Coeur d' Alene ranks 5th and Boise ranks 10th (Modern Maturity 6/2000).
University of Texas lists Idaho as number one in business opportunity (University of Texas).
Boise is the 13th most attractive city (100,000 + population) in which to operate a business (Business Development Outlook).
Boise MSA ranks 2nd in growth rate of high-tech manufacturing companies (Milken Institute).
Boise ranks 28th among cities with under 300,000 population in the "Best Cities for Women 2002 survey. The magazine graded cities on factors ranging from lifestyle, crime rate, job prospects, economic opportunities, health care, education and child-care quality. (Ladies' Home Journal 4/2002)
 
source:
Idaho Dept. of Commerce
http://www.idoc.state.id.us/Data/economic/high.html
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on January 21, 2003, 05:20:48 pm

An existing culture of liberty is more important than any other factor, in my opinion.  Many of these entrenched politicians do not need to be taken out of office, they just need a swift kick in the pants and voters who demand more for freedom from them.  I think that will be our most powerful tool, a cultural shift towards freedom.  

That is not to say that strategic planning is not essential, I agree with you there, I just don't see why people are so timid of Idaho and New Hampshire if they already are years ahead of some smaller states on some issues that are very important to this membership.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Dave Mincin on January 21, 2003, 06:25:14 pm
Exitus,

I found your information quite helpful, thank-you!  The articles on the land grab was really a prime example of why the government must be limited, I believe.

Think Federal land holdings will be a major problem in Idaho, but then again, not enough to rule it out as a possible home.

Do believe if we all end up there, that will have to be of highest priority.
 
Will keep an eye on your postings, and let you know if I have any further questions!

Thanks again!
Title: Can the capital of Idaho rid corrupt mayor?
Post by: Kelton on January 29, 2003, 01:15:01 pm
About 10,000 sign petition for recall (http://www.idahostatesman.com/News/boisecityhall/story.asp?ID=31342) (Idaho Statesman)
Recall backers have until Feb. 11 to gather 18,693 signatures from 186,000 Boise citizens.  If they can't find 10% of the populace willing to oust a corrupt mayor, I think we may have to give up much of our hope for freedom in Idaho, as statism and corruption go hand-in-hand.  For a city of it's size,  Boise has bucked the trend of statism a little bit more than many other cities of similar size, this is a good litmus test to see if the people of the capital of Idaho can stand- up to this nonsense or begin going the way of Atlanta.  We'll wait and see . . .  


 
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Zxcv on January 29, 2003, 03:04:42 pm
It's particularly interesting that this recall effort is over a mere junket, not anything to do with local policy. When people can get upset about such things, that's saying something positive about them. Most citizens in other states are far more jaded...
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: DanTheTileMan on February 01, 2003, 07:54:22 pm
I had made a post in another section, before I found this one for Idaho.  I copied and am pasting it here.  I've learned alot from you guys!  My previous post:  

I had been looking at the possibility of moving to Idaho for some years now (way before coming across FSP).  I will be checking more into this possibility.  Should I move there and by some stroke of luck FSP goes there, too, I would consider it a bonus.  

What I like about Idaho is something I don't see being weighed as part of FSP's criteria.  There are families recently and currently moving to that state by the hundreds, as has been pointed out in the Aid & Abet police and military (and citizens) newsletter that I get.  Don't be scared, this newsletter is for freedom-loving, constitutionally literate people.  Anyway, they have started patriot communities in the area of Kamiah, ID which is in Idaho County.  These communities are full of Independents and Libertarians, alike.  The county is Idaho County, one of the largest in the country, yet it only has one traffic light.  The weather is quite decent, when you consider that they have a very long growing season, which may be of importance to some.  The hunting and fishing is fantastic, too.  To give you an idea of the weather, I keep Kamiah, Lewiston and Boise, Idaho weather on my browser home page and check it regularly (for the past 2 years).  In a comparison with where I am now (Aberdeen, MD), it has always been better: milder winters; bearable summers and decent precipitation (no drought).  

I guess, to sum it up, I like the fact that there are people already doing in Idaho, what FSP only hopes to do.  I have heard good results from the voting impact on the level of county, and even some good results at the state level.  Surely this is not from just a few hundred families, but also due to independents that already live there.  I bet some influence can also be derived from the infusion a community can get by having these freedom-loving new arrivals stirring up thoughts of being able to make a difference at the polls.  Maybe someone from FSP should contact Aid & Abet in Idaho and get some pointers.  Jack McLamb and the staff there are some terrific patriots.  I know they would be glad to help.  I will be writing to them my self, soon.  Should someone like to beat me to it, contact info, as follows:  
HC 11, Box 357, Kamiah, ID 83536  
(208) 935-7852

Well, that's it for now.  I am new to the Yahoo-Group type discussion.  Hopefully I am in the right place.

Dan the Man
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Ron on February 05, 2003, 10:11:37 am
The following is from Clearwater County, Idaho.
This is just one of a number of ongoing activities within the counties of Idaho.
Ron

NATURAL RESOURCE PLANNING COMMITTEE
IN CLEARWATER COUNTY GOVERNMENT

Approximately 96% of the County Commissioners in the United States are ordinary local citizens who provide their talents for the betterment of their local area.  They usually are not lawyers, nor are they schooled or trained to handle the increasingly complex and stressful legal decisions that County Commissioners must make.  County Commissioners are the elected persons closest to the citizens of their county.  Few understand that the U.S. Constitution assures their right, as such elected officials, to protect the citizens from illegal and/or inappropriate actions caused by federal or state agencies.

The goal of a Natural Resource Planning Commission in County Government is to bring citizens and leaders together to petition their Board of County Commissioners (Board) to request federal, and in some cases state agencies to obey their own laws, statutes, and codes.  This grass roots action allows the Board (or representatives of the Board) to legally communicate in meetings and discussions, on a joint and equal basis, with every federal or state agency regarding the county’s customs, culture, economy and environment.  This does not allow a county to over-rule or threaten a federal or state agency or their employees.  This process protects the right to a county’s equal footing and is completely different and has no connection to the so-called “supremacy movement.”

When requested by the citizens, a County Ordinance (lawfully adopted by the Board) is the best legal action to ensure compliance of federal and state agencies.  A Board’s written request, sent via certified mail, to a federal or state agency, is a quick and proven method to legally bring the government entities together.  It is important that the county citizens, through the Board of Commissioners, establish county ordinances which directly deal with the various natural resource issues for the federal and state lands located in their county.  This establishes a legal status whereby the federal and state agencies are required, by federal law, to coordinate their planning efforts with the Board.  Examples of such ordinances can be found with Walla Walla County and Columbia County in Washington, Wallowa County in Oregon, Modoc County in California, and Owyhee County in Idaho.  On several occasions, in court cases filed by several environmentalist groups, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has upheld these County Natural Resource Ordinances for Federal Lands.

County Citizens, County Commissioners, County Sheriffs and federal agencies all are required to adhere to protections enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and the Constitution of their own state.  This is reflected in the Wyoming District Court’s decision (case #2.96-CV-099J).  The Court ruled in favor of the Sheriffs of Wyoming, stating that Wyoming is a sovereign state and the duly elected Sheriff of a county is the highest law enforcement official within a county, and has law enforcement powers which exceed that of state or federal law enforcement officials.  The courts in Wyoming and Washington both have ruled that the Law and The Constitution protect the local citizens.

Federal and state agencies are required to adhere to all federal laws which protect local customs, culture, economy and environment.  After establishing County Ordinances for state and federal lands within their county, the County Boards and the citizens are required to abide by these ordinances.  Federal law requires that the federal and state agencies coordinate with such a County Board so the laws, ordinances and policies on such federal or state lands are developed harmoniously, with an equal consideration between federal, state, and county governments.  If the Board believes a federal or state agency has acted unfairly by violating the County Ordinance, federal law allows such a Board to contest, in the Superior Court.  Out of the approximate 3000 counties in the U.S.A. approximately 40 of these are using this County Ordinance method as a tool to effectively communicate, coordinate, and make joint decisions with state and federal agencies.

Clearwater County is now at a crossroads which provides us with a window of opportunity.  President Bush is calling for sensible forest management to avoid wildfire and promote reasonable logging practices.  For example:  If our County Ordinances required the removal of dead and dying timber from federal lands this would fit well with the President’s current directives.  In cooperation with these new federal policies, we would be protecting the Clearwater National forest from fires while at the same time reviving our local timber industry!  This can be accomplished if our Board forms a Natural Resource Planning Commission for the State and Federal lands of Clearwater County.  Other counties are successfully accomplishing these goals and we can learn from their experience.  Workbooks, seminars, and conferences are also available to us.  Clearwater County has received offers of assistance from many individuals and organizations including: Walla Walla County, Wallowa County (County Extension Agent, John Williams), Modoc County, Owyhee County, Stewards of the Range, The Washington Farm Bureau (Dave Winckler), The Idaho Farm Bureau, Mountain States Legal Foundation (William Perry Pendley), Karen Budd-Falen Law Offices, and Fred Grant.

With these natural resource planning methods county governments, tribal governments, state agencies and federal agencies are coming together and are jointly making decisions.  The federal laws protecting the Native Americans are similar in concept.  Following these coordination methods the county citizens are able to work together with the Tribe, harmoniously protecting the customs, culture, economy and environment of all local citizens.  By following the Notice and Publication requirements of Idaho Code all Clearwater County citizens will receive opportunities to participate in these Natural Resource Planning Committees.

County Commissioners, with the help of grass-roots citizens, must exercise these laws before they can work for their county.  The elected Board of County Commissioners is the key to lawful local control.  The research, work and preparation of a duly appointed Planning Committee are essential in order for the Board to gain a strong foothold under these federal laws.  The current Clearwater County Comprehensive Plan has already set the stage.  Since 1962 our Comprehensive Plans have spelled out and demanded the protection of our customs, culture and economic stability.  A Public Meeting explaining this process was called by Jon Walton on May 15, 2002 where a citizen’s exploratory committee was formed (Public Land Use Exploratory Committee, PLUEC).  PLUEC drew up and presented a petition calling for an official Planning Committee to be established as a recommending board to the Board of Commissioners.  In June 2002 the Board “took the matter under advisement” but made no action toward implementation.  On January 21, 2003 the newly elected Board was presented a similar petition by Jon Walton and members of PLUEC.  Chairman Leach instructed Jon Walton to gather a list of names from a broad spectrum of Clearwater County citizens for the purpose of forming the Clearwater County Natural Resource Planning Committee to assist in the development of a Clearwater County Natural Resource Management Plan for Federal and State Managed Lands.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on February 05, 2003, 09:28:30 pm
Hi Ron

Interesting post!

Do you have some links where others might go for more information?

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on February 12, 2003, 06:02:55 pm
After reading this entire thread and the Idaho+ thread and several links posted, I came up with 32 reasons to vote for Idaho.  Unfortunately, I am missing a few. Here is what I have, (Not necessarily in any order of importance) . . . anyone want to try to help add some that I am missing?  

1. Only candidate state with no requirement for parents to initiate contact with state to begin homeschooling.

2. Lowest number of people on welfare, measured by TANF recipients, of all 50 states.

3. Ranked #3 or #4, depending on which measurement among states in gun freedoms.

4. Lower teacher union power, possibly second or third lowest among states in strength of union members

5. Best job market

6. Second only to Montana in ease of using a referrendum process among states yet Idaho law allows constitutional challenges to any referrendum before going to the ballot.

7. Best available air service, for availability of flights and price within all candidate states.

8. Idaho is #1 in the nation for the NPT Healthy Society Component which is a composite of  home ownership, percentage of population voting, births to unwed mothers, single parent families, and the percentage of population receiving welfare payments. Idaho received  a score of 6.4, among our candidate states, Wyoming came in second with 12.6.

9. Idaho has no presumptive eligibility for Medicaid.

10. Idaho has no Child Access Prevention (CAP) Law and has no Trigger Lock Law

11. Only Idaho families with annual incomes below $20,472 for a family of three qualify for child care help. Federal law allows the state to serve families with annual incomes up to $31,511.

12. Idaho along with adjacent states WY and MT are the only states that have no additional provision to federal law for right of plaintiff to collect on a legal judgement.

13. The State Constitution does not allow for secession from the United States, this will deflect criticisms that we are a secessionist movement.

14. As of June 2000, Idaho had an estimated $4.1 million unspent Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funds from its FY 1998 allotment.
 
15. No state minimum wage.  Federal minimum wage is Idaho's minimum wage.

16. Idaho is a state having Right-To-Work laws.

17. Idaho is covered by the most pro-drug Federal Court of Appeals court, the 9th circuit in San Francisco.

18. All the counties in the 6 states and 1 province surrounding Idaho have very low population levels except for Spokane County Washington and Missoula County Montana.

19. Abundant ammo for a Potato cannon (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/engine1.htm).  ;D

20. Though being the most populous state, Idaho has more people living outside of 25,000+ cities than Alaska and more rural residents outside cities of >13,000 population than both Alaska and North Dakota.

21. Despite being the most populous state, Idaho ranks third among our candidate states for absolute number of people in small cities and towns with LESS than 13,000 people; in other words, it ranks behind only New Hampshire and Maine for having a rural population( which is perceived as wherein lie the greatest number of allies for freedom).

22. Idaho has significantly different climate zones and an arguably warmer climate, overall, than any other of our candidate states.  

23. Despite being known as a conservative state, in 1994 Idaho voters rejected a statewide proposition to "establish state policies regarding homosexuality" which homosexual groups campaigned against saying it was "anti-homosexual".

24. Idaho's former lieutenant governor, Butch Otter held that chair for the longest time in Idaho's history and is now one of Idaho's two Congressional reps., his last opponent declared in her campaign, "His libertarian rhetoric has begun to wear thin and voters tell me they are suffering from “Otter Fatigue”, well, Otter won by a landslide.

25. In 1999, Idaho ranked #1 in the nation on the Freedom in America's 50 States economic freedom index.

26. Idaho is second to New Hampshire (although a distant second) in the level of freedom in auto insurance laws.

27. Idaho is second only to Wyoming in freedoms for smokers, yet unlike Wyoming,  is more smoking neutral in that it does not require employers to ignore smoking as a factor in employment.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: DanTheTileMan on February 12, 2003, 11:59:57 pm
Hi Exitus,
As usual, your posts are quite informative.  I already like the idea of moving to Idaho, but your 20 positive points really put me over the top.  I think the job market is important, especially since I work in home improvement.  People need to keep money moving - especially new money that is creatd through business espansions, new business, and new people moving into an area.  Some of that money ends up in my pocket, and hopefully some of can end up in the coffers of Libertarian candidates.  I don't think it would be hard to convince them.  

I think that it will be easy to motivate others in Idaho to take up the call to arms, so to speak, to make some significant changes in the politics of that state.  When it comes to winning over the people already living there and currently moving there, I would rank it #1.  What do I base that assumption on?  Not on any hard data, just my gut feeling and talking to some people who already have moved there in the past few years.  Some are Christian first and foremost; some are strict constitutionalists; some are non-political, but all of them lean the same way - our way.  

I hope you find the other 12 'lost' reasons.  I enjoy reading your posts and might just have to start a new thread - "Best of Exitus"!!  

Keep up the good work,
Dan the Man
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: thewaka on February 13, 2003, 12:08:45 am
After reading this entire thread and the Idaho+ thread and several links posted, I came up with 32 reasons to vote for Idaho.  Unfortunately, I am missing the last 11 (Not necessarily in any order of importance) . . . anyone want to try to help add some that I am missing?

Exitus, cheer up. You are only missing 5! You misnumbered (10-13 are repeated) so actually have 27. I would still like to see, as much as is possible, hard evidence that those currently serving in the legislature will be easily turned to a more libertarian view. Also that the citizenry is leaning in our direction; and if this is the case, why ID isn't more libertarian.

Diana
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on February 13, 2003, 05:10:18 am
Exitus,
Idaho is only #1 in one of the Camelot ratings.
Thanks, Joe, Diana.   I made the corrections.

With all those positive points gleaned from the discussion threads that I just posted, I hope that somebody else will now run with all that good info and build on it.  Right now, I am actually starting to lean towards advocating that Idaho be chosen as an excellent BORDER to the Free State!
________________________________  

I enjoy reading your posts and might just have to start a new thread - "Best of Exitus"!!  

Thanks for your kind words, Dan.  You must have read my mind, I was actually planning on retiring the handle exitus and re-registering very soon and re-naming this one to: "exitus, Greatest Hits, Vol. 1"; but "Best of Exitus" sounds even better.  It's just that I'm becoming a little self- conscious of all those stars and the philosopher moniker.  I'm worried that someone might start accepting what I have to say as valid simply because I wear enough stars.  ;)
_____________________________________________________________

For anybody wanting to keep track of that story in Boise, of the mayor and his little junket on taxpayer's expense and the recall effort on that, they got 40% more signatures than they needed!  Proof that over 14% of Boise residents are more than happy to teach city hall a lesson in respecting the taxpayer :
Wearing bright yellow T-shirts and singing “La te da, away we go,” about 40 volunteers from the campaign to recall Mayor Brent Coles marched down Idaho Street and into Boise City Hall Tuesday to deliver what they said were more than 26,000 signatures.  (http://www.idahostatesman.com/News/boisecityhall/story.asp?ID=32779)
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: thewaka on February 13, 2003, 09:48:37 am
Can anyone give a good answer to the following:

http://www.idahostatesman.com/Opinion/story.asp?ID=32862 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/Opinion/story.asp?ID=32862)

Quote
Unfortunately, your conclusions are naive. Idaho´s legislators will never vote the kind of increases needed. A large number of them don´t care about educational results, only how little they can spend to get by.

Idahoans are smarter than the people they elect. In poll after poll, they want better education and are willing to pay for it.

In all likelihood, therefore, school funding will improve only when an initiative or a referendum is placed before the people.

How does one research this? Last night I began reading The Idaho Statesman, mostly the editorials and letters to the editor. I hope to be able to read several newspapers for 6 of the states (the ones I believe highly unlikely to win the state vote I am leaving out). I am trying to get an idea of where the people are, not just the media.

The above makes it sound like we will never get rid of state education. That the people are quite willing to be taxed. This doesn't sound good for Idaho. Any rebuttals?

Diana
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on February 13, 2003, 11:06:37 am

One disturbing trend in Idaho recently,  how some school districts are trying to lure homeschoolers with "free information packets and online support"  once the homeschoolers accept them, they are under the rule of the school district and no longer allowed the legal latitude to set their own curriculum.  There is a big notice going around home-school discussion groups to beware of this under- handed trickery.



Data deleted because data may be unreliable-- if anyone can find more recent data on private school enrollment, that would be great, it looks like Delaware is still doing well by some reports found online.

Idaho and Alaska also seem to be quite high on the homeschooling lists yet somewhat low on the private school measures-- this is just inferred from a variety of discussion lists and sources I have found  ---again , anyone have more up-to-date data?
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on February 27, 2003, 12:52:19 am
Lars H has started a very informative thread on the problem of Federal Highway Funding:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1294

The arguments cannot be summarized here, but it is possible to say that based on his analysis, Idaho is taxed roughly equal to the cost of building and maintaining its portion of the federally owned highways. By contrast, all of the other western states are heavily dependent on federal funding to build and maintain their systems.  
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: freedomroad on February 27, 2003, 02:09:12 am
Lars H has started a very informative thread on the problem of Federal Highway Funding:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1294

The arguments cannot be summarized here, but it is possible to say that based on his analysis, Idaho is taxed roughly equal to the cost of building and maintaining its portion of the federally owned highways. By contrast, all of the other western states are heavily dependent on federal funding to build and maintain their systems.  


Idaho is not taxed at roughly equal.  Anyway, WY or MT coule simple add a little toll booth right before their entrances to Yellowstone national park and SD could do the same with Mt. Rushmore.  Any of the states could just a few cents to the gas tax.  WY or AK could also just charge the mineral companies.  Anyway, this factor has already been considered in the depend of fed gov factor on the spreadsheet.  ID is actually more dependant than WY but less than any of the other mid-west or mountain states.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on February 27, 2003, 11:03:30 pm
Hi Freedomroad

The following is the bit of statistics on which I based my statement that Idaho is taxed roughly equal to the cost of building and maintaining its portion of the federally owned highways.

Did I get it wrong? Please let me know.

From Lars H thread:

While it's highly improbable that the Free State could easily persuade the Federal gov't to cease collecting these payments, it is exceptionally interesting to examine the per capita Federal highway funding numbers net of these payments:

State Average Net Federal Funding, FYs 2000-1996, $ per capita

Alaska   295.89
Delaware   43.07
Idaho   5.03
Maine   (8.59)
Montana   85.68
New Hampshire   0.80
North Dakota   97.57
South Dakota   101.38
Vermont   49.99
Wyoming   70.02


Maine is a net donor state, and New Hampshire and Idaho receive almost negligible per capita Federal subsidies when you consider the full funding picture.  Alaska's losses when the Free State turns away Federal highway funding are the most profound, even when the states' contributions to the FHTF are taken into consideration, and the Dakotas also both fare relatively poorly in this analysis.

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: freedomroad on February 27, 2003, 11:40:36 pm
Hi Freedomroad

The following is the bit of statistics on which I based my statement that Idaho is taxed roughly equal to the cost of building and maintaining its portion of the federally owned highways.

Did I get it wrong? Please let me know.

From Lars H thread:

While it's highly improbable that the Free State could easily persuade the Federal gov't to cease collecting these payments, it is exceptionally interesting to examine the per capita Federal highway funding numbers net of these payments:

State Average Net Federal Funding, FYs 2000-1996, $ per capita

Idaho   5.03


Well, if you put $5 x 1,200,000 people in the calculator you get something like $6,000,000.  I do not consider 6 million dollars to be roughly equal to ZERO dollars.  I am sorry, but I just do not buy that.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on February 28, 2003, 12:37:22 am
Hi Freedomroad

At this point in Lars H’s argument, he (she?) appears to be saying that the federal highway system in Idaho is subsidized at the rate of $5 per person per year.

This means that if the feds tried to hold Idaho hostage by withholding federal highway funds, the state could retaliate by withholding the fed share of the fuel tax then just using the money to maintain the highways thereby eliminating the middle-man.

No doubt that the situation is more complex than this, but it gives Idaho a possible means to fight back.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Zxcv on February 28, 2003, 01:13:24 am
Quote
5. Best job market

Exitus, this is actually a disadvantage because it draws statists. While it would be good to have a moderate job market, a hot one is to our disadvantage, especially in a state like Idaho with a population arguably already too large for the project.

Not that I don't like Idaho; on the contrary, if I were moving as an individual I'd certainly go there as my first choice.

thewaka, don't worry about the newspapers. They (especially the big city ones) are going to be statist, no matter what.

Quote
One disturbing trend in Idaho recently,  how some school districts are trying to lure homeschoolers with "free information packets and online support"  once the homeschoolers accept them, they are under the rule of the school district and no longer allowed the legal latitude to set their own curriculum.
exitus, this is not Idaho-specific, but a general trend. It is the most likely line of attack by the school establishment against homeschoolers. The other possible attack, simple brutal repression, is being tried in California and probably will fall flat on its face. Anyway, we just have to educate homeschoolers to avoid the seduction...

Gang, I was on another discussion list, and picked up this interesting tidbit about Idaho, I'm sure you will appreciate it. Someone was asking about moving to Idaho, and one guy responded:
Quote
If you do decide to move to Idaho, the first thing you need to do is get the California plates off your cars and other vehicles you bring with you. When I moved there, all of my tires were cut after only four days. They really don't like "Californicaters" Once the California label is removed, You will be "one of the family". The first year I lived there, I was in a ditch during a snow squall near Eagle, and not one single car drove past me. EVERY single car that drove up to me stopped to help me get unstuck. They are the most friendly people on the planet. When I got laid off in the winter from my construction job, I came home to find a full side of cut, frozen, and wrapped beef, and about fifty pounds of corn on my porch with a note that just said, "If someday you can help sombody else out, just do what you can." There was no signature. Idaho is a great place to live.
Can you imagine anything like the latter happening east of the Mississippi? I can't! Maybe that's one reason the state welfare load is so low there.  :)
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Robert H. on March 01, 2003, 12:37:30 am
This means that if the feds tried to hold Idaho hostage by withholding federal highway funds, the state could retaliate by withholding the fed share of the fuel tax then just using the money to maintain the highways thereby eliminating the middle-man.

I think we'd have the feds over a rather humorous barrel with that one.  If they decide to cut off our highway funds then they don't need the money we send them for those highways, do they?

So we might as well just keep it and save everyone the hassle.   ;D
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on March 05, 2003, 08:57:50 pm
Anyone who would like to make this thread into an actual web site is welcome to do so.

I will be hiking the Pacific Crest Trail from late April to early October so will not be able to continue working with it.

All my posts are ‘protected’ by copyleft. The future web site owner is welcome to use my posts or not as he/she sees fit.

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: varrin on March 06, 2003, 03:15:56 am
Glen,

You have no idea how jealous I am of you getting to take that hike.  I'm considering doing the very same thing in 2010 (I have a lot of planning to do ;-)

I'll be backpacking in the Sierras in July but I'm guessing you'll be well north of us by that point.

V-

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on March 06, 2003, 10:08:00 pm
Hi Varrin

Hiking the PCT is easy. All you have to do is pay off all your debt, quit your job, put everything you have in storage and learn how to politely listen to your friends and acquaintances (and even perfect strangers) tell you how crazy you are.

It seems like the perfect dress rehearsal for moving to the free state.

When and where will you be hiking in July? The snow delay at Kennedy Meadows (southern jump off to the High Sierra) has been as long as the end of June. The average start date is mid June. I have heard that there is a higher than normal snow pack this year. If there is a later than average start, there is a possibility that we could meet up somewhere.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Robert H. on March 07, 2003, 01:55:58 am
Phyllis posted this comment on the Yahoo state discussion list earlier in response to some comments on the New Hampshire and Vermont LP's having endorsed the FSP.  I was just curious as to whether anyone else here working with the IDLP had any comments on it:

Quote
From   Phyllis <adelaide31@yahoo.com>
 To   FSP-state-discussion@yahoogroups.com  
 Date   06 Mar 2003 22:04  
 Subject   Re: [FSP-state-discussion] Re: Question for ID, ME, and NH Advocates  

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--- Brian <holy_instant@yahoo.com> wrote:

>snip <
>  I like what New
> Hampshire is
> doing.  They are asking: How many libertarians does it
> take to free
> New Hampshire.  Their answer: one.  It only takes one
> fully prepared
> libertarian whose learning is complete. So they are
> setting about to
> prepare themselves.
>


As an active member of the Idaho Libertarians, I would say
this is why IDLP does not officially endorse the FSP. They
believe they can free Idaho without outside help and do not
wholly trust the potential for non-Libertarians to "take
over" Idaho, or lure Idaho activists to another state.

Phyllis
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: exitus on March 07, 2003, 06:14:26 am
From what I understand, the LP in Idaho is divided.  In the Idaho report on the FSP research page, the author mentioned this rift.

There are the left-leaning Libertarians:
http://www.lp-idaho.org/

Then there's the Official Libertarian Party (that the other group accuses of being too right- wing) :
http://www.lpidaho.org/


The man who ran for governor on the LP ticket was an absolute nut-case accused of being with the former group, but everybody in the LP disavows.  He still managed to pick up 2.5% (http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/results/2002/general/tot_stwd.htm) of the vote in a four-way race, this despite being arrested for assaulting police officers with a sword while naked the day before elections, so the story goes.

This highlights both the stregnths and weaknesses of the Idaho caucus system, where you do not have to be nominated by your party to get your name on the primary there.  Important to us, in that if we were to go to Idaho, we would expect success in the big elections by working through the Republican party there and the RLC.  

The LP in Idaho, as most everywhere is good as a spoiler party helping to put the libertarian agenda on the table in many elections.  It is the purists who aren't willing to 'get their hands dirty' and work with the political system as it is who rest ALL their hopes on this party, and this party only.  Like in Varrin's quote, "failure is not an option", anywhere we go, we are going to have to ignore those who are not serious about bringing about liberty and willing to work within the political system.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Robert H. on March 07, 2003, 08:13:38 am
The man who ran for governor on the LP ticket was an absolute nut-case accused of being with the former group, but everybody in the LP disavows.  He still managed to pick up 2.5% (http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/results/2002/general/tot_stwd.htm) of the vote in a four-way race, this despite being arrested for assaulting police officers with a sword while naked the day before elections, so the story goes.

Good grief!  What is it with the LP that it attracts elements like blue guys and naked, sword-wielding madmen?

Yes, we really may want to seriously consider adopting a new handle for ourselves when we finally go into action.  With friends like these...
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Zxcv on March 07, 2003, 11:20:31 am
Don't worry, Robert, all parties attract such nut cases. Only the LP lets them represent it, though.   ::)

It this caucus system a party thing, or is it some state law? If the former, we should be able to change the LP bylaws if we get enough people in the party. Sandy, are you familiar enough with the bylaws to say if there would be a way to impose some discipline on the LP, via the addition of some of our members? Specifically, we want to be able to keep LP candidates out of those races where we have an FSP-endorsed Republican. If there is no way for us to do that, it pretty much kills the idea of FSP going to Idaho.

Scratch what I just said. The R's are so dominant in Idaho that it doesn't matter if there is a LP candidate in the race or not; they will never cause a seat (except in a few places) to be thrown to the D's.

Seems like the LP is entirely irrelevant in Idaho, and we should ignore it there and put all our people working on the R primary. That means we need our people to become R's. This itself will be a difficulty because we have a contingent who will never want to work with the R's.

Idaho just sounds difficult for us as a "project" state. We may be able to help some there in generally protecting freedom, but I can't see we'd be able to do much beyond that except run some initiative campaigns (they have the initiative, don't they?).
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: exitus on March 07, 2003, 11:52:52 am

It this caucus system a party thing, or is it some state law?


No, it is the way of the state's laws, check-out the Idaho Chairman's conversation with the Idaho secretary of state on the official LP website.

Quote
Seems like the LP is entirely irrelevant in Idaho, and we should ignore it there and put all our people working on the R primary.
I wouldn't exactly say that, the number of people who ran and scored significant election percentages in Idaho was just about as high as California, or any other big state in the country, according to what I saw on the state-by-state postings of LP numbers at the California LP convention.  In many races, the Democrats don't even bother to put a candidate in position in Idaho.  In fact, in the race for secretary of state, the Libertarian candidate scored 86,437 votes or 22.5% of the vote (http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/results/2002/general/tot_stwd.htm).
   
Quote
That means we need our people to become R's. This itself will be a difficulty because we have a contingent who will never want to work with the R's.
I understand the aversion, I don't really like the Republican party either, but if a Republican has any thought of handily losing to a Democrat on account of a Libertarian, you can bet that Republican will start to act more libertarian.

Quote
but I can't see we'd be able to do much beyond that except run some initiative campaigns (they have the initiative, don't they?).
In an analysis of the inititive process that I did, I found Idaho to have the best system in place.  Montana's was the only state more accessible for the inititive process, but had a strong track-record of defeat by activist judges.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: phylinidaho on March 07, 2003, 03:58:23 pm
the Idaho LP may not only be no help, they may be an impediment by running their less viable candidates against more viable Liberty candidates.
In Idaho, the Libertarian Party has little say over who runs as a Libertarian, since we do not register by party and anyone can run on any ticket. The party does not "run" any candidates, but merely endorses or fails to endorse (btw, we did not endorse the recent candidate for Governor).
Quote
I had posted this over on the e-mail forum but, if the Idaho LP is going to be ideological purists that don't want any help,
I would not describe current "leadership" as ideological purists, since they believe in incrementalism, and in stressing in campaigns the issues that are most important to their constituency (which may vary depending on the part of the state they represent). In addressing the issues, they insist on giving the Libertarian solutions, while leaving room for short-term compromise.  They are ideological purists only in the sense that they refuse to knowingly mislead the electorate regarding their end goals. As to the perception that they don't want help, it is clear to me that they would gladly accept help, so long as the help was aimed at decreasing the role of government in our lives. What they don't want is someone coming in and undoing all they may have been able to accomplish toward educating Idaho citizens as to the true meaning of libertarianism. We have just been through 2 years of that.
Quote
then it would be best they don't take up the following challenge if the FSP chooses Idaho.

Among the candidate states, can any of the state LP's either
1) increase LP dues-paying membership to one tenth of one percent of that state's voters  (that's only 300 to 700 dues-paying members -- depending on the state's voter population)
OR
2) increase LP voter registration to one percent of that state's voters?  (that's only 3,000 to 7,000 registered libertarians -- depending on the state's voter population)
Is between a 5% to 10% "match" in activists too much to ask?
Besides, Plan on 5% to 10% or 1,000 FSP'ers joining the state LP and taking it over.  If the state LP has over 1,000 members they might still be a majority in their own party.
I see where my penchant for brevity of communication has led once again to a misunderstanding. I shall try to be more verbose:

First, I should have said, the following comments are my perception only, and may not accurately reflect reality. For more information, see http://lpidaho.org/  I believe I have stated elsewhere that I have no political experience. I have been a member of a political party only since April 2000. I am trying to learn, but it is much harder in the 70s than in the 20s.

Next, I should have given a more complete description of the current status of the IDLP. In order to do that, I will have to "back-track" to the 2000 state convention. I was not present, due to untimely notice and the fact that I was a new member. According to what I have been told, the meeting was "taken over" by a bunch of "gun nuts" and many of the former activists quit the party in protest. One of the "gun nuts" was elected to state chair, and proceeded on the theory that any publicity is good publicity. [of course, we have that element in the FSP - so it can't be all bad :)]

The 2002 convention was well-organized (by the current chairman - then volunteer Executive Director) with advance notice, and prominent speakers. The election of state chair was hotly contested, resulting in a defeat of the incumbent by 3 votes (he claims only 1) on the 3rd ballot There is an element in the party (including some members of the EC) that still claims loyalty to the former chair. Their primary quarrel with the current chair is that he believes in building the party from the bottom up, and favors strengthening the party - adding Idaho citizens whom he believes to be ideologic libertarians, whereas they believe that winning elections should come first. (whatever it takes)

Several of those who quit in protest over the 2000 convention, encouraged by the character of the present chairman (a CA transplant), have rejoined and are actively working at building an effective political party. They are fairly well in agreement, IMO, that the average Idaho citizen is libertarian-leaning, but has a distorted picture of the Libertarian Party. They hope to change that perception, and to motivate the large number of nonvoters to see the value in voting for Libertarian candidates.

I am not trying to sell Idaho. As I have stated elsewhere, Idaho is my second or third choice. I merely feel it is my obligation as an "insider" to give as full a picture of the Libertarian climate in the state of my residence as possible.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: phylinidaho on March 07, 2003, 04:06:53 pm
The man who ran for governor on the LP ticket was an absolute nut-case accused of being with the former group, but everybody in the LP disavows.  He still managed to pick up 2.5% (http://www.idsos.state.id.us/ELECT/results/2002/general/tot_stwd.htm) of the vote in a four-way race, this despite being arrested for assaulting police officers with a sword while naked the day before elections, so the story goes.

On election eve, the former chair (who still holds an almost cult-like following in the party) issued a plea to llibertarians to vote for that "nut-case", (for the good of the party ???) Just another example of his policy that any publicity is good publicity.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: varrin on March 07, 2003, 07:41:47 pm
When and where will you be hiking in July? The snow delay at Kennedy Meadows (southern jump off to the High Sierra) has been as long as the end of June. The average start date is mid June. I have heard that there is a higher than normal snow pack this year. If there is a later than average start, there is a possibility that we could meet up somewhere.

Glen,

I don't have an exact schedule, but my first guess is we'll be going out of Edison lake to Mott Lake either the weekend of July 19-20 or July 26-27 (we'll probably make it a Friday-Monday trip).

Mott Lake is on the other side of the PCT from Edison so we'll actually be hiking a small portion of it to get in and out.  If we're in the neighborhood, we should hook up.  Of course, how would we know ahead of time?!?

V-

P.S. - I hear ya about the crazy nut thing.  The first person I have to work on is my wife ;-)

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Zxcv on March 07, 2003, 09:16:15 pm
Quote
In Idaho, the Libertarian Party has little say over who runs as a Libertarian, since we do not register by party and anyone can run on any ticket. The party does not "run" any candidates, but merely endorses or fails to endorse (btw, we did not endorse the recent candidate for Governor).
Is that a general rule? Applicable to the big parties as well? If I understand correctly, anyone with an LP registration can run? Where are the opportunities (if any) to prevent such a person running (or run someone against him), for example if there is an LP-endorsed R? A caucus I suppose, but that means what? Who can attend and vote? Just anyone in the district with an LP registration?

I'm still trying to get a handle on how the process works, and I'm too lazy to dig through bylaws and state laws if I can avoid it!
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on March 07, 2003, 09:47:43 pm
Hi Varrin

Vermillion Valley Resort on Lake Edison is one of my re-supply points and I expect to lay over for at least a day, But there is no telling when that will be.

Probably the best way to handle this is for you to check into an online journal a friend of mine will be putting together for me.

He is a semi professional photographer. He has lent me a very nice camera and will send all the film I want to use if in exchange I will take a series of 360 degree views from suitable places along the trail. He intends to stitch each 360 degree sequence together, put them into a virtual tour format and post them to a page on his web site.

He is currently working on a sequence I took from Seattle’s Space Needle. Once that is posted I will send you a link to the page. Better yet, I’ll start a thread on the Off Topic. Maybe there are a few other back country hikers among the FSPers who will be interested.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Zxcv on March 07, 2003, 10:07:58 pm
Say, can you guys find another place to carry on this conversation?  ::)
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on March 07, 2003, 11:57:05 pm
OK! OK! Geeze. Getting kicked off my own thread.  :P

Let us leave this Entmoot and get on with the adventure!
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: phylinidaho on March 08, 2003, 06:25:28 am
Quote from: Zxcv l
[quote
Is that a general rule? Applicable to the big parties as well? If I understand correctly, anyone with an LP registration can run? Where are the opportunities (if any) to prevent such a person running (or run someone against him), for example if there is an LP-endorsed R?
Generally, the LP would not endorse an R (although this was done recently by one individual purporting to speak for the party). Those who have been reported by the county clerk or secretary of state (see below) are voted on and endorsed or not at the State LP Convention.
Quote
A caucus I suppose, but that means what? Who can attend and vote? Just anyone in the district with an LP registration?
Voters do not register by party. Any qualified person can file (by petition or filing fee) for any office, giving the name of the party under which he is running. If his party is not on the ballot, he must run as an independent.  Under Idaho Code 34-706, the County Clerk or Secretary of State (depending on the office) then notifies the political party of those who have filed for office under that party.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Zxcv on March 08, 2003, 06:58:43 pm
I said LP-endorsed R, but I meant FSP-endorsed R. I am trying to see how we can prevent the situation where there are more than one pro-freedom candidates on the ballot.

I'm wondering generally, what's to keep a D from running as an R? How do parties prevent bogus candidacies being filed by their opponents? I mean for example, say the D's wanted to run against an R that was really one of theirs. They could but their "mole" in as an R in the primary and if they could win that they control the election in that district.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: phylinidaho on March 08, 2003, 08:23:25 pm

I'm wondering generally, what's to keep a D from running as an R?
Nothing, except activism to prevent his winning the Primary. Most voters vote the R primary, regardless of their party, because the winner there (except in a few districts) is a cinch to win the General election.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Zxcv on March 08, 2003, 10:14:15 pm
Wow, I didn't realize this means you have an open primary too. Should have realized this.

When you say "activism, to prevent his winning the Primary", how does this work? If Joe Blow signs up for a R primary, and he's never run before, how are people to know if he's really a D or an R? From his positions? Seems like he could lie (politicians have been known to lie...). So how do the phonies get weeded out?

It must be weird to be in a state where the general election is just a formality!

It's almost like it's not a 2-party state, and not even a 1-party state. It's an n-party state where all parties run as R's. Third parties could do well here if the individuals didn't care what party label was attached to him. Or am I missing something?

I'm now thinking FSP actually could fit into this picture pretty easily. We just run our people in the R primary, and work hard to get them the nomination (we'd normally be running native or long-term Idahoans, of course).

Of course once you get elected you have to answer to party leaders, or get shut out of all the good committee assignments. So that is one area where the ringers could be controlled.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: phylinidaho on March 08, 2003, 10:56:00 pm
When you say "activism, to prevent his winning the Primary", how does this work? If Joe Blow signs up for a R primary, and he's never run before, how are people to know if he's really a D or an R? From his positions? Seems like he could lie (politicians have been known to lie...). So how do the phonies get weeded out?
They don't always. Of course, they claim they have "seen the light" and switched parties. ;) What I meant was that the Republican Party would have to spend money and effort to make sure the legitimate candidate wins the Primary.
Quote

It must be weird to be in a state where the general election is just a formality!

It's almost like it's not a 2-party state, and not even a 1-party state. It's an n-party state where all parties run as R's.
There are pockets - my legislative district, for instance - where the Rs don't even bother to run a candidate, because the D will win.
Quote
Third parties could do well here if the individuals didn't care what party label was attached to him. Or am I missing something?

I'm now thinking FSP actually could fit into this picture pretty easily. We just run our people in the R primary, and work hard to get them the nomination (we'd normally be running native or long-term Idahoans, of course).

Of course once you get elected you have to answer to party leaders, or get shut out of all the good committee assignments. So that is one area where the ringers could be controlled.
I'd say that's a pretty good assessment.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: exitus on March 10, 2003, 01:08:58 pm
Some more news out of Boise, Idaho:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/News/story.asp?ID=34901 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/News/story.asp?ID=34901)
"The Basque journalist with close ties to Boise was accused two weeks ago of being a spokesman for ETA . . ."

"Some Boise Basques know Otamendi personally. He first spent time here in the 1980s. Most recently, he covered Cenarrusa and state Rep. David Bieter as they convinced the Idaho Legislature last year to approve a statement supporting self-determination for the Basques of northern Spain and southern France. "

"Spanish officials and the Bush administration fought that memorial of support. But Idaho has the largest and most politically powerful Basque community in the United States, and many European Basques hope their Amerikanuak relatives will influence the United States to one day back them against the Spanish government in Madrid. "

"The 15,000 Euskaldunak in Boise make up one of the largest Basque populations in the world — third after an enclave in Argentina and the people who live in the coastal and mountainous region the Basques call Euskal Herria, and which the rest of the world calls Spain and France. "

"Their grandparents came here in the late 1800s, and more came in the early days of Francisco Franco´s fascist regime, which started with the Spanish Civil War in the late 1930s. Many of them were dispossessed of land and tormented by the bombing at Gernika, which Franco orchestrated with the Nazis to squelch Basque resistance to his Nationalist party. The Generalissimo outlawed any showing of Basque culture or pride.

So the Boiseans each have a history, like Artiach, whose mother was imprisoned by Franco and whose cousin has been in prison for 20 years.

Cenarrusa has been among the leaders of Basque Americans for decades. In 1972, after visits to Spain, he pushed a memorial through the Legislature that outlined the injustices he attributed to Franco, who ruled until he died in 1975."


"The Spanish government fought the Idaho Legislature´s support of the Basques by pressuring officials in Washington.

Madrid does not want Washington to support any program or idea like the memorial,” Otamendi said.

And in fact, the Bush administration fought the memorial last year, eventually convincing Idaho lawmakers to write a compromise version that said the state had “unqualified support” for the United States and other countries´ “war on terrorism.”



emphasis is mine
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: DanTheTileMan on March 10, 2003, 03:52:51 pm
[quote author=exitus And in fact, the Bush administration fought the memorial last year, eventually convincing Idaho lawmakers to write a compromise version that said the state had “unqualified support” for the United States and other countries´ “war on terrorism.”[/i]
Quote

It seems that in these times of Patriot Act I, and now II, the US may not be any better or worse than Spain is now.  They have Spanish Guardia Civil, and we have Homeland Security.  At the rate we're going we will be just as bad as pre-1975 Spain, headed for a 1930's Franco-styled Bush regime.

Dan the Man
*************************************************
The Sacred Rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records.  
They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature,
by the Hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.  
 - Alexander Hamilton (An essay, "The Farmer Refuted," 1775)

More Good Stuff at www.lexrex.com
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: exitus on March 10, 2003, 04:41:10 pm
You must be thinking along the same lines as me, Dan.

One important ingredient of those events that brought about The Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the birth of a free nation, was a whole host of immigrant population accutely aware of the tyrrany of the reign of kings.

People who have first-hand eyewitness understanding of the terrors of fascism understand the need for liberty, with a little focused education efforts and awareness of the principles of liberty and the events of today, I am sure that would be close to 15,000 people who would stand in our favor.

I was not aware that the Basque population in Boise was so politically active and motivated, I regard these 15,000 basque individuals as a definite positive for Idaho as our nation sinks deeper into the fascism that is becoming more and more apparent.  
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: DanTheTileMan on March 10, 2003, 05:06:02 pm
Well, Exitus, anytime you can find a community that keep has roots, a cause, or common beliefs, you have the potential for quick results in numbers if you can convince them to join with FSP.  You have the Basques, Patriots, tax-rebels/reformers/protesters (whatever invective label the government is currently using), bikers, other freedom political parties, and gun owners.  If you were addressing a gun ownership issue, wouldn't you enlist the help of the Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership?  So why don't we enlist the Constitution Party members, etc., in addition to the Libertarian Party?  See my post: today in http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=7;action=display;threadid=1284;start=45;boardseen=1
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on March 17, 2003, 01:14:13 am
The military presence in Idaho appears to be limited to one Air Force Base in Mountain Home. If I remember right, it is a Tactical Air Command base which primarily supports fighter aircraft. I am not aware of any other military bases.

By contrast, The Air Force Bases in downtown Cheyenne, WY and outside of Great Falls, MT are Strategic Air Command bases which support long range bombers and nuclear tipped missiles.

No doubt that the FSP is already on a federal terrorist ‘watch list’ of some kind. My guess is that if Idaho is selected as the free state, the feds will be measurably less concerned about what we are doing than if Montana or Wyoming are selected.

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: exitus on March 17, 2003, 10:40:28 am

My guess is that if Idaho is selected as the free state, the feds will be measurably less concerned about what we are doing than if Montana or Wyoming are selected.


This is also a good argument for Vermont, with no military bases; but no matter which way you look at it, however, every state has its own complexity in dealing with the federal government.
As to the presence of military bases and concern over the FSP by the feds, I don't think that we present any strategic concern in the mind of any reasonable military planner just because we believe in limited government.

It would be interesting to find out how much the political leanings of the populace influence the size and scope of military bases.  I'm sure the people of Alaska has little choice in the matter, being as where that state is strategically located.   But I wonder if the large presence of Vietnam War "draft-dodgers" in Vermont played any role there, or if the large number of anti-UN, paleoconservative John Birchers in Idaho keep that state's military role to a minimum.

Title: Education in Idaho
Post by: exitus on March 18, 2003, 05:58:28 am
The Idaho Statesman's Education in Idaho series
A five-month study of education spending in Idaho conducted by The Idaho Statesman newspaper.
http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/education/story.asp?ID=30315 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/education/story.asp?ID=30315)


One of the reports I found interesting:

SCHOOL FUNDING 101: How Idaho compares, from the IdahoStatesman.com website (http://www.idahostatesman.com/Common/PrintMe.asp?ID=30309)
(http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/education/images/edseries/ed-bigchart.gif)
Idaho is fourth from the bottom of all states in spending per child, and spends the least amount of money per child out of all of our candidate states.  On the other hand,  Idaho (at $39.83 per $1,000 gsp) is in the top third of all states in education spending, but still distantly less than #1 big spender, Vermont  (at $52.36 ), Maine ($48.76), Montana (47.04), and Alaska ($45.19).  

Idaho ranks low nationally in terms of how much it spends per child on education, but ranks relatively high in how deep the state digs into its pockets to come up with what it does spend:

Can anyone else besides me see the political potential in a situation like this?

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on March 18, 2003, 10:25:50 pm
I’m not very good at statistics so you’ll have to spell it out for me.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on March 20, 2003, 12:38:21 am
If you have not been totally sucked in by Mr. Bushes war propaganda you will have noticed that killing Islamic extremists never works. Just ask Israel.

I started the following thread with the intent of showing how vulnerable the eastern FSP states would be to a ABC attack (atomic, biological, chemical).

The argument works the other way too. Northern Idaho and NW Montana are about the safest places possible in this new world order of suicide bombers and political assassinations.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=371&start=0
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: DanTheTileMan on March 22, 2003, 11:03:32 am
No argument here!  I am now living in Maryland, north of Baltimore, near Aberdeen Proving Grounds.  I heard all kinds of bombs going off over there for the past couple of weeks.  I passed an Abrams? tank on I95 last Sunday night.  I don't feel very safe around here.  I think Baltimore can be just as much of a target as D.C.  Kamiah, Idaho is looking better every day.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: exitus on March 24, 2003, 06:14:25 pm
Thanks for that insightful research, Joe.  I am embarassed that I didn't even spend the time to find out that was a survey of candidates.   :-[   I only read the heading that said,   "Look up your Legislators . . ." and figured that was self-explanatory.


In regards to my opinion of Southeast Idaho, this is one more example of how we should be careful with depending on perceptions alone.   I spent 9 days touring the Idaho Falls area back in 1999 and what I found were people that seemed very much of the live-and-let live attitude,  trucks with rifles hanging-up in the back windows , friendly people, no apparent sign of up-tight neighbors, with farm equipment driving down the road with no escorts; not too much sign of land-use planning; I found two different talk-radio stations on the AM dial that had lively discussions of the Constitution, the bill of rights, etc.  --and that was even in competition with the Rush Limbaugh program on another station!  Then I visited Pocatello and saw signs advertising "live nude girls", openly advertising gay bars and so forth.  . . .

Well, what I came away with were some perceptions of a very libertarian culture, but when I look at the numbers, look at who actually gets elected, and so forth, the numbers tell me that my perceptions were just that, perceptions, though they paint a picture of what is there, things aren't exactly the way they appear.  . . .

I guess some of my perceptions are in the same boat as those who say, without the numbers to prove it, that they know their favorite state is best, i.e., the Maine and Montana supporters, to name a few, because of what they perceive in their experience alone.

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: cathleeninsc on March 25, 2003, 10:15:55 am

One would think we have no zoning or building codes, or trash ordinance or dogs-at-large law or laws against high weeds or fireworks or operating a home business.
Wrong! All of the above are illegal or regulated to the degree the enforcers can get to 'em or meddlesome neighbors complain. You would think, and I had thought, that repealing or at least softening these ordinances would be a slam dunk because of the widespread continuing ignoring of these laws. Again -- wrong!  


These people don't want to be bothered with regulations but don't even suggest taking away their ability to deal with undesirables.

Maybe this is why there is little equity in what gets passed or in how it is enforced. If wiping these off the books is difficult, would introducing equity tests be any easier? If a blanket enforcement makes people mad enough, will they then approve removal?

Cathleen in SC
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: exitus on March 27, 2003, 04:42:52 pm
The military presence in Idaho appears to be limited to one Air Force Base in Mountain Home. If I remember right, it is a Tactical Air Command base which primarily supports fighter aircraft. I am not aware of any other military bases.

By contrast, The Air Force Bases in downtown Cheyenne, WY and outside of Great Falls, MT are Strategic Air Command bases which support long range bombers and nuclear tipped missiles.

No doubt that the FSP is already on a federal terrorist ‘watch list’ of some kind. My guess is that if Idaho is selected as the free state, the feds will be measurably less concerned about what we are doing than if Montana or Wyoming are selected.


Glen,
I thought of these words of yours recently while looking-up some info on political activism when I came across this statement in the Las Vegas Mercury (http://www.lasvegasmercury.com/2002/MERC-Jul-18-Thu-2002/19199637.html) newspaper from a protestor who was trying to stop the permanent approval of the Yucca Mountain Nuclear "Test" Site near Las Vegas, Nevada.
 
"Do you think it's coincidence that Idaho was never even considered for nuclear waste? Really, the feds know that if they go into Idaho...they're gonna get shot."

Provacative, yes, but I wonder how much of that reputation for the people in Idaho is real and how much of any part of that affects the political climate in Idaho and things like what that protestor stated and what you put forth. hmm. . .
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Robert H. on March 28, 2003, 02:11:44 am
"Do you think it's coincidence that Idaho was never even considered for nuclear waste? Really, the feds know that if they go into Idaho...they're gonna get shot."

Whether what this protestor says is necessarily true or not, I would suspect that Idaho was probably not considered for nuclear waste because the government realized that it would run into heavier opposition in a state that is known for its beauty - as opposed to Nevada, which most people picture as a wasteland.

Just going on popular perceptions here.   ;)
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on March 30, 2003, 01:30:48 am
Here is a link to my thread on lone wolves.

I suspect that the lone wolves will be a PR problem for the FSP as they often flout the laws of men and the gods and will use any handy excuse to justify their actions.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=350
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on April 04, 2003, 01:03:18 am
Pax Americana?

If, as this article claims, the Bush Administration is on track to building the next world empire, we shouldn’t have too much trouble attracting enough libertarian and classical liberal minded people to the future free state.

The danger for us is in thinking too small. Bigger is better. And safer.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: phylinidaho on April 04, 2003, 06:52:47 am
Pax Americana?

If, as this article claims, the Bush Administration is on track to building the next world empire, we shouldn?t have too much trouble attracting enough libertarian and classical liberal minded people to the future free state.

The danger for us is in thinking too small. Bigger is better. And safer.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm


This thought has been on my mind since I first heard of FSP, which is why I have firmly opposed any proposal to locate outside the continental US. In worst case scenario we will need a large geographical territory in which to grow strong.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 04, 2003, 10:39:14 am
Would anyone like to write a second Idaho report for the website?  So far we have Phyllis' report, which is great, but several states now have second reports, and another perspective on Idaho would be advantageous.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: exitus on April 04, 2003, 11:11:37 am

The danger for us is in thinking too small. Bigger is better. And safer.

Glen, I really know what you mean in thinking of Idaho as a safe place of refuge.  If we were all looking for a friendly place of abode for libertarians and their children to go and await, Idaho is that place  . . .as already do a huge contingent of survivalists, mostly of a libertarian-leaning paleoconservative variety who have already moved there and are rapidly bringing in more, as already do a Basque Separatist community in Boise of over 10,000 who have found refuge in Boise who have a reputation for being productive members of society and politically active and freedom-friendly.  And many other different peoples who have gathered to Idaho, unfortunately, even white separatist groups considered Idaho first as a refuge, although it must be emphasized that they miscalculated the support they thought they would receive.

The point is, however, if the attainment of a free state is to be obtained through a long campaign of highly-visible political action and eventual political dominance, it seems like in Idaho we might be drowned in a sea of other voices.

Although in Idaho there seems to be mostly friendly voices.  Idaho is by no means a libertarian state, but considering what we have to work with among all the people of the U.S.,  Idaho does have the highest number of liberty-friendly voters among our candidate states and highest percentages who vote against big government in the whole nation, as measured in the Idealogy of the States report, and by who they have been sending to Washington D.C., as measured by the RLC over the last ten years and also by the strong Libertarian vote in that state despite the odds of a seemingly bumbling, divided and mostly non-viable LP that is there.  And if Frank Church's fight against the CIA and George Hansen's fight against the IRS are any measures of what kind of people Idaho has sent to Congress, they are impressive enough on that alone!

In regards to looking at a smaller state, a very good point was made by Bruce P. Foreman that Jason Sorens posted on the Comments from a Wyoming rancher (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1539) thread, and that was this in this statement,"And you also need to take great care, because if the government wants you out, they can EASILY do it, based on the way you have structured things. Wyoming's livelihood comes from its natural resources. All they would have to do is to tell Marathon Oil to shut down a few of its facilities, and unemployment would skyrocket, and FSP would be blamed (and with the liberal media coming from Denver, you can count on that). "

The population question really is a two-way street.  If our goal is to get noticed right away and start with a strong base of influence, such as in a third party, then the smaller the state, the better.  But the benefits of a small state can work both ways, if not done carefully, a small state is can be detrimental.  If our goal is to to be content to be the leavening in a big batch, or the small catalyst in a large culture shift, the mere tug-boat against an oceanliner and thus be willing to let larger forces than ourselves drive the change, then a larger state that has more to offer to more people may be more the ticket.

If we were counting on 20,000 experienced and remarkable champions of liberty in the FSP or even twice our numbers of friends to assist as activists once we got there, is there any doubt that Idaho would not be the best choice for us and our children?

And speaking of children, Idaho has the absolute best homeschool laws in the country, the absolute lowest state-sponsored kidnapping ratios, and the best weather to raise children.  .  .
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: exitus on April 04, 2003, 11:15:46 am
Would anyone like to write a second Idaho report for the website?  So far we have Phyllis' report, which is great, but several states now have second reports, and another perspective on Idaho would be advantageous.

I'll be glad to do it,  Jason.  Though I would like to have a collaborator, Varrin? Glen? .

I'm still a Wyoming fan at this point.  Lately, I even put Idaho third in my ranking.  But I could never get too excited about helping out with that last Wyoming report, (my apologies to FreedomRoad for not offering more help), but there's just something about Idaho that makes my heart sing . .   I don't feel inclined to hype Idaho at this point but I feel Idaho has just not been given its due.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on April 04, 2003, 08:33:15 pm
Unfortunately I cannot help with a second Idaho report.

I committed to hiking the Pacific Crest Trail way back when the FSP was at hopelessly low membership levels. The start date for the hike is April 20th and I still have way too many things to do to get ready.

For those who are interested, a friend of mine will be hosting an on-line journal for me at:

http://tolstoyota.com/glenpct/

There is nothing posted to it yet but stay tuned! It should be an interesting adventure.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: varrin on April 04, 2003, 09:53:40 pm
Glen,

Thanks for the URL.  I still haven't gotten the book.  I'm drowning in projects.  My wife's (old) computer is on its last legs so I had to step up my efforts to get her a new one (which means firing Bill Gates and hiring Linus Torvalds - no small task).  This has interfered with my LP activism, FSP writing and research, and lots of other things.  But there's a light at the end of the tunnel (yeah, it's a train allright).  I'll get to it eventually.

Exitus,

If you're interested in some collaberation, I could be game for that.  I'm still thinking an Idaho trip in June might be in order.  You'll be there by then, right?  Maybe we can do a 'first impressions' joint piece, complete with photography ;)  I have a commitment in June so, depenting on what kind of scheudle I get, I may only have a couple days there, but I'm sure we can figure out a way to make the most of it.  Between now and then, I'll be pretty busy and likly not around here a whole lot.  (I'll poke my head in every now and then just to stir the pot of course)

V-

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Robert H. on May 03, 2003, 03:36:04 am
I thought I'd post this comment given the rather negative response we received from the Idaho governor's office this past week.

It's from a forum user at the Boise Weekly's website.  It's not much, but it's something positive:

***

The free state agenda is very admirable. If Idaho is chosen, I might move back.

***

http://www.boiseweekly.com/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&Topic=542 (http://www.boiseweekly.com/forum/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=18&Topic=542)

Someone posted the AP article on this forum, and the above was in response to it.
Title: 100 VARIABLES, OVER 10 YRS - IDAHO FIRST!!!!
Post by: larry on May 19, 2003, 12:14:13 am



 
FOLKS,

The National Center for Policy Analysis, in conjunction with the
Frazier Institute, entered into a relationship with Clemenson
University to measure the 50 states in relation to 100 variables
that indicate economic freedom, throughout the Nineties.

On a scale of 1 to 10, IDAHO CAME IN FIRST!!, with a score
of 3.92. Unlike others who select stats for their own purposes,
I will mention Wyoming and S. Dakota were runner-ups.

Again, though, New Hampshire was nowhere to be seen.

This was a much broader, much more in-depth study, over a
much longer period of time, than the forbes annual beauty
contest.

I'm getting damned cynical, though. I am startiing to come to
the conclusion that statistics, argument and evidence don't
count for squat.

As Lily Tomlin said, "No matter how cynical you get, it's
impossible to keep up".

Libertarian Larry

HERE'S THE LINK:

http://www.ncpa.org:80/pd/state/pd041499g.html



Title: Re:100 VARIABLES, OVER 10 YRS - IDAHO FIRST!!!!
Post by: Zxcv on May 19, 2003, 11:25:35 pm
This is the row called "EFI", already in the spreadsheet. Yes, Idaho is first in this index.

We also have two other comprehensive economic indices.

SBSI, the small business survival index, puts Idaho in 6th place among our 10 states.

EFNA, the one from Frasier Institute in British Columbia (available only in the big spreadsheet), puts Idaho again in 6th place among our 10 states.

Weighing the indices equally puts South Dakota in first place, Wyoming second (essentially tied with NH). DE is 4th, and Idaho ends up in 5th.
Title: Idaho Opposes the Patriot Act
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 02, 2003, 03:35:07 pm
Butch Otter who was Idaho's lieutenant governor for the longest time in Idaho's history and is now Idaho's U.S. Congressional rep. in Dist. 1, his last Democrat opponent declared in the her campaign, "His libertarian rhetoric has begun to wear thin and voters tell me they are suffering from “Otter Fatigue”, she gained only 38% of the vote.

Today, we have more news that Idaho's favorite politician is living up to his name as a libertarian...

 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/News/story.asp?ID=43523)
Otter keeps fighting the Patriot Act
[/url]
Congressman says law sacrifices freedom for safety

"Otter was one of just three Republicans to vote against the measure, which was hastily passed in the weeks that followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "

"Otter, who was warned against voting and speaking against the law by Majority Leader Dick Armey, hasn't backed off in his opposition to George Bush´s signature law. "


"... even some legislators are pondering a statewide statement. "

Otter said he supported these ideas, and that they help send a message to congressmen and congresswomen who voted for the Patriot Act but now “can´t defend it
.”




How much do you really know about Idaho?
A Free State for Idaho (http://www.freestateproject.com/idaho2.htm)
Idaho Free State Facts (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=943;start=msg18275#msg18275)
Ideologies in the States (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1213)


1958
Title: Re:Idaho Opposes the Patriot Act
Post by: varrin on July 02, 2003, 03:56:41 pm
Otter was one of just three Republicans to vote against the measure, which was hastily passed in the weeks that followed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001

Maybe Ron Paul was one of the others?  Who was the third?  Anyone know?

BTW, Glen is making his way along the PCT.  For any who are interested, here's his last update from June 11th:

Quote
He called last night
from a motel in Ridgecrest CA (Kennedy Meadows area).  He's doing a little
last minute shopping and preparing for his next adventure going into the
High Sierras, still some snow up there so he is waiting for the right time
to start. Next stop is Independence then Lake Shore CA. Should take about 2
weeks to get to Lake Shore. He didn't know if could call between now & then.
He said all was fine.

V-

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 02, 2003, 04:00:16 pm
I hope Glen makes it back home in time to vote.  :-\
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: varrin on July 02, 2003, 04:16:29 pm
Jason,

I don't think he will if it closes in mid-August.  I suspect he'll be out until at least the end of August or into September (maybe the whole way through it).  I can *try* to find him and get a ballot to him (and back to you) if you want. ;)  We had talked about hooking up.  I didn't think I was going to be able to do that, but I wound up with some more time off at the end of July, so it could happen.  Plus, I'll be up in the Sierras then anyway.

I'll see if I can get a fix on him.  In the mean time, would it be too weird to mail me a spare ballot packet for him in the event I can get to him?

V-

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Chris_H on July 02, 2003, 05:20:41 pm
Varrin -

  Of the two other Republicans to vote against PATRIOT act, Ron Paul was one and Bob Ney from Ohio was the other.

http://www.thejusticelobby.org/Home%20Groups/The%20Patriot%20ACT/votedagainst.html


 :)

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: varrin on July 02, 2003, 06:08:44 pm
Humm... Ney isn't a member of Paul's Liberty Committee.

But since I was looking, here's who is:

Butch Otter:  ID
Denny Rehberg: MT

That's it for FSP candidates...

V-

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on August 12, 2003, 09:47:39 pm
Hello fellow Idaho supporters!

Even though I am still hiking the Pacific Crest Trail, I can't resist the urge to stirr up the pot by bumping this topic back up to the top.

It is very exciting to see that the membership is so close to the 5000 mark. I am looking forward to moving to the newly selected (western) free state!

Glen
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: varrin on August 13, 2003, 11:08:37 am
Glen,

Great to hear from ya.  Sorry we haven't had a chance to go hiking.  It occurs to me that the topic of this thread is the name of a website that, I think, doesn't exist.  However there *is* an Idaho website up here:

http://freethewest.us (http://freethewest.us)

Enjoy!

V-

Title: Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 09:00:20 am

Think about it. . .
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 09:01:34 am
I'm starting with the parting shot.

Find Maine, then find Idaho on this ranking:

How States Rank in Cancer Fight (http://webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/Article/71/81325.htm?pagenumber=2) From the Webmd website

(How nannyish is your state)
CA 10 XXXXXX ::)  (Most nanny state in nation)

ME  9 XXXXXX

DE  8 XXXXXX

VT  7 XXXXXX

AK  5 XXXXXX

NH  4 XXXXXX

ND  3 XXXXXX

WY  3 XXXXXX

ID  3 XXXXXX

SD  2 XXXXXX

MT  1 XXXXXX   :)


Categories: Access to care,coverage for clinical trials,Colorectal Cancer Screenings; Medically underserved,completed all steps for Medicaid option for Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Program; Tobacco Prevention,smoke free air,recommended excise tax,% of CDC min. spending
Title: Idaho is a Superior Choice Over Maine
Post by: Kelton on August 14, 2003, 09:08:28 am

I'm going to extend an olive branch to Maine just for responding to such a provocative sounding thread:
 
Rankings of candidate state "Fatalities in Alcohol-Related Crashes as a Percent of All Highway Fatalities"
 
NH, ND tied for 4th worse in nation
AK, MT, WY tied for 12th worse
SD 22nd
DE 25th
VT 31st
ID 38th
ME 48th (near best)
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 09:15:32 am
Eligible voter population (2000)

Wyoming - 364,909
Alaska - 436,215
Vermont - 461,304
North Dakota - 481,351
South Dakota - 552,195
Delaware - 589,013
Montana -672,133
Idaho - 924,923
New Hampshire - 926,224
Maine - 973,685  
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 09:23:57 am
Idaho

The Gem State’s Welfare Reform Sparkles

http://www.fullemployment.org/pdfreports/Idaho.pdf

Since October 96 (the start of TANF), Idaho’s caseload reduction percentage stands at 83.9%, ranking second among all the states and the District of Columbia.

-------------------------------------

Maine

“Stuck In The Middle”

http://www.fullemployment.org/pdfreports/Maine.pdf (http://www.fullemployment.org/pdfreports/Maine.pdf)

Ranked in the middle of the pack, the Pine Tree State appears to be comfortable with rather mediocre welfare reform success. But here’s a question for “Down-Easterners:” if L.L. Bean (Maine’s most famous retailer renown for excellent customer service) settled for mediocrity in its operations, would it even exist today? Maine faces economic challenges as all natural-resource economy states do, but the state owes it to its citizens and TANF recipients to improve its welfare program.

State- By- State Report commentaries on Progress of Welfare Reform by the Full Employment organization, Oct. 2002[/b] (http://www.fullemployment.org/states.html#top):
----------------------
Dependency on AFDC/TANF (government welfare program that gives cash payments) by State


StateRank (50 States)Ratio of Caseloads/Residents
Wyoming   1one in every 578 :)
Idaho   2one in every 560
South Dakota   6one in every 112
New Hampshire   12one in every 89
North Dakota 19one in every 76
Delaware   25one in every 61
Montana   31one in every 57
National Average   ---->one in every 50
Maine   39one in every 43
Vermont   42one in every 42
Alaska   45one in every 37



Food Stamp Dependency by State
StateRank (50 States)Food Stamp dependency
New Hampshire unavailable1 out of every 32 people :)
Wyoming91 out of every 22 people
Delaware141 of every 20 people
Idaho121 out of every 20 people
North Dakota unavailable1 out of every 17 people
South Dakota221 out of every 16 people
Vermont251 of out every 16
National Average   ---->1 out of every 15 people
Alaska281 out of every 15 people
Montana421 out of every 14 people
Maine451 one of every 12 people

Source: American Institute for Full Employment -Dec. '01(latest data available) State Welfare Reform Progress Reports  (http://www.fullemployment.org/states.html#chart)
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 09:33:09 am
"Clean Elections"
(Leftist-speak for tax-payer funded election campaigns)
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt000709_maine_politics_feature.html (http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt000709_maine_politics_feature.html)

Maine = Full funding All state offices, was approved through ballot inititive
Vermont = Governorship Only (full funding), Strict spending limits, all races, was approved by legislature

New Hampshire = Had a bill go before the legislature in 2000, issue was killed


Oooh, so Maine publicly funds the campaigns for ALL state offices.  Tax-payer-funded campaigning?  And you thought Campaign Finance Reform was awful, Maine went and took it to the next level!  

Idaho does not publicly fund election campaigns, nothing of the sort.
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 10:12:19 am
The Spreadsheets contain the rankings from the  Economic Freedom of North America (EFNA) (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=453), by the Frazier Institute.

From Chapter 2: Overview of the Results of This Report, Economic Freedom of North America:

The Worst Performers
For Montana and North Dakota,
the rejection of economic freedom is a relatively new
taste. Both have gone from the middle of the pack
to battling West Virginia for bottom spot. Over the
same period, Montana and North Dakota have seen
their per-capita GDP decline by 23 and 31 percentage
points, respectively, against the national average.
Other consistent under performers include Maine,
New Mexico, Arkansas, Alaska, and Rhode Island.


The Spreadsheets also contain the EFI, the Economic Freedom in America's 50 States (http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/Adobe%20Files/Economic%20Freedom%20(Clemson).PDF) by economists John Byars, Robert McCormick, and Bruce Yandle.

The resulting 1999 nationwide rankings of our ten candidate states based on over 150 different indexes and measurements :
 
Idaho, #1  
Wyoming #4
South Dakota #5
New Hampshire #6
Delaware #7
North Dakota #21
Montana #26
Vermont #34
Alaska #38
Maine #42
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 10:30:56 am
Federal and State Medicaid Spending during FFY 2001

StateTotal Medicaid Spending2001 Population Est.Spending per Capita
Wyoming$246,735,811 493,754$500
Idaho$706,213,899 1,320,585$535
Montana$509,348,850 905,382$563
South Dakota$472,298,828 758,324$623
North Dakota$415,967,653 636,550$653
New Hampshire$878,037,464 1,259,359$697
Delaware$593,522,480 796,599$745
Alaska$580,767,655 633,630$917
Vermont$604,562,212 612,978$986
Maine$1,349,675,068 1,284,470$1,051


STATE ONLY Medicaid spending.
(State budgets are straining under this major part of their total expenditures)
StateState Medicaid Spending2001 Population Est.Spending per Capita
Idaho$136,505,6761,320,585$103
Montana$119,333,404905,382$132
Wyoming$74,466,526493,754$151
South Dakota$116,171,353758,324$153
North Dakota$100,450,505636,550$158
Alaska$148,695,611633,630$235
Vermont$151,807,165612,978$248
Delaware$211,122,219796,599$265
Maine$377,784,3521,284,470$294
New Hampshire$384,071,9971,259,359$305

Source:
US Census for 2001 Estimated population
 State Health Facts Online -- Medicaid and SCHIP (http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=compare&welcome=1&category=Medicaid+%26+SCHIP)
http://statehealthfacts.kff.org
Title: Re:Only Fools Would Rank Maine Over Idaho
Post by: john dour on August 14, 2003, 11:26:04 am
They say an army travels on its stomach.Idaho has a fantastic job market if you need to work and cheap land if you dont.It also has an excellent agricultural base.
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 11:45:34 am
A rating of the homeschooling laws based on the descriptions of state law found at the Homeschooling Legal Defense website ( http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp )


1. Alaska (10)
2. Idaho (9)
3. Wyoming, Montana (7)
5. Vermont, South Dakota, Delaware, New Hampshire (3)
9. Maine (2)
10. North Dakota (0)

Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 12:02:15 pm
I have 3 comprehensive economic indices in the large spreadsheet, EFI, SBSI and EFNA (I've just updated the SBSI numbers by the way - I had had the 2001 numbers previously). I weighted all 3 equally and put no weigh on any other variable. The result was:

SD 28.41
(out of a possible 30, pretty damn impressive)
WY 25.21
NH 24.94
DE 23.73
ID 22.82
ND 19.82
VT 19.37
MT 19.31
AK 19.01
ME 17.72
(will someone please put this state out of its misery?)


Here's an article where the author tries to integrate the factors of the Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) and Cognetics rankings (this was brought up earlier in another thread months ago)  :

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/harper/141.asp (http://www.bcentral.com/articles/harper/141.asp)

Good for discussing how to look at the different criteria that those two different ratings use.

Not surprisingly, his rankings of the states from the 10 worst, working from the bottom:

#49  = Maine
#46  = Montana
#45  = North Dakota
#43 = Vermont

Title: Idaho is a Superior Choice Over Maine
Post by: Kelton on August 14, 2003, 01:02:15 pm

According to the FSP FAQ: “important criteria include: 1) coastal access (to make ourselves less dependent on the American market and by extension American policies)”
.

Under the state data section on theory ( http://www.freestateproject.org/state.htm (http://www.freestateproject.org/state.htm#THEORY) ) there is also this
Quote
Others would argue that coastline or border would matter only for independence, not autonomy, and do not think geography is important for the FSP.
 
 
.




While I agree that coastal access could be a minor factor in attaining our goals, the idea that it is even relevant to our undertakings has been heavily challenged here:

Landlocked or Land-Linked Hub?  (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1366)

Others have also questioned the usefulness of coastal access and Canadian Borders:
 coastal access  (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=210)
Concerned about a "land locked" US State (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2116;start=msg28602#msg28602)
In addition, many comments have been made suggesting that Canada is "not a friend".


Quote
The political, socialist, statist laws and programs we can fix.  Coasts and wild borders can not be added on when they are needed.

Joe, is this an admission by you that population is not the most significant of a factor in trying to attain a free state?
Title: What's going on in Maine?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 03:00:47 pm
From the Portland Press Herald Writer:
Maine's druggist shortage severe (July 31, 2003)  (http://www.hotjobs.com/cgi-bin/parse-file?TEMPLATE=/htdocs/channels/smpages/health_document-us.html&SMDOCID=blethenmaine_2003_07_31_eng-blethenmaine_kennebec_eng-blethenmaine_kennebec_071245_5538616730492470855&SMContentSet=0)
Quote
Retail pharmacies can't pinpoint why Maine has a harder time than other states finding pharmacists. Some blame the absence of a pharmacy school in Maine and the state's perennial "brain drain" problem in which homegrown talent leaves for job and educational opportunities perceived to be better elsewhere.


Maine Policy Review "Economic Prosperity in Maine: Held Back by the Lack of Higher Education" by Philip A. Trostel  (http://www.umaine.edu/mcsc/MPR/Vol11No2/Trostel.htm)
Quote
Maine lags the nation in economic prosperity and in education attainment, and there is little doubt that the relative lack of higher education in Maine is a leading factor holding back the state's prosperity growth. In this article, Trostel looks at each of the three sources of Maine's relatively low education attainment: the net emigration of college graduates (who are presumably in search of employment opportunities elsewhere); relatively fewer students going on to college; and the net emigration of high-school graduates leaving Maine to attend out-of-state postsecondary schools.

--------

For comparison,http://pharmacy.isu.edu (http://pharmacy.isu.edu/live/prospective/nont.html)
Quote
Idaho State University's Nontraditional PharmD program is listed by the Princeton Review as one of the top 3 distance learning graduate schools in the United States.


http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=112
Quote

The experience of the last state to approve right-to-work- Idaho in 1986--may be especially instructive. . .
One statistic that argued powerfully to the contrary was this one: the 20 states which had right-to-work between 1975 and 1985 created a whopping 92 percent of the nation's new manufacturing jobs-more than 10 times as many as were created in the other 30 states.
. . .Since right-to-work passed in 1986, the Idaho economy has gone from being the laggard among western states to being the nation's fastest growing. In every year since 1986, per capita income has risen at rates well above the national average. New business start-ups are breaking records, and business failures are sharply down.

Right-to-work is not anti-union and it does not lower overall wages. It is pro-choice on the issue of union membership. It can lead to greater productivity and higher wages by reducing costly and inefficient union work rules. It encourages investment in new jobs and invigorates the economy with new incentives for entrepreneurship.

Percentage of each state's nonagricultural wage and salary employees who are union members, 2001 (lower is better).  I think this is probably a better measure of union power than right-to-work laws.

South Dakota - 6.0%
North Dakota - 7.4%
Idaho - 7.8%
Wyoming - 9.3%
New Hampshire - 9.7%
Vermont - 10.9%
Delaware - 12.5%
Maine - 13.0%
Montana - 13.5%
Alaska - 22.1%

Source: http://www.laborresearch.org/tables/states_density.php
original listing in quote by Dr. Sorens was re-arranged into ranking by me.
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 03:28:26 pm
Berry, William D., Evan J. Ringquist, Richard C. Fording, and Russell L. Hanson. 1998. "Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960-93," American Journal of Political Science 42, 1 (Jan.): 327-48.
The above article introduced a new measure of citizen ideology by state, and it has since been updated through 1999. They've also created a state government ideology measure, but what is of interest to the FSP is the ideology of our state's citizens. This measure is apparently considered the state of the art in American political science.

The measure gives year by year scores for citizen ideologies based on vote percentages for liberal or conservative candidates, as graded by the ADA and AFL-CIO. (It's a lot more complicated than that, but you have to read the article to understand the whole process.) In recent years "liberal" in these grades basically means "big government." Lower scores are more conservative, higher scores more liberal - thus, for the FSP, lower scores are better.

The authors note that the scores in smaller states are less stable because of measurement error (given small congressional delegations). Thus, I've averaged the scores from 1992-1999 to get a good sense of average conservatism in our states in recent years. Here are the scores:

Idaho - 26.3 (best)
Alaska - 33.1
Wyoming  - 33.9
New Hampshire - 36.3
Montana - 43.1
South Dakota - 46.8
Delaware - 52.1
North Dakota - 54.7
Maine - 64.5
Vermont - 74.2 (worst)

". . . "
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 03:51:32 pm


Strength of the Teachers' Unions
A measure of the strength of the National Education Association which the Free State activists will be going up against in any effort to privatize schools, change the curriculae, cut back the tax funding for public schools, or any other move that the school establishment would view as a challenge to their monopoly power. The following refers only to NEA numbers.  Note that AFT "votes" are full time equivalents and thus the "voters" which could be allied against us may be many, many more -- nearly every part timer and substitute teacher.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mantonucci/archives/20020716.htm
http://www.aft.org/

Total teacher numbers is also a crucial factor for the FSP - just like total voter numbers. In Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, and Montana the teachers would outnumber the 20,000 Free State activists.  Just the 18,288 NEA membership in Maine would give 20,000 Free State activists a run for their money. When AFT numbers are added to the NEA membership, Alaska (13,560+) and Montana (14,194) teachers could give the Free State activists a hard fight. Teachers, especially union teachers, are activists - if for no other reason than they daily reach a large number of students and their parents. Remember too that the schools also swing a huge number of votes when spouses and parents are added to the weight the teachers, administrators and staff have. Yet their unending demands for more money can be defeated as we did three times in a row in our community (Leadville/Lake County in Colorado).

Note that the first category is the “best” from an anti-union monoploy standpoint.
The last category is the “worst”. How else to interpret these numbers is up to you.
Source:
http://www.nilrr.org/MonsterMonopoly.htm

Percent of K-12 employees in the NEA (2000 membership vs total employees)
(states with less than 1,000 AFT "votes" were omitted from the source for AFT numbers)

States That Do Not Authorize Teacher-Monopoly Bargaining or Forced-Dues      
38.30%   Wyoming (5,713 of 14,930)
       
States With Teacher Monopoly Bargaining, But No Forced Dues For Teachers      
36.10%   South Dakota (6,524 of 18,053)
37.60%   Idaho (11,132 of 29,613)
51.10%   Vermont (8,974 of 17,559)
51.70%   North Dakota (7,282 of 14,074) + 1,665 in AFT for total 63.6%
53.30%   Maine (18,288 of 34,301)
       
States That Authorize Teacher Monopoly Bargaining and Forced Dues      
40.80%   New Hampshire (11,834 of 28,974)
49.50%   Montana (10,621 of 21,477) + 3,573 in AFT for total 63.6%
53.90%   Alaska (9,892 of 18,342) + 3,668 in AFT for total 53.9%
60.40%   Delaware (9,239 of 15,290)

P.S.
Feel free to add more data in more posts.

Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 14, 2003, 04:04:52 pm
Robert tipped me off to Tim Condon's new paper,
http://www.freestateproject.org/wyoming_20feb03.htm
in which Tim cited the RLC Liberty index.
http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/index.htm

Of course the RLC never mentions David Nolan, they just swiped his idea with their "libergraph".

I looked at the rollcall votes for last year, it looks like a good libertarian index although some of the votes are hard to understand, and I had one question about a vote to fund 5 school-choice demonstration projects to the tune of $50 million - the position of the compiler of this index was in favor of this program. I have a problem with this for two reasons: not in the Constitution, and "school choice" includes such state education programs as charter schools. However most libertarian think tanks favor "school choice" as well, so the compiler is in the "think-tank mainstream" on this one (and they are all wrong if you ask me).

But generally the index appears to be a pretty reliable one, for us.

I had a problem with how to rate our states. First, how do you weigh senate vs house positions? Some of our states have two reps, some one. The states with two thus do not have everyone in the state voting for them. However I just averaged senate and house seats as if they were equivalent. The other issue is, do we want a most recent snapshot, or the whole 10 years of data he has? I opted to go the whole 10 year route, thus taking in more elected officials (some who are no longer there) and more roll call votes. This gives us more data points. The downside of course is that it may ignore recent trends, but oh, well! I have the little spreadsheet where I put this together if anyone wants to check my work.

Here are the ratings of Congresspersons elected in these states over the last 10 years, based on personal freedom. Higher numbers are better:

WY 67.4
ID 65.6
AK 64.0
NH 61.7
MT 57.0
SD 47.8
ME 47.5
VT 42.0
DE 39.3
ND 36.3

Here are the economic freedom ratings.

WY 79.2
NH 74.7
ID 72.3
AK 67.0
MT 52.4
DE 51.5
SD 50.0
ME 45.4
VT 32.7
ND 27.0

Here are both ratings combined, for a freedom rating:

WY 73.3
ID 68.9
NH 68.2
AK 65.5
MT 54.7
SD 48.9
ME 46.4
DE 45.4
VT 37.3
ND 31.6

Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: johnadams on August 14, 2003, 08:31:05 pm
Quote
Joe wrote: Maine has less Federal land than all but Delaware.
That is indeed a major benefit and I am pleased that Maine has so far resisted attempts to federalize some of the forest lands. Why do you think several of the Westerners here promote federal lands as a benefit, including in the FSP spreadsheet? I've seen some of their attempted explanations and I just don't understand them. Have you been able to understand their explanations?
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: johnadams on August 14, 2003, 09:01:11 pm
Quote
Locationx3 Exitus wrote: In addition, many comments have been made suggesting that Canada is "not a friend".

True, though we could launch an invasion of Canada from Maine, NH or VT. We could finish the job that Ethen Allen and the IRA (believe it or not) attempted. ;)

Quote
Joe wrote: Being a 51st state would offer an easier and more peaceful alternative.
Yeah, but people don't like odd numbers. Better split Maine into three states so you get an even total of 52. ;)

Quote
If they move, they should be persuaded to not stop in New Hampshire but keep going --
OK, in that case we'll need plenty of ammo to do the persuadin'. ;)

Quote
there is a very large percentage of repressed Republicans and Independents in Massachusetts that could give support to more Liberty if they felt they had a fighting chance to reclaim their state).
I sure hope so. I'm one of the independent-minded Massachusetts Libertarians. It seems like even a lot of the Democrats here have libertarian tendencies given that they keep electing pro-business, tax-cutting Republican governors and vote in tax cuts of their own via ballot initiatives.

There seems to be more openness toward libertarianism among the younger crowd here in MA. One time when I voted a young guy was checking off the names and handing out the ballots. When he noticed that my name had an "L" by it he blurted out, "Cool! A Libertarian!" It wasn't exactly proper poll procedure, but it was rather encouraging.

Quote
This is "Take Back New England!"
I like it! You're posts are definitely colorful, Joe. :)
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Kelton on August 15, 2003, 11:25:23 am
Quote
Locationx3 wrote: In addition, many comments have been made suggesting that Canada is "not a friend".

True, though we could launch an invasion of Canada from Maine, NH or VT. We could finish the job that Ethen Allen and the IRA (believe it or not) attempted. ;)

So I see that you agree with those who say that Canada is not a friend.  Westerners actually have a lot more in common with Canadians in Alberta and B.C. than with Canadians in Ontario and Quebec.  And by the way, I wrote that, not LocationX3, but close enough, we already share a lot in common.

Quote
Quote
If they move, they should be persuaded to not stop in New Hampshire but keep going --
OK, in that case we'll need plenty of ammo to do the persuadin'. ;)
Really, it's that bad?  So the anti-freedom lot in Kennebunkport and Portland are more entrenched and aggressive than I thought?

Quote
Quote
This is "Take Back New England!"
I like it! You're posts are definitely colorful, Joe. :)

That's funny, I thought I joined the Free STATE Project.  I'm all for the idea of regionalism, I fully expect and have even promoted the idea of some degree of support and the spill-over effect to occur in any one of our states that may be chosen, except Alaska, of course.  Hey, I'm all for re-claiming California for liberty too!

But the idea that got LocationX3 going here was seeing so many people flock to the 101 reasons why NH was just 'the bomb' and yet simultaneously support Maine which is far less like NH than less than half our other states, except it being next-door and in the region.

Before we can lead other states in a region towards more liberty we must first obtain substantial political goals in our own chosen state.   In absolute terms, using objectifiable and quantifiable criteria, Idaho clearly offers us far more than Maine!

If you must choose a state by conjecture and speculation about future events, rank Maine above Idaho, but if you prefer to examine real and quantifiable measures, like those in this thread, then by all means,  I think you know what to do.  After all, the whole idea that the FSP is even a viable project in any state is pure speculation, why not speculate based on the most objective criteria available?
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Kelton on August 15, 2003, 01:00:05 pm
There has been many calls on this forum to seriously examine the three upper-tier population states.

Of these, New Hampshire supporters have rigorously promoted the strong NHLP, the FSP-friendly governor, and a certain 'New-Hampshire libertarian' culture apparent as being an asset to the FSP, also the apparent ease with which one can obtain a public office in NH.

By itself, Maine supporters promote an independent tradition and independent potential,  but most other claims that Maine is like New Hampshire in favorability for the FSP rest upon New Hampshire's coat-tails.

As far as using Libertarian Party vote totals as a measure of potential, Idaho can stand on its own. . .
November 2002 Election Results:  Highlights & Tallies
http://www.lp.org/campaigns/results/highlights.php?type=votesbystate
Total Libertarian Votes by State

11,356    Alaska
4,642      Delaware
197,900  Idaho
1,440      Maine
22,560    Montana
39,762    New Hampshire
41,314    South Dakota
29,927    Vermont
43,944    Wyoming
 
In light of the fact that Maine also has more voters than Idaho, in comparison these numbers should be significant.  It would seem that this is one more reason to ask the question, why in the world would you rank Maine over Idaho?
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Kelton on August 15, 2003, 04:17:53 pm
On another thread entitled, 'The most important number of all' (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2750;start=0) James Maynard presents the  Members By State Statistics (http://www.freestateproject.org/member_maps/MembersByState_numbers.htm) as being a critical measurement of "where people will be the most receptive to the FSP".  While many have seriously doubted this as an objective measurement and rendered it as having entertainment value only, to those who think there may be some merit in it, and still remain undecided whether Idaho is a superior choice over Maine, consider that Idaho has 2.3 times better turn-out than Maine Per 1000 population even though Maine has more adult residents.

NH 0.1208
AK 0.0668
WY 0.0622
ID 0.0544
DE 0.0446
SD 0.0315
VT 0.0324
ME 0.0270
ND 0.0237
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Robert H. on August 16, 2003, 05:42:12 pm
Maine presents something of a problem for me as its has so much potential and yet, so many detracting factors as well.

It has the strongest potential for autonomy of all the eastern states, as well as the strongest potential for creating new states.  This is one area where I respectfully disagree with Jason: I think that the creation of new states by subdividing old ones is going to become more attractive in the future as a means of granting more representation to those who are currently losing their voice in national politics.

California has 50+ electoral votes and representatives in Congress now (and is growing ever larger), and a handful of other states are growing larger as well.  Before long, this handful of states will essentially control the Executive Branch and the House of representatives to an extent that the rest of the country might as well not be represented at all save in the Senate.

Maine is a place where current discontentment with the system may lead the way in creating new states as a compromise measure, which would be interesting when you consider that Maine was once at the heart of the one of the most famous compromises in US history: the Missouri Compromise of 1820.  In this situation, Maine entered the Union as a free state, while Missouri entered as a slave state, balancing the representation of opposing political forces for a time.

Maine is also probably the only eastern state that would really appeal to westerners, and, as others have mentioned, it has a strong history of supporting independents.

The problem is essentially this: do we want to live under Maine's onerous taxes in the hope of turning her back to liberty when there is no promise that we will be able to do so, and when other candidates may be simpler to turn?

Maine seems to be a state of many potential benefits, and many real problems; a diamond, perhaps, but definitely one in the rough.
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: varrin on August 17, 2003, 12:04:29 am
Before long, this handful of states will essentially control the Executive Branch and the House of representatives to an extent that the rest of the country might as well not be represented at all save in the Senate.

So then we should split Maine in to 11 little states and take 10 of them for ourselves.  That'd give us 20 of the 120 Senators which would surely wield a substantial amount of power ;)

Seriously though, Idaho beats Maine hands down on almost every objective measurement imaginable.  In fact, Idaho beats *all* the other states on many of the objective factors.  

If Maine were 200,000 population, maybe you could make a case for it, but if we're going to look at high population states (over, say, 900,000), Idaho and New Hampshire are the only ones worth looking at.  Any strength that another state has significantly over either Idaho *or* New Hampshire can be mirrored by a lower population state (particularly Alaska and Wyoming).

V- (delurk, relurk)

Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Robert H. on August 17, 2003, 10:50:10 am
If Maine were 200,000 population, maybe you could make a case for it, but if we're going to look at high population states (over, say, 900,000), Idaho and New Hampshire are the only ones worth looking at.  Any strength that another state has significantly over either Idaho *or* New Hampshire can be mirrored by a lower population state (particularly Alaska and Wyoming).

Actually, in spite of what I wrote above, I do rank Idaho higher than Maine.  In fact, I also rank it higher than three low population states: VT, DE, and ND.  I think that a good case has been made for its having a liberty-friendly population, and it also has a few advantages that New Hampshire lacks: liberty-friendly neighboring states, the initiative and referendum, right-to-work laws, and a top-ranking homeschooling environment (like AK).  These are some very important elements for me.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: glen on August 17, 2003, 11:01:52 pm
Hi Varrin

I like the actual Idaho web site.
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 04:15:29 am
Sorry for the slow reply, Joe. It took time for me to plow through the new posts and topics and find this thread again.

.... So what is the issue with the federal lands? That they could lock the locals out of those lands?

Hardly. There is much more to the issue then that. Did you ever stop to consider that the feds can block access from one area of private land to another by shutting down roads that travel through federal lands? Did you know that this has happened in Western states and caused an uproar among locals when it has happened? Did you know that such actions by the feds can ruin the livelihoods of ranchers and farmers and destroy property values? And the problems run much deeper and wider than that.

Quote
FreedomRoad wrote: It is the amount of land left in private ownership which is the most important criteria!

Wrong again. For the purposes of the FSP, SMALLER STATE SIZE IS BETTER, not larger. A larger state is more unwieldy and difficult to traverse and manage by a movement like the FSP. And socialistic nationalization of land is bad in and of itself—do you not agree?

• Is government ownership and nationalization of land in general a bad thing or not?
• Does the release of wolves, grizzly bears and other predators on federal lands by the feds negatively affect ranchers, farmers and residents on adjacent properties or not?
• Is it a problem or not when the federal government forces a right of way across private lands in order to get to their federal lands (a problem that residents of Wyoming, such as John Blatt and Bob Harrower of Pinedale, are currently complaining about)?
• Is it a problem or not when the general public trespasses across private owners’ land to access public land, and recreate on the private land, trash it, cause fires, cause ruts by driving across it in 4WD vehicles and snowmobiles, poach animals, etc., as been increasingly happening in WY as the population grows? Is not Tara Miller, of Big Piney, WY, right when she says, “With the increasing population here and explosion in Utah only 3-1/2 hours away, the people problem will most likely worsen.” Is it not a fact that recreational-use federal lands attract people by the tens of thousands to come tramping across adjacent private lands and bring their trash, traffic and all the problems assorted with large population flows of nonresidents?
• Will not working to privatize federal and state lands be part of any Free State Project, and thus will not more lands in government hands mean more work over a longer period of time to create something more closely resembling the Free State conceived of in the Free State Project?
• If federal lands are not a significant problem why do the Wyoming Republican and Libertarian parties include reclaiming federal lands as a plank in their platforms?
• Does not more federal lands in a state create more dependency in that state on the feds to manage those lands and to tell them whether they can have grazing rights or not?
• Are you aware that the federal government is the biggest polluter in the nation and that it does some of that polluting on federal lands?

Perhaps you’ll find the arguments of prominent libertarians on the federal lands issue more persuasive than the complaints of rank-and-file Wyoming residents and my own input:

Why did Steve Richardson, in his campaign as a Libertarian in 1998 for U.S. House-WY, call for privatization of federal lands by direct transfer to U.S. citizens if federal lands are not that big a deal?

"It's time we [Wyoming residents] started behaving like a sovereign state. Until we do, our fellow Americans will continue to treat us as the dependent colony we've become." --Steve Richardson, http://www.wyolp.org/releases.98.1.html


CATO Analysis:
How and Why to Privatize Federal Lands

by Terry Anderson, Vernon Smith and Emily Simmons
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-363es.html

Executive Summary
Fully a third of the land area of the United States is owned by the federal government. Although many Americans support the preservation of those lands, analysts on the left and the right agree that the federal government has done an exceedingly poor job of stewarding those resources. Indeed, the failure of socialism is as evident in the realm of resource economics as it is in other areas of the economy.

Four criteria should guide reform efforts: land should be allocated to the highest-valued use; transaction costs should be kept to a minimum; there must be broad participation in the divestiture process; and "squatters' rights" should be protected. Unfortunately, the land reform proposals on the table today fail to meet some or all of those criteria.

Accordingly, we offer a blueprint for auctioning off all public lands over 20 to 40 years. Both environmental quality and economic efficiency would be enhanced by private rather than public ownership. Land would be auctioned not for dollars but for public land share certificates (analogous to no par value stock certificates) distributed equally to all Americans. Those certificates could be freely transferred at any time during the divestiture period and would not expire until after the final auction. Land would be partitioned into tracts or primary units, and corresponding to each tract would be a set of distinct, separable, elemental deed rights. Any individual with a documented claim to rights defined by those deeds, however, would be assigned the appropriate deed or deeds. Once divested, tract deed rights would be freely transferable.


Why Federal Lands Hurt the Free State

Federal Lands = Nanny Statism = Federal Imperialism

To summarize what I have covered here, federal lands…
• Hurt environmental quality (the federal government is a poor steward and the largest polluter in the nation)
• Hurt economic efficiency, including resource-use efficiency and highest-valued use efficiency, and wealth creation with waste, mismanagement and opportunity costs
• Increase costs to tax payers and reduce the current and potential tax and fee base
• Increase the likelihood of wolves, grizzly bears and other predators being released on federal lands with little or no supervision or responsibility for consequences, negatively affecting ranchers, farmers and residents on nearby properties
• Increase the likelihood of the federal government forcing a right of way across private lands in order to get to their federal lands
• Increase the likelihood of the general public trespassing across private owners’ land to access public land, creating damage in so doing
• Mean more work for any Free State Project, diverting time and resources from other efforts
• Create more dependency on the nanny state to manage those lands and to tell citizens whether they can have grazing, recreational, right-of-way, etc. rights or not, and by creating more public employees and special interest groups with vested interests in profiting from and expanding further the federal lands


There are only two reasons I can think of for weighting federal lands as a positive, and perhaps they are what the creators were thinking of when they weighted that factor positively in the spreadsheet. One is that the lands could be sold off to generate some cash for a future libertarian government. The second was mentioned as a possibility by Keith Murphy at Examining Government Land Ownership on August 07, 2003, 02:04:24 pm: that federal lands cause such problems for residents of the states that have them that it helps push them toward antagonism toward the federal government.

Regarding the first possible reason, federal lands is a very difficult issue that will divert attention, time, resources and people away from tackling other issues. In order to tackle the federal government on the federal lands problem we are going to need a majority in both houses of the congress. That is a far-off goal that will first require our building power in numerous states.

As regards the second possible reason, if the spreadsheet were consistent it would need to weight other negative factors as positives using the same reverse-logic. Favoring a state because it has things that piss libertarians off doesn’t seem like a wise course.

At the very least one must agree that applying a POSTIVE Weighting to federal lands on the FSP spreadsheet leads to a perverse result. By the logic of this weighting, a state with 100% federally owned lands would achieve the BEST score!
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 04:26:36 am
True, though we could launch an invasion of Canada from Maine, NH or VT. We could finish the job that Ethen Allen and the IRA (believe it or not) attempted. ;)
So I see that you agree with those who say that Canada is not a friend.
It was supposed to be a joke. I don't really think we should invade Canada. I hope you understood that and are just playing along with the joke. :)

Quote
If they move, they should be persuaded to not stop in New Hampshire but keep going --
Quote
OK, in that case we'll need plenty of ammo to do the persuadin'.  ;)
Quote
Really, it's that bad?  So the anti-freedom lot in Kennebunkport and Portland are more entrenched and aggressive than I thought?
Again, it was a joke, which I hope you understood and are just pulling my leg right back!  ;D

Quote
This is "Take Back New England!"
Quote
I like it! You're posts are definitely colorful, Joe. :)
Quote
That's funny, I thought I joined the Free STATE Project.  I'm all for the idea of regionalism, ....
I think Joe's intention was probably that we would eventually "take back New England," Exitus. I don't think anyone has ever proposed anywhere on this BBS that we tackle several states at once, and I don't think that quote was an exception. Perhaps you were just joking here also, and don't expect anyone to take your criticism of a supposed regional attack seriously? Sometimes I don't know whether you're joking or serious.

And eventually taking back all of New England won't be as difficult as you might think. Once the FSP succeeds in NH, the othe nearby states will want to emulate it. ME and VT already have some factors that favor a spread of the NH libertarian revolution there, despite the gains the leftists have made in recent years there--a reversal of direction is still possible. And MA has actually been gradually moving away from the worst excesses of the Dukakis-era liberalism. We even had a libertarian-Republican governor who we re-elected (Bill Weld) before he moved on to book writing and law (and he was still very popular when he moved on) and we have had many tax and fee cuts. We still have more work to do here in MA, but a successful FSP in NH will give us just the kick we need to really get the reform going here in MA. Thanks to all you FSP people for your commitment! I think you will be in the vanguard of a new American Revolution!
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 07:27:31 am
....
Idaho Atheists Inc. http://www.idahoatheists.org/
Google Directory Listing: Atheism

Humanists of Idaho: http://idaho.humanists.net/index.html
Google Directory Listing: Humanism

Buddha - net directory: http://www.buddhanet.net/americas/usa_id.htm Google Directory Listing: Buddhism
....
Hindu Temples: http://www.garamchai.com/templesNW.htm
Google Directory Listing: Hinduism

Universal Unitarians: http://www.pnwd.uua.org/directory_print.html#ID
Google Directory Listing: Unitarian Universalism
....
And now for something completely different: http://www.churchofreality.org/
Thanks for this information, Glen. The existence of offices in Idaho of the above organizations would make me feel more comfortable as an atheist, rationalist Libertarian that I might be accepted in Idaho and find other like-minded people, and other libertarians like me would likely also take some comfort in this.
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Kelton on August 19, 2003, 12:22:29 pm
Exitus. I don't think anyone has ever proposed anywhere on this BBS that we tackle several states at once, and I don't think that quote was an exception. Perhaps you were just joking here also, and don't expect anyone to take your criticism of a supposed regional attack seriously? Sometimes I don't know whether you're joking or serious.

I'm really bad with not using smilies enough.  Dead-pan humor with understatements and obvious exaggerations seems to be my forté when speaking in person, but it is a proven weakness in my writing.  

Truth is, I'm only half-serious, I do mean that we should be cautious in hoping to push the autonomy issue of a state with a next-door Canadian government and while Canada has certain libertarian strengths, on the whole it is less free than most of our neighboring U.S. states.  But no, I realize you were only  joking of an armed Canadian invasion.  (Not that it wouldn't be oh too easy with an unarmed Canadian populace --(that is a joke of course-- insert smilie here: :) )).
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: Kelton on August 19, 2003, 12:41:00 pm

As to Libertarian votes...


Joe, I'm not going to quote that statement in its entirety in case you may later wish to re-phrase that comment about the Libertarian Party or in case I am mis-interpreting a joke, but I must say I agree with the jist of what you are saying.

--
For example. . .
 there is a political wonder-boy running for office in a certain locale that I am familiar with.  He was the former chair of the local LP there.  He is a smart and tenacious lawyer.  He has handsome good looks, is very good in speaking, politically slick and camera-saavy and has some good well-monied connections.  Needless to say, this ambitious fellow decided to drop-out of the LP and join up with them evil Republicans in order to have some real chance of winning an election in his lifetime.

Now that he is getting on talk-radio shows and spreading the message of liberty and seeking to establish his name out on the political front for the 2004 elections, the LP that he used to lead is now labeling him as a traitor.  It is actually a little more complicated than that, but essentially, it is pure partisanship.  At a recent meeting, the officers of the LP started thinking of ways they could publically humiliate this guy and hamstring his political efforts.  This kind of action makes me very angry.  Too many libertarians like to take political purity tests of each other and avoid the real dirty work of securing liberty through political channels.  It's the old crabs in a bucket allegory, they prefer to run paper candidates and maintain themselves as the purist vote influencers.
________________________________________________

I hope that in our chosen state, we learn to attack the most obvious enemies of freedom first, and not people who will potentially be allies even if they make an occasional compromise by joining the wrong party. . .

And if this is your point, that Maine is highly independent and has a relatively weak LP that will force us all to have to become independents when running for office there, in order to become politically viable, then point taken.
Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
Post by: skypod on August 19, 2003, 12:47:05 pm
One reason someone might have chosing Maine over the western states is Maine has access ports.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Friday Jones on August 26, 2003, 04:22:33 pm
Just bumping this thread so people don't have to scroll through 7 pages to find Idaho!   :)
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 26, 2003, 04:27:04 pm
Good job. ID is my second choice. Just after NH ;)
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: DadELK68 on August 26, 2003, 04:32:53 pm
Same here. Having grown up in ID and now living in NH, I've long felt that NH is the ID of the East, or that ID is the NH of the West, whichever way you prefer to look at it.

Eric
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Bonner County on August 26, 2003, 09:05:54 pm
  Don't forget the people of Idaho who form the juries.We KNOW about jury nullification.For example,Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris were set free after their showdown with the FEDs.Then after the civil trial Weaver was awarded a $3.1 million verdict.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: Kelton on August 26, 2003, 09:58:46 pm
 Don't forget the people of Idaho who form the juries.We KNOW about jury nullification.For example,Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris were set free after their showdown with the FEDs.Then after the civil trial Weaver was awarded a $3.1 million settlement. As opposed to [other high-profile instances].



I agree that constitutional issues are at the forefront of the minds of many in Idaho.  Several prominent Supreme Court cases challenging various federal agencies have come out of Idaho, brought by private citizens.  I can still vividly remember the highway display I saw just south of Preston, ID where a giant (50 foot long) old septic tank and a mobile home and some farm equipment are all painted with bright messages extolling the Constitution and freedom.  Also, just picked this comment off the FSP-Idaho discussion,
Ashcroft Patriot Act Tour Stops in Boise (http://www.klewtv.com/x5781.xml?ParentPageID=x5649&ContentID=x45699&Layout=KLEW.xsl&AdGroupID=x5781)
The attorney general was hoping for a receptive audience but there are some even in law enforcement who are still skeptical.  "I'm just concerned about our rights," said Owhyee County Sheriff Gary Aman after attending the speech.  "I swear to uphold the Constitution and I want to do that and I want to be careful how I do that."
 
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: uiiu on August 27, 2003, 09:42:03 pm
Butch Otter is a member of Ron Pauls liberty coalition.
How many other states have a congressman named Butch.
Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: phylinidaho on August 29, 2003, 09:19:41 pm
Idaho on Front Page of Washington Post!

"BOISE, Idaho -- Even here, in a bedrock Republican state in
the heart of the conservative Mountain West, a lot of
people think Attorney General John D. Ashcroft has gone too
far.

One of this state's most prominent politicians, Rep. C.L.
"Butch" Otter (R), is leading an effort in Congress to
curtail the centerpiece of Ashcroft's anti-terrorism
strategy, the USA Patriot Act. Sen. Larry E. Craig
(R-Idaho), who used to croon alongside Ashcroft in a
senatorial quartet, said this month that Congress may have
to consider scaling back parts of the law. And in a state
with an all-GOP congressional delegation, several city
councils and the legislature are considering resolutions
condemning Ashcroft's tactics in the war on terrorism.

"Ashcroft wants more power," said state Rep. Charles Eberle
(R-Post Falls), who has drafted a resolution critical of
the Patriot Act. "What a lot of us in Idaho are saying is,
'Let's not get rid of the checks and balances.' . . .
People out here in the West are used to taking care of
themselves. We don't like the government intruding on our
constitutional rights."

for complete article see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A61836-2003Aug28?language=printer

Title: Re:Idaho Free State .com
Post by: varrin on August 30, 2003, 08:54:45 am
Y'all,

This Washington Post article made Yahoo!'s front page news headlines.  These guys *are* making some noise in the interest of liberty.  I don't normally jab at the competition, so please allow me this one exception.  Where's the Yahoo! News headline from NH or WY about their actively libertarian representatives?  I haven't seen it.  I watch those things fairly regularly and this is the first one of its kind I've seen.

So all you NH people who (maybe rightly) promote the work of your people on the ground already, don't discount ID.  It's not just 1 of them either.  Craig is mentioned and the ID combined RLC scores have now *risen* to the very top of the nation despite the so-called 'statist population growth' effect.

I could gush on, but it's all been said before...

V-

Title: Re:100 VARIABLES, OVER 10 YRS - IDAHO FIRST!!!!
Post by: Kelton on August 30, 2003, 09:51:25 am
It's the tax rate in Idaho that is Idaho's lead balloon, though overall, it's far better than several other candidate states, like Maine and Vermont.

The EFI weighed the tax factor less than in other indexes, that is why Idaho sailed to the top of 50 states.  The other indexes weren't so kind.  When it comes to regulatory environment, judicial system, and other factors, ID is most definitely tops.  When you think about it, regulation in and of itself is a tax, of sorts.

If we should go to Idaho, education should be one of our strongest concerns.  I read where 60% of the Idaho state budget, excluding federal grants, went straight to education, and yes, that's including lottery proceeds.  Idaho is already there on the homeschooling front, it is already as practically  free as anyone can envision it.  The tuition rates for public higher ed. in Idaho is some of the lowest in the nation, that could use a few changes.  Interestingly, teachers in Idaho are also some of the lowest-paid in the nation too, so many of them might welcome privatized schools if the higher money could be dangled in front of their eyes.

.
.. . ..  
.
               
 .  .
:
     
:
 
. . ..  . . .  
 .             .       . . .
:         .     :
.                 .          . . .   .        .       .          .      .   . . .   .    .
       
.
               
 .
:
       
:
               
 .
: . .  . .     . .             .       .           .  .     .
 
    .
    • .   .        .                 .               .               .            .       .     .     .     .   .  .
    (confetti and balloons fall down ) . . .

    1000th post!
    (exitus, Greatest hits, Vols. 1 and 4 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=viewprofile;user=kelton) = 460;  exitus.., Greatest hits, Vol. 2 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=viewprofile;user=exitos)=180 and exitus.., Greatest hits, Vol 3 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=viewprofile;user=Quest.on) = 360 : total= 1000 )
    Title: Re:100 VARIABLES, OVER 10 YRS - IDAHO FIRST!!!!
    Post by: jhfenton on August 30, 2003, 10:02:54 am
    1000th post!
    (exitus, Greatest hits, Vols. 1 and 4 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=viewprofile;user=kelton) = 460;  exitus.., Greatest hits, Vol. 2 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=viewprofile;user=exitos)=180 and exitus.., Greatest hits, Vol 3 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=viewprofile;user=Quest.on) = 360 : total= 1000 )

    Omigod, I didn't realize there were three of you!  :-\
    Title: Re:100 VARIABLES, OVER 10 YRS - IDAHO FIRST!!!!
    Post by: jhfenton on August 30, 2003, 10:13:17 am
    On a scale of 1 to 10, IDAHO CAME IN FIRST!!, with a score
    of 3.92. Unlike others who select stats for their own purposes,
    I will mention Wyoming and S. Dakota were runner-ups.

    I keep saying that South Dakota is under-rated. It's been my clear second choice for a long time.

    I agree Idaho would be a top contender if not for its current population and incredible project growth.

    WY > SD > AK > MT > NH > ND > VT > DE > ID > ME
    Title: Re:Why In the World Would You Rank Maine over Idaho?
    Post by: Porcupineapple on August 30, 2003, 05:14:44 pm
    My empty bottle . . .says DEP: ME, VT, CT, DE, NY, MA 5 cents, MI 10 cents.


    No such bottle deposit in Idaho!
    Title: Re:100 VARIABLES, OVER 10 YRS - IDAHO FIRST!!!!
    Post by: varrin on August 31, 2003, 03:43:29 am
    exitus,

    Congrats on 1000 excellent posts!  You da MAN! ;)

    But mabye I'll add something to this thread.  This might be worthwhile...  Let's think about how we rank things on the spreadsheet (BTW, ID comes out *way* in first place in my spreadsheet rankings.. dunno what you all are doing wrong ;))  There are *lots* of variables one the spreadsheets.  Not all of them are important and some of them duplicate things.  This particular study is highly comprehensive.  I haven't studied it in depth, but my guess is the other two mentioned by zxcv encompass some degree of overlap but with a significant weight on the income tax issue (and maybe sales tax as well).  I suspect ID takes a ding in spreadsheet rankings as a result of weighting the other indexes (in which it scores less well) highly *and* weighting the independent tax variables (also available on the spreadsheet) highly.  Hence, those of you who are doing that (tsk, tsk) are double or triple counting a fat negative for ID.

    Why is this important?  Because tax cuts are an easy sell, especially in Idaho.  Yes, they're a negative, but they're easier to repeal than, say, welfare useage which *causes* taxes but is, itself, more difficult to deal with from a marketing standpoint.  And they're an especially easy target in Idaho which ranks #1 in the Citizen Ideology study by a considerable margin.  This is *huge* for Idaho.  And, not only do Idaho's citizens score well on the Citizen Idology study, but they repeatedly prove their ideology by voting for more and more libertarian candidates despite the supposed dramatic increase in 'statist immigration'.  

    Okay, so it's so impressive that now I'm making it sound like Idaho doesn't even need the FSP.......  ;)

    V-

    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: Bonner County on September 01, 2003, 07:19:45 am
      I read somewhere that the state is actively lobbying the high tech companys that are leaving california.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: Kelton on September 01, 2003, 09:01:37 am
    In response to Varrin's post above:

    Re: spreadsheets. . .

    Yes, the various weightings in the spreadsheets and what all went into them is far from perfect, though it is still a useful tool.  Here are some other things I have noticed that have harmed Idaho in the spreadsheets:

    --Idaho has the lowest seat-belt fine in the country (next to NH, of course) yet for most of the duration of the spreadsheet, Idaho merely tied for 4th.


    -- Idaho has the absolute most liberal direct-sale alcohol laws among our candidate states where most other states even impose a felony for the same.
    Idaho has the absolute lowest wine tax, the 3rd-lowest beer tax and no tax on liquor (where other states have very high taxes: Alaska has a tax of $12.80, the highest in the country).  Yet Idaho took 10th place among our candidate states!  Mostly because of state liquor stores (several other candidate states have these, and all but two are state-controlled distribution) and because Idaho does not pre-empt communities from passing Sunday purchase laws.


    Idaho actually allows the same freedom that 1st-place ranked Alaska does, yet the language of the Alaska law says so in many less words, so Alaska took first place on our spreadsheet. However, unlike Alaska, Idaho is the only state that allows parents to form homeschooling co-ops, to hire an unlicensed tutor, to form a private voluntary school without obtaining a license, to allow grandparents, neighbors, or anyone else to homeschool the children, also the only state that does not require notification to homeschool outside the home, and prohibits school officials from even speaking with homeschooled children.

    I am not bitter about this, the few people who actually use the spreadsheets rarely base their opinion on it.  Most Montana fans claim that Montana is the most free state no matter how badly that state fares in the spreadsheet because bad laws aren't much enforced there, they say; the same has been said by many Alaska fans.
    I guess the only thing we do know is that once we have our chosen state, even the most strident fans will have to admit it wasn't really as good as they had hoped.  :o

    Re:  'statist immigration'

    I just don't understand some of these prejudices some people have.  Since Idaho is 8% hispanic and growing does not mean that Idaho is a lost cause!  Really?  Let's see: in Mexico, I can buy prescription drugs without a prescription, there are no overly-powerful neighborhood associations seeking to enforce unduly laws against my bright pink and green house or dead car in front, I could go to the beach and join tens of thousands of other hedonists from the U.S.  I can sell my labor on the street-corner without worry over OSHA, LRB, EEOC, or IRS getting down my case.   How statist is Mexico really?  Most of the problems in Mexico stem from policies by a socialist party that was recently voted-out of power, that and the U.S.-led Drug War.  Hmmm. . .

    If people come from statist places seeking refuge in less statist places, does that mean they come to corrupt the place?  Really?!~
    So, Chinese immigrants now settling in New Hampshire are seeking to install Communism?  Really?  

    History proves that a different dynamic actually takes place.  Gun-laws in this country came about during a time of increased immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, same with Prohibition.  What actually happens is that an anti-immigrant backlash creates an environment that elitists easily exploit: reference California.  There once was a time when the hispanic vote was divided between the parties, now it is 3:1 for the Democrats, even the most statist ones, thanks in large part to conservatives focusing against immigrants and not bad policies.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: JasonPSorens on September 01, 2003, 09:55:31 am
    It's true that the liquor laws measure doesn't deal with liquor taxation, but including that would double-count on the taxes as % of income measure.  What hurts Idaho on liquor laws, even though it has the best laws on direct sale of wine from other states, is that it allows local-option prohibition, has a state law banning liquor sales on Sunday, has state liquor stores, and forbids all liquor retail sale except by the drink.  (This last one is really strange; this is the only candidate state with such a requirement, and it seems so onerous to me that perhaps I've misinterpreted the statute.)

    Incidentally, as I look at the raw data, it seems that the spreadsheet is off.  ID is supposed to be slightly ahead of MT, VT, and ME, which are all supposed to be tied for last.  I'll have to look at the old thread on this topic to see whether there was some reason for altering the calculations I've saved.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: Kelton on September 01, 2003, 02:29:41 pm
    It's true that the liquor laws measure doesn't deal with liquor taxation, but including that would double-count on the taxes as % of income measure.  

    Good point, and that would just do more of what Varrin speaks of when he says,
    I suspect ID takes a ding in spreadsheet rankings as a result of weighting the other indexes (in which it scores less well) highly *and* weighting the independent tax variables (also available on the spreadsheet) highly.  

    What hurts Idaho on liquor laws, even though it has the best laws on direct sale of wine from other states, is that it allows local-option prohibition, has a state law banning liquor sales on Sunday, has state liquor stores, and forbids all liquor retail sale except by the drink.  (This last one is really strange; this is the only candidate state with such a requirement, and it seems so onerous to me that perhaps I've misinterpreted the statute.)
    I guess you are right, (that my list was incomplete) that's what I get for writing about things just off the top of my head without looking them up first.  


    Okay, so it's so impressive that now I'm making it sound like Idaho doesn't even need the FSP.......  ;)


    O.K. then, we'll just go to New Hampshire, show everyone how it's done, and they in the "New Hampshire of the West" will follow  ;)
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: JasonPSorens on September 01, 2003, 02:56:12 pm
    I re-examined the raw data and how the measure was compiled, and it's true that ME and VT should be on the bottom, rather than ID.  So I edited the spreadsheet and uploaded it.
    Title: Idaho Highlights
    Post by: Kelton on September 04, 2003, 03:56:01 pm
    The very first '# of Reasons to vote for State X' listing is found here in this thread, written back in February.

    The following is a compilation of thoughts about positives for Idaho.  Extensive fact-checking has gone into it, error-corrections are welcome.
    This is only a supplement to other papers about Idaho out there, much still could go into this one from those, but in the interest of time (like the fact that ballots are already sent), I present the following for your perusal:
     

       
    Idaho – Attractive for Activism

    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: varrin on September 05, 2003, 04:33:30 am
    Kelton,

    Fantastic job!!!  I'm sorry I didn't have the time to devote to Idaho.  Idaho is worth it.  I hope between this list, the ballot paper, and the already favorable impression Idaho has, that the FSP voters do rank it highly.  

    I am at the stage now where I'm really attempting to visualize things in any of the three leading candidates (i.e. ID, NH, and WY).  I must say I'm slowly warming up to WY and NH (both have their strengths and weaknesses).  But even this last few weeks, I've flown over all three states.  Between that and all the other great things about ID, I'm having a hard time imagining it any better elsewhere...

    Thanks again for your tireless work...  With any kind of luck, I'll be home soon.  Maybe we can get together!

    V-

    Title: An Idaho resident visits California
    Post by: Kelton on September 08, 2003, 04:09:00 am
    Thought I'd pass along some anecdotes about Idaho. . .

    I recently had a houseguest from Idaho Falls, Idaho stay for a few days.  She has lived in WY,UT, and ID, grew-up in Idaho and recently returned.  She scored as a left-centrist on the LP Nolan chart that I quizzed her with.

    Some quotations :

    spoken at a convenience store after two days,
    "Wow! people here in California aren't very friendly.  Nobody has even smiled.  People always return a smile in Idaho".

    spoken while at a restaurant,
    "I worked as a waitress for 5 years, a lot of people in Idaho are bad tippers, especially the old farmers.  They would come in the cafe and sit for an hour, demanding cup after cup of coffee and never leave a thing."

    Spoken while in the car,
    "Public transit! I haven't seen that since I lived in Utah. There are no public buses in Idaho."
    I then explained that there are public busses in Boise, and she responded, "I was there for five days since I needed a way to get around, had to use a taxi, no, I don't think so."

    Overheard,
    "he is my boss, he's was the guy who wasn't gay at the whole Pocatello store, then he got a better job at the Idaho Falls store to be a level 2, that's why he moved, not 'cause of that."

    And then,
    "Hey, why don't you guys move out to Idaho, you'll love it, it's much better than here, if you move to Boise, you should find a job, . . .  "  (my wife and I turned to each other winked and smiled, and then said, "oh! there's about a 1 in 10 chance that we'll move to Idaho!)  ;)
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: Zxcv on September 13, 2003, 01:49:33 pm
    Quote
    Idaho was the only candidate state to have a Republican congressmen vote against house bill 420 to de-fund federal intrusion on state medical marijuana...

    Kelton, this reads funny.

    Federal intrusion is bad. Therefore, bill 420 which defunded intrusion is good. So if Idaho's congressmen voted against bill 420, that's bad!

    I assume you just have too many negatives floating around here...  :)

    Quote
    Idaho and Wyoming both have the lowest rate of welfare use in the form of cash assistance on a level that is several times better than the next candidate state, New Hampshire.

    Are you sure about that? My big spreadsheet shows a slightly lower percentage of people in Wyoming receiving AFDC cash, and a significantly lower percentage of people in NH getting food stamps.

    On the other hand, ID looks the best on unfunded health care mandates, something it looks like you missed...

    Your friend is wrong about mass transit, there are buses in Boise:
    http://www.valleyride.org/

    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: Kelton on September 14, 2003, 10:09:46 am
    Thank you, Zxcv.  Correction made, I had one too many negatives.  Both of Idaho's reps voted for Ron Paul's bill 420 to defund marijuana raids, just like the Marijuana Policy Project had advised.


    As to AFDC welfare, I stated Wyoming and Idaho as being leaders.  Idaho was #1 in the nation from about 1995-2001, then I found that one stat showing (I think it was Jan. 2002) that Wyoming was ahead by a about 13 people out of several hundred, but then I found another authoritative source stating that Idaho remained 1st, so I decided to call them equals for lack of more data. I think it is still accurate to say that Wyoming and Idaho are leaders in this arena.  New Hampshire is near tops in low food stamp usage, however.

    Quote
    On the other hand, ID looks the best on unfunded health care mandates, something it looks like you missed...
    Correct, thanks for bringing that up, one more thing to put into my grand list of which this is only a part.  (hope to put it all together before the 22nd :) )
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: johnadams on September 19, 2003, 12:01:55 am
    Good work on promoting Idaho, Kelton. I had WY strongly in second after NH when I first started reading these fora, and I didn't think that any other states were even close, but thanks to the information provided by you and others I've since moved Idaho into second place. Of course, I'm not voting, so I don't have an effect on the vote, but I'm sure that other people must have been impressed by your rational, supported and civil arguments.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: WriteWinger on September 19, 2003, 10:16:40 pm
    I live in Texas.  I would consider moving to Idaho or maybe Montana, Wyoming 3rd.

    Idaho is the only place I have ever been where you can rent a teepee with a waterbed in it on the banks of the Salmon River surrounded by mountains...absolutely terrific place.  

    As a consultant, transporation is a must....Boise is the best choice in the state for direct flights on real airplanes to get anywhere...but it is a sight better than having to drive into Boston to catch a flight out of Logan....miserable airport...Logan.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: johnadams on September 19, 2003, 10:50:54 pm
    I live in Texas.  I would consider moving to Idaho or maybe Montana, Wyoming 3rd.

    Idaho is the only place I have ever been where you can rent a teepee with a waterbed in it on the banks of the Salmon River surrounded by mountains...absolutely terrific place.  

    As a consultant, transporation is a must....Boise is the best choice in the state for direct flights on real airplanes to get anywhere...but it is a sight better than having to drive into Boston to catch a flight out of Logan....miserable airport...Logan.
    Luckily, NH folk don't have to drive into Boston to get to an airport. Nowadays, people in northern Massachusetts drive to NH to use their airports.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: WriteWinger on September 19, 2003, 11:34:55 pm
    well having Ma people in the state is bad enough...but does your airports have real airplanes...I don't fly on anything with propellers.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: johnadams on September 20, 2003, 12:14:42 am
    well having Ma people in the state is bad enough...but does your airports have real airplanes...I don't fly on anything with propellers.
    I assume that is a joke. FYI: I do not live in NH.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: WriteWinger on September 20, 2003, 10:38:43 am
    No joke....I fly on Jets...don't like comuter aircraft.

    As for the people in the Peoples Republic of Mass....I can see the same thing happen to NH as has happened to Washington State.  The rich guilt ridden liberals move there to escape the tax nightmare they let happen in their own state and the vicious cycle begins again.  ID, MT and WY are far enough away from such places as MA and CA that the influx of "I've got mine, screw you" liberals isn't as likely.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: johnadams on September 20, 2003, 02:32:41 pm
    No joke....I fly on Jets...don't like comuter aircraft.
    ....
    The part I thought might be a joke was the part where you asked if there are any airplanes without propellers. Yes, there are. The two largest airports in the area (after Logan) have both commercial and private jets. Manchester Airport recently had a new terminal added and has become popular with people in Northern MA.

    You might want to learn a little more about NH before writing it off.

    Manchester Airport
    Manchester, NH
    Phone: 603-624-6539
    http://www.flymanchester.com
    (The audio track at this site is pretty cool. :) )
    (http://www.flymanchester.com/top_banner/main_page.jpg)
    New Hampshire's largest commercial airport, served by major airlines for domestic flights.
    Manchester is served by most of the major US carriers, either by the main carrier or a commuter company.
    (http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Harbor/4196/MHTUA737.JPG)
    (http://www.photovault.com/Link/Technology/Aviation_Airports/show.asp?tg=TAAVolume10/TAAV10P14_10)
    Commercial Airlines:
    Southwest
    United
    Delta
    US Airways
    Northwest
    Continental


    Portland International Jetport
    Portland, ME
    (About 50 miles up I-95 from Portsmouth, NH)
    Phone: 207-772-0690
    http://www.portlandjetport.org/
    (http://www.portlandjetport.org/images/Home-Image.jpg)
    Maine's international airport, with commercial flights, is just a short drive from Southern New Hampshire.
    Commercial Airlines:
    United
    US Airways
    Delta
    American Eagle
    Continental
    Northwest

    By the way, I can walk to a nearby bus terminal and take a bus to Logan Airport (run by a private bus company). So using Logan airport has been generally quite easy and convenient for me, though if you want to park at the airport you will find it expensive and inconvenient (and the pick-up/drop-off areas are poorly designed and congested). There are also other airports available to Massachusetts residents at Hanscom Field, Worcester and Rhode Island. I know people who prefer to use these airports, as well as Manchester, because flights tend to be cheaper (as well as parking).
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: Kelton on September 23, 2003, 09:55:25 am
    I was just watching a little of Jay Leno and his "Headlines" feature with amazing news and funny misprints and he had one that he thought was simply amazing and maybe not so funny, even without a misprint:

    he showed a picture of some small children and some young pigs together in the large front-loading bucket of a very large earth-mover all squealing with delight.  He said, "From Twin Falls, Idaho at the county fair, children and pigs being raised up and down in the shovel of a giant earth moving machine, can you believe it?  "Who would allow kids to be put in something like that. . .? wow!  "

    --Well, Jay,  from the state that offers more rights to parents than any other state, being the most free in the country for homeschooling, overall;  offering extensive freedom on maternity and birthing rights, rights of fathers, compulsory school attendance, insurance mandates, very limited Child Protective Services, limited state child services, recognition of maternity for jury duty, young driving age, young hunting age, no trigger-lock laws, religious exemptions for immunizations and a host of other freedoms, where parents are trusted with their own children,  I guess the answer is the good people of Idaho would allow parents to put their own children in a ride that wasn't first approved for safety by some bureaucrat!

      Having enjoyed bucket rides in front-loaders myself as a kid, growing up in Utah, I would have to say that yes, there was a certain amount of risk, more depending on the operator than the equipment, but I'm glad my parents didn't go to jail for letting me have such fun like they would have in some other states where the question of "what about the children?" is asked alarmingly and incessantly at an increasing rate.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: varrin on September 23, 2003, 04:03:27 pm
    FYI, regarding the air service comments above:

    MHT (Manchester, New Hampshire) does have a significant amount of air service.  In my air service report I ranked Boise #1 and Manchester #2 for airports in state but it's a tough call between the two of them.  Both offer a range of mainline jet, regional jet, and turboprop service.  I gave the nod to Boise simply because of the fact there are two additional low-fare carriers there v.s. Manchester (Frontier and America West).  Otherwise, Manchester is a great choice for air service.  

    V-

    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: johnadams on September 24, 2003, 01:31:19 am
    FYI, regarding the air service comments above:

    MHT (Manchester, New Hampshire) does have a significant amount of air service.  In my air service report I ranked Boise #1 and Manchester #2 for airports in state but it's a tough call between the two of them.  Both offer a range of mainline jet, regional jet, and turboprop service.  I gave the nod to Boise simply because of the fact there are two additional low-fare carriers there v.s. Manchester (Frontier and America West).  Otherwise, Manchester is a great choice for air service.  

    V-
    Yes, Boise and Manchester both offer excellent airports. NH and ID are both excellent states for the FSP, with both having vibrant, entrepreneurial economies--and WY offers a great place for a Free County Project.

    Many people may not be aware how much the Manchester airport improved since it underwent a major terminal, ramp and hanger expansion in 1999. State-of-the-art technology was incorporated, including audio communication systems with optimized acoustics, airport visual paging systems, emergency notification fire alarm systems, and an efficient baggage-claim area designed to minimize hassles. The airport also offers easy road access and plenty of affordable parking. There are nearby hotels that offer state-of-the-art conference rooms and shuttle buses to and from the airport.

    A fly-over or drive-by of Manchester’s old-fashioned-looking mill buildings does not do the city justice, for it has industrial parks with state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities. Also, nearby Bedford, NH is home to inventor Dean Camen’s assembly plant and company HQ. Camen is the world-famous inventor of the Segway and the stair-climbing I-bot wheelchair. After doing extensive research and site exploration, Camen chose the Manchester area over anywhere else in the U.S. to situate his innovative company. Greater Manchester is developing into a world-class small city with a high-tech entrepreneurial spirit.

    Despite the national economic slowdown, venture capitalists invested $40 billion during a recent 12 month period (ended in 2002) in entrepreneurial businesses. And that’s DOWN 10-15% from 2001! NH has not seen the sharp decline in business funding that other MSA’s in the country have experienced. The diverse economic base has helped NH weather the storm.

    Also, the brand-new, state-of-the-art Verizon Wireless Arena in downtown Manchester offers minor-league hockey, arena football, concerts, circuses, Boston Celtics and Bruins pre-season games, and a host of other events. In only its first year of operation, the arena added $43 million in new direct, indirect and induced spending to the Manchester economy.
    (http://www.theunionleader.com/doclib/features/PROGarena.jpg) (http://www.theunionleader.com/doclib/features/PROGarena.jpg)

    (http://www.monarchshockey.com/upload_images/vwa-web-2002.jpg) (http://www.monarchshockey.com/upload_images/vwa-web-2002.jpg)

    There is even a state-of-the-art recording studio (http://www.theunionleader.com/pages/01prog38.html) in Derry, NH, the owner of which holds patents in the development of stereo television transmission and reception.

    Are you getting the sense that NH is a state-of-the-art state yet?  :)
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: Kelton on September 25, 2003, 10:10:15 am
    News from Idaho' neighboring state, Wahington:

    Washington LP Cheers Demise of Blanket Primary (http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0311/wa_blanketprimary.html)

    "Washington state Libertarians are applauding a federal appeals court ruling that struck down the state's blanket primary."
    ___________________________

    What does this have to do with Idaho?

    Idaho does not have a blanket primary, but it does have a similar non-partisan registration,  (and so does Montana, I've heard).  Since voters are not registered by party affiliation, the primary for each political party with ballot access (currently Republican, Democrat and Libertarian) may be attended by all voters.
    This ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which also covers Montana) ruled against Washington's blanket primary on grounds that it was cited in a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar primary system in California.  The article goes on to say that,  In the court's 16-page decision, Judge Andrew J. Kleinfeld wrote that political parties have a right to let their supporters select their candidates for public office.

    "Party adherents are entitled to associate to choose their party's nominees for public office," he wrote. "The right of people adhering to a political party to freely associate is not limited to getting together for cocktails and canapés."


    Now, notice that one phrase, "party adherents are entitled to associate to choose their party's nominess for public office"  Such language could be used against Idaho's current system.  If Idaho voters continue to not wish to be registered by party affiliation, and Idaho is forced to comply with the outcome of these rulings, there may be some minor changes in how things go in Idaho.  The most significant may be that, due to the dynamics of Republican politics, primary elections may begin to cost much less for candidates.

    Of course, it is possible that administrative rulings that came out earlier this year already have tried to remove the fray by holding the primary elections in a slightly different manner with a different distribution of the ballot.  A move which the ID LP chair applauded, (for reasons I do not yet fully understand).


     
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: phylinidaho on September 25, 2003, 03:08:28 pm

    Of course, it is possible that administrative rulings that came out earlier this year already have tried to remove the fray by holding the primary elections in a slightly different manner with a different distribution of the ballot.  A move which the ID LP chair applauded, (for reasons I do not yet fully understand).

    As a 20 year resident of Idaho and a relative newcomer to the political scene, I am puzzled by the above statement. Could you please clarify?  :)
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: Kelton on September 26, 2003, 12:56:34 pm
    As a 20 year resident of Idaho and a relative newcomer to the political scene, I am puzzled by the above statement. Could you please clarify?  :)

    Hmm.  I sound like I'm rambling on a bit, don't I?

    Watching Idaho from California I am at a big disadvantage.  I would love to hear more about how it all works from an actual Idaho resident.
    That administrative ruling I refered to was from this:

    From the State Chair: Election Law may change soon
    Posted by statechair on Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 06:52 PM MST

     
     
     
    Confirming the rumor that the Secretary of State’s office was interested in removing "minor parties" from Idaho primary elections, I made an appointment to meet with them. Ben Ysursa (Sec State), Tim Hurst (assistant sec state), Penny Ysursa (office manager) and I (Idaho LP Chair) met today and discussed that and related issues.


    We started off with general, congenial conversation wherein I explained that members of the Idaho LP felt ‘strongly both ways’. While some were sure being in the primaries moved us into the realm as a significant party, others thought it was detrimental to our image. Regardless of that split, I assured them that those who wanted us in the primaries would be quite active against any move to take us out of them.

    Other issues of significant concern to them were the costs of "minor party" primaries, challenges of large numbers of last-minute filings, costs of reprinting ballots because of those filings and the overtime costs related to all that.

    We also discussed a problem in election law that makes it impossible to organize a new party central committee within the letter of the law... it requires a county central committee chair to call the meeting of the elected precinct committeemen; but you have to have the meeting before you can elect the county chair... unless the state chair calls the meeting, but the county chairs (and others) have to elect the state chair before the state chair can appoint the county chair. The law as written today is a Catch-22 with the unintended consequence of eliminating any possibility of legally forming ANY party (including the majors).

    As I mentioned, we got along well. In an hour and a quarter, we came up with agreeable compromises that solved nearly all of the concerns. They accepted my suggestion that the 80-20 rule applied here, wherein most of the problems could be resolved with little effort and some of it would be best left alone.

    Thus they will recommend to the legislature that the wording to who can call the initial meeting of the elected precinct committeemen will now include the phrase "or other such person as designated by party rule" so we and others, can qualify to form county, legislative district and state central committees.

    They will recommend adding one week to the distance between the closing of the filing period and the election, thus allowing time to deal with the last-minute rush.

    They will suggest retaining primaries for any party in any region or district that has a contested primary, but eliminate primaries where there is only one candidate running for the office - regardless of party affiliation. Thus, if there is only one person filing for a particular precinct committeeman position, there is no ballot for them, they are automatically victorious. This should save printing effort and expenses for all party elections including the ‘big one’.

    I was more than a little surprised by the speed of all this as I thought I was just going in for an informal chat with Ben to find out what they were thinking or planning to do. I was pleasantly surprised that they appreciated my opinions, ideas and suggestions and furthermore that we got most of what I thought we wanted. Of course all of this still has to go to/through the legislature. However I suspect, given the simplicity of the changes, that it just might make it.

    As a general overall mood, I will add that they seem very supportive of EVERY party in this state and show absolutely no interest in getting involved or otherwise making it difficult for anyone to associate or express their political opinions. In other words, they will let us run this 'shadow' or imitation central committee structure without any interference through the next primary wherein we should easily be able to make ourselves compliant within every letter of the law.

    Ted Dunlap

    Idaho LP Chair

    http://www.lpidaho.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=18 (http://www.lpidaho.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=18)
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: Kelton on September 26, 2003, 01:04:20 pm
    I was recently on a SkyWest (Delta Connection) jet and read their SkyWest magazine and found a really good article all about Idaho.  There is also an article about Missoula, MT in there too.  Luckily, but a little too late, I just discovered that this article is online:

    Fall In Love With Idaho
     By Amanda Bjerke

    Really good secrets are hard to keep.
    So, I have to give this one up right away.
    Idaho is paradise.

    I know, there’s not much poetry in the name. Idaho doesn’t have the same lilt as Colorado, or Montana, or even Arizona. Maybe that’s why my home state remains anonymous in much of the world. (Even some Californians, our “almost near” neighbors, get it mixed up with other multi-voweled locales—Iowa, Ohio, even Indiana.) More often than not, those who have heard of it, tend to play that unfortunate word-association game. I say “Idaho.” You say “potato.” If you’ve been here, you know better.

    Idaho, suitably nicknamed the Gem State, is much more than a cosmic-sized stretch of spuds. Warmer than most Rocky Mountain states, drier than the PaciÄc Northwest, Idaho beneÄts from a mild four-season climate. Its diverse terrain, greater than the surface area of New York, includes mountains and rivers, high-desert plains, large lakes, and the greatest chunk of wilderness in the lower 48-states. Its rich heritage is populated by the likes of Lewis and Clark, Sacagawea, Chief Joseph, and lesser-known individuals who left a communal mark on society—Chinese, Native Americans, Basques. The state’s historic landscape lingers in ghost towns, mining camps, and rustic high-country communities. Its vibrant modern cities and bustling towns are populated by friendly people—strangers who smile and say hello. It’s what lots of places used to be and wish they could be again
    . . .



    To read the rest of picturesque article,
    Go to http://www.skywestmagazine.com/ (http://www.skywestmagazine.com/), click on the link to "Delta Connection Fall 2003 "  Scroll down to the bottom, you'll find the link there.
    Title: Re:Idaho
    Post by: phylinidaho on September 26, 2003, 06:34:43 pm

    Watching Idaho from California I am at a big disadvantage.  I would love to hear more about how it all works from an actual Idaho resident.
     
    Thanks, Kelton. I do remember the email you have quoted.

    To give you a little background, as nearlly as I understand it: for longer than my experience includes, the Libertarian Party has been allowing individuals to place themselves on the ballot for various positions (for the general election). In fact, the party has had nothing to say about this, except to endorse or refuse to endorse individual candidates. Anyone can file for any office without endorsement of the party he claims to represent. The solution for the major parties was to weed out their candidates in the primary. Primary elections were limited to Republican and Democratic candidates.

    Since we do not register by party, the primary is open to everyone. You simply choose to vote either the R or D primary ballot. Then, in 2002 (before the Convention and change of State Chair) our eager 24-year-old State Chair got the bright idea of recruiting candidates for most positions on the ballots, with opposing candidates for 2 or 3. This forced a separate primary ballot for the Libertarian Party (many Libertarians still voted the R primary).

    With this precedent, the Secretary of State, who had been quite content with the haphazard way in which elections had been conducted in the past, saw a problem with continuing this state of affairs, in that it would cost the counties a lot of money to print the extra ballots. (Also, the Chair had personally delivered the filings at the last minute - causing confusion and expense for the Secretary of State's office) As a solution, the Secretary of State proposed eliminating minor parties from the primary. This was what inspired the new State Chair (who had inherited the bad will engendered by the actions of his predecessor) to ask for the meeting described in the email.

    The method of forming political parties as spelled out in the Idaho law had never been followed by *any* Idaho party until a group of Libertarians in Kootenai County began to implement it. I admit being totally baffled by the whole subject - it involves getting precinct committeemen on the ballot (presumably, you would not have to be a member of the party to vote for a precinct committeeman).

    Clear as mud....I know! I told you I am a newcomer to the political scene. Perhaps someone more politically savvy can explain it better.  :)