Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: George Reich on November 04, 2002, 03:28:13 pm

Title: NH vs WY
Post by: George Reich on November 04, 2002, 03:28:13 pm
New Hampshire's helmet laws are the least restrictive of our ten candidate states. Here's a map:

http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html

 :o
Title: Re:Not Free, Semi-Free, and 100% Free States
Post by: mdlowry on November 04, 2002, 05:31:54 pm
NH also does not require seat belts for those over 18.  I'm not sure if any other state that does this.
Title: Re:Not Free, Semi-Free, and 100% Free States
Post by: Chuckster on November 05, 2002, 09:25:19 pm
Helmet laws can be beaten :).  I've been involved in two successful helmet law repeal campaigns in the last thirty years.

What about gun laws? they are MUCH more difficut to deal with.  Is any state better than Vermont on RKBA?
Title: Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 10, 2002, 10:04:46 am
Loos like it is boiling down to these 2.

High Votes for Conservative and Libertarian Presidential Candidates
1. Wyoming
2. Idaho
3. North Dakota
4. South Dakota
5. Alaska
6. Montana
7. New Hampshire
8. Maine
9. Delaware
10. Vermont

Which way do you vote?
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 10, 2002, 01:17:11 pm
I posted some facts and asked for intelligent conversation about whether or not these were indicators of existing libertarian attitudes. Nobody has any opinion about these?
I agree with you here. All the other posts seem like attacks on you and the premise, but not on the facts you posted. The facts are the long lists of stats, not that people can't understand the hypothetical in your first post that you meant to show might apply to NH (with an unknown percent).

I'd been leaning more towards VT over NH, but I think you make a very compelling argument for NH.

How about highest # of elected Libertarians? NH comes out on top:
http://www.lp.org/organization/states.html

NH - 26
VT - 18
ME - 7
ID - 3
DE - 2
SD - 1
WY - 1
AK - 1
MT - 0
ND - 0

This is one of the most important factors to consider, IMHO. If a state has never elected a third party candidate, what are the odds the FSP will have any success in that state?

I see this as a much better sign of native support than how many people voted republican, as many like to use. Republicans, aside from Ron Paul and Jim Jeffords (before leaving the party), rarely if every vote against the party line. We need voters willing to accept candidates who aren't republicans or democrats.

Mark

What I find appalling is that NH has elected so many LP but has yet to do anything about it, that is more of a negative than a positive in my opinion. People want a different voice but not a different way of living in NH. FSP is about the different way of living or at least that is what I thought.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: JT on November 10, 2002, 01:47:02 pm
I anticipate WY will be the first Free State.  
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 10, 2002, 01:50:38 pm
Quote
From the FSP state data page:
How about low dependence on the federal government? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.
How about smallest total government sector? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.
How about smallest state and local government sector? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.

How about density of current LP members in each state. NH is #1 in the nation (Sept. 30, 2002 figures):

State / Rank against 50 / density

NH / #1 / 202.5
AK / #2 / 184.3
VT / #3 / 164.7
WY / #9 / 123.4
ME / #14 / 105.7
ID / #17 / 103
MT / #18 / 96.2
DE / #27 / 76.6
ND / #43 / 52
SD / #44 / 48.9

What about a history of rejecting laws restrictive of personal freedom just to get federal highway dollars? Again, NH comes out ahead:
Least restrictive helmet laws in the nation: http://usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html
Least restrictive seatbelt laws in the nation: http://www.iihs.org/safety_facts/state_laws/restrain.htm

How about some of the lowest taxes in the nation? NH comes out on top (SD looks good here too):

Taxes as a percentage of gross personal income:

#1 NH 4.54% - 1st in nation
#2 SD 5.05% - 2nd in nation
#3 MT 7.26% - 28th in nation
#4 WY 7.61% - 31st in nation
#5 ND 7.94% - 34th in nation
#6 AK 8.04% - 36th in nation
#7 ID 8.32% - 39th in nation
#8 ME 8.63% - 43rd in nation
#9 DE 9.19% - 47th in nation
#10 VT 9.57% - 48th in nation

State taxes per capita:

#1 SD $1226/person - 1st in nation
#2 NH $1372/person - 4th in nation
#3 MT $1564/person - 9th in nation
#4 ND $1826/person - 25th in nation
#5 ID $1837/person - 28th in nation
#6 WY $1952/person - 34th in nation
#7 ME $2087/person - 37th in nation
#8 AK $2270/person - 41st in nation
#9 VT $2416/person - 44th in nation
#10 DE $2721/person - 48th in nation

How about $s spent per citizen (state budget / state citizens). NH comes out on top:
This is a calculation that was done by Keith Murray and posted on the e-list, I'm posting the top 5.

New Hampshire
2985.95

South Dakota
3323.87

Idaho
3505.54

North Dakota
3920.90

Montana
4022.41

Quote
What I find appalling is that NH has elected so many LP but has yet to do anything about it, that is more of a negative than a positive in my opinion. People want a different voice but not a different way of living in NH. FSP is about the different way of living or at least that is what I thought.

Don't these facts support a deduction that New Hampshire is "doing something with it"? If not, how do you explain these facts? I'm sorry, but your criticism doesn't hold weight.

Wyoming looks like a really interesting state. If you think it is likely that we would have more success there than in the other nine states, please convince me.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: JT on November 10, 2002, 01:57:02 pm
WY already has:

No income tax.  This would take us a while to accomplish in some of the other states.

Sales taxes are around 4%.  That's a good number to start with, and hopefully we can reduce it from there.

People who already favor small gov't.

You're "allowed" a jury trial in ALL criminal cases (i.e.  if you get a speeding ticket you can demand a trial by jury).  Many states no longer allow this.

188k people who voted last tue.  The smallest number of voters in any state.

Cheap land.  Different climates (a little something for everyone).  The job prospects don't seem to be as bad as everyone initially thought.  

IMO this would be the easiest state to Free.  I thought that's what we wanted here...
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 10, 2002, 03:58:29 pm
All I have to say is that if NH is such a LP stronghold then why are they no more free than any other state.

Actually I am wrong in my assesment NH does have the least restrictive helmet and seat belt laws.  ;D

30 years and that is all they got?
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 10, 2002, 05:06:56 pm
Wow New Hampshire is in deep dudu. 100 million dollar deficits and how to increase tax to offset it rather than budget cuts. Ouch thats got to hurt.

http://www.nhbankers.com/pdfs/NHBA_Study.pdf
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Kelly on November 10, 2002, 05:28:51 pm
  I am not sure I would call NH a LP stronghold, but I would argue that they have done quite a bit with their freedom.  Or to be more to the point they have prevented quite a bit from being done with that freedom.
  NH has no state income tax, no sales tax, and for the most part local control of property tax collection and distribution.  They have the smallest tax burden of any state per $1000 dollars of income, and are 3rd smallest based on population alone.  They have the #1 level of per family retail spending, likely because of the above tax situation.  Based on economic indications I would say NH is the most free and vibrant state in the union.
  As for the question of personal freedom, although no seatbelt or helmet laws are nice, they could use some work but they still may come out ahead of all the other states we are considering.  When considering personal freedoms like privacy, property rights, gun laws and the rest, each state seems to have their own individual foibles.
  My personal preference leans twords NH.  It is much easier to prevent the expansion of government that to force it to contract and NH has managed to keep the size of their government for the most part small.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Jacobus on November 10, 2002, 05:51:28 pm
I don't think the LP officeholders stat is significant at all.  Most of these offices are such things like water board or dogcatcher.  Many are not political races at all.  More significant is percent vote Libertarians get, which seems to be about the same in the states we're considering.  I actually think elected Libertarians for some public offices is counterproductive: central planning by a Libertarian is no better than central planning by anyone else.  The only value of a Libertarian in office is not in that the person is wiser or a better planner than anyone else, but that they are hopefully working toward reducing government power, including the position they hold.

Are the tax situations very different in WY or NH?  It's tough to say, and it depends on which types of taxes you "prefer."  

I see on this thread too much personification of states.  States are not people.  Saying that "New Hampshire is not doing anything about it" does not make sense, since New Hampshire is not an entity capable of action.  It is an arbitrary geographic region.  It does facilitate easier discussion to say things like "New Hampshire decided to..." even if that's not really what we mean, but we should remember that we just want to find the geographic region where we will be most successful.  Challenging a state as if it is a person does not get us anywhere.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Kelly on November 10, 2002, 06:35:44 pm
Quote
Are the tax situations very different in WY or NH?  It's tough to say, and it depends on which types of taxes you "prefer."  
 That is quite true if we are just comparing NH with WY.  Neither has a state income tax.  NH has no sales tax, WY has a 4% rate which is pretty low.  Property tax is the tough one because it varies from area to area even within a state, the best I could do was to find a list that sighted the largest cities in each state after you factor in all the assessment tricks, for WY it is .77% and for NH it is 3.48% those were figures from "96 I'd be thrilled to see anything newer.
  If you are truely going to compare I think you have to figure out the total tax burden per person
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 10, 2002, 07:12:32 pm
What about this link:

http://www.nhbankers.com/pdfs/NHBA_Study.pdf

$100,000,000 tax increase study for NH. Looks like they are going the other way to me.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Kelly on November 10, 2002, 07:52:39 pm
 The article cited, refers to a proposal, but it also does discuss the recent increases in business tax rates.  Yet again, probably the only way to look at this issue effectively, is to take the total state revenues and divide by the population.  There are just too many ways for a government to tax to try and find them all.
  With regards to my previous post " anything newer " please pardon my grammer. (CA public education don't ya know.)
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 10, 2002, 07:56:18 pm
Proposal or not NH is facing a big deficit and are going to raise taxes to solve the problem.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: thewaka on November 10, 2002, 08:07:17 pm
From the FSP state data page:
How about low dependence on the federal government? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.
How about smallest total government sector? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.
How about smallest state and local government sector? NH is #1 among the states we are considering.

I think these are interesting, however, WY doesn't come out badly in most of the lists I have seen (for instance in the More Criteria thread from Joe) and in many cases is in the top 3 (several times it is first). Another good point for WY is the low population (NH is huge comparatively speaking). It also has reasonable homeschooling laws (NH requires testing or evaluation *every* year).

I realize that the job situation isn't as great as NH and that traveling the entire state for election campaigning will be tough, but WY is currently my top pick. It seems like the best candidate for what the FSP is trying to accomplish.

Diana
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on November 10, 2002, 08:29:46 pm
Quote
Are the tax situations very different in WY or NH?  It's tough to say, and it depends on which types of taxes you "prefer."  
 That is quite true if we are just comparing NH with WY.  Neither has a state income tax.  NH has no sales tax, WY has a 4% rate which is pretty low.  Property tax is the tough one because it varies from area to area even within a state, the best I could do was to find a list that sighted the largest cities in each state after you factor in all the assessment tricks, for WY it is .77% and for NH it is 3.48% those were figures from "96 I'd be thrilled to see anything newer.
  If you are truely going to compare I think you have to figure out the total tax burden per person

WY has a 4% state sales tax.  From the numbers I have seen it averages 5.25% if you add state and local.  WY has some of the very lowest property taxes in the country.  Most of the counties are very low with one being pretty high.  WY has no corporate tax rate.  With low taxes on property and no state taxes in interest or dividend in WY, only real estate is taxed (at a very low rate).

NH has no sales tax and a 5% or less INCOME tax on interest and dividend.  NH has both local and state property tax rates making the property taxes in NH one of the highest in the country.  NH has a high corporate tax rate.  With high taxes on property and state taxes in interest and dividend in NH, most forms of conservative investment are taxed.

Lets compare these states to, TN, the lowest taxed state in the South(east).
State income tax - only interest and dividend
Sate sales tax - 7% + local of 2.25% equals 9.25%
Lower than average property taxes

WY has lower income, sales, and property tax
NH has about same income rate, lower sales, and higher property

If truth is that if the average person from TN moved to NH they would pay more in taxes.  If they moved to WY they would pay much less in taxes.

Income Tax Summary:
1. WY, AK, and SD have no income tax
2. NH and ND have low income tax rates.
3. DE, MT, and ID have average income tax rates.
4. VT and ME have very high income tax rates

Sales Tax Summary:
1. MT, DE, NH, and AK have very low sales tax rates.
2. ID, VT, ME, WY, and SD have low sale tax rates.
3. ND has average sales tax rates.

Corporate Income Tax Summary:
1. WY has no corporate income tax.
2. SD and MT have low corporate income tax rates.
3. AK and ID have average corporate income tax rates.
4. ME, NH, DE, ND, and VT have high corporate income tax rates.

States Ranked by Lowest Income, Sales, and Corporate Taxes
1.WY
2. SD
3. AK
4. NH
5. MT
6. DE
7. ID
8. ND
9. VT
10. ME



Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Kelly on November 10, 2002, 08:52:50 pm
  Freedomroad, I am not sure that I would use the system you are using to rate the states, but you are correct in several respects.  I had not factored in the incme tax on interst or dividens for NH.  That might be very important for people who depend on those sources for all or most of their income.  I also did not look at the corporate income tax, this might imply that WY would be more business friendly than NH.
  Does someone have just the stats for what the states took in for revenue from all sources during a given year, then we could determine the cost of gov per citizen.  Not that that would be the end of it because what the government does with that revenue might be an issue as well.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 10, 2002, 08:53:19 pm
Code: [Select]
Proposal or not NH is facing a big deficit and are going to raise taxes to solve the problem.
This is our new governor...

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/08022002/news/16986.htm

PORTSMOUTH - Rye Republican Craig Benson is predicting a state budget surplus by the end of fiscal year 2005, if New Hampshire voters choose him and his "Common Sense Plan."

That’s how he plans to relieve donor communities like Portsmouth from what he calls an "onerous" statewide property tax.

Unlike his Democratic opponents, Benson does not believe New Hampshire needs an income tax. The statewide property tax, among other revenue streams, can provide all the money the state needs, he says.

Benson also aims to cut the statewide property tax rate by 10 percent for the 2004-2005 biennial budget.

The statewide property tax is costing the city of Portsmouth millions of dollars each year in money sent to the state government and redistributed to other communities. The state property tax on a $250,000 home is about $1,400 but about $1,000 of that stays in Portsmouth to pay for city schools. Out of a total property tax of $5,000, about $2,500 pays for local schools.

If Benson’s plan were in place today, the same $250,000 home would receive a property tax bill of $4,850. So the tax scheme most Portsmouth residents face today would barely change under Benson. Cutting the statewide property tax by 10 percent reduces the city tax rate by about 60 cents.

For elderly residents, Benson would cap the total property tax at no more than 8 percent of their income. A person 65 and up living in that $250,000 home would pay the full $4,850 only if they were collecting more than $60,625 in annual income. Benson is toying with an elderly tax cap as low as 6 percent.

"The Common Sense Plan will target additional state aid to those students that need it the most," states Benson’s campaign literature. "Until we can be rid of this tax once and for all, the plan will at the very least seek to lower the onerous statewide property tax to provide relief for all New Hampshire residents."

As governor, Benson says he would advocate for a constitutional amendment eliminating the donor-town distinction. He would then organize a constitutional convention and let the voters decide how to pay for their schools.

"It’s time to give the voters a chance to shape their state as they see fit," reads the campaign literature.

In the meantime, Benson says making better use of technology and capping the state’s budget growth at 3 percent will create enough budget surplus - $50 million by 2005 - to end the practice of some towns donating part of their property taxes to other towns.

Operating online will be a big source of savings for state employees.

"We’re really, really far behind," says Benson spokeswoman Kate Whitman. "Pennsylvania and California are just doing some really amazing things online."
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Kelly on November 10, 2002, 09:05:40 pm
  I likely should have gone back to the state research page before I started spouting off. http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal02.html (http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal02.html) the following provides the state and local tax burden by state as a percentage of personal income.  NH is beat by only two states, TN and AK.  WY is next in line and is only 1.2% higher.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 10, 2002, 09:16:54 pm
These are the ranking from Liberty Magazine, an issue that came out this past summer.

Quote
Taxes as a percentage of gross personal income:

#1 NH 4.54% - 1st in nation
#2 SD 5.05% - 2nd in nation
#3 MT 7.26% - 28th in nation
#4 WY 7.61% - 31st in nation
#5 ND 7.94% - 34th in nation
#6 AK 8.04% - 36th in nation
#7 ID 8.32% - 39th in nation
#8 ME 8.63% - 43rd in nation
#9 DE 9.19% - 47th in nation
#10 VT 9.57% - 48th in nation

State taxes per capita:

#1 SD $1226/person - 1st in nation
#2 NH $1372/person - 4th in nation
#3 MT $1564/person - 9th in nation
#4 ND $1826/person - 25th in nation
#5 ID $1837/person - 28th in nation
#6 WY $1952/person - 34th in nation
#7 ME $2087/person - 37th in nation
#8 AK $2270/person - 41st in nation
#9 VT $2416/person - 44th in nation
#10 DE $2721/person - 48th in nation
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Heyduke on November 10, 2002, 10:34:35 pm
Yes, and our new governor also bought the election...where's that article Michelle?  he's worth over $500,000,000 and spent petty cash of $17,000,000 to purchase his first ever elected office...since when did anyone vote for Benson because he was a great guy with solid experience in government?  NEVER.  Benson is a jerk.  I work in IT and while I thankfully have avoided working for either Cabletron or Enterasys, I have many colleagues that have firsthand experience with our wonderful new governor--he was guilty of sexual harrassment--he was guilty of running cabletron into the ground--he's probably guilty of a helluva lot more that was never reported...so why are you deigning to quote campaign promises from a guy who was elected by two things--spending $17 mil., and avoiding an income tax?  

Tell me tell me Michelle?  Which liberal paper shall ye quote next?  The herald or foster's daily democrat??   ;D
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 10, 2002, 10:43:03 pm
Well, having spent a great deal of time around the campaign and John Babiarz, I believe that the libertarians might have a friend in Craig Benson. He is far from libertarian, but I do think he will help us get some reforms passed; especially around school choice. Time will tell.

He didn't buy the campaign. In fact his expenditures dwindled to very little after the primary. The Dems campaigned on the income tax. It was inevitable that they they would lose.

HeyDuke. Give me a break. I think we can disagree respectfully. Enough with the insults.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Heyduke on November 10, 2002, 10:49:55 pm
oh c'mon now--you think I'm insulting you?  perhaps belittling or berating, but far from insulting...

and the reason his expenditures dwindled after the primary is...that it was all over after the primary...NH was going to hand the election to anybody facing fernald/hollingsworth/income tax...

babiarz?  which one again?  rosalie?  john?  sorry...kudos for the effort, but that isn't a third party option by any strecth of the imagination...

that's all...I'm not going to ride you around, but if you want to offer convincing arguments to these folks--you'll have to do better...or be prepared to move...maybe even back to maine? ::)
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Penfist on November 10, 2002, 11:33:06 pm
Proposal or not NH is facing a big deficit and are going to raise taxes to solve the problem.

You sound pretty convinced about New Hampshire being wrong and Wyoming being right.

What's the deficit in Wyoming?

If we're going to talk about deficits, let's talk about the removal of the gold standard and Social Security IOUs too, since those are both going to haunt this country for the foreseeable future. How are we going to approach those two issues in the Free State?

Isn't debt pretty meaningless now that our currency is no longer backed by any meaningful collateral?

:)
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 10, 2002, 11:40:01 pm
Proposal or not NH is facing a big deficit and are going to raise taxes to solve the problem.

You sound pretty convinced about New Hampshire being wrong and Wyoming being right.

What's the deficit in Wyoming?

If we're going to talk about deficits, let's talk about the removal of the gold standard and Social Security IOUs too, since those are both going to haunt this country for the foreseeable future. How are we going to approach those two issues in the Free State?

Isn't debt pretty meaningless now that our currency is no longer backed by any meaningful collateral?

:)
FSP=Free State Project not FCP=Free Country Project
As for the reason I bring up the deficit you can see in the link I provided. They are doing studies on how to raise taxes on businesses to get the 100,000,000 they need to cover on an annual basis.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Tyler on November 11, 2002, 12:21:31 am
I'm not much good with facts and figures, but I figure you folks probably have a better shot with Wyoming than you do New Hampshire. It just seems to me that a western state would be more open to outsiders than a north eastern one (I have experience with both and I do believe this to be generally true). I think both states are excellent choices (the only state I would truly advise against moving to is Delaware, or possibly Alaska-simply because half of you seem to have opted out of that), but that your needs are going to be best served out west. Still, you folks will be coming in, if your numbers keep increasingly like they do, during the beginning of a Democractic governor's administration in Wyoming, if you choose it, rather than a Republican elected on a wave of anti-tax revulsion.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 11, 2002, 07:35:21 am
Quote
that's all...I'm not going to ride you around, but if you want to offer convincing arguments to these folks--you'll have to do better...or be prepared to move...maybe even back to maine?

HeyDuke - I've been a NH resident for almost 12 years and grew up about two miles over the border into Maine. So you know where I live. What's your point? Unlike some, I am proud of who I am, what I believe, and the stands I will take. I have no intention of hiding in the shadows. So what is your name and where do you live?

So you say you live in NH? If you think it is so bad, exactly what have you done to improve the situation? How much time and effort have you spent trying to secure liberty? How many sacrifices have you made? Or maybe you are just an armchair critic sitting back blaming everyone else for the problems you won't take responsiblity for.

That's it. I like to try and keep my messages positive. This is the only negative post you will see from me to you. Feel free to continue if you wish, but it only reflects on you.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Michelle on November 11, 2002, 08:48:36 am
HeyDuke,

I just read through your other posts and realized what I was missing. You came to this board after seeing the Union Leader article with the specific purpose of trying to make NH look bad and convincing the group to move somewhere other than NH.

I had assumed that you were either a member or were someone seriously contemplating membership.

I am sincerely sorry that you feel the way you do. These people are looking at our state because they (many) admire the state's independence and small government and only want to help make it more so. If you don't fear freedom and liberty, there is nothing to fear from FSP. I am eager to call these people my friends and neighbors and I think that if you gave us a chance you might realize we weren't so bad after all.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Penfist on November 11, 2002, 09:47:17 am
Quote
Quote


Income Tax Summary:
1. WY, AK, and SD have no income tax
2. NH and ND have low income tax rates.
3. DE, MT, and ID have average income tax rates.
4. VT and ME have very high income tax rates


Um, New Hampshire does NOT have an income tax. It's not low it's NONEXISTENT.

It helps to get the facts correct when you're trying to make a case :)
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Penfist on November 11, 2002, 09:50:43 am
Proposal or not NH is facing a big deficit and are going to raise taxes to solve the problem.

You sound pretty convinced about New Hampshire being wrong and Wyoming being right.

What's the deficit in Wyoming?

If we're going to talk about deficits, let's talk about the removal of the gold standard and Social Security IOUs too, since those are both going to haunt this country for the foreseeable future. How are we going to approach those two issues in the Free State?

Isn't debt pretty meaningless now that our currency is no longer backed by any meaningful collateral?

:)
FSP=Free State Project not FCP=Free Country Project
As for the reason I bring up the deficit you can see in the link I provided. They are doing studies on how to raise taxes on businesses to get the 100,000,000 they need to cover on an annual basis.

You have a valid point regarding raising taxes on businesses.

In regards to the free state vs. free country comment, I thought that the idea behind creating a free state was to set an example for other states to follow which might eventually lead to a free country.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 11, 2002, 11:19:43 am
Palindrome you are correct we do wish for a free country but we have to do the state thing first and successfully might I add.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Heyduke on November 11, 2002, 07:04:54 pm
Hey--Michelle--more power to you and your charge, but I am a little concerned that you are actually employed by the NH Dept. of Tourism the way you continually schill NH to all and any...I take no offense at your defensiveness, and whether I am a member or not, I know how to pick my battles and have a keener sense of perspective than most of the yahoos that come to NH from outside and then preach Live Free or Die...my ancestors died protecting what I know of NH...I'm bornand raised...my parents...their parents...their parents...back to the 1700's when the histories and names begin to dilute as much as the bloodlines of the local abenaqui and settlers...I'm not saying nobody's welcome, but I am saying that you're not the only one with a view on the state of the State, and that I very much reserve the right speak freely as counterpoint to your constant salesmanship of my state for your political motives.  

That's all.  In fairness, I never intend to insult and endeavour to not do so, but my sense of humor is wry and at times sharper than many enjoy.  I make neither apologies nor excuses.  FSP is welcome in NH at the peril of their very objectives.  Hell...I'll even offer the first employment to any prospective FSP migrants...

coyote pelts--$5/apiece--cash dollars.  

yrn trly,

henry lightcap  
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Robert H. on November 12, 2002, 02:28:44 am
That's all.  In fairness, I never intend to insult and endeavour to not do so, but my sense of humor is wry and at times sharper than many enjoy.  I make neither apologies nor excuses.  FSP is welcome in NH at the peril of their very objectives.  Hell...I'll even offer the first employment to any prospective FSP migrants...

"At the peril of their very objectives" is exactly my problem with NH in the long run.  Sure, the state just voted in Republicans in a big way and even went Bush in the last presidential election, but I think that adulation over this swing, as though it were heralding a new era for NH, is premature.  Bush won NH in 2000 by 1% of the vote, and would likely have lost the state to Gore by the 6 or 7% that went to Nader instead.  There is also the income tax issue to consider, and evidence shows that this brought voters out in a big, big way and swung them toward Republicans.  

NH may be in the process of altering its political persuasion, but then again, this could be a phase.  There will be no way to know for certain until at least two more general elections have passed.  Then we'll have something of a pattern to analyze.  In the meantime, I'd rather stick with states that have established political traditions that are favorable to us, and don't seem to be teetering on the edge quite so much.  Wyoming has just elected a Democrat governor, but the libertarian vote may have had something to do with this, and it is not in keeping with the state's overall political persuasion.  Wyoming has not gone to the Democrats in a national election since 1964.  With this state, we have a historical pattern that is more favorable to us.  There is no realistic possibility that WY will just suddenly swing back the other way next election; a possibility that realistically exists in NH.

Heyduke,

One of my biggest concerns with regard to NH is urban sprawl from liberal Boston.  Cities are expanding outward all over the country, and this pattern does not seem to be abating.  If anything, it's becoming more pronounced.  I'm concerned that NH's projected general population growth over the next 10 years will make it quickly unviable for the FSP (the same with Idaho and MT).  Aside from this aspect though, my main concern is that liberals migrating from MA could change NH's political character more to the left over the next few years.  On the other hand, libertarians and conservatives may be fleeing from MA to NH and this could solidify the state more to the right.  At this point, I think it's very difficult to say.  What do you think based on where you are?  1)  About sprawl into NH in general, and 2)  About how sprawl with affect NH (which way will it push the state politically?)
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Heyduke on November 12, 2002, 10:18:01 am
Well, without being scientific as I haven't the source of this stat, I have been told that 40% of NH's current population is from MA., and I think that is believable.  

But here's a rub--my brother and his family represent 4 of those, and he's an expat. NH'er that also happens to be more right wing than I--if he is to be believed, he voted straight ticket R.  So, yes--Southern NH has the bulk of the 'new' population, but let's consider why?  Is it because the liberals from MA are on a mission to convert NH?  Or is it because NH's conservative climate appeals to those who are sick of MA?  In a recent political commercial, former governor and current senator judd gregg made a derisive reference to ted kennedy--so there must be some professionals that seem to think that NH is attracting the disenfranchised conservatives from MA in a significant number.  

Regardless--the southern tier has the largest population centers...it has the largest job markets and easier access to MA...but when someone looks at nashua and thinks--Democratic stronghold, I think maybe they are making a judgement error--yes it is leaning that way, but--these aren't Daschle's Dems, or even Kennedy's Dems...these are for the most part handmedown JFK Dems (at least that's how it was--old boy's club/cronyism still runs rampant around here--that's a stat someone should dig up--average residency of all elected officials).  

Now I'm rambling...and pre-caffeine...but my end conclusion is that quoting journalists and watching msnbc is not an effective way to measure the scene in NH--and I don't know that my perceptions are any better, but I do know what I know and am active enough in many different ways that I can say--NH is a screwy beast politically...I mean...katrina swett??  there was no way in hell she'd ever get elected, but...she shouldn't have even been on the radar...but somebody voted for her, and I don't attribute that to MA influx...

oh yeah...I think NH is set to go on a conservative kick for a bit--not as some pundits may think, in response to national trends, but in response to a shaheen era backlash...it happens...we were ready to move on from Steve Merrill and the Clinton years helped shaheen into office.  Now I think the state wants to slow down and sort some things out...and there doesn't seem to be any prominent Dem. on the horizon in state.  

hey--you guys should send forward teams to prospective states--I'd perhaps consider voting Lib. a little sooner if the two main candidates weren't husband/wife (babiarz)--they may be nice folks, but...there's a whole credibility issue...

PS--the housing market in So. NH should have some say as to how many liberal-types are even able to afford to move in these days...
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on April 11, 2003, 07:30:03 am
In New England, it seems, and especially in New Hampshire the governor seems to be not much more than an administrator and figurehead. Thus "meeting with the governor" may be not much more than a PR event for both parties.

The New Hampshire governor is relatively weak compared to that in other states because he or she shares power with a five member elected executive council. The governor and council each hold approximately half of the executive power. Taken together, they are no less powerful than the executive branch in other states. This is a huge advantage for New Hampshire. I have watched this system function many times to the taxpayers' advantage and believe other states would be very lucky to have a similar system.

The Welcome to the Granite State Committee set up a meeting with the governor so that FSP members can hear (from the horse's mouth) whether or not they will be welcomed in New Hampshire. Also, touring the NH statehouse will be an interesting history lesson for any history buffs in the group.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 11, 2003, 01:34:30 pm
I'm not sure if the issue has much relevance for state choice, but I would say that one reform we should work for in our chosen state is reducing the power of the executive branch, including the governor.  A weak governor means a powerful legislature, and the legislature is the branch closer & more accountable to the people.  Also, proportional representation is more workable when the executive branch is mainly administrative and has no law-making powers.  I'm more concerned about this on the national level, however, as the national executive bureaucracy is more obviously out of control than the state bureaucracies.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on April 11, 2003, 02:27:05 pm
In further reading of the NH Constitution and Statutes, I find very little "power" authorized for the Executive Council other than sharing with the Governor nominations and appointments. Generally the Council is only for advising the Governor. Could you show us where the Governor is so weak.

This web page is a start in understanding NH's executive council:

http://www.state.nh.us/council/overview.html
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on April 11, 2003, 02:40:08 pm
Those who are interested in the history of NH government (and specifically of the governor's council) might enjoy this page:

http://www.state.nh.us/council/council.html
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on April 11, 2003, 04:02:41 pm
Jeanne Shaheen was a horrible governor, but she could have done much worse damage to this state during her six years in office. The council was a constant check on her power and her frustration with them was publicly apparent at times.

I am no authority on New Hampshire law or its constitution, but my understanding is that the split in power is indeed close to 50-50 between the governor and council. The duties of both are outlined in articles 41 - 66 of the NH constitution:

http://www.state.nh.us/constitution/constitution.html
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: stpeter on April 12, 2003, 09:04:25 pm
http://www.state.nh.us/council/overview.html
http://www.state.nh.us/council/council.html
If only all the states had such an arrangement! This system seems tailor-made to put a break on the expansion of government power and expenditures. Well done, New Hampshire! :)
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Hank on May 02, 2003, 05:57:46 pm
One of my biggest concerns with regard to NH is urban sprawl from liberal Boston.  Cities are expanding outward all over the country, and this pattern does not seem to be abating.  If anything, it's becoming more pronounced.  I'm concerned that NH's projected general population growth over the next 10 years will make it quickly unviable for the FSP (the same with Idaho and MT).  Aside from this aspect though, my main concern is that liberals migrating from MA could change NH's political character more to the left over the next few years.  On the other hand, libertarians and conservatives may be fleeing from MA to NH and this could solidify the state more to the right.  At this point, I think it's very difficult to say.  What do you think based on where you are?  1)  About sprawl into NH in general, and 2)  About how sprawl with affect NH (which way will it push the state politically?)

That leading edge of urban refugees bring their urban big government ideas with them. We keep moving farther away from the cities but the city liberals and code enforcers keep moving farther out too. We move to some in-the-sticks middle-of-nowhere one-stoplight-town and what do we find.  CITY CODE ENFORCERS who just moved in from some metropolis to "get away from it all". >:(
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: jgmaynard on May 03, 2003, 01:49:52 am
The NHBankers report was a projection from one group about one way of financing carrying through with the Claremont decisions.

Proposals from ANY group outside of Government is not the law NOR what is gonna happen

There are different ways to pay for anything.

Governor Benson and the house are ALREADY finding news ways of paying for schools by getting state Government out of the picture,  Claremont or not.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Hank on May 12, 2003, 11:37:27 am
Here in the West our town councils and county commissioners are fully-fledged lawmakers. Wyoming has a Libertarian elected to town council. (http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php)
.
I can't believe that they are 'fully-fledged' law makers,
since the 10th Amendment reserves default law-making
power to the States or the People. Thus, they can
at most be tenants-in-chief, such that Wyoming has
delegated lawmaking power to the towns & counties.
Or, they can propose laws and have the People vote on
them. Otherwise, they themselves could pass bonds.
.
Do you have any links that explain the system?
Go here
Free Wyoming (http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming/)
Then go here
Wyoming Constitution (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/title97.htm)
and here
Wyoming Statutes (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/statutes.htm)

Do YOU have any links that prove that New Hampshire towns have even half as much power as small Western cities and counties?

(at the risk of calling down a tornado)
Zack would say:
A Western Sheriff beats an Eastern Sheriff.
as we would say:
A pair of Western Sheriff's beats a New England Governor. :P
and
Four Western Counties beats your Full House ;) ;D
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on May 12, 2003, 12:02:49 pm
Your links did not take me to any useful information on the power of Wyoming towns and counties. Please be more specific.

Have any of Wyoming's counties legalized marijuana or prostitution?
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: di540 on May 12, 2003, 12:36:01 pm
Here in the West our town councils and county commissioners are fully-fledged lawmakers. Wyoming has a Libertarian elected to town council. (http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php)
.
I can't believe that they are 'fully-fledged' law makers,
since the 10th Amendment reserves default law-making
power to the States or the People. Thus, they can
at most be tenants-in-chief, such that Wyoming has
delegated lawmaking power to the towns & counties.
Or, they can propose laws and have the People vote on
them. Otherwise, they themselves could pass bonds.
.
Do you have any links that explain the system?
.
Wyoming Constitution (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/title97.htm)
97-13-001.__Incorporation;_alteration_of_boundaries;_merger
consolidation;_dissolution;_determination_of_local_affairs;
classification;_referendum;_liberal_construction.
(b)  All cities and towns are hereby empowered to determine their
local affairs and government as established by ordinance passed by
the governing body, subject to referendum when prescribed by the
legislature, and further subject only to statutes uniformly applicable
to all cities and towns, and to statutes prescribing limits of
indebtedness.
(d)  The powers and authority granted to cities and towns, pursuant to
this section, shall be liberally construed for the purpose of giving
the largest measure of self-government to cities and towns.
--
While (d) may come close to them being 'fully-fledged' law-
makers, part (b) specifies that they do not pass laws, but
ordinances that are subject to referendum and/or state law.
The state law-makers are 'fully-fledged' since they can put
the state into debt without the say of the People.
.
Quote
Do YOU have any links that prove that New Hampshire towns have even half as much power as small Western cities and counties?
.
No. But they are reported to have the power to secede.
The town of Newington has a movement to do so. Which begs the
question, if NH is so great why would anyone want to secede?
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Robert H. on May 12, 2003, 06:09:05 pm
From the "how important small land area" (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1750) thread:

Here in the West our town councils and county commissioners are fully-fledged lawmakers...

That's more power than your NH selectmen in Lisbon or Merrimack. The NH legislature has all the law-making or un-making power in New Hampshire.  There is only petty nuisance lawmaking in New Hampshire towns. Towns are only administrative departments of the state. They may handle local money, but the New Hampshire legislature keeps for itself the laws that Western towns and counties can make.

Hank has an excellent point here.  The power of the state legislature in the New England states would make controlling that body a must in order to ensure the survival of any reforms that we enact locally (especially if they're more politically controversial).  New Hampshire's legislature is positively gigantic, as would be the hurdle we would have to leap in order to gain a controlling influence there.

I've seen discussion here lately of forming a libertarian caucus in the NH state legislature.  A caucus is all fine and good, and might be simple to form in New Hampshire, but we need a majority or the ability to assemble one from members of the other political parties.  Granted, a caucus could be a stepping stone to reaching out to liberty-friendly legislators in other parties and uniting their efforts with ours, but, more often than not, unless you're forming a minority race-based caucus, they're generally not very effective.

And even then they're usually only good for grabbing headlines or stonewalling.  Look at South Carolina, Virginia, and Georgia for examples of how this has been done.

New Hampshire's legislature poses some problems that must be addressed in order for me to be convinced that we could establish a majority there, or else a majority coalition, in any reasonable amount of time.



Compare this to the west, specifically to Wyoming.



I hear seats are relatively available in New Hampshire, so maybe we could win more of them, but then I ask: "Enough of them to sway a 400 + member body?"  And if New Hampshire reduces district size even further, how many more seats will that add to the legislature?

New Hampshire also has the largest state senate districts of our 10 candidate states.



There's greater potential for us to work around this legislature if we need to do so.



New Hampshire is unquestionably a tremendously free state, and a great contrast to its neighbors, but I have to wonder if part of the reason for this is due more to a difficulty in getting things done there as opposed to the strength of the freedom element in its population (perhaps other than on the taxation issue).

Part of the ability to increase government regulation and institute a nanny state is the ability to pass laws, which would naturally require greater majorities in New Hamphsire than elsewhere due to the size of the legislature.  This has evidently worked very much in New Hampshire's favor because it has kept statism at bay, unlike its sister New England states.  

New Hampshire doesn't have a seatbelt requirement, or helmet requirement, or auto liability insurance requirement...all true.  Perhaps because it can't pass them due to the inability to garner the required level of support in the legislature.  Perhaps it still has enough representatives in favor of such things that, if the body were smaller, it could pass such laws as have been enacted in other states.

However, the merits of this aside, it should be pointed out that part of the ability to create a free state will also require the ability to pass (or repeal) laws via the legislature.  Part of what has kept New Hampshire so free, the difficulty involved in controlling the legislature, could then work against us by making the process of creating a majority or majority coalition that much more difficult (at least in the "liberty in our lifetime" sense - a reasonable amount of time).

In Wyoming, the ability to obtain a majority, or else create a majority coalition, could be much simpler due to the legislature's smaller size and the tool that term limits makes available to us.  And, failing that, we have the initiative and referendum, which would be simpler to enact because it would require so few signatures (relatively speaking).

Thus, I still very much believe that Wyoming offers us our best chance at a majority or majority coalition and the achievement of "liberty in our lifetime."  The task involved is smaller, the tools for accomplishing it are more numerous, and the combination of those two elements in the hands of dedicated activists could be unstoppable.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on May 12, 2003, 07:00:32 pm
Can anyone provide some specific examples of how home rule has been successful (from a libertarian standpoint) in Wyoming? In other words, has a county legalized marijuana or prostitution or made some other REAL libertarian reform which the state did not overrule?
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Zxcv on May 12, 2003, 07:17:24 pm
Quote
I'm not saying that New Hampshire would ever enact such a socialistic piece of redistributionist garbage as Act 60

Don't be so easy to pooh-pooh this stuff, Robert. It's something that sells well. Oregon adopted a version of it.

BTW, something just occurred to me. If state A has 400 legislators, and state B has 100, guess what? Our fixed number of 20,000 activists transplanted in state A means each legislator receives only 1/4 the number of letters/emails from FSP constituents, as the legislators would if we were transplanted in state B. All other things being equal (which they are not).

So not only are our 20,000 in NH diluted by having to reach a much larger number of voters in elections, but during the legislative session they are further dissipated by having to reach and convince a much larger number of legislators.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on May 12, 2003, 07:27:50 pm
BTW, something just occurred to me. If state A has 400 legislators, and state B has 100, guess what? Our fixed number of 20,000 activists transplanted in state A means each legislator receives only 1/4 the number of letters/emails from FSP constituents, as the legislators would if we were transplanted in state B. All other things being equal (which they are not).

So not only are our 20,000 in NH diluted by having to reach a much larger number of voters in elections, but during the legislative session they are further dissipated by having to reach and convince a much larger number of legislators.

Lobbying in NH more often takes the form of showing up at the statehouse to talk to legislative committees while they are deliberating on bills. Several LPNH members do this on a regular basis.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Zxcv on May 12, 2003, 08:05:13 pm
Don't worry, George. Since most of FSPers will end up in the environs of Cheyenne (assuming we pick the correct state  ;) ) we'll have way more than "several" people to do this task as well. How many do you need to wheel and deal in the committees? 100? 200? In any state, even Alaska with its isolated capital, we will be able to handle this task.

The constituent mail is where the states differ.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on May 12, 2003, 08:55:53 pm
How many do you need to wheel and deal in the committees? 100? 200?

It's not so much wheeling and dealing. The committees typically have 30 members or so. You just give a 2 or 3 minute "speech" to them.

Quote
The constituent mail is where the states differ.

Keep in mind that a typical NH resident may have 7 or 8 representatives. Each could get a copy of the letter.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: BobW on May 13, 2003, 02:52:44 am
Hi libertarian40,

Ref your above " Lobbying in NH more often takes the form of showing up at the Statehouse." and"It's not so much wheeling and dealing...you just give a 2-3 minute 'speech' ";

I am a political activist at both the state and national level.  That 2-3 minute speech takes a minimum, repeat a minimum of 30 days of lead time to prepare.  This short lead time(30 days) is effective because I already have a preexisting support structure.  The support structure takes years to establish and refine.

The 2-3 minute speech can only be drafted after it's known who will be in the audience.  A lobbyist is not speaking only to the legislators.  That speech must also be tailored to acknowledge what media organizations will be present (some are always there), what other interests will be giving speeches (helps to have contacts in MC offices and at the state level) and who will be present in the audience, eg the Farm Bureau might want as many members as possible  to attend.

After the presentation, I hope no one here thinks activists go home.  Having lunch or dinner with a key contact doesn't hurt, especially if it's the activist'sist's plastic (all targets are not subject to "Standards of Conduct" especially journalists - hint: who will write the article about what happened at the committee hearing?).

There is SO MUCH "wheeling and dealing" that it's really a life style.  It can't be avoided.

I urge everyone new to lobbying and legitimate political activitism to read chapter 9 of Pat Cholate's book "AGENTS OF INFLUENCE - How Japan's Lobbyists in the United States Manipulate America's Political and Economic System" ISBN: 0-394-57901-1.  Chapter 9 is titled "Grass-Roots Politicking".


BobW

Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on May 13, 2003, 07:31:37 am
You are probably much more effective than many of the people who show up at the statehouse in Concord...   ;D

Would I be correct in guessing that your "state level" lobbying took place in a more populated/sophisticated state than NH?
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Zxcv on May 13, 2003, 09:36:23 am
Yeah, George, that's exactly the impression I got. That would be overkill in Oregon - let alone Wyoming!   :)

I think the places we are going are a little more laid back than that. More along the lines of taking a rep down to the coffee shop for a donut.   :D
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: jgmaynard on May 13, 2003, 11:59:12 am
"More along the lines of taking a rep down to the coffee shop for a donut."

Mmmmmmmmmm........ Dddonuts.......... :D

I'd rather speak to every rep in the state house at once and get publicity over it.... More milage.

Any person is allowed to address the NH state house on any thing they are considering just by filling out a form the day they wish to speak. If you don't want to speak, there is another form there where you can just write your opinions.

GREAT citizen involvement....

JM
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: BobW on May 13, 2003, 12:05:05 pm
Hi Libertartarian 40 and Zxcv,

Yes, Commonwealth of Virginia and Washington, DC re the places are more populated and even more "organized" (Va is used as an immediate results lab for Washington DC trial ballons), but sophistication, no.

When time permits take a glance at Morrison Knudson, Idaho and Marathon Petroleum, Wyoming, re politics.  There is a lot more to the scene than is showing up.

BobW
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Zxcv on May 13, 2003, 01:44:25 pm
Oh, you mean money! Sure, there's always that, no matter what state. It's another subject.

And corporations have to protect themselves too, from union predation and from mindless do-gooders. It's just that they sometimes go overboard...  ;)

I was looking at an interesting site about campaign contributions. Here is WY:
http://www.opensecrets.org/states/contrib.asp?state=WY
and here is NH:
http://www.opensecrets.org/states/contrib.asp?State=NH&Year=2002

There is something very odd about the NH page. It shows the 5th largest contributor to political campaigns is the State of New Hampshire!  :o  Any of the NH-philes around here want to explain that? Is that taxpayer-funded elections? (ugh)

I also noticed that the 6th largest contributor in Wyoming is the "Code of the West" Foundation. I took a look at that, and it is kinda interesting. I think we could work with or through this group:
http://www.codeofthewest.org/

Interesting to have such ideas so well represented in politics in at least some states.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Robert H. on May 13, 2003, 02:14:28 pm
I also noticed that the 6th largest contributor in Wyoming is the "Code of the West" Foundation. I took a look at that, and it is kinda interesting. I think we could work with or through this group:
http://www.codeofthewest.org/

Interesting site.  Here's part of their mission statement:

The Code of the West Foundation promotes a set of common sense western values:

- working for what you get
- helping your neighbors
- taking care of your family
- having your handshake and word be your bond

The nanny state didn't exist back when people lived by such a code, and a return to these ideas may do much to reverse the tide of statism today.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: jgmaynard on May 13, 2003, 02:16:00 pm
There is something very odd about the NH page. It shows the 5th largest contributor to political campaigns is the State of New Hampshire!  :o  Any of the NH-philes around here want to explain that? Is that taxpayer-funded elections? (ugh)"

The open secrets site says "Except for soft money, the contributions came not from the organization itself, but from its PAC, its individual members, owners, or employees, and those individuals' immediate families. "

That $65k may have been state employees private donations over $200.

Happy with the quote, zxcv? ;)

JM
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Robert H. on May 13, 2003, 02:28:26 pm
Quote
I'm not saying that New Hampshire would ever enact such a socialistic piece of redistributionist garbage as Act 60

Don't be so easy to pooh-pooh this stuff, Robert. It's something that sells well. Oregon adopted a version of it.

Yes, that's true; you never know what people will go for under the right circumstances.  I suppose I should said that it was just highly unlikely given the state's current political climate.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: BobW on May 13, 2003, 02:31:22 pm
Hi ZXcv,

Actually, I wasn't thinking of money, but kep it at the top of the list anyway.  I was thinking of the "environmental" laws and how the companies must protect themselves from Washington, DC.

The big spike in the charts showed up with the first Clinton regime.  There was encouragement for the US extractive ore industry to relocate overseas - along with the job displacement less a few senior people.

Besides the "environmental" laws and regs new royalty fees were pushed on the companies.

Here's a quote :" A US mining company has to go international or it runs a very high risk of going out of business." Kenneth Werneburg, President Battle Mountain Gold Co, Houston.

Here's another favorite quote of mine:" our biggest political risk is in the U.S." Jim Hill, spokesman, Newmont Mining, speaking from Peru, where he had a headache with the Shining Path.

Of course it's always going to be the money.  I was pushing the thought above how the lobbyists are buried 5-10 layers away from the surface. It is this subterranian political force that must also be understood and confronted.

We've had so many industries leave the US, we're like Egypt, educating a growing population without business and employment opportunities.

That Code of the West site is clear, down to earth and well worth looking into.

BobW  
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Zxcv on May 13, 2003, 03:04:58 pm
They just need a better web site designer.   ;)

Bob, were not just shipping mineral extraction firms out, but whole clean industries. Oregon is busily providing lots of incentives (such as the high taxes here) to ship all our software jobs to India.

Yes, James, I'm happy with the quote. Good to see you've gotten with the program. The key is to submerge your desires below the needs of the collective.  ;D

BTW, I can't see why, if it really was just state employees, that they didn't say "state employees" rather than the State of New Hampshire. I think there must be more to it.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on May 14, 2003, 09:39:45 am
Any person is allowed to address the NH state house on any thing they are considering just by filling out a form the day they wish to speak. If you don't want to speak, there is another form there where you can just write your opinions.

GREAT citizen involvement....

I wonder how our other candidate states compare in this regard.  I get the sense that New Hampshire's government is more open than an average state.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Zxcv on May 14, 2003, 09:55:16 am
Somehow, holding the show up on the floor of the house does not sound like an effective way to swing the vote on issues. I suppose we all like to imagine we are fiery orators like Patrick Henry.  ::)

Come on, George, aren't you going to tell us why the State of New Hampshire is making contributions to political campaigns? Hell, even in Oregon, it is against the law for government to come down on one side or another in an election. You've got some 'splainin' to do...  :)
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Zxcv on May 14, 2003, 10:15:36 am
Another interesting item from that open secrets site (see the "money summary") is that the WY congressional delegation got $206k from in-state contributions and $26k (next largest amount) from Virginians, $25k from Coloradans.

The NH congressional delegation got $2801k from in-state contributions, $1000k from New Yorkers,  ::)  $860k from Massachusettsians,  :P and $745k from Californians  :'(

No wonder Wyoming has a better Congressional delegation...
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on May 14, 2003, 10:21:55 am
Come on, George, aren't you going to tell us why the State of New Hampshire is making contributions to political campaigns?

The State of New Hampshire is not making contributions to any political campaigns.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: jgmaynard on May 14, 2003, 01:31:31 pm
The key is to submerge your desires below the needs of the collective.  ;D

BTW, I can't see why, if it really was just state employees, that they didn't say "state employees" rather than the State of New Hampshire. I think there must be more to it.

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." - Hillary Clinton 1993 :D

Only telling you what the OpenSecrets site said... It's listed right on that page that the contributions are not from the organization itself.

'splainin' dun, Lucy.... ;)

JM

Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Zxcv on May 14, 2003, 11:09:07 pm
Yeah, I sent an email to them. I had read that explanation but wanted to be sure. Sure enough, it is employees of the state (and not even their union, which is listed separately). And when a company is listed, it may be employees of the company, not just officers. So, the information provided there is a little less useful than it first appears.

However, that still raises the issue, what the heck are state government employees doing, spending that much money on federal races? What do they hope to gain from that? I looked back at the previous years, and each year they raise higher in the list. What is going on there?

A state that has such politically motivated state employees, sounds like a state with a problem. I could be wrong, though.  ;)
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: jgmaynard on May 14, 2003, 11:41:27 pm
that still raises the issue, what the heck are state government employees doing, spending that much money on federal races? What do they hope to gain from that?

It costs New Hampshire $1.33 for each dollar we receive from the Feds (as Governor Benson is talking a lot about now)... Maybe they want Federal Reps who WON'T "bring home the pork". :D It costs us too much... lol...

JM
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: George Reich on May 15, 2003, 06:45:26 am
Anyone who thinks the State of New Hampshire would contribute to political campaigns does not know much about New Hampshire.  ;)
Title: NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 02, 2003, 02:56:06 pm
I did a search and have only seen the Venture Capital question raised once before, so I'm posting it on a new thread instead of in the "Argument for WY" thread.

I've been reading a lot about WY and NH, and now I think I understand at least some reasons why so many people believe that WY will be more successful than NH, but here are my rebuttals to the "Argument For WY" and a discussion about Venture Capital activities in NH and WY.

The argument arose than WY has a Citizen Ideology (66.1) that is closer to us than NH's (63.7), but this is only a slight difference.  Remember, NH has far more elected libertarians than WY (27 in NH, 1 in WY), although I must admit I do not know how quickly the libertarian movement is growing in NH versus WY.

NH is much more urbanized (UrbA=44.6) than WY (UrbA=25.5) as well.  However, compare the relevance of this to VT (UrbA=17.3).  But then again, Vermont is the first gay-marriage-rights state, so that could account for the non-compliance with the "urbanized = socialist" theory.

I personally think the dealbreaker will be high-tech jobs and the ability for us ultra-capitalist Porcupines to move, start, and grow our businesses in the Free State.  I think we need to look much further into this problem, but for a good overview of the historical high-tech venture capital (VC) activity in NH and WY, go here, select a state, and click "view data":
http://www.pwcmoneytree.com/moneytree/nav.jsp?page=historical

As you can see, WY had one VC deal of an undisclosed amount in Q1 1998 and one deal worth $4M in Q2 2001.

In comparison, NH had 243 VC deals since 1995 worth at least $1.754 BILLION total!  There were even 11 VC deals worth at least $73M in Q1 of this year!  According to the LP of NH:
http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm
NH is "#1 [of all FSP states] for the highest amount of venture capital invested in the state (#4 in the NATION)."  That's pretty impressive.  And important as well.

I will refrain from any "West-bashing" generalizations.  The data speaks for itself.  But I will say one thing.  In my opinion, it will be a more difficult battle for freedom in NH, but at least we'll have jobs, be able to start and grow our businesses, and there are already 27 libertarians holding office in NH.

Besides, haven't I been hearing something about a large correlation between libertarians and high-tech professionals?
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: Greg B. on June 02, 2003, 03:02:54 pm
With all due respect, I covered the jobs issue in the last part of my post "The Argument for Wyoming."  Here it is:

The population and political demographic arguments clearly favor Wyoming.  But then the Wyoming detractors raise the issue of jobs.  I used to think that was a deal-breaker, but not anymore.  This leads us to Cheyenne.

Although Wyoming itself would not be able to employ thousands of Porcupines, there are several locations in other states right outside of Wyoming that could pick up the slack.  I have no data to back this up, but I’ve read a few times that many Porcupines are young (in their twenties and thirties) and high tech.  So, finding jobs for these types of people is going to be very important.

Cheyenne seems to be a really good place for these types of Porcupines to settle.  It is only 46 miles from Fort Collins, Colorado which has a population of 260,000+, one of the ten fastest growing MSAs (metropolitan statistical area) in the country (the Ft. Collins MSA expects 215,000 new jobs between 1997 and 2010), employers such as Colorado State University, ConAgra Beef, Hewlett-Packard, Agilent Technologies, Poudre Valley Health Systems, Eastman Kodak, Wal-Mart, State Farm Insurance, StarTek, Inc., Woodward, Advanced Energy, Teledyne WaterPik, McKee Medical Center, Anheuser-Busch, and Celestica), and a median income of $58,200.

Cheyenne is also just 63 miles away from Greeley, Colorado which has 200,000+ people, 71 miles away from the Longmont/Boulder area which has 300,000+ people, and 94 miles from the Denver area which has 2,200,000+ people.

A daily commute from Cheyenne to Fort Collins is definitely possible.  And maybe a commute to Greeley can be done, too.  After all, many big city commuters spend up to an hour or even an hour and a half in travel time from door to door.

It’s also possible that we could get some companies in Denver to hire Porcupines to telecommute, say, four days a week, and travel to the office one day a week.  They would benefit because they could pay a lot less money due to the cost of living difference.  And once enough skilled workers are in Cheyenne, some companies would certainly open an office there since Wyoming is very pro-business and the real estate leasing costs would be much cheaper.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 02, 2003, 03:48:21 pm
Quote
With all due respect, I covered the jobs issue in the last part of my post "The Argument for Wyoming."

I apologize for the confusion.  I thought I made it clear that my post was a reply to that thread, and that my post refutes the belief that the jobs problem will have any solution in WY.  The only reason I posted a new thread is because I believe the last part of my post was far too off-topic for that thread.

In addition to the facts stated in my post, please remember that WY ranks dead last for projected job growth.  And it ties for last place in historical Venture Capital investments.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: Michelle on June 02, 2003, 06:56:46 pm
I posted these a long time ago on another long-lost thread, but it is relevant here. I ranked the ten states in order. The number after each state is its ranking nationwide. Besides being one of the worst in the nation, Wyoming is the ninth or tenth worst state (among ten) on overall economy, knowledge jobs, globalization, economic dynamism, innovation capacity, high-tech jobs, venture capital invested, R&D expenditures, and # of new patents. Compare this to New Hampshire which ranks among the best on nearly all of these measures.

New Economy Index
http://www.nheconomy.com/movebiz.html?clickid=57&table=categories

Overall state ranking
1=highest / 50=lowest

DE = 9
NH = 15
ID = 20
ME = 25
VT = 28
AK = 31
MT = 37
SD = 43
ND = 44
WY = 46

Knowledge jobs
1=highest / 50=lowest

NH = 8
DE = 13
ME = 17
MT = 24
AK = 27
ID = 28
VT = 37
SD = 38
ND = 40
WY = 45

Globalization
1=highest / 50=lowest

DE = 1
AK = 2
VT = 16
NH = 17
ME = 24
ID = 32
MT = 35
ND = 43
WY = 46
SD = 50

Economic Dynamism
1=highest / 50=lowest

NH = 25
ID = 29
ME = 32
VT = 36
SD = 38
AK = 39
DE = 43
MT = 45
WY = 47
ND = 50

Digital Economy
1=highest / 50=lowest

ME = 15
NH = 19
ID = 26
ND = 30
WY = 32
SD = 33
MT = 34
DE = 35
AK = 36
VT = 40

Innovation capacity
1=highest / 50=lowest

DE = 5
ID = 10
NH = 11
VT = 16
ME = 31
MT = 33
ND = 38
AK = 39
SD = 46
WY = 47

High-tech jobs
1=highest / 50=lowest

NH = 3
VT = 13
ID = 14
SD = 22
DE = 32
ME = 34
MT = 38
ND = 40
AK = 44
WY = 50

Venture capital
1=highest / 50=lowest

NH = 4
ME = 20
DE = 26
VT = 29
MT = 33
ID = 41
AK = 46
SD = 48
ND = 49
WY = 49 (a tie maybe?)

R&D Expenditures (millions)
higher is better:

DE = $2,556
NH = $1340
ID = $1,127
MT = $191
VT = $175
ME = $157
ND = 119
WY = $65
SD = $60
AK = unknown

# of new patents
higher is better:

ID = 987
NH = 649
DE = 422
VT = 343
MT = 149
ME = 143
AK = 76
ND = 69
SD = 57
WY = 49


I agree with you, LeRuineur6, on all but one thing: I think the "fight" for freedom in New Hampshire will be much less challenging than you think. We are already making incredible strides with only a tiny, tiny percentage of the activists that the FSP will bring the NH. With the help of 20,000 real activists (all gainfully employed, running thriving businesses, and comfortably supporting their families  :)) the sky will be the limit.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: jgmaynard on June 02, 2003, 07:57:34 pm
First, I am suprised how well Delaware ranks on those lists...

Second, there are many battles we would have to fight in other states, that we would not have to deal with in NH, eg. general sales tax, income tax, no helmet laws, no mandatory auto insurance, we won't have to get back lots of federal land, etc. etc.
There are some things which will and do need to be changed in NH, as well as ALL the other states.
That's what we will be there for... ;D
The best we can do is make a choice between a set of advantages and disadvantages.
But in NH, we get to start with what is already the smallest state Government per capita in the country, with the 2nd lowest tax rate in the country.
Plus, it should be even smaller by the time Governor Benson is finished -the Senate version of  the state budget was released today, and it lowers spending nearly across the board, pretty boldly. :D
Pay some of the smallest amount of taxes you can, have the smallest Government to shrink, and make a good living all at the same time.
Sounds like a good place to start.  
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: Robert H. on June 03, 2003, 01:59:05 am
In addition to the facts stated in my post, please remember that WY ranks dead last for projected job growth.  And it ties for last place in historical Venture Capital investments.

Wyoming is also the lowest population state in the country, so it's hardly surprising that it doesn't have the same number of expected jobs that higher population states do.  It's economy is also different than what you would expect to find in a northeastern state, so comparing them on that basis is not going to tell you anything that you don't already know.  Still, Wyoming's average income is well within the national average, and the cost of living and buying property there is lower than in the northeast.

Wyoming's economy is growing.  Businesses from Colorado and Utah have started relocating due to the friendly tax and regulatory environment there, and Forbes just recently ranked Cheyenne and Casper in the top twelve best small cities, nationwide, for "business and careers."  Forbes also ranked Casper and Cheyenne 1st and 2nd among small cities, nationwide, for the "cost of doing business."  See this  thread  (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1768)for more information on the rankings and the criteria upon which they were based.  The Small Business Survival Index ranks Wyoming number three in the nation for being small business friendly.  The only FSP state to do better was South Dakota (which placed 1st). Also, FreedomRoad has posted information regarding the Fort Collins, CO MSA (about 45 minutes from Cheyenne), which has an enormous projected job growth rate.  You can find that data listed on this  thread (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1553;start=75).  There are also other areas of Wyoming where commuting is suitable, if necessary.

As for elected libertarians, most libertarians run as Republicans in the west.  The Republican Liberty Caucus has rated Wyoming's congresswoman and two senators as "libertarian" in their voting records.  And Wyoming's own LP just achieved Major Party Status this last election year, which I believe is a very good indicator for a state that is already so free.  

In regard to New Hampshire financial matters overall though, I found this article to be interesting:

http://governing.com/gpp/2003/gp3nh.htm (http://governing.com/gpp/2003/gp3nh.htm)

One of the problems that the FSP would face in New Hampshire is what to do with the state's budgetary problems, which are not inconsiderable, and this could be a barrier to effecting change.  I'd rather us try dealing with a state that is more financially stable, and where major sources of revenue are not tied into political hot-button issues like education.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 03, 2003, 05:46:26 pm
Quote
Wyoming is also the lowest population state in the country, so it's hardly surprising that it doesn't have the same number of expected jobs that higher population states do.

Wait, isn't that a per-capita rating?  I'm not sure if it is, but if so, that would nullify your argument.

Also, you are talking a lot about one or two good cities in WY, but you have failed to address the problem of high-tech jobs in WY.  You seem to be holding out high hopes for WY's high-tech future, but NH already has such industries, jobs, investments, and infrastructures.

Quote
In regard to New Hampshire financial matters overall though, I found this article to be interesting:

This is the exact same problem that the VT Supreme Court created.  At about the same time as NH, the VT Supreme Court ruled that public education is unequal, and the rich should subsidize the poor.  And they also went straight for the property taxes to pay for it.  However, it is only a matter of time before they find a "fair" formula that will satisfy the Supreme Court ruling.

In the mean time, school vouchers would help quite a bit to alleviate the many problems caused by public schools, and I'll have to look into the issue of whether or not NH is pursuing this solution, and what other solutions it may be pursuing.

Funding equality in public education is a problem that many states are about to face as similar rulings begin to occur all over the country.  And it is our job as Porcupines use our boldness and creativity to find solutions these problems in the Free State.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: freedomroad on June 03, 2003, 09:48:23 pm
In the mean time, school vouchers would help quite a bit to alleviate the many problems caused by public schools, and I'll have to look into the issue of whether or not NH is pursuing this solution, and what other solutions it may be pursuing.

I hope not.  Vouchers are anti-libertarian to a tee.  All government vouchers do is expand the problems of what you call 'public schools.'  I (and I hope most people in the FSP) will never support any form of government vouchers.  Now, many parts of the country already use private vouchers and these work great.

Quote
Funding equality in public education is a problem that many states are about to face as similar rulings begin to occur all over the country.  And it is our job as Porcupines use our boldness and creativity to find solutions these problems in the Free State.
 

This is even a problem in TN, my home state.  Now, it is really not funding equality in TN, the state courts ruled that all teachers through out the state have to make the same amount.  This is really not possible without a tax increase.  Either way, it seems everywhere you go, there is a court doing bad things.  
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: Rearden on June 04, 2003, 01:34:49 am
In regard to New Hampshire financial matters overall though, I found this article to be interesting:

http://governing.com/gpp/2003/gp3nh.htm (http://governing.com/gpp/2003/gp3nh.htm)

One of the problems that the FSP would face in New Hampshire is what to do with the state's budgetary problems, which are not inconsiderable, and this could be a barrier to effecting change.  I'd rather us try dealing with a state that is more financially stable, and where major sources of revenue are not tied into political hot-button issues like education.

This was a great article, filled with many terrific reasons why we should choose NH.  In dealing with your assertion that NH has budgetary problems, the fact remains that NH already has a significantly smaller government than Wyoming, or any other state for that matter.  Not only is the NH budget balanced for 2004, but the property tax was substantially lowered!  As the article said, any politician who dared to suggest that new tax revenue might be needed lost by huge margins!  The fact that education is tied into taxes is actually a big plus for NH, as the people are hungry for alternatives, such as property tax credits for private schooling or homeschooling.  Similar to the federal intervention in the west, this issue has people pissed!  

Robert, your post hints that NH will likely raise taxes to deal with their budget shortfall.  The truth is that NH has already dealt with their comparatively small shortfall, WITH CUTS!  

Come to NH in June and meet the man who did it -- closet libertarian Governor Craig Benson.  I'll buy you a beer if you make the trip.

Keith
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: Robert H. on June 04, 2003, 02:34:28 am
Quote
Wyoming is also the lowest population state in the country, so it's hardly surprising that it doesn't have the same number of expected jobs that higher population states do.

Wait, isn't that a per-capita rating?  I'm not sure if it is, but if so, that would nullify your argument.

I'm not sure if it's per-capita or not, but a state with more than twice Wyoming's population should logically have more jobs available.  

Quote
Also, you are talking a lot about one or two good cities in WY, but you have failed to address the problem of high-tech jobs in WY.  You seem to be holding out high hopes for WY's high-tech future, but NH already has such industries, jobs, investments, and infrastructures.

I don't know how many of us work in the high-tech industry, but that's only one job sector.  New Hampshire does have more of this than Wyoming, but our primary emphasis is on what state would be easier for liberty in our lifetime.  I don't think focusing on the high-tech job sector tells us much about that.  This is not to say that the desires of those in the high-tech industry should be ignored (I work in the industry myself), but it's more a matter of asking where our activists could do the most good in the most reasonable amount of time.

Many who live in southern New Hampshire are also dependent upon the Boston area job market, and I was surprised to find out that Craig Benson's company (Enterasys) moved to Andover, MA in March because they needed access to a broader pool of executive "talent" that they were unable to find in New Hampshire, even in spite of the higher tax burden.  I don't know how much Benson controls the day-to-day operation of the company, but the CEO put it this way:  "The talent is the lifeblood of our business, and if it costs you a few more dollars in taxes to do it, that's well worth it. You are more than going to make it up in access to the intellectual capital you have here.''

I pulled that from the Boston Globe back in March.  I don't have the link, but I can search it if you need it.  I don't hold this against Benson (it was probably a board decision, and a company needs to go where it can do the best), I was just surprised to see a business go south of the NH/MA line in order to do better.  I thought more of the talent would be migrating north to escape Taxachusetts.  I'd also hate to have any tech company I worked for up and move to Kennedyland; I'd have no intention of going with it.

Quote
Quote
In regard to New Hampshire financial matters overall though, I found this article to be interesting:

This is the exact same problem that the VT Supreme Court created.  At about the same time as NH, the VT Supreme Court ruled that public education is unequal, and the rich should subsidize the poor.  And they also went straight for the property taxes to pay for it.  However, it is only a matter of time before they find a "fair" formula that will satisfy the Supreme Court ruling.

Yes, Act 60 - not a pretty piece of legislation at all.  Act 60 goes about the redistribution in a different manner, but it amounts to about the same thing.  From my research, it appears that New England has traditionally depended on property taxation to fund public education, only it used to be locally based before the state level redistributionists declared it "unfair".   ::)
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: Robert H. on June 04, 2003, 03:28:13 am
This was a great article, filled with many terrific reasons why we should choose NH.

It certainly painted a good portrait of the outlook in state government (whether it intended to or not), but it does point to some serious budgetary problems in the works.

Quote
In dealing with your assertion that NH has budgetary problems, the fact remains that NH already has a significantly smaller government than Wyoming, or any other state for that matter.

The state government sector is smaller than Wyoming's, yes, but I wouldn't say "considerably."  Wyoming has a very small state government itself compared to the other states.

Quote
Not only is the NH budget balanced for 2004, but the property tax was substantially lowered!  As the article said, any politician who dared to suggest that new tax revenue might be needed lost by huge margins!  The fact that education is tied into taxes is actually a big plus for NH, as the people are hungry for alternatives, such as property tax credits for private schooling or homeschooling.  Similar to the federal intervention in the west, this issue has people pissed!  

Well, the state budget is balanced because of $80 million coming from Washington as part of state grants that Bush agreed to support in order to get his tax cut plan passed.  They're breathing a sigh of relief over that right now!  The state House and Senate added more spending back into the budget (much more so in the Senate) than Benson wanted, but they did cut quite a few services as well in order to cut taxes and also try to keep from ballooning the deficit.  

As for the education aspect, my understanding is that the state Supreme Court mandated only that education spending be equalized across the board, which led to the state property tax being instituted.  I imagine that you could cut that tax and still maintain an equal distribution of funds, but it would be harder to eliminate it altogether.

I agree that these issues could create a favorable environment for reform of some nature, but I'm not sure what form that would take at this point.  People there definitely don't want the tax, but I'm not seeing that they question public education itself to the point where they'd be in favor of reforming the entire system to include privatization or tax breaks for private and homeschool parents.  Maybe there's more of this going on than I've come across in my research though.  In the meantime, that Supreme Court ruling is going to present an obstacle to real reform.

I think Wyoming is in a better situation to experiment with educational alternatives at this point, or at least on a more fundamental level.  They don't have a VT/NH style Supreme Court ruling for one thing, education is not as heavily tied into property taxation, and they're already closing a number of schools across the state as it is.  

Quote
Robert, your post hints that NH will likely raise taxes to deal with their budget shortfall.  The truth is that NH has already dealt with their comparatively small shortfall, WITH CUTS!  

Well, they've done it before, which is how they got the state property tax.  That was under a different administration though, and they do still face a revenue problem.  Add to that the fact that New Hampshire is the fastest growing state in New England, and something's got to give eventually.  Unless, of course, they gut the state government even further, which would be fine by me, and I'm sure by you as well.  NH Senate Republicans seem reluctant to go along with that though.  In fact, given some of their recent actions, it's difficult to view them as members of the same party as the House Republicans.

Quote
Come to NH in June and meet the man who did it -- closet libertarian Governor Craig Benson.  I'll buy you a beer if you make the trip.

I appreciate the offer.   :)  Unfortunately, finances don't permit me to make the trip right now.  Even if it did, I'm not sure I could get away.  The company I work for just went through a merger, and, in a stroke of brilliance, laid off too many people.  As a result, the rest of us are having to put in more time to make up the slack until they can hire and train some replacements.  I guess I really can't complain though, in a company that's been laying off so many people it's really nice to know that you're needed!
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 04, 2003, 11:23:31 am
Quote
I don't know how many of us work in the high-tech industry, but that's only one job sector.  New Hampshire does have more of this than Wyoming, but our primary emphasis is on what state would be easier for liberty in our lifetime.

I've been trying to find the website where I read about a correlation between libertarians and high-technology and have found this article:

http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/internet-users.html

Influential Internet Users Solidly Libertarian
These "connected" and "superconnected" are highly influential opinion leaders who vote more often than the general population. And, according to the survey, they strongly believe in free markets, are socially tolerant, and are "more often than not" libertarians.

I think for the FSP to succeed, we must survey all of our members to get an idea of what types of jobs we will all need in the Free State or what types of businesses we will be starting there.  If the survey determines that there is a large percentage who would be looking for high-tech jobs and/or starting high-tech companies, then NH would be a far better choice than WY.

Quote
I was surprised to find out that Craig Benson's company (Enterasys) moved to Andover, MA in March because they needed access to a broader pool of executive "talent" that they were unable to find in New Hampshire, even in spite of the higher tax burden.

The business environment is strong in NH because of the very strong high-tech entrepreneurial atmosphere in MA, which is primarily derived from MA's institutions (such as MIT).  MA has more access to such talent, but NH is only a short drive, and MA's talent pool is still accessible from NH.

Don't get me wrong.  A lot of companies move to MA because of its tremendous talent pool and I was thinking of doing the same with my company a few years ago.  However, now that I know about NH, there's no way in hell I would start my business in MA.  I'll just move to Southern NH and recruit from there if I have any problems finding the talent necessary to grow my business.

As an entrepreneur starting a non-location-critical business, moving to MA simply makes no sense for my business.  That is unless my company were to eventually seek VC funding or change its business plan and form company branch locations in MA to reach specific target markets.  But I would still rather stay in the state with the greatest monetary and regulatory advantages for my business.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 04, 2003, 03:06:35 pm
In reply to the NH Supreme Court ruling on equality in education and NH's use of property tax to fund such equality, read this:

http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/nh__educationfunding_2003.shtml

Arlinghaus said the poorer towns are not using enough of the money to make a real difference for education.

"Regardless of the size of your grant everybody ... essentially spent (on education) about what they would have anyway," he said.


Further:

"Local money that would have been spent on education is often given to other areas within the community," she said.

She said while this helps towns with their overall spending, it sometimes harms programs for special needs or economically disadvantaged students.

"I don't see people adding to their (school) budget, I see them maintaining their budget, which is not always the best thing to do."


So in NH, it turns out that the "donor" towns are supposedly giving money to other towns for education, but the donees are not spending that money on education, but on other unrelated expenses.

I am not aware of whether or not this is happening in VT, but it could be the same here.  This would imply that state should eventually have to mandate that those funds are to be used for education only and that anything not used on education be returned to the state's pool of funds which should be used to reduce taxes in the future.

The "donor" towns are not funding education for poorer towns, they're funding unrelated government pork for poorer towns.

When this is taken care of by state regulations (unless there's a way to delegate it to the each town), this may result in a much smaller property tax problem than some fear will occur.  In addition, when the state switches the property tax from a property-value formula to a median-income formula, this will provide more tax relief for the poorer towns.

But this is only regarding the immediate problems at hand.  Solving the problem of promoting private competition in place of "equality" in huge-government educational institutions.  Sounds like a job for some (education-oriented) entrepreneurs and some deregulation if you ask me.  But that's my solution for every problem.  LOL
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 04, 2003, 03:15:39 pm
And here are some other interesting statistics I've found on NH's high-tech rankings:

http://www.nheconomy.com/neweconomy.html?clickid=16&table=sections

New Hampshire and the New Economy are often one and the same. A few facts contribute to the continued growth of this entrepreneurial culture in the state: New Hampshire has the second highest percentage of high tech employment in the nation, ranks fourth in the U.S. in venture capital investments as a percentage of gross state product, and occupies the number nine spot in the latest Miliken Institute's New Economy Index – a key indicator of future high tech growth. In terms of innovation, New Hampshire is ranked eighth in patents per worker, sixteenth in r&d per capita, and has enjoyed an 82 percent increase in r&d spending (1993-97, national average 28 percent). Over sixteen percent of the employment in the state is in gazelle firms. Add these New Economy facts to the state’s consistently high quality rankings –three New Hampshire cities listed in Money Magazine's top ten, and New Hampshire is first in the Northeast in the Morgan Quinto ranking – and you have the ingredients for the continued growth. New Hampshire has the innovation, the entrepreneurs and the equity capital to continue this prominent role in the New Economy.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: Zxcv on June 05, 2003, 01:47:24 am
Quote
the fact remains that NH already has a significantly smaller government than Wyoming

Actually, Wyoming has a much smaller government than New Hampshire. However on a per capita basis, or as a percentage of Gross State Product (which is the measure in the spreadsheet) New Hampshire has the smaller government. I just wanted to clarify that point...

Vouchers are of course a disaster, from the viewpoint of freedom. Just another government program, subsidies for everyone using Other Peoples' Money.

I took a look at that Price-Waterhouse site, for venture capital. If you really want to see venture capital, look at California!

Seems to me, freedom has historically happened where there aren't huge numbers of people, lots of business going on. Somewhat marginal areas. Wherever large volumes of money start flowing, the government finds ways to tap into it. So the fact that NH is relatively free seems somewhat of an anomaly. Wyoming is the much more usual example of a (relatively) free place.

FSP is not a program to get neat jobs for 20,000 people. It is to get a state free. It is expected that some effort and inconvenience will be experienced to do so; among those things might be a career change or a cut in pay. Oh, well.

The only valid basis for arguing jobs is if:

1) Jobs are so bad we'd not get enough activists into Wyoming, such that it would be worse off than New Hampshire. That is a tough argument to make, since only 7500 activists in Wyoming match a full 20,000 in New Hampshire, when comparing the voting populations. And some large fraction, (a quarter, I think Jason said) of our people are retirees. That means 5000 of those 7500 won't even need jobs. There are 27,000 job openings in Wyoming roughly in the same period we intend to move to the state. There will be enough jobs for our activists in Wyoming, to surpass the activism we'd be able to manage in a large population state like New Hampshire.

2) Even though our activists have jobs, they might pay so little that the extra money they'd make in New Hampshire would more than compensate, by allowing that money to be donated to campaigns, other forms of activism, etc. However, that assumes our activists actually do spend that money on campaigns rather than a new boat  ::) and anyway, you have to spend more on campaigns there because the campaigns are a lot more expensive!

Income is higher in NH, looks like about 30% higher. About half of that is lost with the higher cost of living there, and the "progressive" federal income tax probably eats some of that advantage too.

I can't think of any other (besides the two above) valid basis for arguing jobs, between the two states, that bears on FSP as a project. Maybe someone else can think of one.

Again, FSP is not a jobs program. If you want a neat job, move to California. FSP is a project to make a state free, and we need to evaluate factors with that in mind. Venture capital is not terribly relevant toward freedom. I'd rather live in a state, for example, with a well-developed barter economy because the people all want to hide their income from the thieving federal government, even if it would not get Price-Waterhouse's stamp of approval.
Title: New Hampshire vs. Wyoming – Self Defense Laws?
Post by: Blain on June 05, 2003, 11:51:23 am

Ok, now as we all know there is a brutal war between these two states for control of the FSP final destination.  The question I have in regards to the choice between the two states is this.

How does each state rate and compare toward each other in regards to self-defense laws?  How much liberty does each state grant toward preservation of life and property?  I know that some states like Texas will legally allow one to shoot in order to defend life and property, and such defenders rarely face prosecution for legit defense of said reasons.  On the other hand, there are states such as MA where if you shoot someone in self-defense, even if it’s to save your life, you will be in VERY, VERY deep legal trouble!  Killing in defense of property is definite no no.  

Now, I am totally unfamiliar with how WY and NH treat its citizens in this regard.  Do they have authority to protect their property with force?  Do self-defense shooters face prosecution?  Does one state fair better than the other in this regard?

This is a very pertinent question, and it is one that will help sway the choice of which state to support for many people.  I, as well as many others, eagerly await an answer from those of you in the know.    
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Wyoming – Self Defense Laws?
Post by: jgmaynard on June 05, 2003, 02:45:05 pm
Now, now, I wouldn't call it a "brutal war"....... Reserve that for places like the former Yugoslavia...
I would call it a "friendly, active discussion of ideas and merits of the respective states".
I am going to a game Tuesday with a lawyer friend, I will ask him unless we figure it out otherwise before then...

JM
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Wyoming – Self Defense Laws?
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 05, 2003, 03:30:27 pm
Quote
How does each state rate and compare toward each other in regards to self-defense laws?  How much liberty does each state grant toward preservation of life and property?

New Hampshire Constitution
http://www.state.nh.us/constitution/billofrights.html
Art. 2-a. The Bearing of Arms. All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

Wyoming Constitution
http://soswy.state.wy.us/informat/2003%20Constitution.pdf
Sec. 24. Right to bear arms. The right of citizens to bear arms in
defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.


This is all I could find on self-defense laws in NH and WY.  Either no explicit self-defense laws exist in either state or such information is extremely difficult to find.  I've been looking for hours!

WY's Constitution permits only the defense of yourself and the state.

On the other hand, NH's Constitution explicitly permits the defense of yourself, your family, your property, and the state.

I'm sure the actual laws and the enforcement of them are nearly identical in both states, but in NH the defense of property and family is an explicitly-stated right in the state Constitution, and this right is thus afforded greater protection against freedom-hating lawmakers.  LOL

Has anyone found any actual state self-defense laws in NH or WY outside of the states' Constitutions?
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Wyoming – Self Defense Laws?
Post by: Blain on June 05, 2003, 04:26:36 pm
Hmmm, I wonder if there are any cases where one has shot another in defense of property??
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Wyoming – Self Defense Laws?
Post by: Tony on June 05, 2003, 06:16:35 pm
Hmmm, I wonder if there are any cases where one has shot another in defense of property??

Just remember to holler at 'em and get 'em to look at you before you shoot 'em.  Then say you feared for your life.  ;) ;D
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 06, 2003, 03:51:37 pm
Yes, I agree about the vouchers.  I just had to do a little more research into them to see the libertarian perspective.

Quote
Seems to me, freedom has historically happened where there aren't huge numbers of people, lots of business going on. Somewhat marginal areas. ... So the fact that NH is relatively free seems somewhat of an anomaly.

This is true.  NH's ability to remain relatively free is difficult to explain.  But in a few days, some research will be released which may answer your questions about how this is happening.

Quote
FSP is not a program to get neat jobs for 20,000 people. It is to get a state free. It is expected that some effort and inconvenience will be experienced to do so; among those things might be a career change or a cut in pay. Oh, well.

You've got to be kidding.  You sound like people can change the entire purpose of their lives without blinking, as though the FSP is some sort of military recruitment.  Richard Winger sums up the doubts of many about taking tremendous risks for the FSP:

"It's fun to theorize but then it gets to selling your house," said Richard Winger, a libertarian and editor of Ballot Access News, a publication on ballot laws and regulations.

"I can't see mass migration," he said.


http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/libertarian_state030604.html

Some doubt our ability to change the state.  Some doubt our ability to migrate.  But migrating to NH, with a vibrant globalized "New Economy" should be magnitudes easier than migrating to WY, at least in my opinion.

The job issue isn't about "neat jobs" or living in the "New New New Economy".  It's about risk and return.

The risk of moving to NH is lower than WY (high-tech jobs, entrepreneurship, globalization, vibrant economy for small businesses) and the return on investment (freedom) will be even greater in NH than in WY (the libertarian culture in NH has already made it one of the most free, globalized, advanced states in the union without resorting to taxation to pay for it, unlike other states).

You want to "show the world what can be done," but you don't seem to realize how important small business growth is to that equation.

In addition, you seem to think the WY population will just love us to death.  But will they?

Environmental Working Group - Farm Subsidy Database
http://www.ewg.org/farm/home.php

WY's 1996-2001 Farming Subsidies:  $104,991,664
WY's 1996-2001 Conservation Programs:  $62,773,774
WY's 1996-2001 Disaster Payments:  $29,787,334
USDA subsidies for farms in Wyoming totalled $197,552,771 from 1996 through 2001.

Compare that to NH:  USDA subsidies for farms in New Hampshire totalled $15,234,415 from 1996 through 2001.  That's 13-times less than WY.  So you'll have 13-times more angry farmers in WY when they find out that we want to end corporate welfare.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: Stumpy on June 06, 2003, 04:13:28 pm
Does anyone know where NH’s corporate tax was discussed? ???
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: freedomroad on June 07, 2003, 03:21:42 am
Yes, I agree about the vouchers.  I just had to do a little more research into them to see the libertarian perspective.

Quote
FSP is not a program to get neat jobs for 20,000 people. It is to get a state free. It is expected that some effort and inconvenience will be experienced to do so; among those things might be a career change or a cut in pay. Oh, well.

You've got to be kidding.  You sound like people can change the entire purpose of their lives without blinking, as though the FSP is some sort of military recruitment.  

Well, then the FSP is only a program to get 19,999 people jobs.  I can get my own job (in any state), just fine.  All I need is my hands, feet, and head and I am fine.  Drop me off in Nome AK, Mitchell SD, Moscow ID, Miles City MT, or Caribou ME.  I will find a job that allows me to save 20% of my pre-tax income in any of these little towns.  

If I am the only one that moves, so be it.  I will have moved to be more free and it will have worked.  I've moved many times and it never costs me much money.

Yeah, and I've done the military thing also.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: BobW on June 07, 2003, 04:04:33 am
Hi LeRuineur6,

You'd be correct if the issue was "change the entire purpose of their lives."  Many here, from my readings, seek to RETAIN the purpose of our lives.  I'm researching a move "out west' and view this major project as an enhancement and not a "tremendous risk".  

I'm not researching a move to Nunavut, Canada but rather to some high-quality areas "out west".  Relocating efforts are "front-end-loaded", ie whether moving across town, across the state, to a different state or overseas (I've done all, many times each) requires similiar efforts, time and funding, with the initial segment common to all moves somewhat equal in cost.

That Richard Winger quote isn't valid.  It is difficult to theorize.  I did not say "daydream".  To theorize takes work and time.  Selling a house for an FSP project isn't really different than selling it for a company relocation, a retirement, etc.  Here, too, it's not to be viewed as fun but rather a work effort.

If Richard Winger can't see mass migration, he is probably correct.  He probably missed or never studied the reverse migration of blacks from the Rust Belt to Atlanta, Californians to Colorado and Idaho, etc.

I write from the Mid-Atlantic South and when I advertised in the US, every week I'd receive 10-20 unsolicited resumes from the Northeast from people seeking to move, knowing about less pay, etc in the South.  

What is there to "change" in a selected state?  NH need reinforcements for preexisting programs; not producers of doctrine.  Ditto Wyoming and Montana.

Discussed here is not Mindinao Island, Commonwealth of the Phillippines, circa 1910.

Other than personal preferences, what's different between NH and WY?  There are small businesses throughout the West.  There are not enough, though.

A personal example ref will the Wyoming population "love us to death?"  My research says "YES".  Just to transfer my memberships from a few organizations to Wyoming will actually keep me too busy with people holding the same values - and also same interests - that I hold.  

I'm not even alluding to the political organizations yet.  

Comparing those USG disbursements to WY and NH is really not germane.  It's like social security.  The individual (and many businesses) rather keep their earned money than wait for a fractional return via disaster payments, etc.

Corporate welfare will contract regardless of any actions or neglect by any citizen here.  It will remain however.  A major reason is that people don't participate in the political processes such as attending regulatory meetings, hearings, and on  and on.

BobW
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: Robert H. on June 07, 2003, 07:36:48 am
You've got to be kidding.  You sound like people can change the entire purpose of their lives without blinking, as though the FSP is some sort of military recruitment.  Richard Winger sums up the doubts of many about taking tremendous risks for the FSP:

"It's fun to theorize but then it gets to selling your house," said Richard Winger, a libertarian and editor of Ballot Access News, a publication on ballot laws and regulations.

"I can't see mass migration," he said.


http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/libertarian_state030604.html

Some doubt our ability to change the state.  Some doubt our ability to migrate.  But migrating to NH, with a vibrant globalized "New Economy" should be magnitudes easier than migrating to WY, at least in my opinion.

When it comes to migration, the biggest problem we face is that some of our members will either bow out entirely or fudge on their committment to activism.  This could happen no matter what state is chosen, for any number of reasons.

The question is then, "where does this problem do us less potential harm?"  

To succeed in a higher population state (particularly as concerns voting-age population), we must have more members, more of them will have to follow through on the move, and more of them will have to turn out to be genuine political activists.  If we encounter issues in any one or more of these three areas, the FSP could face failure in the chosen state.

More people may be willing to move to New Hampshire (for whatever reason), but the fact of the matter is that New Hampshire's size will expose the FSP to the above three issues to a much greater degree than in Wyoming.  More factors that we cannot rely upon will have to work in our favor to succeed there because the hurdle we'll be expected to jump will be higher.  Not as high as in a more statist state like Maine or Vermont, but higher than other states.

I'm a reasonably optimistic person, but I've learned enough of human history and behavior to understand that the more you rely upon large groups of people to get something done, the less likely it is to get done.  That is one of the reasons why I do not encourage the FSP to take such a gamble when the stakes are so high.  It would be different if there were no liberty-friendly small population states; then we would have no choice but to locate in a higher population state.  But that is not the case here.  Wyoming is quite liberty-friendly, and its smaller population exposes us to fewer of the risks involved in an effort that depends so heavily upon people moving and becoming real political activists in order to achieve success.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: Zxcv on June 09, 2003, 04:02:36 am
Quote
You've got to be kidding.  You sound like people can change the entire purpose of their lives without blinking, as though the FSP is some sort of military recruitment.  Richard Winger sums up the doubts of many about taking tremendous risks for the FSP:

"It's fun to theorize but then it gets to selling your house," said Richard Winger, a libertarian and editor of Ballot Access News, a publication on ballot laws and regulations.

You know, sometimes it hits me, how trivial the thing it is we are asking of people, compared to (for example) what people did just 140 years ago to come to Oregon.

Look, if you find it beyond your ken to put your house on the market (something I've done about every 3 years), hop in your car and move to a state that already has all the conveniences and infrastructure ready for you, and leave your job for another one - well, I'm sorry, you're just not "freedom material" (and neither is Winger).

Hey, you move there and it doesn't work out for you? Hop in the car and move back. The personal risk in Wyoming is a little bit higher than in NH, but in both cases it is just tiny. I'm sorry, one can blow things out of proportion.

The risk to the project is of course less in Wyoming, that's the main attraction of the state. Wyoming is essentially risk-free (except for Joe's usual concerns) compared to all other states. There is no fallback disaster possible with it, and it can take a huge hit on recruitment and still work.

And the people we do recruit, if we fall short, will be the serious ones, not the Sunday activists.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 09, 2003, 11:39:44 am
Here's a little more information about WY's Federal dependency problem I was talking about earlier written by Walter E. Williams, an economics professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA.

(Walter Williams) also noted that New Hampshire is less dependent on the federal government than are states with vast federal lands.

In addition, Williams cited the "spirit of the people of New Hampshire." He said they radiate "a little more independent," and are viewed as "highly skilled."

"People who want to work, combined with liberty, that’s what makes a state rich," Williams said.


http://freestateproject.org/media_archives/0004.htm
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 09, 2003, 12:37:50 pm
Quote
And the people we do recruit, if we fall short, will be the serious ones, not the Sunday activists.

You can take that extreme perspective, or you can realize that we are all human beings with hopes and dreams, not machines.  With me, for example, my activism toward the success of freedom and the FSP is one of my two main personal goals in life along with my business.  Ultra-activists like me are just as important as "Sunday activists" like those in my community who volunteer to work on the efforts I organize.  Those volunteers cannot be disregarded.  We need all the activists we can get.

On the lighter side of this discussion, here is the most convincing case I've found yet for NH, the state with the most Venture Capital investments and the most vibrant entrepreneurial business environment:

So far, the project has attracted mostly men in their 20s and 30s as well as some retirees and small business owners. Sorens estimated a 70/30 gender split. The movement is Internet based, and a disproportionate number of members are computer geeks and hi-tech workers, he said.

http://www.stateline.org/story.do?storyId=302832

I truly do not see how WY can compete with NH when a disproportionate portion of FSP members are high-tech workers.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Wyoming – Self Defense Laws?
Post by: jgmaynard on June 12, 2003, 10:47:17 am
I have a friend who is a practicing defense attorney here in NH, so I asked him about self-defense laws...
He told me that if, in NH, someone breaks into your house, they are essentially dogmeat. He said he has NEVER heard of a person in NH being charged or tried for ANYTHING for defending their home.
But if you are outside your house, you are supposed to only respond with the same amount of force that you could expect to be attacked with; if an old lady is hitting you on the shin with her umbrella, you can't pull out an uzi and blow her away, and call it self-defense!  But if you are being attacked by a goon on the street, and you pull out a gun, and he charges out you anyway, then gee, he's probably hyped up on PCP, and you are in danger for your life... And so is he.... ;D  

JM
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Wyoming – Self Defense Laws?
Post by: Robert H. on June 12, 2003, 09:09:28 pm
Wyoming's attorney general was one of 18 attorneys general who signed a letter to US Attorney General John Ashcroft in support of Ashcroft's statements about the 2nd Amendment.  The letter starts as follows:

"We, the undersigned attorneys general of eighteen states, write
regarding your recently announced position that "the text and the
original intent of the Second Amendment clearly protect the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms." We agree that this is the proper reading of the Second Amendment, and that this policy best protects the fundamental interest of Americans in security and self-preservation. We have noted the criticism that has been leveled at you and the Department of Justice for taking this position, and wish to offer our wholehearted support for your efforts. . . ."

For full text of the letter, check out this link:

http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/pryorlet.pdf (http://www.nraila.org/media/misc/pryorlet.pdf)

This letter was sent on July 8, 2002, and carried the signature of Wyoming's attorney general along with the attorneys general of several other FSP candidate states:  Delaware, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Wyoming – Self Defense Laws?
Post by: Robert H. on June 12, 2003, 09:14:17 pm
Also of interest in regard to Wyoming, here is a 15 question survey that was taken of Wyoming legislators in regard to their stance on gun rights.  The survey was conducted by Gun Owners of America, October 30, 2002:

http://www.gunowners.org/swy0202.htm (http://www.gunowners.org/swy0202.htm)

The majority of answers seem positive.
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Wyoming – Self Defense Laws?
Post by: Zxcv on June 13, 2003, 03:10:52 am
Probably, the two states are very similar in this respect. And whatever needs fixin' in either state (e.g., "Vermont carry") we will be able to do after we get there, probably without too much strain. So you're going to have to use other criteria to decide...
Title: Re:New Hampshire vs. Wyoming – Self Defense Laws?
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 14, 2003, 10:51:37 am
Quote
Also of interest in regard to Wyoming, here is a 15 question survey that was taken of Wyoming legislators in regard to their stance on gun rights.  The survey was conducted by Gun Owners of America, October 30, 2002:

Here is the same survey given in NH at the same date:

http://www.gunowners.org/snh0602.htm

The vast majority of answers are great as well.  And WOW, NH has a HUGE House and Senate!
Title: NH vs WY
Post by: Zxcv on June 20, 2003, 03:41:09 am
I've been thinking about this lately, and believe I have a proposition which may interest New Hampshire advocates.

They should put Wyoming in second place on their ballot.

What the heck for?  ???

First, let's discuss what the vote NH>WY>(the rest) does not do.

Some people, I've noticed, seeing WY is a major contender with NH, have been saying they are going to vote this way: NH>(the rest)>WY, as if putting WY last will somehow help NH. This is a kind of strategic vote; but it is an ill-informed one, I believe. The fact is, someone changing from NH>WY>(the rest) to NH>(the rest)>WY in no way improves NH's chance to win. Nor, does going in the reverse direction harm its chances.

We can prove this. I have taken some tests with this Condorcet calculator:
http://www.onr.com/user/honky98/rbvote/calc.html
(remember to use the "Simpson" button)

Let's set up some scenarios. First to simplify things, imagine we have 3 states instead of 10, that is, NH, WY and ID. Let's set up a vote with all possibilities for these 3 states.

10:WY>NH>ID
10:WY>ID>NH
10:NH>WY>ID
10:NH>ID>WY
10:ID>NH>WY
10:ID>WY>NH

This can be cut out of this thread and pasted into the calculator if you want to experiment. It shows 60 votes, 10 for each possibility. It generates a 3-way tie.

Now let's give NH a win by giving it one extra vote:

10:WY>NH>ID
10:WY>ID>NH
11:NH>WY>ID
10:NH>ID>WY
10:ID>NH>WY
10:ID>WY>NH

This of course gives an NH win, but just barely (it gets 31 points to the other two state's 30 points). Try it out on the calculator, push "Simpson", you'll see.

Now let's do what this thread advocates, changing all the votes by NH proponents to put WY second. Does this kick NH out of its precarious one-point lead?

10:WY>NH>ID
10:WY>ID>NH
21:NH>WY>ID
0:NH>ID>WY
10:ID>NH>WY
10:ID>WY>NH

Nope, NH is still the winner with 31 points, WY still has 30, but ID now only has 20. Thus, putting WY in second place cannot harm NH, in votes by NH supporters. As long as NH supporters put NH first, that's the best they can do for NH.

OK, great (you're probably saying to yourself), even if it would not hurt NH to put WY second, what's the point in doing so?

How about because Wyoming is a great candidate for the Free State Project?

We've all gone overboard in supporting our favorite states, taking probably unjustified whacks at its greatest contenders. But we shouldn't compound that error by actually starting to believe those wilder claims (I read somewhere we'd be foraging for berries and roots to survive in Wyoming  ;D ). Wyoming is a major contender because it is good, really good. It surely does not deserve to be put behind the likes of Maine, North Dakota or Delaware in anyone's ballot. That is just silly.

The above argument applies to anyone, except of course Wyoming supporters who will put Wyoming first! But there is a specific reason that NH supporters should find putting WY second an attractive idea. That is, it will be good for New Hampshire.

Now, I am not going to say a single word about a 2-state project (ooops!   ;) ), but the fact is, Wyoming is the smallest state. And it is a western state. Those two facts are very advantageous to New Hampshire.

Let's imagine, after all is said and done and the votes are in, that NH still does not quite take the cake. Why is a Wyoming win the next best thing for New Hampshire (absent it's own outright win)?

Since Wyoming is western, there will be a lot of unhappy easterners. For example, Wyoming opt-outs. Now Tim is going to twist their arms to get them to come to Wyoming anyway (more power to you, Tim) but some don't want to go; that's why they opted out. NH is the most likely recipient of those opt-outs, who still will want to "move toward freedom." If the winning state, while not NH, were an eastern one, NH would likely NOT harvest the opt-outs, because in that case the opt-outs would be western state fans.

Since Wyoming is small, there will be an embarrassment of riches for Wyoming, as far as the Project is concerned. We only need to get 7500 into that state to match 20,000 in New Hampshire, if you compare by the number of voters. Anything over that is gravy. Well, assuming we recruit 20,000 for Wyoming, we still might not be able to cram them all in (if you believe all the doom and gloom about Wyoming jobs - which I don't - but NHer's do, which is what matters  ;) ). I believe I've read that the FSP board would be able to generate dispensations for those who just can't find a job or fit in (although you'd still be honor-bound to try, of course). NH will harvest a lot of these, too. With such an embarrassment of riches, the dispensations could be generous - unlike the case were a big state chosen, and they'd need every body they could find.

If we cannot actually recruit 20,000 for WY (I think it's doable, but not the easiest state by any means) then NH stands to harvest big-time, because people still want to "move toward freedom", but they will be free of their official Wyoming commitment. Wyoming will still get enough to make it free (7500 is easy, that's why I call it the failsafe state), but all those eastern-preferring FSPers will get to pick and choose - and many will choose NH instead. Even with Tim twisting their arms.   :)

NH fans, you really, really, really ought to consider putting WY second in your ballot, since I can't talk you into putting it first. If my reasoning is flawed here, I'm sure you will let me know!

BTW, there are reasons for ID, MT and other proponents to put WY second, too, but they are not so stark and obvious as for NH proponents. I guess we can take that up on another thread.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 20, 2003, 02:23:50 pm
Sounds like us Folks out west need to put NH in last place if that is how they are going to play the Wyoming thing.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: freedomroad on June 20, 2003, 03:06:55 pm
Sounds like us Folks out west need to put NH in last place if that is how they are going to play the Wyoming thing.

Welcome back to the forum.

Well, that would really not change anything either.  The folks out west should vote just like the folks in the south, east, mid-west, and in other countries will vote.  We will look at all of the factors and vote based off of them.

Zxcv's point was that the NH and other people should pick Wyoming 2nd because it is a very good state.   Of course, this is only if people refuse to but Wyoming first.  

Here are the 2 main reasons he gave.

1.
"Since Wyoming is western, there will be a lot of unhappy easterners. For example, Wyoming opt-outs. Now Tim is going to twist their arms to get them to come to Wyoming anyway (more power to you, Tim) but some don't want to go; that's why they opted out. NH is the most likely recipient of those opt-outs, who still will want to "move toward freedom." If the winning state, while not NH, were an eastern one, NH would likely NOT harvest the opt-outs, because in that case the opt-outs would be western state fans."

2
"Since Wyoming is small, there will be an embarrassment of riches for Wyoming, as far as the Project is concerned. We only need to get 7500 into that state to match 20,000 in New Hampshire, if you compare by the number of voters. Anything over that is gravy. Well, assuming we recruit 20,000 for Wyoming, we still might not be able to cram them all in (if you believe all the doom and gloom about Wyoming jobs - which I don't - but NHer's do, which is what matters   ). I believe I've read that the FSP board would be able to generate dispensations for those who just can't find a job or fit in (although you'd still be honor-bound to try, of course). NH will harvest a lot of these, too. With such an embarrassment of riches, the dispensations could be generous - unlike the case were a big state chosen, and they'd need every body they could find."

Although, on the other hand.  I think it will take 20,000 in WY, 30,000 in NH, and maybe even 40,000 in ID to make this work.  That might not even be enough.  The project will not be as easy as many people think.   You cannot just change everyone's mind on all of the issues overnight.  You have to start small (like Wyoming) and move into other, bigger states as you can (like Billing, MT or Rapid City, SD or Gering, NE or Idaho Falls, ID).  Start small and work from there.  Remember, BABY STEPS, that almost always works best.

Wyoming is the smallest state.  However, NH is better than anything on the East coast so it makes sense to send a few people that refuse to move West to NH.  These people can help the NHLP and both the people in WY and NH can work together to make America a better place to live.  Amen.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 20, 2003, 03:27:17 pm

Since Wyoming is small, there will be an embarrassment of riches for Wyoming, as far as the Project is concerned. We only need to get 7500 into that state to match 20,000 in New Hampshire, if you compare by the number of voters.


If the crafters of the FSP only had the foresight to match my marvelous 20/20 hindsight, I would say each state would require a population-dependant influx of Porcupines instead of the 20,000 variable, and this whole business of comparing state populations would be a point to compare recruitment efforts and other quality factors would weigh heavier... and Zxcv's arguments wouldn't be needed right now:) at least so I think... oh well, getting back to the real world...



We are not interested in your strategic voting scheme.  ::)

NH is FSP Friendly!!

I think that a lot of thought has gone into Zxcv's post here and he has the best interests of the FSP in mind,  the least you can do is try to understand what this is about.  

This "scheme" is not some trick.

The Condorcet method allows for you to almost perfectly evaluate each state independently against all other states, as if you were taking 10 surveys, one for each state.

If you wish for people to vote for New Hampshire based on an honest assessment of its many fine qualities, then you should also recognize that Wyoming is a worthy competitor, based on many of the same criteria by which New Hampshire supporters wish for it to be judged.

49
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Michelle on June 20, 2003, 03:31:43 pm
I think that a lot of thought has gone into Zxcv's post here and he has the best interests of the FSP in mind,  the least you can do is try to understand what this is about.  

I do. The problem is that I haven't made my final decision about how I will rank the remaining nine states.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: onyx_goddess on June 20, 2003, 03:36:22 pm
Maybe I just don't remember this from the FAQ, but I'm unclear about how the opt-out interacts with our voting.  Do we vote for all 10 regardless of our opt-outs?  I mean, let's say I wanted to move to WY, and was opting out of NH, but I felt that even if I couldn't be in the FreeState, it should be NH if it couldn't be WY.  So, even though I opt out of NH, I still put it as 2.  Maybe this is an unlikely scenario, but I think it demonstrates that it could be helpful for some clever person to provide an article titled "So, You're About To Vote" which details some best-practices for people like me.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 20, 2003, 03:47:54 pm
I think that a lot of thought has gone into Zxcv's post here and he has the best interests of the FSP in mind,  the least you can do is try to understand what this is about.  

I do. The problem is that I haven't made my final decision about how I will rank the remaining nine states.


I guess we all think differently, then.  I am still trying to figure out which sequence to vote for my top state postitions, but the states from the bottom are pretty-well decided, with ME and ND being cast in firm cement in their positions at the bottom of my list, while NH,WY,ID, AK change places almost daily for me lately.

61
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: onyx_goddess on June 20, 2003, 04:09:49 pm
libertarian40 are you suggesting that the FSP won't be able to succeed in Wyoming because any efforts we make will be stopped by corrupt election officials falsifying the ballots?
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 21, 2003, 12:24:42 am
I think that a lot of thought has gone into Zxcv's post here and he has the best interests of the FSP in mind,  the least you can do is try to understand what this is about.  

I do understand what Zxcv's post is about. If I thought Wyoming was the second best state, that is where it would go in my ranking.

I don't think it is the second best state - all votes in Wyoming are counted with riggable machines; this is a show-stopper for me.

If most of Wyoming's counties used hand counted paper ballots, and the public was allowed to observe the counting of votes, I would put WY in the #1 spot, actually.
O.K., I think I see what you are saying.  I realize that perhaps it is the headline of Zxcv's thread here that throws you off, and I realize it could come across as being a bit manipulative, by perception.
How about this,

Everyone should consider each state individually for their vote,
NH Fans Should Still Consider voting Wyoming Highly,  Putting Aside Competitive Frustrations, Likewise WY Fans For NH, Inasmuch As Each Person Judges Is Appropriate.  


106
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Zxcv on June 21, 2003, 02:54:45 am
Quote
Quote
libertarian40 are you suggesting that the FSP won't be able to succeed in Wyoming because any efforts we make will be stopped by corrupt election officials falsifying the ballots?
 


YES!

And it's a shame, too. Wyoming would be a great choice if it were not for that.

onyx_goddess, I want to give you some more information on this business.

George (libertarian40) a while back needed help researching the election laws of the 10 states. I volunteered to help him, and dug through the statutes of 3 or 4 states, as I recall, and sent it back to him. He and another FSPer were going to put together a report about voting technology in particular, and how susceptible the existing condition was in each state to fraud. I hadn't spent much time on this issue before and asked him about it; he suggested I get the book Votescam and read it, which I did. It was by a crusader against vote fraud, which is likely more prevalent than most people suspect, although perhaps not so prevalent as the author believed.

Well anyway, I have been waiting for this report from George and friend for months now, but nothing. He says she is not done, but he won't take it over to complete it. So we really have nothing, which irritates me not only because I spent a fair amount of time digging out the info for him, but because he's taken to making unfounded allegations about Wyoming, saying this one factor makes it impossible. Without that report it becomes difficult to refute him. It's like president whosis talking about a "missile gap", but without letting us look at his evidence.

The facts are that the states have varying amounts of fraud-possible technology. That we know. We also know fraud has happened with many technologies, including paper ballots in the past, so even that is not fraud proof, but it can be pretty close. Finally I believe it is the case that NH has (as far as I know) the most fraud-proof system, but ironically this may be because it figured prominently in Votescam as having through fraud given the election a ways back to Bush Sr. (if I recall rightly).

Is that why Granite Staters hate the Bushes so much George? Because he gave the state a black eye with Sununu's fraud?

A couple of points to think about:

1) Just because a state (in this case, virtually all states under consideration, I think) has some fraud-possible technology, does not mean it is being used fraudulently, as Joe points out.

2) NH still managed to fix its vote fraud problem without 20,000 activists pushing to get it done.

3) There is no constituency for vote fraud. We will not be treading on some hallowed sacred tenet of the voters. We will be able to fix this, no matter what state we go to, and it will be trivially easy. If we can't manage even this, we will be pathetic, paper tigers.

George is grasping at straws with this one. Marketing calls this FUD: spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt against a competitor. I'm guilty from time to time of this as well, but I am trying to cut back, because in the long run it's not helpful.

Now, getting back to the thread topic, I'm glad George does not speak for all NH proponents, even though he said, "We are not interested..."  I'm confident that when NH fans start thinking of their second choices, many will see Wyoming really deserves to be in 2nd place on their ballots.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: LibertyLover on June 21, 2003, 04:02:16 am
We are not interested in your strategic voting scheme.  ::)

I certainly didn't get the impression this was a strategic voting scheme. I thought Zxcv was arguing *against* trying to use a strategist voting scheme to increase the chance of New Hampshire being selected, because some people seemed to be under the impression that putting the "rival" to your favorite state at the bottom would increase your favorite's chances. Of course, all this "strategy" would accomplish is getting one of your lower choices selected if your favorite didn't win.

I remember seeing a post somewhere that suggested Wyoming and Montana would "split the western vote," so I re-examined the voting method. It seems to me there is no reason for any kind of strategic voting. If there are people who believe that only a western state can work, they will put all the western states before the eastern states. If there are enough of those people, then all the western states will beat all the eastern and the winner will be the western state that was ranked higher on the most ballots. Putting all the western states higher as a "strategy" rather than a true preference would only increase the chance that one of your lower choices would win if your favorite didn't.

From the discussions on this forum, which may or may not be indicative of the way the voting will go, it looks like the front runners are Wyoming and New Hampshire, so the question may be which of those two is ranked higher on the most ballots. It probably won't matter whether they are ranked 1,2 or 1,10 on individual ballots, except that if too many people rank either one of them artificially low, it could possibly cause a state that is less attractive than either of them to win.

Right now, I'm planning on voting WY #1 and NH #2 and haven't decided on #3, 4, and 5, but I think it's important to use my best judgment about which is the better chance for freedom in all of the ranking.

Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Aaron on June 21, 2003, 02:57:42 pm
Some people, I've noticed, seeing WY is a major contender with NH, have been saying they are going to vote this way: NH>(the rest)>WY, as if putting WY last will somehow help NH. This is a kind of strategic vote; but it is an ill-informed one, I believe. The fact is, someone changing from NH>WY>(the rest) to NH>(the rest)>WY in no way improves NH's chance to win. Nor, does going in the reverse direction harm its chances.

From this quote of the original post that started this thread it is clear that Zxcv's point IS that all should vote according to how they truly rank the states.  What he argues in the original post is that if you really think Wyoming is second to New Hampshire, you should rank them one and two.  His point is that if you think they are the two best choices, you are not "helping" your first choice by ranking your second choice as last.  He then very accurately demonstrates why the voting method makes this true.

As for his private e-mails to others, for the purpose of this thread, I do not care about them.  Replies to this thread should concern the material posted publicly on this thread.  I did not receive one of his "private" messages, and they are irrelevant to the debate on this thread.

The question the original posts asks is:  If you think X and Y are the two best choices, should you rank them one and two or should you rank X one and Y ten to "help" the chances of X?  His analysis of the voting method clearly shows that ranking Y ten does NOT help X.  It would only help Z win out over Y if neither X or Y turns out to be the winner.  The point is that if you truly believe X and Y are the two best choices, please do not mistakenly choose a stategy that will do nothing but help state Z.  BTW, I have used anonymous variables because the point holds true no matter which states you favor (even if your top choice is neither NH nor WY).  
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Robert H. on June 21, 2003, 09:32:21 pm
Zxcv's plan deals with a few simple ideas that have nothing to do with manipulation.  Rather, they deal with some of the realities we face:

1. There are those who will not move East and those who will not move West, period.  They've indicated as much, and we've been told that opt-outs are on the rise.
2. Those who do refuse to move could start competing projects that would draw off participants from the main FSP effort.
3. A competing project may draw off enough participants to keep the main FSP effort from succeeding, yet it may not draw enough to succeed on its own.  Thus, the prospects of a free state could be diminished altogether.

The idea that Zxcv proposes attempts to make the best of what could become a bad situation, thus protecting the chances that a free state effort will succeed.  It merely tries to accommodate what is likely to take place anyway, as much as we would like to think otherwise.

There is no manipulation going on here.  The logic, reasoning, and implications involved are being offered up front and made obvious.

Yes, everyone should vote according to which states they believe would be best for liberty in our lifetime.  Yet, in the process of doing so, we take into account various factors that could work against our success: opposition groups, expense of elections, government infrastructure, how many are needed for success in given states, etc.  Do we not?

This is merely another broad consideration of what may affect our success, and should be factored into the overall decision just as our individual members would decide on how any other criteria affect the prospects of a free state.  Bringing up the issue is not an act of manipulation.  No one state is guaranteed to benefit as a result.

The issue of which state would win under such circumstances would still be up in the air.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Zxcv on June 21, 2003, 11:27:44 pm
Quote
His whole idea is manipulative.

George, when you post things like this, you are pasting a big "Kick Me" sign on your back. If you keep doing it I may have to take you up on it. At least have the sense to have someone else carry your arguments in this subject.   ;)

Yes, I sent private emails to certain prominent NH supporters. I fail to see the skullduggery here; am I supposed to stop sending private emails to all my fellow FSP correspondents? I simply wanted to run the idea past them, see what they thought. In this I was mildly disappointed, but not too surprised. I also guessed before-hand that someone would try to make an issue of my having sent that email, and you know what? I didn't care.   ;D

Anyway, having been mildly disappointed, I decided to do the obvious and post the idea for everyone to look at, and let them consider the idea for themselves. Voila.

George, why don't you get the raw info, and whatever work there is on it, from Mary Lou? Then you can make a fuller report.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 23, 2003, 11:21:53 am
Just to clarify my earlier statement. It was an attempt at sarcasm for those who would put Wyoming as last on their ballot because they want NH to win, not because they think it is the worst.

In all actuality I think if FSP was to locate in NH I think it would become a political joke much like Vermont has become because of the liberal invasion of decades ago. Numbers wise I think NH is second best at achieving an FSP state therefore that is where I will put it. Wyoming I believe is the best therefore that is were I will put it. No stategic crap involved, just honest opinion.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: LeRuineur6 on June 23, 2003, 02:20:48 pm
Quote
Numbers wise I think NH is second best at achieving an FSP state therefore that is where I will put it. Wyoming I believe is the best therefore that is were I will put it. No stategic crap involved, just honest opinion.

Agreed.

I believe NH is the best choice by far because it should not be our job to "warm up" WY's economy and because we cannot possibly create the jobs there that will be necessary for FSP success.  However, all other factors considered, it would be dishonest for me to place WY anywhere but second place in my opinion.

So my vote will be:
NH>(all the others)>WY

Just kidding!  :D
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Aaron on June 23, 2003, 11:57:40 pm
it should not be our job to "warm up" WY's economy and because we cannot possibly create the jobs there that will be necessary for FSP success

Those who think this way are selling us as a group way short.  Libertarian minded folks tend to fall closer to the "best and brightest" end of the bell curve.  With this fact plus the fact that we will be removing the barriers between business people associating freely with each other, and I can't help but believe that we are gong to knock everyones socks off!  Don't think I am saying it will be easy.  I'm saying that we are a group that believes in hard work and in being rewarded for it.  We are going to create a REAL Galt's Gulch like the world has never seen.  And I suspect it will happen a lot quicker than most of the members are predicting or even hoping for.

You are right; it is not our "job".  But it is going to happen anyway.

Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: freedomroad on June 24, 2003, 01:36:21 am

You are right; it is not our "job".  But it is going to happen anyway.


You are right.  For some of us, it is just what we do.  I work two jobs (part-time) and I get frustrated when I cannot get my work schedules set-up so that I can start a third job.  

My dad used to be self-employed.  He would work 60-70 hours a week and he loved it.  He knew that every additional hour worked was more money in the bank.  He was very happy because he was his own boss and in charge of his own life.  He did not have to put up with anything or anyone in anyway (except for the government).  

The man that introduced me to libertarian thought has 3 separate businesses.  If his wife works, it is just helping him.  Though, normally, she just homeschools their kids.  He works out of his home and has a couple employees.  He told me he is going to move to the beaches of Florida while running his businesses from his beach home.

We will be able to experience more freedom in the Free State than even our grandfathers experienced.  I agree that libertarians (especially activists) tend to be some of the best and brightest around.  We are much more motivated, often more creative, more logical, and we work as hard as we need to.  I am not saying that we will have to work hard; it is just that some of us will do that simply because we were programmed to go above and beyond and exceed all expectations since we were young.

On the other hand, I know a couple local LP members that only work ½ or so of the year.  They do a few business deals and than live off of that money for several months.  
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Delawarean on June 24, 2003, 03:51:14 pm
Am I the only one here that doesn't follow Zxcv's logic?  I don't believe that he meant to mislead anyone, but his post seems to prove that strategic voting does work.  In his example, New Hampshire won even when all the New Hampshire supporters put Wyoming second.  Of course New Hampshire would still win; they had slightly more supporters. The only effect of this change was to drop Idaho by 10 points.

To put it another way, what if the Wyoming backers had voted strategically and the New Hampshire voters did not?

0:WY>NH>ID
20:WY>ID>NH
11:NH>WY>ID
10:NH>ID>WY
10:ID>NH>WY
10:ID>WY>NH

ID wins by random tiebreaker with 30 points
WY 30 points
NH, with more supporters than each of the other states, doesn't even come close.  21 points
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: LibertyLover on June 24, 2003, 07:53:00 pm
Am I the only one here that doesn't follow Zxcv's logic?  I don't believe that he meant to mislead anyone, but his post seems to prove that strategic voting does work.

I thought Zxcv made the same point that you made in your example where WY advocates vote "strategically" against NH. Strategic voting doesn't help their favorite (WY) but it can cause their lesser choice (ID) to win over their true second choice (NH).

I didn't get the impression that Zxcv was arguing that people should rank WY higher than they thought it should be, just that they shouldn't rank it lower. It wouldn't help NH and might have the unintended consequence of selecting a state that both NH and WY supporters considered a 3rd or lower choice.

I think this thread has pretty well established that we have a good voting method as long as people vote their true preferences and don't try to outsmart the system.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 24, 2003, 09:03:02 pm
Am I the only one here that doesn't follow Zxcv's logic?  I don't believe that he meant to mislead anyone, but his post seems to prove that strategic voting does work.  In his example, New Hampshire won even when all the New Hampshire supporters put Wyoming second.  Of course New Hampshire would still win; they had slightly more supporters. The only effect of this change was to drop Idaho by 10 points.

To put it another way, what if the Wyoming backers had voted strategically and the New Hampshire voters did not?

0:WY>NH>ID
20:WY>ID>NH
11:NH>WY>ID
10:NH>ID>WY
10:ID>NH>WY
10:ID>WY>NH

ID wins by random tiebreaker with 30 points
WY 30 points
NH, with more supporters than each of the other states, doesn't even come close.  21 points

Actually, in this case NH comes last, WY comes second, and ID wins.  NH beats WY 31-30, ID beats NH 41-20, and WY beats ID 31-30.  As smallest magnitude wins, NH beats WY and WY beats ID are eliminated, and ID is the only state with a victory.  By voting strategically, the WY voters with the preference WY>NH>ID have helped to elect their least favorite candidate!

That having been said, you could alter the example slightly and make it so that strategic voting works.  But to make strategic voting work with Condorcet, you need to be able to influence the sequence of elimination, and therefore have complete information about how everyone else is voting.  A theoretical possibility, but not obtaining in our upcoming vote.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Delawarean on June 24, 2003, 09:30:38 pm
LibertyLover wrote:
"Strategic voting doesn't help their favorite (WY) but it can cause their lesser choice (ID) to win over their true second choice (NH)."



"Strategic" voting certainly did help Wyoming in my example. It got Wyoming into the random tiebreaker instead of simply losing to New Hampshire.  
If New Hampshire and Wyoming are the two top contenders and NH people vote:
NH>undesirables>WY,
then NH has a huge advantage unless WY supporters vote in a similar way (WY>undesirables>NH)

LibertyLover wrote:
"I didn't get the impression that Zxcv was arguing that people should rank WY higher than they thought it should be, just that they shouldn't rank it lower. It wouldn't help NH and might have the unintended consequence of selecting a state that both NH and WY supporters considered a 3rd or lower choice."

The truth is, with this voting system, it <B>would</B> help NH supporters to vote WY at the bottom as shown by Zxcv's example and by my example.  

I didn't bring this up to criticize Zxcv. Its just that I am more convinced after his post that Condrocets method is not the best for this project.

LibertyLover wrote:

"I think this thread has pretty well established that we have a good voting method as long as people vote their true preferences and don't try to outsmart the system."

LibertyLover, I just don't see how voting: #1CHOICE>#2CHOICE>#3CHOICE and so on, is rational with this kind of voting method.  If you have a favorite state, and another state seems to have many supporters, you should tend to put that competing state near the bottom of the ballot even if it should be ranked higher on objective criteria.  I think that instant runofff voting avoids this kind of dilemma.  
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Delawarean on June 24, 2003, 10:47:07 pm
Thank you Jason for responding, but unless some other critieria are used for the vote:

Jason wrote:
"Actually, in this case NH comes last, WY comes second, and ID wins.  NH beats WY 31-30, ID beats NH 41-20, and WY beats ID 31-30.  As smallest magnitude wins, NH beats WY and WY beats ID are eliminated, and ID is the only state with a victory.  By voting strategically, the WY voters with the preference WY>NH>ID have helped to elect their least favorite candidate!"

No.
The WY voters in my example voted for WY>ID>NH

No.
 As I see it, the calculator said ID and WY had 30 points each and ID happened to win by a random tiebreaker.  Maybe something other will be used in the acutal vote but,  a tiebreaker just isn't going to happen in the big vote and in my example "strategic" voting would just hurt a state that is a close second in many peoples minds when there is a favorite.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: LibertyLover on June 24, 2003, 11:18:18 pm
LibertyLover wrote:
"Strategic voting doesn't help their favorite (WY) but it can cause their lesser choice (ID) to win over their true second choice (NH)."


"Strategic" voting certainly did help Wyoming in my example. It got Wyoming into the random tiebreaker instead of simply losing to New Hampshire.  
What does "random tiebreaker" mean? How could making ID win help WY? Are you saying that WY supporters who actually think NH is the 2nd best choice (like me) would get some kind of satisfaction out of WY losing to ID instead of "simply losing" to NH? I don't understand your reasoning at all.

Quote
If New Hampshire and Wyoming are the two top contenders and NH people vote:
NH>undesirables>WY,
then NH has a huge advantage unless WY supporters vote in a similar way (WY>undesirables>NH)

If the goal of NH supporters is to beat WY at any cost and the goal of WY supporters is to beat NH at any cost, that statement is true. But if the goal of both NH and WY supporters is to select one of the two best choices to be the Free State, then both are (as my mother used to say) cutting off their noses to spite their face because they are going to end up with ">undesirables>."

Disclaimer here: I'm sure there are a lot of people who don't consider NH and WY the two best choices, but the whole reason we got into these "strategic voting" scenarios is because a lot of people are assuming it will be a close race between the two and aren't sure how the Cordorcet voting method will work. Using ID as the third most popular is just as much a guess as assuming that there won't be a clear winner between NH and WY.

Quote
LibertyLover wrote:
"I didn't get the impression that Zxcv was arguing that people should rank WY higher than they thought it should be, just that they shouldn't rank it lower. It wouldn't help NH and might have the unintended consequence of selecting a state that both NH and WY supporters considered a 3rd or lower choice."

The truth is, with this voting system, it <B>would</B> help NH supporters to vote WY at the bottom as shown by Zxcv's example and by my example.  

I don't get it. Zxcv's example showed NH winning both with and without strategic voting and your example showed ID winning with strategic voting, so how can you possibly say that using strategic voting to prevent WY from winning would help NH?

Quote
LibertyLover wrote:

"I think this thread has pretty well established that we have a good voting method as long as people vote their true preferences and don't try to outsmart the system."

LibertyLover, I just don't see how voting: #1CHOICE>#2CHOICE>#3CHOICE and so on, is rational with this kind of voting method.  

That is the ONLY rational way to vote with this system to avoid shooting yourself in the foot.

Quote
If you have a favorite state, and another state seems to have many supporters, you should tend to put that competing state near the bottom of the ballot even if it should be ranked higher on objective criteria. I think that instant runofff voting avoids this kind of dilemma.  

I happen to like instant runoff voting in some kinds of elections, but not for this. Have you read the report that explains why Condorcet was chosen instead of instant runoff? It might help you understand why your strategy (if people follow it) will have a different result from what you are expecting.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: LibertyLover on June 25, 2003, 12:16:30 am
Jason wrote:
"Actually, in this case NH comes last, WY comes second, and ID wins.  NH beats WY 31-30, ID beats NH 41-20, and WY beats ID 31-30.  As smallest magnitude wins, NH beats WY and WY beats ID are eliminated, and ID is the only state with a victory.  By voting strategically, the WY voters with the preference WY>NH>ID have helped to elect their least favorite candidate!"

No.
The WY voters in my example voted for WY>ID>NH

The WY voters in your example VOTED WY>ID>NH, but the true PREFERENCE for the ten who voted strategically was WY>NH>ID. If they had all preferred ID to NH, it wouldn't have been a strategic vote and your example would have been off point.

Quote
No.
 As I see it, the calculator said ID and WY had 30 points each and ID happened to win by a random tiebreaker.

Now I see the problem. You thought WY had a chance to win what you thought was a "random" tiebreaker. The method we are using has nothing random about it. WY had to be eliminated because of the smaller magnitude of its win, as Jason explained above. The reason for its smaller magnitude was the ten people who preferred NH as #2 but voted ID #2 as a strategic way to stop NH from beating WY.
If they had voted their preference, NH would have won and they would have gotten their second choice instead of their third.

Quote
Maybe something other will be used in the acutal vote but,  a tiebreaker just isn't going to happen in the big vote and in my example "strategic" voting would just hurt a state that is a close second in many peoples minds when there is a favorite.
So why are you suggesting that people should vote strategically if it would just hurt a state that is second?

This really doesn't have to be complicated. Everybody should just vote their preferences instead of trying to figure out how everybody else is going to vote.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 25, 2003, 07:44:07 am
Thank you Jason for responding, but unless some other critieria are used for the vote:

Jason wrote:
"Actually, in this case NH comes last, WY comes second, and ID wins.  NH beats WY 31-30, ID beats NH 41-20, and WY beats ID 31-30.  As smallest magnitude wins, NH beats WY and WY beats ID are eliminated, and ID is the only state with a victory.  By voting strategically, the WY voters with the preference WY>NH>ID have helped to elect their least favorite candidate!"

No.
The WY voters in my example voted for WY>ID>NH

Yes, I know... But 10 of those voters had the actual preference WY>NH>ID, but you had them putting NH last to see what that would do.  Turns out that hurt NH but didn't help WY - so strategic voting didn't help.

Quote
No.
 As I see it, the calculator said ID and WY had 30 points each and ID happened to win by a random tiebreaker.  Maybe something other will be used in the acutal vote but,  a tiebreaker just isn't going to happen in the big vote and in my example "strategic" voting would just hurt a state that is a close second in many peoples minds when there is a favorite.


Yes, the calculator used a random tiebreaker to decide between ID and WY because both were unbeaten.  I gave the victory to ID because it still had a win.  I agree that in the real vote there won't be any need for a tiebreaker here, what with 10 candidates and 4000+ votes.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 25, 2003, 07:50:01 am
LibertyLover, I just don't see how voting: #1CHOICE>#2CHOICE>#3CHOICE and so on, is rational with this kind of voting method.  If you have a favorite state, and another state seems to have many supporters, you should tend to put that competing state near the bottom of the ballot even if it should be ranked higher on objective criteria.  I think that instant runofff voting avoids this kind of dilemma.  

No, you were able to manipulate the result sufficiently as to create a tiebreaker.  But two very unlikely conditions must hold for strategic voting under Condorcet to be able to give you the result you want: 1) You must know how everyone else votes.  (Not going to happen.)  2) Your vote must be able to make the difference in how states get eliminated during a tiebreaker sequence, assuming there is one - or you must be able to coordinate your vote with others to accomplish this.  (Very unlikely.)  If either of these conditions doesn't hold, strategic voting of the type you describe has a negative expected utility, i.e., it's more likely to result in a bad outcome for you than a good outcome.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: MajesticLeo on June 25, 2003, 12:42:44 pm
"Negative Expected Utility"????  WOW, I am glad to see that attaining your Doctorate has been useful, Jason.  Talk about increasing the obfuscation factor.    ;D

It appears to me that voting any way other than the order in which you think states should rank should be the last thing on anyone's mind.  I thought the idea was we were to move to the state honestly selected by vote?  Don't you think starting FSP by attempting vote fraud, or manipulation whichever you chose to call it, doesn't look good for claiming any vestige of honor and honesty in any future dealings???

Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: LibertyLover on June 25, 2003, 01:40:26 pm
I thought the idea was we were to move to the state honestly selected by vote?  Don't you think starting FSP by attempting vote fraud, or manipulation whichever you chose to call it, doesn't look good for claiming any vestige of honor and honesty in any future dealings???



Hear, hear! I could have saved myself a lot of time if I had thought to say that instead of trying to show why manipulation wouldn't work.  :)
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Delawarean on June 26, 2003, 10:04:00 am
Since I'm the only one here that has a problem with the Condorcet Method, let me give it just more try with an example.

First of all, I want to say that I am not trying to manipulate the vote for any particular state. In fact, I am undecided about which state is best.  I simply want to point out that Zxcv's premise is wrong and that the popularity of other states is an important consideration in the real vote.

Also, I am trying to "Vote with Thought", as someone put it (sounds almost like "Vote For the Children" to me).  Believe me, I have been thinking about this quite a bit since Jason and other such intelligent people here disagree with me.  Maybe someone can show me where I'm going wrong (hopefully without accusing me of voter fraud).

Anyway, here is an example taken the the Condorcet calculator page:

votes:

896:A>C>E>D>B
776:B>A>C>E>D
399:C>E>D>B>A
652:D>B>A>C>E
526:E>D>B>A>C

scores:

A  896
B  776
C  399
D  652
E  526

Here, the winner, A, had an outright majority of the first place votes and  its not suprising that A wins.  Now what if the A voters had placed runner-up, B, in the second spot instead of dead last, (as Zxcv advocates in his NH vs. WY example)?:

votes:

896:A>B>E>D>C
776:B>A>C>E>D
399:C>E>D>B>A
652:D>B>A>C>E
526:E>D>B>A>C

scores:

A    896
B  1672
C    399
D    652
E    925

A, (or NH), now comes in third with the otherwise runner-up, B, winning in a landslide.  

I know that this doesn't prove much (but it does prove that Zxcv's claims are untrue).  I also think this makes it clear that strategic voting can have a major effect.  

Jason, you are partly correct when you say 1) you must know how everyone votes.  However,a voter does not have to know the exact votes of everyone else in order to put a popular state at the bottom of the ballot and hurt that states chances.  We do have some information on how people are going to vote: New Hampshise popular, Maine unpopular for example.  As far as your reason #2), I think that a tie is so unlikely as to be irrelevent.  

I know some people think I'm suggesting something unethical, but I am  actually just trying to show that, unfortunately, Condorcets method turns the vote into something like a poker game where you must consider the actions of others to make an informed decision.

Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 26, 2003, 10:31:17 am
Actually, general knowledge of the kind, "these states are popular and these states aren't," isn't enough to make strategic voting worthwhile.  Let's take the example you use, except let's suppose D is a bit more popular than these A voters thought.  Let's make the actual vote breakdown with sincere voting as follows:

896:A>B>E>C>D
706:C>A>B>E>D
399:C>E>D>B>A
682:D>B>A>C>E
526:E>D>A>B>C

Now let's say A voters are scared of B, so they do as you suggest and place it last, with D second:

896:A>D>E>C>B
706:C>A>B>E>D
399:C>E>D>B>A
682:D>B>A>C>E
526:E>D>A>B>C

In this scenario, A beats B, 2128-1081, but A loses to D, 1602-1607.  Just a slight change in the numbers and rankings changes the outcome significantly.

Any voting method is subject to manipulation if you know how everyone else is voting.  Instant Runoff Voting has the same problem as Condorcet, except that it is more severe, and even when people vote sincerely, IRV can generate serious paradoxes that would leave most people unhappy.  (IRV can even make a winner out of a Condorcet loser - a choice against which a majority would choose any other option!)  It's actually been mathematically proven that there is no voting method that is free of strategy.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: bakedchip on June 26, 2003, 11:34:56 am
It's actually been mathematically proven that there is no voting method that is free of strategy.

Technically, there is one way to make strategic voting useless - throw all ballots into a hat, pick one, and that ballot determines the winner.  But that's a rather silly way to have an election.  I think it's called the "random ballot" method.

The best thing about Condorcet is that although strategic voting is technically possible, it is extremely difficult - and it is more difficult the larger the voting group becomes.

- Chip
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: LibertyLover on June 26, 2003, 04:53:25 pm
Also, I am trying to "Vote with Thought", as someone put it (sounds almost like "Vote For the Children" to me).  


I think Vote with Thought means to rank the states in the order you truly THINK reflects their potential for being freed, rather than voting out of fear or emotion, including the fear that someone else will be able to manipulate the vote.

Quote
Believe me, I have been thinking about this quite a bit since Jason and other such intelligent people here disagree with me.  Maybe someone can show me where I'm going wrong (hopefully without accusing me of voter fraud).

I don't think you are trying to manipulate the vote on purpose. I think you just don't yet understand how the Condorcet method works, and your example here proves it.

Quote
Anyway, here is an example taken the the Condorcet calculator page:

votes:

896:A>C>E>D>B
776:B>A>C>E>D
399:C>E>D>B>A
652:D>B>A>C>E
526:E>D>B>A>C

scores:

A  896
B  776
C  399
D  652
E  526

These scores are wrong because Condorcet scores by relative ranking of all choices. In this example, B beats A 2353-896 because every voter who doesn't rank A as #1 ranks B higher than A, which would be an unlikely result in our voting. In fact, this example seems specifically designed to give no first round winner, perhaps to show how smaller magnitude elimination would work. When you eliminate smallest magnitude defeats, B is the eventual winner.

Quote
Here, the winner, A, had an outright majority of the first place votes and  its not suprising that A wins.  

A only has 896 first place votes out of 3249 total votes. Since the other 2353 voters perfer B to A, it seems that B's victory is the best outcome, especially since A only received 120 more first place votes than B did.

Quote
Now what if the A voters had placed runner-up, B, in the second spot instead of dead last, (as Zxcv advocates in his NH vs. WY example)?:

Zxcv argued that WY would be a good second choice for NH supporters, but I don't think he ever advocated putting WY any higher than you believe it should go on its merits. He just argued against putting it "dead last" unless you really believe it would be the worst possible choice for the Free State. So let's assume that this next example is people voting their true preferences.

Quote
votes:

896:A>B>E>D>C
776:B>A>C>E>D
399:C>E>D>B>A
652:D>B>A>C>E
526:E>D>B>A>C

scores:

A    896
B  1672
C    399
D    652
E    925

A, (or NH), now comes in third with the otherwise runner-up, B, winning in a landslide.  

B still beats A 2353-896 and A still beats C, D and E, but now B also beats the other three states, so it wins without a tie-breaker.

Quote
I know that this doesn't prove much (but it does prove that Zxcv's claims are untrue).  I also think this makes it clear that strategic voting can have a major effect.  

Since this example shows the same winner with and without strategic voting, it proves that Zxcv's claims are true and suggests that the only effect strategic voting might have is to create a tie or select a less popular state than the strategic voters intended.

Quote
I know some people think I'm suggesting something unethical, but I am  actually just trying to show that, unfortunately, Condorcets method turns the vote into something like a poker game where you must consider the actions of others to make an informed decision.

It IS unethical to tell people NOT to vote their conscience. All those well-meaning people who said libertarians should vote for Bush as the lesser of two evils now have to take some of the responsibility for our being in an illegal and immoral war. Maybe it would have happened anyway, or maybe something worse would have happened under Gore, but when you tell people to ignore their own judgement, you should be very sure that you understand the consequences. You would have done better to frame your concerns as questions rather than telling people they "should" use strategic voting to help their favorite win.

The good thing is that, by going through all these exercises to show how Condorcet works, maybe we have reassured the people like you who feared that it would not be the best way to determine which state is most preferred by the members.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 26, 2003, 07:54:43 pm
These scores are wrong because Condorcet scores by relative ranking of all choices. In this example, B beats A 2353-896 because every voter who doesn't rank A as #1 ranks B higher than A, which would be an unlikely result in our voting.

Heh, you're right, I didn't even check that when I made my response.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: Delawarean on June 26, 2003, 09:43:53 pm
Well, maybe we just aren't using the same method.  Does pressing the Simpson button on the calculator page give the correct winner or not?  When I plug in the following votes,

896:A>C>E>D>B
776:B>A>C>E>D
399:C>E>D>B>A
652:D>B>A>C>E
526:E>D>B>A>C

 I get:
---------------------------------------------------------------
"The pairwise matrix:
     against
         A             B              C                D                      E
for
A                    896         *2850       *1672               *2324
B    *2353                      *1954           776                 1428
C      399       1295                          *2071               *2723
D    1577      *2473        1178                                     652
E      925      *1821          526         *2597

A candidate's Simpson score is the fewest number of votes it received in any single pairwise comparison.

The candidates' Simpson scores:
A 896
B 776
C 399
D 652
E 526

A has the single best Simpson score and so wins the election outright."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I put in the *'s to indicate the winners of the pairwise match-ups)

Is this correct?  Yes, B beats A head to head 2353-896, but A wins the election.   Or not?


By the way, could someone explain how to use the quote feature?
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 27, 2003, 07:13:54 am
The pairwise matrix is correct, but the interpretation after it is misleading, as it skips straight to the tiebreaker sequence... If you look at the pairwise matrix you'll see some numbers followed by stars; those stars indicate a victory.  B's star in the A column means that B has a victory over A.  If you look at A's number in the B column you'll see the number of votes that A got against B.  But B loses to D and E, so B isn't the Condorcet winner.  In fact, no candidate is the Condorcet winner, so then it goes to tiebreaker, and that's when the "Simpson" aspect kicks in.  The smallest defeat is eliminated first: this is A's victory over D.  But D still has 2 defeats.  The second-smallest defeat is E's victory over B.  After that's eliminated, B still has 1 defeat.  Next B over C is eliminated; C still has 1 defeat.  Then C over D is eliminated; D still has 1 defeat.  A over E is eliminated next; that leaves E 1 defeat.  Then B over A is eliminated, and A has no defeats; A is the victor.

Complicated, yes?  I definitely think the example is contrived!  So A does pull it out in the end, but if you change the numbers or rankings slightly, this result could change.  As a consequence, there's really no way to vote strategically unless you have really detailed info about the outcomes.

To use the "quote" feature, simply click the "quote" button on the top right of the message you're responding to, or use the {quote} and {/quote} tags, where those curly brackets should actually be straight brackets.
Title: Re:NH fans should look at WY for 2nd choice
Post by: LibertyLover on June 27, 2003, 05:36:40 pm
In fact, no candidate is the Condorcet winner, so then it goes to tiebreaker, and that's when the "Simpson" aspect kicks in.  The smallest defeat is eliminated first: this is A's victory over D.  But D still has 2 defeats.  The second-smallest defeat is E's victory over B.  After that's eliminated, B still has 1 defeat.  Next B over C is eliminated; C still has 1 defeat.  Then C over D is eliminated; D still has 1 defeat.  A over E is eliminated next; that leaves E 1 defeat.  Then B over A is eliminated, and A has no defeats; A is the victor.

I see that I made a mistake in all those elimination rounds. You're right that A is the victor after five eliminations.

Quote
Complicated, yes?  I definitely think the example is contrived!  So A does pull it out in the end, but if you change the numbers or rankings slightly, this result could change.  As a consequence, there's really no way to vote strategically unless you have really detailed info about the outcomes.

This example is definitely contrived. No state could win outright because, in every ranking, the state that is first and the state that is last are ranked in inverse order in every other ranking. When A is #1, B is last, but every other voter ranked B higher than A. When B is #1, D is last, but every other voter ranked D higher than B. When C is #1, A is last, but every other voter ranked A higher than C. When D is #1, E is last, but every other voter ranked E higher than D. Finally, when E is #1, C is last, but every other voter ranked C higher than E. For this to happen, every single voter would have to put a "more popular" state (more popular than their #1 choice) dead last.

I quess the only thing this example proves is that, if every single person knew how every other person was going to vote and voted strategically, the tiebreaker would go to the state that got the most #1 votes. As you pointed out, strategic voting is way too uncertain to be worth trying.
Title: NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: Greg B. on June 30, 2003, 01:57:57 pm
The New Hampshire/Wyoming debate continues to rage on with both sides (I’ve participated in it!) really digging their heels in.  Jason, I’d really like to know how you feel about all of this.  I know you don’t want to choose sides and I’m not asking you to.  However, you started this project and, therefore, your views would be very enlightening for all of us.

For example, I’ve stated that New Hampshire’s high population and high number of voters for Gore/Nader in the 2000 election really scare me.  I’m afraid we’ll get there and possibly be outnumbered by non-libertarians.  However, a lot of people have responded that those voters won’t be a problem.  If I’m wrong on this issue, please let me know.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this and anything else you feel is important regarding the New Hampshire/Wyoming debate.

Thanks,
Greg    
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 30, 2003, 02:06:19 pm
The FSP vote for the chosen state, as now constituted is going to be decided by 5,000 (possibly a few more) voters.  Jason Soren's vote is going to amount to 5000^-1 or 1/x*5,000 or 1/5,000th of the vote; i.e. as much as yours in deciding this whole thing, really.

3
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: Greg B. on June 30, 2003, 02:21:05 pm
Exitus,

I think we're all fully aware that Jason's vote counts the same as everybody else's vote.  I just am curious how he feels about this whole debate.  Regardless of whether his opinion supports my view or not, I'd like to hear what he has to say.  After all, he had the vision and guts to start the FSP so, in my opinion, what he says carries a lot of weight.

Greg
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 30, 2003, 03:11:12 pm
Sorry to put you down by stating the obvious, Greg!  I didn't mean to do that, be a wiseacre, well maybe yes, but put you down, no.  


Actually, I'm a little curious too, and until Jason answers your post, does this help?  --Note the date, I'm sure things have changed since!

My latest opinion:

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

25
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: Greg B. on June 30, 2003, 03:39:33 pm
Exitus,

No problem, I didn't mean to snap back either!  I agree, it'll be very interesting to see what he says.  I'm sure his opinion has changed just like everybody else's.  It just seems like eventually we're going to have to unify everybody and maybe he's the one who can do it.

Greg
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: rdeacon on June 30, 2003, 04:20:54 pm
Nothing personal, but asking Jason's opinion on this matter really seems to remind me of when, as a child, I went to my parents along with my sister and made them judge our art contest.

It's obvious that whichever side gets Jason's vote is going to use his endorsement to support their cause, but as Jason's opinion is mathematically worth no more than any other voting FSP member's opinion, it would be wrong for us to solicit his opinion on the matter before the vote takes place.

Let's keep the debate to the merits of the two states (you know, Wyoming = better population, New Hampshire = better everything else).
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: ZionCurtain on June 30, 2003, 04:55:57 pm
Nothing personal, but asking Jason's opinion on this matter really seems to remind me of when, as a child, I went to my parents along with my sister and made them judge our art contest.

It's obvious that whichever side gets Jason's vote is going to use his endorsement to support their cause, but as Jason's opinion is mathematically worth no more than any other voting FSP member's opinion, it would be wrong for us to solicit his opinion on the matter before the vote takes place.

Let's keep the debate to the merits of the two states (you know, Wyoming = better population, New Hampshire = better everything else).
Would you pass the crack pipe please, before you hurt yourself. It is well documented that Wyoming is leap years ahead of NH in most libertarian leanings. Man will people at least research before they make ignorant statements.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: Greg B. on June 30, 2003, 09:15:25 pm
RDeacon,

Comparing asking Jason's opinion to asking your parents their opinion on an art contest when you were a kid is absurd.  If you think this is an "art contest", then you're not taking it very seriously.

The guy started the whole project for crying out loud.  And there is a serious rift between supporters of both states that needs to be dealt with.

I'm not sure if you read my whole post, but I said that I didn't want Jason to choose sides, just elaborate on, say, the population issue in New Hampshire and the jobs issue in Wyoming.  I also said that if he thinks I'm wrong about the New Hampshire population issue being a problem, then I'd love to know.

If you're so confident that New Hampshire is best, then you shouldn't be afraid to hear what he says.

Greg
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: LibertyLover on July 01, 2003, 12:26:06 am
I'm not sure if you read my whole post, but I said that I didn't want Jason to choose sides, just elaborate on, say, the population issue in New Hampshire and the jobs issue in Wyoming.  I also said that if he thinks I'm wrong about the New Hampshire population issue being a problem, then I'd love to know.

I think the saddest thing about the NH/WY debate is that some people feel they have to demonize the other state rather than just present their reasons for preferring their favorite state. I don't know that Jason's opinion about the population issue or the jobs issue is any more valid than anyone else's, but I have a feeling that he could help by reminding us of our context.

We are trying to determine the best choice among 10 good possibilities for the Free State. The fact that we've gone from debating all 10 to debating just 2 seems to indicate that those two are better choices than the other 8, although there are still two or three other states that have a lot of ardent supporters.

I hope Jason will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that both WY and NH have advantages that far outweigh their disadvantages. We each have to decide which advantages are most important, but fear-mongering about the disadvantages is not particularly helpful. Just as there is no guarantee that the FSP will succeed in any state, there is no guarantee that any one factor would prevent it from succeeding.

If those two states really are the best candidates, I would hate to see them both lose just because people have been persuaded that their challenges can't be overcome.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: StevenN on July 01, 2003, 01:58:59 am
Zion,

Perhaps you have access to some information that the rest of us don't? I would say that if one state was the clear-cut "most libertarian", then there would be no need of disussion, right? Heck, I'd imagine we wouldn't need a FSP in the first place. We'd all think "want more freedom, go to State X!" But it's not that simple. Judging the "libertarianness" of a state is an incredibly subjective statement. You seem to ignore the possibility that any other state is worth considering. Not really thinking about things with an objective, open mind. For the love, even NH supporters are kind enough to admit that others states (especially WY) also provide excellent opportunites for freedom.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: StevenN on July 01, 2003, 02:03:10 am
Quote
I hope Jason will correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that both WY and NH have advantages that far outweigh their disadvantages. We each have to decide which advantages are most important, but fear-mongering about the disadvantages is not particularly helpful. Just as there is no guarantee that the FSP will succeed in any state, there is no guarantee that any one factor would prevent it from succeeding.

LibertyLover, you get the "StevenN Most Intelligent Comment of the Week"! :) I hope my economic opinions of WY doesn't put me in the "fear-mongering" category, though :-[ (hey, I still think it's a great state!)
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: LibertyLover on July 01, 2003, 02:31:22 am

LibertyLover, you get the "StevenN Most Intelligent Comment of the Week"! :)

Thank you very much!

Quote
I hope my economic opinions of WY doesn't put me in the "fear-mongering" category, though :-[ (hey, I still think it's a great state!)

I'm afraid that some of my more passionate arguments in support of WY may put ME in the fear-mongering category.  :-[

I guess as long as we remember to point out that both states are great states, we're okay.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: ZuG on July 01, 2003, 03:13:12 am
If you guys really want to know Jason's preference, he did list how he would vote on the "How would you vote if we voted today?" thread.. go look it up.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 01, 2003, 09:21:30 am
My opinions have changed in some pretty significant ways since January 20, my last edit on the "how would you vote?" thread, but I've avoided supporting any state since then - or more accurately, I've tried to support all states, offering my assistance in developing ballot arguments and other promotional tools for any state group that needs it.

A few months ago, it seemed that all our research was leading in one direction, & I got caught up with the flow.  Since then things have gotten more complicated, although I think we now have nearly all the research required to make a fully informed decision.  Also, I thought my position was carrying undue weight with some, so I've maintained a strict policy of neutrality since then.  My preferences will have to remain secret, but I will tell you one thing: As of September 15, my first choice is the state that's chosen.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: rdeacon on July 01, 2003, 09:37:02 am
Greg -

You're misreading my post.  My comparison was for logical parallels only.  The fact remains that you're appealing to someone whose opinion will be taken out of proportion and advertised by the "winning" side.  Both sides have their population "facts".  If Jason is so enlightened on the subject he would have ended the debate before it evolved to the point that it already has (i.e. evolved to the point of fracturing the FSP no matter which state is chosen).  As his post describes, he has not, and for good reason.

Thanks,
RDeacon

RDeacon,

Comparing asking Jason's opinion to asking your parents their opinion on an art contest when you were a kid is absurd.  If you think this is an "art contest", then you're not taking it very seriously.

The guy started the whole project for crying out loud.  And there is a serious rift between supporters of both states that needs to be dealt with.

I'm not sure if you read my whole post, but I said that I didn't want Jason to choose sides, just elaborate on, say, the population issue in New Hampshire and the jobs issue in Wyoming.  I also said that if he thinks I'm wrong about the New Hampshire population issue being a problem, then I'd love to know.

If you're so confident that New Hampshire is best, then you shouldn't be afraid to hear what he says.

Greg
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: rdeacon on July 01, 2003, 09:39:45 am
Zion, one day you're going to graduate high school and realize the truth about Wyoming.  Until then, I'll keep the crack pipe away from you, I don't think you need any more.

Nothing personal, but asking Jason's opinion on this matter really seems to remind me of when, as a child, I went to my parents along with my sister and made them judge our art contest.

It's obvious that whichever side gets Jason's vote is going to use his endorsement to support their cause, but as Jason's opinion is mathematically worth no more than any other voting FSP member's opinion, it would be wrong for us to solicit his opinion on the matter before the vote takes place.

Let's keep the debate to the merits of the two states (you know, Wyoming = better population, New Hampshire = better everything else).
Would you pass the crack pipe please, before you hurt yourself. It is well documented that Wyoming is leap years ahead of NH in most libertarian leanings. Man will people at least research before they make ignorant statements.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 01, 2003, 10:02:40 am
Zion, one day you're going to graduate high school and realize the truth about Wyoming.  Until then, I'll keep the crack pipe away from you, I don't think you need any more.

Nothing personal, but asking Jason's opinion on this matter really seems to remind me of when, as a child, I went to my parents along with my sister and made them judge our art contest.

It's obvious that whichever side gets Jason's vote is going to use his endorsement to support their cause, but as Jason's opinion is mathematically worth no more than any other voting FSP member's opinion, it would be wrong for us to solicit his opinion on the matter before the vote takes place.

Let's keep the debate to the merits of the two states (you know, Wyoming = better population, New Hampshire = better everything else).
Would you pass the crack pipe please, before you hurt yourself. It is well documented that Wyoming is leap years ahead of NH in most libertarian leanings. Man will people at least research before they make ignorant statements.
Actually I am 33 married and have 3 kids.
As for Jason's opinion it holds alot more than yours seeing how he is the one that had the insight to start this project. I think he is alot more objective than most people signed on to this project. His goal is a free state and if he ranks Wyoming 1st and NH around 5th which is an objective opinion then I think it surely solidifies what I believed through my own reasoning. If you think singing kumbaya and calling the Govenor of NH "greg" makes it your top choice then you are an easy sell.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: LeRuineur6 on July 01, 2003, 10:14:46 am
Quote
Also, I thought my position was carrying undue weight with some, so I've maintained a strict policy of neutrality since then.

An article somewhere said your wife stated that she will not move to Alaska, this news hit the FSP, and Alaska was significantly hurt as a contender.  I'm member number 2,500 or so and I may have missed this, but I have never heard of this before.

But I agree and believe that your opinion alone would make all research and debate hitherto useless and pointless.  That is, unless you express support for a state that is very unlikely to be chosen in which case the effect could be smaller, but it would still change things quite a bit.

The opinion of the President of the United States on an upcoming Supreme Court decision usually carries a lot of weight... unless he's wrong or his views are unpopular.  Recent history proves this.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 01, 2003, 10:50:07 am
Yes, I once joked on one of the email lists about Alaska's being my only opt-out since I couldn't persuade Mary to move there, even though I think Alaska is a great candidate.  Anyway, that made the rounds, and somehow ended up in a media story.  I don't think it should count against Alaska at all.  I think I may be able to convince Mary of the virtues of Alaska eventually, but we'd have to have the opportunity to visit it first.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 01, 2003, 10:56:01 am
Yes, I once joked on one of the email lists about Alaska's being my only opt-out since I couldn't persuade Mary to move there, even though I think Alaska is a great candidate.  Anyway, that made the rounds, and somehow ended up in a media story.  I don't think it should count against Alaska at all.  I think I may be able to convince Mary of the virtues of Alaska eventually, but we'd have to have the opportunity to visit it first.
It is beautiful there. The weather concern is not what everyone makes it out to be. Can have worse weather in the lower 48. When you start getting up to the Article Circle in the winter then that is when the weather gets really nasty. Of course not to many live that far north anyway.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: varrin on July 01, 2003, 11:20:31 am
Yes, I once joked on one of the email lists about Alaska's being my only opt-out since I couldn't persuade Mary to move there, even though I think Alaska is a great candidate.  Anyway, that made the rounds, and somehow ended up in a media story.  I don't think it should count against Alaska at all.  I think I may be able to convince Mary of the virtues of Alaska eventually, but we'd have to have the opportunity to visit it first.

I know my opinion doesn't count for squat about a lot of things, but I have been fairly consistant in my support for places with good weather.  Yeah, the weather in Alaska *is* an issue, however all things considered, it's a great place.  I've only been to Anchorage and down the Seward Highway to Seward, but I have spent a fair amount of time in Anchorage over the last couple years (probably a couple weeks all together, but at various times of the year).  Honestly, I like it there.  For a lot of reasons, I think I'd rather move there than Wyoming.  

But you and I have a smiliar problem, Jason.  Our wives ;)  My wife knows and agrees with my priorities, so having been to Alaska and liking it is a big influence on her acceptance of it.  She's still a little skeptical though.  I would say this, though, the first trip there should be during the summer.  After that, she'll be hooked and the rest of the year will be tolerable.

The bottom line is, Alaska is just a darn neat place.. 8)

V-

Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: rdeacon on July 01, 2003, 12:58:51 pm
Wow, you were better off when I thought you were in high school.  At least then I could attribute your misguided opinion as a result of youth.  Ah well, we're through talking about this.

Zion, one day you're going to graduate high school and realize the truth about Wyoming.  Until then, I'll keep the crack pipe away from you, I don't think you need any more.

Nothing personal, but asking Jason's opinion on this matter really seems to remind me of when, as a child, I went to my parents along with my sister and made them judge our art contest.

It's obvious that whichever side gets Jason's vote is going to use his endorsement to support their cause, but as Jason's opinion is mathematically worth no more than any other voting FSP member's opinion, it would be wrong for us to solicit his opinion on the matter before the vote takes place.

Let's keep the debate to the merits of the two states (you know, Wyoming = better population, New Hampshire = better everything else).
Would you pass the crack pipe please, before you hurt yourself. It is well documented that Wyoming is leap years ahead of NH in most libertarian leanings. Man will people at least research before they make ignorant statements.
Actually I am 33 married and have 3 kids.
As for Jason's opinion it holds alot more than yours seeing how he is the one that had the insight to start this project. I think he is alot more objective than most people signed on to this project. His goal is a free state and if he ranks Wyoming 1st and NH around 5th which is an objective opinion then I think it surely solidifies what I believed through my own reasoning. If you think singing kumbaya and calling the Govenor of NH "greg" makes it your top choice then you are an easy sell.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 01, 2003, 01:12:13 pm
Wow, you were better off when I thought you were in high school.  At least then I could attribute your misguided opinion as a result of youth.  Ah well, we're through talking about this.

Zion, one day you're going to graduate high school and realize the truth about Wyoming.  Until then, I'll keep the crack pipe away from you, I don't think you need any more.

Nothing personal, but asking Jason's opinion on this matter really seems to remind me of when, as a child, I went to my parents along with my sister and made them judge our art contest.

It's obvious that whichever side gets Jason's vote is going to use his endorsement to support their cause, but as Jason's opinion is mathematically worth no more than any other voting FSP member's opinion, it would be wrong for us to solicit his opinion on the matter before the vote takes place.

Let's keep the debate to the merits of the two states (you know, Wyoming = better population, New Hampshire = better everything else).
Would you pass the crack pipe please, before you hurt yourself. It is well documented that Wyoming is leap years ahead of NH in most libertarian leanings. Man will people at least research before they make ignorant statements.
Actually I am 33 married and have 3 kids.
As for Jason's opinion it holds alot more than yours seeing how he is the one that had the insight to start this project. I think he is alot more objective than most people signed on to this project. His goal is a free state and if he ranks Wyoming 1st and NH around 5th which is an objective opinion then I think it surely solidifies what I believed through my own reasoning. If you think singing kumbaya and calling the Govenor of NH "greg" makes it your top choice then you are an easy sell.
Now I know why the bias, you are from NY.  :o
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: freedomroad on July 01, 2003, 01:35:16 pm
Zion, one day you're going to graduate high school and realize the truth about Wyoming.  Until then, I'll keep the crack pipe away from you, I don't think you need any more.

Please do not say things like this.  All this can do is make you look silly.  Activists, remember, we are activists.
Title: NH vs WY
Post by: freedomroad on July 01, 2003, 02:12:03 pm
There is a new article on the Wyoming Success website.  It ia how a man from TN compares Wyoming and New Hampshire.

http://members.aol.com/wyomingsuccess/wyandnh.html
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 01, 2003, 02:23:47 pm
I agree with you 100%. I have never lived in Wyoming or NH. I have been to both. Based on real facts and real opportunity for success, Wyoming is the top choice.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Tony Stelik on July 01, 2003, 05:38:41 pm
I hate east but considering business of FSP I think NH is the choice. Before I’ve seen the action of amateur politicians in NH I would never vote for NH as the #1
Too bad I did not attend the western event and have to rely on the emotional relations, but ZION ; please persuade me that Wyoming people do the politicks as a hobby, or they get elected to fix something they do not like? And I am talking people like you and me? Normally totally helpless in the face of career politicians?
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 01, 2003, 06:00:15 pm
I hate east but considering business of FSP I think NH is the choice. Before I?ve seen the action of amateur politicians in NH I would never vote for NH as the #1
Too bad I did not attend the western event and have to rely on the emotional relations, but ZION ; please persuade me that Wyoming people do the politicks as a hobby, or they get elected to fix something they do not like? And I am talking people like you and me? Normally totally helpless in the face of career politicians?

As reported before, the legislature makes little money they have to have other jobs. Common folk mostly.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Mike Lorrey on July 01, 2003, 06:15:38 pm
The crucial statistic is not, in fact, population, despite what is claimed in the article. The crucial statistic is the number of people per elected representative.

NH has the least by a wide margin. It will be very easy to establish a libertarian caucus in the state legislature that will become the de facto deal maker in state politics. Adding in the fact that NH has ballot fusion and Wyoming does not, the barriers to entry for libertarian candidates are extremely low compared to Wyoming. This is proven by the fact that LP members already sit in the legislature AND the governors Executive Council in NH.

As for the purported 'commute' to Fort Collins, a number of people who attended Esc2NH from western states who are fairly evaluating all candidate states in person have plainly said that the commute from Cheyenne to Fort Collins is unreliable if not impossible in the winter time, unless you plan to commute to work on a snowmobile.

I find it funny that Wyoming has to depend on the Colorado job market entirely for any sort of employment diversity (almost all in state employment is either mining, oil, agriculture or government employment), while NH has the most diverse job market of all candidate states, completely excluding the Silicon Beltway around Boston, which is half the commute distance of Fort Collins.

I'd also like to SEE something when I look out my window, not the back side of the moon, not a desert, not ten blades of grass per square mile, not a landscape denuded by forest fire.

When was the last time anything important politically happened in Wyoming? Dave Mincin (of Pennsylvania) said it best: the primary things for a person to consider, outside of political feasibility, are just three: women, water, and jobs. NH has Wyoming beat on those three PLUS the political factors by a wide margin.

For Wyoming to claim it is 'the most libertarian state' is also a lie, plain and simple. NH has elected more Libertarians to the legislature than any other state. Wyoming is around the bottom of the list. We have more in government currently, one of whom has the ear of the governor who is himself a closet libertarian.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 01, 2003, 06:39:07 pm
The crucial statistic is not, in fact, population, despite what is claimed in the article. The crucial statistic is the number of people per elected representative.

NH has the least by a wide margin. It will be very easy to establish a libertarian caucus in the state legislature that will become the de facto deal maker in state politics. Adding in the fact that NH has ballot fusion and Wyoming does not, the barriers to entry for libertarian candidates are extremely low compared to Wyoming. This is proven by the fact that LP members already sit in the legislature AND the governors Executive Council in NH.

As for the purported 'commute' to Fort Collins, a number of people who attended Esc2NH from western states who are fairly evaluating all candidate states in person have plainly said that the commute from Cheyenne to Fort Collins is unreliable if not impossible in the winter time, unless you plan to commute to work on a snowmobile.

I find it funny that Wyoming has to depend on the Colorado job market entirely for any sort of employment diversity (almost all in state employment is either mining, oil, agriculture or government employment), while NH has the most diverse job market of all candidate states, completely excluding the Silicon Beltway around Boston, which is half the commute distance of Fort Collins.

I'd also like to SEE something when I look out my window, not the back side of the moon, not a desert, not ten blades of grass per square mile, not a landscape denuded by forest fire.

When was the last time anything important politically happened in Wyoming? Dave Mincin (of Pennsylvania) said it best: the primary things for a person to consider, outside of political feasibility, are just three: women, water, and jobs. NH has Wyoming beat on those three PLUS the political factors by a wide margin.

For Wyoming to claim it is 'the most libertarian state' is also a lie, plain and simple. NH has elected more Libertarians to the legislature than any other state. Wyoming is around the bottom of the list. We have more in government currently, one of whom has the ear of the governor who is himself a closet libertarian.
So you are hedgeing your bets on a guy who is a supposed closet Libertarian or is he just trying to get your vote?
Wyoming just attained major party status for the LP so it will be alot easier to bring in LP candidates at all levels of government. You guys keep throwing out that NH has so many elected LP members, but have yet to show where they lead in freedom over Wyoming. Obviously you are joking about commuting to work on a snowmobile, but it is typical NH supporter rhetoric.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 01, 2003, 06:50:33 pm
Zion - those last few words are unhelpful to your argument.  This is the sort of thing that really doesn't belong in this forum.  After all, you are trying to persuade "typical NH supporters" to become WY supporters, right?  So why insult them?  This isn't a flagrant violation of policy and doesn't merit a ban, but it does tread on thin ice.  I just don't see how it supports your cause.  Take some lessons from how RobertH and Zxcv present their arguments for Wyoming. :)
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Hank on July 01, 2003, 06:50:58 pm

The crucial statistic is not, in fact, population, despite what is claimed in the article. The crucial statistic is the number of people per elected representative.

NH has the least by a wide margin. It will be very easy to establish a libertarian caucus in the state legislature that will become the de facto deal maker in state politics. Adding in the fact that NH has ballot fusion and Wyoming does not, the barriers to entry for libertarian candidates are extremely low compared to Wyoming. This is proven by the fact that LP members already sit in the legislature AND the governors Executive Council in NH.
One assertion is true.
"The crucial statistic is the number of people per elected representative. "
Mike, you can't just divide the population by representives. You have to calculate exactly what you wrote above. Some of NH's representatives have districts with as many people as Idaho's reps have.  Never mind that seven reps "share" the district's people. They still have to be responsible to over twenty thousand people.


I've been trying to not take offense at posts critical of the west.  Recently there have not been much to take offense at.
The quote below has changed that.
Mike is obviously ignorant of the west and relies on statements from those who are also ignorant of the west.

Quote
As for the purported 'commute' to Fort Collins, a number of people who attended Esc2NH from western states who are fairly evaluating all candidate states in person have plainly said that the commute from Cheyenne to Fort Collins is unreliable if not impossible in the winter time, unless you plan to commute to work on a snowmobile.

I find it funny that Wyoming has to depend on the Colorado job market entirely for any sort of employment diversity (almost all in state employment is either mining, oil, agriculture or government employment), while NH has the most diverse job market of all candidate states, completely excluding the Silicon Beltway around Boston, which is half the commute distance of Fort Collins.

I'd also like to SEE something when I look out my window, not the back side of the moon, not a desert, not ten blades of grass per square mile, not a landscape denuded by forest fire.

When was the last time anything important politically happened in Wyoming? Dave Mincin (of Pennsylvania) said it best: the primary things for a person to consider, outside of political feasibility, are just three: women, water, and jobs. NH has Wyoming beat on those three PLUS the political factors by a wide margin.

For Wyoming to claim it is 'the most libertarian state' is also a lie, plain and simple. NH has elected more Libertarians to the legislature than any other state. Wyoming is around the bottom of the list. We have more in government currently, one of whom has the ear of the governor who is himself a closet libertarian.

Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: ZionCurtain on July 01, 2003, 06:53:45 pm
Zion - those last few words are unhelpful to your argument.  This is the sort of thing that really doesn't belong in this forum.  After all, you are trying to persuade "typical NH supporters" to become WY supporters, right?  So why insult them?  This isn't a flagrant violation of policy and doesn't merit a ban, but it does tread on thin ice.  I just don't see how it supports your cause.  Take some lessons from how RobertH and Zxcv present their arguments for Wyoming. :)
You are right chief, Thanks. I apologize to NH supporters. Just wish they would stop making crazy statements like if we move to Wyoming we have to drive snowmobils to work. It is scare tactics used to try and sway votes.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 01, 2003, 06:55:50 pm
Yes, hyperbole like that is also not constructive, even if it's used for rhetorical purposes.  I have to apologize for that too, because I used some of it back when I was engaged in state debates.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Mike Lorrey on July 01, 2003, 07:08:34 pm
So you are hedgeing your bets on a guy who is a supposed closet Libertarian or is he just trying to get your vote?
Quote

Benson was a registered Independent until a year before the election, therefore not a 'republicrat' as you and your buddies like to denigrate. He didn't get my vote in the last election, the LPNH candidate did, and he won't get my vote in the next election (unless it is for President), the LPNH candidate will likely get it then as well. Considering Benson is going to be a speaker at the next LPNH convention this fall, it's rather obvious that any complaints from westerners is just exhibiting a bit of jealousy.

Quote
Wyoming just attained major party status for the LP so it will be alot easier to bring in LP candidates at all levels of government. You guys keep throwing out that NH has so many elected LP members, but have yet to show where they lead in freedom over Wyoming. Obviously you are joking about commuting to work on a snowmobile, but it is typical NH supporter rhetoric.

Just where does Wyoming lead in freedom? The 101 Reasons to Vote for NH pretty plainly blew Wyoming out of the running.

But just to be sure, here are the Top Ten Areas where Wyoming Leads in Freedom:

WARNING: Those lacking in a sense of humor should not read any further....

10: You are free to rape the land, cause there ain't nuthin there to begin with
9: You are free to work in any job, so long as it is in a mine, on an oil well or refinery, on a ranch, or for the gummint.
8: I hear sheep are mighty purty after ten beers or so...
7: You are free to snowmobile where ever you want, so long as it ain't fenced off with barbed wire.
6: You are free to have your herd predated upon by federally protected wolves.
5: You can drink all the water you want, provided it ain't owned by the state (oh, thats right, the state owns all the water).
4: Wyoming is at such a high altitude, it's just too durn cold for rattlesnakes...
3: You are free to feed the bears, whether you want to or not...
2: You are free to leave the state for good whenever you want to, everybody else does!!!
1: There is a girl behind every tree in Wyoming. So if you can find yourself a tree, you have it made....
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: varrin on July 01, 2003, 07:17:12 pm
Seriously, though, the Cheyenne - *Denver* commute in the winter is a critical issue for some people.  If it's not doable (i.e. would risk the loss of a job), that might be a significant factor for weighting another state higher...

V-

Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Mike Lorrey on July 01, 2003, 07:28:14 pm
Seriously, though, the Cheyenne - *Denver* commute in the winter is a critical issue for some people.  If it's not doable (i.e. would risk the loss of a job), that might be a significant factor for weighting another state higher...

Look, I wasn't making it up. I heard the same thing from three westerners who attended Esc2NH. They said specifically that if you live in Cheyenne and work in Fort Collins it is patently impossible to keep a job through a winter if you don't have a 4 wheel drive vehicle, chains, etc. Nor am I ignorant of Wyoming. I've traveled through the state on several occasions myself. Compared to the NH landscape, it DOES seem like the back side of the moon. The only part of the state that is worth anything is owned by the federal government.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: varrin on July 01, 2003, 08:56:45 pm
I wouldn't have to do the drive daily (if I'm ingenius enough, I might only have to do it a handful of times through the entire winter), I would have a 4wd (I do now), and I could get chains.  But I *can't* miss work when I have to go.  Doing so could potentially cost my company many tens of thousands of dollars (or more - directly) and jeapordize multi-million dollar contracts.  I don't know if they'd fire me if it happened once, but if it became a pattern, they wouldn't be too interested in keeping me...

V-

Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on July 01, 2003, 09:49:34 pm
The crucial statistic is not, in fact, population, despite what is claimed in the article. The crucial statistic is the number of people per elected representative.

NH has the least by a wide margin.

Of course we are not just trying to win the state house seats.  We are also trying to win the state senate, the US Senate, Gov, Sec of State, House US, and so one.

Vermont or NH has the smallest house seats, depending on how you look at it.  Wyoming has the 2nd or 3rd smallest house seats, depending on how you look at it.

Wyoming has the 2nd smallest state senate seats, while NH has the largest.

Wyoming has the smallest US Senate, US House, Gov, Sec or State, and so on.  NH has some of the largest US Senate, Gov, Sec of State, and so on.

Overall, Wyoming's seats are the smallest.  NH's are about middle or worse.  Wyoming has the 3rd cheapest elections while NH has the most expensive.  Wyoming has term limits while NH does not.  What is it exactly that you are not seeing?

The districts in Wyoming are smaller and this entire thread has been turned around.  BTW, Wyoming also has the smallest population.

Not bad for Wyoming:
1 Smallest districts
1 smallest population
1 most libertarian public servants
1 most libertarian culture

What are you confused on?  I am glad to help you.  Rdeacon, feel free to email me at Wyomingliberty@yahoo.com or call me at 1-901-568-0643.  I'll be glad to answer any question.

Quote
As for the purported 'commute' to Fort Collins, a number of people who attended Esc2NH from western states who are fairly evaluating all candidate states in person have plainly said that the commute from Cheyenne to Fort Collins is unreliable if not impossible in the winter time, unless you plan to commute to work on a snowmobile.

Actually it is quite possible.  There is no need for a snowmobile and if I am not mistaken that is not legal on the Interstate, anyway.  It is even easier than going from NH or Maine to Boston.

Quote
I find it funny that Wyoming has to depend on the Colorado job market entirely for any sort of employment diversity (almost all in state employment is either mining, oil, agriculture or government employment),

Actually, there is not need for anyone to leave Wyoming to work in SD, UT, NE, MT, ID, or CO, although people can work in any of the states, if they want to.  Wyoming has much more than enough jobs for all FSP members in WY.

The 2nd largest industry in Wyoming is tourism.  Also, there are plenty of wholesale, utility, construction, retail, railroad, manufacturing, and other jobs all thoughtout Wyoming.  Yes, Wyoming even has high tech companies, thoughout the state.

Quote
I'd also like to SEE something when I look out my window, not the back side of the moon, not a desert, not ten blades of grass per square mile, not a landscape denuded by forest fire.

We all do.  Although, everything you mentioned is something.  I think you are trying to spread a rumor that Wyoming is not pretty.  Most people consider parts of Wyoming to be the nicest looking parts of the lower 48.  Why do you think 6 million visitors go to Wyoming every year?

Quote
When was the last time anything important politically happened in Wyoming?

All of the time.  Wyoming continues to fight the federal government and usually wins.  The great Western rebellion (I think 8-12 states eventually joined on) was started by Wyoming.

Quote
For Wyoming to claim it is 'the most libertarian state' is also a lie, plain and simple. NH has elected more Libertarians to the legislature than any other state. Wyoming is around the bottom of the list. We have more in government currently, one of whom has the ear of the governor who is himself a closet libertarian.

I do not think it is very simple.  Most people in this forum likely consider Wyoming to be the most libertarian state (or Alaska).  There are dozens of reasons.  I'll name a few.  Wyoming had the 2nd best showing (per capita) for Harry Browne (only behind Alaska), Wyoming is the least regulated state in the nation, Wyoming's Congress Members are the most libertarian in the country according to libertarian groups, Wyoming's Congress Members are the worst in the country according to Big government group.  Wyoming had the highest percentage of votes for LP members out of all of the candidate states in 2002 (Idaho was second).  

The list , Wyoming goes on and on.  Wyoming has the best tax system for small businesses and for the wealth.  Wyoming has no corporate taxes (a must in a libertarian system) and no personal income taxes (another must in a libertarian system), and low property taxes.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on July 01, 2003, 09:58:15 pm

Look, I wasn't making it up. I heard the same thing from three westerners who attended Esc2NH. They said specifically that if you live in Cheyenne and work in Fort Collins it is patently impossible to keep a job through a winter if you don't have a 4 wheel drive vehicle, chains, etc.

Mike, I'll repeat, no one needs to travel to Ft. Collins, or UT, ID, MT, NE, or SD for work.  Sure, you can do any of that if you want to.  However, Wyoming has more than the 10,000 to 12,000 jobs we will need.  

BTW, Mike, I have family in Longmont (right below Ft. Collins).  They and all of their friends either have chains or 4 wheel drive.  Of course, for a few weeks per winter, they use these.  The Denver MSA has over 3 million people and a ton of them have chains.  I'm been all over CO on chains.  It is no problem and you do not have to drive 30 mph or anything.

The commute is easier than going to Boston.  Wyoming's projected job market is about as strong as New Hampshires on a per capital level.  Actually, both Idaho and Montana have stronger per capita job markets than NH.  Even South Dakota has a better projected per capita job market.  

It really does amaze me that you say these things.  I've told you my number a couple of times.  Give me a call if you have any questions.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Karl on July 01, 2003, 10:56:53 pm
Note that several of the ten states claim "citizen legislatures" and some of them may have a greater percentage of "common folk" than New Hampshire.

You mean government employees and lawyers aren't citizens?  ;)

Since the report doesn't list the professions for WY and MT, what can we conclude?  Incomplete information?  Professional politicians?  Is this information even published?
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: varrin on July 01, 2003, 11:00:47 pm
However, Wyoming has more than the 10,000 to 12,000 jobs we will need.  

Many families are 2 income families.  All singles are one income.  I don't know the ratio of single to married (and how many signers also signed up their spouses) but I think the 10,000 - 12,000 number is considerably less than we will need.  If 1/2 are single and 1/2 are married, and of those 1/2 that are married, 1/2 of them have working spouses and of the 1/2 that do, 1/2 of them *didn't* sign up their spouse, we'd need 17,500 jobs.  As of May, 2003, there were 10,670 people unemployed  in Wyoming.  That's makes for about 28,000 jobs needed.

I don't think there'll be enough.

V-

Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on July 01, 2003, 11:02:43 pm
If having to use chains or having to have a 4WD will either make or break the deal let me toss a tidbit out.

Here in Alaska we get snow. Not as much as we used to, but we do get some.

Very few IF any uses chains here. What you say.............no chains?????   :o  No no chains.

So how do you get about, IF you do leave your homes I hear being asked.

Simple really. Studded tires. Yes people studded tires will work anywhere you live that gets snow/ice. And best of all, you don't have to have a 4WD either. I know because (while I do have a 4WD I don't have to always use it) I have a little front wheel drive I drive almost all winter. Studs people, think studs.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: varrin on July 01, 2003, 11:32:25 pm
Yeah but they sound funny.. ;-)

V-

Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Joe on July 01, 2003, 11:37:08 pm
I agree with Jenlee.  

Commuting in mountain winters here in Colorado is an everyday affair for thousands of people in this county.  Our weather at 10,000 ft and over 11,000 ft passes (between Leadville and Copper Mountain -- go look 'em up) is easily as bad or worse than between Cheyenne and Fort Collins.  Yet nearly all of our workforce makes a 35 to 45 mile commute reliably twice a day in everything from old beater cars and trucks to new SUV's.  Four wheel drive helps.  One of the most popular makes of car here is SUBARU (I've even got one -- a 1986 old beater).  They do the job.  For those without their own cars, the resorts at Vail and in Summit County run buses regularly for their employees.

Take it from a county full of people who do such winter commutes -- the whining being made on this forum about such commutes is by those who know not of what they speak. We do know. That's not saying such commutes are easy. But they certainly do not require snowmobiles. They don't even require four wheel drive.  But studded tires do help and chains are a good thing to have in the trunk.

Karl,
I dug out the occupation info that I could find. If I could not find occupation info on nearly all or at least a majority, I did not post it.
Some states list it on their legislature sites. Some do not.
The info IS available if you want to run down each legislator's biographical info. A call to each state's legislative offices would answer those questions. I did not go that far. You are welcome to. We do need that info. The best person to dig that stuff out is an antagonist with the ambition to look under every rock.

Thanks to NH, ME, AK, SD, and VT for including that info. (Vermont's is available if you look up their pdf files).
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: varrin on July 01, 2003, 11:41:40 pm
Thanks Joe...  sounds like 4wd + studs + chains in the trunk = reliable winter drive from Cheyenne to Denver, and probably not overwhelmingly irritating (for someone who likes 100+ weather) if it's only done a few times during the winter.

V-

Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on July 01, 2003, 11:47:11 pm
I hate east but considering business of FSP I think NH is the choice. Before I?ve seen the action of amateur politicians in NH I would never vote for NH as the #1
Too bad I did not attend the western event and have to rely on the emotional relations, but ZION ; please persuade me that Wyoming people do the politicks as a hobby, or they get elected to fix something they do not like? And I am talking people like you and me? Normally totally helpless in the face of career politicians?

As reported before, the legislature makes little money they have to have other jobs. Common folk mostly.

The last quote is worth repeating.
Quote
As reported before, the legislature makes little money they have to have other jobs. Common folk mostly.
One quarter of them (104) are lawyers, work for lawyers, or work for government (unless the NH people here can show that the educators, for instance, work for private schools).
That is documented at this link (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2113;start=msg28615)
and in the State Legislature Report (http://www.freestateproject.org/statelegs.htm)
The above report also details the facts about how many people are in each state's legislative districts.

Note that several of the ten states claim "citizen legislatures" and some of them may have a greater percentage of "common folk" than New Hampshire.
Check the facts behind the claims!


Joe, ZionCurtian was talking about in Wyoming.  In Wyoming they have term limits.  They even kicked out the last Gov.  He said he would leave politicals and go back to business.  In Wyoming the state House reps work from 20 to 38 days per year.  They are common folk and 1/4 of them are not (otherwise) government workers.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on July 01, 2003, 11:48:18 pm
lol Well yes they do, but wintertime, cold weather, windows up, heater on, radio (or whatever you play on) and you wont hear a sound, unless you are outside and a car that has them on goes by.

Yeah but they sound funny.. ;-)

V-


Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on July 01, 2003, 11:52:23 pm
Also in Anchorge (I have no idea about the zoo down at the capital) we have buses that runs pretty much everywhere. Even to Eagle River which is a little burb here.

I have even seen people riding their bicycles in the wintertime.

But studs on your car isn't a big deal. And commuting isn't any harder with them on than without them (in the summertime).

Studs........mans revenge on winter  ;D
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Joe on July 01, 2003, 11:54:08 pm
Your welcome, Varrin.

You know, the worst thing about winter driving
(and I've done it from northern Pennsylvania to northern Maine too)
is the damned idiots who don't know how to drive in snow!!! >:(
Give Denver an inch of snow and those idiots are all over the road.

Especially the damned idiots who wait until January
to put on their winter snow tires >:(

We have a lot of old commuting veterans who figure they can get by running the "Leadville 500" without snow tires until the day after a major dump.  You know what?  They do get by -- most of the time -- that's why they wait until January or February (before the spring snowstorms).  I guess most of us figure it ain't worth the trouble of changing tires until it gets really bad.  What's really bad to those of us up here?  That dump of several feet that Denver had was "really bad".  But we only had a foot and Cheyenne only got several inches -- not even enough to slow down to less than the speed limit for -- unless the idiots in front of us with the bald tires can't make it up a slight hill and hold up traffic. >:(
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: jenlee on July 02, 2003, 12:03:46 am
When I was living in Anchorage, and when we got the first snow fall, I would NOT leave my house. Not unless I had to.

lol There was more wrecks and idiots stuck that day than any other day it snowed.

Idiots, glad to hear we don't have them all.  ;D

But what is real fun is the people who moved up here in the summer, came from a state that got either no snow or very little and they would think they could drive the same as when it was dry and all out. So funny.  ;D
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: ZuG on July 02, 2003, 12:41:41 am
Jason,

The thread was originally posted on Jan. 20th, but was edited in Mid-may. Ovbiously, you could have changed opinions by then, but it should be at least a rough estimate.

FWIW, I agree with your stance. Neutrality for the leadership is the wisest position.
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: rdeacon on July 02, 2003, 08:51:05 am
Ahh, I see, is this how you discount every NH voter east of the Mississippi?

We're through here.  I'm not getting into a flame war with you, there are serious matters to discuss.

Wow, you were better off when I thought you were in high school.  At least then I could attribute your misguided opinion as a result of youth.  Ah well, we're through talking about this.

Zion, one day you're going to graduate high school and realize the truth about Wyoming.  Until then, I'll keep the crack pipe away from you, I don't think you need any more.

Nothing personal, but asking Jason's opinion on this matter really seems to remind me of when, as a child, I went to my parents along with my sister and made them judge our art contest.

It's obvious that whichever side gets Jason's vote is going to use his endorsement to support their cause, but as Jason's opinion is mathematically worth no more than any other voting FSP member's opinion, it would be wrong for us to solicit his opinion on the matter before the vote takes place.

Let's keep the debate to the merits of the two states (you know, Wyoming = better population, New Hampshire = better everything else).
Would you pass the crack pipe please, before you hurt yourself. It is well documented that Wyoming is leap years ahead of NH in most libertarian leanings. Man will people at least research before they make ignorant statements.
Actually I am 33 married and have 3 kids.
As for Jason's opinion it holds alot more than yours seeing how he is the one that had the insight to start this project. I think he is alot more objective than most people signed on to this project. His goal is a free state and if he ranks Wyoming 1st and NH around 5th which is an objective opinion then I think it surely solidifies what I believed through my own reasoning. If you think singing kumbaya and calling the Govenor of NH "greg" makes it your top choice then you are an easy sell.
Now I know why the bias, you are from NY.  :o
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Zxcv on July 21, 2003, 10:23:26 am
Proposed legislation is not passed legislation. And even if it goes through, we'll change it back.

Looks like this is a federal law anyway. How is NH going to avoid that?

This is one area where a state (whichever state we are in) will have to simply refuse to obey the federal law, on a 10th Amendment basis. (While the feds may be able to insist on a fair voting system, it seems doubtful their insistence on a specific technology will fly - especially one so amenable to fraud.) And if that fails, it's all over for this country. Voting (however bad it is now) will become a joke, a mere prop for those in power.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Sebastian on July 21, 2003, 10:35:46 am
Quote
And even if it goes through, we'll change it back.
So, no existing laws or proposed legislation should influence our decision because 'we'll change it' or 'we'll change it back'?

The tools that we'll use to make these changes are rather important. If touch screen voting will hinder us in changing the laws, this WY proposed legislation does not help Wyoming in upcoming vote.

I'd rather see a state creating proposals to NOT cooperate with feds.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Karl on July 21, 2003, 10:42:20 am
Looks like this is a federal law anyway. How is NH going to avoid that?

As with many unconstitutional Federal laws this one is probably "enforced" through fiscal bribary.  States don't have to do it, but it will be hard for them to turn down tens of millions of Federal dollars.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Stumpy on July 21, 2003, 10:47:25 am
Proposed legislation is not passed legislation. And even if it goes through, we'll change it back.

Not if Wyoming’s legislature circles the wagons. This is another example of Wyoming’s legislature moving in the wrong direction.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on July 21, 2003, 10:49:20 am
Looks like this is a federal law anyway. How is NH going to avoid that?

As with many unconstitutional Federal laws this one is probably "enforced" through fiscal bribary.  States don't have to do it, but it will be hard for them to turn down tens of millions of Federal dollars.

The article says they expect to get $20 million for a 5% state match.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: jgmaynard on July 21, 2003, 11:41:40 am
As a candidate in NH in 2001, it was great being able to be in the room where the paper ballots were being counted.
100% paper ballots. 60% counted by hand. Another NH advantage. :D

JM
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Radar on July 21, 2003, 12:11:44 pm
Touchscreen voting is a good thing as long as there is also a paper record of the vote that can be verified.  No more hanging chads, no more confusing ballots, etc.

If you've got people counting, you've got more room for error.  Another disadvantage of New Hampshire.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: jgmaynard on July 21, 2003, 12:20:53 pm
Touchscreens are as fallable as the people programming them. But, I suppose they could transmit your vote up with a copy of your fingerprints to the Feds.... ;D

JM
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Michelle on July 21, 2003, 07:24:54 pm
This article never really says what the "sophisticated voting equipment" is, but I happened to see it on Stateline today, and it seems relevant to this discussion.

Voting changes proposed
By Dale Wetzel  
Associated Press Writer
The Forum - 07/21/2003

BISMARCK -- Proposed changes to North Dakota's polling stations would install sophisticated voting equipment at each one, while making it more expensive for counties to keep some of them open.

Election officials are holding a public hearing today on the blueprint, which has been drafted by a group of county auditors, city and county officials, interest group representatives and members of the public.

"These changes are going to touch every voter in North Dakota in some way," said Cory Fong, the deputy secretary of state. "We're trying to do what we can to try to get the word out, that we are seeking input, and we are interested in what people have to say."

The effort is part of a national initiative to improve voting access and avoid a reprise of the 2000 presidential election, when ballot snafus in Florida delayed the final result for weeks.

The proposal's most noticeable impact will be to reduce the number of voting locations across North Dakota, because of the cost of installing new equipment at each precinct.

The machines are designed to be easier for people with disabilities to use, and to alert voters to mistakes -- such as voting for too many candidates -- before they turn in their ballots.

Included in the overhaul is a formula that calculates how many voting locations are necessary to serve each of North Dakota's 53 counties.

Almost all of the $6 million expense for equipping those locations will be borne by federal grants. However, should a county want to open more precincts than the formula considers necessary, county taxpayers will have to foot the bill.

The formula estimates that many rural counties are staffing between one and three too many polling stations. In some counties, the number of extra precincts is larger.

For example, Cavalier County, in North Dakota's northeastern corner, maintains 22 voting locations during elections. The formula estimates the county needs only 13. County taxpayers would have to pay to keep the additional nine precincts open.

Barnes County, where Valley City is located, now has eight extra precincts, the formula says. Grand Forks County has seven, while Cass, Richland and Walsh counties have six each.

During the 2002 elections, North Dakota counties maintained 666 polling places. The formula estimates that 525 precincts would have been adequate, a decrease of 21 percent.

North Dakota is the only state in the nation that does not have voter registration, and the proposed overhaul of voting procedures does not include it.

However, county auditors and Secretary of State Al Jaeger will be assembling a central voter database, which they say should help prevent duplications in polling books when North Dakotans move between precincts.

The changes are not to be fully implemented until January 2006. However, they are coming sooner in Williams County, in northwestern North Dakota, which is the only one of the state's 53 counties that uses punch-card ballots.

Jaeger says that Williams County will be used to test the voting changes and new equipment, in the June 2004 primary election.

Beth Innis, the Williams County auditor, says punch-card ballots have not caused problems. However, punch cards became synonymous with voting foul-ups, because of their use by some Florida counties during the 2000 presidential election.

Today's public hearing is being held at the North Dakota Association of Counties' Bismarck headquarters. It is being broadcast to interactive television sites at North Dakota State University, the University of North Dakota and Minot State University.

Fong said election officials want voters to be aware of the proposed changes before the next election, and not be surprised by them the next time they walk into a polling place.

Voters are "going to different devices, they're going to see some different procedures, and at that point, people are going to say, 'Wait a minute. When did this happen?'" Fong said. "And that's why we're trying to do what we can to get the word out."

Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Zxcv on July 22, 2003, 12:22:46 am
Quote
So, no existing laws or proposed legislation should influence our decision because 'we'll change it' or 'we'll change it back'?

For proposed legislation, I wouldn't pay a whole lot of attention. Every state and the federal government has its share of loons introducing nutcase bills. There's been a bill in Congress to repeal the 2nd Amendment for many years now.

Or course, if the secretary of state is pushing something, that is worth paying some attention to.

Yes, we should of course pay attention to existing laws, especially ones that have been in place a long time. That's what half of the spreadsheet is all about.

I looked at the minimum standard requirement for HAVA. It doesn't sound all that bad; for example, they are insisting the state has uniform standards for what constitutes a "vote". Seems pretty reasonable.

The verbiage in HAVA for the disabled voters is:

"The State requires new voting systems to provide a practical and effective means for voters with physical disabilities to cast a secret ballot."

I'm not sure how they get touch screens out of that. Apparently touch screens are for disabled voters so there should be one per precinct. I'm also not sure how paper ballots that NH uses would comply with that requirement. (I can't see how paper ballots cut the mustard with that one.) I still think HAVA applies to all states. Can you NH guys show us what NH is doing with this federal law?
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: freedomroad on July 22, 2003, 02:11:37 am
I don't get it.  Isn't this good news?  I read about this awhile ago and it got me excited.

What is the big deal guys?  How do you think I vote?  With a touch screen.  Is there any voting fraud?  NO.

Calm down guys.  Wyoming has a good system which is soon going to get even better.  I'm in Wyoming right now and these are the nicest people I've ever met.  Is there was some voter fraud all of them would be up in arms and they would take care of the situation very quickly.  The Casper Star-Tribune would make sure to get the word out very quickly.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Robert H. on July 22, 2003, 02:29:57 am
For all of the hype over possible voter fraud, I have yet to see anyone point to actual instances of voter fraud in any FSP candidate state, or any type of objective reason as to why we should assume that such is even likely occurring.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Sebastian on July 22, 2003, 08:08:45 am
Quote
Every state and the federal government has its share of loons introducing nutcase bills.
I know... they're called 'politicians' ;)
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on July 22, 2003, 08:17:37 am
Any system where you get a tally simply by pushing a button is worrisome.  If the video based system printed your selections on a sturdy card stock for your review, and that paper ballot was then placed in a separate box for a potential verification count later, I would feel better.

Any law that allowed for electronic or computer based voting should include a provision for manual hand counts in several random districts to verify the computer's totals are the same.  Any deviation in the two should raise huge red flags.  As well, any candidate should be allowed to call for a manual verification count in any one or two districts he or she chooses, just in case the random selection wasn't quite so random.

Title: Just Say No to Electronic Voting
Post by: Number_6 on July 22, 2003, 10:22:39 am
Electronic voting systems are an open invitation to commit massive vote fraud.  A crooked candidate can get a copy of the source code, hire a hacker, and voila.

Even if paper check ballots are printed, the system can be hacked at another point.

Paper balloting is a proven technology that has worked well everywhere for decades.  When considered in this context, Florida's problems in 2000 are not an indictment of paper balloting.  They are problems unique to those counties and should be solved by them.

If necessary, the states should stand on the 10th Amendment and politely but firmly point out that they are not legally obligated to implement HAVA.
Title: Re:Just Say No to Electronic Voting
Post by: JonM on July 22, 2003, 11:02:31 am
Electronic voting systems are an open invitation to commit massive vote fraud.  A crooked candidate can get a copy of the source code, hire a hacker, and voila.

Even if paper check ballots are printed, the system can be hacked at another point.

Paper balloting is a proven technology that has worked well everywhere for decades.  When considered in this context, Florida's problems in 2000 are not an indictment of paper balloting.  They are problems unique to those counties and should be solved by them.

If necessary, the states should stand on the 10th Amendment and politely but firmly point out that they are not legally obligated to implement HAVA.


The potential for massive voter fraud exists with paper ballots too.  Florida had more votes cast in some districts than there were registered voters.  Chicago has a tradition of death not standing in the way of someone's ability to vote.  Any computerized voting machine would have to employ the same sort of safeguards ATMs do with their programming.  And the ability to audit the machine's count against the paper ballots it generates, which are hopefully verified by the voter before accepting them, gives an additional layer of security.

Of course, if you managed to compromise a machine, and the polling place it was located in, fraud is I suppose still possible.  But then, if you compromised a polling place just using paper ballots fraud is possible.

When I lived in Florida, you got a voter ID card which you had to show to vote (and yet . . .), in Massachusetts you just show up and give your name and street address, no ID check at all.  If you knew someone was out of town and didn't absentee, and none of the sweet old ladies checking names in the polling place knew you or the other person, not much could stop you from going in there and voting as that person.  Heck, when I first moved here they used to post the list of registered voters for that ward OUTSIDE the polling place.  At least they don't do that anymore.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Number_6 on July 22, 2003, 12:54:56 pm
Good point, Jon.  Yes, vote fraud is also possible with paper balloting.  I still prefer it, though.

Paper balloting uses people instead of software.  Poll watchers can monitor voting personnel, but not software.  To commit fraud, the candidate would have to bribe/intimidate the necessary people.  This type of activity is easier to detect than hacking, which may involve fewer people and is easier to hide.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Radar on July 22, 2003, 02:17:06 pm
Quote
Electronic voting systems are an open invitation to commit massive vote fraud.  A crooked candidate can get a copy of the source code, hire a hacker, and voila.

The opposite is true.  Electronic voting eliminates a lot of the "funny business" or human errors involved in vote counting, by hand.  And nobody will be able to hack into a fiber optic highly encrypted private network used only for the voting.  Especially when the servers, routers, and all equipment other than the fiber itself and the touch screen nodes will be guarded by many people from all parties, and the national guard behind doors that require multiple keys to open.  

Fiber is also physically impossible to tap into, period.  There is no opportunity for anyone to get source code, hack into anything, etc.  Although the idea of having all the machines spit out a card that the voter can verify and will be used for standard verification after the electronic votes have been tallied for faster returns.

This is a safer system than we currently have with cards that you punch holes into, offers less room for errors, or tampering, (see florida), etc.  

I'm paid to keep hackers out and I guarantee if I created the electronic voting system, nobody on earth could get into it because the network wouldn't be connected to any other networks, the physical components would be locked up tighter than fort knox, and the opportunity to verify the ballots would not only be there, but it would be standard procedure to verify them before certifying the vote totals.  

Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: jgmaynard on July 22, 2003, 02:30:20 pm
I am amazed if someone who works with computers thinks they can't be hacked.... There have been three times in the last few years when I was told I couldn't get into a system. I got into every one of those systems in between 1 and 10 minutes.

As a candidate in 2001, I was able to STAND there and watch as the votes were being counted. It was open to the public. And the paper ballots (marked with magic marker - no chads) were counted in front of anyone who cared to watch, including the press. THAT is a safe system.

Here's a CNN report on the problems with voting machines:

http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/17/jackson.debrief/index.html

JM
 
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 22, 2003, 03:05:52 pm
Skinner Layne, who's active in the Arkansas GOP, a state where the Dems regularly attempt vote fraud, says that in his experience, Scantron voting is the best of all worlds, because it leaves a publicly auditable paper trail but also uses machines to count the paper ballots, making the process more tamper-proof and less subject to human interpretation than hand-counting of ballots.  When hand-counting punch-card ballots, you can surreptitiously mash, bend, or otherwise tamper with the cards in such a way as to affect how they are counted.  I don't know what other kinds of paper ballots are out there, though.  Most jurisdictions that use machine counting with paper ballots also require a by-hand recount if the machine count is close enough.  That seems like a good safeguard, but JonM's idea of doing random hand counts to check the machine counts sounds like a good additional step.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: jgmaynard on July 22, 2003, 03:57:05 pm
The other option is what NH uses..... Paper ballots which you mark with a black magic marker. No chads, no punch cards. Magic marker. :D

JM
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on July 22, 2003, 05:25:03 pm
I was looking around Wyoming's legislative website at what sort of wacky bills were being introduced.  Found one guy who keeps putting in a term-limits repeal bill, didn't get anywhere for the last two years.  Another guy tried to introduce a portfolio tax (those living in Florida know what it is) where they tax all your stock bond bank account holdings.  Also didn't get anywhere.

What did get somewhere, and why I'm posting it here, is a law granting the Secretary of State the authority to do what it takes to comply with HAVA.

AN ACT relating to elections; granting rulemaking authority
to the secretary of state to comply with the Help America
Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA); authorizing the secretary of state
to develop a state plan under HAVA; authorizing the
secretary of state to receive and expend federal funds
authorized under HAVA; providing appropriations; requiring
a report; and providing for an effective date.

Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming:
Section 1. W.S. 22-2-121 by creating a new subsection
(d) is amended to read:
22-2-121. Chief election officer to prepare forms;
rules; advice.
(d) The secretary of state is authorized to adopt
rules and regulations necessary to comply with the
requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Public
Law 107-252, including a state-based administrative
complaint procedure.

Section 2.
(a) Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) is
appropriated from the budget reserve account and amounts
appropriated and unexpended under 2001 Wyoming Session
Laws, Chapter 137, Section 7, for the design and
implementation of a local area network computer operation
system, are hereby reappropriated for the purpose of
meeting a five percent (5%) state match requirement under
the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). These
appropriations, when required by HAVA, shall be placed into
an account within the federal revenue fund together with
federal requirements payments. Interest earned on the account shall be credited to the account. Not to exceed
one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000.00) of these
appropriations, prior to segregation into the federal
revenue fund, may be expended and accounted for by the
secretary of state as may be necessary to develop and
submit the required state plan under HAVA. All funds
appropriated under this subsection shall be considered onetime
funding and shall not be included within the office of
the secretary of state's standard budget request for the
2005-2006 biennium. Any unexpended funds appropriated
under this subsection shall not revert to the budget
reserve account at the end of the biennium.
(b) As may be authorized by the state plan or as
otherwise authorized under HAVA, the secretary of state may
accept federal revenues on behalf of the state of Wyoming.
Federal payments under sections 101 and 102 of HAVA shall
be placed into separate accounts and interest earned shall
be credited to the general fund unless prohibited by HAVA.
Federal payments under sections 101 and 102 are
appropriated and may be expended by the secretary of state
as permitted under HAVA.
(c) On or before November 1, 2003 the secretary of
state shall submit a complete report to the joint
corporations, elections and political subdivisions interim
committee of receipts, expenditures, budget information and
requests and necessary legislation required under HAVA and
this act.


http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/enroll/hb0172.pdf  The bill, signed by the governor on 3/7/03.

http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/title22/chapter02.htm

Scroll down to 22-2-121 item d.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Zxcv on July 22, 2003, 06:26:05 pm
Jon, is this unique to Wyoming? Or are our other states doing about the same thing?

Oh, you didn't check those? Go back and look.   ;)

James, what happens when those magic markers start to run dry?   :)

Just kidding.

In theory I like NH's methods best. However, having been a poll watcher myself at times, I can tell you there are physical problems with members of the public being able to monitor the counting. You need to really be right behind the counter and looking close to see what is going on. To let members of the public get so close introduces other problems, as they themselves my find ways to throw the count (slipping ballots on or off the table, etc.). So it's not so clearly superior as it first seems.

Scantrons also have problems.

This whole subject is actually quite a fascinating one, if you think about it. Then, even if you do design a bulletproof method that can't be subverted, go to all the effort of getting it implemented (which is probably what we will do in our chosen state), what are you left with? People who vote for one candidate or another based on which has the nicer name, or on some idiotic hit piece mailed 3 days before the election.  ::)

In politics, it helps to have a strong sense of the absurd.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Radar on July 22, 2003, 06:33:03 pm
Quote
I am amazed if someone who works with computers thinks they can't be hacked....

Can you hack into a stand-alone machine when it's locked behind a steel door that takes 2-4 people to open?  That's the essence of what I'm talking about.  It's a stand-alone network where the only parts you can actually touch are the wire (which is physically impossible to tap and even if you could, the transmissions are encrypted) and the node which is a dumb terminal running software with no access to anything else.  

I guarantee, that neither you, nor the combined computer hacking forces on the planet could get into it including every computer science professor on earth.  I learned and taught computer science myself and have 2 decades of practical experience to back up what I learned in school.

I am paid to keep hackers out.  I would be willing to bet I can put a machine on the net that you couldn't get into, but the network we're discussing wouldn't be on the internet or any other network.  It's purely private, totally secure (you can't hack what you can't get to), and also provides a means of physical verification superior to what is currently used.

I'm amazed anyone who knows anything about computers would think it could be hacked, but since you're such a hardcore hacker, tell me how you would hack a network you had no access to.  Or how you would tap into fiber optics and break the extremely high level encryption, or how you would use a dumb terminal that has hardware authentication to access the network to hack the servers.  I can't wait to hear this.  Keep in mind you have no physical access to the servers, routers, or any other equipment.

The system I described can not be hacked because it's the same as trying to hack a stand-alone machine that's locked in a bank vault that nobody can open.  Saying someone could hack it is like saying someone can use a calculator to hack into your brain.

Of course this much security isn't cheap.  But it's much faster, more accurate, and far more secure than our current voting methods.

Quote
I think optical scanning machines are the best if machines must be used. But the ballot design needs to be such that it is easy to count the ballots by hand as a check on the machine.

I'd be all for using biometrics except for the fact it would mean the government would have everyone's biometrics on record and that makes me nervous.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on July 22, 2003, 07:50:14 pm
Jon, is this unique to Wyoming? Or are our other states doing about the same thing?

Oh, you didn't check those? Go back and look.   ;)

This is a thread about Wyoming, so I posted it when I happened to run by it while looking to see what interesting tax increase bills have been going through the legislature (mostly fuel and cigarette).  I haven't been checking the other states for that.  Of course, I was looking for tax bills after finding a report someone made a couple of years ago suggesting scrapping the state sales tax in favor of an income tax, so I wanted to see if anyone introduced a bill on that (didn't see any in the last 3 sessions, so good on that).

Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on July 22, 2003, 07:54:06 pm
Quote
I think optical scanning machines are the best if machines must be used. But the ballot design needs to be such that it is easy to count the ballots by hand as a check on the machine.

I'd be all for using biometrics except for the fact it would mean the government would have everyone's biometrics on record and that makes me nervous.

I'm fairly sure he meant color in an oval and it's read not completely unlike a scantron.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on July 23, 2003, 12:18:46 am
New Hampshire also passed a law relating to the HAVA.  As far as I read it, it authorized the secretary of state to set up a statewide voter database, and that certain fines and fees relating to elections go into it rather than the general fund.

I. Establishes an election fund for moneys appropriated to the state pursuant to the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and requires that certain fees and fines be deposited in the fund.

II. Authorizes a statewide centralized voter registration database and communications network.

http://


One section of interest

III. The secretary of state is authorized to accept, budget, and, subject to the limitations of this paragraph, expend monies in the election fund received from any party for the purposes of conducting elections, voter and election official education, the purchase or lease of voting equipment which complies with Help America Vote Act of 2002, Public Law 107-252, election law enforcement, and improvements to related information technology. The secretary of state shall not expend any monies in the election fund unless the balance in the fund following such expenditures shall be at least 20 times the estimated annual cost of maintaining the programs established to comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, Public Law 107-252.


Looked through the rest of what the election committe was working on.  The house passed a bill to form a committee to look at options like instant run off and none of the above voting reform options, the senate killed it.

Another to allow towns to require showing a picture ID to vote died as well.

I didn't see anything else about voting machines in the current session, this is from existing law:

 656:41 Approval by Ballot Law Commission. – The ballot law commission shall act as a board to examine voting machines and devices for computerized casting and counting of ballots. The commission shall, whenever requested, examine any voting machine or device which may be capable of meeting the requirements for elections held in this state. The commission shall approve such voting machine or device in its discretion, and no voting machine or device shall be used in any election in this state unless it reads the voter's choice on a paper ballot and is of a type so approved by the ballot law commission. Any voting machine or device that is altered must be re-approved before it is used in any election in this state. For the purposes of this section, a machine shall be considered altered if any mechanical or electronic part, hardware, software, or programming has been altered.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Zxcv on July 24, 2003, 09:26:45 am
Quote
NH state law spells out exactly where and how close the watchers may stand. If you were to actually watch a NH vote count I seriously doubt you would have the concerns noted above.

Can you give us a link, George? I'd be interested in how they solve this problem.

Also, have you done any poll-watching yourself? I'm wondering how many precincts actually have members of the public watching the tabulating.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on July 24, 2003, 09:45:39 am
Quote
NH state law spells out exactly where and how close the watchers may stand. If you were to actually watch a NH vote count I seriously doubt you would have the concerns noted above.

Can you give us a link, George? I'd be interested in how they solve this problem.

Also, have you done any poll-watching yourself? I'm wondering how many precincts actually have members of the public watching the tabulating.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/659/659-63.htm (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/LXIII/659/659-63.htm)

659:63 Counting to be Public. – The counting of votes shall be public and conducted within the guardrail and shall not be adjourned nor postponed until it shall have been completed. No ballot shall be placed within 4 feet of the guardrail during the counting of votes.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Zxcv on July 24, 2003, 11:35:31 am
This makes it sound like people have to stay 4 feet away, roughly. What do they do, use opera glasses?  :)  I just wonder if they can really monitor in detail what is going on. What we really need is a video camera above the table with a big-screen TV for folks to watch the counting. This might be getting a little too involved, though, considering how many precincts there are!

The reason I ask is, you really have to have been a poll watcher to realize it is actually pretty difficult to make sure it is an honest process. One has a feeling that somewhere or other, some manipulation may have taken place or could have taken place (one race I watched was a Congressional seat, where our guy lost by just a couple of hundred votes!). I'm not saying it's impossible to have a bulletproof process, just difficult.

We probably need to look at the administrative rules, too - not just the statutes. I mean the instructions the poll workers have to conform to. Generally, they will have a procedure, which is distinct from the statutes.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Rearden on July 24, 2003, 11:41:07 am
1.) The procedures have to conform to the statutes.  The statute says the counting of ballots shall be public.  No procedure can contradict that.

2.) You make it sound like four feet is forty yards.  Four feet is 48 inches, or one good step away.  Obviously the reason this is there is to prevent a member of the public from interfering with the count and the votes.

Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Rearden on July 25, 2003, 09:01:22 am
 Defects reported in voting machines
Hopkins researchers say Md.'s electronic terminals are vulnerable to hackers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Michael Stroh
Sun Staff
Originally published July 25, 2003



The electronic voting system selected by Maryland and several other states may harbor serious software flaws that could allow voters or poll workers to tinker with election results, a team of Johns Hopkins University computer security experts has reported.
The touch-screen voting machines made by Ohio-based Diebold Election Systems are vulnerable to subversions ranging from multiple voting to vote switching, the Hopkins study concluded. It said some hacks could be accomplished with little expertise, using inexpensive, widely available equipment.


 

 
 
 

 

 
"It's very, very scary," said Aviel Rubin, technical director of Hopkins' Information Security Institute and one of the report's authors. "This is something that is the cornerstone of our democracy. I believe as a society we're moving too fast toward electronic voting."

In a carefully worded statement, Diebold defended the system and said its machines were certified by federal, state and local officials. It said the code the Hopkins researchers tested appears to be outdated and criticized the researchers for not contacting them during the analysis. But the company said it would "reserve judgment on the researchers' fundamental conclusions."

Election supervisors in states with Diebold machines said they are happy with the equipment.

"We've had an outstanding experience," says Michael Barnes, assistant director of elections in Georgia, where 22,000 Diebold voting machines are in use. "I have not had a single call from a voter upset with an election machine."

The Hopkins analysis comes just days after Diebold announced a $55.6 million agreement with Maryland to supply more than 11,000 AccuVote-TS touch-screen voting machines. More than 5,000 are already in use in Allegany, Dorchester, Montgomery and Prince George's counties.

Maryland officials said they expect all jurisdictions except Baltimore City to have the machines ready for voters by the March presidential primary. The city, which uses a different electronic system, has until 2006 to switch to the Diebold machines.

Maryland election officials said yesterday that they had contacted Diebold about the Hopkins report but continued to have confidence in the system.

"With any computer software, you always have some risk," said Linda H. Lamone, state administrator of elections. But she added, "There's so many checks and balances in this process."

She also questioned whether the Hopkins scientists were testing the software code that Maryland's machines use.

The researchers said in their report that software was discovered on a Diebold Internet site in January.

"We believe the software code they evaluated, while sharing similarities to the current code, is outdated and never was used in an actual election," the company said.

But the report heartened critics of electronic voting, who renewed their calls for more open evaluation of the software used in the machines, as well as mandatory paper backup systems.

Since the presidential election of 2000, when flaws in Florida's voting system left the outcome in doubt for 36 days, states have been replacing old machines with new, all-electronic systems.

Manufacturers must submit software and hardware to government agencies for certification. But critics argue that given the importance of voting machines, the process needs to be more rigorous and open.

"This is no way to develop vending machines, let alone voting systems," said Cindy Cohn, legal director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "This is our democracy we're talking about. There is an extra onus to ensure people have confidence in their votes."

Many complain that electronic voting systems, including the AccuVote-TS, store a vote only in computer memory, without creating a simultaneous paper record. Without an audit trail, critics argue that electronic voting machines are too vulnerable to fraud or failure.

The Diebold software the Hopkins security researchers acquired was vulnerable in several ways, the report said. One of the flaws concerned the so-called "smartcards" that voters insert into the machine to cast their vote.

The cards contain a small computer chip that ensures each voter casts only one ballot. But Hopkins researchers concluded that by using blank smartcards and smartcard programmers widely available over the Internet, a dishonest voter could cast multiple ballots.

"Any teen-ager in their garage could make one of these," said Tadayoshi Kohno, a Hopkins computer security researcher who worked on the report.

In another case, researchers said they found that someone with more access to the machine - a poll worker, for example - could rig it so that a vote cast for one candidate is actually recorded for another.

"This is no surprise to us," said Damian O'Doherty, a spokesman for the Baltimore County executive's office, which is fighting the state's March deadline to have the Diebold system running.

Baltimore County officials argue that they have neither the staff nor the money to get the job done correctly on time. The county, which currently uses computer-scanned paper ballots, is one of 19 with the March deadline, but the only one to protest, state officials said.

"The technology wasn't ready for prime time. In May, we said the timetable was too aggressive and it would be prudent to cancel the contract," O'Doherty said.

In its statement, Diebold said that the Hopkins research "overlooked the total system of software, hardware, services and poll worker training" the company provides.

Election officials in other states where the Diebold machines are used endorsed that view. "They don't know what version of software it was and are testing it out of context - you have to test the software and hardware together," said Barnes of Georgia.

Brad Clark, registrar of voters for Alameda County, Calif., said his 4,000 Diebold machines, the same as Maryland's, have also performed well and have mechanisms to thwart certain types of fraud: "When the voter votes, it is essentially stores the image of every individual ballot as well as keeps a running total of what the votes are. If at any time those numbers get out of sync with the images, it will stop and won't take any more votes."

But some experts said that even if the software Hopkins analyzed is older code, the report underscores the urgent need to reassess the test process.

"It brings home concretely to people what real computer security problems can exist in these machines," said David Dill, a computer scientist at Stanford and outspoken critic of electronic voting. "It could change votes all over the country."

The Hopkins report is available online in Adobe Acrobat format at http://avirubin.com/vote.pdf.

 
 
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Zxcv on July 26, 2003, 10:26:18 am
Quote
1.) The procedures have to conform to the statutes.  The statute says the counting of ballots shall be public.  No procedure can contradict that.

2.) You make it sound like four feet is forty yards.  Four feet is 48 inches, or one good step away.  Obviously the reason this is there is to prevent a member of the public from interfering with the count and the votes.

Keith, what is the point of these comments?

I am not trying to slam NH, please don't be so defensive. I already admit NH's election process appears to be the best. I am simply asking questions based on my own experience as a poll-watcher. I am asking about the procedures because I am interested in how one state has solved, or attempted to solve (as the case may be) fraud in elections. On rare occasions, some posts on this list actually have nothing to do with slamming another state.  :P
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Radar on August 02, 2003, 08:48:21 pm
Libertarian40:  That voting system isn't even on the same planet with the security I described.  The fact that they had their source code and other things available on an anonymous ftp server is sick.  ANYONE could have beaten that system where as NOBODY ON THE PLANET EARTH can beat what I described.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on August 03, 2003, 09:25:34 am
Libertarian40:  That voting system isn't even on the same planet with the security I described.  The fact that they had their source code and other things available on an anonymous ftp server is sick.  ANYONE could have beaten that system where as NOBODY ON THE PLANET EARTH can beat what I described.

Much as I'd like to believe in such a device . . . Name a security protocol that hasn't been breached.  SSH has had a few problems, so has OpenSSH.  OpenBSD for years claimed no security holes.  Then a few local holes were discovered, so it change to no remote security holes.  Now they claim only one remote security hole in the default install for 7 years.

Bugs happen.  Once you get past "Hello, World" code, the chances of a bug increase.  Now granted a lot of the security holes in the past have been buffer overflows in older code that's been pulled along into the present.  One can hope that a secure voting system will undergo massive code review.  But if the code is proprietary, who is going to know it is truly secure except by being told?

Perhaps I've overly worried.  Perhaps I've been jaded by all the shortcomings of "secure" products.  But for something as important as voting, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the system can't be flawed.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Radar on August 03, 2003, 03:44:59 pm
First, it would be on a private network, not the internet so protocol isn't as much of an issue.

And we'd be using only fiber all the way between voting locations and even to the voting machines.  Expensive, but very secure.

Combine this with the routers, servers, etc. behind locked doors that take several keys at once to open and you're secure.  

Fiber can't be tapped into like other wire, and without physical access to the servers, routers, etc on a private network there'd be no way.  Add to that encrypted tunnels (IPSec), and you could use pgp to encrypt the results before transmitting them if we're using thin-clients.

I don't see how it can be broken.  Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on August 03, 2003, 04:14:14 pm
First, it would be on a private network, not the internet so protocol isn't as much of an issue.

And we'd be using only fiber all the way between voting locations and even to the voting machines.  Expensive, but very secure.

Combine this with the routers, servers, etc. behind locked doors that take several keys at once to open and you're secure.  

Fiber can't be tapped into like other wire, and without physical access to the servers, routers, etc on a private network there'd be no way.  Add to that encrypted tunnels (IPSec), and you could use pgp to encrypt the results before transmitting them if we're using thin-clients.

I don't see how it can be broken.  Perhaps you can enlighten me.


Running dedicated fiber between every polling place in even a small state like Rhode Island would be prohibitively expensive.  Especially for something that's only used a few times a year at most.  In a large state...I don't even care to imagine how many millions that would cost.  Who is going to do that?  Who will pay for it?  Even the feds are only willing to waste so much money on HAVA.

You'd be better off if the machines were only linked together at each polling place, if that.  There isn't a real justification for the monetary expenditure to link them together securely on a state wide, county wide or even town wide basis.

As far as the voting machines themselves, well a bug is a bug is a bug.  You can't predict them, you can try to code to catch them, but that can get a bit burdensome.  If there are multiple routines to ensure that a vote isn't getting corrupted in the process, it would help.  If the code underwent vigilant public code review to ensure that the user interface wouldn't crash and allow someone to muck with the voting database, and if every vote was printed out on a nice piece of card stock for possible recount and verification, then yes, it could work.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: anarchicluv on August 03, 2003, 05:03:24 pm
I am of the opinion that all electoral voting is problematic, regardless of the fraudulent aspects of voting systems.

Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it.
- Henry David Thoreau

Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Zxcv on August 03, 2003, 10:09:44 pm
Quote
One can hope that a secure voting system will undergo massive code review.

Remember what we're talking about Jon. Government. You have to keep your standards low...

Yeah, there's no way we are going to see a private network between every precinct and a central office. That's not realistic.

I wouldn't trust a centralized, automated system. Not only is the hacking a potential problem, but the temptation becomes huge to corrupt an election official. All that takes is money, or some dirt on the guy. With a decentralized tabulation system like NH has (assuming all precincts are closely watched, and all process flaws, if any, are eliminated), there are just too many people in the system to get away with fraud.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Radar on August 03, 2003, 10:24:35 pm
Quote
Running dedicated fiber between every polling place in even a small state like Rhode Island would be prohibitively expensive.  Especially for something that's only used a few times a year at most.  In a large state...I don't even care to imagine how many millions that would cost.

I already said it would be expensive.  But it would also be secure and totally unhackable.  And considering the machines would also spit out a card punched for verification, there is virtually no chance of corruption.  

The system I'm talking about will be a fraction its current cost in only 5 years and provide us real-time instant results.  Fiber will be standard in less than 10 years.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on August 03, 2003, 11:54:57 pm
I already said it would be expensive.  But it would also be secure and totally unhackable.  And considering the machines would also spit out a card punched for verification, there is virtually no chance of corruption.  

The system I'm talking about will be a fraction its current cost in only 5 years and provide us real-time instant results.  Fiber will be standard in less than 10 years.

Fiber is standard infrastructure now.  Has been for a long while.  I have a nice section of long hual fiber in a plastic tube cut away at various sections showing the outer layer, the steel tube it covers, some more insulation, a plastic tube, then the fiber optic cables themselves.  That stuff ain't cheap, but I got it like 10 years ago, so I know it's nothing like what they're laying down nowadays.

To lay that from every school, church and various other building used as a polling place, have you seen just how much laying fiber can cost?  For a private telco it can reach up to $1 million a MILE.  Now a lot of that is purchasing/leasing rights of way, permits and other stuff that a government wouldn't have as much problem with, but there's still the factor of digging ditches or stringing cable.  How many miles to wire every polling place in Wyoming?  How will you deal with gaining the rights of way on private land?  Emminent domain, or leasing from the landowner?

Even if you're only paying $100,000 a mile, it adds up quickly.  If you string it from the telephone poles you can probably get it down to $25,000 or so a mile.  I'm not sure how much further the cost of aerial fiber can fall.  Shall we think $1 a foot in this future time perhaps?  Then the cost of stringing it might add another dollar or two per foot.  Even at the cut rate price of $3 a foot we're talking $15,840 a mile.  Call it $15,000 a mile to be even.  For something that's only used when a primary or election is happening.

You could easily surpass $100 million just for the cable costs, not including repeaters and all the other hardware.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Justin on August 04, 2003, 12:34:29 am
It is definitely possible to hack fiber, I had to do it regularly in a previous job.  Remember the light stays in the tube due to the refractive index of the glass (along with some other materials mixed in), but that only works if the glass is not bent more than about 1cm in diameter.  If you bend it more than that the light spills out, and similarly you can pump the light back in.  And of course all this assumes you don't just cut the fiber and splice in a hard connection.  Hey, maybe my Siemens video splicer will come in handy some day.   ;D


Regarding the software (my current profession), the source code must be available for public review.  Doing this helps in two ways:
1) more eyes on the code decreases possible bugs making it to production (politicians don't count)
2) by definintion eliminates "security through obscurity" as an option; the system will need to be secure even against people who know exactly how it is built
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Justin on August 04, 2003, 12:40:17 am
Regarding the usefullness of electronic voting, imagine if we had Condorcet voting for all state and local offices.  I'd get carpal tunnel syndrome by the time I was done.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Number_6 on August 04, 2003, 10:10:39 am
Even if if is possible to create a completely secure computerized voting system, it wouldn't be built.  Project designers wouldn't be able to justify the expense to the government officials who would approve the project budget.

As a result, the systems that would actually be built would be networks with standard hardware and software.  Granted, some extra security measures might be added, but the resulting systems would still be vulnerable.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 04, 2003, 12:09:59 pm
Speaking from a hacker's perspective, I can tell you this:

The only way a network could be truly secure is to be in an internally-powered room with NO network connections outside of the room, thick led walls, NO transmissions which penetrate the walls, NO windows, and NO doors (except for maybe one thick led sealed door which is guarded by one immortal guard which never sleeps, eats, drinks, breathes, hopes, desires, wants, needs, requires maintenance, or any other human thing).

As the above scenario is nearly impossible, a secure electronic voting method is impossible to create.  It simply cannot be done.  There are too many variables and too many human and electronic vulnerabilities which can be exploited.

Of all people, our government specialists should know this and should have BANNED electronic voting years ago.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Number_6 on August 04, 2003, 01:00:31 pm
Speaking from a hacker's perspective, I can tell you this:

The only way a network could be truly secure is to be ... guarded by one immortal guard which never sleeps, eats, drinks, breathes, hopes, desires, wants, needs, requires maintenance, or any other human thing).   .....

There are too many variables and too many human and electronic vulnerabilities which can be exploited.

The weakest point in any network is the staff that runs it.  They are all human, therefore they can be corrupted, blackmailed or intimidated.  They can use personal shortcuts that breach security for the sake of convenience.  They can simply be careless.

Fear, sloth and corruption are not exploited through technological means, therefore technology is no defense against this type of attack.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: jhfenton on August 04, 2003, 01:28:49 pm
In a special election in February, our board of elections tested touch screen voting machines in our city. It was a one-time test, pending a final decision by Ohio on what to adopt in lieu of the punch cards we've used for years.

For ease and accuracy of voting and administration, the touch screen system was excellent.  I was unnerved, however, by the fact that there was no physical record of my vote. I don't know how the system would permit the hand recounts provided for by state law in close races.

My suggestion would be a touch screen system that generates a scannable ballot. Absentee voters could manually fill out the scannable ballot. In the event of a close race, ballots could be recounted both electronically by scanning and by hand.

As an aside, the mechanics of Condorcet voting would be much easier on a touch screen. I just think we need a physical voting record available after the fact.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 04, 2003, 01:38:11 pm
Quote
Fear, sloth and corruption are not exploited through technological means, therefore technology is no defense against this type of attack.

That was one of the points of my post.  :)

Quote
My suggestion would be a touch screen system that generates a scannable ballot.

As long as the scannable ballot can be read, understood, and verified by the voter BEFORE they submit it into the scanner.

And it has to make some type of mark large enough so that it is very easy to count by hand and very difficult to make a mistake in voting or in printing the ballot.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Rearden on August 04, 2003, 01:48:00 pm
Quote
1.) The procedures have to conform to the statutes.  The statute says the counting of ballots shall be public.  No procedure can contradict that.

2.) You make it sound like four feet is forty yards.  Four feet is 48 inches, or one good step away.  Obviously the reason this is there is to prevent a member of the public from interfering with the count and the votes.

Keith, what is the point of these comments?

I am not trying to slam NH, please don't be so defensive. I already admit NH's election process appears to be the best. I am simply asking questions based on my own experience as a poll-watcher. I am asking about the procedures because I am interested in how one state has solved, or attempted to solve (as the case may be) fraud in elections. On rare occasions, some posts on this list actually have nothing to do with slamming another state.  :P


Paul, I didn't say you were bashing NH.  You posted two concerns about NH's procedure for counting votes, and I answered them.  In reference to the "48-inch" requirement, you mentioned opera glasses.  That's why I pointed out that four feet is really just a step away from the actual ballots, as well as why the requirement exists.

No reason to be touchy, Paul.  Just sharing information.   ;D
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: jhfenton on August 04, 2003, 02:49:48 pm
Quote
Quote
My suggestion would be a touch screen system that generates a scannable ballot.

As long as the scannable ballot can be read, understood, and verified by the voter BEFORE they submit it into the scanner.

And it has to make some type of mark large enough so that it is very easy to count by hand and very difficult to make a mistake in voting or in printing the ballot.
Agreed. It shouldn't be difficult to produce/print a ballot easily readable by a human voter, a human vote counter, and a machine vote counter.
Title: Support this bill!
Post by: JonM on August 05, 2003, 12:25:11 pm
Reading my copy of eWeek, and saw this Trustworthy Voting (http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1209948,00.asp) editorial.

At the end it mentions the Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.02239:).

The EFF is behind this bill and urges your support (http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2754).

So far only 29 co-sponsers, and not a single one from any candidate state!

This bill would mandate a paper record which the voter can verify as the official vote record of any voting system.

It mandates that the source code of a voting system be available to any citizen who wishes to review it.

It would mandate random recounts of .5% of a state's jurisdictions to check the system.

It pushes up the implementation date from 2006 to next year's election.
Title: Re:Support this bill!
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 05, 2003, 02:09:31 pm
This bill would mandate a paper record which the voter can verify as the official vote record of any voting system.

It mandates that the source code of a voting system be available to any citizen who wishes to review it.

It would mandate random recounts of .5% of a state's jurisdictions to check the system.

It pushes up the implementation date from 2006 to next year's election.

Mandatory public source code?
Mandatory random recounts?
Mandatory paper records?

IT'S PERFECT!!!

I'm writing Bernie Sanders right now!  haha

Seriously though, we should ALL support this!

Here's the text of the bill:


Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 - Amends the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to provide for an extension of time for States to request payments for activities to improve administration of elections and for replacement of punch card or lever voting machines.

Repeals the exemption of the Election Assistance Commission from certain Government contracting requirements (thus requiring the Commission to advertise for proposals for purchases and contracts for supplies or services).

Revises audit capacity requirements to require the voting system to produce a voter-verified paper record suitable for a manual audit equivalent or superior to that of a paper ballot box system.

Requires the voting system to provide a mechanism for voter-verification of results with respect to individuals with disabilities which separates the function of vote generation from the function of vote casting, but does not require the use of paper. Requires instruction of election officials in the rights of the disabled to vote with the assistance of an aide of their selection under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Requires the Commission to study and develop best practices to enhance accessibility and voter-verification mechanisms for disabled voters.

Accelerates the deadline for compliance with voting systems standards from January 1, 2006, to the regularly scheduled November 2004 general Federal election.

Requires each State and jurisdiction unable to meet such deadline to receive a paper voting system at Commission expense that shall be deemed compliant with such standards for use in the November 2004 general election.

Requires Federal certification of technological security of voter registration lists.

Directs the Commission to: (1) conduct manual mandatory surprise recounts of the voter-verified records of each election for Federal office (and, at State or local option, of elections for State and local office) in .5 percent of the jurisdictions in each State and .5 percent of the overseas jurisdictions in which voter-verified records are preserved in accordance with this Act immediately following each general election for Federal office; and (2) promptly publish the results of those recounts.
Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: Radar on August 05, 2003, 03:43:24 pm
Quote
It is definitely possible to hack fiber

Not really.  If you're talking about a denial of service attack you could.  But if you're talking about getting in, collecting data, and replacing it it can't.  You would have to cut and splice the fiber which would take down the network and set off all kinds of bells and whistles which would alert everyone of yoru presence.  And even if you got in, all of the data would be encrypted at a level nobody could break.  

Quote
Speaking from a hacker's perspective, I can tell you this:

Speaking from the perspective of a person who thwarts hackers (and a former hacker himself) I can say without a doubt that some networks can't be hacked and the one I described is one of them.  

Title: Re:Touch screen voting coming to Wyoming?
Post by: JonM on August 05, 2003, 04:29:18 pm
Quote
It is definitely possible to hack fiber

Not really.  If you're talking about a denial of service attack you could.  But if you're talking about getting in, collecting data, and replacing it it can't.  You would have to cut and splice the fiber which would take down the network and set off all kinds of bells and whistles which would alert everyone of yoru presence.  And even if you got in, all of the data would be encrypted at a level nobody could break.  

Quote
Speaking from a hacker's perspective, I can tell you this:

Speaking from the perspective of a person who thwarts hackers (and a former hacker himself) I can say without a doubt that some networks can't be hacked and the one I described is one of them.  



Well, were I going to try and hack it, I'd do it at a repeater rather than try to cut the cable.  And if the data is so well encrypted, why not use normal infrastructure?  It's only going to be communicating vote totals, it's not like it needs to talk back and forth constantly.  A sufficient token based system should be able to provide enough security to ensure results (which should probably be considered unofficial) sent via the network are from an actual voting machine and not someone who managed to get on the network in an unauthorized manner either through physical hacking or social engineering.

To build an entire statewide network of fiber for hundreds of millions of dollars is not a good use of taxpayer money when it would be no more or less secure than using normal infrastructure.

Oh, and I've finished writing a letter to my rep (Ed Markey) asking him to cosponsor H.R. 2239.  I figured a personalized touch was better than just using EFF's form letter, but even the form letter is better than no letter at all.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Dennis Wilson on August 06, 2003, 09:31:51 pm
New England vs. Wyoming--why I opted out.
 
The area of all of the New England states is just a little over 2/3 the size of Wyoming, yet more than 14 million people live in New England, more that 3 million in just the three FSP candidate states--and most of these millions of people are hostile to libertarian ideas as witness the many reports on the FSP site and the latest Bloomberg Report* on Wealth Friendly states. That report is especially important because it was written by a well respected, independent, outside (of FSP) source.
 
In a serious attempt to make sure I wasn't choosing blindly, I read thru every single one of the 101 reasons why I should choose New Hampshire and when I finished, the fact still remained that less than 1/2 million people in Wyoming--an area 1.47 times larger than all of New England--already live in more freedom than any one of the millions of people in New England. Even if they have not explicitly embraced the FSP ideals, those in Wyoming are living most of the ideals every day. Twenty years of libertarian activity in the New England states has not produced any thing near the freedom that "non-libertarian" Wyoming residents already enjoy today and have enjoyed for years.
 
There are just far too many wrong minded people living in New England! The chances of becoming another Carl Drega and crossing swords with one of those wrong minded people are enormous! I know. I have already experienced it.  I live amongst three million people in "statist John McCain's" Greater Phoenix Area in Maricopa County, Arizona. Three million people living in a corner of a county   larger than the whole state of New Hampshire and there are plenty of wrong minded people among this population. (There were only 250,000 when I got here in 1961, and they were staunch Barry Goldwater supporters--how times have changed).  I've watched freedom decline and regulation take hold.  

Without any effort on my part, I have had (and lost) several legal tangles with the City over regulations that did not even exist when I purchased my properties.  I certainly will NOT move to an area where my freedom chances are worse than they are here!  Arizona is 9th on the Bloomberg Report, and that places it ahead of every single one of the New England states and behind FSP candidates Delaware (8), Alaska (7) and front runner Wyoming. Furthermore, Wyoming has been #1 for the past 6 years! Why settle for less?
 
New England is a trap for FSP, a sink hole of statism. Once committed to one of those states, the vastly overwhelming population of welfare leeches will suck the life energy out of every productive member of FSP. Of course they welcome FSP! Three to 14 million welfare leeches and their tax cows need new financial blood--from any source--to tax in order to keep themselves alive. New England, in spite of its Revolutionary War heritage and state slogans, is--and has been since colonial times--a major source of the ideas and practices that drive our centralized Federal government. They even seriously considered secession while Thomas Jefferson was president!  Being in the midst of those ideas and practices in today's culture may be intellectually challenging, but it is not conducive to rational living. It is not just a coincidence that The Ballad of Carl Drega happened in New Hampshire rather than Wyoming.
 
Those are some of the reasons that I opted out of the New England states. I thank FSP for the research that revealed to me how free Wyoming really is and for showing me where I can easily move today to live in freedom.  FSP has already worked for me, it saved me from mistakenly choosing Montana, which was top on my list a year ago. All that is left is for me to make the move to freedom. I don't intend to wait for the 20,000. (Leave the light on if you get there before I do.)
 
Best regards--Liberty in our lifetime,
 
Dennis Wilson

* Search on "Bloomberg" on this site to read the full report which I posted  
 or click here:

 http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2770  (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2770)


Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: wolverine307 on August 06, 2003, 09:46:17 pm
Dennis:

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but the figure/target/goal is 20,000 folks, not 2000. I have serious doubts that the economic infrastructure of WY can accomodate such a large influx of people in such a short amount of time.

As near as I can tell the economic base of WY is (in no particular order):

1. mineral extraction (what happens when the minerals run out?)

2. ranching (only 2% of the state is tillable and water is scarce. How is that going to grow?)

3. tourism (how much can that increase?)

4. federal spending (we want to downsize that, remember?)

For the individual WY would be an excellent choice, but we're talking about adding a minimum of 20,000 souls. I don't see how that is doable.

The mistake I think is being made is the idea that what is workable for a few people in Big Sky Country is doable for the masses that we're talking about.

I've read a fair amount of this site. I cannot remember every little factoid about New England, but it is clearly inaccurate to paint all of NE with the same brush. Each stare has its own individual political subculture.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 06, 2003, 11:08:16 pm
Note that several of the ten states claim "citizen legislatures" and some of them may have a greater percentage of "common folk" than New Hampshire.

You mean government employees and lawyers aren't citizens?  ;)

Since the report doesn't list the professions for WY and MT, what can we conclude?  Incomplete information?  Professional politicians?  Is this information even published?

I met with 3 Wyoming Senators while in Wyoming.  1 of them owned his own company, another was a rancher, and the other one fixed things.  None of them worked for the government (other the their Senate job).
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 06, 2003, 11:15:08 pm
As near as I can tell the economic base of WY is (in no particular order):

1. mineral extraction (what happens when the minerals run out?)

2. ranching (only 2% of the state is tillable and water is scarce. How is that going to grow?)

3. tourism (how much can that increase?)

4. federal spending (we want to downsize that, remember?)

If you go by non-government sections, the two largest are:

1. Service
2. Tourism

Ranching and farming combine to form less than 10% of the jobs.
Wyoming is not a ranching or farming state.  However, eastern MT, much of Idaho, ND, and SD, are.  But even this is changing.  People are leaving the farms everywhere and moving to the cities and getting regular jobs.  25 years from now, even ND and SD will not be farm states (there will be no farm states).
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Dennis Wilson on August 07, 2003, 03:07:20 pm
but the figure/target/goal is 20,000 folks, not 2000. I have serious doubts that the economic infrastructure of WY can accomodate such a large influx of people in such a short amount of time.

For the individual WY would be an excellent choice, but we're talking about adding a minimum of 20,000 souls. I don't see how that is doable.

The mistake I think is being made is the idea that what is workable for a few people in Big Sky Country is doable for the masses that we're talking about.


Read again, I did say 20,000. Your "serious doubts" and $1 will get you a cup of coffee nearly anywhere in the US. Each individual person has to be responsible for finding his own job whether he moves or stays put. Neither you nor I are responsible for creating 20,000 jobs and filling them with porcupines. When was the last time someone "gave" you a job?

As for "doable" or "doable for the masses", whether in Wyoming or somewhere else, let the free market work. It has proven itself in the past. Thinking in terms like "doable for the masses" is a statist mindset. Get rid of it.

Furthermore, as amply demonstrated elsewhere, fewer porcupines are needed in Wyoming than any other state. The "minimum" is considerably less than 20,000 in Wyoming.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: wolverine307 on August 07, 2003, 03:51:04 pm
Read again, I did say 20,000. Your "serious doubts" and $1 will get you a cup of coffee nearly anywhere in the US. Each individual person has to be responsible for finding his own job whether he moves or stays put. Neither you nor I are responsible for creating 20,000 jobs and filling them with porcupines. When was the last time someone "gave" you a job?

As for "doable" or "doable for the masses", whether in Wyoming or somewhere else, let the free market work. It has proven itself in the past. Thinking in terms like "doable for the masses" is a statist mindset. Get rid of it.

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

Oh yes sir!!!! I certainly wouldn't want to hold an opinion that you don't approve of.

How dare I disagree with you. How dare I feel that WY is not a land flowing with milk and honey. How dare I look reality squarely in the face.

I did note, however, that you failed to counter my argument. A darn good rant, though.

Temper tantrums are an acceptable substitute for debate in the eyes of some.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Dennis Wilson on August 07, 2003, 09:49:14 pm

I did note, however, that you failed to counter my argument.


I thought I did address the doubts you expressed, i.e. the sentence that began with "I have serious doubts..." and the sentence that ended with "...I don't see how that is doable."

 I addressed the issue that you began with "The mistake I think is being made..."  and I corrected the error you made regarding the 20,000 vs 2000.

You made some statements about the economic base of Wyoming and you asserted "but it is clearly inaccurate to paint all of NE with the same brush."

You seem to maintain that I have ignored something that you wrote as an "argument".    So what WAS your argument?
Title: WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: RidleyReport on August 07, 2003, 11:31:32 pm
On another thread, FreedomRoad wrote:

<<there is a movement in Wyoming that is working to draw us to that state, just as in NH (and other states).  >>

I'd like to know more about this...I haven't heard much from Wyoming folks supporting us; not very many seem to be involved on this forum or anywhere else I go.  

My heart is with Wyoming.  But what I'm struggling with right now is this:  What will happen to us in October if Wyoming is picked but there is not a strong group of locals to represent us?  In fact we need more than just representatives locally...we need *leadership* from folks who already live in the chosen state.  As Jason has indicated, he wants to turn the presidencey of the FSP over to a current resident of the chosen state.

I think we can easily do that in New Hampshire; heck we could practically report to the governor himself now that he's an FSP participant.  

But is FSP leadership going to be forthcoming from Wyoming residents in time?  You mentioned the VP of the Senate is a supporter...  what can be done to develop a stronger presence inside Wyomming before October?
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 08, 2003, 09:44:15 am
Has anyone in the Wyoming legislature signed up to the FSP?

It's clear no significant WY-native pro-WY group is organized on here.

It would be nice to know that if WY, ID, or MT is selected that those states will not only welcome us but even help us during the move and prepare us for the political battles and FSP-originated strategies that lie ahead.

NH-native FSP supporters have an amazing support structure in place for the FSP already.  They have media outreach, news stories, editorials, or TV interviews on nearly a daily basis.

NH-native FSP supporters have also been working on political strategies and have a multi-year plan already in place the last I heard.

NH-native FSP supporters have also expressed the ability to help us move.

This says a LOT about their ability to get things done and our ability to hit the ground rolling in New Hampshire.

Please reconsider voting for New Hampshire first.  :)
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: kbarrett on August 08, 2003, 09:51:19 am
Is this the free state project, or the "lets get more libertarians to move to NH and help us sort out our problems here" Project?

 ::) Please consider voting for NH last.

Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: Stumpy on August 08, 2003, 09:53:45 am
Idaho’s governor suggested that we go to Montana. Montana’s governor suggested we go to Idaho.

New Hampshire’s governor said, “Come on up. BTW, sign me up as a friend”

New Hampshire will welcome the FSP. ;D


Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: Sebastian on August 08, 2003, 10:07:29 am
Quote
"lets get more libertarians to move to NH and help us sort out our problems here" Project?
Let's figure out in which state the free state project will be most likely to succeed. Public opinion is most definitely a strong factor for me in making that decision.
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 08, 2003, 10:55:29 am
Dada,

I find myself very much in agreement with your post, well accept the part about which state has captured my  heart. :)

In the interest of fairness, I would hope any groups that will support us, and help us should now step forward.

I look forward to hearing more of your travels in WY.  

Dave
Title: Venture Capital
Post by: wolverine307 on August 09, 2003, 06:10:08 am
I'd like the readers to go to the post by StevenN where he talks about VC. He puts real life numbers to my asertion that WY is not an economic hotbed, despite its tax/regulatory advantages.

First you'll have to wade through a bunch of boring econ discussion to find it, but it's quite a sobering stat.

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=2817;start=0#lastPost
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 09, 2003, 09:36:16 am
Here's what Michelle had to say from a prior thread:

Venture capital
1=highest / 50=lowest

NH = 4
ME = 20
DE = 26
VT = 29
MT = 33
ID = 41
AK = 46
SD = 48
ND = 49
WY = 49 (a tie maybe?)


Here's also what I had to say in that thread:

I personally think the dealbreaker will be high-tech jobs and the ability for us ultra-capitalist Porcupines to move, start, and grow our businesses in the Free State.  I think we need to look much further into this problem, but for a good overview of the historical high-tech venture capital (VC) activity in NH and WY, go here, select a state, and click "view data":
http://www.pwcmoneytree.com/moneytree/nav.jsp?page=historical

As you can see, WY had one VC deal of an undisclosed amount in Q1 1998 and one deal worth $4M in Q2 2001.

In comparison, NH had 243 VC deals since 1995 worth at least $1.754 BILLION total!  There were even 11 VC deals worth at least $73M in Q1 of this year!  According to the LP of NH:
http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm
NH is "#1 [of all FSP states] for the highest amount of venture capital invested in the state (#4 in the NATION)."  That's pretty impressive.  And important as well.


Here's a link to the original thread:

NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1940;start=0)
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 09, 2003, 09:37:47 am
Bumped due to renewed interest.   :)
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: wolverine307 on August 09, 2003, 10:09:24 am
Thanks for the link. This is good stuff.  Hopefully I'll have the time to dig more deeply into it before I hit the road Monday.

VC types don't deal in theory. They are out to make money, period. I'd say that they are voting with their dollars on the NH economy.

VC is the lifeblood of tomorrow's companies. As they say..."Follow the money."

I knew anecdotally that DE was doing quite well in this area too, but it is nice to see it in black and white.
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: Kelton on August 09, 2003, 10:37:59 am
That link to the data is a bad one, try this one instead:
http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/05_innovation_06.html (http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/05_innovation_06.html)

Lots of other factors to consider here, too.


I also found this story on Idaho:
(Idaho) Governor strikes down venture capital plan (http://www.nasvf.org/web/allpress.nsf/pages/4351)
"Gov. Dirk Kempthorne late Wednesday vetoed a multi-million-dollar guarantee for investors putting their money behind innovative business ideas, citing constitutional questions and a lack of protection for taxpayers."
Good news, actually, he vetoed a plan to get the state involved in securing venture capital.
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: Kelton on August 09, 2003, 02:10:12 pm
Venture capital frequently follows places where high levels of research and university-level academic discovery take place, hence the reason why Massachusetts and California are at the top of the list, despite those states less-than business-friendly climate.
One example of a research success that could benefit agriculture, horse racing and breeding, as well as science in general, that was funded by a private entrepreneur:
News from nature science update (http://www.nature.com/nsu/030527/030527-9.html),
"Scientists and a mule-racing philanthropist are celebrating the birth of the first cloned mule. . ." "The mule, called Idaho Gem after the state of his birth, lives up to the breed's stubborn reputation" "the new arrival is the first equine animal to be cloned,"
(http://www.nature.com/nsu/030527/images/mule_180.jpg)
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: StevenN on August 09, 2003, 06:26:31 pm
There's at least 2 ways in which venture capital (VC) should be looked at. One is that VC follows where there's economic opportunity, and away from where there is less opportunity. 49th is pretty bad.

Also, think of this from our alleged "entrepreneurs" in the FSP. Maybe you want to start a business. It will be much more difficult and costly to obtain these funds in WY.

The reason why I think this is so important is because I really trust the market. I place much more credence to this over say, job outlooks by the states. You think states might actually have some incentive to make themselves look better? Not to mention "jobs" is not the only indicator of economic growth. Come on people, we libertarians here; we shouldn't trust our gov'ts that much. VC is a free-market measure of growth and opportunity.
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: RidleyReport on August 10, 2003, 12:58:00 am
bump
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: Kelton on August 10, 2003, 02:09:16 am
How about these factors?


Industry Investment in R&D (http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/05_innovation_05.html)
(ID=2>DE=3>VT=17>NH=18>ND=37>40=ME>MT=44>AK=46;WY=46>SD=50)

Economic Dynamism (Job Churning) (http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/03_dynamism_03.html)
(ID=9>DE=14>MT=17>AK=18>WY=27>ME=33>NH=34>VT=35>SD=38>ND=49)

Foreign Direct Investment (http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/02_globalization_03.html)
(DE=3>NH=8>ME=10>VT=27>AK>30>MT=35>ID=37>WY=44>ND=47>SD=50)

Patents (http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/05_innovation_04.html)
(ID=1>DE=2>VT=14>MT=14>NH=31>AK=32>WY=35>ND=38>ME=44>SD=50)

High Tech Jobs (http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/05_innovation_02.html)
(NH=3>VT=13>ID=14>SD=22>DE=32>ME=34>ND=40>AK=44>MT=48>WY=50)
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: anarchicluv on August 10, 2003, 02:17:00 am
Who's to say you must find your VC funding within the chosen state?  With the internet today you can be in Siberia and make business and funding connections.
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: milas59 on August 10, 2003, 03:13:15 am
Sounds like Jason is being  a little ideal here - we're talking of a generations long project that will not require anyone to move within 8 years, and hes saying we have to have a WY representative in October ??

I humbly disagree., Jason

au contraire, is he going to appoint an LP leader in NH??

Pleae rethink the impact of this comment Jason, if indeed you are saying you do not really wish to sway the voting

Peter
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: johnadams on August 10, 2003, 04:28:28 am
An open letter to the leadership and membership of the FSP:

...New Hampshire already IS the Free State. If you move there, you won't be CREATING the Free State, you'll be MOVING TO IT. Yes, I know, no state is already perfectly free--but no state will ever be PERFECTLY free. The objective is a "MORE perfect Union," not a PERFECT Union.

I am a Massachusetts (birthplace of modern liberty) resident who was born and raised in Vermont and I am well aware that New Hampshire, not Vermont nor Massachusetts nor any other state, is the "LIVE FREE OR DIE" state. And New Hampshire already has one of the strongest Libertarian state party organizations in the Union. This one is a NO BRAINER!....

You have wisely winnowed the choices to NH and Wyoming in this thread,  ;) for the [clear second best choice after] NH...is Wyoming. However, even if you picked Wyoming, honesty would at least require that you concede New Hampshire to be the Free State East of the Mississippi and Wyoming the Free State West of the Mississippi--and if you really wanted to be generous you could make Alaska the Free State of the uninhabitable regions.  :D

New Hampshire IS already the Free State [in an albeit imperfect sense--it is the Free State as a concept in the minds of many Americans], and a vote by any group on any measure will not change that. If you pretend otherwise, I will join New Hampshire residents in fighting to the death to defend New Hampshire's rightful claim to that title. Please keep in mind that New Hampshire residents are heavily armed; and I believe General Stark's ghost would likely join in the defense of New Hampshire's honor.

I've read the articles and seen the quotes of Vermonters, Idahoans and Montanans saying "Stay the hell out!" and New Hampshirites saying "Welcome friends! Come on up!" ....

...Vermont is the state that elected and re-elected Howard Dean (leading "Progressive" and basher of conservatives and libertarians in the presidential race) and Bernie Sanders (proud socialist)! Did your representatives enjoy the cold reception they got there? Any Vermonter could have warned you not to waste your time sending representatives there if you had just asked. Heck, the mayor of Burlington Vermont (another proud socialist) suggested you folks go to New Hampshire the INSTANT your reps described their libertarian ideals! He didn't have to think two seconds about it--why do you?

I suppose the competition is good for publicity, but hurry up and vote for New Hampshire and get the charade over with. If you select a different state IT WILL BE A LIE. New Hampshire will still be the Free State whether you select it or not.

Even the second best choice, Wyoming, does not come close to competing with New Hampshire, the obvious choice.

"Live free or die" --New Hampshire's motto (No stronger statement could possibly be made in favor of being the free state)
"Equal Rights" --Wyoming's motto (Obviously not the motto of "The Free State")

"The road less traveled" --New Hampshire's slogan (Sounds like low population, which is what you're looking for)
"Like no place on earth" --Wyoming's slogan (What the heck is that supposed to mean?)

The state seal and flag of New Hampshire feature the frigate Raleigh, one of the earliest ships of the new nation's navy, a navy that played a role in the nation's struggle for freedom, and the date on the bottom of the seal reads 1776--the birthdate of independence of the new nation. New Hampshire residents shed their blood in the painful birth in liberty of this great nation. Do not now even try to take away what they fought so hard for--their claim to fame and their very birthright. If you do, your movement will be born into infamy and will be rightly condemned.

The Wyoming state seal features the state slogan--"Equal Rights," which could be interpreted as being related to freedom, but is nowhere near as direct and clear a support of freedom as "Live free or die."

The Wyoming state flag features ... a buffalo  ??? ::)

Come on, be honest, you folks already knew that New Hampshire is THE Free State, right? This is one proud Massachusetts Libertarian who would welcome more allies in nearby New Hampshire, cradle of liberty.
...

"Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils." --Major General John Stark of New Hampshire

"Please, please, pretty please, come to our state." --Governor of NH
....

[Note: post edited in the interest of peace. 8/21/03]
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: milas59 on August 10, 2003, 06:39:00 am
Johnadams

When you give them the numbers about their state, isnt it funny that all we hear from the NH supporters is Live Free or Die.??

It is certainly a  great slogan and I loved to see it every time I came upon a NH car in VT or NH or MA and  now in FL.

But how can you believe the state is already free if nearly half the voters are big government democartic liberals and more are coming in every day from MA ?

You say VT is not free but didnt it JUST elect a Republican governor too, and didnt it add a bunch  of new liberty loving Republican legislators to its statehouse?  Why wouldnt you suggest we move to VT because of THAT single election?

Im not the present governor of Wyoming saying "FSP, dont move here!"   Im just some old FSP guy who was born in VT and lived and worked there and in NH for the past 20 years and though I love them both as my home and will GLADLY move back there from Florida if VT or NH is chosen,   I am not going to follow the irrational, emotional even, line of thinking that the original NH supporters have sold to this list.



You wanna buy the Live Free or Die, please,  be my guest

LIVE Free or Die - LIve FREE or Die - Live free or DIE  

........but in NH ??

Peter Baker
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: Amanda on August 10, 2003, 06:43:17 am

Phil, aka "John Adams," Libertarian party member from Massachusetts (which is not nearly as libertarian as NH, but is more libertarian than we generally get credit for)


"Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils." --Major General John Stark of New Hampshire

"Please, please, pretty please, come to our state." --Governor of NH

"Who the hell is the FSP?" --average Wyoming elected official and resident

Phil, we need to have as many porcupines as possible on the LPMA State Committee so we can make sure the LPMA supports us when a New England state wins the Free State vote. I have the nominating papers and am running for State Committee in my state senate district (Fourth Middlesex). Are you interested in joining me on the LPMA State Committee? E-mail amanda@anarchism.net.
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: Amanda on August 10, 2003, 06:46:00 am
When you give them the numbers about their state, isnt it funny that all we hear from the NH supporters is Live Free or Die.??

There are 101 Reasons right here... http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: Amanda on August 10, 2003, 06:56:15 am
My heart is with Wyoming.  But what I'm struggling with right now is this:  What will happen to us in October if Wyoming is picked but there is not a strong group of locals to represent us?  In fact we need more than just representatives locally...we need *leadership* from folks who already live in the chosen state.  As Jason has indicated, he wants to turn the presidencey of the FSP over to a current resident of the chosen state.

I think we can easily do that in New Hampshire; heck we could practically report to the governor himself now that he's an FSP participant.  

Yep, NH's Governor signed on as a Friend, and we have at least 2 state reps who are FSP members. The LPNH Chair, and the Governor's appointee to the Efficiency in Government Commission, is also an FSP member.

I and several others are running for LPMA State Committee, so we can ensure the LPMA will be supportive if a New England state wins the FSP vote.

The NH natives have not only garnered a lot of support within NH... they have garnered support from porcupines all over the nation. The core group of NH advocates includes folks from AZ, TX, GA, AL, PA, MD, and MA. They recently sent out a mailing to promote the FSP to 20,000 currently or formerly registered Libertarians in MA. Which other state's advocates have raised the money and conducted outreach on this scale?

They have continuously sought out and received GREAT press coverage for the FSP in NH. And the NPR spot that aired nationally originated with NHPR at our Escape to NH event.

The NH advocates are smart, politically savvy, motivated, and work well together as a TEAM. Other state supporters occasionally grumble about our "slick marketing" or th "NH mafia," but I think this is just typical envy-of-those-who-are-successful. We have been saying all along... why aren't the other state supporters doing this? Where are their 101 Reasons? Surely, there must be some...
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: Michelle on August 10, 2003, 07:53:50 am
When you give them the numbers about their state, isnt it funny that all we hear from the NH supporters is Live Free or Die.??

There are 101 Reasons right here... http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf

NH supporters have many, many solid, documented reasons to feel as we do - that NH is the absolute best possible state for the FSP to succeed and succeed faster.

The state motto and historical precendence isn't all of it :)

New Hampshire offers an environment where small government and freedom orientation are inherent in the culture, NH offers advantages due to the accessibilty of the political system that are simply unmatched by any other state, NH offers economic and employment advantages, constitutional advantages, quality of life advantages, and geographic advantages.

Thanks, Amanda for posting the link to 101 Reasons. Those who don't like or have trouble with PDF documents, might prefer the web slide show version:

http://www.lpnh.org/101/index.html

 :)
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: Robert H. on August 10, 2003, 08:47:53 am
My heart is with Wyoming.  But what I'm struggling with right now is this:  What will happen to us in October if Wyoming is picked but there is not a strong group of locals to represent us?  In fact we need more than just representatives locally...we need *leadership* from folks who already live in the chosen state.  

Keith Carlsen's reports (http://members.aol.com/wyomingsuccess/tour1.html) on his conversations with some Wyoming politicians may give us a lead here.  They could undoubtedly advise us with useful tips on how to proceed.  There is also the Wyoming LP, of course.  I don't believe that they've gotten fully on board with the FSP yet because they're not interested in moving out of Wyoming, but they have endorsed the FSP and would likely be interested in sharing their views on how the FSP could succeed in Wyoming.  Charles Curley (http://w3.trib.com/~ccurley/index.html) is the WYLP's FSP liason and could probably give you more information in the meantime.

Also, bear in mind here that there are some advantages to entering a state without an outspoken presence, and, I would think, entering on a non-partisan basis as well.

For one thing, without some strong effort to lead the way already in place, the FSP would be able to more objectively identify avenues for successfully impacting state politics.  We could, and certainly would, consult with current political figures in the state system, but we would be less beholden to them.  This would free us to evaluate their input and organize an infrastructure and strategy best suited to maximizing our impact on the system.

For another thing, if the FSP enters the state already firmly associated with some established presence, we will immediately come to share the same baggage and public perceptions as that individual or entity.  Entering as non-partisans who are unaffiliated with any present individual or political entity will make it more difficult for the opposition to paint us in any particular light.  Free of carrying anyone's political cross for them, we would be better able to manuever, and probably better accepted by individuals.

There are also advantages to having an existing framework, of course, but there are already several existing political frameworks in Wyoming (GOP, Democrats, LP, Constitution Party).  Coming to an independent strategy, and/or entering the state on a non-partisan basis, would not deprive us of the ability to enter the system.  I don't see the formation of a third party taking place in any state, so we'll be working through some type of existing system anyway.

Quote
As Jason has indicated, he wants to turn the presidencey of the FSP over to a current resident of the chosen state.

It's difficult to address this issue at present because we really don't know what other criteria Jason and/or the FSP board has in mind for his replacement.  This information would be helpful in order for us to effectively discuss how suitable candidates might be located in the chosen state.  Except that the person be a state resident, we're really shooting in the dark as to what they're looking for.

Quote
But is FSP leadership going to be forthcoming from Wyoming residents in time?  You mentioned the VP of the Senate is a supporter...  what can be done to develop a stronger presence inside Wyomming before October?

I would say follow up on the contacts that Keith Carlsen has already made, and put the question to Charles Curley as well.  These people are already in Wyoming and are familiar with the situation there.
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: johnadams on August 11, 2003, 12:03:20 am
There is no "Free State" in this nation.

Only by comparing NH with Massachusetts can people in NH get the impression they are a "Free State".

By "Free State" I didn't mean that NH is free in every detail--no state is or ever will be--there is no such thing as perfection. I meant that NH is the "Free State" in conception--in the minds of the majority of Americans. It is a state conceived in liberty whose maverick residents have strived to live up to that ideal of liberty, and who have a famous reputation for waging this struggle. The FSP can help NH to better live up to its famous ideal.

Quote
Get your blinders off and look around.

Whoo! I like your spunk!  ;)

Quote
There are other states that make NH look like a Massachusetts.

Interesting, I have had "Progressives" tell me that Massachusetts is too libertarian. There was even an article in the Boston Globe that claimed that Massachusetts is more libertarian than liberal. I actually agree with you that Massachusetts is liberal, but we are more libertarian than we are given credit for. Are you aware that we elected and re-elected a self-described "libertarian" governor (Bill Weld) and that a libertarian candidate for Senate (Carla Howell) received almost as many votes as the Republican candidate?

The Republican Party is on the decline in Massachusetts. Except for the remarkable Republican governor, Mitt Romney, the Republican Party would be essentially dead. The Massachusetts Libertarian Party, by contrast, while small, is on the rise.

I believe that the Libertarian Party or another third party will in the not-too-distant-future replace the Republican Party as the second major party in NE. This is an opportunity we cannot afford to ignore. The only thing that could stem the ongoing gradual mass defection to Independent and Libertarian enrollments is if the national Republican Party rejects its Fundamentalist wing, or if that wing of the party returns to its former philosophy of separation and abandons its current policy of political activism and Reconstructionism--and I don't see either of these things happening anytime soon. NE could be the cradle for the development of the Libertarian Party as a REAL alternative to the Democratic Party and as a replacement for the socially interventionist, big-government Republican Party.

Quote
New Hampshire has as many socialist/liberal/communitarian/statist/authoritarian laws, regulations, taxes, government programs as any of the other candidate states.

Huh? That makes the states all sound the same. Are you saying that NH has the same number of these things as the other states, and that there therefore isn't much difference between them on these factors, or that NH has far more of these things than most of the other states?

Quote
Any reasonably thorough evaluation of NH proves that it is not a "Free State" compared to what this nation began as.

OK, now you seem to be singling out NH again. Does that mean you think NH is much less free than the other states and they are not that similar after all?

Quote
Wyomingites enjoy more personal and economic freedom in many respects than people living in New Hampshire.
Wait a minute, I thought you said There is no "Free State" in this nation. Have you changed your mind and determined that Wyoming is a Free State after all?
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: johnadams on August 11, 2003, 12:20:36 am
....But how can you believe the state is already free if nearly half the voters are big government democartic liberals and more are coming in every day from MA ?
This means the need to shore up the bulwark of liberty in NH is all the more urgent--or have you already written off NH as lost? Are you aware that the Libertarian Party, albeit small, is growing in MA? Are you aware that a self-described "libertarian" governor (Bill Weld) was re-elected in MA not long ago...twice? A FSP project in NH would add to the growing libertarian critical mass and signal the beginnings of a second Libertarian revolution in New England.

Quote
You say VT is not free but didnt it JUST elect a Republican governor too, and didnt it add a bunch  of new liberty loving Republican legislators to its statehouse?  Why wouldnt you suggest we move to VT because of THAT single election?

A single election does not a revolution make. Like you, I have not yet given up on Vermont, but I recognize that the "liberal experiment" there has given the left the upper hand for the time being. Where better to conduct the Libertarian experiment than right next door in NH? When the Vermonters vote with their feet and move to NH in droves the media will not be able to ignore the victory of the FSP experiment.

Quote
....Im just some old FSP guy who was born in VT and lived and worked there and in NH for the past 20 years....


Best wishes to you brother! I too was born in VT and lived there for the first 21 years of my life. I have seen the great liberal experiment develop there over the years and I would like to see an alternative experiment right next door. What a fascinating competition that would be!

To some extent, the competition has already been ongoing, as NH has consistently maintained lower overall taxes than VT, and articles have been published on the results of that difference. What the FSP would do would be to highten the differences and make the contrast of the dualing experiments all the more interesting.

Quote
....I am not going to follow the irrational, emotional even, line of thinking that the original NH supporters have sold to this list.

Good for you! Keep your baloney detection kit always at the ready. You have my heartiest approbration in your desire and your efforts to follow the rational path. Indeed, I consider myself a rationalist, or at least I try to be. :-)

Quote
LIVE Free or Die - LIve FREE or Die - Live free or DIE

Yes! You have the mantra down :-) and you have the spirit! Once NH is selected, the chant will grow and grow until it reverberates around the world until it shakes the very foundations of tyrannies and brings down the idols of statism upon the heads of despots. NH will be the site of "a new birth of freedom."

This is what I've been dreaming of and hoping for for years. I have seen the promised land. I may not get there with you, but I will rejoice in your exploits and cheer you on from Massachusetts. Glory hallelu! I even tried, but so far failed, to get my parents to set up their summer home in NH rather than VT (they are moving from upstate NY). Who knows, maybe the experiment will be so successful in NH that VT and MA will soon also see the light. One can only hope.

"From the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire, let freedom ring."
--Martin Luther King Jr.
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 11, 2003, 02:48:40 pm
Who's to say you must find your VC funding within the chosen state?  With the internet today you can be in Siberia and make business and funding connections.

Statistics prove that companies in New Hampshire are about 120-times more likely to receive Venture Capital funding than companies in Wyoming.

It says a LOT about New Hampshire for NH companies to have 438-times more Venture Capital dollars than Wyoming in the past few years.

How can this just be brushed aside as some irrelevant statistic?
I guess I don't quite understand the logic in ignoring VC statistics...   ???
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: anarchicluv on August 11, 2003, 03:04:15 pm
Who's to say you must find your VC funding within the chosen state?  With the internet today you can be in Siberia and make business and funding connections.

Statistics prove that companies in New Hampshire are about 120-times more likely to receive Venture Capital funding than companies in Wyoming.

It says a LOT about New Hampshire for NH companies to have 438-times more Venture Capital dollars than Wyoming in the past few years.

How can this just be brushed aside as some irrelevant statistic?
I guess I don't quite understand the logic in ignoring VC statistics...   ???

Well, it could also be proving that NH businesses seek out VC funding 120 times more often than WY companies do.  Who knows?  You know what they say about statistics.
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: StevenN on August 11, 2003, 05:16:05 pm
Misterbeanz,

Your comment reminds me of people who say "oh, I should have no problem getting a home mortgage, because all those commericals (i.e lendingtree.com) tell me that banks compete for my business!" Of course, they don't understand that they'll be paying a higher interest rate. Heck, the mob will loan you money for your business in WY/ND/MT, but I don't recommend it. I said it would be more difficult and costly to obtain funds, not impossible.

exitus,

ID is fine economically, IMO; as is DE. All the others I approach with caution.
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: anarchicluv on August 11, 2003, 05:33:45 pm
Misterbeanz,

Your comment reminds me of people who say "oh, I should have no problem getting a home mortgage, because all those commericals (i.e lendingtree.com) tell me that banks compete for my business!" Of course, they don't understand that they'll be paying a higher interest rate. Heck, the mob will loan you money for your business in WY/ND/MT, but I don't recommend it. I said it would be more difficult and costly to obtain funds, not impossible.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  All I was trying to point out is that maybe there are other reasons (such as fewer companies looking for VC funding) that could explain the WY ranking.  I never said a thing about the details of actually obtaining VC funding or bank loans.  

Another point I was making is that you don't have to get your funding from VC's within any particular state.  You can obtain VC funding from literally anywhere in the world.  VC's don't care that you're in WY or AK, they only care that your idea will work given the plan you've laid out.  

In my opinion, VC funding rankings are not something I would put high on my list of variables for choosing which state we move to.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: johnadams on August 11, 2003, 05:58:45 pm
.... I truly do not see how WY can compete with NH when a disproportionate portion of FSP members are high-tech workers.
Those VC #'s are pretty convincing. Unless most of the FSP'ers want to work as ranchers or farmers they are going to have to commute to Colorado. And if almost everyone is going to work in Colorado, what's the sense of moving to Wyoming? If 20,000 people commute every day from Wyoming to Colorado the ensuing traffic would be a nightmare.

NH, on the other hand, can absorb the FSP'ers. NH has a more diverse economy, including a much bigger tech sector than WY, and nearby MA, VT and ME offer spillover areas if temporary job shortages occur in NH. MA alone has a larger tech sector than CO. I just don't see how WY can absorb the FSP'ers if they really do move. It is likely to be seen as an "invasion of the city slickers" by WY residents.
Title: Re:NH vs WY - Venture Capital Investments
Post by: StevenN on August 11, 2003, 06:41:02 pm
Quote
It is likely to be seen as an "invasion of the city slickers" by WY residents.

And that's what I think could kill this project. I'd take a state that disagreed with the FSP more politically than a state where there was more ideological agreement but a citizenry that would be less welcoming.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Dennis Wilson on August 11, 2003, 06:44:44 pm
Still waiting for a reply from wolverine307.....
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 11, 2003, 07:13:19 pm
Should you care to check the thread since in escapes me.  Wolverine307 indicated that his internet connection would be disconnected I believe that was yesterday :)
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: johnadams on August 11, 2003, 07:14:57 pm
....VC's don't care that you're in WY or AK, they only care that your idea will work given the plan you've laid out.
VC's may be willing to invest out of state and even out of country, but they DO care where the businesses they are investing in are located. The various factors of the area where a business is located is analyzed by VC's as a basic part of any business plan. VC's will be much less likely to lend to businesses in remote, dead areas.

The following is Wrom: FPEGAUTFJMVRESKPNKMBIPBA
Study Guide - Unit Two: The Business Plan
Dakota State University
http://courses.dsu.edu/entre/guides/b436unt2.htm

Micro-environmental analysis:
       a) community demographics
       b) economic base
       c) population trends
       d) overall business climate
       e) physical link to markets
       f) reliance and deservedness

Also, as anyone who has gone to business school can tell you, "Place" is one of the "Four P's" of Marketing. And any real estate agent can tell you the importance of "location, location, location" in real estate value growth.

Quote
In my opinion, VC funding rankings are not something I would put high on my list of variables for choosing which state we move to.
I think the VC data is one good indicator out of many economic indicators that should be considered in looking at the ability of a state to absorb the FSP'ers.
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: johnadams on August 11, 2003, 07:27:58 pm
Here is some more economic data:

"New Economy"
Overall Ranking Out of 50 States
2002
http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/overall_rank.html

DE   9
NH   15
ID   20
ME   25
VT   28
AK   31
MT   37
SD   43
ND   44
WY   46

States adjacent to WY
CO = 4
UT = 12
ID = 20
MT = 37
SD = 43
NE = 33

States adjacent to NH
MA = 1
VT = 28
ME = 25

Note - if we expand the geographic region to include almost as much area around NH as WY's adjacent states cover, we could add:
NY = 10
CT = 7
RI = 21
NJ = 6
PA = 19
...and even part of nearby Canada and other states would fit within the same area


Note: most of the Colorado new economy businesses and jobs are in the Denver-Boulder statistical metropolitan area. “In proximity to others the Denver-Boulder SMSA is the most isolated in the United States. It is almost 1,000 miles in distance over land from any of the 19 larger SMSAs, and it is more than 500 miles from either Kansas City to the East or Salt Lake City to the West, both of which represent smaller SMSAs.”
  -- Phillips V. Bradford, Sc.D., “The role of venture capital in the formation and growth of high technology companies in Colorado,” Doing Business in Colorado - Industry Studies.

Up until now I had considered WY to be the second best choice after NH. After researching the economics further, I am now rethinking this. I just don’t see how WY’s economy can rapidly absorb 5,000 new-economy-type workers, much less 20,000, and the idea of five or ten or twenty thousand people commuting every day from Cheyenne, WY to the Denver-Boulder area is laughable.
Title: Re:WY FSP presence vs. NH FSP presence
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 11, 2003, 07:38:05 pm
Also, bear in mind here that there are some advantages to entering a state without an outspoken presence, and, I would think, entering on a non-partisan basis as well.
______________________________________________

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I was under the impression that once a state is chosen, that the FSP will issue a national press release.  Surely it will be picked up in the state that is chosen.  

I see no problem entering non-partisan, which I have no doubt many will, but believe it will be impossible as the word of our presence get out to hide our purpose, nor should we.  I mean what are you going to tell your new neighbors, when they ask,  Why did you move here?

In New Hampshire they already know of us, know our intentions, and have welcomed us! :)
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: anarchicluv on August 11, 2003, 07:43:03 pm
VC's will be much less likely to lend to businesses in remote, dead areas.

Unless of course you plan to open a million-acre hay farm out in BFE.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 11, 2003, 08:34:57 pm
.... As for the purported 'commute' to Fort Collins, a number of people who attended Esc2NH from western states ...have plainly said that the commute from Cheyenne to Fort Collins is unreliable if not impossible in the winter ....

I find it funny that Wyoming has to depend on the Colorado job market..., while NH has the most diverse job market of all candidate states, completely excluding the Silicon Beltway around Boston, which is half the commute distance of Fort Collins.

And using the Fort Collins commute may be a bit misleading, for while Fort Collins is on the Northern extreme of the "Colorado Front Range" high-tech area, most of Colorado's "new economy" jobs are in the Denver-Boulder area, which is much further South.

Quote
I'd also like to SEE something when I look out my window, ... not a landscape denuded by forest fire.

Yeah, have you seen the image at http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming/ of a Wyoming mountain field in which the grass is pale [gold] .... I think you'll prefer the GREEN mountains of New England.

Quote
When was the last time anything important politically happened in Wyoming?
If the porcupines go to WY they'll be national laughing stocks and the leftists will rejoice and say "Hoorah! We are RID of them!" [meaning they'll be out of the national political picture and will have reduced clout because of it.]

[Post corrected for accuracy and to promote peace.]
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Ceol Mhor on August 11, 2003, 09:58:18 pm
Wyoming, like Colorado and Montana, is about half prarie and half mountainous. Both MT and WY (and ID to a slightly lesser extent) offer both more mountain area than any eastern state as well as a more diverse ecology, which is a good thing for attracting a large number of FSPers. Not everyone wants to live in the mountains, y'know.

Quote
...the leftists will rejoice and say "Hoorah! We are RID of them!"
Good. The less they notice us, the better. Why would we WANT more opposition, particularly motivated, politically-experienced opposition?
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 11, 2003, 11:19:56 pm

And using the Fort Collins commute may be a bit misleading, for while Fort Collins is on the Northern extreme of the "Colorado Front Range" high-tech area, most of Colorado's "new economy" jobs are in the Denver-Boulder area, which is much further South.

First, the above quote was confused at best.  I drove from Ft. Collins to Cheyenne and it took me 25 min. to go fom 1 city limit to the other.  I am guessing it will take most of us 30 or so min. to do the drive in good weather and maybe 35-40 in real bad weather.  Traffic does not slow down much in CO because of bad weather.  I know.  I've been there in the winter and gone 80 mph.

Second, Wyoming does not need to depend on Ft. Collins at all.  Not a bit.  Wyoming has a nice unemployment rate and will do us fine.  See the Jobs Question report, http://www.freestateproject.org/jobs_17jul03.htm

Third, CO is a huge high tech state.  The only way to get more high tech than CO is to go to CA.  Ft. Collins has lots of jobs.  Heck, the Ft. Collins MSA is one of the fastest growing in the county and its job market is one projected to be on of the best in the county (about as good as the entire state of NH).  Lots of these jobs are or will be high-tech.  I take it that you have never spent the night or even been to Ft. Collins.  I have.  I've been to Denver, Boulder, Longmont, and Ft. Collins.  I have family in the area and it is growing like crazy.

I suggest that you read these quotes from the Wyoming Report #2,

"Expansion Management Magazine ranked Cheyenne as a Five Star Community for quality of life. (These rankings were done so that small to mid-sized companies would have a basis to compare different cities for relocation purposes). "

"The 2002 Small Business Survival Index ranks Wyoming as the third-best state for small businesses in the entire country."

"According to the 1999 Economic Freedom Index which ranks all 50 states, Wyoming has more economic freedom than eight of the other candidate states. "

"More statistics on Ft. Collins MSA from the Northern Colorado Economic Development Council:

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

Quote
Yeah, have you seen the image at http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming/ of a Wyoming mountain field in which the grass is pale because it is obviously all dried up and dead? :-X --and this is a PROMOTIONAL image! What a hoot!!  :D I think you'll prefer the GREEN mountains of New England.

Those wild grasses are not dead.  They are not green because much of the wild grasses of Wyoming turn gold during the warmest part of Summer.

Quote
If the porcupines go to WY they'll be national laughing stocks...

I cannot imagine why you say the things you do.
Title: Yet Another Pointless State Argument
Post by: lloydbob1 on August 12, 2003, 08:00:57 am
Actually we've had more than 5,000 for awhile now but I know they're holding back the announcement until they can make arrangements with Boston T. Party.  But in reality the FSP has over 5,000 members.  Woo Hoo!!!

If only the ballot would show up in my mailbox we could get to voting and put this ugly New Hampshire business behind us.

Or maybe in front of us!
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 12, 2003, 09:04:32 am
Up until now I had considered WY to be the second best choice after NH. After researching the economics further, I am now rethinking this. I just don’t see how WY’s economy can rapidly absorb 5,000 new-economy-type workers, much less 20,000, and the idea of five or ten or twenty thousand people commuting every day from Cheyenne, WY to the Denver-Boulder area is laughable.

I agree entirely.  I've been rethinking WY as my number two state for quite a while, primarily because of its economic concerns.  Wyoming was almost dropped as an FSP candidate state early on because of a lack of jobs.

Wyoming's economic isolation is a major reason why we cannot "show the world what can be done" economically with libertarianism in Wyoming.
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: StevenN on August 12, 2003, 11:27:49 am
I used to have WY as #1. Then I switched to NH, with WY as 2nd for a long time. Now, I place it after NH, ID, DE, and AK. Mainly because:

-Economic factors: already discussed these

-I don't think the native WY'ers will be all that thrilled or accepting of 20k people moving in, even if we agree with them politically.

-I think that the culture of WY isn't as receptive to freedom as has been made out.
Title: State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 12, 2003, 11:37:07 am
I seriously think it is the westerners set of mind. That is their idea of activism. We are doomed if western state is elected. Less rifles more reasoning and planning!
Title: State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Mike Lorrey on August 12, 2003, 12:28:53 pm
To dwell further on this, just look at Iraq. That is like Wyoming. The feds could roll over any secession movement in Wyoming in a heartbeat, stage a blitzkrieg style advance of heavy armor and air support on Cheyenne just as they did on Bagdad.

In NH, we have the mountains, we have the dense forests, and the narrow mountain passes in which we can catch federal forces in crossfire killing zones. When reinforcements arrive, we dissapear into the forests. These forests are impassable to armor, and impenetrable by air cover. Any federal offensive against the free state would have to be made with infantry movements and artillery firebases. Considering how many NH residents are Vietnam vets, we would eat them for lunch.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Hank on August 12, 2003, 01:58:22 pm
Heyduke,
What more advice do you have for porcupines moving into New Hampshire in a way not to trigger the "screwy beast politically"?  In other words, what more beyond maybe not being what you described
Quote
Hey--Michelle--more power to you and your charge, but I am a little concerned that you are actually employed by the NH Dept. of Tourism the way you continually schill NH to all and any...
I take no offense at your defensiveness, and whether I am a member or not, I know how to pick my battles and have a keener sense of perspective than most of the yahoos that come to NH from outside and then preach Live Free or Die...
Title: State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Kelton on August 12, 2003, 02:35:25 pm
I seriously think it is the westerners set of mind. That is their idea of activism. We are doomed if western state is elected. Less rifles more reasoning and planning!
Tony, I am hurt that you would say that, especially after Joe and I worked so hard to answer your questions about it here:

A perspective on Western attitude toward politics (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2813)

And what Misterbeanz wrote here about not being political but assisting our efforts here:
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2801;start=15 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2801;start=15)
Title: Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: EMOR on August 12, 2003, 02:47:24 pm
In Lawrence, you can't beat a rug in the street.

In Andover, you may dual on the lawn of the common if, and only if, the governor is present.

In New Hampshire, it is illegal to spit on the street and take seaweed off the beach.

No spitting on the sidewalk, prohibiting restaurants from serving margarine unless it is clearly labeled or in pats that are "triangular in shape," walking on the right side of a crosswalk "whenever practicable," forbidding a pawn broker from accepting any article of clothing removed from the person in the store and ruling that pews or seats in a meetinghouse are personal property.

requiring residents to register bicycles at the town clerk's office for 35 cents. It also said bicyclists could not ride on sidewalks, should have a bell or horn, cannot ride on handlebars and must have at least one hand on the handlebars.

an ordinance stating residents can wash windows from a portion of the sidewalk only at 7 to 8 a.m. during the months of April through November

No person shall play football, baseball, softball or any similar sport in any street or other public place within the city
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: EMOR on August 12, 2003, 02:48:00 pm
ROGER AZIZ
Eagle-Tribune Correspondent

We were sitting on our deck around noon when a green truck pulled up and stopped.

A man got out looked at our fireplace and asked us if we had eaten recently. ''Yes,'' I said. ''We just cooked some hot dogs on the fire.''

I looked at his hat and it read '''Fire Warden, Town of Ossipee.''

The gentleman in the hat then informed me that the only way we can have an open fire between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. is if we cooked with it.

As soon as we were done cooking, we must extinguish the fire completely. We were then told that the laws for campfires are as follows: No fires except for cooking from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. but we could have a fire from 5 p.m. through the night to 9 a.m.

Hello?

Now it strikes me odd that we cannot have an attended fire during the day but we can have a blazing fire all night long into the next morning. Even though most campfire chats do indeed end around 1 a.m. at the latest, I have seen some folks party all night in past years.

I have to wonder where the safety factor lies with such regulations. Certainly the woods are just as dry at 5 p.m. as they are at noon. And a daylight fire is not a regular occurrence requiring such vigil that two men have to inspect a fireplace for signs of smoke, however wispy, emanating from the fireplace.

Two campers were issued warnings that day because they did not cook on the fires that were still burning. I am sure this and the threat of $250 in fines startled them. And if ignorance of the law is no excuse, we might also suggest that ignorant laws are no excuse for common sense.

Last year we started our fire at 4:45 p.m. and we were inspected by a fire warden who made us put it out. The time was 4:55 p.m. That is when we first learned of the fire regulations in Ossipee.

Another regulation that amazes me is the one that suggests that all power boaters in New Hampshire must have a fire extinguisher aboard. This includes electric motor powered boats.

A simple water bucket that can serve to bail a boat should be sufficient but it is not. If my seven-foot pram caught fire, I would be over the side quickly. What good would a fire extinguisher do me when I would be but one foot away from the fire? And, in a 12-foot boat even with gasoline, chances are a leap into the lake wearing a life preserver would be safer than to mess around with a motor fire next to a gasoline can.

There are so many laws on the books that do not make sense yet threaten to spoil a good time out of doors that we have to wonder who makes them up. Chances are they are the brainchild of some bureaucrat who never ventures far from his desk.

This summer please be careful out of doors. And be certain you find out the rules or you may find yourself being fined for some seemingly harmless act of fun. Like a campfire at noon.
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 12, 2003, 03:30:10 pm
 ::)
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: avgjoe99 on August 12, 2003, 03:55:34 pm
Hey Summerlin and radar I just wanted to say that you westerners and the rest like you, should have been disallowed from being in the freestateproject. You people do nothing but knock NH for being too good. I think that you guys are just afraid of moving more than a 100 miles from your current locations. True, Wy and Mt have no people. There is a reason for this. THERE IS NOTHING THERE. Good luck in your fanasy world cause if the FS is WY or MT you westerners just might be the only ones there. Its just too bad that I cant opt out of the waste of time states. Wish i was a little better informed before I didnt opt out of any, specifically WY, MT, ID, ND, SD. By the way do these states combined have the leadership in place that NH does?  I'll save you the trouble of answering. NO they don't.
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: EMOR on August 12, 2003, 04:01:15 pm
::)
You roll your eyes but forget to look at your own sig. You need to reword it a tad bit.    ;)
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: Scott ISMP on August 12, 2003, 04:24:48 pm
Hey Summerlin and radar I just wanted to say that you westerners and the rest like you, should have been disallowed from being in the freestateproject. You people do nothing but knock NH for being too good. I think that you guys are just afraid of moving more than a 100 miles from your current locations. True, Wy and Mt have no people. There is a reason for this. THERE IS NOTHING THERE. Good luck in your fanasy world cause if the FS is WY or MT you westerners just might be the only ones there. Its just too bad that I cant opt out of the waste of time states. Wish i was a little better informed before I didnt opt out of any, specifically WY, MT, ID, ND, SD. By the way do these states combined have the leadership in place that NH does?  I'll save you the trouble of answering. NO they don't.

just wondering if NH isnt choosen you wont move to the free state?  Seems if you where a true free stater you would move where ever it is.
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: JonM on August 12, 2003, 04:32:44 pm
As I've said before, it's a damn shame all laws are set in stone and impossible to repeal.

Why not cruise through NH's state statutes and see just how many sections read "repealed"
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: avgjoe99 on August 12, 2003, 04:37:00 pm
Scott I wish nothing but the best success for this project but I'm about fed up with the people who dont like facts. The westerners dont want to hear anything positive that comes from the east. And I'm not going to put my families future in jeopardy because of some irrational thinking by some voting members. Lets just run this by some of you again--WY gov said go to MT, MT said go to ID, ID said go to WY. Thats like a circle jerk. Now NH gov. gave us his blessing. HMMM What state do you favor now?
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: Scott ISMP on August 12, 2003, 04:40:40 pm
I am going to move where ever they decide on I have a goal and the goal is to stick with FSP.  If they decide to move to WY I will, if they decide to move to ID I will, if they decide to move to MT (already there haha...), if they decide to move to NH I will.  
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: EMOR on August 12, 2003, 04:50:13 pm
As I've said before, it's a damn shame all laws are set in stone and impossible to repeal.

Why not cruise through NH's state statutes and see just how many sections read "repealed"
According to one state senator it has not happened in a long time.

Anyway this thread is meant in a lighthearted way because all states have silly laws and are not significantly more libertarian than any other.
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: LeopardPM on August 12, 2003, 04:54:05 pm
avrjoe - ok, so NH wins on one particular issue, alot of different issues in fact - but everyone will vote with whatever THEY feel is important to them, NOT just what you feel SHOULD be important to them - be it how easy it is to get elected or how many monkeys live in the state - it matters not.

I stipulate that no matter how freedom oriented a state may currently be - the influence that 20,000 freedom lovers will far overshadow the states current freedom factor relative to other states... so, I go where ever the FSP votes, and I will vote as I see fit - either off to where the huskies go, or over to where 'Live Free or Die' is on my license plate...

freedom first, biases on down the list,
michael
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: kbarrett on August 12, 2003, 05:40:08 pm
I rather liked the Andover dueling statute.

I could think of more than a few legislators I wouldn't mind taking a katana to .... provided it was lawful to do so....

Title: One from Austin
Post by: Number_6 on August 12, 2003, 05:48:06 pm
Austin, TX used to have an ordinance that you had to get off the streetcar to fight the Indians.    ;D
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 12, 2003, 09:53:50 pm
Quote
...the leftists will rejoice and say "Hoorah! We are RID of them!"
Good. The less they notice us, the better. Why would we WANT more opposition, particularly motivated, politically-experienced opposition?
;D I here ya' fellow patriot, but that wasn't my point at all. I was talking about our enemies rejoicing at the prospect of many of our brothers and sisters retreating into obscurity in a remote prairie state. If the FSP is about admitting defeat and retreating off into isolation, then WY would seem to be a prime candidate and definitely superior to NH. But if you haven't given up the fight against these leftist devils, then at least stay on the battlefield!

How can we expect to win the long run battle if some of our best troops refuse to fight? How can we win The Revolution if some of our elite soldiers are missing in action?

No, no, don't retreat yet. Instead amass where we are strongest--at the eye of the gathering storm in New Hampshire and let your voices be heard like rolling thunder across this great nation.
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: Radar on August 13, 2003, 12:32:42 am
Quote
Hey Summerlin and radar I just wanted to say that you westerners and the rest like you, should have been disallowed from being in the freestateproject. You people do nothing but knock NH for being too good. I think that you guys are just afraid of moving more than a 100 miles from your current locations. True, Wy and Mt have no people. There is a reason for this. THERE IS NOTHING THERE. Good luck in your fanasy world cause if the FS is WY or MT you westerners just might be the only ones there. Its just too bad that I cant opt out of the waste of time states. Wish i was a little better informed before I didnt opt out of any, specifically WY, MT, ID, ND, SD. By the way do these states combined have the leadership in place that NH does?  I'll save you the trouble of answering. NO they don't.

LOL!!!  You're funny.   :D

Sorry but I don't live in a "fanasy" world.  Maybe they should disallow people who can't spell FANTASY.  Seriously though I don't knock New Hampshire because it's "too good", but the opposite is true.  

New Hampshire and its supporters sicken me.  The state is totally wrong for our needs.  In fact there are a few states that weren't even among those to be chosen that are better than New Hampshire so they're not even really in 10th place.  And every location is more than 100 miles from my current location.  I have not opted out of any states BUT New Hampshire so there goes that little theory you genius you.

Do those states combined have the leadership that New Hampshire does?  Most likely not since New Hampshire's legislature is so HUGE.  They've probably got more elected officials (leadership) than any other 5 of the states combined which is yet another reason not to choose it.  Thanks for pointing that out.

The Free State will be in the west, and if it's any state other than New Hampshire, the FSP has a chance of working but moreso in the west.  

Title: State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: freedomroad on August 13, 2003, 01:33:41 am
First off, I never posted this thread to this section of the FSP Forum.  I posted it to the 'Which State" section and someone else posted it here.  Also, I had no idea it was a press release or anything.

Anyway, Boston T. Party knows about as much about guns as anyone in America.  He is famous in libertarian, LP, conservative, Constitutionalist, and gun rights circles, to name a few.  To say that he is one of the most famous libertarians to join the FSP is a great understatement.  I am shocked that fellow libertarians would attack this very famous libertarian simply because of his reasons for liking a particular state.  We all might disagree on the issues but let’s give respect where it is due.  Boston has earned respect.

I might not have picked Wyoming because of the small exact reasons as Boston, but I also picked Wyoming for first place.  I am not the only one to pick Wyoming.  Here is a list of other personal accounts for Wyoming,
http://members.aol.com/wyomingliberty/#3

If you do not agree with Boston, maybe you agree with one of the arguments for Wyoming in the above link.  I say that we should all keep an open mind.  Let's take this for what it is.  This is one of the biggest libertarian celebrities in the world supporting the FSP.  Life is not always perfect, but this is good news.  
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: freedomroad on August 13, 2003, 03:53:41 am
Lets just run this by some of you again--WY gov said go to MT,

Well, he really said we are welcome to be in WY politics because it is a free country but has made it clear that he does not support us.

Quote
MT said go to ID,

This part is true, he did SUGGEST that we go to ID.

Quote
Now NH gov. gave us his blessing.
I am glad he blessed us.  However, I agree with the WY Governor in that it is a free country and we can move anywhere we want.  We do not need a blessing by a political person.

Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: Jaytina on August 13, 2003, 09:26:52 am
 
  It seems to me that a perfectly viable option, should a state one prefers not to move to be chosen, is simply establishing residency.
  This might entail a temporary move, yes, but the free state is worth it.
  I'm just surprised state residency requirements were not included on the state comparison matrix.
 -Justina

(I found and edited the following at: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781452.html

Residency Requirements for Voting
  The Supreme Court decision of March 21, 1972, declared lengthy requirements for voting in state and local elections unconstitutional and suggested that 30 days was an ample period. Most of the states have changed or eliminated their durational residency requirements to comply with the ruling, as shown. Note, for all states, in order to register to vote, an applicant must be a U.S. citizen, a legal resident of the state, and 18 years old on or before election day. Additionally, most states do not permit an individual to vote if he or she is a convicted felon currently serving time in prison or has been declared mentally incompetent by a court of law.
 
State   Residency requirement     
        
Alaska   30-day registration requirement.      
Delaware   No durational residency requirement. 20-day registration requirement.      
Idaho   30-day residency requirement. May register 25 days prior to any election with County Clerk. Individual may also register on election day at polling place.     
Maine   No durational residency requirement.     
Montana   30-day residency requirement. 30-day registration requirement.      
New Hampshire   No durational residency requirement. 10-day registration requirement. Individual may also register on election day at polling place.     
North Dakota   No voter registration. 30-day residency requirement to vote in election.     
South Dakota   No durational residency requirement. 15-day registration requirement.     
Vermont   Administrative cut-off date for processing registration applications is second Saturday before the election, by 12 noon.    
Wyoming   No durational residency requirement. 30-day registration requirement.   

Source: Questionnaires to the states.

Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 13, 2003, 11:30:46 am
From 2001 to 2002 the population of NH went up by 15,000 new people.  In Wyoming it went up by less than 5,000 new people.

15,000 over 8 years is like 120,000 new people in NH.  Heck, in 2002, Wyoming only had around 138,000 total voters in the Primary.

I don't know what to do with these numbers but they are scary.  Can we really do this in NH with all of these new people.  BTW, the cost of housing and land prices will be a lot higher in NH in 8 years (it is already the highest of the 10 states) if this does not change.  Can we buy houses?  Can we overcome 15,000 new statists per year?  Is NH going to become like the rest of New England (most of these new people are from New England)?

So many questions.  So few answers.  maybe Vermont is better than New Hampshire.
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: StevenN on August 13, 2003, 03:15:02 pm
Some info on WY venture capital.

Lots of zeros...

http://www.ventureeconomics.com/vec/stats/2003q1/state_WY.html

And I found that since ND and WY are both tied for 49th, there is no 50th, making them both the worst states in the union for VC!
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: Dennis Wilson on August 13, 2003, 06:35:10 pm

  I'm just surprised state residency requirements were not included on the state comparison matrix.
 
New Hampshire   No durational residency requirement. 10-day registration requirement.



Wow! I agree with you that it should have been studied more.

A 10 day registration requirement for NH means that any major FSP/libertarian voting effort that looks like it might succeed in that state can be overwhelmed by shipping in liberals from the 14 million living in other New England states. Only takes about an hour to drive to NH from any of them! A bus is an even cheaper way to wipe out libertarian efforts.
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: Penfist on August 13, 2003, 06:44:48 pm
Shipping in liberals to skew a vote like that might call for an armed border patrol.

I say this assuming that the liberals would be shipped in, put up somewhere for 10 days, and then shipped back out after they voted. That really is an unlikely scenario, however, and it would result in a backlash that would be hard to quell.

FSP members are, for the most part, very serious about relocating permanently, which is completely legit, unlike your scenario in which "14 million liberals" could be shipped into New Hampshire at short notice.

If the plan was too move them long-term, well, they'd survive about 30+ days without their government cheese and then they would run as fast as possible back to a welfare state.
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: ShrineGuard on August 13, 2003, 06:48:37 pm
Well, now this thread needs to be moved to the 'Which State' board, because it's terribly off topic to general dicsussion.

Can't all of you just grow up and stop assaulting the people because of their opinions?  Disagreement is fine, but please, don't get all nasty to the person behind the opinion.  It's completely useless, as it's definatly not going to prove your point to any intelligent person.
Title: Re:We have 5,000 members!!!
Post by: etphonehome on August 13, 2003, 09:56:29 pm
Can't all of you just grow up and stop assaulting the people because of their opinions?  Disagreement is fine, but please, don't get all nasty to the person behind the opinion.  It's completely useless, as it's definatly not going to prove your point to any intelligent person.

ShrineGuard, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Every time I see someone calling someone else on this forum stupid because of their opinions, I lose just a little bit of faith in the viability of this project. If we can't even respect each other for our differing opinions, how can we possibly expect to remain civil when we're trying to convince the natives of our chosen state that we're right, when their opinions will be even more different from your own?

By the way, I believe it is exceedingly unlikely that a bunch of statists will move into the state we choose in order to stop us from succeeding. They have no reason to do that, since their style of government will still be in power in 49 of the 50 states, even after we free one. I expect that many people who already live in our state will resist us, but I don't think many people from out of state will care enough about what's going on in our state to move there for ten days before the election just to get statist candidates elected.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Dennis Wilson on August 14, 2003, 12:20:38 am

How can we expect to win the long run battle if some of our best troops refuse to fight? How can we win The Revolution if some of our elite soldiers are missing in action?

No, no, don't retreat yet. Instead amass where we are strongest--at the eye of the gathering storm in New Hampshire and let your voices be heard like rolling thunder across this great nation.

I've had my fill of fighting! I signed on for the promise of liberty in my lifetime--FREEDOM NOW--not to sacrifice myself amongst the 14 million welfare statists and tax cows in New England. If you want to REALLY fight in the "eye of the gathering storm" move to Boston or Washington DC, NYC or Los Angeles, London, Tel Aviv or Bagdad.

I prefer to live among people who already know how to live in freedom! I thank FSP for showing me the virtues of Wyoming when I was considering Montana.

As for the "rolling thunder" coming from New England, it is probably the fleet of buses starting up in neighboring states to drop another load of liberals on New Hampshire.

Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 14, 2003, 01:42:47 am
The Revolution Will Be Televised

I've had my fill of fighting!
:'( It saddens me that you have given up, Dennis, but I can understand your trepidation in today's world. Thanks for your honest and heartfelt answer. I guess we can count you among those who want to retreat to a remote "nirvana". Yet, you may find that what you think is nirvana is not quite so. Many here have indicated that "no state is free" yet and that there will be some difficulties wherever you go. So even a retreat to a remote state like WY will involve some fighting. The difference between WY and NH is that the revolution in NH "will be televised" and will have a greater impact on the nation. In other words, people will take more notice of it and won't discount it so easily as a bunch of cranks.

Quote
I signed on for the promise of liberty in my lifetime....
No one has said that they expect the NH fight to take longer than a lifetime, Dennis, and the state really isn't that bad now. As a matter of fact, it's pretty damn good. When I recommend fighting I don't mean a futile fight, I mean a fight that has a realistic chance of success--and a fight in NH will have a better chance of success and a better chance of influencing the nation than a fight in any other state, as has been explained over and over again in these fora and in assorted articles and dissertations by some very patient and intelligent people.

Quote
--FREEDOM NOW--
Well, I don't know about "NOW." You do know that the goal of the FSP is to create a Free State over a period of years, right? There would be no need for the FSP in WY if that state were completely free "NOW."

Quote
not to sacrifice myself amongst the 14 million welfare statists and tax cows in New England.
It looks like you have been fed propaganda by the evil leftist media, Dennis. The truth is that the New England states are not all identical. If NH and ME were as statist as someone has apparently told you then the FSP would not have included them in the list of target states. You don't think the FSP leaders are way off or misleading you, do you? Of the New England states, RI appears to be the most statist, with CT not far behind. VT used to be pretty damn free, but unfortunately the statists have made inroads there over the last three decades. I've personally watched the changes there over that period. :'(

Believe it or not, even Massachusetts is not as statist and leftwing as the devilish statist media portrays it. Are you aware that we've had four Republican governors with somewhat libertarian (rather than fascist-statist) leanings in a row here in Massachusetts? Are you aware that the first of them was a former member of the Libertarian Party, was a very popular governor and still calls himself a libertarian, philisophically? Are you aware that there have been over a hundred tax and fee cuts and a dramatic improvement in the business climate in MA over the last decade? The statist media doesn't want you to know this stuff, but it's all true.

Don't believe the statist media or whoever has been telling you these lies, Dennis. Massachusetts is certainly much more statist than NH, and much more statist than I'd like it, but MA and NE are not as bad as you have been misled to believe. California sounds like one of the most statist states right now, and hundreds of thousands of people are fleeing it--many into rural Western states like WY, ID, MT, AZ, NM, OR, etc. I have a friend in California who has confirmed this phenomenon that has been reported. I'm glad to see that Arnold S. and Warren Buffett are going to try to bring some reason to the governing of that state. I hope Arnold does not turn out to be a statist in sheep's clothing and I hope it goes well, so that the rural Western states are not further inundated with statist exiles.

Quote
If you want to REALLY fight in the "eye of the gathering storm" move to Boston or Washington DC, NYC or Los Angeles, London, Tel Aviv or Bagdad.

Come on, that's not what I said--that's not where the Libertarian storm is gathering. I said it's in NH, not Boston or those other places. By the Libertarian storm I mean our army of activists, supporters and sympathizers, understand? Let me know if you have any questions about what I meant.

Quote
I prefer to live among people who already know how to live in freedom!

Then you'll love NH! I know several people who live there and love the atmosphere of freedom!  And I live not far across the border in MA, so I can tell you from experience that NH is very nice indeed. :D I'm sorry that you apparently so badly misunderstood my message of freedom.

You're right about me being a fighter and wanting a challenge, though. For me, NH is TOO easy. I prefer for now to stay here in MA and help the LPMA fight the good fight right here, but after reading the stuff here I am very tempted to move to NH myself. It's a quandry.

Quote
I thank FSP for showing me the virtues of Wyoming when I was considering Montana.
Yes, I agree that WY is preferable to MT. I think that WY should be the second state liberated after NH, and I think BOTH can be accomplished within the lifetime of most of the Porcupines.

Quote
As for the "rolling thunder" coming from New England, it is probably the fleet of buses starting up in neighboring states to drop another load of liberals on New Hampshire.

Actually, lots of freedom lovers are moving to NH already. I don't know where you get your information, but it badly misleading. You should check out some Libertarian sources online for the real story. Good luck to you fellow freedom lover! :)

BTW, Dennis, who has been misleading you with all these lies? I'd like to give them a piece of my mind!
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 14, 2003, 02:13:33 am

And using the Fort Collins commute may be a bit misleading, for while Fort Collins is on the Northern extreme of the "Colorado Front Range" high-tech area, most of Colorado's "new economy" jobs are in the Denver-Boulder area, which is much further South.

First, the above quote was confused at best.
I'm sorry for the lack of clarity, FreedomRoad, and I do hope you'll forgive me.  :-[I try my best but I sometimes don't get across the meaning I intend. If you have any questions about what I mean about something, please feel free to ask. I'm here to help. :)

Quote
I drove from Ft. Collins to Cheyenne ....
I see where the confusion is here. I was referring to the possibility of a commute to the Denver-Boulder area, as there are many more high tech jobs there than there are in Cheyenne or Fort Collins, but maybe you are right and WY alone can provide jobs to all who need them--I hope you are right.

Quote
Third, CO is a huge high tech state.  The only way to get more high tech than CO is to go to CA.

Perhaps it depends on what numbers you're looking at. I've provided numbers elsewhere that indicate that CO was #4 in overall new economy jobs as of the most recent New Economy Index report. Here is a summary:

"New Economy"
Overall Ranking Out of 50 States
2002
http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/overall_rank.html

DE = 9
NH = 15
ID = 20
ME = 25
VT = 28
AK = 31
MT = 37
SD = 43
ND = 44
WY = 46

MA = 1
CO = 4
CA=3 [Note: California has been devastated by the NASDAQ crash and an incompetent statist government and has fallen from 1st to 3rd in recent years.]

“In proximity to others the Denver-Boulder SMSA is the most isolated in the United States. It is almost 1,000 miles in distance over land from any of the 19 larger SMSAs, and it is more than 500 miles from either Kansas City to the East or Salt Lake City to the West, both of which represent smaller SMSAs.”
- Phillips V. Bradford, Sc.D., “The role of venture capital in the formation and growth of high technology companies in Colorado,” Doing Business in Colorado - Industry Studies. http://www.concentric.net/~pvb/DBICventext.html

Isn't it interesting how so many of the WY supporters often talk about how great CO is and how many jobs it has when they are supposedly promoting WY. If CO is why WY is so great, why not move to CO?

Quote
I cannot imagine why you say the things you do.
Nor can I imagine why you say some of the things you do. Wait, yes I can...perhaps because you've already decided on WY as your first choice regardless of what facts anyone provides regarding an Eastern state?
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 03:21:18 am
I see where the confusion is here. I was referring to the possibility of a commute to the Denver-Boulder area, as there are many more high tech jobs there than there are in Cheyenne or Fort Collins...

Of course, The Ft. Collins MSA has more projected new jobs than the entire state of NH.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 14, 2003, 02:08:57 pm
Of course, The Ft. Collins MSA has more projected new jobs than the entire state of NH.
Thanks for that info...so commuting to the Denver-Boulder MSA will not be necessary for most. That mostly answers my concern about the ability of the Cheyenne economy to absorb the Porcupines, though it still leaves the 40-50 minute commute to Fort Collins that you mentioned.

NH remains at my #1 recommended spot, however. Unless you are very pessimistic and think that the FSP will fail and never expand beyond the initial state, we are not about one-state-only here. Either the FSP will start in WY and expand to NH or vice versa. I think it makes the most sense to start the project in NH and then expand it to WY and other favorable states. It's too good an opportunity to pass up to not take advantage of the warm request from the NH governor and others to start the project in the region where libertarianism was born. If the FSP says "Thanks, but no thanks" and starts in WY and later on tries to expand into NH, the reception may not be as warm. The NH people may feel spurned and there could be a new, less receptive administration by the time the FSP is ready to branch out there more fully.

While mini-movements could build in the secondary state while the primary state is building, I think the warm reception in and symbolic value of NH are too good to pass up for the official project start. Let the official program begin in NH and let those who absolutely refuse to go and have opted-out of NH plant some seeds in WY. Doesn't this seem like a reasonable solution?



Quote
FreedomRoad
Re:job forecasts
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2003, 12:09:49 pm »
“It takes 40-50 min to get to most of the Ft. Collins' job market from Wyoming.“

That’s almost double the national average, which is 25.5 minutes one way [Source: QT-P23. Journey to Work:  2000, Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) http://www.transact.org/library/census.asp].

Quote
FreedomRoad
Re:job forecasts
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2003, 12:16:45 pm »

“Let's say I have a job in Wyoming and I am able to give $3,000 a year to freedom but if I have a job in CO I am able to give $7,500 to freedom.  Now, that makes a huge difference.  â€¦.Now, wouldn't it be nice if I only had to drive 10 min to network with the freedom movements in CO, instead of 50 min?  yeah, that sounds good.“

Sounds like a good argument for moving to CO rather than WY, but unfortunately CO is not on the list.

Out of curiosity, what cities are included in the Fort Collins MSA? I'm thinking that would be Fort Collins and the surrounding suburbs, right? If WY is chosen I hope all goes well.  :)
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 14, 2003, 02:11:47 pm
For anyone concerned about Jobs and Economics in NH, here is some more data.

Information Technology Jobs
Employment IT occupations in non-IT industries as a share of total jobs.
http://www.neweconomyindex.org/states/2002/01_knowledge_02.html

Rank   State   Score
10   Delaware   2.1%
24   New Hampshire   1.5%
27   Idaho   1.4%
28   Maine   1.4%
32   South Dakota   1.2%
35   Alaska   1.1%
44   Montana   0.9%
39   Vermont   0.9%
47   Wyoming   0.7%
50   North Dakota   0.3%

Wyoming seems to rank near the bottom of a lot of jobs charts, especially for new economy and high-tech jobs.


Occupational Forecasts For 1998-2008
http://almis.dws.state.ut.us/occ/projections.asp
http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/Outlook2/outlook2.pdf

Total, all occupations
State   1998 Employment   2008 Employment   Quantity Employment Change   Percent Employment Change
Colorado   2,225,350    3,080,200    854,850    38
Massachusetts   3,413,550    3,759,300    345,750    10
New Hampshire   615,600    721,300    105,700    17
Montana   517,350    597,300    79,900    15
Wyoming (nonagricultural)   227,900   255,300   27,400   12

The economy and jobs prospects of Colorado are attractive for WY-supporters (heck, after reading so many articles and posts praising the economy of Colorado, Colorado is starting to look more attractive to me as a state to move to than Wyoming). On the other hand, working out-of-state means not being able to take advantage of the tax benefits of working in Wyoming because you will pay Colorado’s income tax and some amount of CO’s sales tax when you purchase food and other items there on work days. That reduces WY’s desirability somewhat since CO’s taxes are higher than WY, whereas NH has no income or sales tax (though commuters to Massachusetts will face even higher taxes than CO). That’s probably not a deal-breaker for most people, though. Geographic location (West vs. East) seems to be the deal-breaker for a lot of people.


Occupational Forecasts For 2000-2010
http://www.nhes.state.nh.us/elmi/pdfzip/econstat/projections/proj00-10/proj00-10.pdf
http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?series_id=LASST56000006&data_tool="EaG"

Total, all occupations
State   2000
Employment   2010 Employment   Quantity Employment Change   Percent Employment Change
Idaho         158,700   
New Hampshire   647,301   761,049   109,426   16.9
Montana         92,500   
S. Dakota         61,600   
Delaware         61,600   
Maine         56,400   
Alaska         47,800   
Wyoming   253,577   289,877   36,300   14.3
Vermont         34,400   
N. Dakota         34,300 (2008)   


FSP Spreadsheet
Jobs
http://www.freestateproject.org/state.htm#RANKINGS

ID   10.00
NH   5.74
MT   4.68
SD   2.19
DE   2.19
ME   1.78
AK   1.09
WY   0.16
VT   0.01
ND   0.00


Dynamic economy. For FSP members, that means a broader-based economy, more business opportunties, diverse job opportunities, and lots of consumer choices (rank in the nation).

New Hampshire = 25
Idaho = 29
Maine = 32
Vermont = 36
South Dakota = 38
Alaska = 39
Delaware = 43
Montana = 45
Wyoming = 47
North Dakota = 50


Percentage of high-tech jobs (rank in the nation):

New Hampshire = 3
Vermont = 13
Idaho = 14
South Dakota = 22
Delaware = 32
Maine = 34
Montana = 38
North Dakota = 40
Alaska = 44
Wyoming = 50 (last in the nation!)


Percentage of knowledge jobs (rank in the nation):

New Hampshire = 8
Delaware= 13
Maine = 17
Montana = 24
Alaska = 27
Idaho = 28
Vermont = 37
South Dakota = 38
North Dakota = 40
Wyoming = 45


Venture capital dollars (rank in the nation):

New Hampshire = 4
Maine = 20
Delaware = 26
Vermont = 29
Montana = 33
Idaho = 41
Alaska = 46
South Dakota = 48
North Dakota = 49
Wyoming = 49


R&D Expenditures in the state (in millions):

#1 Delaware  $2,556
#2 New Hampshire $1,340
#3 Idaho $1,120
#4 Montana $191
#5 Vermont $175
#6 Maine $157
#7 North Dakota $119
#8 Wyoming $65
#9 South Dakota $60
#10 Alaska unknown


Number of new patents (rank in nation):

Idaho  987
New Hampshire 649
Delaware 422
Vermont 343
Montana 149
Maine 143
Alaska 76
North Dakota 69
South Dakota 57
Wyoming 49


http://www.lpnh.org/101/index.html
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 02:30:09 pm

Out of curiosity, what cities are included in the Fort Collins MSA? I'm thinking that would be Fort Collins and the surrounding suburbs, right? If WY is chosen I hope all goes well.  :)

Those quotes were old quotes, before I made the drive.  

When I was in the area (2 weeks ago), I drove from Ft. Collins to Cheyenne and it took 25 min.  I think it would take most people 30-31 min.  Cheyenne has around a dozen Interstate exits, so it is easy to get from a house to the Interstate in a couple of min.

I'm thinking, if for some reason, someone wanted to work in Ft. Collins, it might take 37-40 min. to get to work.

The Ft. Collins MSA is mostly Ft. Collins and Loveland (just past Ft. Collins).
Title: State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Sardonicous on August 14, 2003, 07:24:14 pm
I would like to say I agree with Mr Bass.

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Awhile back one of the New Hampshire Clan was braging about the Govenor of New Hampshire joining the freestate project.

Then this- "we're done playing "appeal to Liberty lovers" game.

Those arguing for Wyoming are real Liberty lovers.  Now the trend is clear.  
Title: State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 09:58:06 pm
I have two thoughts I would like to share:

1. Boston is popular in Wyoming.  Let's look at his email again,

He says he likes Wyoming because:

a. It is one of the 5 viable states (based on tons of other research he did, YEARS AGO)

"viable:
Vermont, New Hampshire, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming"

b. People need to know how to use guns to defend themselves from criminals.  They need to want to own and train with guns.  People that understand guns are more likely to like freedom.

"Any free state must be, ultimately, comprised of hearty individualists who have the tools and knowledge to defend themselves. "

c. Wyoming is a Western state and that is where there is a higher percentage of the population that understand guns.

"Riflemen can only be cultivated in the West."

d. The Eastern states are too liberal and the cities are too big and dense to create a high population of people that understand guns.

"VT and NH are too densely populated and too liberal."

e. Wyoming has less people than the other states, lots less.

"20,000 FSPers in Wyoming (pop. 500,000) will go twice as far."

f. To sum it up.

"In summary, only the West will do, and within the West we have numbers only for Wyoming. The choice really is that simple. Even though the other criteria of oceanfront, % of federal land, etc. are important, they do not obviate our overriding requirement of a thinly-populated state in the West. That means Wyoming."

Extra. We already have a plan for Wyoming, unlike all other states.

"I've been working on the move-to-Wyoming story for "Molon Labe!" since 1997, and have worked out most of the larger problems for us there."

Well, I must say, his reasons sound like a mix of emotion and logic, like most of us.  



2. In Wyoming, you do not have to dress up and look all fancy.  When I met with State Senator Keith Goodenough (former candidate for Governor), he looked like this: ponytail, beard, baseball cap, jeans, t-shirt

When I met with the VP of the State Senate, John S., he looked like this: Torn longsleave work shirt, jeans, boots, cowboy hat

When I met with Senator Bruce Burns, he had on nice shorts, a nice shirt, and nice shoes.

They are regular people (repair man/other, rancher, small bus. man).  They talked normal and dressed normal.


Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 14, 2003, 10:41:10 pm
Those quotes were old quotes, before I made the drive.
OK, thanks for the explanation.

Quote
I drove from Ft. Collins to Cheyenne and it took 25 min.  I think it would take most people 30-31 min.
Hope you have a radar detector. ;)

Quote
I'm thinking, if for some reason, someone wanted to work in Ft. Collins, it might take 37-40 min. to get to work.
OK, that's still significantly above the national and NH averages, but not too bad.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 14, 2003, 10:52:27 pm
After reading many posts by WY and NH advocates I have noticed different strains of thought, with different objectives. I see the makings of an even more subtle and I hope successful compromise than a simple two-state solution with equivalent objectives in both states.

The Macrocosm-Microcosm Solution: The FSP and the FCP

The Macrocosm: a Free State Project (FSP) in NH, with the objective of starting a revolution which will necessarily result in BUILDING the economy through entrepreneurial success, low taxes, etc. and GROWING the state population. The hope is that the FSP example will influence the nation and maybe even the world.

The Microcosm: a Free (rural) Village County Project (FCP) in WY [and ID], with the objective of providing a utopian retreat for those who prefer the rural life, hunting, etc. and are not particularly interested in the objective of the FSP of starting a revolution. This project would be for those who are seeking to escape society rather than transform it. There would be no need for 20,000 people for this project and it could succeed with as few as 50 or 100 people. They could all move to one tiny village or buy a rural ranch and subdivide it. The possibilities are endless. The FVP would also appeal to people who think the FSP is a pipe dream.

These two projects would be completely compatible and could both begin at the same time. There would be no need to wait for the FSP to succeed in one state before starting the smaller FVP. The members in both projects could communicate with each other and learn from each others lessons.

What do you think?
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 10:55:45 pm
I drove from Ft. Collins to Cheyenne and it took 25 min.  I think it would take most people 30-31 min.
Hope you have a radar detector. ;)

For what?  Most drivers seem to go around 85 mph.

Quote
OK, that's still significantly above the national and NH averages, but not too bad.

The WY average is 'significantly' below the NH average.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 11:03:14 pm
The Microcosm: a Free (rural) Village Project (FVP) in WY, with the objective of providing a utopian retreat for those who prefer the rural life, hunting, etc. and are not particularly interested in the objective of the FSP of starting a revolution. This project would be for those who are seeking to escape society rather than transform it. There would be no need for 20,000 people for this project and it could succeed with as few as 50 or 100 people. They could all move to one tiny village or buy a rural ranch and subdivide it. The possibilities are endless. The FVP would also appeal to people who think the FSP is a pipe dream.

What do you think?

I am still having trouble understanding why you say the things you say.  Oh well, as long as you are not hurting someone, I do not care.  About the 'FVP', it is happening.  Lanny, a former FSP supporter from (for) Idaho got mad with the FSP and decided to form his own group.  The goal is to move into an Idaho County and to do in 4 years what the FSP hopes to do to an entire state in all of our entire lifetimes.  I wish him luck in Idaho but think he would do better to move to Wyoming (or MT, SD, ND, VT, AK) if it is selected.  His idea is interesting but not for us.  However, we will never be able to get the same amount of freedom in NH, DE, or ME (even with the FSP) that he will get in a small Western county.  You see, DE, NH, and ME do not have low population counties.

Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 11:06:36 pm
About Wyoming's economy:

Pro-Business Environment
According to the 1999 Economic Freedom Index which ranks all 50 states, Wyoming has more economic freedom than eight of the other candidate states. The Index ranks Wyoming better than New Hampshire, Delaware, Montana, and Alaska:


Economic Freedom Index (1-50)
ID 1
WY 4
SD 5
NH 6
DE 7
ND 21
MT 26
VT 34
AK 38
ME 42

The 2002 Small Business Survival Index ranks Wyoming as the third-best state for small businesses in the entire country. Wyoming bests such states as Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Delaware. The candidate states of Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, Vermont, and Maine are all ranked as part of the worst 25 states in the country for small businesses.

Expansion Management Magazine ranked Cheyenne as a Five Star Community for quality of life. (These rankings were done so that small to mid-sized companies would have a basis to compare different cities for relocation purposes).

Many people have companies that are financial, electronic, or mail order related. No matter which state is picked, the profits of these companies will not change much. However, the dollars made from the company will mean less in Alaska or New Hampshire than they will mean in Wyoming, because of its low cost of living. Likewise, if one of these companies moves from New Hampshire or Delaware to Wyoming, the dollars will be worth more and the company owner will be able to help the FSP out to a greater degree. Most business owners prefer a general sales tax, like Wyoming has, to personal and corporate income taxes, like New Hampshire, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and Vermont have. Businesses find that sales taxes are easier to comply with than personal and corporate income taxes. This is because sales taxes are straightforward and easy to understand, unlike corporate tax laws.

According to the Fiduciary Group, Delaware and Wyoming are the only two candidate states that have a worldwide reputation for being business-friendly. (See the Fiduciary Group's report on Wyoming). According to a report by CRA of America, Wyoming might be a better state for LLCs than either Nevada or Delaware. In 1977, Wyoming became the first state to authorize Limited Liability Corporations. Wyoming has some of the most liberal LLC laws in the country, and continues to attract both national and international companies.

Wyoming is much less regulated than most states. Wyoming has many advantages for companies (in addition to being personal and corporate income tax free). You do not even have to get a business license in many parts of Wyoming. For example, Johnson County (with its towns of Buffalo and Kaycee) has no business license requirements. Although the state of Wyoming just created a standard set of building codes (the Universal Building Codes standard), many of Wyoming’s counties do not have any laws relating to the UBC standard and do not enforce the state law. The northeastern states, especially New Hampshire and Maine, have many 19th century farmhouses. Many people want to see these houses preserved even if it means that property owners cannot renovate the houses, as they see fit. Environmental regulations are hurting the mining business in Montana, the fishery and logging businesses in Maine, and even the housing market in Vermont.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 11:09:51 pm
More about Wyoming's economy

Wyoming's past and future growth
According to the 2000 Census, Wyoming's population grew from 453,588 residents in 1990 to 493,782 in 2000. This means that Wyoming was able to handle 40,194 new residents in 10 years. Currently, Wyoming has a lower than average unemployment rate, which means that all of the people who moved to Wyoming in the 1990s were able to find jobs. Wyoming's per-capita income is growing much faster than the nation as a whole, and has progressed from 36th in the nation (1996) to 28th in the nation (2000) and is currently 20th in the nation (2001).

Cheyenne WY is the northernmost city in the Rocky Mountain's Front Range region. This region has around 3 million people, many high-tech companies, and good transportation lines. Over time, more and more Colorado (and NV and NH) companies are moving to Wyoming. They choose Wyoming because of its low crime and very low taxes. If the FSP is able to prove to these companies that we are a pro-business organization and have a skilled workforce, then we will be able to attract even more companies to Wyoming.


About Ft. Collins:
From the Northern Colorado Economic Development Council:

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


Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 11:11:10 pm
What Job Growth means:

Job growth
Let us consider the notion of "more jobs is better" (the assumption made in the spreadsheet concerning the Jobs variable). We can make a list of advantages and disadvantages of a high-growth state and a low-growth state:

High job-growth state:


More jobs might mean the state is probably already experiencing heavy immigration, which may lead to hostility towards newcomers. Add to that a political agenda, and we may have a difficult time in the area of acceptance.

More jobs might mean the economy in the state is already healthy. This means FSP influence will be harder to prove in "turning things around", thus making the Free State model less attractive to other states. FSP may thus be a "one-state wonder."

More jobs, above the needs of FSP and Friends-of-FSP, will draw economic refugees from other states. These will dilute FSP efforts to free the states, particularly if the refugees are from nearby statist states that are exporting jobs due to poor economic policies.

More jobs means a fast-increasing population, so FSP may have difficulty staying on top of things, and may find itself more in a defensive role, rather than making progress in increasing freedom.

More jobs might mean the choice in places to live would be wider, although jobs do tend to be concentrated in larger cities.

More jobs might mean easier access to occupations for FSP members who are not retirees.

Low job-growth state:

Fewer jobs, especially at the lowest levels, will effectively shut off all statist immigration for the period that FSP members are immigrating to the state. This will give us time to get up-to-speed politically, and start influencing things – particularly in the area of providing other disincentives for statists to move to the state, which will be needed as FSP policies gradually improve the economic picture.

Fewer jobs might mean the economy is flat. Thus, we should be able to subsequently make a convincing demonstration of the benefits of freedom to the economy. This demonstration will help spread freedom to neighboring states, particularly those that are languishing.

Fewer jobs might mean more difficult access to occupations for FSP members who are not retirees (the retirees should have no problem). It will take more years for all our member-population to move to the state. However, uniquely in Wyoming's case, its status as the default backup state (in case FSP fails to reach 20,000) means members can start moving there immediately after the vote is taken, so members will have more years to immigrate to Wyoming.

Fewer jobs might mean that more FSP members will have to go to tech or vocation school to learn a new skill.

Fewer jobs might mean that more FSP members might want to travel out of state for a job. (Wyoming is one of the best candidate states for this. The Ft. Collins MSA starts only thirty minutes from Cheyenne and expects 215,000 new jobs between 1997 and 2010.)
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 11:12:01 pm
Wyoming vs. New Hampshire

Although New Hampshire is better for the FSP than some states, it does not seem to compare favorably to Wyoming. For starters, Wyoming's population is only 39% as large as New Hampshire's. Wyoming has inexpensive elections at $4,700,000, whereas New Hampshire has the most expensive elections, at a whopping $19,600,000. If these numbers hold, the FSP members will have to come up with well over four times as much money to run campaigns as successfully in New Hampshire than in Wyoming. New Hampshire has a very low estimated rate of gun ownership, at only 36%. Wyoming, on the other hand, has the highest estimated rate of gun ownership in the country at 88%. In addition, Wyoming has 10 gun shows for every 100,000 people, whereas New Hampshire has only 1.5. New Hampshire has large state legislative districts (especially senate) and no term limits or ballot imitative processes, while Wyoming is just the opposite. New Hampshire is not a right-to-work state, and because of this, it has both a large number of members in both labor and teacher unions.

New Hampshire is surrounded by very statists states (Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Providence Plantation, and Canada), while Wyoming is surrounded by many liberty-friendly states (Montana, South Dakota, Idaho, Colorado, and Nevada). This means that if New Hampshire was picked it would likely attract the few freedom activists that are left in its surrounding states. This would leave the freedom movements of the surrounding states in even worse shape and prevent the FSP from expanding into New Hampshire's neighboring states. However, something even worse is already happening in New Hampshire: statists from Boston are moving to New Hampshire at an alarming rate. This growth is expected to increase, and even more so if the FSP selects New Hampshire and de-regulates business laws.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 11:17:24 pm
From the Jobs Question Report,
http://www.freestateproject.org/jobs_17jul03.htm

Future Job Health Level of the States
This factor is somewhat important, but not written in stone. This number is figured by using two different government figured projections and is subject to change. It is figured by dividing the 2012 projected population by the number of new jobs expected in each state by 2010. The 2012 projected population numbers are figured by extrapolating the growth from 2000 to 2002 in each state. This factor tells how many people it will take in each state by 2012 to produce the need for one new job. The lower the number, the healthier a state's job levels are. In other words, the lower the number, the better.

If you were to compare the states by region, the Mountain-west is best, followed by a tie between the Mid-west and Alaska, and the Northeast is last. Interestingly enough, the best big state is Montana, the best mid-sized stated is South Dakota, and the best small state is Wyoming. Idaho also does really well. All four of these states border each other. If these government projections hold up, this north Mountain-west/western plains region has a very good future job health level. All four of these states seem to be on the same page. On the other hand, in the north Northeast, Vermont and Maine are on the same downward spiral, while New Hampshire is a bright spot. At least in this one category, the northern Northeast region is not one united region.


Future State Health Level
Rank- 1        2      3       4      5     6      7       8      9  10
State- MT    ID     SD    NH   WY   DE    AK    ND    VT   ME
#     -  10.2 11.4 12.8 13.4 14.3 15.0 15.2 17.4 19.0 24.5

State median household income (scaled for cost of living)
Delaware and Wyoming are the highest. Delaware and New Hampshire have higher than average cost of livings and higher than average median household incomes. Wyoming has a lower than average household income and a lower than average cost of living. New Hampshire and South Dakota also do well. Maine, Idaho, and Montana score very low.


Rank   1      1       3   4    5     5     7    8      9   9
State   DE   WY   NH SD  AK  ND   VT  ME   ID  MT
Out of 10.0 10.0 9.4 5.6 5.0 5.0  3.9  0.6 0.0 0.0
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: JonM on August 14, 2003, 11:41:50 pm
Looks like many people moving to Wyoming would be able to get jobs as firefighters . . .

One positive of New Hampshire over Wyoming is that so far as I know, none of the state is on fire.

http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=135097 (http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=135097)
http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=135093 (http://www.trib.com/AP/wire_detail.php?wire_num=135093)

It can't be cheap to fight all those fires.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 14, 2003, 11:55:16 pm
It can't be cheap to fight all those fires.

Agreed.  The Federal Government does a very poor job of managing its National Forests.  However, Senator Bruce Burns of Wyoming told me that Bighorn National Forest is likely going to become the 1st national forest that was given back to a state for management reasons.

The West has fires and the East has power outages,
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/08/14/ap/Headlines/apnews127227-01.txt
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: JonM on August 15, 2003, 12:03:01 am
The West has fires and the East has power outages,
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/08/14/ap/Headlines/apnews127227-01.txt
New York and those states west of it may have outages, but most of New England was unaffected (except CT).  Must be something to that deregulation around here after all.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 15, 2003, 12:40:50 am
Hope you have a radar detector. ;)

For what?  Most drivers seem to go around 85 mph.
You knew I was joking and that's your joke response back to me, right? Sometimes I can be a little slow to catch on to jokes, especially without smilies.

Quote
OK, that's still significantly above the national and NH averages, but not too bad.

Quote
The WY average is 'significantly' below the NH average.

Oops, you left out this bit, which I was referring to:
Quote

I'm thinking, if for some reason, someone wanted to work in Ft. Collins, it might take 37-40 min. to get to work.
Quote
OK, that's still significantly above the national and NH averages, but not too bad.

Yup, it's true what you say that the WY average is significantly below the NH average, but I was talking specifically about your statement re: the "37-40 min." commute to Ft. Collins from the Cheyenne area. The average NH and US commute of about 25 minutes is significantly less than that commute, unless you think that 37-40 min. figure was an overestimate. You are free to adjust your figures if you like.

Here are the figures for those interested (who are not already familiar with them):

COMMUTING TO WORK (aka JOURNEY TO WORK, aka TRAVEL TIME TO WORK)
US Census 2000
Economic characteristics
DP-3. Profile of Selected Economic Characteristics:  2000
Data Set: Census 2000 Summary File 3 (SF 3) - Sample Data

Geographic Area: New Hampshire
COMMUTING TO WORK
Mean travel time to work (minutes)  25.3  
http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=04000US33.html (http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=04000US33.html)

Geographic Area: Wyoming
COMMUTING TO WORK
Mean travel time to work (minutes)  17.8  
http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=04000US33.html
 (http://factfinder.census.gov/bf/_lang=en_vt_name=DEC_2000_SF3_U_DP3_geo_id=04000US33.html)

Geographic Area: USA
COMMUTING TO WORK
Mean travel time to work (minutes)  25.5
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?ds_name=D&geo_id=D&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_QTP23&_lang=en (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?ds_name=D&geo_id=D&qr_name=DEC_2000_SF4_U_QTP23&_lang=en)
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 15, 2003, 12:42:57 am
The West has fires and the East has power outages,
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/08/14/ap/Headlines/apnews127227-01.txt
New York and those states west of it may have outages, but most of New England was unaffected (except CT).  Must be something to that deregulation around here after all.

Right, I know that NJ, PA, NY, OH, MI, CT, and VT all had outages and NH and ME did not.

I fear the time when a real big natural disaster or otherwise hits NYC, Boston, or New England and people leave the cities and flee to the rural areas.  They will likely flee to (and damage) central PA, upstate NY, and the northern New England states of VT, NH, and ME.

Something could happen and this will be the worst place to be.  I would much rather be in WY, SD, or MT if someone huge happens.

And, yes, we do know that all of the states have natural disasters.  This has been covered several times on weather and climate related threads.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 15, 2003, 12:45:23 am
The West has fires and the East has power outages,
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/08/14/ap/Headlines/apnews127227-01.txt
New York and those states west of it may have outages, but most of New England was unaffected (except CT).  Must be something to that deregulation around here after all.
Yup, MA had no power outages and my sister in VT wasn't even aware of the news of the outages when I asked her. There were news reports of outages in VT but they must have been only for certain areas. New York state, New York City and Southern Canada (including Toronto) appear to have been the most affected by the outage, which originated at the Niagara Falls power station, which was hit by lightning in a freak incident.

And lets not get carried away with trying to make a big thing out of this one incident while ignoring the massive power outages that California and other Western states had last year, which are still being investigated and are alleged to have been caused by power companies who wanted to drive up rates.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: johnadams on August 15, 2003, 12:53:20 am
The West has fires and the East has power outages,
http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/08/14/ap/Headlines/apnews127227-01.txt
New York and those states west of it may have outages, but most of New England was unaffected (except CT).  Must be something to that deregulation around here after all.

Right, I know that NJ, PA, NY, OH, MI, CT, and VT all had outages and NH and ME did not.

I fear the time when a real big natural disaster or otherwise hits NYC, Boston, or New England and people leave the cities and flee to the rural areas.  They will likely flee to (and damage) central PA, upstate NY, and the northern New England states of VT, NH, and ME.

"Damage"? What are you talking about? When the great flood of VT in the early 20th century happened people didn't "damage" other states. When the great fires and earthquakes in Los Angeles, some of the greatest disasters in US history, occurred, people didn't go running off to other states and "damage" them. As you say, "I don't know why you say the things you do." Please don't try to make hay out of this unfortunate incident. That is very unkind and very unconvincing.

Quote
And, yes, we do know that all of the states have natural disasters.  This has been covered several times on weather and climate related threads.
That's right. So if there were a disaster in Cheyenne or Denver or Los Angeles I would rather be in NH or NYC. So what's your point? Fostering fears about future disasters and wild imagined effects from those disasters seems unproductive to this discussion.
Title: State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Summerlin on August 15, 2003, 02:29:44 am
I have two thoughts I would like to share:

1. Boston is popular in Wyoming.  Let's look at his email again,

He says he likes Wyoming because:

a. It is one of the 5 viable states (based on tons of other research he did, YEARS AGO)

"viable:
Vermont, New Hampshire, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming"

b. People need to know how to use guns to defend themselves from criminals.  They need to want to own and train with guns.  People that understand guns are more likely to like freedom.

"Any free state must be, ultimately, comprised of hearty individualists who have the tools and knowledge to defend themselves. "

c. Wyoming is a Western state and that is where there is a higher percentage of the population that understand guns.

"Riflemen can only be cultivated in the West."

d. The Eastern states are too liberal and the cities are too big and dense to create a high population of people that understand guns.

"VT and NH are too densely populated and too liberal."

e. Wyoming has less people than the other states, lots less.

"20,000 FSPers in Wyoming (pop. 500,000) will go twice as far."

f. To sum it up.

"In summary, only the West will do, and within the West we have numbers only for Wyoming. The choice really is that simple. Even though the other criteria of oceanfront, % of federal land, etc. are important, they do not obviate our overriding requirement of a thinly-populated state in the West. That means Wyoming."

Extra. We already have a plan for Wyoming, unlike all other states.

"I've been working on the move-to-Wyoming story for "Molon Labe!" since 1997, and have worked out most of the larger problems for us there."

Well, I must say, his reasons sound like a mix of emotion and logic, like most of us.  



2. In Wyoming, you do not have to dress up and look all fancy.  When I met with State Senator Keith Goodenough (former candidate for Governor), he looked like this: ponytail, beard, baseball cap, jeans, t-shirt

When I met with the VP of the State Senate, John S., he looked like this: Torn longsleave work shirt, jeans, boots, cowboy hat

When I met with Senator Bruce Burns, he had on nice shorts, a nice shirt, and nice shoes.

They are regular people (repair man/other, rancher, small bus. man).  They talked normal and dressed normal.


FreedomRoad - Great breakdown dude!  *THUMBSUP* :D
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Solitar on August 15, 2003, 09:08:30 am
Quote
And lets not get carried away with trying to make a big thing out of this one incident while ignoring the massive power outages that California and other Western states had last year, which are still being investigated and are alleged to have been caused by power companies who wanted to drive up rates.

This started because of a Quote from: JonM

"It can't be cheap to fight all those fires."

This hits a very sore spot for those of us here in Colorado who were badly harmed by the false rumors, reports and even an announcement by our own governor that "all of Colorado is burning" last year.
Fact: it was NOT burning here or a lot of places throughout Colorado or the west.  Yet so many people heard some of these reports and wrote off the entire region.

Same thing for the power outages and some resulting looting we heard about. That's why Keith brought them up -- to show you guys that broadbrushing an entire region for a few fires is just as unfair as somebody broadbrushing an entire region for a few blackouts and looting.  If it was winter an example would have been a New England ice storm which some here could blow out of proportion to paint all of New England with the same brush.

So, back to a one liner that could have been tossed off.

"It can't be cheap to fight all those blackouts and looters."
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: JonM on August 15, 2003, 09:41:21 am
I stand by that.  That article states there are quite a few fires currently burning in Wyoming.  The fact that the east gate at Yellowstone had to be closed due to fire made national news, but most of the other ones aren't being mentioned up here.

Now I suppose the feds are picking up a bit of the cost of all those fire fighters, since these things tend to burn on federal land.  Will a Free State continue to let them foot that bill, or will it eschew those funds?  We're talking a LOT of fire fighters, airborne equipment, etc all trying to keep those blazes under control.  How much does this stuff cost?  Who will pay?

Now apart from some price gouging in I believe Cleveland I've only seen reports of 20 people arrested for looting in New York.  Canada on the other hand . . .

Now a large scale power outage like this is not an expected event.  So far it seems to be under control, but there are way too many eggs in that power grid's basket.  Vermont is sitting along Canada and New York, it's not unexpected that it's plugged into that grid, but what I've heard is they pulled that plug as soon as the problem showed itself, and only a few thousand Vermont residents lost power for a short time.  Western Massachusetts would likely be the same.

Now winter storms are expected events in both New England and the west.  People around here, and I expect, around your area, know how to deal with them.  Ice builds up on power lines, and every once in a while, SNAP.  Power out.  I've never lost power for a full day in 9 years here that I remember.  During the last really bad winter storm it was places south of D.C. that couldn't seem to be power back online.  Maine and New Hampshire had perhaps isolated pockets that took more than a few hours to get back on the grid, but nothing like the states that aren't used to dealing such conditions.

Equally, large fires are expected events in the west.  They need to budget for such things just like they need to budget for plowing streets here and there.  I suppose I could have phrased it as a question, so I will.  How much does it cost to fight these fires?
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: etphonehome on August 15, 2003, 02:15:35 pm
I definitely think that we should lift all restrictions on guns in the free state, except for the obvious restriction of shooting other human beings with them. That being said, I do not think that we should threaten a massive use of violence to achieve our goals, or even privately entertain such an idea, even as a last resort. I signed on to this movement because it was supposed to be a method where we would work within the system to make things better, one state at a time. I am apalled that members of this project would even suggest an armed rebellion at this point in the game, when we are just getting started with our plan for a peaceful revolution.

We do not have enough freedom at this moment, that much is not being questioned. However, we are not so repressed that killing other human beings has become an acceptable means by which we can gain more liberty. The amount of freedom you could stand to gain through violence and terrorism does not begin to compare to the amount of freedom you stand to take away from other people by killing them. Our goal is to make freedom available to everyone, not just the people who are resilient enough to withstand an onslaught by a bunch of militant porcupines.

Please, give peaceful solutions a chance before you suggest violent methods. If we want the people in our chosen state to support us, we can't be suggesting that we'll shoot them full of lead if they dare to oppose us.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: AlexCampbell on August 15, 2003, 04:05:56 pm
No one is advocating violence, merely that we do not lose the ability to fight if nessaccary.  Being able to do a thing, and being willing are two different subjects.  What is it with some of you people that when even the mention of potentially, after all options have been exhausted, and exhausted again, that we may need to, if the moon is in the right phase and in proper alignment, and we stand on one foot, defend ourselves, scare the be-jesus out of you?  GOOD GOD.  Have any of you complaining even ever shot a gun?  No one has even ever mentioned organized armed rebellion.  Get some perspective.

Quote
We do not have enough freedom at this moment, that much is not being questioned. However, we are not so repressed that killing other human beings has become an acceptable means by which we can gain more liberty

Our forfathers found it nessaccary over the stamp act, let alone what we put up with today.  Maybe some individuals are simply blowing off steam, or maybe they plan for a worst case scenario.  Not every mention of a rifle is an advocation!!!!!

On another note, I joined this project originally planning to vote for NH.  After having seen the way NH proponents have behaved and debated, I am disgusted with NH.  It is probably a beautiful state, but I feel that for them it is more important NH be picked, than the project actually succeed.

In closing, after reading many posts in every area of this forum, I wish my fellow porcupines would take some time, reread a post if needs be, and debate what someone has said, not what you think they have said.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: lloydbob1 on August 15, 2003, 04:10:49 pm

Quote
On another note, I joined this project originally planning to vote for NH.  After having seen the way NH advocates have behaved and debated, I am disgusted with NH.  It is probably a beautiful state, but I feel that for them it is more important NH be picked, than the project actually succeed.

If your first sentence is true, why in Hell would you let the attitude of these people change your mind.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: AlexCampbell on August 15, 2003, 04:18:48 pm
If it is indicative of the type of people in NH, I do not want to live there.

Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: jgmaynard on August 15, 2003, 04:28:17 pm
The people advocating violence as a means for political gain are really, really sad, and a disgrace to the Project I have spent so much time to help promote.

I feel really sorry for all of you.  :'(

JM
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: AlexCampbell on August 15, 2003, 04:38:35 pm
Yet again, LISTEN TO WHAT THEY HAVE SAID, NOT WHAT YOU THINK THEY HAVE SAID!  No one has advocated anything.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: etphonehome on August 15, 2003, 04:50:13 pm
No one is advocating violence, merely that we do not lose the ability to fight if nessaccary.

I might have misread kbarrett's post, but it seemed that he advocated using the "bullet box" if other options were not successful in a timeframe that he agrees with. I was merely stating that I would be heavily opposed to such an action, and violent rebellion would go against some of the founding principles of the Free State Project.

Quote
Being able to do a thing, and being willing are two different subjects.  What is it with some of you people that when even the mention of potentially, after all options have been exhausted, and exhausted again, that we may need to, if the moon is in the right phase and in proper alignment, and we stand on one foot, defend ourselves, scare the be-jesus out of you?

I am not opposed to self-defense in any way. If we are physically attacked in return for our efforts to peaceably reform a state, there is nothing wrong with fighting back to protect our own lives. However, there is a difference between fighting back and instigating an armed conflict. If the former happens, I will support it, and will probably even help out. If the latter happens, I will become ashamed to have ever called myself a member of the Free State Project.

Quote
GOOD GOD.  Have any of you complaining even ever shot a gun?  No one has even ever mentioned organized armed rebellion.  Get some perspective.

Yes, I have shot a gun, on many occasions. I spent lots of time learning how to responsibly shoot a gun when I was in Boy Scouts, and I also have gone deer hunting with my father on several occasions. My objection to armed rebellion is not because I have never shot a gun, but because I have shot one, and I have seen what kind of damage they can do. There is nothing wrong with owning guns for the purpose of self-defense, but if it becomes the consensus of this group that an armed revolution is a viable option, no matter how far down the road that may be, I no longer want to be a part of this project.

Quote
Our forfathers found it nessaccary over the stamp act, let alone what we put up with today.  Maybe some individuals are simply blowing off steam, or maybe they plan for a worst case scenario.  Not every mention of a rifle is an advocation!!!!!

Our forefathers did not only start a rebellion because of the existence of the Stamp Act, they rebelled because they had absolutely no say at all regarding the Stamp Act or who would have the power to pass such an act. In the free state, I do not foresee the loss of an ability to elect our own leadership, and because of that we will always have some opportunity to effect change in a peaceable manner.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: AlexCampbell on August 15, 2003, 05:30:50 pm
So you are saying that never, no matter the adversity, deprivation, loss of liberty, loss of property, and cruel unjust treatment, would you support rebellion?  
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: lmmccool on August 15, 2003, 05:44:36 pm
I know this is an old topic, but I just got here and had to respond.  Greg, you write:

"I’m afraid we’ll get there and possibly be outnumbered by non-libertarians."

Don't mean to be rude, but HELLOOO . . . of course we're going to be outnumbered by non-libertarians!  That's why America is where it is right now politically and why the FSP is really the only game in town as far as reclaiming our liberty.  So you should be afraid, we will be outnumbered no matter which state we pick and we have a LOT of hard work ahead of us!

Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: kbarrett on August 15, 2003, 06:12:29 pm
No one is advocating violence, merely that we do not lose the ability to fight if nessaccary.

I might have misread kbarrett's post, but it seemed that he advocated using the "bullet box" if other options were not successful in a timeframe that he agrees with. I was merely stating that I would be heavily opposed to such an action, and violent rebellion would go against some of the founding principles of the Free State Project.

And do you completely renounce the use of violence? Under any circumstances?

If the feds started setting up Camp X-Rays for the rest of us, would you still advocate obedience? Personally, I do not feel things have devolved to the point where violence is needed.... yet. If I did, I would not be participating in this majoritarian enterprise ... I would be quietly moving myself ( figuratively ) underground.

The second amendment is in the B.O.R. for a reason.... and it isn't about the need for Boy Scout competitions or duck hunting.


Each of us must decide when it's time for the frog to jump out of the cookpot.... those who decide too early will pay dearly for their error... but those who decide too late encourage tyranny.



The folks in NH have, to date, made a point of maintaining 2nd amendment rights ... this is good. But what is the point if you just sit there quietly with your duck-hunting firearm, and obediently surrender when the thugs get around to you?

Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: AlexCampbell on August 15, 2003, 06:51:33 pm
Bravo
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: johnadams on August 15, 2003, 07:32:58 pm
Quote
I seriously think it is the westerners set of mind. That is their idea of activism. We are doomed if western state is elected.

Quote
If it is indicative of the type of people in NH, I do not want to live there.

Folks, I've noticed the temperature rising even more than usual in these fora lately and I think some are coming dangerously close to sparking yet another schism. I recommend we lay off the negative generalizations and stereotypes and stick to specifics when communicating. We should ask questions instead of assuming what the other person means and we should favor Socratic dialogue over ranting monologue. I know, I know, I don't always abide by my own principals, but I try to.

There seem to be two different main strains of thought, one held by most of the advocates of WY and one by the NH supporters. Despite the differences, however, there are underlying basic areas of agreement that will need to be stressed if unity is to be maintained.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: AlexCampbell on August 15, 2003, 08:27:55 pm
True John, and I agree with you.

What has irked me, is posting a thread such as "support nonviolence" under the which state heading, signed only by NH supporters, which makes a bold condemnation of views never espoused but supposedly held by the competition along with  the hurling of like accusations. Just because you keep hurling them, doen't make them true.  This is clearly an underhanded tactic, a la DNC,  for getting their favored state selected.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Number_6 on August 15, 2003, 08:28:04 pm
From JohnAdams:  "Folks, I've noticed the temperature rising even more than usual in these fora lately and I think some are coming dangerously close to sparking yet another schism. I recommend we lay off the negative generalizations and stereotypes and stick to specifics when communicating. We should ask questions instead of assuming what the other person means and we should favor Socratic dialogue over ranting monologue. I know, I know, I don't always abide by my own principals, but I try to.

There seem to be two different main strains of thought, one held by most of the advocates of WY and one by the NH supporters. Despite the differences, however, there are underlying basic areas of agreement that will need to be stressed if unity is to be maintained. "

Applaud.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Michelle on August 15, 2003, 09:40:22 pm
Could I just remind everyone that the original thread that this thread was split off from:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=2874

had absolutely nothing to do with any of the things this has morphed in to.

It simply had to do with a few people expressing concerns about the media potentially misinterpreting and reporting on statements made in an article.

I'd also like to point out that this forum is open to the public - and that includes the media. I would encourage everyone to think twice before you write. I'm not trying to point fingers; almost all of us have been guilty. Just please be careful. This is a critical time in the project when attention will be on us like never before.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Justin on August 15, 2003, 09:55:36 pm
To those espousing their right to armed rebellion,

If, as many of you say, armed rebellion would only happen in a last-resort scenario, why do you feel compelled to discuss it now, especially when the chance of attracting negative attention is so high?

In other words... STFU.


Yours in liberty,
Justin
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: johnadams on August 15, 2003, 09:57:49 pm
What has irked me, is posting a thread such as "support nonviolence" under the which state heading, signed only by NH supporters, which makes a bold condemnation of views never espoused....
The first post of that topic irked me too, and I have already let my feelings be known about that. I'm not about to sign that vague resolution, at least not in its orginal wording. I don't wish to get in the middle of the argument about who said what and what they meant. I think that whole line of discussion is unproductive. Better to ask questions and "seek first to understand, then to be understood."
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Elizabeth on August 15, 2003, 10:02:39 pm
To those espousing their right to armed rebellion,

If, as many of you say, armed rebellion would only happen in a last-resort scenario, why do you feel compelled to discuss it now, especially when the chance of attractive negative attention is so high?

In other words... STFU.

Yours in liberty,
Justin

Brilliant!  Yes!   ;D
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: john dour on August 15, 2003, 10:03:23 pm
"If ye love wealth more than liberty,the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom,depart from us in peace.
  We ask not your cousel nor your arms.Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you.
  May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."


                                  Sam Adams
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: AlexCampbell on August 15, 2003, 10:03:36 pm
Agreed, John.  Justin, stuff like that will just start it back up.  I initially, and mostly through out have been trying to get others to do just that, let it die.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: johnadams on August 15, 2003, 10:06:40 pm
.... It simply had to do with a few people expressing concerns about the media potentially misinterpreting and reporting on statements made in an article.
If that were all the resolution said I would have no problem signing it. Unfortunately, it said more than that. I think it is simply a matter of poor choice of words in an eagerness to avoid appearing to espouse unjustifiable violence or bigotry. If the wording were improved so as not to condemn ALL violence (such as violence in the defense of liberty--as in the American Revolution) I could sign it. I am personally active in the fight against negative intolerance, bigotry and discrimination, so I actually appreciate the sentiments.

Quote
I would encourage everyone to think twice before you write. ....
I appreciate your wise concerns. I have indeed noticed that some of the media have jumped on the most radical rhetoric that has been used by our spokespeople. I think someone also needs to caution our spokespeople in both NH and WY, if that hasn't been done already. We shouldn't be leading with our most radical and off-putting ideas. We should start with the basics that the great masses of the people can appreciate.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Michelle on August 15, 2003, 10:31:48 pm
.... It simply had to do with a few people expressing concerns about the media potentially misinterpreting and reporting on statements made in an article.
If that were all the resolution said I would have no problem signing it. Unfortunately, it said more than that. I think it is simply a matter of poor choice of words in an eagerness to avoid appearing to espouse unjustifiable violence or bigotry. If the wording were improved so as not to condemn ALL violence (such as violence in the defense of liberty--as in the American Revolution) I could sign it. I am personally active in the fight against negative intolerance, bigotry and discrimination, so I actually appreciate the sentiments.


Understood. The statement was in the context of the Free State Project and was simply a reaffirmation of the FSP's own nonviolence principle.

It is imperative that we maintain this principle if we are to be successful as the peaceful, legal movement that we are said to be, with plans to work within the political system.

It was not meant to divide, as some have claimed, but to hopefully cool down the increasingly heated argument and get us all back on the same page.

Quote
I think someone also needs to caution our spokespeople in both NH and WY, if that hasn't been done already. We shouldn't be leading with our most radical and off-putting ideas. We should start with the basics that the great masses of the people can appreciate.

I hope that is common sense. I really, really hope it is!
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Number_6 on August 16, 2003, 12:24:05 am

In NH, we have the mountains, we have the dense forests, and the narrow mountain passes in which we can catch federal forces in crossfire killing zones. When reinforcements arrive, we dissapear into the forests. These forests are impassable to armor, and impenetrable by air cover. Any federal offensive against the free state would have to be made with infantry movements and artillery firebases. Considering how many NH residents are Vietnam vets, we would eat them for lunch.

Some observations:

1)  Forests are not necessarily impassible to armor.  The Germans proved this in the Ardennes in 1940 and again in 1944.

2)  Napalm strikes and saturation bombing, both guided by infrared sensors, would tend to lessen the cover value of forest.

3)  Yes, an effective guerrilla force could make it expensive.  But the outcome would depend entirely on the government.  If it was sufficiently motivated (read, willing to take the casualties), it would almost certainly win no matter how good the guerrillas were.

An historical example that tends to support this view is the US Army's campaign against the Japanese in northern Luzon at the end of World War II.  Luzon is the largest of the Philippine Islands.  The main part of the operation lasted from the latter part of February 1945 until the end of May, when the US 32nd Division forced the Salasac Passes.  Afterwards, the remnant of the Japanese force was relentlessly pursued until the end of the war.

The terrain of northern Luzon is very difficult.  It consists of tropical forest, arrid hills, low mountains, and mountain passes.  The Japanese were commanded by national hero Tomoyuki Yamashita, perhaps their best general of the war.  They were professional soldiers defending this area from prepared positions.

The US Army tasked three infantry divisions to defeat them:  the 25th, the 32nd, and the 33rd, plus attached Filipino guerrillas.

This campaign saw some of the fiercest fighting of the Pacific War.  For one Japanese division, its situation became so desperate that it took men who had lost an arm or an eye and sent them back into combat.  They weren't hurt badly enough to stay in the hospital.  On the American side, I don't have any casualty information for the 33rd Division.  However, for the 25th and the 32nd, the price was high:  over 5500 casualties, including 1510 killed in action.

But the Japanese were still destroyed.

If things go completely down the drain, this is what we would be up against.


Sources:
1)  Military Illustrated, issue #180 (for some reason, this magazine does not classify its issues by month or year).
2)  Website of the 25th Infantry Division Association, www.25thida.com/division.html
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: johnadams on August 16, 2003, 12:32:33 am
. . . of course we're going to be outnumbered by non-libertarians!...we will be outnumbered no matter which state we pick and we have a LOT of hard work ahead of us!
A good point, and one that many of us probably forget as we get excited about a particular state. Even if you include the Republicans and Democrats who say they have libertarian leanings, both among the politicians and the general party rank and file, we Libertarians would still be outnumbered.

I hope that as more people are educated about what libertarianism really is and as the FSP proceeds that will change, but some of the insult-swapping contests and wild condemnations of various states in these fora are certainly not going to help. WY supporters, please try to remember that if NH is selected that your derogatory comments about NH and its people may piss off the very people we will be trying to influence. And the same goes for NH supporters who insult WY and its residents. Critical information is OK, wildly negative extrapolations and insults are not wise.


Regarding how that guy Jason who wears the hocky mask feels, it wasn't easy but I got his views on the state question. He doesn't talk much, so he carved his response in my chest. He likes "BOTH WY AND NH" because their supporters seem so angry and argumentative.

I hope you're all satisfied.  ;)
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: john dour on August 16, 2003, 12:34:24 am
Actually the forests don't need to be passable to armor.All you need is a good pilot  with a good FLIR pod and a good FAC.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: johnadams on August 16, 2003, 12:43:31 am
Thanks for the observations Number 6. Most informative. I give you a thumbs up for that one!

Some observations:

1)  Forests are not necessarily impassible to armor.  The Germans proved this in the Ardennes in 1940 and again in 1944.
Oh, thank heavens, I was really concerned that my tank battalions might not be able to blitzkrieg through NH and on to Canada, where I plan to practice a scorched-earth policy.

Quote
2)  Napalm strikes and saturation bombing, both guided by infrared sensors, would tend to lessen the cover value of forest.
Yes, I have tried this and it is true.

Quote
3)  Yes, an effective guerrilla force could make it expensive.
I think guerrillas and orangutans are overrated as fighters. It's those bastard chimpanzees you've got to watch out for!

Quote
An historical example that tends to support this view is the US Army's campaign against the Japanese in northern Luzon at the end of World War II.  Luzon is the largest of the Philippine Islands.  The main part of the operation lasted from the latter part of February 1945 until the end of May....
Well, the only way we can be sure of this Luzon example is to test it. Let's get a large armada together, with aircraft carriers, battleships, cruisers, destroyers, shock troops, support troops, the whole nine yards, and let's see how long it takes to raze Luzon completely. Someone will need to bring a stopwatch of course.

Quote
If things go completely down the drain, this is what we would be up against.
Well, NH is small, but I don't think it will fit down a drain.

Any questions? No? Good, let's roll!
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: john dour on August 16, 2003, 12:52:27 am
New hampshire is about the size of maricopa county
Title: Re:NH/WY debate: How does Jason feel?
Post by: rdeacon on August 16, 2003, 09:04:36 am
Hey, people stop posting here.  This thread has been dead since my days posting re: which state (back when I was a schmuck who wasn't above fighting over my state).  Since people started posting here I've gotten 6 smites.

As the kids love to say - why you gotta bring up old sh*t for???? ;D ;D

Title: What dangerous animals live in NH and WY?
Post by: avgjoe99 on August 17, 2003, 12:03:30 am
I was checking to see if "killer bees" had migrated to WY yet and noticed they have not. Idaho is not far from where they are now. Mysteriously the bees never wanted to cross the Utah border. (maybe the Mormons banned them from the state.) None of the other states is in immediate danger of the bees for the near future. Then checked for deadly snakes and found that they have two different rattlesnakes.  NH doesnt have to worry about killer bees for the next century or two and they also have just one type of rattler. You can see what snkes live in all the states on the site below. Notice AK is the only state free of dangerous snakes.

What kinds of other dangerous animals are there besides these the you might know of?

 http://agnews.tamu.edu/bees/quaran.htm
http://www.klsnet.com/files/venom.htm
Title: Re:What dangerous animals live in NH and WY?
Post by: freedomroad on August 17, 2003, 12:31:30 am
I was checking to see if "killer bees" had migrated to WY yet and noticed they have not. Idaho is not far from where they are now. Mysteriously the bees never wanted to cross the Utah border. (maybe the Mormons banned them from the state.) None of the other states is in immediate danger of the bees for the near future. Then checked for deadly snakes and found that they have two different rattlesnakes.  NH doesnt have to worry about killer bees for the next century or two and they also have just one type of rattler. You can see what snkes live in all the states on the site below. Notice AK is the only state free of dangerous snakes.

What kinds of other dangerous animals are there besides these the you might know of?

 http://agnews.tamu.edu/bees/quaran.htm
http://www.klsnet.com/files/venom.htm

I did want to see a snake when I was on my tour of WY.  I hiked in NE, WY, and SD for 10 days but was unable to find a snake.  However, I do know that there are gray wolfes in the North New England and MT/WY/ID areas.  However, they rarely bother humans and are easy to shoot.  In fact, in Wyoming they encourage you to shoot them.  I was always wanted to hunt a pack of wild wolfes :)

Likewise, both Northern New England and the Mountain-west have bears.  Although, the bears are said to be bigger in the Mountain-west.

I do not know which state has more of other big game animals, but maybe the hunting numbers give us some clue.

From Zxcv,
“Here was last year's harvest of big game in
Wyoming:
http://gf.state.wy.us/wildlife/hunting/stats/harvest/2002/index.asp

181 Bighorn sheep
46,796 Deer (Mule and Whitetail)
1160 Moose
21,462 Elk
30,260 Antelope
323 Bear
100,182 Total big game harvest

Now look at New Hampshire:
http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/Hunting/hunt_results_02.htm

0 Bighorn sheep
11,089 Deer (Whitetail only)
355 Moose
0 Elk
0 Antelope
338 Bear
11,782 Total big game harvest

So that harvest in New Hampshire is less than 12% of the much more
diverse harvest in Wyoming, and it is spread among a population
over twice as large. New Hampshire hunting is SMALL POTATOES compared
to Wyoming hunting. And we haven't even got into the varmint
hunting end of things...”

Maybe that shines more light on the subject of this post.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 17, 2003, 12:53:30 am
From the new state report,
http://www.freestateproject.org/wy_vs_nh.htm

Quote
New Hampshire has intolerable zoning and land use planning laws. Building a home, especially one that is outside the norm of traditional building codes, would be a difficult if not impossible burden on anyone who wanted to build his refuge. "

I've heard this several times from people that live in NH and New England.  Heck, this was even one of the reasons why Carl Drega (http://proliberty.com/observer/prt1097c.htm) went crazy in New Hampshire and started killing government workers.  The government did torture and abuse him for 20 years and in many different ways, but this one of the worst things, according to Carl Drega.

I went back to the original NH Report.  It was written by Amy Day, a NH resident.
http://www.freestateproject.org/newhampshire.htm

"Our state has been pushing recently for the government to buy land and conservation easements on land. Currently Senator Gregg is working on getting the state $8 million in federal money to purchase a conservation easement on 171,500 acres, this would be 1/3 of the total cost. My town of Exeter has been purchasing conservation easements on land in town. Part of the money comes from the state and part from the town budget. This is happening statewide.

The government in our state has different ways to control development. On the state level there is current use taxing. An undeveloped piece of land is taxed at a lesser rate. When it is developed, one must pay a tax of 10% of the value. My own town has an impact fee. This is a fee one must pay to the town when you get the permit to build a housing unit. The amount is based on the impact a new residence will have on the town-provided facilities.

Towns also have restrictive zoning. They make lot requirements of 1 or more acres. With the limited product and high demand, prices are very high. Current prices in my town are: for a 1.25-2 acre building lot, it is from $125,000-$150,000. They also are very restrictive on building multi-unit houses. An example would be an 11-acre piece of land we looked at. Due to zoning restrictions we would only be allowed to build one single-family house on the land (definitely no multi-units), and we could not subdivide it. It is almost impossible to find a piece of land that allows multi-unit homes. Nationwide in 2001, 25% of housing permits were for multi-unit housing. In New Hampshire in 2001, only 9% of permits were for multi-unit housing. This has helped cause apartment rents to increase. In two southern counties, median rents for a 2 bedroom apartment (not including utilities) are $880 in Rockingham county and $860 in Hillsborough county.

In the city of Manchester, rental property is inspected every 3 years. You are required to give the inspector access to the entire house. This process is fraught with bribery and corruption. We had bought a building less than a year before its next inspection date. The inspection showed thousands of dollars in repairs were needed. Granted the building was old and we had planned on doing some updating, but most of the things that needed repairs had been that way for years. There were two long-term tenants, and they told us these problems had existed since they started renting there, and there had been an inspector in that building 3 years ago and he didnÕt cite the previous owner. In talking to other landlords and tenants in the city I have come to believe that if you get the right inspector and you give him some money, he wonÕt find anything wrong with your apartment. In another building, a tenant had taken batteries out of a smoke detector, so since it wasnÕt working we were not grandfathered in, so we had to meet the new standard that there had to be built in smoke detectors. That was a few years ago, I believe that all must meet the new standard now. "


Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 17, 2003, 01:16:20 am
Here is the entire text of the new state report that compares NH and WY
http://www.freestateproject.org/wy_vs_nh.htm

Wyoming vs New Hampshire

by John Martin • August 2003
At an anti-tax rally in Birmingham, I met a guy who had on a Free State Project T-shirt and talked with him for several minutes. I had already looked at FreeStateProject.org two years ago and was impressed by it, but I had not checked up on it recently.
He told me that the membership was approaching 5,000 people and that the vote for the free state would soon be made. I asked him what state he preferred, and he said without hesitation, "Wyoming." He told me that Wyoming was well above any of the other candidate states. But he also said that he thought there was a good chance that most of the free-staters would vote for New Hampshire. My impression was that most of these voters must live a lot closer to NH than WY.

I knew NH had some strong libertarian leanings, but it also has some serious liabilities. But to be fair, I took an analytical look at WY and NH to compare them.

Back in 1992, I had the pleasure of talking with NH Libertarian state representitive Andy Borsa, who was a guest at our state LP convention. I asked him about the political climate in NH. At that time, NH had four Libertarian representitives and one of the strongest state parties in the nation. A few months earlier, in February, the LP Presidential nominee, Andre Marrou, won the renowned Dixville Notch election outright. NH also had (and still has) a thing called "fusion" where each candidate can run under more than one party label. And in that year, Liberty magazine rated NH as the very lowest taxed state in the U.S.

I also remember several years earlier seeing Gov. John Sununu speak on TV about his state. He said it had no broad-based state taxes – income, sales, property, etc. NH sounded like a great state.

Since 1992, NH has slipped downhill from its supreme liberty position. Its Libertarian state representitives have dropped from four to only one, and I heard that even he has defected to the Republicans. According to Liberty magazine (Sept. 2002, p 30), NH's total per capita taxes have jumped 55% between 1992 and 2000.

NH has horrendous local property taxes. Various sources peg them at about 2.7% of the property's market value. In other words, a $100,000 home would cost its owner $2,700 every year. Every 37 years, he would be literally "buying" his own home back from the local government – over and over.

As I have said before in other articles I have written about property taxes (see www.FreeAlabama.com), they are among the most hideous because they require a property owner to pay "rent" to the state and local governments to exercise his right to use and live on his own property that he has already bought and paid for, and for the most part, the money is spent on things for which he has no need nor want, like government-run schools. Furthermore, a property tax has to be paid regardless of the owner's income or available funds – if he doesn't pay, his property is seized and sold. The property tax would be one of the first I would abolish.

New Hampshire has other hideous taxes. Andy Borsa told me they were (in 1992) implementing a "business enterprise tax," whatever that is. I have an idea it is anethema to any small business or enterprise. And I see that this tax is still being collected, and the paperwork has to be done.

New Hampshire has intolerable zoning and land use planning laws. Building a home, especially one that is outside the norm of traditional building codes, would be a difficult if not impossible burden on anyone who wanted to build his refuge.

New Hampshire also has little elbow room. When I asked Andy Borsa about rural New Hampshire, he said there really wasn't any, except up at the northern end of the state. And even there land was scarce and expensive. And of course, there is a population problem. This very tiny state has 1,235,786 people according to FSP. The density is just too great to find an affordable piece of land on which to settle.

Now let's look at the statistics on NH and WY:

Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 17, 2003, 01:16:57 am
the rest of the report


Now let's look at the statistics on NH and WY:


Wyoming has only 493,782 people on a land area that more than ten times the size of New Hampshire (which has 1,235,786 people). NH's population density is 132.8 people/sq. mi. WY's density is only 5 people/sq. mi. Obviously land is many times more available in WY than NH and is many times more affordable. WY also has much more private and locally owned land than NH.

The lower population of WY offers a greater freedom impact with a given number of free staters than NH. Likewise, WY can be freed with only 40 percent of the free staters required to free NH.

NH is very close to many major statist population centers – Boston, Portland, Providence, Springfield, Albany, and others. NH is suffering extensive in-migration of less than liberty-oriented people from these centers. NH is the fastest growing state in New England. WY, on the other hand, is much better protected from this problem.

In spite of NH's strong Libertarian Party, WY's people as a whole are more independent and liberty-oriented than those of NH.

WY has term limits (beginning in 2004). NH does not.

WY has initiative and referendum. NH has neither.

WY is a right to work state. NH is not.

NH allows teacher monopolies and forced dues, and it has powerful teachers' unions. WY has and allows none of these.

WY has low property taxes coupled with low property valuations. NH's property taxes and valuations are horrendous, and due to in migration of statists, they are rising.

NH had a deficit of $19.7 million for 2002 and has an estimated 2003 deficit of $54.6 million. WY has a $1.8 billion surplus. Guess which state is likely to raise taxes. WY is proposing to lower its sales tax.

NH is surrounded by strongly anti-liberty states. WY's neighbors are for the most part pro-liberty.

WY has the 2nd lowest gasoline tax at 13 cents/gal. Only AK is lower.

WY is #1 for lack of land use laws. NH has intolerable land use laws.

WY has no individual income or business tax of any kind.

WY is #1 for gun ownership and gun shows. WY allows open carry of pistols without permits.

WY has warmer and milder weather than NH. Furthermore, the drier WY air has less bite than the frigid, damp NH air.

No question about it. WYOMING is the undisputed winner as the best candidate for FSP's FREE STATE.
Title: Re:What dangerous animals live in NH and WY?
Post by: lloydbob1 on August 17, 2003, 07:51:20 am
I was checking to see if "killer bees" had migrated to WY yet and noticed they have not. Idaho is not far from where they are now. Mysteriously the bees never wanted to cross the Utah border. (maybe the Mormons banned them from the state.) None of the other states is in immediate danger of the bees for the near future. Then checked for deadly snakes and found that they have two different rattlesnakes.  NH doesnt have to worry about killer bees for the next century or two and they also have just one type of rattler. You can see what snkes live in all the states on the site below. Notice AK is the only state free of dangerous snakes.

What kinds of other dangerous animals are there besides these the you might know of?

 http://agnews.tamu.edu/bees/quaran.htm
http://www.klsnet.com/files/venom.htm

If, when we move to the Free State, we keep to the high population areas where the Politico's hang out, we will only have to worry about the Sharks and the Pigs!
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 17, 2003, 11:48:58 am
WY and NH elections: What the numbers tell us

State House Rep
NH 400 people every 2 years
WY 30 people every 2 years

Number of Representatives we need to elect every 2 years to have a majority
NH 201
WY 16

Number of Representatives we need to elect every 4 years to have a majority
NH 402
WY 31 (because they serve 4 year terms)

That means we have to get almost 13 NH House members elected for every ONE WY House members we get elected.  NH has larger districts to begin with, so this looks real bad.  Chances are that we will not get all 402 NH candidates elected or all 31 WY candidates elected.  However, just 6 Representatives from WY equals about 78 Representatives from NH.  Considering that the districts are smaller in WY and they have term limits, hmm…

OK, let’s just assume that we get 6 of the 31 we need in WY and 78 out of the 402 we need in NH.  That means we still need 25 in WY and 324 in NH.  We will need to setup a special group of activists that meet with, email, fax, and call these Representatives.  Would it be easier for this group of activists to change the minds of 25 people or 324 people?

Remember, it’s in the numbers.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: jgmaynard on August 17, 2003, 12:59:42 pm
Wyoming has only 493,782 people on a land area that more than ten times the size of New Hampshire (which has 1,235,786 people). NH's population density is 132.8 people/sq. mi. WY's density is only 5 people/sq. mi.

That makes life more difficult for activists, if they were spread evenly.
Yes, the population of WY is concentrated into clusters. But doesn't that make the EFFECTIVE population density of WY much higher than 5ppl/mi^2?

Quote
Obviously land is many times more available in WY than NH and is many times more affordable. WY also has much more private and locally owned land than NH.

Depends where you go. Doug Hillman and Trevor found lots of cheap land up north, especially in Coos County.

Quote
The lower population of WY offers a greater freedom impact with a given number of free staters than NH. Likewise, WY can be freed with only 40 percent of the free staters required to free NH.

Again, that's too simplistic. To assume that a state with only 1/2 the population requires 1/2 the activists assumes that EVERYTHING else is the same. District size, election laws, native sentiment, number of candidates the other parties can muster, etc. But our choice is not that easy. Take a look at http://www.freestatenh.com/SAQ.html#dist for a more in-depth look at this.

Quote
NH is very close to many major statist population centers – Boston, Portland,
Providence, Springfield, Albany, and others.

This is meaningless in the 21st century. Baghdad is thousands of miles away from Washington, yet they don't have autonomy from it.
Also would YOU want to move to a "socialist paradise". Nope. Me neither. Why would socialists want to move to a libertarian mecca? The idea makes no sense.

Quote
NH is suffering extensive in-migration of less than liberty-oriented people from these centers. NH is the fastest growing state in New England. WY, on the other hand, is much better protected from this problem.

New Hampshire has been recieving an influx of tax refugees from other states for 225 years. And in the last 27 years, support for new taxes in the state has dropped from 20% to only 7% today (http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/nhpoll/nhpoll.shtml).
 
From the link above:
"72% of adults in New Hampshire favor Governor Craig Benson's veto of the state budget. 71% agree with Benson and say that spending in the vetoed-budget is too high. Benson's job approval stands at 61% following his veto, up from 59% in the June Quarterly NH poll."  

New Hampshire state rep and FSP member Henry McElroy is himself from Alabama.
We welcome tax refugees and liberty lovers, regardless of where they are from.

Quote
In spite of NH's strong Libertarian Party, WY's people as a whole are more independent and liberty-oriented than those of NH.

Totally subjective, Keith.
And idependent is now the largest voter block in NH, according to CNN.

Quote
WY has term limits (beginning in 2004). NH does not.

Good. That means Craig Benson can still be in office when the porcupines start pouring in. ;D

Quote
WY has initiative and referendum. NH has neither.

Not state-wide, but NH does offer warrant articles every spring in all our cities, and old-fashioned New England town meetings in the towns. Similar to referendums, except on a local level. In fact, this year, in Keene, the most liberal community in the state, we got a measure on the ballot to amend the school budget to $0.00, and it received 25% support.

Quote
WY is a right to work state. NH is not.

RtW is iffy. I've heard a lot about it from both sides, and I am still undecided if that is a good idea or not.

Quote
NH allows teacher monopolies and forced dues, and it has powerful teachers' unions. WY has and allows none of these.

I believe WY has a far larger per capitia membership in the NEA than NH has.

Quote
WY has low property taxes coupled with low property valuations. NH's property taxes and valuations are horrendous, and due to in migration of statists, they are rising.

Depends where you are. Keene and Somersworth (home of Michelle Dumas) are the worst. We are both paying $33/$1000 on our homes (which includes ALL city, county, education and state property tax). But, that is the highest in the state, and even counting that, NH has a lower tax burden than any other state in the continental US.
But property tax is controlled at the local level, where it will be the easiest for us to change it.

Quote

NH had a deficit of $19.7 million for 2002 and has an estimated 2003 deficit of $54.6 million. WY has a $1.8 billion surplus. Guess which state is likely to raise taxes. WY is proposing to lower its sales tax.

That estimate was based on the Claremont decision being adhered to. Governor Benson has already put the kibosh on that, and has vetoed the only tax increase sent to him ($.39 on cigarettes), and will veto any other raised or new tax sent to him.
So I'm guessing... Wyoming. :D

Quote
NH is surrounded by strongly anti-liberty states. WY's neighbors are for the most part pro-liberty.

That's why we get their business, and tax refugees. :D

Quote
WY has the 2nd lowest gasoline tax at 13 cents/gal. Only AK is lower.

Good for you folks. But it's a pretty minor issue. You have sales tax on most items though, right?

Quote
WY is #1 for lack of land use laws. NH has intolerable land use laws.

I would hardly call them "intolerable". 10% of NH communities have NO land use and NO P&Z laws whatsoever. Even in one of the most regulated areas, Keene, neither I, nor anyone I know, have had any issues with the P&Z laws, and that includes building new structures. I just went to a P&Z committee meeting a couple weeks ago, and their major issue was how to get a better offer on some city owned property they are trying to sell.

Quote
WY has no individual income or business tax of any kind.

That's good, and NH also has no income tax, unless you earn over $2,200 in interest, than just the interest is taxed. But we can raise that limit. And I know several NH small business owners, and they ALL tell me they've never paid anything in BPT or BET.

Quote
WY is #1 for gun ownership and gun shows. WY allows open carry of pistols without permits.

Yup, NH also allows open carry wthout a permit. Anyplace except courtrooms. And any state we choose will quickly become the leading place for gun shows. :D

Quote
WY has warmer and milder weather than NH. Furthermore, the drier WY air has less bite than the frigid, damp NH air.

Again, subjective, and depends where you live. The seacoast and lakes regions in NH have a milder climate then other areas. And the air is not always damp or humid. We just had a major humid streak for about a week, but it is over now.  

Quote
No question about it. WYOMING is the undisputed winner as the best candidate for FSP's FREE STATE.

Sounds to me like there are lots of questions, and it is hardly undisputed. Wyoming is a good choice, as is NH.

Carpe Diem!

JM
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: Rich T. on August 17, 2003, 01:38:04 pm
Venture capital (1=highest / 50=lowest)

NH = 4
ME = 20
DE = 26
VT = 29
MT = 33
ID = 41
AK = 46
SD = 48
ND = 49
WY = 49 (a tie maybe?)

Here's also what I had to say in that thread:

I personally think the dealbreaker will be high-tech jobs and the ability for us ultra-capitalist Porcupines to move, start, and grow our businesses in the Free State.

That does seem to be a sizeable chuck of our demographic. And even if not everyone is a computer geek, there are still a lot of jobs created from high tech, from all the managerial and administrative work, to manufacturing to produce products, to the service industry which will cater to these high-earners, etc.

I've noticed high-end auto dealerships moving into areas that have built up a knowledge industry, which is a sign of good times and the demographics of the area. In the last year I've seen a new BMW dealership (seacoast) and new Porsche dealership (Nashua) open up.

For for folks in the southern half of the state, MA comes in #2 or #3 in VC, which means lots of development and companies for job opportunities and business ventures close by.
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: kbarrett on August 17, 2003, 01:38:30 pm
Any Alaska resident may perform a marraige.... wait, that one isn't silly ... the rest of the states are silly on this one.

Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: Sean Coven on August 17, 2003, 06:19:53 pm
-- In  Alabama, it's illegal to wear a fake moustache that causes laughter in church.

-- In Alaska, waking a sleeping bear for the purposes of taking a photograph of it is illegal. (Blast! Now my "Recently-Awakened Bears of America" album will remain incomplete forever!) Feeding alcohol to a moose is also prohibited. (Oh, but it makes it SO much easier to shoot them!)

--In Arizona, it is illegal for donkeys to sleep in bathtubs. ("Sir, are you aware you're in violation of the law?"   "HEEEEEHAW!") It is also illegal to have more then two dildos in the house.

--In Arkansas, men may legally beat their wives -- but no more then once a month.

--Drive-by shootings of animals are prohibited in California, unless the target is a whale. (Oh, sure, save the dogs, cats, trees, termites, and fire ants, but screw the whales!)

--An ordinance in Denver, Colorado, prohibits the lending of one's vacuum cleaner to one's next-door neighbor.

--In Hartford, Connecticut, a man may not kiss his wife on Sunday. (It doesn't say anything about anything else. ;))

--In Delaware, it's illegal to fly over a body of water without sufficient supplies of food and water.

--In Florida, having sex with a porcupine is illegal. (Thank God Florida's not a candidate state!)

--Georgia prohibits the carrying of ice cream cones in one's back pocket on Sundays.

--Any citizen of Hawaii who does not own a boat may be fined.

--In Idaho, a man may not give his sweetheart a box of candy that weighs less than fifty pounds. Pocatello, Idaho, prohibits the concealed carrying of firearms unless they are exhibited to public view. (Think about that.)

--In Illinois, it is illegal to speak the English language. (Illinois has some of the most bizarre laws: http://dumblaws.com/states/states.php?State=Illinois)

--Between October and March, it's illegal to take a bath in Indiana. A bill passed by the Indiana House of Representatives (No. 246) in 1897 is still pending before the State Senate; if passed, it will set the value of Pi equal to 3.2.

--In Iowa, it's illegal to kiss for more then five minutes. (Anyone noticing an Orwellian trend with these northeastern states?)

--In Kansas, if two trains meet on the same track, neither shall proceed until the other has passed. Think about that one, too.

--Fishing with a bow and arrow in Kentucky is illegal.

--In Lousiana, it's illegal to shoot a laser at a police officer.

--A Maine state law requires the shotguns be taken to church to fend off Native American attacks.

--All men in Massachusetts must carry a rifle to church on Sunday. (This despite the fact that Massachusetts has gone out of it's way to make the carrying of weapons as difficult as possible!)

--In Detroit, Michigan, it's illegal to throw an octopus on to the ice of the Joe Louis Arena.

--In Minnesota, mosquitoes have been declared a public nuisance. Furthermore, a Minnesotan may not cross the border to Wisconsin with a chicken on his or her head.

--In Mississippi, cattle rustling is punishable by hanging (despite the fact that only Washington and Delaware allow for hanging as a form of execution).

--In Kansas City, Missouri, minors may purchase shotguns but not cap pistols. In St. Louis, milk men are prohibited by law from running while on duty.

--A group of seven or more Indians is considered a raiding party under Montana law, and it is permissable to shoot them. All sexual positions but the traditional missionary position is legally banned in Montana.

--Parents may be arrested if their child belches during church in Nebraska. People infected with gonorrhea are barred from marriage in this state, as well. (And perhaps the stupidest of all: Nebraska is one of only six states that prohibits concealed-carry!)

--A citizen of Nevada may hang anyone who shoots that citizen's dog on his property.

--In New Hampshire, machinery cannot be run on Sundays. Furthermore, it is a crime to urinate while looking up on Sundays.

--In New Jersey, one cannot legally wear a bullet-proof vest while committing murder. (The same logic of enacting gun control laws: if people obeyed the law, they wouldn't be criminals!)

--In New Mexico, idiots may not vote. (Although in 2000, New Mexico went to Gore... hmm....)

--In New York, a $25 fine can be levied for flirting or turning to look at a woman as she passes by. Jumping off a building is punishable by death. While riding in an elevator, one must not speak and have his/her hands folded in front of him. Like Georgia, the act of carrying ice cream cones in one's back pockets is a crime. And perhaps the stupidest of the laws: a woman may walk topless in New York City as long as it isn't for business, but a woman may not wear "body hugging clothing."

--North Carolina has a tax on all illegal substances; however, this doesn't make them legal. Elephants may not be used in cotton fields. Singing off-key is illegal. The possession of a lottery ticket is illegal and can be punishable by a $2000 fine.

--North Dakota has outlawed the act of lying down and falling asleep with one's shoes on. Furthermore, it is legal to shoot an Indian on horseback from a covered wagon.

--In Ohio, it's illegal to get a fish drunk.

--Oklahoma (a landlocked state) has outlawed whaling. Oklahoma bar owners may not allow their patrons to pretend to have sex with a buffalo.

--In Oregon, it's illegal to whisper dirty things into your lover's ear during sex. Oregon and New Jersey are only two states that prohibit the pumping of one's own gas; gas must be pumped by an attendant.

--In Pennsylvia, explosives may not be detonated during a wedding.

--Any marriage in Rhode Island in which one party is either an idiot or a lunatic is null and void.

--Inadvertantly killing someone during a suicide attempt is illegal in South Carolina.

--Lying down and falling asleep in a cheese factory in South Dakota is against the law.

--Any person who participates in a duel may not hold public office in the state of Tennessee.

--The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home. It is also illegal to sell one's eye.

--In Utah, it is illegal to cause a catastrophe.

--In Vermont, it is illegal to deny the existence of God.

--A Virginia law prohibits bribery by any person other than candidates for public office. Tickling women is also illegal.

--Lollipops are banned in Washington state. (Too many lollipop-related chokings, maybe?) X-rays may not be used to fit shoes.

--In West Viginia, a person may be placed in jail for up to six months for making fun of someone who does not accept a challege.

--Milwaukee, Wisconsin, prohibits ugly people from being in public during the day.

--Skiing under the influence of alcohol is prohibited in Wyoming.

There you go... every state has one!

But Illinois has the dumbest ones.  :-\
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Penfist on August 17, 2003, 07:46:22 pm
You are certainly free to make whatever choices you wish, however, I seriously doubt that my support of New Hampshire, and my "membership" in some non-existent clan, has anything to do with my positive karma rating, as if my positive karma rating somehow defines me as a person.

While I have concerns with some of what has been going on here, and am considering taking a long hiatus from participating in these forums, I signed my name when I made my committment to move to ANY ONE OF THE TEN STATES being considered, and that was a solemn promise.

Even if Jason P. Sorens revealed that he is Hitler's clone and the New Hampshire supporters all admitted they are space aliens planning to eat everyone who migrates to the state, should it win, I would still follow through on my solemn promise to participate in this project.

Maybe I have doomed myself, but you, sir, appear to be a short-sighted coward willing to run at the first sign things aren't going the way you want them too. I hope you will reconsider your position, as I doubt you will find many chances to be free in this life. In fact, I doubt you'll find many chances to participate in anything meaningful at all, win or lose

May I be smited into oblivion if I go back on my word.

I was originally willing to move to New Hampshire.

Also I have been basicly respectful in my posts until I call someone from the New Hampshire Clan a Stupid jerk. I will not take that back because I was responding to the unmasking of his open deception regarding liberty.

While I will concede in the knee-jerk world of internet forums that would be enough to earn me a negative smite/aplaud ratio.

However I earned a negative ratio right after posting to another thread how I planed to vote for Vermont as my second choice behind Wyoming.

I look around in amazment and saw almost everyone who was talking about supporting a state Other Than New Hamshire had exploding smite ratios.

Now it appears as thou the only folks with positive applaud/smite ratios are New Hamshire supporters.

That socialistic spirit disapointed me because I don't believe that was what the karma feature was intended for.

"We are done appealing to the Liberty crowd" was the UNMASKING and my last straw.

That is why I am resigning from the FSP.  I will not be ethicaly able to vote in the state choice election because I did not opt out of NH and I am not able in good cociese to commit to moving there now.

If I do receive a ballot(I still did not) in the future I will send it back blank with the same explanation.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Leonard on August 17, 2003, 10:13:25 pm
Sardonicous, please do not take karma seriously.  A single person can easily skew your karma if he sets himself the task.  

As for your idea that a handful of NH supporters here on the forums represent New Hampshire - please.  New Hampshire has 1.2m people there who are not on these forums.  You can look at the state data to find out that in most respects they are just as libertarian in orientation as the citizens of Wyoming, Idaho, and other great states.  There are problems with NH, in particular the lack of strong counties for sub-state liberation efforts.  But there are problems with every state.  

Furthermore, in the event that NH does win, it is not going to be you moving all alone to NH to be tormented by the NH crew from these forums.  It is going to be a great mass of libertarians, Westerners and Easterners alike, moving.  So you need not deal with jmaynard, amanda, or michele for a moment if you cannot stand them.  There will be lots and lots of people there exactly like you.  That's a marvelous aspect of this whole endeavor - so very many libs as your neighbors.  Imagine having so many libertarians around that you can pick and choose among them for your friends!  Wow.

I'd urge you to reconsider.

I'd also suggest that if you got to know them, probably the NH crew are not as bad as you fear.  

I have not met any FSPer personally.  But I feel as though we are all brothers and sisters, united by our sacred cause.  If any of y'all are coming through Baltimore I'd love to feed you or put you up.  All of you - "moderates", "radicals", NHites, "westerners", even the so-called "nonnonviolence" people.  You may not feel welcome in the FSP, but you are still our brother in the bigger fight, and I hope you come to the free state too.  Even people thrown out of the project "officially" for advocating violence can come to the free state: it's a free country.  And what better place for a radical freedom lover to be?

In the fight for liberty we need all the help we can get, and that includes you, Sardonicous.
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: luvNH on August 17, 2003, 10:40:25 pm
This Heyduke needs to be banned.He is mean to Michelle and rude to our Governor.He contributes nothing to this thread.
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: Jaytina on August 17, 2003, 10:49:43 pm
 Those are hilarious! You have to imagine that at least one person in history has actually done those things...
 Crossing from Minnesota to Wisconsin with a chicken on the head, boy what a fiasco! And that elephant in the cotton field sure must have caused a scene...but nothing close the the Great South Dakotan Cheese Factory Mess...
 And hey, maybe that'll teach that Washington shoe-store guy from whipping out his x-ray all the time and just x-raying customors' feet before they can run away!
  ;D
 This New Mexican "idiots may not vote" law though...hmmm
 
 OK seriously, how about this tax for stupidity; we're still paying a tax to pay for the Spanish-American war!
 
 Arrrghhh!
 J-tina
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Revtwo on August 17, 2003, 10:55:29 pm
 >:(I disagree with Heyduke and he should be a whole lot nicer to folks working hard for Liberty in Our Lifetime.
But, no person should be BANNED. That's contrary to what we are all about. :-[
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: freedomroad on August 17, 2003, 11:48:45 pm
Depends where you go. Doug Hillman and Trevor found lots of cheap land up north, especially in Coos County.

James, do you really think many people would move to Coos County?  

From a different point of view, personally, I would never move to Coos County.  That is the county that tortured and cheated Carl Drega for 20 years.  One of the judges that tortured him was honored there.  I have to have principles and I will not go to places where freedom lovers are systematically tortured and abused by various level of the local government for 20 years.

Quote
Totally subjective, Keith.

James, I think you made a mistake.  I did not write the report.  In fact, I said WHO wrote the report and where it can be found at the very beginning of the report.  I do agree that it is subjective.  However, you should know that Wyomingites have a reputation for being the most independent citizens in the nation.  

Quote
I believe WY has a far larger per capitia membership in the NEA than NH has.

James, it depends on how you look at it.
Here are the actual numbers: amount of potential activists that will fight us at every turn (as of 2000)
NH 11,834
WY 5,713

Percentage of K-12 Employment
NH 40.8%
WY 38.3%

Percentage of Total State Population
NH 0.9%
WY 1.1%

James, I really do not see what you are talking about.  Maybe you were thinking of Maine or something.

Source: http://www.nilrr.org/MonsterMonopoly.htm
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: Zxcv on August 18, 2003, 12:38:48 am
Quote
Quote
Wyoming has only 493,782 people on a land area that more than ten times the size of New Hampshire (which has 1,235,786 people). NH's population density is 132.8 people/sq. mi. WY's density is only 5 people/sq. mi.
 


That makes life more difficult for activists, if they were spread evenly.
Yes, the population of WY is concentrated into clusters. But doesn't that make the EFFECTIVE population density of WY much higher than 5ppl/mi^2?

Same old arguments, over and over. Sure be glad when the vote is done.

This physical size difference does not make life more difficult for our activists, relative to our opponents (the only measure that matters) because they face the same physical size. It all cancels out.

Quote
Quote
The lower population of WY offers a greater freedom impact with a given number of free staters than NH. Likewise, WY can be freed with only 40 percent of the free staters required to free NH.
 


Again, that's too simplistic. To assume that a state with only 1/2 the population requires 1/2 the activists assumes that EVERYTHING else is the same.

True. Everything else is not the same. Wyoming does well in many of these other factors, too. By our only objective measure, the spreadsheet, it comes out at or near the top.

Quote
New Hampshire has been recieving an influx of tax refugees from other states for 225 years. And in the last 27 years, support for new taxes in the state has dropped from 20% to only 7% today.

And then there's this interesting item posted by Keith further above:

Quote
According to Liberty magazine (Sept. 2002, p 30), NH's total per capita taxes have jumped 55% between 1992 and 2000.

So what is going on here? Taxes going up while support for them is going down? That's the sort of thing that happens when people do not have control of their government, when special interest trough-feeders have taken over. Is that what's happened in NH, James? Can you explain this conundrum?

Quote
Quote
WY has term limits (beginning in 2004). NH does not.
 


Good. That means Craig Benson can still be in office when the porcupines start pouring in.

Can he, really? Or is the governor term-limited? Anyway what do you think the chances are he will be in power when we are up to strength? That's 2006, right?

Quote
Quote
WY has initiative and referendum. NH has neither.
 


Not state-wide, but NH does offer warrant articles every spring in all our cities, and old-fashioned New England town meetings in the towns. Similar to referendums, except on a local level. In fact, this year, in Keene, the most liberal community in the state, we got a measure on the ballot to amend the school budget to $0.00, and it received 25% support.

Those warrant articles might be good, for issues decided at the local level, anyway. As to that measure, in Keene, it reminds me of LP candidates crowing about getting 4% of the vote. I'll be impressed when you actually get 51% to zero out funding, not until then. By the way, I'm curious about the end result, James. Did Keene increase its school budget, decrease it, or keep it the same, in that meeting?

Quote
Quote
WY is a right to work state. NH is not.
 


RtW is iffy. I've heard a lot about it from both sides, and I am still undecided if that is a good idea or not.

Yeah, right.  ::)

Quote
Quote
NH allows teacher monopolies and forced dues, and it has powerful teachers' unions. WY has and allows none of these.
 


I believe WY has a far larger per capitia membership in the NEA than NH has.

Which is completely irrelevant, but it makes a nice sound-bite.

For new folks who haven't seen this point before, here is how it boils down.

There are 11,834 NEA members in NH, 5713 in Wyoming. Assuming for the moment we have 20,000 activists in NH, 11,384 NEA members cancel out 11,384 Porcupines' votes on a statewide vote, leaving us 20,000-11,384=8616 votes extra for our side of the issue (assuming NEA members universally oppose us). In WY 5713 NEA members cancel out 5713 Porcupines, leaving us 20,000-5713=14,287 votes extra on our side of the issue. Anyone can see we are in a superior position in Wyoming; 14,287 extra votes on our side is better than 8616.

"Well," NH advocates say, "we won't get as many Porcupines into WY." Let's just assume that's so just for the sake of argument. How many fewer would we have to get into WY for us to be in as bad a position as we are in NH? Well, that would be 8616+5713=14329. We'd need a whole lot fewer Porcs in Wyoming to get as bad as we'd be in NH with 20,000 - and even then we'd still be better off in Wyoming.

Why? Because in WY those 8616 votes we have left over are being dumped into a voter pool only 38% the size of the NH voter pool. In essence, those votes in WY are 2.6 times as influential as they are in NH. To get us really down to the same level of influence, we'd have to have only 38% of the NH extra votes, or 8616x(.38)=3236 votes, meaning the Porc population would have to be down to 3236+5713=8949, to be as bad off in Wyoming as we'd be with 20,000 in New Hampshire, in this case we are considering about NEA members. A Porc population this low in Wyoming is not credible.

And oh, yeah, we haven't even brought up the monopoly bargaining and forced dues disadvantage of NH yet!  :P

Quote
But property tax is controlled at the local level, where it will be the easiest for us to change it.

If it's so easy, it makes one wonder why the taxes are so high in the first place...

James' other counters were not quite as wild as the above.  ;)
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Blain on August 18, 2003, 12:41:54 am
"To dwell further on this, just look at Iraq. That is like Wyoming. The feds could roll over any secession movement in Wyoming in a heartbeat, stage a blitzkrieg style advance of heavy armor and air support on Cheyenne just as they did on Bagdad.

In NH, we have the mountains, we have the dense forests, and the narrow mountain passes in which we can catch federal forces in crossfire killing zones. When reinforcements arrive, we dissapear into the forests. These forests are impassable to armor, and impenetrable by air cover. Any federal offensive against the free state would have to be made with infantry movements and artillery firebases. Considering how many NH residents are Vietnam vets, we would eat them for lunch. "



Amen to that, brother!
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: jgmaynard on August 18, 2003, 01:01:50 am
"Even if Jason P. Sorens revealed that he is Hitler's clone and the New Hampshire supporters all admitted they are space aliens planning to eat everyone who migrates to the state, should it win,"

Now, now,  you're just taking that "How to serve non-New Hampshirites" book too seriously. :D

And how could anyone NOT want to work with Michelle or Amanda? jgmaynard, I can understand.... ;)

I have met hundreds of other porcupines at the Escape to New Hampshire, and I would trust any one of them with anything.

But I won't make the mistake of playing Keith Murphy in cards again..... (Watch out for Hardy, too. :D)

JM
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: MoonChaser on August 18, 2003, 03:38:01 am
Another funny one.... Did you know that there isn't a single person living in the entire State of Florida who ISN'T [/color] a Criminal?

It is AGAINST THE LAW to shower while naked in that state!!

  :o :o ::) ::) :o :o

Wonder who came up with that one!
Title: Re:Wyoming Vs New Hampshire
Post by: JonM on August 18, 2003, 06:44:46 am
If it's so easy, it makes one wonder why the taxes are so high in the first place...


What is there to wonder about?  Almost all of a town or city's budget is paid for via the property tax.  You vote on how much the town will spend, then they figure out how much they need to cover that and send you a bill.

There's no statewide sales tax and county and town additions to it to fund these expenditures.  There is a statewide meals tax, and the tax on interest and dividends over $2400.  A portion of that and other funds from the state's general account is returned to towns, but for the most part, you pay for what you vote to get.

Here's a link (http://www1.keenesentinel.com/specialreports/TownMeetings/)  to a few reports on town meetings.

Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 18, 2003, 07:37:35 am
That does seem to be a sizeable chuck of our demographic. And even if not everyone is a computer geek, there are still a lot of jobs created from high tech, from all the managerial and administrative work, to manufacturing to produce products, to the service industry which will cater to these high-earners, etc.

I've noticed high-end auto dealerships moving into areas that have built up a knowledge industry, which is a sign of good times and the demographics of the area. In the last year I've seen a new BMW dealership (seacoast) and new Porsche dealership (Nashua) open up.

For for folks in the southern half of the state, MA comes in #2 or #3 in VC, which means lots of development and companies for job opportunities and business ventures close by.

There is absolutely NO doubt that New Hampshire will have the jobs necessary for 20,000 or more Porcupines.  And there's NO doubt that New Hampshire has a strong economy.

The only arguments which have ever been presented against New Hampshire in this regard are that it may have TOO MANY jobs and TOO STRONG of an economy.  It is said that New Hampshire may attract too many people to the state too quickly because of its strong economy.

My high-tech employment calculations, however, show that New Hampshire may have less than a 10% excess of high-tech jobs for Porcupines.  I believe the calculation was 4,500 needed jobs and about 4,900 available jobs.  Of course my calculation was based on a lot of assumptions and unverifiable estimates, so you can believe what you want.

The point of this post is that nobody is arguing that New Hampshire does not have enough jobs for us, at least as far as I am aware.  :)
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Michelle on August 18, 2003, 08:06:21 am
"We are done appealing to the Liberty crowd" was the UNMASKING and my last straw.

Sardonicous,

I believe that you probably misunderstood what Jim Maynard and myself were trying to communicate. Maybe not...maybe you understood perfectly and just disagreed, but I thought I would try to explain better anyhow.

Nobody is suggesting that we stop trying to appeal to full "liberty lovers." The "liberty-lover" community is where our next 15,000+ members should come from - that is where we should concentrate our recruiting efforts.

But, we are at a critical time in our project when we are about to announce the state of choice and the eyes of the media in the ten states is on us like never before.

I don't see any press or media coverage right now as having recruiting as its primary purpose. If recruiting were the primary purpose and the press we were receiving was mainly in freedom-loving publications versus the mainstream press, I would have absolutely no complaints about making Boston T. Party an unofficial spokesperson. I would support it as being a wise move. Some recruiting may happen as a result of our press in the mainstream newspapers, but I believe that is only a secondary benefit of our coverage at this time and shouldn't be our primary concern.

However, I believe that the primary purpose of any press or media coverage right now is public relations - to help ensure that we receive the warmest welcome possible in whatever state is chosen. I think we also must remember that the goal isn't to takeover or overwhelm the citizens of whatever state we choose, but to gradually build allies and support in the state by working through the political system and convincing those people already in the state that we offer the solutions that they were looking for all along. This is where Jim's moderate comments that made you so upset came from. And this is why I think it is important that we not take unnecessary risks right now in proactively feeding the media things that they could easily misinterpret or use to build opposition to us.

I guess the bottom line is that I am trying to recognize that at this point we actually have two separate audiences and we probably need a more sophisticated two-pronged approach to our public relations efforts.

But, on the other hand, I have no significant public relations or media relations experience or training and am basing these opinions on "gut" feelings -- I could be wrong.

Anyhow, I hope that explains where we were coming from. We need your help and I sincerely hope you will reconsider your decision to leave the membership. I am very sorry for any part I might have played in your decision  :-[

Sincerely,
Michelle
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: jgmaynard on August 18, 2003, 09:02:02 am
Yeah, what Michelle said....... :D

JM
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: etphonehome on August 18, 2003, 11:43:07 am
Wonder who came up with that one!

Probably someone with an ugly spouse. ;D
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 18, 2003, 11:45:18 am
Hmm.....MoonChaser...me think this one was passed by the bathtub or else group!!! ;D
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: Sean Coven on August 18, 2003, 12:07:21 pm
Those are hilarious! You have to imagine that at least one person in history has actually done those things...
 Crossing from Minnesota to Wisconsin with a chicken on the head, boy what a fiasco! And that elephant in the cotton field sure must have caused a scene...but nothing close the the Great South Dakotan Cheese Factory Mess...
 And hey, maybe that'll teach that Washington shoe-store guy from whipping out his x-ray all the time and just x-raying customors' feet before they can run away!
  ;D
 This New Mexican "idiots may not vote" law though...hmmm
 
 OK seriously, how about this tax for stupidity; we're still paying a tax to pay for the Spanish-American war!
 
 Arrrghhh!
 J-tina

Here's the most worrying historical justification for one of these laws:

Someone, at some time, spoke English in Illinois.  :-\
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: kbarrett on August 18, 2003, 12:17:14 pm

-- In Alaska, waking a sleeping bear for the purposes of taking a photograph of it is illegal. (Blast! Now my "Recently-Awakened Bears of America" album will remain incomplete forever!) Feeding alcohol to a moose is also prohibited. (Oh, but it makes it SO much easier to shoot them!)

Damned .... and I had such fine plans....

Quote
--In Oregon, it's illegal to whisper dirty things into your lover's ear during sex. Oregon and New Jersey are only two states that prohibit the pumping of one's own gas; gas must be pumped by an attendant.

Blame this one on the service station owners and the voters ... every time Oregonians with more than half a brain try to repeal this one, they spend money to support keeping it. It seems the folks selling gas at service stations don't like the idea of having to compete with grocery and convenience stores.

Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: JonM on August 18, 2003, 03:00:49 pm
Blame this one on the service station owners and the voters ... every time Oregonians with more than half a brain try to repeal this one, they spend money to support keeping it. It seems the folks selling gas at service stations don't like the idea of having to compete with grocery and convenience stores.



There's something to be said for a full service Mobil station with speedpass when it's 10 degrees F and snowing.  Now, if only I hadn't lost my speedpass . . .  Actually, probably should get a new one, since Exxon takes them and their pumps aren't slow as molasses.

In Massachusetts it's even odder.  If a station is self service with full service pumps, the full service pumps are of course higher priced.  But if a station is full service only (there's one less than a mile from where I work), the prices are pretty much the same as self serve.  The full serve Mobil in fact is like 1/4 of a mile down the road from a self serve Mobil, and is usually a penny a gallon cheaper or the same.  I asked about why they don't convert to self serve, and if I recall correctly, depending on when it went into business, if they were full serve before the law changed, they couldn't change to self serve or something along those lines.

And why would the station owners fight to keep full serve?  That means employing some guy to pump gas, self serve is cheaper to run.  And the over-priced mini-mart just has to be a profit center.
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: kbarrett on August 18, 2003, 04:32:00 pm
And why would the station owners fight to keep full serve?  That means employing some guy to pump gas, self serve is cheaper to run.  And the over-priced mini-mart just has to be a profit center.

Oregon and New Jersey grocery stores aren't opening pumping islands because they don't want to hire extra staff to pump gas.

The Service stations already have them. Simple as that. I have seen exactly one grocery in Oregon with gas pumps.



( BTW: Another good reason to move to AK.... Tesoro and Williams refine gas locally in Kenai, and it costs too much to ship refined gasoline out of state )
Title: Of Apples and Oranges
Post by: johnadams on August 18, 2003, 07:25:59 pm
This started because of a Quote Wrom: HMKH

"It can't be cheap to fight all those fires."
True, that was a short, unfriendly quip that could have been better stated in the form of a question, as John has since done. My guess, however, would be that Jon's statement that the fires are not cheap is accurate, whereas some of the statements in your reaction were not accurate. New England, including all three states under contention, was barely affected by the recent blackout (only parts of VT and Springfield, MA were effected at all, according to news reports) and we learned from later news reports that the blackout actually reached as far West as Michigan, which is generally considered part of the MidWest, rather than the "East." So while Jon's comment was unkind, it seems to have been accurate, whereas yours was unkind, more exaggerated, and inaccurate. Instead of escalating these tit-for-tats, why don't we try to stick to dispassionate discussion of the facts, as best we can?

Quote
This hits a very sore spot for those of us here in Colorado who were badly harmed by the false rumors, reports and even an announcement by our own governor that "all of Colorado is burning" last year.
Wow! That is a pretty wild statement by the Colorado governor. I'll bet he was just saying it to try to get federal $--another argument for reducing federal dependence. Thanks for letting us know about how wild the statements have gotten re: the fires issue in Colorado. I have read some pretty passionate and angry letters-to-the-editor in WY and CO newspapers and Web posts by residents complaining about the Feds mismanagement of their land and poor handling of the fires. I hope we can all try to be sensitive about that going forward.

As an aside, the passionate anger in Western states re: the Fed mismanagement of the fires point to yet another example of why federal lands are a net negative and a detriment to any state, rather than an asset or neutral factor. I feel for the residents of those states. If WY is chosen, one of the long-term projects will be to try to build national support for privatizing federal lands and for electing US Congressmen/women who will push for fed land privatization.

Quote
Fact: it was NOT burning here or a lot of places throughout Colorado or the west.  Yet so many people heard some of these reports and wrote off the entire region.
I believe you and had never heard anyone claim that "all of Colorado is burning" until you mentioned it. I knew about the problems with droughts and wildfires in the West, but I never heard nor imagined that the problem was as bad as whole states burning.

Quote
Same thing for the power outages and some resulting looting we heard about.
Maybe the news reports out there are different from those here in the East and on the BBC. They start off by mentioning looting or robberies to grab people's attention, but then mention that they were very limited and sporadic--extraordinarily so given the size of the populations involved. Mayor Bloomberg, (a Republican businessman btw, not some evil Commie), said he is very proud of how New Yorkers behaved. Indeed, people were helping each other and even helping to direct traffic in Canada and New York. I heard local news people and BBC correspondents report directly on location in both NY and Toronto and they marveled at how well people were taking the situation, and using it as an opportunity to chat and entertian themselves in an almost street-festival like atmosphere. A power grid that links the Midwest, Canada and New York may have failed, but the people all around behaved admirably.

Quote
That's why Keith brought them up -- to show you guys that broadbrushing an entire region for a few fires
That would be unfair, and I don't see where anyone has done that, but if someone said something like "all the West is burning," then I think that would be wrong and I would take them to task for that.

Quote
is just as unfair as somebody broadbrushing an entire region for a few blackouts and looting.
You mean one blackout and sporadic looting?

Quote
If it was winter an example would have been a New England ice storm which some here could blow out of proportion to paint all of New England with the same brush.
I think that would be a more accurate and relevant comparison than your "blackouts" comparison--especially given the great 1996 blackouts in the West and the power outages in recent years in the West which even interupted televised sporting events. Yes, one could argue that the cost and inconvenience of dealing with snow and ice storms in New England is a similar problem to the wildfires, low rainfall and droughts in some areas of the West. These are things to take into consideration in these regions.

Quote
So, back to a one liner that could have been tossed off.

"It can't be cheap to fight all those blackouts and looters."
You have compounded your impolitic and erroroneous comment with yet another one. How unfortunate. There was one blackout that lasted from an hour or so in some areas to two or three days in the last areas to be relit. The crime rate in NYC actually went DOWN because of the reduced general activity. People treated the period more like a holiday than an opportunity for looting. And when thinks of "looting" one doesn't generally think of 10 or 20 separate robbery incidents. The term "looting" brings to mind mass-scale trashing of stores and buildings by mobs, which did not happen at all. A quip to match the exaggeration of yours would go something like "It can't be cheap to fight all those massive fires sweeping whole states in the West and devastating state budgets." You see? That's more the kind of exaggeration you have perhaps unwittingly engaged in.

Your mention of the "looting" of a dozen or so stores in NYC also ignores the massive looting in LA and the surrounding towns after the Rodney King incident. What productive point does your talking about looting make? None that I can see worth discussing.

Why can't we just say that there are wildfires and droughts in some parts of the West and snowstorms and icestorms in some parts of the East and occasional blackouts, power outages and lootings/robberies in BOTH regions.
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: Mike Lorrey on August 18, 2003, 08:23:59 pm
ROGER AZIZ
Eagle-Tribune Correspondent

We were sitting on our deck around noon when a green truck pulled up and stopped.

A man got out looked at our fireplace and asked us if we had eaten recently. ''Yes,'' I said. ''We just cooked some hot dogs on the fire.''

I looked at his hat and it read '''Fire Warden, Town of Ossipee.''

The gentleman in the hat then informed me that the only way we can have an open fire between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. is if we cooked with it.

As soon as we were done cooking, we must extinguish the fire completely. We were then told that the laws for campfires are as follows: No fires except for cooking from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. but we could have a fire from 5 p.m. through the night to 9 a.m.

Hello?

Now it strikes me odd that we cannot have an attended fire during the day but we can have a blazing fire all night long into the next morning. Even though most campfire chats do indeed end around 1 a.m. at the latest, I have seen some folks party all night in past years.


A night time fire can be spotted from a distance, while a daytime fire cannot. Here in the hills, if a fire gets out of control, someone on the opposite slope is going to see it better at night.

Quote

I have to wonder where the safety factor lies with such regulations. Certainly the woods are just as dry at 5 p.m. as they are at noon. And a daylight fire is not a regular occurrence requiring such vigil that two men have to inspect a fireplace for signs of smoke, however wispy, emanating from the fireplace.

In fact, unlike western states, here in NH, moisture condensates on vegetation shortly after dark (i.e. dew) even on dry nights. On more humid evenings you can get a very decent ground hugging fog which would serve excellently to help dampen any fires from spreading quickly.

Quote
Another regulation that amazes me is the one that suggests that all power boaters in New Hampshire must have a fire extinguisher aboard. This includes electric motor powered boats.

A simple water bucket that can serve to bail a boat should be sufficient but it is not. If my seven-foot pram caught fire, I would be over the side quickly. What good would a fire extinguisher do me when I would be but one foot away from the fire? And, in a 12-foot boat even with gasoline, chances are a leap into the lake wearing a life preserver would be safer than to mess around with a motor fire next to a gasoline can.

Please tell me, EMOR, that you are otherwise intelligent. You propose to use WATER to extinguish gasoline or electrical fires? Are you INSANE? You spoke earlier in your post about ignorant people, well, your water suggestion is such.
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 18, 2003, 09:09:35 pm
Ok a true story! ;D

Got a parking ticket Saturday...50 some bucks! >:(

Illegal parking, because I parked on a yellow line in the neighborhood!  Interesting point, the yellow line was but there years ago, when there was a funeral home there, hey everyone in the neighbhood knew a funeral you don't park there, and all was well! :)  Hey no funeral park away! :)  Unwritten rule of the people, and the owner of the funeral home!

Well the funeral home stopped being a funeral home three years ago, it is in fact a beauty parlor now! ;D

So why did I get a ticket? ???  The city has budget problems? ::)

Well out comes the camera in the AM, take my pictures, and off to traffic court, not really about the cash but a porcupine principle! ;D  So that means three hours setting awaiting my turn! >:(

Hey, will let you know what happens, but if i loose, I'm appealin!! >:(  

So just in case?  Do we have a lawyer in the house?  Not sure how to apeal, and not paying more for it if I can help it. :)
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: Zack Bass on August 18, 2003, 09:20:19 pm


Got a parking ticket Saturday...50 some bucks! >:(
Illegal parking, because I parked on a yellow line in the neighborhood!  Interesting point, the yellow line was but there years ago, when there was a funeral home there, hey everyone in the neighbhood knew a funeral you don't park there, and all was well! :)


And that is why I don't like those "No Sales On The Lord's Day" and "No Rust Holes In Your Truck Bed" Laws, even if (ESPECIALLY IF) they are rarely enforced.  The moment "They" want to get me, there's a "gotcha!" Law handy.
And guess what, "They" do want to get me, for some reason....

Title: Re:Silly laws from ... NH. lol and ALL the other states LOL!
Post by: johnadams on August 18, 2003, 09:26:10 pm
Here is another good one:

Cheyenne, WY: "Citizens may not take showers on Wednesdays."



What is ironic is that many of the silly laws come from decades and centuries ago when many of us claim that Americans were more libertarian. In fact, some of the silly laws in the East date back to the Founding Fathers whom we are supposedly trying to emulate, and some even predate the founding of the Republic. Makes you think, huh?
Title: Re:Silly laws from ... NH. lol and ALL the other states LOL!
Post by: Zack Bass on August 18, 2003, 09:31:44 pm


Cheyenne, WY: "Citizens may not take showers on Wednesdays."


Are you running these through http://Snopes.com or http://UrbanLegends.com, or just accepting whatever you find on DumbLaws.com (which is just jokes)?

It would help if you could check, then post a link so we can verify.  For example, who told you this one about Cheyenne?

Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: Zack Bass on August 18, 2003, 09:33:42 pm


In New Hampshire, it is illegal to spit on the street


But if you throw up there's not a thing they can do to you.     :D

Title: Re:Silly laws from ... NH. lol and ALL the other states LOL!
Post by: Zack Bass on August 18, 2003, 09:35:37 pm


What is ironic is that many of the silly laws come from decades and centuries ago when many of us claim that Americans were more libertarian. In fact, some of the silly laws in the East date back to the Founding Fathers whom we are supposedly trying to emulate, and some even predate the founding of the Republic. Makes you think, huh?


Yes it does.  This is something all of us ought to remember.  We can do a lot better than the Founding Fathers did.

Title: Re:Silly laws from ... NH. lol and ALL the other states LOL!
Post by: johnadams on August 18, 2003, 09:46:01 pm
Are you running these through http://Snopes.com or http://UrbanLegends.com, or just accepting whatever you find on DumbLaws.com (which is just jokes)?

It would help if you could check, then post a link so we can verify.  For example, who told you this one about Cheyenne?
Take it easy man, yeah I got the snippet from Dumblaws.com after I checked out S. Coven's link to it: "(Illinois has some of the most bizarre laws: http://dumblaws.com/states/states.php?State=Illinois)." S. Coven included one doozy from that site about a supposed WY law and I added one from it that I thought was also funny. And yes, I realize that that site is mostly for entertainment, I thought that that was what this thread was about given what the guy who started it, Emor, said: "Anyway this thread is meant in a lighthearted way because all states have silly laws and are not significantly more libertarian than any other."[/b]

Given that, who really cares whether any of these laws are real or not? If you want to do a serious treatment of these laws then we should delete this whole thread, give it a more neutral title and start over.

If this thread had started out bashing WY instead of NH then I probably would have added a NH law/joke instead of a WY one. It's interesting how you only took umbrage at a WY wisecrack, and not at the NH ones.
Title: Re:Silly laws from ... NH. lol and ALL the other states LOL!
Post by: Zack Bass on August 18, 2003, 09:54:53 pm


  ... who really cares whether any of these laws are real or not?


If they're real, they're very funny.
If they're presented as "Wouldn't it be funny if Cheyenne had a Law against .....", then they're not much account.
If they're presented as Real but they are not Real, then they are misleading.

Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: Sean Coven on August 18, 2003, 10:01:17 pm
Dumb Laws frequently includes texts of the law, so they are very real and unless marked otherwise, are very on-the-books...

Most of them, obviously, are not enforced, including the sodomy laws. (Even ultra-liberal Maryland had a law prohibiting oral sex!)
Title: Re:Silly laws
Post by: johnadams on August 18, 2003, 10:03:33 pm
Zack, like I said, I'm willing to delete this thread if Emor and you are. It was obviously started as an assault on NH by Emor, a well-known anti-NH member, and later recast as "lighthearted." If you want to replace this with an all-factual, all-referenced, thread, fine--just give the word and we'll see if Emor goes along with that. For now, I am treating it as a joke thread, since Emor is claiming this is only supposed to be "lighthearted." By taking umbrage you seem to be admitting with Emor's claim of lighthearted intentions is bunk. The cards are in your hand, if you want to replace this with an all serious thread, fine. If you want to replace it with an all joke thread, fine. If you want to leave it as it is, then so be it.
Title: Re:Silly laws from the most Libertarian state NH. lol
Post by: Zack Bass on August 18, 2003, 10:14:12 pm


Zack, like I said, I'm willing to delete this thread if Emor and you are. It was obviously started as an assault on NH by Emor, a well-known anti-NH member, and later recast as "lighthearted."


Lighthearted is nice.  As I said, some Real Laws are hilarious, and I'd love to see them here.
If someone thinks that a made-up Law will seem funny without lying about its Realness, I'd love to see him try.  Just say "If there were a Law that said ...." and I'll try to laugh.
But most of these things depend for their funniness on a false claim that they are Real Laws.  Do we need those?

And, I apologize for jumping on a Wyoming Dumb Law first, it's true I am a Wyoming supporter, but I don't doubt that the Cowboys have made just as many stupid Laws as New Hampshire.  Well, not as many, since they have fewer Laws overall, but just as stupid.  I'm not at all sure the Shower Law isn't real, I'd just like to be able to check.  I've found it on Joke Pages....
My support of Wyoming is not because I think it's a better palce to live right now (I'm sure New Hampshire is "nicer"), but because it will be easier to have early successes - by taking over Liberating a County outright.

Title: Re:Silly laws from various states
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 01:49:33 am
I'm not sure if that was a yes or no answer to my question Zack. Do you want this thread deleted and replaced by a more serious thread that investigates all the sources and determines whether all the jokes have a real basis, or not? Do you want us to go through and investigate every silly law quip and post them on a more serious thread, or are you fine with this thread that Emo claims is essentially a joke thread?

I don't know if ANY of the "dumb laws" have a real basis, including the first ones about NH--because no source was given for the NH laws. At least a source was given for the laws of the other states, albeit a source more concerned with humor than accuracy.
Title: Re:Silly laws
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 01:57:45 am
....My support of Wyoming is not because I think it's a better palce to live right now (I'm sure New Hampshire is "nicer"), but because it will be easier to have early successes - by taking over Liberating a County outright.
That would fit well with my current compromise WIN-WIN idea--the Free Village Project (you could also call it the Free County Project--I just thought that Free Village Project had a better ring to it and would be a good counter to Hillary Clinton's "It Takes a Village" madness). My main interest right now is trying to help the FSP avoid another schism (although it's difficult for me because I am naturally ornery :) ) by seeking some sort of WIN-WIN solution.
Title: Re:Silly laws from various states
Post by: Zack Bass on August 19, 2003, 05:24:58 am


I'm not sure if that was a yes or no answer to my question Zack. Do you want this thread deleted and replaced by a more serious thread that investigates all the sources and determines whether all the jokes have a real basis, or not?


I don't ever want any threads deleted.
I would like Joke Laws to state that they are not true but wouldn't it be kinda funny if they were.

Title: Re:Silly laws
Post by: Zack Bass on August 19, 2003, 05:30:22 am



....My support of Wyoming is not because I think it's a better palce to live right now (I'm sure New Hampshire is "nicer"), but because it will be easier to have early successes - by taking over Liberating a County outright.


That would fit well with my current compromise WIN-WIN idea--the Free Village Project (you could also call it the Free County Project--I just thought that Free Village Project had a better ring to it and would be a good counter to Hillary Clinton's "It Takes a Village" madness). My main interest right now is trying to help the FSP avoid another schism (although it's difficult for me because I am naturally ornery :) ) by seeking some sort of WIN-WIN solution.


HAHA I like the name.  Just as long as we keep in mind that it must be a Western County to have real power.
Alas, there is no possible way to avoid an East-West schism.  No metter which State is chosen, there will be some who will not move there but will gather into a State on the other side.  But this won't take much from the Chosen State.  In fact, even if an Eastern State is chosen as The Free State, the taking of a Free Western County will help by providing a Showcase for Libertarianism.  It will close off all arguments that begin, "But it can't work...."

Title: Re:Silly laws from various states
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 05:45:26 am
I don't ever want any threads deleted.
I would like Joke Laws to state that they are not true but wouldn't it be kinda funny if they were.
I honestly don't know if ANY of them are true--including the ones about NH as well as WY and the other states; and I'm not particularly interested in looking them all up as Emor said that this was just a lighthearted thread anyway.
Title: Re:Silly laws
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 05:54:20 am
HAHA I like the name.  Just as long as we keep in mind that it must be a Western County to have real power.
That would be fine by me. I didn't sign the pledge to move anyway, so it's no skin off my teeth either way, but as a Libertarian I want to help out if I can, because there are too few of us. Anything that will help a freedom movement in the US is great as far as I am concerned.

Quote
Alas, there is no possible way to avoid an East-West schism.  No metter which State is chosen, there will be some who will not move there but will gather into a State on the other side.  But this won't take much from the Chosen State.  In fact, even if an Eastern State is chosen as The Free State, the taking of a Free Western County will help by providing a Showcase for Libertarianism.  It will close off all arguments that begin, "But it can't work...."
Yes, that is what I mean by both a FSP in NH and a FVP in WY. They don't have to be mutually exclusive. Like you say, some of the opt-out people are likely to move to WY even if NH is chosen. So instead of ending things on a sour note and possibly cutting off all contacts with the NH contingent, why not keep the contacts and the overall Freedom Project umbrella, and call the Free Western County experiment the FCP. I think I'll even change my sig. to reflect that right now since that seems to be the idea--a county rather than a township. Accuracy and clarity is probably more important than humor and the "sound" of it anyway.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 07:04:28 am
....Now it appears as thou the only folks with positive applaud/smite ratios are New Hamshire supporters.
I don't know, man. My ratio isn't all that great despite being a NH plugger.

Quote
That socialistic spirit disapointed me because I don't believe that was what the karma feature was intended for.
Socialistic? I don't know why you say that. If the FSP was made up of mostly socialists I wouldn't be wasting my time posting here, except maybe to rant and rave at them. The NH contingent seems pretty freedom-loving to me, as do all the other contingents.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 07:07:14 am
...Even if Jason P. Sorens revealed that he is Hitler's clone and the New Hampshire supporters all admitted they are space aliens planning to eat everyone who migrates to the state, should it win, I would still follow through on my solemn promise to participate in this project.

I knew it! Hitler's clone leading a bunch of human-eating space aliens! The truth is finally out!  ;D ;)

I like your sense of humor!
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 07:13:42 am
.... I believe that the primary purpose of any press or media coverage right now is public relations - to help ensure that we receive the warmest welcome possible in whatever state is chosen. I think we also must remember that the goal isn't to takeover or overwhelm the citizens of whatever state we choose, but to gradually build allies and support in the state by working through the political system and convincing those people already in the state that we offer the solutions that they were looking for all along. .... this is why I think it is important that we not take unnecessary risks right now in proactively feeding the media things that they could easily misinterpret or use to build opposition to us. ....
I think this should be framed. VERY well said, Michelle!
Title: Re:Venture Capital
Post by: johnadams on August 19, 2003, 07:19:29 am
I used to have WY as #1. Then I switched to NH, with WY as 2nd for a long time. Now, I place it after NH, ID, DE, and AK. Mainly because:

-Economic factors: already discussed these

-I don't think the native WY'ers will be all that thrilled or accepting of 20k people moving in, even if we agree with them politically.

-I think that the culture of WY isn't as receptive to freedom as has been made out.
A very good summary and you may be right, though if WY were chosen and if everyone moved to the Cheyenne area and if those who couldn't find jobs there commuted to Fort Collins it could work--but those are some pretty big ifs.

However, if NH is chosen as the Free State, that doesn't mean the Western opt-outs couldn't still go to WY and run a compatible Free County program there, with friendly relations with the NH FSP.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: freedomroad on August 19, 2003, 07:52:28 am
.... use to build opposition to us. ....
I think this should be framed. VERY well said, Michelle!

The only problem I have with that (otherwise, I thought it was great and should be framed in Johnadams house) is that the media cannot build anything against us because we will no longer be around in 8 years.  In 8 years the FSP will be gone and we will all be regular citizens in the selected state.  Sure, we will be liberty activists, but that will not make us stand out too much.  If things work out right and we convert other state citizens to liberty activism, than people will not care.

You cannot fight an enemy if it is not there.  Most of us will be members of the GOP, DP, and LP.  Will the media try to destroy all three parties?  No.
Title: Wyoming State Shooting Association President goes ON RECORD for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 19, 2003, 03:22:37 pm
Wyoming State Shooting Association President goes ON RECORD for the FSP

I asked Mark for a quote to go on the webpage for endorsements and kind words.  Here is what he sent me,

"I believe that FSP is perhaps the last opportunity to maintain freedom and constitutional government, at least on a local level. While we can no longer influence matters on the national level, we still can on the local level. I believe that Wyoming would welcome FSP and that those who choose to relocate here would have an excellent chance to see the FSP program bear fruit.
Mark Spungin, President, Wyoming State Shooting Assn."


I did not ask him to join as a Friend of the FSP because I see no point.  He certainly is already a friend of the FSP.

Of course, he is a libertarian and has served in office before.


Here are some notes from my recent visit with Mark.
Tour of Guernsey, WY
Guernsey is a nice little town with around 1,100 people.
People do not need to lock their house doors but some people still leave their keys in the ignition and the car doors unlocked.
This town has a 1,000 yard shooting range.
Guernsey is a beautiful small town with both public and private miniature black hills all around the town.  
I went in the Guernsey State Park and met a nice couple from CO that goes there to look for rocks.
They told me all about Wyoming and its rock history and all kinds of other stuff.
They even gave me this special type of rock that they had just found.
They said it was valuable outside of Wyoming and that it would look great if I shined it up (I was a little confused).
They said that there is a lake a few miles away that is used by people with wave runners from all over the West.
The state park has nice canyon walls that are right next to the road (a little too close for comfort).
I found out that Guernsey is not know for snow, quite the opposite is true.
Guernsey has decent houses for around $40,000 and all of the houses are safe.
The charm of this town will stay in my memory for along time.
I was at a local diner and I say a child helping his parents out (for some reason the parents were not charged with child abuse and violation of child labor laws  .

I stayed with Mark Spungin, the President of the Wyoming State Shooting Association.  
I do not want to describe his house very much but it had a nice garden with sunflowers (among other pretty plants) and would be a dream home for anyone that is crazy about guns.
Both him and his wife were extraordinarily nice.
Actually, a stayed in the Boston T Party suite  
Mark had been on the town council before.
It was a local, non-partisan election and he could have won again but he wanted to be Mayor.  
He ran for Mayor and did OK and ran for State House as a Libertarian Party member but did not do very well.
He told me that a libertarian had been elected to his state House district before but that he did not get reelected.
Mark said that the gun laws in Wyoming are some of the best in the country (our research backs this up) and that there is not much discontent with them.
However, he did say that Wyoming could get Vermont Carry.
He said he likes the Free State Project and hopes it comes to Wyoming.
I asked him if any other state was better for the project and he said nope, Wyoming is the best.
Actually, a couple of times he said 'we' like he was a part of the FSP (it seems like he is apart of the project, at least in his heart).
The thinks that large cities are breeding grounds for big government.
He is from New York City so he might know a thing or two about that.
I asked him about the tax situation in Wyoming and he said that he only pays around $260 a year in property tax.
He said that if 2,000 of us joined the WSSA we would have massive power and if we were activists we might be able to change the gun laws.
He told me that in Wyoming they don't allow local cities to make gun laws so that no city can prevent you from carry open or concealed (if you have a permit).
He told me about Boston T Party's book, Molon Labe.
It is a fictional tale about a group like the FSP moving to Wyoming and slowing changing the minds of the people.
I asked him about Wyoming's smallest county, Niobrara.
He did not think many people would want to live in that country, but that it would not be hard to influence the county.
I asked him about Hot Springs County and he said he liked that county and if he was not in Gurney, he might live there.  
He told me a story about how some big government politicians tried to increase the size the Thermopolis's (the major city in Hot Springs County) government and they were all voted out in the next election.  
He said you have to be honest with the people of Wyoming (State Senator Bruce Burns later said the same thing).
He told me that they don't have DUI checkpoints in Wyoming.
I asked him that if he likes the FSP so much, why he doesn’t join.  
He said he already lives in Wyoming.
He said that he is going to retire in 2004 so he will have more free time to be an activist.
He homeschooled his kids and I asked him about the homeschooling laws in Wyoming.
He said his family had no problems teaching his kids exactly what he wanted to teach them and that around 20 kids in his small town are homeschooled.
He said that the Wyoming Highway Patrol only has around 166 members.
Right after I left, he and his wife headed off to go practice shooting for some national shooting completion.

His wife, who is an even a better shooter than he is (and a great cook), grew up in North Dakota.
She shared with me a couple bright spots of North Dakota: great soil and fields and fields of sunflowers.
However, she did say that North Dakota was too flat for her.
Actually, his wife, Beverly Spungin, is both the Vice President of the Wyoming State Shooting Association and the Secretary of the Wyoming Libertarian Party.
She said that they did not have a major snow storm last year until March and that they do not get much snow in Guernsey.
Beverly is also a volunteer firefighter/EMT.

Title: Re:Wyoming State Shooting Association President goes ON RECORD for the FSP
Post by: EMOR on August 19, 2003, 06:58:11 pm
I really applaud you efforts freedom road. Even though you live east of the Mississippi you put the project success ahead of any personal biases unlike others have. Thanks again.
Title: Re:State Arguing Re:Boston T. Party Press Release
Post by: Blain on August 19, 2003, 11:36:39 pm
Didn't someone claim that Jason was a member of Skull and Bones because he attended Yale?  

Maybe he is doing a good ol' fashoined Texas style roundup to line all us liberty lovers up in one spot for easy dissposal.  :o ;D :P
Title: Re:Wyoming State Shooting Association President goes ON RECORD for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 20, 2003, 05:53:22 am
I really applaud you efforts freedom road. Even though you live east of the Mississippi you put the project success ahead of any personal biases unlike others have. Thanks again.

Thank you.

Hey, I'm from Memphis and that is on the MS River so I could go either way  ;D

To be honest with you, I was biased.  When i first joined the FSP I opted out of every state west of the MS River.  However, after I started studying the issues, I quickly understood that MT and WY would be good states.  With more research, I started to like SD and AK.  So, I changed my opt out status and opted back in every state except ND.

Much of my family is from northern New England (upstate NY, VT, and ME) and they want NH to win.  I love my family and enjoy being with them but my head says to vote WY, SD, and AK first.  I think that freedom stands a better chance in those three states.
Title: Re:New Article: A Wyoming Supporter Compares Wyoming and New Hampshire
Post by: Dennis Wilson on August 20, 2003, 08:17:34 pm

Equally, large fires are expected events in the west.  They need to budget for such things just like they need to budget for plowing streets here and there.  I suppose I could have phrased it as a question, so I will.  How much does it cost to fight these fires?

There is a better way than budgeting for fires, namely privatize the forests. This excerpt from an article by Christopher Westley on the von Mises site gives arguments that an FSP lead delegation can use to change what currently exists because of laws:

When a forest fire consumes private timber, there are individuals who feel it in their bank accounts; this is not the case with socialized land holdings. This means that profit-making individuals have greater incentives (by how much is an empirical matter) to take greater precautions regarding their property than their public counterparts do.

Individuals who operate the U.S. Forest Service, on the other hand, do not stand to receive direct, long-term benefits (or damages) from the proper (or improper) utilization of the resources placed under their command. This guarantees that these resources will rarely be utilized in ways that maximize the social good. In fact, while a major-yet-rare scandal such as Andersen's can bankrupt a firm, a major-yet-frequent scandal such as uncontrollable forest fires on public lands may serve as the basis for enriching a public-sector bureau like the U.S. Forest Service with even more tax dollars. Talk about perverse incentives!

These incentives don't exist where property rights are enforced. In the South, where I live, forestland is every bit as plentiful as in the West, yet it is rare for forest fires to reach the same proportions as they routinely do on public lands. And why should they? Down here, the land is primarily privately owned, and private foresters have huge incentives to maximize its long-term benefits. The obvious solution to the fire problems on Western lands is to sell them off to private owners and allow them to utilize them as they see fit.

If they did, then firms that managed forests in the same manner as the U.S. Forest Service would not last. The administrative ethos that attracted employees like Terry Lynn Barton would see the same fate as that which attracted employees like Linda Temple. The high standards for performance in the market could finally address the scandals of public-forest management.


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

Christopher Westley is an assistant professor of economics at Jacksonville State University. See his Mises.org Articles Archive

http://www.mises.org/articles.asp?mode=a&author=Westley

Title: Re:Wyoming State Shooting Association President goes ON RECORD for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 20, 2003, 10:53:26 pm
Wyoming State Shooting Association President goes ON RECORD for the FSP

I asked Mark for a quote to go on the webpage for endorsements and kind words.  Here is what he sent me,

"I believe that FSP is perhaps the last opportunity to maintain freedom and constitutional government, at least on a local level. While we can no longer influence matters on the national level, we still can on the local level. I believe that Wyoming would welcome FSP and that those who choose to relocate here would have an excellent chance to see the FSP program bear fruit.
Mark Spungin, President, Wyoming State Shooting Assn."


Two of the FSP board members knew about this for a few days before I posted.  I am sure they will post it to the main site, they just seem to be very busy.
Title: Re:Wyoming State Shooting Association President goes ON RECORD for the FSP
Post by: Sebastian on August 21, 2003, 08:58:52 am
Good job, Keith.

Quote
I did not ask him to join as a Friend of the FSP because I see no point.
Wouldn't hurt though.
Title: Re:States with two very different systems of government.
Post by: Hank on August 22, 2003, 11:37:37 am
Quote
A state that has such politically motivated state employees, sounds like a state with a problem. I could be wrong, though.
That and somewhere I read that a quarter of the New Hampshire house are government employees.
Title: NH vs WY
Post by: Rearden on August 23, 2003, 01:57:34 am
Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP

The contest for the FSP has seemingly come down to a battle between New Hampshire and Wyoming.  All the informal polls have indicated this, and almost all of the regular posters on the forum have declared one or the other to be their favorite.  If one of the other eight states wins, it will only be because proponents of the two frontrunners used it as filler in an ill-informed attempt to vote strategically and bury the challenger.  

As a Southerner, I had no established interest in which one of these two states wins.  They are both a plane ride away from my friends and family.  And so, I can say with complete honesty, I joined the FSP as a completely unbiased participant.  It became quickly obvious to me that the facts stacked up in favor of NH and WY, and I began researching those two states in an attempt to determine which would make the best home for the project.  I chose New Hampshire.  I wish to relate some of the key reasons I chose that state over WY.  My purpose in doing so is not to blindly "bash" the opposing state, it is to share documented facts and allow others to draw their own conclusions.

Wyoming is Pro-Big Government

I know that this is counter to everything that WY boosters have said here.  But consider the following facts.  Together, they paint a disturbing picture of what Wyoming residents view as the appropriate role of government in their lives.

WY has the highest percentage of state and local government employees in the nation.  819 of every 10,000 residents in WY are employed by state and local government.  Note that this does not include federal employees, which would make the number even higher.  These are employees that entirely serve at the will of the people of WY.  If they are so much in favor of small government, why do they have the largest government sector in the nation?  By way of comparison, NH has the smallest state and local government sector of the ten candidate states, with 522 per 10,000. (Source: US Census Bureau)

WY takes 8.5% of the money earned by the average citizen, eighth-best in the nation.  Not bad, but NH only takes 6.6%, the second-best in the nation.  This is undoubtedly due to the fact that WY has a state sales tax, and some jurisdictions pile a second piggyback sales tax on top of that.  NH has neither a sales or general income tax.  Source (http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal03.html)

WY?s state government is one of the biggest spenders in the nation.  In 2001 it took in $2,277 per capita in taxes, the ninth-highest amount in the nation.  In comparison, NH only took in $1,410 per capita, the 47th-lowest rate in the nation.  When adjusted for the higher income in NH, it moves up to the coveted 50th slot, for the leanest government in the nation.  Source (http://www.taxfoundation.org/staterankings.html)


WY state spending increased 31.8% from 1990 to 2001.  This is more than any other candidate state except MT, which increased an astounding 95%.  NH only increased 13.9%.  Source: Cato Institute, "States Face Fiscal Crunch After 1990s Spending Surge," Edwards, Moore, Kerpen, 2/12/03

WY spends more state and local tax funds on higher education per student than any other state in the nation.  WY spends $383.37 per student, while NH is dead last in the nation at $85.47 per student.  Source (http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/grapevine/table10.html)

In the most recent year for which such data is available, 1997, NH had an arrest rate of 158.99 per 100,000, the fourth-lowest rate in the nation.  WY, by comparison, came in at 285 per 100,000, the seventh-highest rate in the nation.  Source (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5069&wtm_format=wide)

But was that a fluke?  The answer is a resounding ?NO!?  WY residents are evidently very concerned about drug use.  In 2002 WY passed HB 59, which created ?the most comprehensive anti-drug plan in the US.?  This bill placed into law the requirement that the state government spend $50 per resident per year on addiction prevention and treatment.  You know how they?re paying for it?  Tobacco settlement money.   Source (http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/features/reader/0,1854,555304,00.html)  Meanwhile, in 1997 (the only year for which I could find data) NH spent only $7.10 per citizen fighting drug and alcohol addiction.  Six years later WY law requires spending seven times that figure.  Source (http://www.new-futures.org/publications/WeNeedToAct_2000.pdf)

According to the oft-quoted report ?Analyzing the Freedom Orientation of Existing State Population,? by Tennyson, the Republican Party is typically viewed as being much more in favor of smaller government than the Democratic Party.  Currently, WY?s governor?s mansion is occupied by Democrat Dave Freudenthal, while NH has a libertarian Republican named Craig Benson.  This isn?t a fluke ? Democrats occupied the WY Executive Office from 1974-94, twenty consecutive years.  Frendenthal?s election is the resumption of that trend.  Source (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/elec02.governor.preview/)  For the record, of the 35 governors of NH since 1900, 29 have been Republicans, including five of the last six.  Source (http://www.electiondb.com/HG_nh.asp)

And as far as the practical level of freedom found in WY, listen to the post of a WY resident here: (http://www.wyomingnetwork.com/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=4&ARCHIVEVIEW=&TOPIC_ID=62)

"I understand that many here don't want to see economic development (buzzword for "growth") because, for example, they don't want Cheyenne to be another Denver. Essentially, we're already there...we just don't have the population. Think about it. Our politicians don't have an original thought in their collective mellons...they simply mimic what everyone else is doing whether necessary or not. We now pay more for a pack of cigarettes than residents of Colorado. The fairy patrol will stop you for not wearing a seatbelt. Didn't we all choose Wyoming to escape such nonsense?

The crime rate is no lower, nor is the cost of living.

Why am I here?

I probably won't be...long-term."
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Rearden on August 23, 2003, 01:58:03 am
 WY is Extremely Dependent on the Federal Government

The federal government sends $7,257 per capita to WY, the ninth highest amount in the nation.  NH only gets $5,109, the smallest amount of all candidate states and the fifth lowest in the nation.  (Source: US Census Bureau)  WY gets back $1.14 for every $1 it sends to the DC swamp.  NH only gets back $.71.  

WY received $5,464 per farm in government subsidies in 2002.  This is six times what NH received per farm.  The contrast is even more stark on a per-capita basis.  NH received $1.08 per capita in farm subsidies, while WY residents received $36.54 per capita.  Source (http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/farmincome/finfidmu.htm)

Perhaps worst of all, WY allows the federal government to dictate their firearm laws.  In the 2003 session the WY state legislature passed HB 308 UNANIMOUSLY to require that every applicant for a concealed carry permit submit his fingerprints to the FBI.  Simultaneously, the NH legislature passed HB 766, clarifying that fingerprints shall not be required in order to obtain a CCW permit.  Source (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2003/Bills/HB0308.pdf)

WY Isn’t a Very Nice Place to Live

The climate in WY just isn't very hospitable.  This isn't just my opinion -- the facts show it's true.  

Here's (http://www.ocs.orst.edu/pub/maps/Precipitation/Total/States/WY/wy.gif) a map of rainfall in WY.  Note that those areas that appear green on the map is actually a national park.  Yellowstone takes up the northwest quadrant of the state, and Medicine Bow is in the southeast-central part of the state, and Bighorn is in the north-central part of the state.  

Here's a picture from a WY tourism agency.  Beautiful?  Absolutely.  Hospitable?  I don't think so.  Check it out for  yourself. (http://www.milebymile.com/main/United_States/Wyoming/photo_10819.html)

Even westerners from other states admit it.  Seth, from Nevada, told me that most westerners know that "WY is a moonscape."  Here's a quote from avid pro-westerner Ben Irvin, as posted on the state discussion list:

"It would seem that Wyoming's main supporters are either Wyomingites (natives from WY) or those that have never been to Wyoming (below 30,000 feet).  Those that know Wyoming best (Westerners) seldom select it as the best free state candidate.  Food for thought."

The reference to altitude makes it pretty clear that he's concerned with climate.

This was posted by a WY native here (http://www.wyomingnetwork.com/forum/topic.asp?whichpage=4&ARCHIVEVIEW=&TOPIC_ID=62):

"Lee - Don't know where you're from, but it must have more water then we! You can barely, just barely, support one horse on twenty acres out here. That's why the ranches are often in the tens of thousands of acres."

Another WY native posted at the same forum:

"Only about 2% of Wyoming is tillable land. Your best bet would be to look to the east of Cheyenne. I live about 20 mi east and am surrounded by dryland (winter wheat) crops mostly. But -- there are several alfalfa circles around me as well. You certainly CAN irrigate with a good well but it's expensive….  you do come across as someone who doesn't understand what an arid climate is and how rocky the soil is in most of this state. You mentioned both gardening and raising stock. Whether or not the soil is tillable has a substantial bearing on the number of animals per acre the land can support."

WY has the least productive farmland in the entire nation, producing only $31 per acre worth of goods, resulting in $6 per acre in income. Compare that with $422 of production per acre and $30 per acre in income for NH.  Source (http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmIncome/50state/50stmenu.htm)


WY is plainly a very inconvenient place to live.  WY residents drive more per capita than residents of any other state in the nation, an average of 17,495 miles per year.  This is even more than AK!  NH residents drive less than 10,000 miles per year on average.  There are several likely explanations for this, the main one being that WY settlements tend to be dense clusters widely scattered over immense areas, with hundreds of square miles of near-desert in-between.  Source (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs01/ps1.htm)

WY has much more violent and property crime.  WY recorded 267 incidents of violent crime and 3,032 incidents of property crime per 100,000 residents in 2000.  NH only recorded 175 and 2258, respectively.  This higher crime rate manifests further in higher incarceration rates. 340 of every 100,000 WY residents are in prison, as opposed to 188 of every 100,000 NH residents. WY spends $148.72 per person in correctional spending, while NH spends less than half that amount.  Source A (http://www.census.gov.govs/www/estimate00.html)  Source B (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict.htm) Source C (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/p01.pdf)

We’ve Not Been Welcomed In WY as We Have in NH

Both WY’s Democratic governor and the 2002 LP gubernatorial candidate have said that they believe WY is the wrong state for us, as well as a WY state senator.  Compare this with NH Governor Craig Benson, who said, “Come on up!  We’d love to have you.”  Then he signed up as a friend of the project.  Additionally, two NH state legislators have joined the FSP as full members.  Source (http://www.charlotte.com/mld/observer/news/local/4277099.htm)

Bruce Foreman, of Wyoming, was very candid in his letter to Jason that appeared on the forum. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1539)   While he made it clear he wished us luck, he also made it clear that we would do well to watch our step in his state:

"Big city folk WILL be disappointed, and be unhappy, and then try to make everyone else unhappy, and your neighbors won't tolerate that for long. Take the next bus back to Denver, where you belong, in the traffic, pollution and crime…  Folk love to chat and gossip for hours on end, but if you come nosin' around where you don't belong (like governments do), expect to sniff a fist. You respect a person's privacy, and they will respect yours (hunters from Colofornia excluded). I mention this because the "intrusive" nature of your project can well be seen as an extreme act of invasion of privacy. Now if you show up in our borders with that "we're coming into your state, taking over and changing it to a Liberatian Utopia", you won't have to worry about the government stopping you... the people will. And if that is the attitude you arrive with, I'll be one of those people behind the barrel asking you to leave. Like most Wyomingites, I will protect my home, family and neighbors from all invaders, foreign and domestic. And if 20,000 fellow Citizens show up in this state as an invading army, you will be treated as such, and expelled…  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)."

Another WY resident, Meadman, joined the forum just to post this one  message:   (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=3065;start=0)

"As a fourth generation Wyoming citizen, I have watched this once great state slowly and inexorably disintegrate and generally go to hell. The reason? An influx of fruitcakes, freaks, fags and fairies. Between the Kalifornicators, Utahrds, Greenies and Texans bringing their nutcase ideas and now this inane, bullshit scheme, you might as well do the paperwork because Wyoming will totally be in the toilet. In short, go away, we need no more outsiders screwing up the place."

For even more examples of what they think of us in WY, check this (http://www.wyomingnetwork.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=303) out.

EMOR, seeking good quotes to take back to the forum, wrote:

"Have any of you heard of this? Wyoming is the leading state for this, so I wanted to get a persons view from Wyoming on this political project.

www.freestateproject.org"

Here were the responses:

doggone
 
"Garbage."

northernmonkey

"One winter and they'll want liberty from Wyoming."

Andre

"It is so stupid.  I want to see if these morons would last eighteen months in Wyoming. "

jack pugh

Send 'em "to Eye-Rack."

Dems
 
"Anybody ever mention how these folks are going to find jobs?  Or are they bringing their own money, like the Rajneeshees in Oregon.  Or maybe we're going to be blessed with free state freeloaders."

Perhaps most importantly, NH has demonstrated a strong corps of connected, savvy political activists that know how to get things done. No other state has shown this.  The strongest boosters of WY do not live there, unlike George, Michelle, and Jim of New Hampshire.

If we’re so welcome in WY, WHERE’S THE WELCOMING COMMITTEE?



Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: StevenN on August 23, 2003, 02:24:06 am
Thorough and well-cited report. And you'd didn't even really hit on economic considerations! This provides a good background of why I came to ranking WY 7th, when I thought it was #1 a few months ago. After looking at all the data, I've started to really wonder how WY got so "hyped up". I just don't see all the fuss. Unless people just look at 1.) lowest population and maybe 2.) land values. If someone thinks "freedom" can only be had out west, I'd think especially SD would be more appealing than WY with marginally a higher population.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: johnadams on August 23, 2003, 02:40:01 am
Impressive investigative work, Keith. You really dug beneath the surface. I still think WY would be OK for a Free County Project for those hearty souls who don't mind that most of the state is quite arid, but this does confirm my view that NH is the best choice as Free State.

Originally I thought WY was a sure #2 before I did some further reading of the posts and articles here and elsewhere. I keep going back and forth between WY, SD and ID for #2--and DE does surprisingly well on my matrixes, but very few seem to want to go there. Your info makes me think I would move SD up to #2 if I were voting (which I'm not), but I'm sure some WY supporter will come out with some decent arguments that would move it back up to #2 for me.  :)
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: StevenN on August 23, 2003, 02:43:41 am
Here's some other facts that really made me second-guess WY:

Taxes as a % of gross income
NH 1st
WY 31st

Most dynamic economies
NH 25th
WY 47th

% of high-tech jobs
NH 3rd
WY 50th

% of knowledge jobs
NH 5th
WY 45th

$ of venture capital invested
NH 4th
WY 49th (tie w/ ND for last)

There's no beating around the bush. WY is one of the very worst state economies in the US. This isn't because of statism or anything teh FSP can really change, but inherent structural factors.

And the one plus economically of WY, business friendlyness: just because someone likes you, doesn't mean that you like them back, if you catch my drift. Anyway, WY is ranked 1st of 50, and NH is right behind at #2.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Summerlin on August 23, 2003, 03:27:09 am
If Wyoming is chosen, those who wish to live where more jobs are can easily get a Wyoming Drivers License, Plates, and a local address (so they can vote legally) and live elsewhere in a nearby City.

Boise, ID
SLC, UT
Denver, CO
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Kelton on August 23, 2003, 04:02:21 am
If Wyoming is chosen, those who wish to live where more jobs are can easily get a Wyoming Drivers License, Plates, and a local address (so they can vote legally) and live elsewhere in a nearby City.

Boise, ID
SLC, UT
Denver, CO

I've actually thought of this several times, but it is far outside of the realm of what the statement of intent actually calls for and potentially illegal, and something that could cause a huge backlash against our movement.  I've maintained Utah residency for almost two years while living in California but it hasn't been at all easy and has required a dutiful adherence to a lot of expensive bother just to stay legal, I wouldn't recommend it.

More importantly than just being in bad faith, voting just ain't enough, even in Wyoming; we've got to be active proponents for change, we've got to be those people running for office and making a difference.

This doesn't preclude the idea that people could still participate if they are not signers or opted-out of Wyoming:
Read this thread carefully if that applies to you, like it would with Varrin who wrote Voting: registration and absentee issues (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1810;start=msg24836#msg24836)
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Kelton on August 23, 2003, 04:34:25 am
Thorough and well-cited report. And you'd didn't even really hit on economic considerations! This provides a good background of why I came to ranking WY 7th, when I thought it was #1 a few months ago. After looking at all the data, I've started to really wonder how WY got so "hyped up". I just don't see all the fuss. Unless people just look at 1.) lowest population and maybe 2.) land values.
. . .

Actually, the "hype" over Wyoming was largely generated as more and more culture variables showed Wyoming in the lead.  Every report on the spreadsheet matrix for well over a year has shown how incredibly well Wyoming does on culture variables.  There truly is a remaining "Old- West" live and let live attitude in so many of the laws that make New Hampshire seem far different in comparison.  Nowhere else can you smoke, drink, spit and scratch like a cowboy and with impunity than in Wyoming,  :D o.k., I'm kidding, but where New Hampshire was the first state to pass meaningful smoking regulations in the nation, Wyoming still hasn't and there's numerous other laws that show Western states in general showing a strongly individualistic culture.  Of course, there are exceptions, and OH!--are New Hampshire fans apt to point them out, spending pages writing about how Wyoming passed that CCW fingerprint law and other things.  But all in all, Wyoming has a lot of good things going for it besides population and low land values.


AND NEW HAMPSHIRE FANS ARE NOT THE FIRST TO POINT-OUT HOW DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE TO MOVE 20,000 Porcupines into Wyoming, one of the flaws in this project, in my opinion.  I think that a lot of people just see more hope in turning Wyoming around than other more populated states and are willing to over-look the economic difficulties for the greater chance at more freedom.  In one of Jason Soren's reports written a year ago, he made the case that Wyoming was truly the best of the bunch, even way back then before we discovered so many other great aspects to Wyoming, but he had this scathing comment about the viability of moving a full 20,000 into Wyoming (from Why the Free State Project Should Consider Just Six States (http://www.freestateproject.org/stateanalysis.htm), written August 28, 2002 ) :
Quote
So which Western states should be eliminated from the group of eight? I would argue for Wyoming. Even though Wyoming comes out at the top of the ranking quite often, its dismal jobs outlook makes it totally nonviable. Its jobs situation makes it equivalent to a hypothetical state that looks really good on most measures but has a population of 5 million: despite its advantages, it simply isn't doable. If we tried to move 20,000 people to Wyoming within a space of five years, most of them would not get jobs. Ben has suggested that people could survive in Wyoming by hunting, fishing, and living in teepees. I think that proposal would be a very difficult sell to 20,000 people from all walks of life, at all ages in life, and from all parts of the country. Given that Idaho and Montana are perfectly viable choices right next door, I think Wyoming could be eliminated readily. Again, though, since Wyoming has defenders, we probably don't want the Research Committee to eliminate it on its own. North Dakota is a similar situation. Almost all the Westerners I've talked to don't want to move there, because of its brutally cold winters detailed in the climate report (http://www.freestateproject.org/climateaddendum.htm). It's even worse than many parts of Alaska. However, I have heard a few people defend the Dakotas as potentially good choices.  
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 23, 2003, 04:43:26 am

Actually, the "hype" over Wyoming was largely generated as more and more culture variables showed Wyoming in the lead.  Every report on the spreadsheet matrix for well over a year has shown how incredibly well Wyoming does on culture variables.  There truly is a remaining "Old- West" live and let live attitude in so many of the laws that make New Hampshire seem far different in comparison.  Nowhere else can you smoke, drink, spit and scratch like a cowboy and with impunity than in Wyoming,

You are right about this.  Yet another new report shows that Wyoming is the best for a libertarian culture,
http://members.aol.com/wyomingsuccess/voting.html

Clearly, Wyoming not only has the smallest population but it has the most libertarian culture.  I thought those were the most important factors?  Maybe I am wrong...
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: RidleyReport on August 23, 2003, 04:51:05 am
Keith if you haven't already I hope you'll contact Matt Cheselka and submit that post as an article on our main site.

What is starting to worry me is that most of our members (voters) don't even read these forums and may not know about the recent crush of events and data favoring NH.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 23, 2003, 05:05:41 am
WY Isn’t a Very Nice Place to Live

The climate in WY just isn't very hospitable.  This isn't just my opinion -- the facts show it's true.  

Here's (http://www.ocs.orst.edu/pub/maps/Precipitation/Total/States/WY/wy.gif) a map of rainfall in WY.  Note that those areas that appear green on the map is actually a national park.  Yellowstone takes up the northwest quadrant of the state, and Medicine Bow is in the southeast-central part of the state, and Bighorn is in the north-central part of the state.  


Keith, I am not sure what you are talking about.  The Western states do have less humidity and rain than the Eastern states.  The Western states do have warmer winters and less snow.  Take a look at the Climate Report #3.  Clearly, Wyoming has MUCH better weather than NH.  
http://www.freestateproject.org/climate3.htm

A few of the cities from the report-
Average January Temperatures in degrees F for selected cities:
WY range 28.2-13.8         NH range 22-12.2
Wheatland  WY  28.2  
Phillips  WY  27.8  
Chugwater  WY  27.6  
Yoder  WY  27.0  
Pine Bluffs  WY  26.8
Cheyenne  WY  26.4  
Carpenter  WY  26.2  
Albin  WY  26.1  
Archer  WY  26.1  
La Grange  WY  25.7  
Torrington  WY  25.1  
Glenrock  WY  24.8  
Cody  WY  24.1  
Burris  WY  24.0  
Midwest  WY  23.5  
Lusk  WY  23.4  
Douglas  WY  23.2  
Dubois  WY  22.8  
Casper  WY  22.3  
Nashua  NH  22.0  
Keene  NH  20.9  
Concord  NH  18.9  
Hanover  NH  17.7  
Jackson  WY  15.3  
Berlin  NH  14.6  
Riverton  WY  13.8  
Lancaster  NH  13.4  
Colebrook  NH  12.2  


Average yearly snowfall in inches for selected cities:

Lovell  WY  18.0  
Pavillion  WY  18.3  
Worland  WY  22.4  
Green River  WY  25.2  
Dubois  WY  28.3  
Riverton  WY  29.5  
Torrington  WY  29.7  
Carpenter  WY  30.3  
Buffalo  WY  32.0  
Evanston  WY  32.6  
Cody  WY  33.4  
Laramie  WY  33.9  
Moorcroft  WY  34.8  
Newcastle  WY  35.6  
Pine Bluffs  WY  37.2  
Kaycee  WY  39.2  
Thermopolis  WY  43.1  
Wheatland  WY  43.6  
Rock Springs  WY  44.2  
Yoder  WY  45.0  
Cheyenne  WY  52.4  
Durham  NH  57.9  
Nashua  NH  62.1  
Concord  NH  65.0  
Hanover  NH  71.2  
Plymouth  NH  80.4  

Casper  WY  82.1  
Colebrook  NH  90.9  
Bethlehem  NH  99.7
 
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 23, 2003, 05:12:12 am
Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP

Keith, this post is reckless at best.  Maybe you are not aware that several of the things claimed are wrong or that much of it is misleading.  I'll try to help correct you as I get the time.  I hope to help you learn about Wyoming, since by this post I can tell that you do not know much about the state.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 23, 2003, 06:06:27 am

Here's a picture from a WY tourism agency.  Beautiful?  Absolutely.  Hospitable?  I don't think so.  Check it out for  yourself. (http://www.milebymile.com/main/United_States/Wyoming/photo_10819.html)

With all due respect, Wyoming it known to be one of the nicest looking states in the country.  Over 6,000,000 people travel to Wyoming every year.  Several FSP members that are not from the Mountain-west went to Wyoming this summer.  Here are our views of the state, with Photos.

Paul's Tour of Wyoming:
http://members.aol.com/paulinwyoming/paul1.html

Keith's Tour of Wyoming
http://members.aol.com/wyomingsuccess/tour1.html



A while back, I noticed that some people were talking trash about WY and making up things like how the state was ugly.  The best way to deal with these lies is to show the facts.  Show photos and more photos and more photos.  That is what I did.

For example:
Cheyenne
http://members.aol.com/wyomingliberty/cheyenne.html

(http://members.aol.com/wyomingliberty/pic18.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/wyomingliberty/pic11.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/wyomingliberty/pic5.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/paulinwyoming/small8.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/paulinwyoming/small5.jpg)


Buffalo, Wyoming
(http://members.aol.com/keithstour/b2.jpg)

(http://www.bighornmountains.com/photo-gallery/photos/buffalo-courthouse.jpg)


Pinedale, Wyoming
(http://www.pinedalewyoming.com/photogallery/pinedale/thb-cemetery2.jpg)

(http://www.pinedalewyoming.com/photogallery/pinedale/thb-mband17.jpg)


Sheridan, Wyoming
(http://www.sheridanwyoming.org/photos/thumbgolf.jpg)

(http://www.sheridanwyoming.org/photos/thumbpolo.jpg)

(http://www.sheridanwyoming.org/photos/thumbdtown.jpg)


Worland, WYoming
(http://rgreetings.com/images/worland/DCP_5432.JPG)

(http://rgreetings.com/images/worland/DCP_5447.JPG)


I could go ON and ON with town after town.  This is the Wyoming that I say when I taveled much of Wyoming for 7 days this year.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 23, 2003, 06:18:00 am
Here's a picture from a WY tourism agency.  Beautiful?  Absolutely.  Hospitable?  I don't think so.  Check it out for  yourself. (http://www.milebymile.com/main/United_States/Wyoming/photo_10819.html)

I've seen the Wyoming mountains, the fields of wildflowers, and the beaches.

Mountains:
http://members.aol.com/mtofwy/mountains.html

(http://members.aol.com/mtofwy/mt1.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/mtofwy/teton3.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/mtofwy/wind5.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/mtofwy/wind3.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/mtofwy/black9.jpg)


The wildflowers:
(http://members.aol.com/mtofwy/teton4.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/wyomingsuccess/congress.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/mtofwy/bighorn4.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/keithstour/b1.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/keithstour/b3.jpg)


The waters:
(http://members.aol.com/keithstour/b4.jpg)

(http://www.llbean.com/parksearch/parks/images/thumb/ls001850.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/mtofwy/bighorn6.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/wyomingsuccess/congress2.jpg)

(http://members.aol.com/mtofwy/black8.jpg)
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Michelle on August 23, 2003, 06:26:10 am
Keith if you haven't already I hope you'll contact Matt Cheselka and submit that post as an article on our main site.

What is starting to worry me is that most of our members (voters) don't even read these forums and may not know about the recent crush of events and data favoring NH.

I agree Keith M. Please do that. You just put into words exactly the reasons that I have been so concerned about Wyoming - the only things you missed are the economic/employment concerns.

Dada, you are right - most people don't read this forum - that is why I don't expect Wyoming to rank well except among the people who participate on the forum and got caught up in the Wyoming "hype."
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 23, 2003, 10:27:39 am
Thanks Keith, your time and effort is always much appreciated.  Believe you give us much to ponder.

I have no doubt in what I have read, and been able to learn on these forums that the average WY citizen is a hard working, freedom loving, individual, but this very individualism I fear works against the goals  us porcupines have pledged to follow.

From what little we have heard from the WY folks, at best we get,  "Well you can come, but know, in advance,  that we don't take easily to strangers, to be accepted in our state you need to earn your spurs first."

While I respect, and even admire this attitude, which seems to permeate much of the west, is it conducive to creating a Free State, and if so how long will to take to gain the crediblity to begin?

Every day we loose more of our Freedom, every day our task becomes more difficult.  Now some ask us to vote for their state, because?  In a few years maybe we will develope a plan, gain acceptance, and get to the task of creating a Free State?  Can we all really afford to wait?  Can those who favor a particular state tell us of their plan, how we will organize, and when?

Please folks I ask, put away any regional bias you have, and look at the facts.  Look at the ever increasing odds we face!

Only New Hampshire welcomes us with open arms.  Only in NH do we have porcupines already serving in the government!  Only in NH do we have porcupines organizing and making ready for our arrival!  Only in NH do we have a plan to win elections!  Only in NH do we have porcupines from all over the country committed to begin the fight now!

Folks Freedom hangs in the balance, to delay could be fatal!

We must vote NEW HAMPSHIRE, and begin the fight NOW!
Title: NH and WY Exposed!!!!!
Post by: rdeacon on August 23, 2003, 11:17:23 am
 :o Anytown, USA.  August 22, 2003 - There was shock and awe in Anytown this week when Idaho, a local resident, avid hunter, and self-proclaimed huguenot returned home and found his wife Wyoming and neighbor New Hampshire engaged in a sordid tryst on their kitchen countertop.

North Dakota, a boring, gun-toting neighbor who happened on the scene, spoke briefly to our reporters.

"Idaho was such a good man, it's a shame to see Wyoming violating the sanctity of their marraige," North said.

But infidelity on the part of Wyoming isn't the only wrinkle in this affair.  New Hampshire's wife, Vermont, had damning things to say of her beau as well.

"New Hampshire is such a little man-slut," screamed Vermont.  "I hope he burns in the white hot fire of a thousand suns."

Long considered arch-rivals in this small Anytown neighborhood, New Hampshire and Wyoming's union is especially strange.  Just days before their fateful countertop coitus, the two were hurling insults at one another.

According to one editorial written by Wyoming, New Hampshire was "a feminized former Libertarian who has been spending too much time with Massachusetts."  And in a response written by New Hampshire, he referred to Wyoming as a "wasteland of a person with a crucifix tattooed on her forehead".

In contrast, our reporters caught up with Wyoming to find her views of New Hampshire totally changed.

"I can tell you 101 reasons why New Hampshire is the man for me!" Wyoming exclaimed.

New Hampshire also had nothing but glowing reviews to give his new lover.

"She knows 279 different ways to..uhh...you know," he said, mid-blush.

****

Hah, finally proof that New Hampshire and Wyoming are both adulterers and secret lovers!  Though now there are rumors that the article was written by Alaska.  I hear he'll do anything to win the vote.
 ;D
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: jgmaynard on August 23, 2003, 12:23:06 pm
New Hampshire was the first state to pass meaningful smoking regulations in the nation,

Not sure where you got this, Exitus. ONLY Keene (despite my best efforts  :-\) and Colebrook have smoking ordinances, and the NH Supremem Court just struck down (at least) Colebrook's....
http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=25185&archive=1

JM
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Rearden on August 23, 2003, 01:23:14 pm
If Wyoming is chosen, those who wish to live where more jobs are can easily get a Wyoming Drivers License, Plates, and a local address (so they can vote legally) and live elsewhere in a nearby City.

Boise, ID
SLC, UT
Denver, CO

Great, so WY is such an awful place to live that many of us should consider living somewhere else and fake our residency?  What kind of activism can we do that way?
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Rearden on August 23, 2003, 01:31:57 pm

Actually, the "hype" over Wyoming was largely generated as more and more culture variables showed Wyoming in the lead.  Every report on the spreadsheet matrix for well over a year has shown how incredibly well Wyoming does on culture variables.  There truly is a remaining "Old- West" live and let live attitude in so many of the laws that make New Hampshire seem far different in comparison.  Nowhere else can you smoke, drink, spit and scratch like a cowboy and with impunity than in Wyoming,


Um, you can do all these things and more in NH, too.  Without submitting fingerprints.   ;D

For the record, when the variables in the spreadsheet are weighted equally NH wins.

Quote

You are right about this.  Yet another new report shows that Wyoming is the best for a libertarian culture,
http://members.aol.com/wyomingsuccess/voting.html

Clearly, Wyoming not only has the smallest population but it has the most libertarian culture.  I thought those were the most important factors?  Maybe I am wrong...

Gee, Keith, you didn't happen to write that report, did you?  You're hardly an impartial, unbiased recorder of facts, are you?

How can anyone claim that the state with the highest state and local government employment rate in the entire nation has the most libertarian culture?  These two things are antithetical, it would seem.

I am convinced that WY possesses a "live and let live" attitude, as you write above, as well as a rugged cowboy spirit.  However, I have also become convinced that the residents there eschew politics, even hate it, and as such they do not watch over their government with the same vigilance found in NH.  My conclusion is that while WY would be a great place in which to disappear, it would be a bad place to attempt a project that is as inherently political as this one.  

We are not moving to disappear, we are moving to make serious changes.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Rearden on August 23, 2003, 01:41:57 pm
WY Isn’t a Very Nice Place to Live

The climate in WY just isn't very hospitable.  This isn't just my opinion -- the facts show it's true.  

Here's (http://www.ocs.orst.edu/pub/maps/Precipitation/Total/States/WY/wy.gif) a map of rainfall in WY.  Note that those areas that appear green on the map is actually a national park.  Yellowstone takes up the northwest quadrant of the state, and Medicine Bow is in the southeast-central part of the state, and Bighorn is in the north-central part of the state.  


Keith, I am not sure what you are talking about.  The Western states do have less humidity and rain than the Eastern states.  The Western states do have warmer winters and less snow.  Take a look at the Climate Report #3.  Clearly, Wyoming has MUCH better weather than NH.  
http://www.freestateproject.org/climate3.htm

What do you mean, you don't know what I'm talking about?  I didn't make this stuff up, it's right here:

www.ocs.orst.edu/pub/maps/Precipitation/Total/States/WY/wy.gif

All of the green on that map is owned by the federal government, in the form of national parks.  The reason that Wy has less humidity than the eastern state is that so much of it is borderline desert.  LOOK AT THE MAP!!!  If less humidity always makes for great weather, then I guess we should be considering Death Valley.  I hear it's pretty dry there, too.  

Yes, NH gets more snow than most of WY.  That's because it gets more precipitation of all sorts than WY.  It gets more rain, too.  

I'll say this, though, those parts of WY that do get rain (national parks) do get their share of snow.  Remember that massive snowstorm that closed Yellowstone on the Fourth of July a few years back?



Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Rearden on August 23, 2003, 01:47:41 pm
Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP

Keith, this post is reckless at best.  Maybe you are not aware that several of the things claimed are wrong or that much of it is misleading.  I'll try to help correct you as I get the time.  I hope to help you learn about Wyoming, since by this post I can tell that you do not know much about the state.

I don't think it is reckless at all.  It is a list of purely objective facts and the opinions of other people.  Where I stated my own opinion it is backed up by documented research.  

What IS reckless is falling so in love with a state that you refuse to see the ugly truth.  Which of these facts are wrong, Keith?:

WY has the highest percentage of state and local government employees  
in the nation.  819 of every 10,000 residents in WY are employed by  
state and local government.  Note that this does not include federal  
employees, which would make the number even higher.  These are  
employees that entirely serve at the will of the people of WY.  If they  
are so much in favor of small government, why do they have the largest  
government sector in the nation?  By way of comparison, NH has the  
smallest state and local government sector of the ten candidate states,  
with 522 per 10,000. (Source: US Census Bureau)

WY takes 8.5% of the money earned by the average citizen, eighth-best  
in the nation.  Not bad, but NH only takes 6.6%, the second-best in the  
nation.  This is undoubtedly due to the fact that WY has a state sales  
tax, and some jurisdictions pile a second piggyback sales tax on top of  
that.  NH has neither a sales or general income tax.  (Source:  
http://www.taxfoundation.org/statelocal03.html )

WY’s state government is one of the biggest spenders in the nation.  In  
2001 it took in $2,277 per capita in taxes, the ninth-highest amount in  
the nation.  In comparison, NH only took in $1,410 per capita, the  
47th-lowest rate in the nation.  When adjusted for the higher income in  
NH, it moves up to the coveted 50th slot, for the leanest government in  
the nation.  (Source: http://www.taxfoundation.org/staterankings.html )



WY state spending increased 31.8% from 1990 to 2001.  This is more than  
any other candidate state except MT, which increased an astounding 95%.  
  NH only increased 13.9%.  (Source: Cato Institute, "States Face Fiscal  
Crunch After 1990s Spending Surge," Edwards, Moore, Kerpen, 2/12/03)

WY spends more state and local tax funds on higher education per  
student than any other state in the nation.  WY spends $383.37 per  
student, while NH is dead last in the nation at $85.47 per student.  
(Source:  http://www.coe.ilstu.edu/grapevine/table10.html )

In the most recent year for which such data is available, 1997, NH had  
an arrest rate of 158.99 per 100,000, the fourth-lowest rate in the  
nation.  WY, by comparison, came in at 285 per 100,000, the  
seventh-highest rate in the nation.  (Source:  
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5069&wtm_format=wide )

But was that a fluke?  The answer is a resounding “NO!”  WY residents  
are evidently very concerned about drug use.  In 2002 WY passed HB 59,  
which created “the most comprehensive anti-drug plan in the US.”  This  
bill placed into law the requirement that the state government spend  
$50 per resident per year on addiction prevention and treatment.  You  
know how they’re paying for it?  Tobacco settlement money.  (Source:  
http://www.jointogether.org/sa/news/features/reader/
0,1854,555304,00.html ) Meanwhile, in 1997 (the only year for which I  
could find data) NH spent only $7.10 per citizen fighting drug and  
alcohol addiction.  Six years later WY law requires spending seven  
times that figure.  (Source:  
www.new-futures.org/publications/weneedtoact_2000.pdf )

According to the oft-quoted report “Analyzing the Freedom Orientation  
of Existing State Population,” by Tennyson, the Republican Party is  
typically viewed as being much more in favor of smaller government than  
the Democratic Party.  Currently, WY’s governor’s mansion is occupied  
by Democrat Dave Freudenthal, while NH has a libertarian Republican  
named Craig Benson.  This isn’t a fluke – Democrats occupied the WY  
Executive Office from 1974-94, twenty consecutive years.  Frendenthal’s  
election is the resumption of that trend.  (Source:  
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/elec02.governor.preview/ )  
For the record, of the 35 governors of NH since 1900, 29 have been  
Republicans, including five of the last six.  (Source:  
http://www.electiondb.com/HG_nh.asp )

Please let me know which of these are wrong so that I may contact the source I quoted and correct their misinformation.  
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 23, 2003, 01:56:32 pm

For the record, when the variables in the spreadsheet are weighted equally NH wins.


So, you are saying that smoking laws and population should be weighed the same?  You are saying that weather and Republican Liberty C. ratings should be weighed the same?  This would be nuts.  Population is by far the most important reason and libertarian culture is the second.  Wyoming is ahead of all other states in both measures.  Read this report on the two speadsheets, both of which favor Wyoming,
http://members.aol.com/wyomingsuccess/spreadsheets.html

Quote

Gee, Keith, you didn't happen to write that report, did you?  You're hardly an impartial, unbiased recorder of facts, are you?

Yes, I report the Climate Report 3, the Prez Report, the Voting Report, and several more reports.  

The climate report says that DE, ID, and WY have the best weather.

The Prez Report says that ID and WY have the best record.

The Voting report says that WY, ID, AK, and NH have the best culture.


Keith, I am one of the main researches.  Let me explain what we do.  We compare all ten states on many things and then either post that info or write reports.  There have been several of us doing this since last year.  Joe, Paul, Kelton, and myself are the main researchers.  None of us started off ranking Wyoming first.  Heck, I started off ranking NH first.  However, we were doing and posting research, month after month.  We all slowly came to realize that Wyoming not only had the smallest population but either the most libertarian or the 2nd most libertarian culture in the nation and that Wyoming has around the most libertarian laws, already.

That is the story.  None of us live in Wyoming.  We do not own land in Wyoming.  We are objective people from around the county, CA, CO, OR, and TN.  We compared all ten states.  We did not make facts up or lie about things.  You can disagree with the mounting evidence if you want, but I am able to see something when it is jumping out at me.  Heck, even Tim, a FSP board member, did a lot of independent research and wrote a paper on how Wyoming was the best state.  He is from FL.  Boston T. Party did all of the reseach years ago and figured out the same thing.

Ignore the truth.  Ignore reality.  Ignore the objective facts.  You have that right, but do not expect other people to sit back when you continue to say misleading statement after misleading statement.

Why people from UT, CA, CO, SD, OR, AZ, TN, AL, SC, FL, OH, IN, NH, MI, VI, WI, and MN like Wyoming,
http://members.aol.com/wyomingliberty/#3


FSP Reports overwehlmingly favor Wyoming,
http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming/WhyWyoming
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Rearden on August 23, 2003, 01:58:02 pm

Here's a picture from a WY tourism agency.  Beautiful?  Absolutely.  Hospitable?  I don't think so.  Check it out for  yourself. (http://www.milebymile.com/main/United_States/Wyoming/photo_10819.html)

With all due respect, Wyoming it known to be one of the nicest looking states in the country.  Over 6,000,000 people travel to Wyoming every year.  Several FSP members that are not from the Mountain-west went to Wyoming this summer.  Here are our views of the state, with Photos.

I said that it was a nice-looking state.  I even said that it was beautiful.  However, it is also largely dry and inhospitable.  Again, I'm not making this up.  Those pictures that you posted, Keith, now tell us honestly:

1.) How many of them are actually on or adjacent to federal land (national parks)?

2.) How much of the rest are actually irrigated?  

Here's a site that has a bunch of WY photos from across the state, not cherry-picked like the ones posted earlier:

http://www.milebymile.com/main/United_States/Wyoming/highway_photos.html

Also, Keith, you're not just arguing against me, here, in your drive to convince the membership that WY's climate is hospitable, and you're not just arguing against piles of data that prove that it isn't.  You're arguing against the very people that have lived there, now and past:

Quote
Even westerners from other states admit it.  Seth, from Nevada, told me  
that most westerners know that "WY is a moonscape."  Here's a quote  
from avid pro-westerner Ben Irvin, as posted on the state discussion  
list:

"It would seem that Wyoming's main supporters are either Wyomingites  
(natives from WY) or those that have never been to Wyoming (below  
30,000 feet).  Those that know Wyoming best (Westerners) seldom select  
it as the best free state candidate.  Food for thought."

The reference to altitude makes it pretty clear that he's concerned  
with climate.

This was posted by a WY native here:  
http://www.wyomingnetwork.com/forum/
topic.asp?whichpage=4&ARCHIVEVIEW=&TOPIC_ID=62

Lee - Don't know where you're from, but it must have more water then  
we! You can barely, just barely, support one horse on twenty acres out  
here. That's why the ranches are often in the tens of thousands of  
acres.

Another WY native posted at the same forum:

Only about 2% of Wyoming is tillable land. Your best bet would be to  
look to the east of Cheyenne. I live about 20 mi east and am surrounded  
by dryland (winter wheat) crops mostly. But -- there are several  
alfalfa circles around me as well. You certainly CAN irrigate with a  
good well but it's expensive….  you do come across as someone who  
doesn't understand what an arid climate is and how rocky the soil is in  
most of this state. You mentioned both gardening and raising stock.  
Whether or not the soil is tillable has a substantial bearing on the  
number of animals per acre the land can support.


WY has the least productive farmland in the entire nation, producing  
only $31 per acre worth of goods, resulting in $6 per acre in income.  
Compare that with $422 of production per acre and $30 per acre in  
income for NH.  (Source:  
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FarmIncome/50state/50stmenu.htm )
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on August 23, 2003, 02:14:10 pm
Here's a site that has a bunch of WY photos from across the state, not cherry-picked like the ones posted earlier:

http://www.milebymile.com/main/United_States/Wyoming/highway_photos.html

ROFLMAO!!!! From one of the captions (http://www.milebymile.com/main/United_States/Wyoming/photo_10797.html): "An excellent place to view a large variety of wildlife. Binoculars are a big plus as you may have to view from a distance of several miles."

6,000,000 people visit every year, then go home to where it is more hospitable.  "It's a great place to visit, but..."  Well, but they couldn't live in the parts they come to visit anyway since they come to visit the national and state parks.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 23, 2003, 02:18:47 pm
Ah Freedom....your reports are perfect you would have us believe.  Someone else writes a report, seemly contradicting your claims and what to you say?

"I'LL try and help correct you when I get time."

You throw up a bunch of unrelated numbers as if they mean something, yet ignore the orginal report.

If you have a beef go at it.  Take each item in Keith's report, state it in it's whole, then show how it is incorrect.

But please don't take a few words out of context and pretend you are refuting what the report says.

Anything short of this is just blowing smoke, and I'm hopeful that other porcupines can see this.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: johnadams on August 23, 2003, 02:26:31 pm
....HOW DIFFICULT IT WOULD BE TO MOVE 20,000 Porcupines into Wyoming, one of the flaws in this project, in my opinion. ....


Your candor and honesty are refreshing, Exitus. I agree with you that using a single project and trying to make it a one-size-fits-all-states is a weakness in the plan and a cause of much of the disagreement in these fora. WY and NH, for example, are so different that a project in one state would optimally be very different from a project in the other. This is one factor that led me to conclude that a FSP-FCP combination would be best. That is, I think there could be a large, Free State Project in NH, and a smaller, Free County Project in WY (and perhaps ID and/or MT). It would solve most of the problems AND most of the arguments.

Of course, if most people decide to wait until 20,000 have signed up, then things could change during that time, but I don't think we want to hit WY with 20,000 people over a span of just 5 years or so even if the economy improves there. I think we could be itchin' for trouble if we do that. :) On the bright side, my guess is that not that many people would want to move to WY anyway, but I may be wrong.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Number_6 on August 24, 2003, 08:17:55 am
The WY factor that concerns me the most is the us-vs.-them attitude towards newcomers.  The only evidence we have is anecdotal, but it suggests that the FSP might well encounter a cool reception, if not outright hostility.

In fairness, clannish attitudes can be found in the East as well.  New residents of ME are still "from away," and not even everyone in NH is receptive to the FSP.

This mindset can expressed with MarshRobert's hypothetical statement that "you can come, but know, in advance, that we don't take easily to strangers, to be accepted in our state you need to earn your spurs first."  Some individual Wyomingites expressed themselves more bluntly than that.

If this point of view is widespread and WY is chosen, it would cost the Project the time it would take to become accepted.  It might take years.  This would be time irretrievably lost, which could have been spent doing the Project's work.

Do Porcupines have enough time to spend on something like this?  I have a shorter time horizon than those of you in your 20's and 30's.  I am almost 50, and I don't have the time to wait for the years it might take to graduate from "outsider" to "one of us."  I want the rest of my life to count for something.  I don't want to waste a major part of it just trying to meet arbitrary and unnecessary standards.

In the wake of the federal government's post-9/11 attacks on our liberty, the Project doesn't have the time to wait either.

If the citizens of Wyoming want us to stay the heck out of their state, let's be smart enough to know when we're not wanted.  There are nine other candidates to choose from, and the Project can make its home in one of those states.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Radar on August 24, 2003, 11:01:53 am
Keith, like most NH supporters, has listed a bunch of lies, half-truths, and misleading distortions about Wyoming.  It would be irresponsible and biased for the FSP to post this as though it were truth.  But then again the FSP did allow 2 pages full of the same type of lies into our voting packages.  
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on August 24, 2003, 11:12:27 am
Keith, like most NH supporters, has listed a bunch of lies, half-truths, and misleading distortions about Wyoming.  It would be irresponsible and biased for the FSP to post this as though it were truth.  But then again the FSP did allow 2 pages full of the same type of lies into our voting packages.  

Okay, folks.  On one side, we have Keith who makes an effort to document his claims, provides links and quotes, and makes no personal attack.  On the other, Radar launches a hostile attack, backs it up with no references or facts, and then scuttles away.

Can we please get some indication that these folks will not be hamstringing the FSP when the state choice is made?  How difficult will it be to work with the natives when our PORCUPINE allies are like this?  I used to think it was a bad idea, but every time I see the vitriol and amateurishness like we have here in Radar's post, I become more grateful for the opt out section of the statement of intent.  I didn't opt out of any states, but I can certainly hope that Radar and his/her ilk did and won't handicap the rest of us who plan on making a difference.  We are doomed to failure with "help" like this.

Bruce
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Radar on August 24, 2003, 11:56:13 am
Bruce, I could care less about you or your opinions.  I want the FSP to work and it will never work in New Hampshire, PERIOD.  Those who tell lies, spread misinformation, and distort the truth in an effort to mislead people into supporting New Hampshire are the ones who will "hamstring" our efforts and will make us all look badly.

Since you haven't opted out of any states, you should plan to move west now, because that's the way it's going to be.  I haven't opted out of any states other than the worst one....New Hampshire.

Hopefully we don't have many like you who will work to the detriment of the FSP instead of the success of it.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on August 24, 2003, 12:00:30 pm
Case closed.  ::)

With Radar's tactics, we'll be booted out of any western state before the engines cool off.  It will certainly be funny to watch the people who actually have some experience, know-how, and initiative pull an "Atlas Shrugged" because they won't be able to stomach doing all the work to free people like this.  I love it!    ;D

Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 24, 2003, 12:02:30 pm
The following is a post to the FSP Yahoo Group by Captain H. Bruce Hartgers.  It explains how many people in that group think of Keith Murphy and some of the others in the Pro-NH group.

"Keith;

Why do you always go into personal attack mode when someone dares make comments positive for States other than New Hampshire.

Lets cite some samples of your venom from just this one posting which was rather innocuous and only putting forth "ZionCurtain's" views;

"Gee, this wouldn't be the same ZionCurtain that was banned from the forum by Jason for being obnoxious and totally irrational, would it? "
"If that's an example of the type of "liberty activist" Utah has to offer, then I'm very glad Utah isn't on the list of candidate states."

What is it with you?

You often seem a reasonable man, an intelligent man, a man with a keen understanding of our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights; but when anything challenging New Hampshire is posted you go `ape'.

Yes  the stakes are high here higher than some might realize.  Once the free state is chosen, only a few days from now, the die is cast.  And many of us, all of us, will have the rest of our lives affected.  But the tactics of your pro-NH team are frequently downright ugly.  

Even if New Hampshire was good for the FSP, which in my opinion it isn't  (I will be posting my regrets on this shortly, for indeed there is much to be said for New Hampshire, I , myself chose it for my personal `Free State' thirty years ago), Those most strongly advocating New Hampshire, yourself, Morgan, Lars, Amanda and too many other mudslingers have lowered New Hampshire rather than raised it for consideration.

I certainly hope your behaviour improves after the State is chosen, for even if New Hampshire, you will make a bad smell in the nose of those who I know as natives there.

Captain H. Bruce Hartgers"
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Radar on August 24, 2003, 12:09:20 pm
Quote
It will certainly be funny to watch the people who actually have some experience, know-how, and initiative pull an "Atlas Shrugged" because they won't be able to stomach doing all the work to free people like this.

I AM among those with experience, know-how, dedication, and initiative to pull off an Atlas Shrugged, and you are among those who are unworthy of the freedom that I will provide for you.  

You are a great player for the side of statism but never-the-less, we'll rise above the likes of you to succeed as long as we don't choose New Hampshire and surround ourselves with you and your ilk.

Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on August 24, 2003, 12:15:00 pm
Gotcha, I think.  Mouth-foaming insults, wild-eyed accusations, and panicked arm-waving win elections in the west.   8)

Ok, success, here we come!!!   :D

When you're ready to grow up, Pee-Tee, let's talk.  'Til then, keep helping me.  Rational people will run from you.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Radar on August 24, 2003, 12:22:12 pm
What would you know of rational people since you don't qualify as one yourself?  I on the other hand am a rational, logical, intelligent, reasonable, and brave man who will fight for the success of the FSP even against enemies of freedom within it such as you.  I will make sure the project meets its goals.  Rational and intelligent people who genuinely want the FSP to succeed are already with me and see through the misleading, tricks and lies of the NH supporters.  

Now move along little boy and let the grown-ups talk.  We've got work to do building freedom despite termites like yourself gnawing away at it.

Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: johnadams on August 24, 2003, 12:26:09 pm
OK, the heat's rising again, I hope everyone will take a break and cool off a bit. Raising concerns about states is OK, but personal insults are not, in my humble view.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: jgmaynard on August 24, 2003, 12:28:03 pm
Congratulations, Radar/Racecar, you just managed to outdo even yourself.

I've met Bruce personally, and he is a rational, intellligent, strong individual. He is careful, intelligent, successful, and a credit to the Free State Project.

I will be proud to work alongside him, and Keith, and Michelle, and many others, including most western advocates, as we work toward creating the first free state.

JM
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on August 24, 2003, 12:37:29 pm
Thanks, Jim!  I feel the same about you guys, wherever we end up.  

Radar doesn't upset me.  He/she is at most amusing.

(edited:  I forgot that Radar is PT.)

Maynard in '03!

Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Radar on August 24, 2003, 12:52:04 pm
Yes Maynard, good luck in your election.  It will be nice to have someone fighting for freedom in a statist run state like New Hampshire while the rest of us are out west in the Free State.  

If elected, will you leave your office to move to the Free State or will you wait until after your term has ended?
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 24, 2003, 01:10:33 pm
"Hopefully we don't have many like you who will work to the detriment of the FSP instead of the success of it."

Ah Radar you are nothing if not predictable ;D  

Attack everyone who does not agree with you!  Spoken as a true believer in Freedom! ;D

BTW Bruce lives in TX, me in PA, and I consider Bruce my friend, and fellow believer in Freedom in our Lifetime!  Think we will be well served having friends like Bruce in our coming fight!
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 24, 2003, 02:19:43 pm
The WY factor that concerns me the most is the us-vs.-them attitude towards newcomers.  The only evidence we have is anecdotal, but it suggests that the FSP might well encounter a cool reception, if not outright hostility.

In fairness, clannish attitudes can be found in the East as well.  New residents of ME are still "from away," and not even everyone in NH is receptive to the FSP.

This mindset can expressed with MarshRobert's hypothetical statement that "you can come, but know, in advance, that we don't take easily to strangers, to be accepted in our state you need to earn your spurs first."  Some individual Wyomingites expressed themselves more bluntly than that.

If this point of view is widespread and WY is chosen, it would cost the Project the time it would take to become accepted.  It might take years.  This would be time irretrievably lost, which could have been spent doing the Project's work.

Do Porcupines have enough time to spend on something like this?  I have a shorter time horizon than those of you in your 20's and 30's.  I am almost 50, and I don't have the time to wait for the years it might take to graduate from "outsider" to "one of us."  I want the rest of my life to count for something.  I don't want to waste a major part of it just trying to meet arbitrary and unnecessary standards.

In the wake of the federal government's post-9/11 attacks on our liberty, the Project doesn't have the time to wait either.

If the citizens of Wyoming want us to stay the heck out of their state, let's be smart enough to know when we're not wanted.  There are nine other candidates to choose from, and the Project can make its home in one of those states.


I am very much in agreement with your thoughts, and have several years on you too! ;D  I read the mission statement, "Liberty in our Lifetime!" I'm thinking great, MY LIFETIME!!!  Great I'm in!  Let's have at it!

My fear is that if we have to wait 10 years, my thoughts will be more directed ot my favorite fishin hole than Freedom!
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Kelton on August 24, 2003, 04:32:22 pm
New Hampshire was the first state to pass meaningful smoking regulations in the nation,

Not sure where you got this, Exitus. ONLY Keene (despite my best efforts  :-\) and Colebrook have smoking ordinances, and the NH Supremem Court just struck down (at least) Colebrook's....
http://www.theunionleader.com/Articles_show.html?article=25185&archive=1


I was only looking at a graph, this one:

http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/map_301.html#1991
Though I actually heard that California was the first to do so from another location.  
This map shows the "progress" of anti-smoking laws in 2000:
http://www.lungusa.org/tobacco/map_301.html#2000

Of course, these maps are greatly over-simplified.  This whole topic was actually looked at much more in-depth on the "litmus -test for liberty" thread.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: jgmaynard on August 24, 2003, 05:58:19 pm
If elected, will you leave your office to move to the Free State or will you wait until after your term has ended?

If we are short-sighted enough to pick another state besides New Hampshire, and I am fortunate enough to be elected this November, I will go to the chosen state some time after my two-year term. Then, I personally will have even more real-world experience.

JM
Title: Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Galt on August 24, 2003, 07:00:16 pm
This thread is in direct response to the thread with a similar title started by Keith Murphy.  Though I've tried to stay out of this debate, just posting the following quote which I entirely and totally agree with will earn me at least a few dozen negative Karma points within 24 hours. To the New Hampshire cheerleading team and their fans. Hurry and get it over with. Max it out at minus 127.

I too have gotten sick and tired of the political song and dance coming out of some of the New Hampshire team. They really do regard any least criticism of New Hampshire as an outright attack to which they respond with every last straw and ball of mud they can put together and throw.

I've had it.
Anything written by some of them is immediately as suspect as any statement from Bill Clinton. They could quote the population of New Hampshire and I would automatically assume the numbers were fudged somehow. I'd have to check the Census to make sure.

To you vehement New Hampshire proponents and specifically Karl Beisel, Keith Murphy, libertarian40, johnadams, Michelle, jgmaynard, marshrobert, S. Coven, Bruce_Morgan, Tony Stelik and several others.
You have earned the label of "politician".

Because of the tactics you have used and the tactics others have had to resort to in order to have a chance against your tactics and your caustic attacks of those tactics which are no worse and a darn sight better than your tactics, again, I've had it.

There is no way I'd move to a state with a bunch of James Carvilles running the LP opposition.
Opposition? ???
Yes. Because I assume your tactics will not change.
Anyone who doesn't do as you want, doesn't agree with you, will be undermined, discredited, character assasinated, scourged, pilloried, and crucified.

Your tactics will make it ever so much more difficult if not impossible to build a good, trustworthy reputation among the residents of the chosen state.  They too will develop the perspective described below and paint all of us with it.

No, thank you.
I want nothing to do with those tactics or those who use them or a state FSP effort run by those who use such tactics against any and all who disagree with them whether friend, ally, or foe.

Even if another state besides NH is picked, the NH people will not leave us in peace. They will do what they can to undermine the efforts of those in other states while they continue to recruit people for a NH effort.

In the following quote I delete the author who orginally posted it because it makes no difference. I agree with the quote.

The following is a post to the FSP Yahoo Group by Captain H. Bruce Hartgers.  It explains how many people in that group think of Keith Murphy and some of the others in the Pro-NH group.

"Keith;

Why do you always go into personal attack mode when someone dares make comments positive for States other than New Hampshire.

Lets cite some samples of your venom from just this one posting which was rather innocuous and only putting forth "ZionCurtain's" views;

"Gee, this wouldn't be the same ZionCurtain that was banned from the forum by Jason for being obnoxious and totally irrational, would it? "
"If that's an example of the type of "liberty activist" Utah has to offer, then I'm very glad Utah isn't on the list of candidate states."

What is it with you?

You often seem a reasonable man, an intelligent man, a man with a keen understanding of our beloved Constitution and Bill of Rights; but when anything challenging New Hampshire is posted you go `ape'.

Yes  the stakes are high here higher than some might realize.  Once the free state is chosen, only a few days from now, the die is cast.  And many of us, all of us, will have the rest of our lives affected.  But the tactics of your pro-NH team are frequently downright ugly.  

Even if New Hampshire was good for the FSP, which in my opinion it isn't  (I will be posting my regrets on this shortly, for indeed there is much to be said for New Hampshire, I , myself chose it for my personal `Free State' thirty years ago), Those most strongly advocating New Hampshire, yourself, Morgan, Lars, Amanda and too many other mudslingers have lowered New Hampshire rather than raised it for consideration.

I certainly hope your behaviour improves after the State is chosen, for even if New Hampshire, you will make a bad smell in the nose of those who I know as natives there.

Captain H. Bruce Hartgers"

P.S.
This likely will be my last post because I will shortly be banned for saying what I believe is the truth.
Thus I've deleted all my posts except this and a few others.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Sean Coven on August 24, 2003, 07:31:47 pm
...

John, you didn't list a single reason why New Hampshire shouldn't be chosen.

If you consider yourself better then the pro-NH crowd the least you can do is not stoop to what you perceive as being "our tactics" by throwing a temper tantrum and taking every perceived rebuttal and counter-argument as a slight to your own dignity.

I've not been here long but I haven't seen much in the way of rabid indignation from anyone, whether they be pro-NH, pro-AK, pro-WY, or whatever. There are exceptions, but they're few and far between. Every state has their dickwads, and two of the most vitriolic I've seen are pro-WY. I don't take it to mean "Rawr, WY must suck because a small minority of people who support it (but don't necessarily live there!) are somewhat rude to me!" WY still ranks fairly high on my list.

Really, man... shoddy post.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: JonM on August 24, 2003, 08:06:53 pm
Bruce, I could care less about you or your opinions.  I want the FSP to work and it will never work in New Hampshire, PERIOD.  Those who tell lies, spread misinformation, and distort the truth in an effort to mislead people into supporting New Hampshire are the ones who will "hamstring" our efforts and will make us all look badly.

Since you haven't opted out of any states, you should plan to move west now, because that's the way it's going to be.  I haven't opted out of any states other than the worst one....New Hampshire.

Hopefully we don't have many like you who will work to the detriment of the FSP instead of the success of it.
How exactly is it the worst possible choice?
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Muleskinner on August 24, 2003, 09:44:19 pm
John, you didn't list a single reason why New Hampshire shouldn't be chosen.

Yes he did.
Quote
Your tactics will make it ever so much more difficult if not impossible to build a good, trustworthy reputation among the residents of the chosen state.  They too will develop the perspective described below and paint all of us with it.
He was giving New Hampshire voters a compliment. He was saying they would see through such political shenanigans.  If not, then that is even worse.

You want a single word?

Politics!
(of the worst scheming, lying, conniving, and doubletalking hyperbole)
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: kbarrett on August 24, 2003, 10:02:20 pm
Ermmmmm....

Politics is what this project is about, remember?


I am also disgusted by the things that majoritarianism requires ....  but it is how policy is made in the US .... if we are to cut the State down to size by methods other than violent, then we had better damned well learn politics.


The hampsters' politicking in the "Which State?" forum is NOTHING compared to the crap we'll see when we try to make real changes.

Remember that. Compared to the average US politician, the folks you are complaining about will seem like your best friends.

This vote will be over soon enough. Decide what you want to do after that .

Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on August 24, 2003, 10:10:45 pm
kb,

You speak with much wisdom.  Alaska was ranked very highly on my ballot, by the way, in part because of the positive activism you have demonstrated.  You have just re-affirmed my decision (good thing since the ballot has already been mailed!)

Bruce
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: kbarrett on August 24, 2003, 10:14:34 pm
kb,

You speak with much wisdom.  Alaska was ranked very highly on my ballot, by the way, in part because of the positive activism you have demonstrated.  You have just re-affirmed my decision (good thing since the ballot has already been mailed!)

Bruce

Heh.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Elizabeth on August 24, 2003, 10:38:59 pm
P.S.
This likely will be my last post because I will shortly be banned for saying what I believe is the truth.
Thus I've deleted all my posts except this and a few others.

What do you think you have said that has violated the guidelines?  I don't see anything...
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Robert H. on August 24, 2003, 11:11:56 pm
Before going any further, let me say that I've struggled a great deal with this issue over time, and I'm choosing my words here with as much thought and moderation as I can.

I'm not a confrontational person by nature.  I tend to be more laid back and easy-going, and I have good self-control, but, like anyone else, I have my limits as well.  There have been times when I've chosen to drop something rather than press further with it because I didn't want to convey the idea that I was just being combative or hostile.  Other times, I felt that further contention would only be destructive.  Silence can indeed be golden; however, as a gentleman I once knew used to say, there are also times when it's just plain yellow.

I thought of responding to the particulars brought up in this recent article by Keith Murphy, but I'm under the influence of an overwhelming sense of "why bother?"  I, as well as others here whom you all would recognize, have responded to such criticisms time and time again.  At the very least, we have demonstrated that arguments raised, particularly against Wyoming, by the New Hampshire contingent on this board are very thin.  Most of them are highly selective in their scope, and distorted in their presentation.

I'll give you one example here.  Wyoming's former candidate for governor, Dave Dawson, remarked that he thought the FSP was a good idea but felt that Wyoming was not as "independent minded" as some people think.  The LPNH has seized this quote and used it liberally.  They've even included it in New Hampshire's presentation that was sent out with the FSP voting packets.

A few things here though:



This is just one example.  For others, you can search the discussions that have taken place on this forum as well as the e-mail discussion groups.  Consider how some of the arguments against New Hampshire have been treated by NH advocates, and then imagine how they would respond were the same arguments being used against Wyoming were used against NH as well.  This will give you some additional insight into how thin the arguments really are.  Consider the NH property tax - one of the highest in the nation.  They say that this is a good thing because it will rally people behind an effort for change.  Potentially, yes.  Yet, any Wyoming negative is apparently an insurmountable, reprehensible negative with no such potential.

Yes, Wyoming has its problems.  But attempting to portray it as an ugly, closed-minded, pro big-government state is as ludicrous as trying to maintain that the above article is anything more than a New Hampshire propaganda piece.  Bear in mind that it was written by a person who is deeply involved in heading up the LPNH's political strategy for 2004.

And I loved that comment about the Wyoming "hype," Michelle.  As though you don't "hype" New Hampshire.

Another issue - welcoming the FSP.

We're told that people in Wyoming must hate politics.  From what I know of them, and western culture in general, I disagree.  They hate what we've come to call politics-as-usual: the smear-campaigns, the back-room plotting, the manipulation, the mud-slinging, the distortions of reality, the condescension.  New Hampshire supporters apparently look upon politics as a game and a way of life.  If you don't eat, sleep, and breathe politics, you must not care about it.  

People out West tend to see it otherwise.  They look at it as a necessary evil, and upon those who seek its power as deserving scrutiny for the mischief they can create and the self-advancement they can pursue at the expense of others.  They've seen their share of sell-outs, carpetbaggers, and others bent on going out West and setting themselves us as a sort of self-anointed aristocracy based on their high-level connections in the political world of places hundreds or thousands of miles distant.  They look upon politics and politicians with a skeptical eye for a very good reason - because they've never been given much reason not to!  
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Robert H. on August 24, 2003, 11:13:06 pm
A people who will be free, who, in fact, deserve freedom is a people willing to look at someone who seeks power and ask the question: "Why?"  It is a people who will ask the questions: "When so many others seek power only for themselves, how are you any different?"  "What do you know of life here?"  "Why should we trust you?"  This is a commanding strength because it demonstrates a highly vigilant people: a people who are more likely to maintain what they have because they guard it as jealously as possible.  

And yet, New Hampshire supporters demand that the FSP only consider places where the people apparently don't have enough discernment to openly question the arrival of thousands of unknowns within their borders, people bringing with them ideas of how to GOVERN THE STATE they live in!  Is that not an aim worthy of at least some degree of scrutiny?
 
They portray this common sense reaction as hostile, and hint that it indicates that the people are not very liberty-friendly at all, partially for this reason.  Are New Hampshire residents really that uncaring about their heritage, culture, and way of life that they would simply turn it over to a group of strangers with a smile and say, "have at it"?  We've heard very little from the people of New Hampshire themselves, mostly just a few of their politicians who apparently want reinforcements in an increasingly statist New England.
 
This is political gamesmanship.  Wyoming has actually been one of the friendliest states toward us, and yet, at the same time, it has shown that people are going to want to know what we're all about, and see some evidence of it, before they hand the reigns of the team over to us and let us drive.  I don't know why some people seem to think that is so unreasonable of them.  They treat the people of Wyoming as if to say, "Swallow this pill," and if they don't jump up and down and yell, "Okay!", they're somehow suspect, probably not liberty-friendly or welcoming.
 
Good grief.  Are you looking to preside over a state full of sheep?
 
This is politics-as-usual, political gamesmanship, and I hope at least some in the FSP can see it.  I believe that we cannot practice politics-as-usual though, and succeed.  The people have Republicans and Democrats for that.  Why do they need another group out there trying to give them what they already have?  We should become politically savvy, but not in the politics-as-usual fashion.  There is a difference between the two.  Offer the people something different and we'll win support we might never get otherwise.

I've invested a lot of time and effort here, and I've enjoyed interacting with most forum participants.  At this point though, as so many have already pointed out, things have really begun to degenerate.  I suggested to Elizabeth that this forum should remain open as a free sample of what people can expect to deal with in the real world, and I still think that this is the case.  Yet, personally, I feel that most of the potential for productive conversation has passed us by, tempers are increasingly short, and I want this post to be the most negative thing I ever say about fellow FSP'ers here.

I have no desire to make an enemy of anyone, but I believe these things need to be said.  What we're dealing with here is too monumentally important for it go unsaid, and I've tried to do that in my own diplomatic and bumbling way.  I wish that a more capable man were writting this.

I'll support the FSP wherever it goes although if New Hampshire wins the vote, I'm really going to have to do some soul-searching as to whether I would move there and become politically active.  The leadership of the FSP will pass into the hands of those already established in the chosen state, and the attitude and methodology of the LPNH concerns me on several levels.  This does not mean that I don't respect them individually, or think that they are insincere in their zeal for New Hampshire.  It means just how it reads; it concerns me.  It rubs me the wrong way.  Maybe this is just how New Hampshire politics works.  Maybe it's just me.

If the majority of FSP'ers identify most with this approach though, then maybe they're better off in New Hampshire where they can best facilitate it.  There is certainly a cultural, ideological division over some fundamental issues in the FSP, and I don't believe that this necessarily means that either side is wrong, just that they're different.  Contrary to what we like to say in this country, we are not one people.  We do not think alike, or act alike, and our divisions here are a microcosmic representation of that reality.  What may work in one state may not work in another; they're all different in some ways, and most of them have some sort of regional flavoring as well.

This may be my last post here.  I'm definitely finished with the Wyoming vs New Hampshire debate, as I don't believe anything constructive remains to be said there.  As I also indicated, I have no desire to get caught up in anything more negative than this one post.  Whatever we do, we cannot make enemies of one another; we have enough of those already.

I'll still update the State Question at a Glance thread until the vote occurs and this particular board is locked.  I'm only doing it by request right now though, due to time constraints, so if you want to see any threads added, you'll need to IM me.  
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 25, 2003, 12:01:30 am
John,

While I respect you thoughts and opinions, I do thank you for including me among those who support NH.

While I hesitate to speak for anyone but myself, I do know that the folks who support NH have done there best to present the positive thing that are happening in NH and ignore the insults that have been throw at us.  The statements that have been made against us, have no basis in fact.  Let me tell you my friend sometimes it is really hard to deal with folks like you that just throw up mud then disappear.  If your thoughts have a basis in fact then state those facts.

Can you deny all the positive accomplishment that have happened in NH?  A governor who supports us, 2 porc's in the legislature, and all the positive press out of NH.  Should we be labled as politicians, because we are trying to do what our mission statement says, "work through the existing political system to initiate change?"  If that is the case, then do you have a better idea?  Please tell us!

I must take issue with one thing you said:

"Even if another state besides NH is picked, the NH people will not leave us in peace. They will do what they can to undermine the efforts of those in other states while they continue to recruit people for a NH effort."

Were did this come from John?  Perhaps you missed the post of NH supporters who have not opted out of any state and have pledged to go where ever!  If you can show any post or thread were anyone who supports NH has said anthing like this please post it.

But please remember my friend that when this vote is over we will all be together, working to promote the state that the porcupines believe is the best state to accomplish our goals. Get the feeling you don't support NH, well then show me why I shouldn't and show me why I should support your state.  And if it is not to much to ask tell me how we can create a Free State in your chose state.  The time is short my friend, and the task is difficult.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: johnadams on August 25, 2003, 02:39:33 am
....I'm not a confrontational person by nature.  I tend to be more laid back and easy-going, and I have good self-control, but, like anyone else, I have my limits as well.  ....

I thought of responding to the particulars brought up in this recent article by Keith Murphy, but I'm under the influence of an overwhelming sense of "why bother?"  I, as well as others here whom you all would recognize, have responded to such criticisms time and time again.  ....
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and for trying to follow the path of moderation, Robert, but if you find Keith Murphy's posts so upsetting then you must find Radar and EMOR's posts downright disturbing. Yes, Keith used some exaggerated wording, but his posts are mild compared to Radar and EMOR's and some others around here. There have been polite and impolite posts from both sides of the WY-NH debate (including a few posts I went overboard in and have since edited to correct that). To pretend that the impolite ones have only come from NH is disingenuous, and to behave as though anyone might buy this implication insults their intelligence.

Good day to you sir.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: RidleyReport on August 25, 2003, 03:42:37 am
FreedomRoad wrote:

<<With all due respect, Wyoming it known to be one of the nicest looking states in the country.>>

FR is right on this point, guys, the place is so beautiful and the dry climate is so seductive that my heart aches at the possiblity of not living there.  And I've only been to the less-pretty parts of the state!

I've had to back NH because of other reasons, but the natural beauty in Wyoming will be hard to pass up if NH wins.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: RidleyReport on August 25, 2003, 04:08:36 am
Guys for Freedom's sake, enough of the personal attacks!  

You all know who you are who have done it, and you all know I will probably bend over backwards until my spine snaps to avoid censoring you in my moderator role.

You should understand these childish barrages do harm to your good friend Dada, to the FSP and to the causes you believe in.  Stop and think what you are doing.

The enemy is, generally, not on this forum.  He is busily scurrying to his office at the Southern pro-Poverty Law Center.  He is planning a budget proposal for the National Against Space Administration. He is organizing a National Education Assasination rally.  And he is laughing whenever he sees *you* fighting each other like children.  Make him stop laughing.  Focus your anger on him, not on your brothers in Liberty.  

If there is a factual error on this forum, correct it.  A bad idea?  Fight it.  But please, as a favor to me:  Don't fight each other this way.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: johnadams on August 25, 2003, 04:09:07 am
...the dry climate is so seductive that my heart aches at the possiblity of not living there.  ....
I like the feel of dry, crisp air, but as I've gotten older I've developed a tendency toward dry sking and hangnails and my throat has a tendency to get irritated in dry weather. I have to use a humidifier for the dry days even here in MA (I found this to be much more effective and easier than drinking tons of water). Now I think I understand why so many older folks like warm and humid Florida. I've been to Florida. If the Westerners think NE is humid, they should go to Florida. Crackers don't get dry and crumbly there when they get old, like they do here--they get mushy!
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Robert H. on August 25, 2003, 04:21:30 am
There have been polite and impolite posts from both sides of the WY-NH debate (including a few posts I went overboard in and have since edited to correct that). To pretend that the impolite ones have only come from NH is disingenuous, and to behave as though anyone might buy this implication insults their intelligence.

Question: When did I suggest that the only impolite posts here have come from NH?  
Answer: I didn't.  You invented that.

Question: Was I talking about EMOR and/or Radar in these posts?
Answer: No

Question: Do EMOR and Radar represent personalities likely to lead the FSP effort in the chosen state, or to take Jason's place as president?
Answer: Not likely.  The LPNH is a different story.

Conclusion:  I fully expect that some will have me burned in effigy for what I've written here, but, if you're going to take me to task, do it for things I've actually said.   ;)
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: johnadams on August 25, 2003, 05:50:44 am
Quote
Robert wrote: Question: When did I suggest that the only impolite posts here have come from NH?  
Answer: I didn't.  You invented that.

I wasn’t trying to invent anything, Robert—I was trying to use a single term to cover all the charges that you made in your post. Perhaps “impolite” was not the best term to use. Perhaps “immoderate” would have been a better choice? I shall amend my post forthwith to use what I hope is a more accurate umbrella term. If you have a better one to suggest, by all means do so, but please don’t just accuse me of inventing without giving me the information I need to know to avoid giving that impression.

Let’s review some of the charges and characterizations you’ve made or seemingly implied (if you would like to clarify your statements and indicate that you don’t intend to make any of these charges, please feel free to do so):

•   Responding to Keith’s post with “moderation” would apparently be “yellow.”
•   Keith Murphy and the "NH contingent" have raised “very thin,” “selective,” and “distorted” arguments.
•   The LPNH has misused Dawson’s quote to indicate that “there is no support for the LP in Wyoming,” despite the fact that the LPNH “knows” the quote does not indicate this. “This is deliberately misleading and manipulative” and “This is clearly false, and they know it.”
•   “Bear in mind that it was written by a person who is deeply involved in heading up the LPNH's political strategy for 2004” seemingly implies intentionally misleading propagandizing on the part of Keith Murphy.
•   Michelle engages in "hype" for New Hampshire.

What do you feel these charges indicate is the general tenor of the posts from the "NH contingent"?

Quote
Question: Do EMOR and Radar represent personalities likely to lead the FSP effort in the chosen state, or to take Jason's place as president?
Answer: Not likely.  The LPNH is a different story.

Firstly, why not ask questions of me instead of yourself to improve communications? Secondly, I didn’t say that EMOR and Radar “represent personalities likely to lead the FSP effort in the chosen state, or to take Jason's place as president.” Thirdly, this is a new argument you did not make in your earlier post. Since when are the phrases “the New Hampshire contingent on this board,” “the NH advocates” and “New Hampshire supporters” restricted to just the “personalities likely to lead the FSP effort in the chosen state, or to take Jason’s place as president?” When most people have been speaking about a NH or WY contingent or advocates in this forum they seem to indicate ALL the supporters and that is what broad terms like “contingent” and “advocates” generally imply. If you only meant the leaders then you should say so. Are you only criticizing Keith and the LPNH leaders who have posted here, or do you mean the “New Hampshire contingent on this board” and “NH advocates”?

Quote
Conclusion:  You've acted disingenuously yourself by attributing things to me that I never stated, and you've insulted the intelligence of readers here yourself by assuming that EMOR and Radar should be considered in the same category as the LPNH.

That is false. I never said that “EMOR and Radar should be considered in the same category as the LPNH.” I acted honestly and forthrightly and have made what I hope is an improvement on my choice of one word. This post of yours nit-picks at the fact that you didn’t literally say “impolite.” That is hardly a strong argument that I acted disingenuously. On the contrary, your post seems to be yet another case of disingenuous argument--I certainly hope that is not the case.

I find your last two posts reprehensible and on the edge of deserving a warning from the moderator (speaking of restraining, I have had to restrain myself from reporting these posts to the moderator). Please cease this line and style of attack or I may reconsider. I encourage you to point out where statements are exaggerated or errant, but I also encourage you to return to trying to follow a more moderate and self-controlled course, in the interests of productive discussion.

Quote
....if you're going to take me to task, do it for things I've actually said.
That was what I was trying to do in as restrained and honest a manner as I could. Any indication otherwise is a result of misunderstanding rather than intentional misdeeds on my part, I can assure you.

Despite our disagreement I offer good wishes to you dear sir. I look forward to what I hope will be a return to your efforts to uphold a more moderate tenor in the very near future.

Peace. :)
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 25, 2003, 08:57:19 am
Keith, like most NH supporters, has listed a bunch of lies, half-truths, and misleading distortions about Wyoming.  It would be irresponsible and biased for the FSP to post this as though it were truth.  But then again the FSP did allow 2 pages full of the same type of lies into our voting packages.  
It would be greatly appreciated if you point to particular lies and rebute them one by one. Could you do it?
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Galt on August 25, 2003, 09:16:53 am
Elizabeth.
I assume that anyone who doubts New Hampshire is persona non grata here.  I believe the New Hampshire contingent has successfully intimidated most of the backers of other states into remaining silent for fear of being lambasted by the tactics I mention above.  Yes, this bodes ill for the future of the Free State.

To johnadams:
In your first paragraph you make several accusations which the New Hampshire advocates are even guiltier of than nearly anyone else here.  You accuse me of slinging mud yet you and your allies have too often done even worse than the advocates of other states.

I may disappear from these arguments because defense of my words has been repeatedly made on many discussion threads throughout this forum. Yet your partners continue.  Like I said above. I've had it with the sort of tactics practiced by most of the New Hampshire advocates.

You state:
Quote
Were did this come from John?  Perhaps you missed the post of NH supporters who have not opted out of any state and have pledged to go where ever!
Yeah, right.  That statement has no more credence that many of the rest of  your statements.  I doubt that you or your allies will leave your beloved New Hampshire. Those who don't already live there will move there and will do what they can to undermine the efforts of those in other states while they will continue to recruit people for a NH effort.

Quote
If you can show any post or thread were anyone who supports NH has said anthing like this please post it.
Murphy, Michelle, and Maynard and others of your allies asked the same question. Are you New Hampshire advocates that blind? Do you think we are blind? It is obvious in hundreds of posts of you all. You've resorted to any tactic to do exactly what you deny. I must assume you and your allies will continue.

You state:
Quote
Get the feeling you don't support NH, well then show me why I shouldn't and show me why I should support your state.
Murphy, Michelle, and Maynard and others of your allies asked the same question. Again. Are you blind? That has been done with hundreds of posts by many posters. I could prove to you the case as solidly as the case for the earth being round, yet you would only discount such arguments as "baseless New Hampshire bashing".  No, this argument is over. It's no use talking with you or your allies any more. Neither is it any use to listen to you or your James Carville breed of allies.

You ask:
Quote
But please remember my friend that when this vote is over we will all be together, working to promote the state that the porcupines believe is the best state to accomplish our goals.
First:
I am not your friend. You destroyed any chance of that with the insults and accusations you've leveled at the more honest, hardworking and straightforward people here who I would more rather regard as my friends.
Second:
Too many of New Hampshire's advocates have shown they will NOT honestly work together with those who disagree with them.  Because I assume your collective tactics will not change I assume that anyone who doesn't do as you want, doesn't agree with you, will be undermined, discredited, character assasinated, insulted, lied about, and be subjected to the same tactics repeatedly displayed these last several months here. Again. I've had it!

No doubt you, feigning innocence, will ask "Why?"
It is because:
I can not trust you!
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Galt on August 25, 2003, 09:19:01 am
The following quotes put my argument far more eloquently than my strained patience is capable of.
Before going any further, let me say that I've struggled a great deal with this issue over time, and I'm choosing my words here with as much thought and moderation as I can.

I'm not a confrontational person by nature.  I tend to be more laid back and easy-going, and I have good self-control, but, like anyone else, I have my limits as well.  There have been times when I've chosen to drop something rather than press further with it because I didn't want to convey the idea that I was just being combative or hostile.  Other times, I felt that further contention would only be destructive.  Silence can indeed be golden; however, as a gentleman I once knew used to say, there are also times when it's just plain yellow.

I thought of responding to the particulars brought up in this recent article by Keith Murphy, but I'm under the influence of an overwhelming sense of "why bother?"  I, as well as others here whom you all would recognize, have responded to such criticisms time and time again.  At the very least, we have demonstrated that arguments raised, particularly against Wyoming, by the New Hampshire contingent on this board are very thin.  Most of them are highly selective in their scope, and distorted in their presentation.

I'll give you one example here.  Wyoming's former candidate for governor, Dave Dawson, remarked that he thought the FSP was a good idea but felt that Wyoming was not as "independent minded" as some people think.  The LPNH has seized this quote and used it liberally.  They've even included it in New Hampshire's presentation that was sent out with the FSP voting packets.

A few things here though:

  • Support for Dave Dawson does not necessarily indicate by itself whether Wyoming's people are independently-minded.  I think that there are other measurements that should be applied to ascertain this, and let's just say that Wyoming does not exactly have a conformist reputation.  Quite the opposite is true.
  • Dawson ran an unwise campaign when he boasted that he had not paid federal income tax, and most people are not going to back an affront to the federal government like that.  Dawson undoubtedly scared off quite a lot of potential support by doing so (he got many more votes when he ran for senator in 2000).  The LPNH knows this, as it has been pointed out numerous times, but they have chosen to ignore it, and are using Dawson's quote as an attempt to make it look like there is no support for the LP in Wyoming.  This is deliberately misleading and manipulative.
  • Dawson's quote is used to present the idea that the FSP is without support in Wyoming.  This is clearly false, and they know it.  Wyoming's press coverage has been more positive, although less voluminous, than New Hamsphire's - not a single negative op-ed piece has been done on us there, and not a single letter to the editor has been posted against us there (to date).  Keith Carlsen actually traveled to Wyoming and spoke with several political figures who indicate that they would welcome the FSP.  To find Wyomingites saying negative things about the FSP, they've had to resort to going into an anonymous internet chat room where no one's identity, age, level of understanding about politics or the FSP, and even location can be verified.


This is just one example.  For others, you can search the discussions that have taken place on this forum as well as the e-mail discussion groups.  Consider how some of the arguments against New Hampshire have been treated by NH advocates, and then imagine how they would respond were the same arguments being used against Wyoming were used against NH as well.  This will give you some additional insight into how thin the arguments really are.  Consider the NH property tax - one of the highest in the nation.  They say that this is a good thing because it will rally people behind an effort for change.  Potentially, yes.  Yet, any Wyoming negative is apparently an insurmountable, reprehensible negative with no such potential.

Yes, Wyoming has its problems.  But attempting to portray it as an ugly, closed-minded, pro big-government state is as ludicrous as trying to maintain that the above article is anything more than a New Hampshire propaganda piece.  Bear in mind that it was written by a person who is deeply involved in heading up the LPNH's political strategy for 2004.

And I loved that comment about the Wyoming "hype," Michelle.  As though you don't "hype" New Hampshire.

Another issue - welcoming the FSP.

We're told that people in Wyoming must hate politics.  From what I know of them, and western culture in general, I disagree.  They hate what we've come to call politics-as-usual: the smear-campaigns, the back-room plotting, the manipulation, the mud-slinging, the distortions of reality, the condescension.  New Hampshire supporters apparently look upon politics as a game and a way of life.  If you don't eat, sleep, and breathe politics, you must not care about it.  

People out West tend to see it otherwise.  They look at it as a necessary evil, and upon those who seek its power as deserving scrutiny for the mischief they can create and the self-advancement they can pursue at the expense of others.  They've seen their share of sell-outs, carpetbaggers, and others bent on going out West and setting themselves us as a sort of self-anointed aristocracy based on their high-level connections in the political world of places hundreds or thousands of miles distant.  They look upon politics and politicians with a skeptical eye for a very good reason - because they've never been given much reason not to!  
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Galt on August 25, 2003, 09:21:39 am
The following quote finishes my argument far more eloquently than my strained patience is capable of.

A people who will be free, who, in fact, deserve freedom is a people willing to look at someone who seeks power and ask the question: "Why?"  It is a people who will ask the questions: "When so many others seek power only for themselves, how are you any different?"  "What do you know of life here?"  "Why should we trust you?"  This is a commanding strength because it demonstrates a highly vigilant people: a people who are more likely to maintain what they have because they guard it as jealously as possible.  

And yet, New Hampshire supporters demand that the FSP only consider places where the people apparently don't have enough discernment to openly question the arrival of thousands of unknowns within their borders, people bringing with them ideas of how to GOVERN THE STATE they live in!  Is that not an aim worthy of at least some degree of scrutiny?
 
They portray this common sense reaction as hostile, and hint that it indicates that the people are not very liberty-friendly at all, partially for this reason.  Are New Hampshire residents really that uncaring about their heritage, culture, and way of life that they would simply turn it over to a group of strangers with a smile and say, "have at it"?  We've heard very little from the people of New Hampshire themselves, mostly just a few of their politicians who apparently want reinforcements in an increasingly statist New England.
 
This is political gamesmanship.  Wyoming has actually been one of the friendliest states toward us, and yet, at the same time, it has shown that people are going to want to know what we're all about, and see some evidence of it, before they hand the reigns of the team over to us and let us drive.  I don't know why some people seem to think that is so unreasonable of them.  They treat the people of Wyoming as if to say, "Swallow this pill," and if they don't jump up and down and yell, "Okay!", they're somehow suspect, probably not liberty-friendly or welcoming.
 
Good grief.  Are you looking to preside over a state full of sheep?
 
This is politics-as-usual, political gamesmanship, and I hope at least some in the FSP can see it.  I believe that we cannot practice politics-as-usual though, and succeed.  The people have Republicans and Democrats for that.  Why do they need another group out there trying to give them what they already have?  We should become politically savvy, but not in the politics-as-usual fashion.  There is a difference between the two.  Offer the people something different and we'll win support we might never get otherwise.

I've invested a lot of time and effort here, and I've enjoyed interacting with most forum participants.  At this point though, as so many have already pointed out, things have really begun to degenerate.  I suggested to Elizabeth that this forum should remain open as a free sample of what people can expect to deal with in the real world, and I still think that this is the case.  Yet, personally, I feel that most of the potential for productive conversation has passed us by, tempers are increasingly short, and I want this post to be the most negative thing I ever say about fellow FSP'ers here.

I have no desire to make an enemy of anyone, but I believe these things need to be said.  What we're dealing with here is too monumentally important for it go unsaid, and I've tried to do that in my own diplomatic and bumbling way.  I wish that a more capable man were writting this.

I'll support the FSP wherever it goes although if New Hampshire wins the vote, I'm really going to have to do some soul-searching as to whether I would move there and become politically active.  The leadership of the FSP will pass into the hands of those already established in the chosen state, and the attitude and methodology of the LPNH concerns me on several levels.  This does not mean that I don't respect them individually, or think that they are insincere in their zeal for New Hampshire.  It means just how it reads; it concerns me.  It rubs me the wrong way.  Maybe this is just how New Hampshire politics works.  Maybe it's just me.

If the majority of FSP'ers identify most with this approach though, then maybe they're better off in New Hampshire where they can best facilitate it.  There is certainly a cultural, ideological division over some fundamental issues in the FSP, and I don't believe that this necessarily means that either side is wrong, just that they're different.  Contrary to what we like to say in this country, we are not one people.  We do not think alike, or act alike, and our divisions here are a microcosmic representation of that reality.  What may work in one state may not work in another; they're all different in some ways, and most of them have some sort of regional flavoring as well.

This may be my last post here.  I'm definitely finished with the Wyoming vs New Hampshire debate, as I don't believe anything constructive remains to be said there.  As I also indicated, I have no desire to get caught up in anything more negative than this one post.  Whatever we do, we cannot make enemies of one another; we have enough of those already.

I'll still update the State Question at a Glance thread until the vote occurs and this particular board is locked.  I'm only doing it by request right now though, due to time constraints, so if you want to see any threads added, you'll need to IM me.  

Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Galt on August 25, 2003, 10:03:17 am
Keith, like most NH supporters, has listed a bunch of lies, half-truths, and misleading distortions about Wyoming.  It would be irresponsible and biased for the FSP to post this as though it were truth.  But then again the FSP did allow 2 pages full of the same type of lies into our voting packages.  
It would be greatly appreciated if you point to particular lies and rebute them one by one. Could you do it?
Murphy, Michelle, and Maynard and others of your allies asked the same question. Again. Are you blind? That has been done with hundreds of posts by many posters. I could prove to you the case as solidly as the case for the earth being round, yet you would only discount such arguments as "baseless New Hampshire bashing".  No, this argument is over. It's no use talking with you or your allies any more. Neither is it any use to listen to you or your James Carville breed of allies.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: EMOR on August 25, 2003, 10:06:47 am
John, I agree 100% with you. Hope you stick around.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Elizabeth on August 25, 2003, 10:18:08 am
Elizabeth.
I assume that anyone who doubts New Hampshire is persona non grata here.

That is a bizarre assumption, if you've read half the stuff the NH people have accused me of.

Having an opinion on which state is best is not grounds for banning.  Don't create drama where there is none.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: johnadams on August 25, 2003, 10:28:53 am
"....Are you blind? .... I could prove to you the case as solidly as the case for the earth being round, yet you would only discount such arguments as "baseless New Hampshire bashing".  No, this argument is over. It's no use talking with you or your allies any more. Neither is it any use to listen to you or your James Carville breed of allies".

That's the same sort of vile, libelous talk that Carville himself spews out. I am most certainly not an ally of Carville and I request an apology.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Zxcv on August 25, 2003, 10:42:12 am
Interesting thread.

My impression mirrors yours, John; and Robert's. Every state has one or two advocates who are in some ways embarrassments; who are intemperate or who just don't use their brains or who aren't too honorable. But the NH sales team...

I have run into a couple of them I respect. Jon comes to mind. But if I ended up in New Hampshire, I would not work with most of that crowd.

It will be interesting to see if the members generally have come to the same conclusion. NH may turn out to have been over-sold.

Yes, Kevin, "it's politics". But one would hope for at least a little better in this most important task, from this group of people. I personally expect more from people who want freedom; is it not unreasonable to think that those who love freedom also respect truth? Maybe I am naive, and this is the best that can be had from human beings.

Finally a comment on that "Karma" mechanism. It sounds cute, sort of like a nice warm fuzzy non-violent far-eastern religious thing. But the reality is that it lends itself to gang warfare. One does not need a karma mechanism to determine who is blowing smoke, or who is mean and nasty on this forum. One need only read a few posts from the writer, to figure that out. I hope Jason and the board come to their senses and drop it soon.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Sean Coven on August 25, 2003, 10:56:47 am
John, I am wholly unconvinced that you are the victim of some kind of broad-based, pro-NH conspiracy. Obviously some pro-NHers are rather rabid, as are some pro-WYers and pro-AKers.

When I first came here I made a pro-WY post. The benefits of NH were made apparent to me by the pro-NH crowd, without the invective or contempt that you are accusing them (and me) of. I was not intimidated into obedience.

There ARE some rude pro-NH people but it's not indicative of anything. You're being melodramatic about something that you only perceive as existing, using only one example to back it up (something that any statistician would tell you is completely useless as an example of a whole), and resorting to baseless lies and untenable accusations when someone objects.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Leonard on August 25, 2003, 11:08:25 am
John: to this observer posting something like that does little or nothing for your side of the issue.  You sling a lot of heavy accusations.  I have seen the NH partisans occasionally step over the line, but it is rare.  I see more of that coming the other way, from Western partisans.  What I do see is that the NH partisans are simply more slick, more polished, that your side.  They run rings around you in a PR sense.  You are clearly highly offended by that and want to lash out at them.  But this kind of posting only makes you look bad.  It looks like sour grapes to me.

To be specific:

Anyone who doesn't do as you want, doesn't agree with you, will be undermined, discredited, character assasinated, scourged, pilloried, and crucified.

I doubt you think NH people will attack and scourge or crucify anyone, outside of metaphorically.  If you do think they will literally attack people, you're nuts.  If not, you are speaking in a way that makes you look at best intemperate.   I have not seen anyone being "crucified" around these boards.  I have certainly seen people being criticized.  I have seen people that can't take criticism well.

Quote
This likely will be my last post because I will shortly be banned for saying what I believe is the truth.
Thus I've deleted all my posts except this and a few others.

This just makes you look immature.  "If you don't play my way, I'm taking my ball and going home!"  If you have posted anything here, and you want people to take you seriously, let us read what you have to say and make up our own minds.  Removing your posts makes no sense outside of a spiteful action aimed at the community in general for not showing you more love, and the NH partisans, less.  

You were wrong about being banned.   But even if you were right I see no logical connection between your "blowing the whistle" and bravely stepping into the machine-gun gaze of Elizabeth, Dada, et al, and your removing your other posts.  Do you think you are somehow safer from them if you remove your other posts?  Do you think other people will take you more seriously if you hide the things you have previously said?  I don't.  

Some free advice: don't try to beat the NH people at PR.  They are slicker than you.  Sorry.  That's how it appears from this vantage point.  
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Elizabeth on August 25, 2003, 11:13:19 am
Some free advice: don't try to beat the NH people at PR.  They are slicker than you.

Obviously, you attach positive value to that.  

There are many who do not.  

"Slick" is what we've had for decades.  "Slick" is extremely unattractive, from my vantage point.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: EMOR on August 25, 2003, 11:28:55 am
 I agree with Elizabeth, the Slick Willy, James Carville game playing is what is turning most people off to NH more than anything else.

 Leonard, FYI I have been threatened to be shot by a NH supporter if he sees me there. Elizabeth obviously removed it and I am not trying to rehash it. If that is metaphoric then you lost me.

Anyway carry on folks.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 25, 2003, 11:32:25 am
I agree with Elizabeth, the Slick Willy, James Carville game playing is what is turning most people off to NH more than anything else.

 Leonard, FYI I have been threatened to be shot by a NH supporter if he sees me there. Elizabeth obviously removed it and I am not trying to rehash it. If that is metaphoric then you lost me.

Anyway carry on folks.
I wnder how you think we will outcompete politicaly and gain our goals if we will not be slick?
LIve us alone does not work. We have to fight in the venue of politicks and that means slick.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Elizabeth on August 25, 2003, 11:37:18 am
Leonard, FYI I have been threatened to be shot by a NH supporter if he sees me there. Elizabeth obviously removed it and I am not trying to rehash it.

Actually, Dada's the main moderator on this board.  I didn't see the post to which you are referring.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 25, 2003, 11:38:19 am
Why NH? Or WY? Or any other state?
Does beauty of state play role? Work? Definitly it is important issue. But what really we are looking for?
How we can gain freedom in lifetime is the most important question. How we can do it in the particular states is the most important answer.
All I am finding in this forum about WY is that state is really beautiful, especially in the national parks areas. People are very much individualists , despising politicks and “live and let live” describes their attitude. At the same time they are not open to new ideas, like FSP, libertarianism or more specifically Objectivism. To win the state most would have to be converted to Objectivism. How long it takes to convert somebody to Objectivism, or anything for that matter, in average? Well, about 12 years, provided there is solid exposure and intensive continuous promotion of the idea. By the time we would be able to convert most to gain any impact FSP would be in the trouble due to still quicker slide of all America into the statism.
In NH we have politically active population, in my opinion much closer to objectivism than any other state.
We (most of us) despise politicks. But what can be done without playing politicks, toward our goals? Jason Sorens devised the last chance to reverse all the evil peacefully. We might not like it but we have to get votes. Remember, even if 90% would boycott the voting, remaining 10% will control the things within existing political mechanisms. We have to get involved in politicks. The place to do it is NH. No other state gives us similar opportunities. Yes, politicks sucks, we do not like it and we have to do it.
The plans of action in WY consist of moving in, and disappearing. Living low profile lives and be most free (as of today). But this freedom will be infringed still more as the time passes and we will not be able to do anything about that. And we will look at the freedom through rear mirror still more and more distant. We have to chose another way. In NH we take high profile style. We will support the locals first, than we will have to run for the offices ourselves. Yes we hate it, but every forth of us will have to take an office at one time or the other. We will fight politicks with politicks.
The westerners attitude is perfect when there will not be any collectivist (subordination of individual to any sort of group or collective) idea acceptable. Today we are not in the ideal world. If we do not play politicks, and if we are not the best in this play, we do not have any future freedoms and soon. Some posters see that. Even westerner posters. Other do not. We can not let ourselves be naïve idealists. Or when we are, we have to keep this deep in the closets. We have to be “white hat” politicians screwing normal “black hat” politicians as they are everywhere. In NH there is no conditions for carrier politicians. They can not make money in politicks. Many are playing politicks only because they want to do some changes, and they want to do that so bad, they even pay to be in the office. Craig Benson donated his salary as a governor to some cause. Others make $100 per year. NH is “do it yourself politicks” state.
NH has the running start plans for us.
When voting we have to think, what we want, how we can get it, where we have the conditions to get it. Please vote wisely.
Title: Wyoming multiple Lasertag compounds (another useless thread)
Post by: EMOR on August 25, 2003, 11:42:23 am
Here is links to Wyoming paintball fields.

http://pbplanet.com/paintball-fields-by-state.asp?State=WY

http://www.warpig.com/forums/fields/index/pg_Wyoming.shtml
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Elizabeth on August 25, 2003, 11:45:05 am
I wnder how you think we will outcompete politicaly and gain our goals if we will not be slick?
LIve us alone does not work. We have to fight in the venue of politicks and that means slick.

Slick may be necessary with the statists.

But it's insulting for us to be slick with each other.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Elizabeth on August 25, 2003, 11:45:35 am
"Slick" is what we've had for decades.  "Slick" is extremely unattractive, from my vantage point.

It keeps getting the Democrats and Republicans into office, though, doesn't it?


See my reply to Tony.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 25, 2003, 11:48:42 am
Elisabeth, can you be not slick and get elected? tell how. Can we get political powers and not play politicks? Tell how.
Slick between us is bad? Is it better to offend each other? Why?
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: EMOR on August 25, 2003, 11:48:52 am
"Slick" is what we've had for decades.  "Slick" is extremely unattractive, from my vantage point.

It keeps getting the Democrats and Republicans into office, though, doesn't it?

The Elephants and asses get elected no matter what method you use. In NH you have to be a slick willy. In Wyoming being a slick willy will not get you elected, you need to be straight with the people.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 25, 2003, 11:51:04 am
"Slick" is what we've had for decades.  "Slick" is extremely unattractive, from my vantage point.

It keeps getting the Democrats and Republicans into office, though, doesn't it?

The Elephants and asses get elected no matter what method you use. In NH you have to be a slick willy. In Wyoming being a slick willy will not get you elected, you need to be straight with the people.
In Wy we will be elected to nowhere. For very long time
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 25, 2003, 12:30:54 pm
Some free advice: don't try to beat the NH people at PR.  They are slicker than you.

Obviously, you attach positive value to that.  

There are many who do not.  

"Slick" is what we've had for decades.  "Slick" is extremely unattractive, from my vantage point.

I beg to disagree.  What we have had for decades is mudsling.
Perhaps it is different were you live?   What I see is politicians throwing up as much mud as they can hoping that some will stick!

Those of us who vote are reduced to picking the lesser of two evils.  I mean how many of us can honestly say we voted for candidate x because we really believed in  what he stands for?
We have been reduced to voting against.

I have even seen you criticized on these forums for not standing up and saying loud and clear that we are in favor of eliminating all victimless crimes during your interviews.  Were you being slick or prudent?  Perhaps just trying to present our message of Freedom in a positive light?  Focus on the postive things Freedom will bring, and not the things that scare so many people?

We have done our best to present the positive attributes of NH, and why the porcupines should vote for her.

Gaining the support of current politician, having the press present us in a positive light, showing other porcupines that they will be welcome by us, as well as the locals, and  showing
 that we are organizing, running for election, learning how to play this political game, that many seem to so despise.  Didn't we all pledge, "work through the current political system to initiate change?"  How can we do that setting on the fence?

Geez, Keith even put a plan together to win election, and gain some real political power now.  We have even tried showing the incredible physical beauty of NH, and god forbid that we can have fun too, and  enjoy each others company outside the political wars that surely lie ahead!

While I respect those who choose to call that being slick, I would call it doing all that is in ones power to promote the state that they feel is the best one for the porcupines to choose to create "Liberty on Our Lifetime."

I trust that the porcupines will look at all the factors involved, and especially what is being done to promote Freedom NOW!

I trust that the porcupines will feel as I do, and vote for New Hampshire!
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Friday Jones on August 25, 2003, 04:29:12 pm

The contest for the FSP has seemingly come down to a battle between New Hampshire and Wyoming.  All the informal polls have indicated this, and almost all of the regular posters on the forum have declared one or the other to be their favorite.  If one of the other eight states wins, it will only be because proponents of the two frontrunners used it as filler in an ill-informed attempt to vote strategically and bury the challenger.  


You're not serious, are you?  The forum stats as of 8/25/03 indicate there are only 1496 registered users on this forum.  I'm sure you know that a small minority of that number post the vast majority of messages.  And that some of the heaviest posters are not even members and therefore won't be voting.  Unless you have a source of data that I'm not aware of, you can't possibly know that
Quote
If one of the other eight states wins, it will only be because proponents of the two frontrunners used it as filler in an ill-informed attempt to vote strategically and bury the challenger.
Frankly, that seems a bit of an insulting remark to the membership of the FSP.  How about giving us all enough credit to trust that we will take a vote about where we are going to relocate ourselves and our families seriously, to adequately research the subject, and to understand the mechanics of the Condorcet method of voting?

Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 25, 2003, 06:39:43 pm
"The Elephants and asses get elected no matter what method you use. In NH you have to be a slick willy. In Wyoming being a slick willy will not get you elected, you need to be straight with the people"

Do you have a source for this information Emor?



Title: Re:Wyoming multiple Lasertag compounds (another useless thread)
Post by: RidleyReport on August 25, 2003, 11:32:08 pm
How are they doing on outdoor laser tag? (it's cheaper, than paintball, I believe, and may be going down in price, I'm not sure)
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Zxcv on August 25, 2003, 11:55:47 pm
Funny. There is no way to prove this point, but it's the same impression I have.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: RidleyReport on August 26, 2003, 12:04:15 am
EMOR wrote:

<< Leonard, FYI I have been threatened to be shot by a NH supporter if he sees me there. Elizabeth obviously removed it and I am not trying to rehash it. >>

Not accurate.  Unless we are talking about two different posts. In the one I'm thinking about, a participant did vaguely threaten EMOR, then removed his or her own post on his or her own initiative before we had to.   Nothing in there about shooting anyone.  The person also apologized to me for the threatening post.  

Hopefully this person has apologized to EMOR as well.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: freedomroad on August 26, 2003, 12:06:27 am
Now James has told us that they already have smoking restrictions in 2 NH towns, including his own.  I had no idea.  I know NY state had already fallen and much of MA had already fallen.  In fact, I heard that all of MA might fall, no smoking in private places might soon becoming the state law in MA.  It would not suprise me.  Now, NH is ever falling.  I am sure all of New England will fall to this crap.  Just like the no hunting on Sunday's that is common in so much of New England.  No right to work laws.  Some places in New England even have living wage laws.  The entire region is falling off the same cliff that CA already fell off of.  New England might be to late to change.  Its fate could already be sealed.  
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: freedomroad on August 26, 2003, 12:11:41 am
"The Elephants and asses get elected no matter what method you use. In NH you have to be a slick willy. In Wyoming being a slick willy will not get you elected, you need to be straight with the people"

Do you have a source for this information Emor?


I was told something like this when I was in Wyoming.  For example, everyone knows that Bill Clinton is best known (at least around here) for being a liar.  Well, a former Governor of WY was running for a Wyoming state senate seat but the opposition sounded pickes of him with Bill Clinton and he lost the election just because of that.

Also, look at the previous election for Governor in WY.  The Republican was the corrupt corporate type and he wasn't able to win the race even though 3/4s of the people in Wyoming usually vote Republican.  Therefore, a Democrat won the election.  
Title: Re:Wyoming multiple Lasertag compounds (another useless thread)
Post by: freedomroad on August 26, 2003, 12:15:37 am
How are they doing on outdoor laser tag? (it's cheaper, than paintball, I believe, and may be going down in price, I'm not sure)

Dada, this stuff is of no matter.  However, yes, Cheyenne has a great big indoor laser tag building.  It has a bunch of other things also.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: JonM on August 26, 2003, 12:38:09 am
Now James has told us that they already have smoking restrictions in 2 NH towns, including his own.  I had no idea.  I know NY state had already fallen and much of MA had already fallen.  In fact, I heard that all of MA might fall, no smoking in private places might soon becoming the state law in MA.  It would not suprise me.  Now, NH is ever falling.  I am sure all of New England will fall to this crap.  Just like the no hunting on Sunday's that is common in so much of New England.  No right to work laws.  Some places in New England even have living wage laws.  The entire region is falling off the same cliff that CA already fell off of.  New England might be to late to change.  Its fate could already be sealed.  

Had.  The state supreme court told the towns they couldn't ban smoking.  The statewide standard is to provide a smoking area and non smoking area.  Some places have decided to stay non smoking, but they are no longer forced to against their will.

http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/wnne/2416357/detail.html (http://www.thechamplainchannel.com/wnne/2416357/detail.html)

The court's opinion (http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2003/coleb111.htm)

Your milage may vary on what you think of the state preventing towns from restricting freedom.
Title: Re:Wyoming State Shooting Association President goes ON RECORD for the FSP
Post by: freedomroad on August 26, 2003, 01:24:01 am
Good job, Keith.

Quote
I did not ask him to join as a Friend of the FSP because I see no point.
Wouldn't hurt though.

Thank you.  I agree that it would not hurt but it also would not help.  It only matters that they agree to support us.  In fact, it is better that it not be released in press releases and such.  It helps prevent a public backlash, like is going on in NH because of the Governor of that state.  Although, I doubt there would be as much backlash if the head of a gun group joined us.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: freedomroad on August 26, 2003, 05:56:09 am
Socialism is creeping in and the people are voting in huge numbers for it,
http://www.concordmonitor.com/stories/news/local2003/smoking_ban_2002.shtml

Smoking bans, restrictions adopted

By MEG HECKMAN
Monitor staff

Smoking is now illegal at Concord's playgrounds and swimming pools and restricted in city parks.

The ban raised quite a ruckus when it was first proposed late last spring, but it passed with nary a whisper last night. Only two people spoke at a public hearing on the matter. One was for the ban, one against. There was no discussion among city councilors before they took a 12-2 vote. Councilors Leonard Brochu and Tara Reardon opposed the measure.

The new law is a modified version of one proposed last summer that would have outlawed tobacco in every square inch of the city parks. The measure passed last night allows smoking and tobacco use in designated areas of some parks and in public plazas like Bicentennial Square and Eagle Square. Smoking and other tobacco products are not permitted in parks with swimming pools, playgrounds or other athletic facilities.

The point, supporters said, is to prevent secondhand smoke exposure and set a better example for children. The ban, as well as the ash cans that will be placed in designated smoking areas, will also help reduce trash.

For Rebecca Moller the new law will make trips to the Rolfe Park - where smoking is now restricted - much more pleasant for her and her child.

"As a parent, kids are looking up to you," she said. "What bothers me is when my child almost steps on a burning cigarette butt barefoot near the pool."

In addition to Rolfe Park, the following parks will also have designated smoking areas: Garrison Park, Keach Park, Memorial Field, Merrill Park, Penacook River Plaza, Rolfe Park, Rollins Park, Russell Martin Park, Terrill Park, Waterfront Park, White Park and William Healy Memorial Park. The smoking areas will be determined by the police department and the department of parks and recreation.

Tobacco is banned completely in Beaver Meadow Park, Fletcher-Murphy Playground, Kimball Park, Reed Playground, Thompson Playground and West Street Playground.




Tuesday, Jan 14, 2003
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: freedomroad on August 26, 2003, 06:09:51 am

Now James has told us that they already have smoking restrictions in 2 NH towns, including his own.  I had no idea.  I know NY state had already fallen and much of MA had already fallen.  In fact, I heard that all of MA might fall, no smoking in private places might soon becoming the state law in MA.  It would not suprise me.  Now, NH is ever falling.  I am sure all of New England will fall to this crap.  Just like the no hunting on Sunday's that is common in so much of New England.  No right to work laws.  Some places in New England even have living wage laws.  The entire region is falling off the same cliff that CA already fell off of.  New England might be to late to change.  Its fate could already be sealed.  

Smoking Bans in the Candidate States:

There are lines though bans that were overturned (there might be others)

Eastern state- totally BANNED
DE
Smoking ban goes into effect 11/27/2002 and includes all public buildings and workplaces including bars, restaurants, and casinos.

The NorthEast- NH is next
NH
Keene and Colebrook have bans.  The NH Supreme Court ruled that that Colebrook law (even though it was passed by the votes) does not count.  This might make the Keene law void.  However, Concord's law about smoking in parks is still valid.

VT
Smoking banned in restaurants

ME
Smoking banned in restaurants


"The Maine of the West"
MT
June 2002: Helena banned smoking in all public venues, including bars and casinos. Missoula has a similar ordinance but exempts bars and casinos. Bozeman bans smoking in restaurants and bars where there is no separation, Nov. 2002.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Penfist on August 26, 2003, 07:37:01 am
Have you considered taking a vacation from the board? I did, and it really helped me out with my bitterness and frustration toward some of the more useless posts and posters here.

You sound like you need some similar medicine.

Again. I've had it!

No doubt you, feigning innocence, will ask "Why?"
It is because:
I can not trust you!
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Johnny Silverseed on August 26, 2003, 08:26:32 am

Even if another state besides NH is picked, the NH people will not leave us in peace. They will do what they can to undermine the efforts of those in other states while they continue to recruit people for a NH effort.

I'll forgive that thought!
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Michelle on August 26, 2003, 08:40:07 am
You know, it is almost impossible to respond to this thread. I've been offline for most of the last few days. Over the weekend I went to a huge weekend party that a friend planned - among the 200 guests he had invited dozens of people I haven't seen in 15 or more years and I spent a lot of time talking about the FSP and recruiting some of our next 15,000 members. Yesterday was my birthday and I thought the best birthday present I could give myself was to stay away from these forums for the day.

So, I log on this morning and come back to accusations that I'm a liar, that my techniques are "slick," that I misrepresent facts, etc.

How can I even respond to these things? Sure, I can deny them, but since these accusations were made without facts to back them up, how do I refute them?

A few thoughts for you all:

1. There is a difference between "slick" and "professional." The materials that the pro-NH group have put out have been professional. I'm the person who wrote and designed 101 Reasons to Vote for New Hampshire, so if anyone has a gripe with it, I'm the one to come to with those concerns. Why did I take so much time developing a professional piece? Because I believe in professionalism in everything that I do. In the eyes of the public, image means a great deal. Recognizing this, whenever I do anything for the FSP or for LPNH, I do it with the utmost professionalism. I'm proud of that. It is ludicrous to me that I (and other NH supporters) have been attacked so many times for our professionalism.

2. As far as the charges of lies - I and many others have repeatedly asked  for the accusers to tell us what they believe we have lied about. The ONLY answer I have ever received are complaints about some of the subjective statements in the report and lists of a few sentences taken totally out of context. Have any of you actually read the statement on the state reports page:

Below you will find reports on various states under consideration by the Free State Project. These reports are subjective - that is, they attempt to convey information that cannot be quantified in charts or tables.

Give me a break! If my report contains some subjective factors, so do the other 40+ reports on that page!!

3. I DON'T LIE. I am offended and disgusted by the people on these boards - people who are supposed to be our allies - making these personal attacks against my integrity and the integrity of those people I've been working with. Have we ever been mistaken about things? Sure we have and we've admitted that and apologized when appropriate. But, we've taken great care to present a solid, fact-backed case for voting for New Hampshire as the Free State. We always back up our facts with research and links. I am very proud of this and very confident in every fact-based statement that I made in 101 Reasons or on these forums.

4. The charges that we've tried to discredit everyone who has disagreed with us are ridiculous! Honest disagreements are fine and each of us are on excellent terms with other posters who disagree with us. All of us have looked at the data and come to our own conclusions about which is the best state. I respect that.

I would suggest that anyone who has spent time on these boards will see that the opposite of this charge is actually true. Those of us promoting NH have been under constant attack - sometimes very personal attacks - by posters like Emor/Zion, Hank, and John.

For our part, we've tried to be polite in all debates - to keep things positive and let people know the reasons that we believe New Hampshire is the best state for the FSP without attacking other states. There have been a couple of pro-NH people who have crossed the line to rudeness at times and we've asked these individuals to knock it off and not add to the animosity.

As a reward for trying to keep things polite, I've been met with condenscension, arrogance, rudeness, and wild accusations.

5. Robert seems to think that somehow the pro-NH posters on this forum are representative of LPNH. He repeatedly states that LPNH did this or LPNH did that. I don't know where he ever came up with that, but most of the NH supporters that I know live in other states and aren't even members of LPNH. What I say and do as a member of FSP is separate from LPNH. Apparently, Robert, it is me you don't like, and not LPNH.

6. Robert's charges that we have somehow misused the quote from the WYLP gubernatorial candidate don't even make sense to me. The guy said that WY is not as independently minded as we think and he said it in a public interview. This statement has since been backed up by statements that the WY governor has made and the few opinions that we've been able to get from Wyomingites about the FSP. Whether Robert agrees with it or not, I am very concerned about this. On the other side - New Hampshire has been extremely welcoming to the FSP. For those members who don't follow these boards, it was critical that we let them know this.

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

So, what have I done since becoming involved with the FSP?

1. I joined with an open mind - thinking that NH might be a good choice, but not having the comparative research at the time to make a case for it over the other states. In other words, I joined thinking that pretty much any of the states would be a good choice.

2. I read Amy Day's report - the first one ever written on NH and didn't even recognize the state she was describing. Her pessimism and negativity didn't sit well with me and I decided to write a report that described New Hampshire more fairly and accurately (my first report). That is when I began to do my in-depth comparative research and that is when I began to realize that New Hampshire offered unique advantages that couldn't be matched by other states.

3. I worked - along with Rich Tomasso and George Reich - to get the endorsement of LPNH, to recruit every member of the LPNH board as FSP members, to form the Welcome to the Granite State Committee, and to begin promoting and advertising the FSP to the LPNH membership and during all our outreach activities.

4. I realized early on that there were some very inaccurate perceptions about NH (most people seemed to think that NH is one big, crowded city) or about NH people (that we are unfriendly or something). I realized that the best way to counter these perceptions was to bring the FSP membership to New Hampshire. I knew that if members came to NH and met the people and traveled the state, they would fall as much in love with the state as I am. So, George Reich, Rich Tomasso, and I spent months and immense amounts of time planning and organizing the week-long "Escape to New Hampshire" event. By all reports, the week was a huge success and I was thrilled with the positive media coverage that came out of it.

5. I have spent dozens and dozens of hours developing what I hoped would be valuable resources to FSP members while they researched and explored NH - the networking database and the categorized lists of NH municipalities (both found on the LPNH site). Jim Maynard has done the same, with ideas like his web site with links to live web cams all over New Hampshire.

6. I was pleased that the case for New Hampshire was being made so persuasively by so many people, but the arguments for New Hampshire were spread out on all different forums. I decided to organize and categorize the New Hampshire advantages in an easy-to-read, professional presentation. That is where 101 Reasons to Vote for NH came from. For people who had trouble with the PDF files, I printed and mailed hard copies at my own expense. I later developed the slide show version to make it easier to view.

7. Together with Rich and George, we helped coordinate a meeting for the Porcupines with Governor Benson and to let current NH legislators know about the project and to build support among them should the project come to NH.

8. A group of us - spread all over the country - have been working cooperatively on various projects. I have never, in my whole life, worked with a group that has been more professional or worked together so cohesively. Everyone in the group has their own unique talents and everyone is pitching in and working hard. It is so refreshing to work with a group that is so dedicated, professional, trustworthy, and reliable. Everyone does their part and everyone follows through with what they say they will do. Some extraordinary things have come out of this group - targeted FSP promotions, presentations at various events, positive media coverage, and of course, the crowning achievement - winning the support of Governor Benson when he signed on as a Friend of the FSP.

9. Along with some other NH FSP members, I have talked to reporter after reporter, always doing my absolute best to promote the positives that the FSP will bring to the state in order to build as much support and enthusiasm for the FSP as possible. I think we've been pretty successful so far - the press coverage in NH has been incredible.


I guess the bottom line is this - I am extraordinarily proud of everything that I have done individually and as a part of the group supporting New Hampshire. I believe with all my heart that the FSP will achieve success in New Hampshire and will do so much faster than it will in any of the other states that the FSP is considering. I believe that New Hampshire is the best choice for the Free State and I've tried my best to let the membership know the reasons why I believe that. I don't understand it, but there are obviously some who think there is something shameful about this - but, I have to tell you all that when the vote results are in, regardless of the outcome,  and I look back at what we have done, I will never feel anything but pride and very lucky to have worked with such an incredible, professional group of people.
Title: Re:Wyoming raises cigarette taxes by 400%
Post by: EMOR on August 26, 2003, 08:56:39 am
Why is it anti-smoking? Raising the tax doesn't mean you can't smoke.
Title: Re:Wyoming raises cigarette taxes by 400%
Post by: EMOR on August 26, 2003, 09:09:09 am
gotcha
Title: Re:Wyoming raises cigarette taxes by 400%
Post by: jgmaynard on August 26, 2003, 09:18:22 am
And let us not forget that certain people <cough.. Senator Green.. cough) tried to trick Craig Benson into breaking his promise to not raise taxes, by trying to pass a $.39 increase in cigarette taxes in NH. Benson lobbied against the raised tax til it went down in flames. :)

JM
Title: Re:Wyoming raises cigarette taxes by 400%
Post by: arclight on August 26, 2003, 09:26:43 am
These "sin" taxes are disgusting, almost as much as income tax.
Praise for NH and Gov. Benson. That's why I vote  NH first. Unparralelled support for the FSP.
Title: Why New Hampshire Would be the Right Choice for us.
Post by: jgmaynard on August 26, 2003, 09:29:19 am
Thank you, Michelle.... I could not have said it better myself.

It is an absolute pleasure to work with you and everyone else from all over the country promoting New Hampshire as the best choice for the first free state.

I could not have been more pleased with the professional materials we have produced, the extensive database of names (our mailing list is now larger than the national Libertarian Party), and the warm welcome we are receiving from everyone in New Hampshire politics, including the chairs of both the state's Democratic and Republican Partys, two state representatives who joined as full members, and of course, NH governor and FSP friend, Craig Benson.

By the way.... Have you had a chance yet to play the new Free State Project computer game? http://www.freestatenh.com/puzzle . :D

JM
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 26, 2003, 11:06:50 am
Absolutely do not take it as my reason not to vote for WY. I am posting this, just as curiosity. Yesterday I was watching Discovery as I often do and there was program about “Super Volcanoes” This Super Vulcanize erupt once every few hundred million years. Scientists discovered one Super Vulcan on the terrain of Yellow Stone. It erupts regularly every 600 million years and now it is due for next eruption. The bubble of magma is 10 miles under ground and is 15 miles wide X 20 miles long X about 20 miles thick and is growing. For the last 50 years scientists found the surface lifted more than 7 FT. Off course eruption would be devastating for all human life and not only human in the world. Piroclastic fall would reach to eastern states, so if it erupts no one will be safe. Hopefully 600 million years period will not ends within one million years from today
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: DadELK68 on August 26, 2003, 12:47:30 pm
Michelle, others - don't take it too personally. I've found that there are a few who become extremely insulting if one doesn't think as they do and/or blindly accept their straining to find some statistic to manipulate in support of their views.

Considering that the vast majority of postings from people who favor NH have been polite, constructive, optimistic and informative, one only needs to read through the various threads to see the trends. It's the old technique of accusing others of that of which you yourself are most guilty. In psychobabble, one might even call it 'Projection'.

Just let the posts stand as they are and let it go. They've dug their own graves, even if they do accuse you of pushing them as they swan-dive gracefully to their rest.

Eric
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Galt on August 26, 2003, 02:14:38 pm
Have you considered taking a vacation from the board? I did, and it really helped me out with my bitterness and frustration toward some of the more useless posts and posters here.

You sound like you need some similar medicine.

Again. I've had it!

No doubt you, feigning innocence, will ask "Why?"
It is because:
I can not trust you!

Palindrome suggests I take a vacation from the board.
I did that, for many weeks.
Only to find it has deteriorated into more lies, misstatements, innuendos, insults, mudslinging, straw man arguments, and especially New Hampshire people picking any least little thing out against other states but them getting incensed at the any criticism, even with major issues, of New Hampshire.

Dada, Elizabeth and Jason should be an impartial judges of at least truth and honesty.  Do you remember in some states where some media or organizations make a specific point to review political ads and bring into the light the misstatements and lies?  The Wyoming and western and even Vermont contingent have tried, but they get shouted down and insulted.  A one-sentence baseless accusation from the NH bunch can cause the westerners or Vermont or Maine or Delaware people days of research and posts to rebutt -- all to accusations of citing statistics which don't apply.  Then the NH bunch drops another little bomb and watches their opposition scramble to rebutt the lie or innuendo.  Then the NH bunch often comes back with the accusation in a new thread that their questions were never answered (when there are hundreds of posts in buried threads -- buried because of the flurry of NH threads that stay on top of all the rest).

So I'll take Palindrome up on his suggestion in spite of several messages in my IM box for me to stay on board.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Sean Coven on August 26, 2003, 02:23:46 pm
Jon, you are not doing anything in the way of proof to make us believe that anything you are saying is anything more than partisan mud-slinging!

Seriously... you sit here and accuse us of being "slick" or "political" because we're doubting you, but you're not offering up a single shred of factual proof that the NH crowd has done anything other than convey the facts!

You are doing nothing but hurling one subjective, histrionic temper tantrum at us after another.

All we're asking is that you actually dig up some links to show the inappropriate behavior of the NH crowd, which I somehow have magically missed over and over and over again. Stop with the vague references that can't be verified and SHOW me where these things are taking place!
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Dalamar49 on August 26, 2003, 02:58:14 pm
Too many on this forum remind me of the kids in middle school who would harass and insult the smart, "nerdy" students for doing so well on their tests and homework.  >:(

In the FSP forums NH advocates have become the "nerdy" students that everybody hates, because these dynamic individuals are better at marketing their state than supporters of the.......other more inferior choices.

When I hear Radar, Emor, John (the mean one), and whoever else whine and cry about how the NH supporters are "slick." It it so similiar to the whining and crying of the stupid, slow students in middle school who'd whine and cry about the smart students getting straight A's.

It dissapoints me how you, you adults, act so much like the children from my old public schools. Its just peachy to know that the FSP movement has metamorphised into a giant class "field trip."  ::)

Who knows....maybe most of you are pimply teenagers who just like to flame eachother on the internet.........like me  ;)
Title: Re:Wyoming raises cigarette taxes by 400%
Post by: Dalamar49 on August 26, 2003, 03:06:20 pm


Hurray!!! I how I can't wait to enjoy the eclectic variety of freedoms in Wyoming. The state that's both soooooo Libertarian and anti-smoker!!!
Title: Re:Wyoming raises cigarette taxes by 400%
Post by: Friday Jones on August 26, 2003, 04:06:40 pm
Yes, the Wyoming state cigarette tax just went up from $0.12/pack to $0.60/pack, resulting in a 400% increase.

Of course, New Hampshire's was $0.52/pack all along.   ::)

ND   $0.44
NH   $0.52
SD   $0.53
DE   $0.55
ID   $0.57
WY   $0.60
MT   $0.70
AK   $1.00
ME   $1.00
VT   $1.19

http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0207.pdf
Title: FED UP With The PERSONAL ATTACKS
Post by: johnadams on August 26, 2003, 06:29:41 pm
....To you vehement New Hampshire proponents and specifically Karl Beisel, Keith Murphy, libertarian40, johnadams, Michelle, jgmaynard, marshrobert, S. Coven, Bruce_Morgan, Tony Stelik and several others.
You have earned the label of "politician".

....Even if another state besides NH is picked, the NH people will not leave us in peace. They will do what they can to undermine the efforts of those in other states while they continue to recruit people for a NH effort.
....
I am sick of these libelous personal attacks by SOME of the WY contingent (I wouldn't lump ALL the WY supporters the way Galt has lumped the NY NH supporters together--that would be an example of the worst sort of slanderous POLITICS. I even tried to promote peace by seeking a win-win solution, to no avail, apparently.

I am fed up with it and am going to take a break from this forum. Good luck for now to those of you who haven't personally attacked me.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 26, 2003, 07:58:21 pm
I would agree that the insults should stop, and also that we really don't know who will win this election.  The porcupines will decide.  When this is all over we must all work together.

But please folks just one thing.  I'm out here a lot at least until the election is decided.  If you have any QUESTIONS, OR THINK ANYTHING IN ANY OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE REPORTS IS INCORRECT, PLEASE STATE YOU QUESTION, WE WILL ANSWER IT, AND I WILL SAVE IT TO MY HARD DRIVE, SHOULD THE MATTER COME UP AGAIN!  Should your beef be found correct and I will personally apologize!  

Thank you
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Dalamar49 on August 26, 2003, 08:23:28 pm
Note: you said NY supporters....not NH supporters as I assume you meant.  ;)
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 26, 2003, 10:01:31 pm

So, I log on this morning and come back to accusations that I'm a liar, that my techniques are "slick," that I misrepresent facts, etc.

How can I even respond to these things? Sure, I can deny them, but since these accusations were made without facts to back them up, how do I refute them?

A few thoughts for you all:

1. There is a difference between "slick" and "professional." The materials that the pro-NH group have put out have been professional. I'm the person who wrote and designed 101 Reasons to Vote for New Hampshire, so if anyone has a gripe with it, I'm the one to come to with those concerns. Why did I take so much time developing a professional piece? Because I believe in professionalism in everything that I do. In the eyes of the public, image means a great deal. Recognizing this, whenever I do anything for the FSP or for LPNH, I do it with the utmost professionalism. I'm proud of that. It is ludicrous to me that I (and other NH supporters) have been attacked so many times for our professionalism.

2. As far as the charges of lies - I and many others have repeatedly asked  for the accusers to tell us what they believe we have lied about. The ONLY answer I have ever received are complaints about some of the subjective statements in the report and lists of a few sentences taken totally out of context. Have any of you actually read the statement on the state reports page:

Below you will find reports on various states under consideration by the Free State Project. These reports are subjective - that is, they attempt to convey information that cannot be quantified in charts or tables.

Give me a break! If my report contains some subjective factors, so do the other 40+ reports on that page!!

3. I DON'T LIE. I am offended and disgusted by the people on these boards - people who are supposed to be our allies - making these personal attacks against my integrity and the integrity of those people I've been working with. Have we ever been mistaken about things? Sure we have and we've admitted that and apologized when appropriate. But, we've taken great care to present a solid, fact-backed case for voting for New Hampshire as the Free State. We always back up our facts with research and links. I am very proud of this and very confident in every fact-based statement that I made in 101 Reasons or on these forums.

4. The charges that we've tried to discredit everyone who has disagreed with us are ridiculous! Honest disagreements are fine and each of us are on excellent terms with other posters who disagree with us. All of us have looked at the data and come to our own conclusions about which is the best state. I respect that.

I would suggest that anyone who has spent time on these boards will see that the opposite of this charge is actually true. Those of us promoting NH have been under constant attack - sometimes very personal attacks - by posters like Emor/Zion, Hank, and John.

For our part, we've tried to be polite in all debates - to keep things positive and let people know the reasons that we believe New Hampshire is the best state for the FSP without attacking other states. There have been a couple of pro-NH people who have crossed the line to rudeness at times and we've asked these individuals to knock it off and not add to the animosity.

As a reward for trying to keep things polite, I've been met with condenscension, arrogance, rudeness, and wild accusations.

5. Robert seems to think that somehow the pro-NH posters on this forum are representative of LPNH. He repeatedly states that LPNH did this or LPNH did that. I don't know where he ever came up with that, but most of the NH supporters that I know live in other states and aren't even members of LPNH. What I say and do as a member of FSP is separate from LPNH. Apparently, Robert, it is me you don't like, and not LPNH.

6. Robert's charges that we have somehow misused the quote from the WYLP gubernatorial candidate don't even make sense to me. The guy said that WY is not as independently minded as we think and he said it in a public interview. This statement has since been backed up by statements that the WY governor has made and the few opinions that we've been able to get from Wyomingites about the FSP. Whether Robert agrees with it or not, I am very concerned about this. On the other side - New Hampshire has been extremely welcoming to the FSP. For those members who don't follow these boards, it was critical that we let them know this.

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

So, what have I done since becoming involved with the FSP?

1. I joined with an open mind - thinking that NH might be a good choice, but not having the comparative research at the time to make a case for it over the other states. In other words, I joined thinking that pretty much any of the states would be a good choice.

2. I read Amy Day's report - the first one ever written on NH and didn't even recognize the state she was describing. Her pessimism and negativity didn't sit well with me and I decided to write a report that described New Hampshire more fairly and accurately (my first report). That is when I began to do my in-depth comparative research and that is when I began to realize that New Hampshire offered unique advantages that couldn't be matched by other states.

3. I worked - along with Rich Tomasso and George Reich - to get the endorsement of LPNH, to recruit every member of the LPNH board as FSP members, to form the Welcome to the Granite State Committee, and to begin promoting and advertising the FSP to the LPNH membership and during all our outreach activities.

4. I realized early on that there were some very inaccurate perceptions about NH (most people seemed to think that NH is one big, crowded city) or about NH people (that we are unfriendly or something). I realized that the best way to counter these perceptions was to bring the FSP membership to New Hampshire. I knew that if members came to NH and met the people and traveled the state, they would fall as much in love with the state as I am. So, George Reich, Rich Tomasso, and I spent months and immense amounts of time planning and organizing the week-long "Escape to New Hampshire" event. By all reports, the week was a huge success and I was thrilled with the positive media coverage that came out of it.

5. I have spent dozens and dozens of hours developing what I hoped would be valuable resources to FSP members while they researched and explored NH - the networking database and the categorized lists of NH municipalities (both found on the LPNH site). Jim Maynard has done the same, with ideas like his web site with links to live web cams all over New Hampshire.

6. I was pleased that the case for New Hampshire was being made so persuasively by so many people, but the arguments for New Hampshire were spread out on all different forums. I decided to organize and categorize the New Hampshire advantages in an easy-to-read, professional presentation. That is where 101 Reasons to Vote for NH came from. For people who had trouble with the PDF files, I printed and mailed hard copies at my own expense. I later developed the slide show version to make it easier to view.

7. Together with Rich and George, we helped coordinate a meeting for the Porcupines with Governor Benson and to let current NH legislators know about the project and to build support among them should the project come to NH.

8. A group of us - spread all over the country - have been working cooperatively on various projects. I have never, in my whole life, worked with a group that has been more professional or worked together so cohesively. Everyone in the group has their own unique talents and everyone is pitching in and working hard. It is so refreshing to work with a group that is so dedicated, professional, trustworthy, and reliable. Everyone does their part and everyone follows through with what they say they will do. Some extraordinary things have come out of this group - targeted FSP promotions, presentations at various events, positive media coverage, and of course, the crowning achievement - winning the support of Governor Benson when he signed on as a Friend of the FSP.

9. Along with some other NH FSP members, I have talked to reporter after reporter, always doing my absolute best to promote the positives that the FSP will bring to the state in order to build as much support and enthusiasm for the FSP as possible. I think we've been pretty successful so far - the press coverage in NH has been incredible.


I guess the bottom line is this - I am extraordinarily proud of everything that I have done individually and as a part of the group supporting New Hampshire. I believe with all my heart that the FSP will achieve success in New Hampshire and will do so much faster than it will in any of the other states that the FSP is considering. I believe that New Hampshire is the best choice for the Free State and I've tried my best to let the membership know the reasons why I believe that. I don't understand it, but there are obviously some who think there is something shameful about this - but, I have to tell you all that when the vote results are in, regardless of the outcome,  and I look back at what we have done, I will never feel anything but pride and very lucky to have worked with such an incredible, professional group of people.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 26, 2003, 10:04:27 pm
Oops my part didn't get in there...Dam poor computer skills...so here goes!!!!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MICHELE!  Some folks get older, some folks get better!  Know that you are part of the second group! :D



Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Hank on August 26, 2003, 10:17:49 pm
Jon, you are not doing anything in the way of proof to make us believe that anything you are saying is anything more than partisan mud-slinging!

Seriously... you sit here and accuse us of being "slick" or "political" because we're doubting you, but you're not offering up a single shred of factual proof that the NH crowd has done anything other than convey the facts!

You are doing nothing but hurling one subjective, histrionic temper tantrum at us after another.

All we're asking is that you actually dig up some links to show the inappropriate behavior of the NH crowd, which I somehow have magically missed over and over and over again. Stop with the vague references that can't be verified and SHOW me where these things are taking place!

GALT ANSWERED THE ABOVE WITH THE BELOW.

Keith, like most NH supporters, has listed a bunch of lies, half-truths, and misleading distortions about Wyoming.  It would be irresponsible and biased for the FSP to post this as though it were truth.  But then again the FSP did allow 2 pages full of the same type of lies into our voting packages.  
It would be greatly appreciated if you point to particular lies and rebute them one by one. Could you do it?
Murphy, Michelle, and Maynard and others of your allies asked the same question. Again. Are you blind? That has been done with hundreds of posts by many posters. I could prove to you the case as solidly as the case for the earth being round, yet you would only discount such arguments as "baseless New Hampshire bashing".  No, this argument is over. It's no use talking with you or your allies any more. Neither is it any use to listen to you or your James Carville breed of allies.

Some of the New Hampshire contingent are proving Galt right
as they continue their pattern of posting behaviour.
Don't take my word for it.
Just go to some of their personal profile pages and download the last 50 posts or so.

Galt is also right that others here have rebutted the denials we have heard from the New Hampshire contingent. Then they deny the denials. They would re-write history if they could.
So you better download all of their posts NOW before they edit out the incriminating evidence.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Hank on August 26, 2003, 10:25:47 pm
Keith, like most NH supporters, has listed a bunch of lies, half-truths, and misleading distortions about Wyoming.  It would be irresponsible and biased for the FSP to post this as though it were truth.  But then again the FSP did allow 2 pages full of the same type of lies into our voting packages.  
It would be greatly appreciated if you point to particular lies and rebute them one by one. Could you do it?
Murphy, Michelle, and Maynard and others of your allies asked the same question. Again. Are you blind? That has been done with hundreds of posts by many posters. I could prove to you the case as solidly as the case for the earth being round, yet you would only discount such arguments as "baseless New Hampshire bashing".  No, this argument is over. It's no use talking with you or your allies any more. Neither is it any use to listen to you or your James Carville breed of allies.

Galt also wrote of some of the New Hampshire contingent grasping for any straw or ball of mud with which to build their case against each opponent state.

So, Tony, how does the chances of that super volcano compare to chances of a super hurricane clobbering New Hampshire?  I understand that we are having more and more devastating or stronger hurricanes. I also understand that such hurricanes could reach all the way into Vermont and northern Maine. They would take out New Hampshire in passing.  How's that compare with your post about a super volcano taking out Wyoming?

For those who think I'm making this up. See this link.
http://www.disastercenter.com/newhamp/newhamp.htm
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: JonM on August 26, 2003, 10:36:09 pm
Jon, you are not doing anything in the way of proof to make us believe that anything you are saying is anything more than partisan mud-slinging!

Seriously... you sit here and accuse us of being "slick" or "political" because we're doubting you, but you're not offering up a single shred of factual proof that the NH crowd has done anything other than convey the facts!

You are doing nothing but hurling one subjective, histrionic temper tantrum at us after another.

All we're asking is that you actually dig up some links to show the inappropriate behavior of the NH crowd, which I somehow have magically missed over and over and over again. Stop with the vague references that can't be verified and SHOW me where these things are taking place!

GALT ANSWERED THE ABOVE WITH THE BELOW.

Keith, like most NH supporters, has listed a bunch of lies, half-truths, and misleading distortions about Wyoming.  It would be irresponsible and biased for the FSP to post this as though it were truth.  But then again the FSP did allow 2 pages full of the same type of lies into our voting packages.  
It would be greatly appreciated if you point to particular lies and rebute them one by one. Could you do it?
Murphy, Michelle, and Maynard and others of your allies asked the same question. Again. Are you blind? That has been done with hundreds of posts by many posters. I could prove to you the case as solidly as the case for the earth being round, yet you would only discount such arguments as "baseless New Hampshire bashing".  No, this argument is over. It's no use talking with you or your allies any more. Neither is it any use to listen to you or your James Carville breed of allies.

Some of the New Hampshire contingent are proving Galt right
as they continue their pattern of posting behaviour.
Don't take my word for it.
Just go to some of their personal profile pages and download the last 50 posts or so.

Galt is also right that others here have rebutted the denials we have heard from the New Hampshire contingent. Then they deny the denials. They would re-write history if they could.
So you better download all of their posts NOW before they edit out the incriminating evidence.

Could you please quote something substantiating this?
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 26, 2003, 10:43:01 pm
"Just go to some of their personal profile pages and download the last 50 posts or so."

I'm in total agreement Hank.  Is it ok to do yours too. :)
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: jgmaynard on August 26, 2003, 10:47:55 pm
No, no, folks.... Really.... I've found the reasons that New Hampshire is not the best choice for the Free State project. You know, those mysterious ones a few people keep referring to.. They're all collected at http://www.keenenh.us/fsnh/fspnhchoice.html .

And you thought they were hiding next to those Iraqi WMD ;)

Happy birthday Michelle! :)

JM
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 26, 2003, 10:56:56 pm
Joe I have no doubt that your numbers are correct, but were will they be in 5 years when we begin to arrive in WY in significant numbers?
Title: Re:New Hampshire
Post by: CurtHowland on August 26, 2003, 11:00:12 pm
I have taken a good look at everything I could for the front running states, and even many of the non-front runners.

I consider myself lucky that I have lived on both coasts, Idaho, Colorado, Washington, Massachusetts, California, Texas, New York, etc. I did this not as an army brat or such, but on my own looking for work and a good place to live.

There is no question in my mind that it will come down to an "east/west" decision, and the most likely east one is New Hampshire. Of the west states, Wyoming is the easiest, so I will consider it top on the west list.

Looking at these things from my perspective, I must choose New Hampshire hands down. Its greater population makes it harder for the FSP to "win" in, but it also makes it possible to survive there *today*. To work, to find a place to live, to find an opportunity to stay.

I like the wide open spaces. They are impractical for just moving-in. If I cannot get huge open spaces, and I cannot since I am not already independently wealthy, then the glorious rolling mountains of the east will have to do. And they will do very well indeed.

After learning about these statistics, I realize just how I'm being raped trying to make a living in California. The weather may be the finest I have ever found, but Sacramento and Diane Feinstein make it otherwise awful.

See you in NH, I hope.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Muleskinner on August 26, 2003, 11:16:48 pm
It looks like internal FSP politics,
among those who are supposed to be compatriots,
may be the cause of the end of our hopes for a Free State.

Galt was right.
Many of you are acting just like the politicians you want to replace.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Dave Mincin on August 26, 2003, 11:30:15 pm
Perhaps you are correct Muleskinner.  I would call it internal debate.  How else will we determine which is the best course without debating our differences?
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: StevenN on August 27, 2003, 01:57:39 am
Quote
When hyperbole doesn't go far enough in the first quote from libertarian40 and Keith Murphy, they then try a misleading statement verging on a lie.

Wyoming is 10th out of 10 for % of government employees. How is this incorrect?

And if we're going to talk about "misleading statements", I've noticed a few from the anti-NH camp recently, and can point to 2 specific examples:

"NH is experiencing vast inflows of statists from neighboring regions". FALSE. This is based on faulty logic: A) NH is surrounded by statists, B) NH's population is growing, so C) NH is being invaded by statists. The only evidence available from areas bordering allegedly statists (read: Democrats, 'cause R's are closet liberty-lovers!) is that they are generally more libertarian (or at least anti-tax minded). This has been pointed out with supporting evidence, yet ignored by others.

(And remember, 2 of NH's 3 neighbors are candidate states)

"WY has the most libertarian culture in the US". I don't mind "hyping" or "cheerleading", but let's call a spade a spade. You can't look down on others for cheerleading if you do the same. My favorite is NH, but I'd never claim that NH (or any other state) has the most "libertarian" culture; other than offhandedly, like a sports fan describing his favorite team.
Title: Re:Why New Hampshire Would be the Wrong Choice for us.
Post by: Michelle on August 27, 2003, 06:43:14 am
Oops my part didn't get in there...Dam poor computer skills...so here goes!!!!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY MICHELE!  Some folks get older, some folks get better!  Know that you are part of the second group! :D


 ;D Thanks!
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Dalamar49 on August 27, 2003, 09:34:01 am
When hyperbole doesn't go far enough in the first quote from libertarian40 and Keith Murphy, they then try a misleading statement verging on a lie.


What!?! How is it a lie? 10% of the bloody population works for the government and that doesn't even include federal government employees.

If Wyoming's government employees make up 10% of the population, as Keith said, then its not a lie.....even if you happen to disagree with it.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 27, 2003, 09:45:10 am
WY supporters need to stop and take a look at one fact at this point in time before they vote for WY:

First they say "sheer numbers" are the best measurement for the ability of a state to be freed by the FSP.

Then they say our "sheer numbers" are the best way to free a state.

Finally they admit that we may or may not be able to get 20,000 people to move to a state, but that it doesn't matter because we only need 7,000 to have the same effect in WY as in NH.  What happened to their theory of "sheer numbers" in this instance?  They abandon "sheer numbers" in favor of percentages, (only when it is convenient for them to do so?).
Title: Re:Wyoming State Shooting Association President goes ON RECORD for the FSP
Post by: EMOR on August 27, 2003, 10:53:28 am
Thank you.  I agree that it would not hurt but it also would not help.  It only matters that they agree to support us.  In fact, it is better that it not be released in press releases and such.  It helps prevent a public backlash, like is going on in NH because of the Governor of that state.  Although, I doubt there would be a backlash of the head of a gun group joined us.
I agree, with the LTE's arleady calling for the head of Benson it is a hornets nest in NH. They will bury us if NH was selected.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 27, 2003, 10:57:16 am
This is one of my favorite parts of the report:

"The federal government sends $7,257 per capita to WY, the ninth highest amount in the nation. NH only gets $5,109, the smallest amount of all candidate states and the fifth lowest in the nation. (Source: US Census Bureau) WY gets back $1.14 for every $1 it sends to the DC swamp. NH only gets back $.71."

In other words, NH citizens SUBSIDIZE WY citizens through their Federal income taxes.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: LeRuineur6 on August 27, 2003, 11:01:45 am
Oh, BTW, this report just made it to the front page of the FSP:

http://www.freestateproject.org/

:)
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the Wrong Choice for the FSP
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 27, 2003, 11:24:55 am
When hyperbole doesn't go far enough in the first quote from libertarian40 and Keith Murphy, they then try a misleading statement verging on a lie.

WY has the highest percentage of state and local government employees in the nation.  819 of every 10,000 residents in WY are employed by state and local government.  

Absolutely horrible. That's almost 1 out of every 10 people!

Quote
If they are so much in favor of small government, why do they have the largest government sector in the nation?

God only knows.

How do we measure "smallest" or "largest" government sector?

Wyoming had the smallest, second only to Vermont, measured by employees.
Alaska  25,225
Delaware        26,232
Idaho  30,304
Maine  27,747
Montana 23,795
New Hampshire  19,092
North Dakota    19,062
South Dakota    17,940
Wyoming 15,991
Vermont 12,801
Employment numbers are from 1990 census. Source http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet

and then for some more statistics which the NH bunch hate

Tell us again why
House of Reps packed with gov't employees. DE beats NH (which only has one quarter working for government) (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2524)

and

Wyoming has the Lowest NEA membership, period (of all 50 states)
only 5,713
http://www.nilrr.org/MonsterMonopoly.htm


In no state we will have majority. Your shear numbers are good for nothing. We will have to gain support from the locals (WY? I doubt it ; NH? Very likely) we need percents.
If percentage of government employees is higher in WY than in NH it is very bad sign. It will be harder to have locals support.
Title: Re:Why Wyoming Would be the RIGHT Choice for the FSP
Post by: JonM on August 27, 2003, 11:25:50 am
As to the size of the government sector.
Your statement that Wyoming has the largest government sector is a lie because Vermont has the smallest government sector of all the states as measured by number of government employees.
New Hampshire  19,092
North Dakota    19,062
South Dakota    17,940
Wyoming 15,991
Vermont 12,801