Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: JasonPSorens on July 01, 2003, 04:37:58 pm

Title: Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 01, 2003, 04:37:58 pm
Reports on these topics have been posted:

http://www.freestateproject.org/southdakota2.htm

http://www.freestateproject.org/files/alaska.pdf
Title: Re:Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: varrin on July 01, 2003, 07:00:40 pm
Prior to reading the Alaska article, I've been thinking Alaska is looking more attractive to me (for many of the reasons stated in the article).  I'm glad someone took the time to write those very compelling arguments down.

Here's my $.02 about it.

1:  I agree with most of the article.  Having been to Alaska many times, I can vouch for lots of what is said there.

2:  The weather *isn't* as bad as most people think it is.  It is, however, not as nice as Boise.

3:  Though NH has no income or sales tax (I think the *only* other state to claim that), Alaska has these three economic advantages:  a) property taxes in Alaska are way lower than in New Hampshire  b) real estate is *way* cheaper than in New Hampshire (even large housing in Anchorage is significantly less expensive than in Manchester) c) the permanent fund.

There were a couple of other thoughts I had but my kids interrupted me and I forgot... ;-)

V-

Title: Re:Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: JasonPSorens on July 01, 2003, 07:02:53 pm
AK is actually the only state in the country with no statewide income, sales, or property taxes - like NH a few years ago.  Of course, they do receive a lot of federal government money for their state budget; that's the downside to this arrangement.
Title: Re:Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: freedomroad on July 01, 2003, 10:09:08 pm
AK is actually the only state in the country with no statewide income, sales, or property taxes - like NH a few years ago.  Of course, they do receive a lot of federal government money for their state budget; that's the downside to this arrangement.

Of course, New Hampshire has a few different income taxes.  Though, even AK has a statewide business income tax.
Title: Re:Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: jenlee on July 01, 2003, 10:28:01 pm
Yeah thats true.

But that is one thing of many the people are working on trying to get rid of.

We here in Alaska needs to go to the Yukon and Alberta and learn from them on how they do their roads. They don't have to do road construction every blasted year like we do.

AK is actually the only state in the country with no statewide income, sales, or property taxes - like NH a few years ago.  Of course, they do receive a lot of federal government money for their state budget; that's the downside to this arrangement.
Title: Re:Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: Robert H. on July 01, 2003, 11:10:56 pm
Alaska has many, many things going for it, and I'd be tempted to support it over Wyoming if I thought that there was a chance we'd get a sufficient number of people to move there.  I've posted data in the past showing how we do not need 20,000 in every state in order to achieve the same degree of saturation as we would have at 20,000 in the top three most populous states...

However...

Even though I believe we would stand a good chance of success in Alaska with less than 20,000, there are some serious federal dependency issues to be dealt with there in addition to a high rate of government employment in general.  We could probably deal with all of this in time, but it might make for a tough fight in certain circles.  Also, Anchorage is a very large city, and this would bring us into problems confronting its present infrastructure, although success in Anchorage would have its rewards as well: the most notable of which would be a significant presence for us in a place where over 40% of the state's population lives.

If we could get a few hundred or so of us to congregate in Juneau, then between the Anchorage and Juneau factions, we'd have the ability to control state politics.  The problem with Juneau, and the panhandle in general, is that we'd have to recruit ducks as opposed to porcupines.   ;)  Lots and lots of rain there.   :o

On the other hand, I'm intrigued by the possibility that we may find numerous and valuable allies in Alaska, potentially enough to offset the number of activists that we would lose due to Alaskaphobia:

1. The AIP (http://www.akip.org) (Alaskan Independence Party) - This group, which advocates a general Alaska-first policy as opposed to just supporting outright secession, is, because of its single state focus, the largest third party in the US.  In 2002, the AIP had nearly 20,000 registered members, and a thousand or so of us, working as dedicated activists, might be able to reinvigorate that group and make it a force to be reckoned with.
2. The Alaska Libertarian Party - This state LP has the equivalent of Major Party Status in Alaska, although it is smaller than the AIP.  Still, we could possibly merge a number of issues under both the AIP and AKLP banners and forge a liberty coalition.
3. Alaska has a very large number of "non-partisan" and "undeclared" voters - more than 200,000 of them, which, in a state with less than 700,000 total inhabitants, is a considerable block of voters.  The fact that these people have chosen to identify themselves as they have seems to indicate that they are politically homeless.  If we came along and united factions of the AIP, the AKLP, libertarian-leaning GOP'ers, and pitched ourselves as something new to all of those "non-partisan" and "undeclared" voters, we could be a powerhouse in Alaskan politics.
4. Alaska has just refused to implement a state-wide sales tax in favor of substantial budget cuts, and even, in some places, user fees.
5. Alaskan politicians are just a different breed altogether.  As someone said not long ago, Alaskan Democrats seem more like moderate Republicans in the lower 48, while Alaskan Republicans would probably be on an FBI surveillance list in the lower 48.   ;)
6. Alaskans are known for their rugged individualism and independent spirit.  Most of them would probably accept a live-and-let-live philosophy of life rather warmly.

In my opinion, these are items that may swing Alaska in our favor in spite of a potential loss of recruits.  I also think that there is absolutely no question that Alaska is in the best position for achieving the greatest degree of autonomy, if not outright independence (eventually).

As for federal dependency issues, those will take some work.  However, there may be solutions.  Alaska is oil and mineral rich, and the AIP's 2002 gubernatorial candidate, John Wayne Glotfelty (sp?), has suggested an in-state Alaska pipeline, which would pump and refine oil for sale solely by the State of Alaska.  This could be a considerable revenue source, and could cushion the process of weaning Alaska from the government bottle.

On that note, a word or two about the Permanent Fund...

Some consider this a socialist redistributionist device, but I would caution such people to consider a few things about that:

1. The people are not taxed for this fund, the revenue from oil sales in Alaska provides the fund.  This is not robbing the rich to give to the poor.
2. Fund dividends are paid to the public based on the profits from fund investment earnings, not even from the general fund itself (this is a provision in the Alaska constitution).
3. The dividend that the people receive essentially amounts to payment for their share of a commonly-held resource.  In other words, Alaska's oil is considered as belonging to the people of Alaska, and they are treated almost as shareholders.

For those reasons, I don't see this as socialist redistribution.

One last item...   ;)

Alaska's oil is often seen as a disadvantage because of the idea that the federal government would not allow Alaska to become more autonomous when it holds such a valuable resource.

Think of it this way, though.  The federal government can only benefit from Alaska's oil and other natural resources if it can get at them, and presently, much of Alaska's natural potential is off-limits due to environmental activism in DC.  A more autonomous Alaska would off-set that issue, and would actually permit the government greater access to those valuable resources.  Why?  Because efforts to tap those resources would no longer have to meet the approval of the Sierra Club and Barbara Boxer.  The federal government would be dealing mainly with the Alaskan government, which would be very interested in profiting from the sale of its natural resources.

Thus, what we usually perceive as a disadvantage for autonomy might actually be an advantage, if we're good salesmen.
Title: Re:Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: varrin on July 01, 2003, 11:37:24 pm
Excellent point about the oil Robert.  I hadn't looked at that angle before.. ;)

V-

Title: Re:Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: BobW on July 02, 2003, 12:38:42 am
HI RobertH,

Re # 5;

If the FSP was not in existence, my wife and I would be moving to Alaska.

The darn problem for politicos is the travel requirement, Anchorage, Juneau, Seattle.  This requires sponsorship.  It's an expensive proposition.  Now, sponsors can be found but it involves tradeoffs to political positions.

An important point re Her Imperial Majesty Barbara Boxer and the Sierra Club;  look only a couple of layers below their public policy positions and it can be seen they are indirectly representing businesses like ARAMCO, Saudi Arabia.  To protect the "ecologically fragile" ANWR, indirectly affects the pricing of US owned oil obtained from foreign areas.  Is it an Arkansas coincidence that Yukon Territory has 2 national parks next to ANWR, Alaska?  That oil pool must be ultra big.

I'd love to move to Alaska.  It's the pragmatic issues of getting situated and successfully performing in politics that's pushing me to Wyoming as a realistic venue for making a dent in the political situation.

BobW  
Title: Re:Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: Robert H. on July 02, 2003, 04:22:43 am
Hey Bob,

HI RobertH,

Re # 5;

If the FSP was not in existence, my wife and I would be moving to Alaska.

You're not alone.  Prior to discovering the FSP, my wife and I were already scouting out potential places to live around Anchorage.  And she's from Florida!  She was ready to at least make an effort at it though, if it meant a better life.

Quote
The darn problem for politicos is the travel requirement, Anchorage, Juneau, Seattle.  This requires sponsorship.  It's an expensive proposition.  Now, sponsors can be found but it involves tradeoffs to political positions.

Yes, that's true, particularly for those elected to the legislature.  They'd have to live in Juneau for part of the year.

Regarding Barbara Boxer and company, yeah, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they had foreign interests involved there.  Bill Clinton had friends in the Lippo Group from Indonesia where they export clean-burning coal.  Interestingly enough, Clinton decided to declare a national park over the site where the State of Utah was planning on mining and exporting its own supply of clean-burning ("compliance") coal.  Coincidence?  Nah...

Quote
I'd love to move to Alaska.  It's the pragmatic issues of getting situated and successfully performing in politics that's pushing me to Wyoming as a realistic venue for making a dent in the political situation.

I can certainly understand and relate to that.
Title: Read the New Alaska Report!
Post by: Robert H. on July 02, 2003, 04:25:33 am
If you haven't read the new Alaska report, you really ought to before the vote.  It's quite well done.

http://www.freestateproject.org/files/alaska.pdf (http://www.freestateproject.org/files/alaska.pdf)

I've thought before that Alaska would make a good compromise state, for many reasons, and I plan to list it 2nd in the vote.
Title: Re:Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: Doug R. on August 13, 2003, 03:00:22 am
The federal government deals very little with the state government because nearly all oil deposits are on Federal land.  ( The North Slope, ANWR, The Naval Petroleum Reserves, etc. )  The state has only lobbying power with the Feds in this regard.  The bottom line is that when the country needs more Alaskan oil, it'll happen regardless of environmental activism.
Title: Re:Reasons to vote for SD and AK
Post by: kbarrett on August 13, 2003, 11:50:31 am
Yeah thats true.

But that is one thing of many the people are working on trying to get rid of.

We here in Alaska needs to go to the Yukon and Alberta and learn from them on how they do their roads. They don't have to do road construction every blasted year like we do.

The Canadians have mastered the art of building the 60 mph gravel highway. The few far north paved roads they have are heavily insulated with blocks of foam under the gravel roadbed.

I think the big problem on AK highways is the feds insistence on paved roads. A paved road on permafrost is a yearly disaster waiting to happen.