Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: Solitar on August 16, 2002, 01:57:20 am

Title: More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Solitar on August 16, 2002, 01:57:20 am
Post withdrawn.
Title: Re:Other Criteria
Post by: Mega Joule on August 16, 2002, 05:32:57 am

Part of what makes community life enjoyable is an intelligent, educated populace and electorate.

One indicator of this is percentage of population 18 y.o. or older with Bachelor's Degree or higher.
(1990 census data since educational attainment data for 2000 is not posted yet at Census site)


Interesting data.  I wonder how our membership (once we reach 20,000 and move) will impact those percentages.

Meg
Title: Re:Other Criteria
Post by: stpeter on August 19, 2002, 09:18:48 pm
Hey Solitar, you just keep coming up with fascinating numbers! I'm not sure I totally believe the Census figures (e.g., I have a hard time that 250k people will move to Alaska over the next 23 years -- that's 10k people a year), but they're better than nothing. I must say I'd be most comfortable with a state that will still be under 1 million people in 20 years or so, which according to your list would leave Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming (with Montana almost making the cut). Alaska continues to look better and better to me, but I think the short list really needs to take this kind of demographic information into account, so thanks for digging it up!
Title: Re:Other Criteria
Post by: di540 on August 28, 2002, 02:19:00 pm
One should expect Nevada & New Mexico to be ranked last, since they have higher percentages of non-citizens. Alaska might have a high degree of transients, despite being citizens.
Title: Re:Other Criteria
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 29, 2002, 10:42:57 pm
NV, NM, and WV are on the verge of being culled.  Sure, you can send me the file.  Is there a link to this info? If so we could put that on the website.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on August 30, 2002, 09:36:25 am
Eh, Perot fans are not necessarily our target group.  Most of the ones I've met were either mushy centrists or wacko nativists.

Regarding driving age: it's not surprising that more urban states would restrict teenager driving more.  Letting young teenagers drive in cities can be dangerous unless you have some pretty strong requirements for their getting a license.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: mdw on August 31, 2002, 11:25:48 pm
Solitar-

Interesting numbers, especially the weighted independent voter tallies.

Yet another factor which could be considered when choosing a state is tolerance. Tolerance is the ability to live with other people who hold a different viewpoint without attempting to legislate conformity to your viewpoint. Some objective measures which could be used to gauge tolerance are:
-past state laws regarding abortion, i.e., was the state pro-choice before Roe v. Wade, and are there any noxious state-level laws currently
-zoning and land planning, which you have already started to cover
-blue laws, including laws regarding purchasing alcohol on Sundays and other religiously motivated statutes
-anti-smoking laws

I view tolerance as being absolutely critical to the establishment of a truely free society. Most folks like the idea of some freedoms, but freak out when their neighbors exercise their freedoms to the fullest extentent possible.

Regards,
mdw
Title: Re:Other Criteria - Fireworks laws
Post by: Mega Joule on September 01, 2002, 01:53:54 pm
Quote
Quote from: Solitar


Family safe and sane fireworks. Sparklers (sparklers are not permitted in California), fountains, trick noisemakers, toy smoke devices and snakes.


This is not accurate.  I live in CA and while it is true that many areas here prohibit fireworks it is not universal.  It is regulated at the city or county level.  For example I live in a northern county in which the city I live in bans all fireworks, but I can drive 20 minutes down the road (in the same county) and purchase and use fireworks.  Generally fireworks here are banned in extreme fire hazard areas, which may seem unduly restrictive, but perhaps not when one considers the extremely high costs of fire supression in these areas.

A minor, nit-picky point here, sorry.

Meg
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: callydog on September 02, 2002, 10:39:29 am
There is a possibility that the states present constitution might give us further insight into the moods of the electorate.  

my idea is to have us read each states constitution and evaluate how close it is to our beliefs.  check out changes, say over the last ten years and then find out the percentage of votes that would tend to agree with us.

i loved an article in the Manchester  NH about the state had to seperate a highway because the township refused them from moving it.  right or wrong, it is a touch of freedom.

move anywhere
John
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: callydog on September 02, 2002, 10:52:16 am
i apologise the the incorrect sentence.  the article about a highway in New England has about a large rock that blocked the highway.
Title: Re:Motor Vehicle Safety or Emissions Inspection
Post by: Doc on September 02, 2002, 01:03:37 pm

EMISSIONS TESTING
Depending on your libertarian view of polluting vehicles vs. personal responsibility vs. the commons these may be good or bad. I'm guessing that mandatory testing may not be part of a "Free State".


Once industrial hemp is decriminalized, the question of auto pollution in the free state might become moot.  ;)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 03, 2002, 11:55:10 pm
West Virginia, New Mexico, and Nevada were culled a few days ago. :)  Thanks for this interesting data.  So the West has lots of empty rural areas, but it also has a more urbanized population.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: wilaygarn on September 04, 2002, 11:41:52 am
If there are any land surveyors besides myself interested in the FSP It might be good for us to compare the states, as to their requirements for licensure and required standards of practice.

I was shown a web site where the states can be compared, which is: http://www.lsrp.com/ .

I have not studied them myself yet, but it might be worth something. In my own case I might have to give up my practice because the chosen state might not reconise my Virginia license.

I do think that the government has no business requiring a person to obtain its permission to be self employed, but that is a matter that would have to be addressed later.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Charley on September 19, 2002, 06:51:56 pm
If we end up in a very sparsely populated state perhaps we had better cultivate a few private pilots as activists.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 20, 2002, 12:26:26 pm
Jan Helfeld thinks this is an argument for Delaware.  It might well be, but a friend of mine who's also a political scientist thinks that a more crucial consideration is proximity to major media outlets.  Because the Washington Post and the Boston Globe cover Delaware and New England respectively, he thinks we need to go out West where we won't receive major unfavorable media attention.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: cathleeninsc on September 20, 2002, 02:21:41 pm
Having just returned from our "look over" visit to Delaware, that proximity has us very concerned. I felt as if we were in the shadow of a great black cloud-- or was that just the onset of Hannah?

We were not impressed.
Cathleen in SC

You know, voting for a state may end up like buying a car. You read all the statistics but if the cup holder doesn't fit the cup, you ain't buying it.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: wilaygarn on September 20, 2002, 06:14:48 pm

Jan Helfeld thinks this is an argument for Delaware.  It might well be, but a friend of mine who's also a political scientist thinks that a more crucial consideration is proximity to major media outlets.  Because the Washington Post and the Boston Globe cover Delaware and New England respectively, he thinks we need to go out West where we won't receive major unfavorable media attention.


I can understand the concerns about negative press, but Idaho has gotten nothing but negative press, even from so-called conservatives like Limbaugh, and one can hardly get further from the media centers than Idaho.

One could even make the argument that with Delaware's accessability it would be that much harder to slander it.
The Washington Times is also nearby, along with other notable organisations and media outlets favorable to liberty.

Despite it's physical geograohy and its proximity to my home state of Virginia, I am by no means sold on it as a viable candidate, but I have not made my mind up yet.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Robert H. on September 22, 2002, 03:57:17 am
The problem with being located close to more conservative groups like the Washington Times, is that, in the vast scheme of all things media, they don't account for much.  They get very little attention comparatively.  And what little in the way of favorable attention you might draw from them would be more than counterbalanced by the negative aspects of being so close to DC and the giant liberal media outlets.  Despite what conservative element there is out there, the liberals very much dominate the media, and as such they set the overall tone that the media takes with regard to most things.

Also, I wouldn't bank on that much support from mainline conservative organizations anyway, particularly in the beginning.  Many of them, despite their small government preferences, have bought into the consolidationist line that the only thing that matters is capturing control of Washington.  It's the Holy Grail of American politics, and they're liable to think that your time is better spent funding special interest groups or mounting other attempts to influence matters on either side of the Rotunda or at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Many conservatives with "stature" are also likely to distance themselves from us because we would threaten their borderline acceptance status in the national media.  The liberals are likely going to tar and feather us as a new Jim Jones or Heaven's Gate extremist movement, and they'll gladly hand out the same treatment to anyone who gets near us, particularly if it gives them the priceless opportunity to destroy a successful conservative like Limbaugh or Hannidy.  For that reason, conservatives that have been more successful in dealing with the left will likely be hanging up crucifixes and garlic to keep us away from their hard-won reputations.

You also have to consider that the FSP is an unusual movement with an unusual goal, and as such it will attract an unusual amount of time and attention on the part of the mostly-liberal press, when they finally see that we are serious.  The only things that can be reasonably expected to curtail their scrutiny will be how much time it takes, and how much it costs them to do it.  For this reason, you're much better off out west where the big news agencies have to take the considerable time and expense of coming to you.  They're agenda-driven organizations to be sure, but when it's all said and done, like any other business, they're mainly profit-driven.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: wilaygarn on September 22, 2002, 01:43:24 pm
Solitar wrote: "From at least presidential election coverage, the major establishment media regards even New Hampshire as out in the boonies. They seem to regard trips up there as expeditions to the frozen, backward, far north "

I agree with that. I also remember  news articles with that "expedition to the outlands" tone to it, and the Northeast hasn't been stigmatized with a negative stereotype by the mass media.

To counter my argument that Delaware's accessability may make it difficult for the media to successfully slander it, I am also cynical enough to think that the average sheep would believe the mass media over their own personal knowledge.

As much  as I'd like to see a free state of Delaware I do still find myself favoring New Hamster.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: wilaygarn on September 24, 2002, 07:13:33 pm
A state's policy concerning concealed carry is also very important to me, and I also think it is an important indicater of a state's philosophy towards the individual's right and responsibility to defend himself.

 "May issue" is just about as bad as no issue, because frequently only the well connected can obtain permission to defend themselves with firearms.

 Virginia used to be a "may issue" state, and after a coworker was robbed (they worked in an isolated place) my Dad applied for a CCW. The judge refused him permission, saying that he didn't have "sufficent proof of need".

 I have long suspected that Delaware is nearly as hostile towards private arms as Maryland, which is about as bad as Massachucets.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 28, 2002, 09:54:14 am
Interesting figures - where did you get them?  So your view is that states with lower native-born percentages will be friendlier to us?  That might well be the case, though I could image a hump distribution: states that are mostly native may be most friendly to outsiders because they don't feel threatened, while states that are about half and half will have the most tension.  States that are mostly non-native will again be friendly to outsiders.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Robert H. on September 29, 2002, 12:40:03 am
Joe,

You raise a number of extremely important factors to be taken into overall consideration.

Just a few thoughts on issues you've raised:

1.  In regard to Alaska natives...Alaskans tend to view themselves as an independent, almost pioneering people and are generally suspicious of anyone from "the lower 48."  They have a tremendous sense of state pride, a factor which could weigh decidedly in our favor, or work against us, depending on how we approached them.  At the same time though, they're used to receiving "refugees" from the lower 48, and particularly noted a rising trend in migration to Alaska during the Clinton years (a source of pride for them).  They would be suspicious of us, but would likely receive us in time if we showed our determination to become Alaskans and shied away from attempting to impose "outsider" ways on them (ie: the way things are done in the lower 48).

Also, as you mention, the state's aging population is a growing concern.  I read the Anchorage Daily News and Fairbanks News-Miner online quite often, and I've seen a lot of concern being expressed on the fact that "all the young folk are moving out" in letters-to-the-editor, etc...The stats that you cited may help work somewhat in our favor there as they indicate that the vast majority of AK residents were originally "outsiders."  Having once moved there themselves (likely to escape life in the lower 48), such persons would probably be more receptive to us.  On the other hand, we'd also have to factor in how long those transplants have been living there.

2.  In regard to the NEA, here I think you've identified what will likely be one of the top three sources of opposition to us, if not THE top.  The NEA is a well-organized, very vocal, and very effective special interest group.  If we disclose plans to privatize public schools, we'll effectively be starting a war, the severity of which will probably amaze us in the long run.  The NEA absolutely cannot afford to have a state government demonstrating successful alternatives to the current nationalized public school system.  They'll pull out all the stops to oppose us, including marshalling all of that "no child left behind, invest in the future, education is not just for the rich" rhetoric.  Congressional liberals will side with them and enact whatever form of coercion necessary to keep us from succeeding.  And our arguments that it is our business and no one else's will not disuade them.  South Carolina tried arguing that with regard to the Confederate flag, but the issue was still the subject of a national "dialogue," and even became an issue in the presidential campaign.

Education reform like the FSP has in mind, even restricted to a single state, could be a fight like none other in recent memory, closely followed by dismantling welfare and environmental de-regulation.  I support all of these reforms, but think that we're going to have to plan very, very carefully if we want to come out of the battle better off than Custer did at Little Big Horn.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 29, 2002, 11:42:15 am
Very interesting stuff, Solitar - what you've done is to effectively break down the federal dependence variable we have on the State Data page by types of dependence.  The Western states are so bad on this measure because of farm subsidies!  They're not so bad on public assistance.  I think the farm subsidy issue effectively makes the Dakotas nonviable choices; Idaho and Montana might just be possible, but there would still be a fight.  Wyoming actually looks very good on all the things you just posted.  I've opposed Wyoming in the past because I thought it had zero jobs, and that we would all die of exposure or starvation if we moved there.  But other than that, it looks good. ;)  (Actually, freeing Wyoming would require a lot fewer than 20,000 activists due to its low population.  We could win there with 10,000 probably.  Something to keep in mind.)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Victor VI on September 29, 2002, 12:04:38 pm

The Western states are so bad on this measure because of farm subsidies!  They're not so bad on public assistance.  I think the farm subsidy issue effectively makes the Dakotas nonviable choices; Idaho and Montana might just be possible, but there would still be a fight.


It might be useful to know not just how much money these states are receiving for farm subsidies, but what the distribution of the money is. It's my (purely anecdotal) understanding that the farm subsidies largely benefit a relatively small group of corporate farms, rather than your typical independant farmer. If that is the case, it probably wouldn't be to difficult to persuade the independents to vote against receiving the subsidies. In fact, if the money is mostly subsidizing their corporate competition, I expect they'd be glad to do so.
Title: Re:Fighting farm subsidy money
Post by: Victor VI on September 29, 2002, 08:57:18 pm

Victor,
Even a few thousand dollars per little guy is enough to buy his or her vote. And, according to my friend who used to be out there amongst those people, that subsidy money can and does buy the support of entire communities, counties and states.


It would be interesting to know what the rational of the "little guy" is in accepting this arrangement. Surely they understand that their corporate competitors are getting the lion's share of the federal largess, and that ultimately, subsidies are damaging to their interests. Are they going along with because they don't see a way out, or do they actually think this is beneficial to them in some way? (Hey, I'm from Chicago - I don't pretend to understand farm economics or psychology!)

It would still be interesting to know what percentage of independents are receiving the subsidy.  I have a hard time believing every farmer in the west derives a benefit from this. Unfortunately, a Google search didn't turn up any information that was particularily useful.



The big corps would likely spend at least ten percent of their subsidy money to fun a public relations campaign and buy politicians. View the Dakota figures as a half-billion dollar warchest. They could spend one entire year's worth to ensure the following years' money keeps coming in.


No doubt about that.  Still, the FSP's agenda is going to gore somebody's ram wherever it locates. While I'd personally prefer an eastern state myself, I'm not certain the interests in the east are any less formidible than the ones in the west.


Either the Free State lives with it if it chooses one of the western states other than Wyoming or Alaska, or it is in for one heckuva fight against opponents with very deep pockets. In those four biggest farm subsidy states that money could be as powerful as the education (NEA, etc.) in the New England states.


I suspect the FSP is going to be in for a good fight wherever it goes. I guess in this instance, we have to ask which franchise we stand a better chance of overcoming - public education or farm subsidies.  I'm not sure dollar amounts can tell you the whole story, you're going to be looking at a cultural bias as well. Farm subsidies have always been somewhat controversial - while some people may like them, few people consider them a God-given right. Eliminating them has always been on the table politically, even if it hasn't been notably successful it still isn't considered a radical proposal. Contrast that with most people's attitude toward education - most people will look at you like you're crazy if you even suggest an education is anything but a perfectly natural function of government.  It no longer occurs to most people that there was ever a time when government wasn't responsible for it.  So in addition to dollar amounts, I think you have to consider what it will take to overcome ingrained prejudices, as well.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: mdlowry on September 29, 2002, 09:31:10 pm
I've only been in New Hampshire for a couple of years.  The government indoctranation centers are a bit of a contraversy here.  The NH Constitution (http://www.state.nh.us/constitution/lit.html) established these long ago.  The state Supream Court (Claremont decision) has been involved lately concerning the funding.  
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Halo on September 30, 2002, 01:38:13 pm
Here's another little tidbit on subsidies:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110002359 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110002359)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Halo on October 01, 2002, 09:14:05 pm
Joe, you're right. Maybe someone could take all the stats posted in this thread and compile it into a coherant data base, by state. That way when it comes time to vote, all the data and information could be looked at state by state and weighed accordingly.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 02, 2002, 07:15:40 am
Actually, we're doing that right now; Matt Cheselka is gathering these stats for a bigger and better Rank the States page.  Some people will want to keep it simple and focussed on the major variables we already have on the State Data and existing Rank the States pages, but we should have the finer data available to those who wish to use them.
Title: Re:Northern state campaign considerations
Post by: Thor on October 02, 2002, 09:10:32 am


I had thought flying would be an option in spread-out states but the hassles at airports now does make that something to have second thoughts about. But in Alaska activist campaigners may have no choice.


Excellent work guys...  Sorry for the late comment on this, but....  In Alaska, I think it is somewhere around 50% (that is probalby too high, but the number is the highest of anywhere) of the population uses float planes for transportation.  

Lake Hood, right out side of Anchorage is the busiest water runway in the world, with flights taking off like every 10 mins or so.  And with a float plane, you get almost anywhere....   :)

Something to think about when reaching the 50% of Alaskans that live outside the big cities.  Driving everywhere in another state, or a float plane trip in Alaska.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: smoorefu on October 04, 2002, 03:46:57 pm
Here is information on sodomy laws in different states.  This is a measure of  how open a state is to alternative sexuality and gender issues, important to gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, intersexed, and sadomasochistic people.

Based on a first quick look, it seems that the states that are being considered all have repealed these laws, except for Idaho.  (Also North Dakota doesn't seem to be listed for some reason.)

http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/sodomy.html

stephanie

Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Mega Joule on October 05, 2002, 12:40:43 am

2.  In regard to the NEA, here I think you've identified what will likely be one of the top three sources of opposition to us, if not THE top.  The NEA is a well-organized, very vocal, and very effective special interest group.  If we disclose plans to privatize public schools, we'll effectively be starting a war, the severity of which will probably amaze us in the long run.  


One of the things that I have thought for awhile is that we are not going to be able to take on the task of complete privatization of public schools right away.  Perhaps a slower, subtler approach would be more feasible.  We can begin by removing barriers to homeschooling and easing regulations regarding the foundation of private schools.  The teachers union will find it difficult to  rally large numbers of voters against a parents right to choose private education.  They are not even terribly successful in their complaints against homeschooling, which is gaining in numbers and respectability across the nation as a viable alternative to public education by Christian and secular families alike.  As alternate programs and schools gain in popularity and are proven successful, more parents will withdraw their children from public schools, which will result in teachers (who wish to remain employed) to seek employment opportunities in non-public schools (which frequently offer a better working environment and smaller class sizes), and gradually the union’s strength can be overcome.

Meg
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Robert H. on October 08, 2002, 12:12:43 am

As alternate programs and schools gain in popularity and are proven successful, more parents will withdraw their children from public schools, which will result in teachers (who wish to remain employed) to seek employment opportunities in non-public schools (which frequently offer a better working environment and smaller class sizes), and gradually the union’s strength can be overcome.


Meg,

I think that you're definitely right in advocating a gradual approach, in fact, I believe that this approach will be essential no matter what we do.  We need to work our way up gradually, utilizing the existing political and social machinery as best we can.

Something else you said about parents withdrawing children from failing schools and teachers eventually switching over is well considered also.  Our best means of attacking the education issue might simply be to lend support to private schools to the point where we can demonstrate the quality and stability that they provide as opposed to the state-runs schools.  If we can do that, the current public system could well be down-sized on its own.  Scaling back various oppressive forms of taxation (property taxes, etc), will enable parents to have the money to invest in the private schools as well.  In time, we might even be able to negotiate with the feds for some sort of federal tax relief for families in our state once we are able to sufficiently reform the education system and remove the "burden" from the federally-funded system.

This would put us in a strongly defensible position with the education lobby.  If we can demonstrate that our system can educate children better than their system, then we've taken the wind out of their sails.  We will have demonstrable results, not just a theory about "a better way."  They'll still demagogue us, but we'd expect that anyway.

Some things to think about.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Mega Joule on October 08, 2002, 02:49:23 am


Something else you said about parents withdrawing children from failing schools and teachers eventually switching over is well considered also.  Our best means of attacking the education issue might simply be to lend support to private schools to the point where we can demonstrate the quality and stability that they provide as opposed to the state-runs schools.  


I have had some other thoughts on the school issue.  For example, in addition to lending support and encouragement to the private schools, alterative schools and co-ops could be established.  For parents who want to homeschool, but feel they need help with lesson plans, resources, and teaching strategies, homeschool resource centers could be opened.  Parents would pay for the services they needed on an individual basis.  Curriculum could be recycled much in the way colleges do with a book buy-back program.  Tutoring for students and training for parents could be made available.  Additional services might include science lab classes, arts and crafts, computer labs, and writer’s workshops.  

Now for those who either do not desire to homeschool or don’t have the time or resources a teaching co-op might be a viable solution.  This could be arranged area by area.  A group of parents, a neighborhood, or a town could “buy” a teacher’s services.  A building would be secured either though lease agreement, donation, or some other financial arrangement and a teacher or teachers would be hired.  If the entire expense were shared among enough parents it would likely be less expensive than a private school where parents are paying for the overhead of running an entire school.

I have no doubt that other alternative to public schools would arise given the opportunity.

Meg
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: wilaygarn on October 12, 2002, 09:45:17 pm
I think something like this may be posted elsewhere, but I found this on a surveyor's bulletin board tonight:

Best and worst states to run a small business
Posted By John Giles on 10/11/2002 at 11:48 PM
The top 10

1. Nevada

2. Florida

3. Texas

4. Alabama

5. (tie) Virginia, Arizona

7. Tennessee

8. Colorado

9. South Carolina

10. Georgia

Close behind: New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, Utah

And the bottom 10:

50. Iowa

49. Maine

48. New Mexico

47. New York

46. Montana

45. North Dakota

44. Nebraska

43. Vermont

42. (tie) West Virginia, Rhode Island, Hawaii

On the bubble: Minnesota

Here is the link:

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/harper/141.asp?cobrand=msn&LID=3800

To think I could be doing just as good with my business in Hawii.


Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 24, 2002, 07:02:06 pm
Interesting data...actually, there is a file comparing the states on all these types of taxes on the Yahoo group:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/freestateproject/files
(fspstatetaxes1.xls)

I'm scratching my head at the Wyoming sales tax note: how can they offer an income tax credit for sales tax paid on food when Wyoming doesn't have a state income tax?
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: z0rr0 on October 25, 2002, 12:09:41 am
Check out the link below.  OpenOffice is compatible with the various Microsoft Office products and it is free.  The support windows, linux, and mac.

http://www.openoffice.org/dev_docs/source/download.html
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 25, 2002, 07:35:10 am
Check your email Joe...
Title: Re:State Excise Tax Rates on Cigarettes
Post by: mlilback on October 25, 2002, 05:54:08 pm

State Excise Tax Rates on Cigarettes


All better than NYC, where I haven't seen it less than $7.50 a pack. Fortunately, where ever we go, you can order from Indian Reservations for about $2-3 per pack.

I've actually been selling packs to my friends and a discount based on cartons I order online.

Mark
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: mlilback on October 25, 2002, 06:08:57 pm
Airport Access

I've created a spreadsheet of airports in each of the candidate states (or the ones still in serious consideration). It shows city, state, airport code, flights per week, # airlines, and # destinations. It also has calculation fields to show departures per day and departures per day per airline.

I only included a few major airports from Alaska, as there is a huge number of airports in AK, and I didn't feel like checking them all for commercial flights. Also, number of destinations will be distorted for AK, since there are so many in-state airports. (Assuming you are interested in this data for travelling out of state.)

I've uploaded it to my website as both Excel 2000 format and Excel 95 format for Joe.

http://www.lilback.com/misc/StateAirports.xls (http://www.lilback.com/misc/StateAirports.xls)
http://www.lilback.com/misc/StateAirports95.xls (http://www.lilback.com/misc/StateAirports95.xls)

(Feel free to copy to the FSP site.)

Here is some rankings from the data:

Top Airports by Destination
Anchorage, AK  (35)
Fairbanks, AK (26)
Boise, ID (18)
Manchester, NH (17)
Juneau, AK (16)
Nome, AK (14)
Portland, ME (12)
Burlington, VT (11)

Top Airports by # Avg Departures per Day
Anchorage, AK (85)
Boise, ID (70)
Manchester, NH (66)
Portland, ME (53)
Fairbanks, AK (51)
Burlington, VT (42)
Juneau, AK (38)
Nome, AK (26)
Eugene, ID (23)
Bangor, ME (22)

Top Airports by Avg Departures per Destination per Day
Cheyenee, WY (11)
Casper, WY (8)
Sun Valley, ID (6)
Devil's Lake, ND (5)
Jameston, ND (5)
Riverton, WY (5)
Twin Falls, ID (5)
Worland, WY (5)

I'm going to try finding a map of airports so I revise it to include nearby out-of-state airports, too.

Mark
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: varrin on October 26, 2002, 02:58:49 pm
Mark,

Check Philly for Wilmington, DE.  That's probably the very best stats wise.  I think Boise might be best cost wise.

V-

Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: RidleyReport on October 30, 2002, 06:39:55 pm
This thread has gotten so long, I may have just missed it...but I haven't yet seen that much discussion of how much local residents from each state would welcome Porcupines.  I know however that Joe seems to have found the ultimate place where they would:  northern Maine.   I've had his post about that on my mind for weeks now, so much so that it's poking holes in my Montanophilia.   It's *so* important that we *not* be "invaders" or perceived as such.  It's also important we go where we're needed.   Northern Maine seems to be such a place.   Imagine how much better our PR will be, and thus our chances for impacting the whole country, if locals are thrilled to have us there.

Joe's original post on this:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=325
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: wilaygarn on October 30, 2002, 11:15:37 pm
I have a friend from (I think) the northern part of Maine, and I think he might agree with you.
 I think the problem with Maine, though, is the size of the rest of the population, and what I percieve is a general satisfaction with the way things are.

I have become pretty much of a supporter of New Hamshire but it seems to me that N.H. is picked, that the movement could easily spread to Maine.

This coming from a Virginian whose only dealings with New Englanders comes from my friends who are current or former Navy.

Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: PongGod on November 04, 2002, 11:40:12 pm
I've yet to see any data on the number and quality of golf courses in the various states - it's time to get our priorities straight!  :D

I'm guessing most of these sparsely populated northern states are also sparsely populated with golf courses, but I see lots of vast, wide-open spaces to accomodate them!

Any other golf nuts on here besides me?
Title: Income Inequality Figures
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 20, 2002, 02:58:56 pm
I just came across some really neat data that we can use.  These are income inequality figures by state derived from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS).  Income inequality is important for us because more unequal states will have more class conflict and a larger underclass willing to vote for redistribution.

Accordingly, figures on income inequality by state are presented below.  The first table presents the measure of income inequality "90/10" (the adjusted household income of the 90th percentile divided by the adjusted household income of the 10th percentile) for Waves III and IV.  Wave III of the LIS contains data from the late 80s and early 90s.  Wave IV contains data from the mid-90s.

The second table presents another measure of inequality, the Gini index, which is frequently used by economists.  Unlike 90/10 Gini takes into account the income distribution across all percentiles, but it is more susceptible than 90/10 to measurement error.  Finally, the third table presents a measure of inter-state income inequality, that is, median household income in the state divided by median household income in the whole country.

Table I
statewave IIIwave IV
Alaska5.535.64
Delaware3.714.92
Idaho5.244.62
Maine
5.774.45
Montana4.184.37
New Hampshire4.294.72
North Dakota5.274.02
South Dakota5.514.61
Vermont5.854.09
Wyoming3.894.32

Table II
statewave IIIwave IV
Alaska.335.343
Delaware.281.310
Idaho.317.333
Maine
.337.313
Montana.303.308
New Hampshire.295.333
North Dakota.317.309
South Dakota.354.323
Vermont.318.298
Wyoming.275.329

The results with the 90/10 ratio and the Gini index contradict each other frequently, both across states and between time periods.  Idaho, for example, saw a decline in 90/10 but an increase in the Gini index.

Table III
statewave IIIwave IV
Alaska1.061.26
Delaware.961.13
Idaho.88.90
Maine
.88.95
Montana.85.87
New Hampshire1.321.17
North Dakota.87.94
South Dakota.80.99
Vermont1.021.05
Wyoming1.051.05

For purposes of comparison:
In Wave III, the state with the lowest income inequality, by either measure, was Wisconsin (3.20/2.61).
In Wave III, the state with the highest income inequality (90/10) was Kentucky (7.22).  The state with the highest income inequality (Gini) was the District of Columbia (.405).
In Wave IV, the state with the lowest income inequality (90/10) was North Dakota (4.02).  The state with the lowest income inequality (Gini) was Vermont (.298).
In Wave IV, the state with the highest income inequality, by either measure, was DC (8.88/.422).
In Wave III, the state with the lowest income ratio was DC (.78).  The state with the highest income ratio was New Hampshire (1.32).
In Wave IV, the state with the lowest income ratio was Mississippi (.80).  The state with the highest income ratio was Connecticut (1.32).
Title: Re:Income Inequality Figures
Post by: craft_6 on November 20, 2002, 03:26:05 pm
Income inequality is important for us because more unequal states will have more class conflict and a larger underclass willing to vote for redistribution.

I don't think this is necessarily the case.  States with high income inequality are also states where it is more possible to become wealthy, possibly due to lower taxes and more business-friendly regulations.  

The political culture in the state seems more important to me than the statistical distribution of wealth.  An underclass will not resent the wealthy as much if everyone places a high value on self-sufficiency, business success is respected, and those who start out with little have a chance of acquiring wealth.  New Hampshire ranks highly in the tables you provided, but the residents there seem resistant to calls to increase the role of the state.  

Consider a few other states outside the FSP's ten candidates.  Although I don't have the data, I would guess that Texas and Nevada have much higher income inequality than Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Oregon, yet (or perhaps because) they are far more libertarian than those states.  Liberty tends to produce greater wealth, lifting incomes for everyone, but much more so for the most productive members of society.

I could be off-base, of course -- statistics sometimes prove things that aren't intuitively obvious.  Perhaps a comparison of the income inequality tables to percent of welfare recipients, or state government spending to state GDP will show a correlation.

On the other hand, income inequality numbers could also correlate with degree of urbanization, which might mean we should consider higher income inequality as a negative.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 20, 2002, 03:50:22 pm
Maybe income inequality is mostly a result of economic dynamism or urbanization.  However, we already have variables measuring those things.  If two states are equal in economic dynamism and urbanization, which is better: the state with more income inequality, or the state with less?  Probably the state with less.  There's a good bit of economic literature on income inequality worldwide.  Worldwide, income inequality tends to correlate with poor economic growth and bad public policies (Latin America, for example).  Economic theory suggests as well that in more unequal societies the median voter will be more in favor of income redistribution than in more equal societies.  However, this theory is complicated by the fact that the income inequality figures presented above are post-redistribution, that is, after taxes and transfers.  So some states may score low on those tables simply because they have more egalitarian redistribution programs.  But then again, we already have figures on total government spending.  So we have to remember not to look at those figures in isolation, but as part of a whole state comparison matrix.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: ZuG on November 21, 2002, 10:33:48 pm
I'm working on compiling data as to what it will be when we move there, as opposed to now (I think working on data that exists now rather than projections is kind of silly.)

I'm working on voter statistics, and I need statistics on percentage of voting age population that votes, or percentage of registered voters and percent of those voters who vote (same thing, really). I'll use that to project voters in 2015 and 2025.

If you know of data broken up into age groups, that's twice as good =)
Title: How about affordability of a second home in the FSP?
Post by: libertyNYC on November 22, 2002, 01:28:30 pm
Affordability of a second or vacation home in the Free State is a criteria for me.  As you can tell from my username, I live and work in NYC, one of the least free places in the country (in terms of laws, anyway).  However, my profession is here and I doubt that any of the states selected have an abundance of jobs in my profession.  So, until I can afford to either retire or switch to a lower-paying profession, I intend to buy a second or vacation home in the free state and enjoy it as often as possible.  

Is anyone else in this same situation, or is everyone planning to move lock-stock-and-barrel to the Free State right away?
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: ZuG on November 22, 2002, 01:55:54 pm
I suspect that i'll have to take a lower paying job (i'm on my way to grad school for a Ph.D. in zoology) when I get to the free state, but if worse comes to worst I feel like I can always resort to subsistance farming, as I grew up near a farm and I think I could handle that.. I also have some computer skills, so I feel like in the first few years i'm just going to have to be resourceful.

However, you're ovbiously further down the road than I am and already used to a certain standard, so what you are saying makes sense to me (at least, for you). So long as you set it up so you can at least vote in the free state, you'll still be an asset, even if you can't do the campaigning that others will be.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: ZuG on November 22, 2002, 06:31:46 pm
Hey Joe,
    I've already compiled a file of the candidate stages, and population broken down by age group, as projected for 2015 and 2025.

Now what I want to do with that info, is figure out the percentage of voters voting today, hopefully broken down by age group, and then use those numbers to project who'll be voting 15/25 years down the road. If you want my data, drop me a line at ozugo@NOSPAMyahoo.com (remove the NOSPAM, of course).

It seems stupid to me to even be considering data from today... by the time we get there, things population will will have changed dramatically, especially in the east.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: craft_6 on November 25, 2002, 01:49:47 pm
Maybe income inequality is mostly a result of economic dynamism or urbanization.  However, we already have variables measuring those things.....  Economic theory suggests as well that in more unequal societies the median voter will be more in favor of income redistribution than in more equal societies.  However, this theory is complicated by the fact that the income inequality figures presented above are post-redistribution, that is, after taxes and transfers.... So we have to remember not to look at those figures in isolation, but as part of a whole state comparison matrix.

That makes sense to me -- all of the data we have accumulated need to be considered in the context of the other data for the ten states.  Also, the income inequality figures given make more sense when we remember that they are post-redistribution.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 26, 2002, 04:22:32 am
This is from the National Governors Association. Provides some interesting info on the states budgets. Seems as Delaware has the most state employees by far. Wyoming seems to be running the tightest ship budget wise.

http://www.nga.org/cda/files/NOV2002FISCALSURVEY.pdf
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on December 02, 2002, 11:40:15 am
This is from the National Governors Association. Provides some interesting info on the states budgets. Seems as Delaware has the most state employees by far. Wyoming seems to be running the tightest ship budget wise.

http://www.nga.org/cda/files/NOV2002FISCALSURVEY.pdf
I spent over 4 hours trying to analyze the state budgets for comparison purposes and I got lost with all of the different 'emergency' and 'surplus' accounts that different states have.  It looks as if each state has learned some of the obfuscation techniques that Enron learned from the U.S. Congress.  Even states with balanced-budget constitutions still retain various slush funds.

My early analysis showed Wyoming being far less than excellent; but that was before I threw my hands up and quit after trying to rectify all of the differences between accounting practices, (this even after taking various accounting classes in college and a couple of years experience as a bookeeper).

I think I may have got too caught up in some of the details and I missed something obvious somewhere in the report.  I could finish doing this comparison but I don't have the time to finish it according to the way I started. Any ideas anyone? Z.C.?
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: cathleeninsc on December 02, 2002, 12:18:40 pm
Whoever invented fund accounting ought to be shot.

Cathleen in SC

uh-oh I just advocated violence.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: wilaygarn on December 02, 2002, 12:59:48 pm
Maybe I mentioned it on this thread before but I can't remember. There is a web site called www.cafrman.com where they compare the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports of the various States and contend that there is massive misuse of tax money, to the extent that they are almost keeping two sets of books. One to show investors and the other to show the taxpayers.  A feller named Walter Burien has also done a lot along these lines.

I'm afraid that I'm no good at all with finances and my eyes glaze over early on; but I'm prepared to think the worse about any government one could name
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on December 12, 2002, 06:26:04 pm
In consideration of the political climate of our candidate states, we should examine what messages have appealed to voters and how much the people allow their representatives to get away with.  One measure of this is how the representatives vote, while just basing judgements on only a few votes would be quite subjective, overall trends may be useful.

Here is one installment of how U.S. representatives in our ten states voted in the last session in key decisions.  

According to FAIR (affiliated with the famously outspoken paleoconservative group, John Birch Society)
http://www.trimonline.org/bulletin/select_state.htm

Here they are, as I broke them down according to congressional district:
ME01 . . . 5 out of 8 votes pro- constitution.
ME02 . . . 5 / 8"                                         ".
ND(1). . . 5 / 8
DE01 . . . 4 / 8
ID01. . . 4 /8
 ID02 . . . 2 / 8    
AK(1) . .  3 / 8
WY(1) . .  3 / 8
MT01 . . . 3 / 8
SD(1) . . . 3 / 8
VT(1) . . .  3 / 8
NH01 . . . 2 / 8
NH02 . . . 2 / 8

Interesting to note that Bernie Sanders, the socialist sided with the constitution more than some Republicans who claim to uphold the constitution in this last round.  
Also, none of our 10 states had any of the star pro-constitution voters and our discarded Hawaii and Rhode Island fared better than most here.  But it also points out how subjective this can be on just one set of votes.

If you want to get a copy of the database I made to build this list, e-mail me.  It is in Quattro Pro (Word Perfect Office, 2001 ver.)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Caliban on January 11, 2003, 12:45:18 am
I think public opinion on drug re-legalization is an important indicator.
Check out

<http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4420>

and

<http://www.marijuanainfo.org>
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on January 11, 2003, 09:47:28 am
Only three of our candidate states presented on the NORML website had statewide polls taken, Maine, South Dakota, and Vermont.

Nationwide opinion polls showed 60% - 85% of people across the country supporting some form of legalization of marijuana. Recent polls since 1999 from Gallup and Pew Research Center show 73% of people "support allowing" or "would vote" for medical marijuana.

At perhaps 12% below the nationwide polls, 61 percent of Mainiards, Mainiacs, or Maine residents supported "legalizing marijuana for medical use under a doctor's supervision" in 1999.

In Vermont, 76 percent of respondents "support changing the law to allow people with cancer, AIDS and other serious illnesses to use and grow their own marijuana for medical purposes, if they have approval of their physicians." Date: February 2002

And most encouraging, in South Dakota, 81 percent of respondents favored "a change in South Dakota law so that seriously ill people, with a doctor's approval, can use medical marijuana legally." Date: January 2001.

The "Free-State" of Maryland, which borders our Delaware had 55% of respondents willing to consider to support a pro-marijuana candidate.

In Minnesota, bordering our North Dakota, 64% of residents favored "protecting patients" in 1999, which is a different question than supporting a candidate and almost seems to say that 36% actually favor arresting marijuana users, nevermind the drug dealers, doesn't it? More than a third of Minnesotans seem to favor just arresting and jailing all the medical marijuana users --is that something I can infer from this poll?  Probably not, best to read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

In Colorado, bordering our Wyoming,  67 percent of respondents supported "legalizing marijuana for medical use under a doctor's supervision".


Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on January 12, 2003, 05:29:01 am
Here is some info that relates to the DMV in each state:

When you become a resident of your new state, remember to get a new driver's license and register any vehicles you may have.  

Here is some trivia I gathered by going to each state's DMV site, finding out the maximum time before you must transfer your old operator's license to the new state to drive on  public roads within the state as you become a new resident,  followed by the total cost of fees to surrender your old license and take the minimum test for a basic, non-restricted non-commercial driver or operator license:
in alphabetical order,
Alaska, 90 days, pay $20
Delaware, 60 days, pay $12.50
Idaho, 90 days, pay $24.50
Montana, 120 days, pay $32 (lasts eight years)
New Hampshire, no formal requirement until after residency is established, unknown? (one unofficial source stated 30 days), pay $32
North Dakota, 60 days, pay $15
South Dakota, 30 days, (law is unclear), pay $8
Vermont, 6 months, pay $20
Wyoming, Must obtain drivers license upon becoming resident, no apparent specification of time limit, must pay $20
Maine, upon becoming resident, $40  



For beginner drivers, those restricted beginner's or learner's permits may be valid in-state from another state:

1. States that freely accept learner's permits from other states as valid and under basic terms of issuing state:
Delaware, Wyoming, North Dakota, Montana

2. States that freely accept learner's permits from other states but only on terms of state law.
Idaho, Alaska, Maine(also accepts Canadian provinces),

3. South Dakota will accept permits from states that accept South Dakota permits (reciprocity).  

4. Will not accept out- of- state beginner's permits
New Hampshire, Vermont

And lastly, relating cars and guns, according to the website packing.org, they have determined what states have "gun-friendly peaceable journey laws":
(According to packing.org)
Yes: AK, ID, WY, MT, VT,

No: SD, DE, ME, ND, NH


I am still compiling some info on window-tinting laws and vehicle inspection laws, coming soon.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on January 14, 2003, 06:10:58 pm
The Morgan Quitno Press publishes State and City Ranking publications, including a yearly "Most Livable State Award" based on 43 negative and positive factors.  Much of the data relevant to our work here is already on the state data page and has already been brought up regularly on this discussion, but there remains much to be examined.


Note that some factors they rank as negative or positive  may actually be the other way around as far as liberty is concerned.


Here is a ranking of our states from the year 2000, on basis of "State & Local Taxes as a Percent of Personal Income" from this table located at http://www.morganquitno.com/sr00ml43.htm

AK 1 (worse in nation)
ME 5
VT 8
WY 10
ND 13
MT 26
ID 20
DE 30
SD 45
NH 50 (Best in nation)  
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on January 14, 2003, 06:27:38 pm
Morgan Quitno just released their 2002 SMARTEST STATE AWARD.  Based on their statement of methodology, it actually seems to be more like a dubious report heavily weighted on how much each state forces its citizens to sponsor those government- indoctrination centers called public schools.

Rankings of our candidate states:

#2 in the nation, Vermont
#3                      Montana
#5                      Maine
#8                      Wyoming
#19                    New Hampshire
#21                    North Dakota
#22                    Idaho
#25                    Alaska
#34                    South Dakota
#43                    Delaware

Delaware does have a number of good private schools, that must be the reason why they fared so well on this score.

         
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on January 15, 2003, 11:45:42 pm
Check this out: one of their "positive" factors is, "Percent of School-Age Population in Public Schools"!

Can't have people trying out alternatives, can we?  ::)

I looked at their 21 factors in this rating, and found that whether or not you agree with Morgan-Quitno that these things are good or bad depends on what you think should be done with schools. If you think they ought to be fixed, you will mostly agree with them. If you think they should be done away with, then some you will agree with (e.g. reading competence), some you will disagree with (e.g. expenditures), and some you don't know what to do with (e.g. class size or dropout rate). Since most of us (I think) want to separate school & state, the upshot is this education rating is pretty worthless for our purposes.

The regular "most livable state" rating has the same problem, but to a lesser extent, so that rating is more usable as is. But it would be interesting (for someone with some energy) to take the factors we don't agree with (e.g. "Per Capita State Art Agencies’ Legislative Appropriations"), move them from the desirable to the undesirable column, recalculate for our 10 states and get a ranking much more usable for us.
Title: Homeschooling
Post by: Kelton on January 17, 2003, 01:56:50 am
Check this out: one of their "positive" factors is, "Percent of School-Age Population in Public Schools"!

Can't have people trying out alternatives, can we?  ::)


zxcv,
Very good of you to point all of this out, about this Morgan-Quinto excuse for a rating ,  'smartest state' = state with more public education+ a few real and nonsense factors.

I do find it useful to note, however, that Vermont ranked 2nd in the nation and this ranking is so heavily weighted towards public education.


I whole- heartedly agree that the separation of school and state should be one of our highest priorities.
According to Americans for Tax Reform, only one of our candidate states has "no state requirement for parents to initiate contact with the state" in order to homeschool.

http://www.atr.org/maps/15.html

Sadly, 6 of our candidate states are rated in the highest 'high regulation' category.
Title: Economic Freedom in America's 50 States
Post by: Kelton on January 17, 2003, 01:06:22 pm
Economic Freedom in America's 50 States
by economists John Byars, Robert McCormick, and Bruce Yandle.

In an article in Liberty Haven online by Lawrence W. Reed, discussing the ramifications of a study Commissioned by the State Policy Network, an association of some three dozen state-based free-market think tanks, entitled Economic Freedom in America's 50 States, states that "states with relatively more economic freedom enjoy higher rates of growth . . . because individuals in those states are allowed to keep more of their income, and thus the marketplace can more efficiently determine the allocation of resources."

The resulting nationwide rankings of our ten candidate states in the first year of the report in 1999:
 
Idaho, #1  
Wyoming #4
South Dakota #5
New Hampshire #6
Delaware #7
North Dakota #21
Montana #26
Vermont #34
Alaska #38
Maine #42

The report is found in its entirety in PDF format at:
 [ THE REPORT IN ITS ENTIRETY IS 180 PAGES LONG]
   http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/Adobe%20Files/Economic%20Freedom%20(Clemson).PDF (http://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/Adobe%20Files/Economic%20Freedom%20(Clemson).PDF)

In the summary of the report, the authors explain that
Quote
"We have designed and created indexes of economic freedom for each of the fifty U.S. states. This index is based on more 100 different individual measures of economic freedom, spanning government spending, regulation, welfare, school
choice, taxation, and the judicial system. To a certain extent our index is subjective. We have made decisions based on our own judgement of relevance and importance. Others may disagree. However, our index, when linked with observable economic activity, such as population in-migration and growth in per capita income, performs quite well. That is, where economic freedom is higher, there is more inmovement of population and higher economic growth of income.
We believe that freedom is an important component of a well-functioning, growing, capitalist, private property economic system. Using data from the mid- to late-1990s, we first accumulate data on economic freedom. We have assembled state level data on a wide variety of economic activities. We then lumped these together into five different sectors. From these five sectors we created a number of indexes of economic freedom using the values or ranks of each variable for each state. In the end we deemed one index created from principle components analysis the most appropriate for our use.
This index reveals several distinct regional patterns to freedom. There are pockets of freedom in the mountain west region and in the south. The northeast is overcome by an absence of economic freedom as we measure it. Idaho is at the top and New York at the bottom. The table and map attached summarize the index across the country.
Title: Most dangerous metro areas
Post by: Kelton on January 21, 2003, 03:48:33 pm
  Morgan Quitno Press' 8th Annual Safest Metro Area Award  (http://www.morganquitno.com/met02safe.htm)
safest/most dangerous metropolitan areas in 2000.
 
Bismark, ND  252/254 safest in the nation.
Bangor, ME 240/254  
Pocatello, ID #232/254
Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN 231/254
Burlington, VT 225/254
Manchester, NH 216/254
Boise, ID 192/254
Cheyenne, WY 191/254
Sioux Falls, SD 185/254
Casper, WY 138/254
Rapid City, SD 117/254
____________________________________________
Higher crime rate than national average:

Anchorage, AK #70 most dangerous

Baltimore, MD (close to Delaware) is #5 most dangerous.
Notable, too that Upstate- New York took several high scores in 2000, which, by extension, bodes well for Vermont.

The methodology that Morgan Quinto Press used for this survey states that they first used 2000 city and metro area crime rates per 100,000 population, released by the FBI in October 2001 for six basic crime categories — murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary and motor vehicle theft — see methodology  (http://www.morganquitno.com/methodology02.htm).


In  Robert Young Pelton's the World's Most Dangerous Places  (http://www.freestateproject.org/books.htm) 5th edition , in the chapter on the United States, Mr. Pelton (of Discovery Channel's "Dangerous Places fame) presents a low opinion of the United States in general and cites recent FBI statistics pointing to Anchorage, Alaska being #12th most violent-crime ridden city in the entire U.S. then devotes a paragraph on Anchorage with nothing pleasant to say about Anchorage.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on January 21, 2003, 10:05:09 pm
I don't think crime is very important. Way down on our list of criteria. No state we are considering will require us to live in a place where crime is intolerable. Anyway, one of my sisters lives in a suburb of Anchorage, and she's never mentioned any problems.

On economic freedom, that is quite important. exitus, this looks like a good solid report we can depend on. Here is one table from it, a measure of freedom in various categories:

Quote
There is no obviously correct way to divide the indicators into sectors, but we
choose to group the indicators into five sectors. The first, the fiscal sector, is
composed mainly of taxes. The second, the regulatory sector, is composed of
regulatory legislation and data on mandatory participation programs (schools).
The third, the judicial sector, is composed of indicators of the litigiousness of
the judicial system, and the level of tort reform undertaken by a state. The
fourth, the government size sector, is composed of indicators of the size of
government. The last, the welfare spending sector, is composed of data on
government spending on welfare programs.

Code: [Select]
                                   Govt.      Welfare
   Fiscal      Regulatory Judicial    Size       Spending
   Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank Index Rank

AK 5.45 26    5.72 14    4.45 15    7.17 46    7.72 48

DE 5.95 37    5.60 9     7.18 43    3.83 6     5.00 18

ID 5.23 20    5.19 5     3.91 9     5.17 21    2.44 1

ME 6.22 41    7.36 49    7.09 41    5.83 28    6.39 40

MT 6.37 44    5.70 12    4.09 13    7.33 48    4.89 15

NH 5.60 29    5.67 11    4.00 10    2.17 1     4.89 17

ND 5.35 21    5.59 8     3.36 4     7.50 49    5.33 25

SD 4.68 14    5.05 1     5.09 23    4.83 15    4.56 9

VT 5.85 35    6.12 30    6.00 30    6.00 34    5.28 23

WY 4.03 5     5.77 19    7.09 42    4.83 14    3.89 5

You can see for example, if we ended up in Wyoming, we'd need to work on the judicial end of things to improve the picture, e.g., tort reform.

Actually, this is really an excellent, really great report for our purposes, because it mirrors some of the considerations we have with weights in our own spreadsheet. Here is some verbiage from the report:

Quote
There are two objective methods of weighting the indicators. One is to use a statistical method known as principle components analysis to weight the indicators by the variances in the indicators. Another is to weight the indicators by regression coefficients produced by regression on an instrumental or hedonic variable. This technique has the feature that the regression coefficient of the freedom indicator on the instrumental variable (perhaps growth of per capita disposable income) measures the implicit value assigned to each attribute. We use principle components analysis.

Now why didn't I think of that?   :P

Jason, you need to look at this report, it is good. Maybe some of the methods might apply to our spreadsheet, if you can figure out what they are saying...

-later-

Oops, I just realized this index is the EFI we already have on our state data page!  :-[
Title: Re:Most dangerous metro areas
Post by: freedomroad on January 22, 2003, 12:30:10 am
 Morgan Quitno Press' 8th Annual Safest Metro Area Award  (http://www.morganquitno.com/met02safe.htm)
safest/most dangerous metropolitan areas in 2000.
 
Bismark, ND  252/254 safest in the nation.
Bangor, ME 240/254  
Pocatello, ID #232/254
Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN 231/254
Burlington, VT 225/254
Manchester, NH 216/254
Boise, ID 192/254
Cheyenne, WY 191/254
Sioux Falls, SD 185/254
Casper, WY 138/254
Rapid City, SD 117/254
____________________________________________
Higher crime rate than national average:

Anchorage, AK #70 most dangerous

I really do not think this matters much.  As long as I do not move to Wilmington, DE I will feel much more safe then I currently am.  I spent 13 years in Jackson, TN which is number 18 on the list.  I, of course, lived with my parents in the middle class part of town and was never the victim of a crime.  

I now live in Memphis (#2 on the list) and there is crime in this city.  In fact, it would be hard for me to think of a safe middle class part of Memphis.  All of the middle class parts of the city are dangerous.  However, the middle class parts of the suburbs are all safe, as is the county.  To tell you the truth, even though I am middle class there was a shooting in my a-complex 3 night ago.  As long as the city is not like in the top 10 or so there should be little problem when it comes to the middle class being safe (as long as they always carry a gun).
Title: Re:Homeschooling
Post by: freedomroad on January 22, 2003, 12:55:52 am



I whole- heartedly agree that the separation of school and state should be one of our highest priorities.
According to Americans for Tax Reform, only one of our candidate states has "no state requirement for parents to initiate contact with the state" in order to homeschool.

http://www.atr.org/maps/15.html

Sadly, 6 of our candidate states are rated in the highest 'high regulation' category.


The HSLDA is a much better source for HS info, IMHO.  The FSP agrees as it uses the HSLDA's map as its source.
http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp

The map shows that ID is best for HS but that MT and WY are also good for HS.  Only VT, ME, and ND are very hard on HSers if you go by the map.  The HSLDA map is right when it comes to TN as I know several people from TN that have HSed or do HS.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on January 22, 2003, 01:07:23 pm
I don't think crime is very important. Way down on our list of criteria. No state we are considering will require us to live in a place where crime is intolerable. . .
Zxcv,
 Not one city in any of our candidate states is even remotely comparable in crime to the car-theft/meth.- lab- capital metro area I call home right now, even Anchorage sounds like a refuge 8)  
Most libertarians agree that a people who can govern themselves are not in need of much government at all, and that most crime is brought about by unjust laws that strip people of the power to govern themselves.  I believe that if there is fertile soil in which our political determination will take root, it will be among a people who already demonstrate a desire to govern themselves and resist the Hegelian methods of the power-seeking statists of agitation and a forcing of capitulation in the face of fear that crime and violence invoke.
 
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on January 30, 2003, 05:15:18 pm
Demographics (http://www.polisci.com/almanac/legis/state/)
As of April 2001:

Minorities, population diversity:
AK Amer Ind 16%, Black 4%, Asian 4%, Hisp 3%, Other 1%
DE Black 17%, Hisp 2%, Asian 1%, Other 1%
WY Hisp 6%, Other 2%, Amer Ind 2%, Black 1%, Asian 1%
ID Hisp 5%, Other 3%, Amer Ind 1%, Asian 1%
MT Amer Ind 6%, Hisp 2%, Asian 1%
SD Amer Ind 7%, Hisp 1%
ND Amer Ind 4%, Hisp 1%, Black 1%, Asian 1%
NH Hisp 1%, Asian 1%, Black 1%
VT Hisp 1%, Asian 1%
ME Hisp 1%, Asian 1%


Housing:                                                       Seasoned Citizens:
ME Own 75%, Rent 25%, Homeless <.1%        AK 65 and over 4%; Soc Sec 11%
DE Own 73%, Rent 27%, Homeless <.1%        WY 65 and over 10%; Soc Sec 23%
VT Own 73%, Rent 27%, Homeless <.1%        NH 65 and over 11%; Soc Sec 23%
NH Own 73%, Rent 27%, Homeless <.1%        VT 65 and over 12%; Soc Sec 25%
ID Own 72%, rent 28%, Homeless <.1%          DE 65 and over 12%; Soc Sec 26%
WY Own 71%, Rent 29%, Homeless <.1%        ID 65 and over 12%; Soc Sec 27%
ND Own 70%, Rent 29%, Homeless <.1%        ME 65 and over 13%; Soc Sec 28%
MT Own 70%, Rent 30%, Homeless <.1%        MT 65 and over 13%; Soc Sec 28%
SD Own 69%, Rent 31%, Homeless <.1%        ND 65 and over 14%; Soc Sec 29%
AK Own 59%, Rent 40%, Homeless <.1%        SD 65 and over 15%; Soc Sec 30%

Families:                                                                 % receiving public assistance:
ID Married 62%, Marr/Chdn 32%, Sngl/Chdn 8%             AK Pub Asst 8%
NH Married 60%, Marr/Chdn 30%, Sngl/Chdn 7%            ME Pub Asst 8%
WY Married 60%, Marr/Chdn 31%, Sngl/Chdn 8%            MT Pub Asst 7%
ND Married 59%, Marr/Chdn 30%, Sngl/Chdn 6%            VT Pub Asst 7%
SD Married 59%, Marr/Chdn 29%, Sngl/Chdn 7%            SD Pub Asst 7%
ME Married 58%, Marr/Chdn 28%, Sngl/Chdn 8%            ND Pub Asst 6%
MT Married 58%, Marr/Chdn 28%, Sngl/Chdn 8%            Wy Pub Asst 5%
DE Married 56%, Marr/Chdn 26%, Sngl/Chdn 9%             DE Pub Asst 5%
VT Married 56%, Marr/Chdn 28%, Sngl/Chdn 8%             ID Pub Asst 5%
AK Married 56%, Marr/Chdn 34%, Sngl/Chdn 11%           NH Pub Asst 4%

If anything, all this data shows that Alaska is the most different, demographically from the other states.  :)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on January 31, 2003, 04:42:10 pm
One thing that has been largely ignored here is polling data.  In an effort to try to find more on that, I came across a marketing book, written by a man who is considered a guru in the business world of interpreting market data, the Demographic Detective, Michael J. Weiss.  The book is called "The Clustered World- how we live, what we buy, and what it means about who we are"written in 2000.

It takes all of that market data compiled by all of those big 'snoopy' companies like Experian and seeks to identify socioeconomic groups around the country based on clusters of data that might identify their preferences.  Not only big companies, but political parties rely heavily on this kind of data to help them tailor their messages.    
I have a wealth of findings so far in helping to characterize our states, I will post as I finish the book.
__________
Book finished, here's my report:
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1275&start=0 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1275&start=0)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: DanTheTileMan on February 01, 2003, 07:04:58 pm
Here is some info that relates to the DMV in each state:...
I am still compiling some info on window-tinting laws and vehicle inspection laws, coming soon.

Exitus, You may also want to consider which states do not require a social (in)security number to apply for a license.  Some enlightened patriots do not use one; have never obtained one; or do not get slave surveillance numbers for their children.  

Dan the Man
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on February 02, 2003, 02:26:01 am
I found another economic freedom index, Economic Freedom of North America (EFNA), by the Frazier Institute:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=453

It showed DE as ranking #1 in the states, and AK as #50!

I don't know what to think of this index. Its correlation with our other two economic freedom indices is -.60 and -.54! But it does seem to be done by a reputable institution. I can't figure out why it correlates so poorly with our other indices, but it must be measuring something different.

Interestingly, it has trends in this index since 1981. I have added this index to the big spreadsheet, and added another page with the trends graphed out. DE, SD and NH rank pretty well in it.

If anyone else has any idea why it correlates so poorly, and whether we should use it, let us know. I got the impression it does not use property tax in its measure, might have a little to do with it. Unfortunately it would probably take a lot of work to figure out which of our 3 economic freedom indices are the best.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on February 02, 2003, 03:27:29 am
A study conducted by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation,
 GOOD SCIENCE, BAD SCIENCE:TEACHING EVOLUTION IN THE STATES (http://www.edexcellence.net/library/lerner/gsbsteits.html#AppendixD)
(http://www.edexcellence.net/library/lerner/images/figure1.gif)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on February 02, 2003, 12:31:19 pm
exitus, even though I am an agnostic, I think one of the worst things government schools do is undermine the worldview parents try to transmit to their children, by teaching evolution OR creation science. Biology is one subject that should be avoided in these schools; the world wouldn't come to an end if kids had to pick up their biology elsewhere.

Ideally, with no government schools at all, this problem would cease to exist.

I don't think this school data you found is very useful to us. How could we use it?

BTW, I figured out what happened on the correlation of the economic freedom index. The EFNA index uses a "larger is better" rating system, the other ones a "smaller is better", so when I did the correlation on the raw data page it was negatively correlated. When I correctly did it on the normalized data page, the correlations of EFNA with the other two indices were more reasonable, .55 and .56.  :P  So anyway, this index is now available on the big sheet. Delaware proponents will like it, ha ha.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: DanTheTileMan on February 02, 2003, 01:56:59 pm
Dan,
Exitus and several others here have a lot on out research plates. Could you find out about the licenses and SSN's.?  Also, while you're at it...

Hi Joe,
Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner.  I forgot to check the "notify of replies" box.  Yes, I will check with my friends at Save-A-Patriot in Wesmsinster, MD and get back to you and Exitus regarding SSN's for Driver's Licences.  I remember seeing somewhere on here that someone listed all the links for State Constitutions.  The reason I want to see those, is to review what the State Income Tax and Sales Tax statutes are.  Food for thought: Maryland did not have either and it was brought up for vote many years ago.  The people shot it down and it was never brought up again, yet the state did it anyway!  I was not around, so I could not tell you how they deceived everyone into it.  I would imagine they waited until most who had voted were dead.  Now we are left with the brain-dead who think their income tax pays for the roads, police and fire depts.  And let's not forget our standing armies.  Do you see the general theme (or scheme) here? - It's all about them feeling secure.  We'll just give the government  our money to protect us, and if that's not enough take our rights, too.  What ever happened to being secure in our persons, property and papers?  Government only exixts to protect the life and property of the citizenry.  The rest is only the administrative duties to meet that end.

As far as your wild a$$ guestimates for existing support within each state, I don't know where to begin.  You did give me a thought, though.  If the one party system works so well now (Republicrats/Demoplicans), maybe we should try the same thing.  We can have porcupines and wild a$$es.  Actually  there is an unknown factor of how many who hide under the one party system, that would actually vote with us once they see things going our way.  And let's ont forget the ones who don't vote, because no one is good enough in their eyes.  My recommendation is pray that we pick the best state and that we can do God's will when we get there, to once again bring our nation under His protection and guidance.

Dan the Man
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on February 03, 2003, 01:47:31 am
I found another economic freedom index, Economic Freedom of North America (EFNA), by the Frazier Institute:

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=453 (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=pb&id=453)

It showed DE as ranking #1 in the states, and AK as #50!
. . .

Wow! thanks, Zxcv for finding that one.  I am starting to feel a little bit of information over-load right now.  I was right in the middle of examining another spreadsheet that hasn't been discussed around here using over 100 variables done at Clemson University-- it ranked Idaho #1 in the nation a little over 2 years ago.  Now I'll get busy examining this one. . .


From Chapter 2: Overview of the Results of this report, Economic Freedom of North America:
The Worst Performers
For Montana and North Dakota,
the rejection of economic freedom is a relatively new
taste. Both have gone from the middle of the pack
to battling West Virginia for bottom spot. Over the
same period, Montana and North Dakota have seen
their per-capita GDP decline by 23 and 31 percentage
points, respectively, against the national average.
Other consistent under performers include Maine,
New Mexico, Arkansas, Alaska, and Rhode Island.


(emphasis is mine)
No news to me, I've long held a low opinion of these states for freedom, but seeing Alaska #50 seems a little too cruel, didn't they look at the sheer economic oppression going on in New York and Hawaii?  Like I said, I must examine this report some more. . .
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on February 03, 2003, 12:16:08 pm
Quote
I was right in the middle of examining another spreadsheet that hasn't been discussed around here using over 100 variables done at Clemson University...
That's the EFI index, the one we already have in our spreadsheet, right?

I'll send out my newest spreadsheet to the usual crowd, which now is updated with some of the things Jason did to his, and also shows trends in the EFNA index.

If we have any other trendlines for the other variables, let me know, and I might put them in too since I now know how to do that.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on February 03, 2003, 03:42:06 pm
That's the EFI index, the one we already have in our spreadsheet, right?
The Education Freedom Index?
No. I'm looking at the 1999 Freedom in America’s 50 States done by the economists at the Center for Policy and Legal Studies, Clemson University.  (They found Idaho #1 in the nation and Wyoming #4 in the nation, followed by New Hampshire closely behind).  It has been mentioned a few times on this discussion, but its wealth of over 100 different factors including licensing and such has never been explored because the online links are no more.  I obtained a copy of the spreadsheet and I am trying to remove the other 40 states just to make the data more wieldy for FSP use.  I will be making it available very soon. . . The Freedom report I mention names Delaware as #1 in the nation for privately schooled children, in part because of the excellent Catholic school system there, as well as the fear and dread of D.C. public schools.  Hawaii also ranks quite high for private schools. . .
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on February 03, 2003, 03:46:02 pm
While the societal costs and benefits of bankruptcy and the extent of bankruptcy laws in general is a contentious subject, almost everyone agrees that excessive or frivolous use of bankruptcy is detrimental to an economy and would reveal irresponsibility on the part of individuals.  On the subject of bankruptcy, following are some statistics and some thought to consider.

I took the data found here:
http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/bk302.pdf (http://www.uscourts.gov/Press_Releases/bk302.pdf)
NONBUSINESS BANKRUPTCY CASES COMMENCED, DURING THE TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD ENDING MARCH 31, 2002. . . Then the total filings divided by 2000 population numbers of each state to compare bankruptcy rate per capita:
626 per 100,000 people =ID
478 per "                     "= WY
424 per "                     "= MT
348 per "                     "= ME
360 per "                     "= DE
342 per "                     "= SD
314 per "                     "= ND
292 per "                     "= NH
271 per "                     "= VT
215 per "                     "= AK

As a measure of personal financial responsibility, these statistics are not very meaningful, as one should compare these statistics to state GDP growth and per-capita income levels as well because sometimes the most honorable people are forced into bankruptcy for reasons beyond their control.  Idaho, for instance, experienced a large down-turn in the high tech sector recently due to over-capacity in semiconductor production, which was a major employer leading to a chain of bankruptcies.  It would be more ideal to grasp the levels of debt burden by measuring debt per income+asset levels to reveal how people allow themselves to amass excessive debt, as this is generally the trend.  Gathering this data would be much more complex, perhaps someone will bring anything already done on this to the attention of this forum.
It would also be important to examine and compare any trends over a few years since this is a one-year snapshot.

More important than any other consideration in influencing bankruptcy filings, however, is state law.  Yes state law!  Even though the "Federal Government is granted authority over bankruptcy law through the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, section 8  ), the Federal Government has historically left bankruptcy law for state governments to enact."  In the scholarly literature, one paper by Lawrence Shepard in 1984 modeled bankruptcy filings as a function of economic and legal factors.  "What he found was that states with lower exemptions had nearly the same bankruptcy rate as states with the higher federal exemptions."  In 1994, in a report by researchers Peterson and Aoki, it was concluded that "wage garnishment puts more pressure on the debtor to file for bankruptcy." This academic literature is cited in a 50 page thesis by John V. Mulligan called The Impact of State Exemptions on Personal Bankruptcy Filings (http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-10032000-00360023/unrestricted/jvm.PDF)
I lifted the above quotes from this source as well. This corresponds quite a bit with my research that I did on garnishment laws, on the freedom indices thread (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=96;start=0) where I put the following state ranking:

1. WY, ID, MT (no additional state law to federal provision)
2.  SD (limited 60 day period, then reverts to federal provision)
3.  ND (almost like federal provision)
4. AK (states exact dollar amount for clarity)
5. ME
6.  NH –excess paperwork barrier to issue ongoing garnishment
7.  DE -difficult to collect on worker making less than ~$30,000/yr.
8.  VT - the law is so liberal and vague, open to broad interpretation of what is a 'proper wage'  ~‘living wage?’.

Notice how the three highest bankruptcy states above correspond with the states that have 'no additional state law to federal provision'.  Other than this, I won't promote my assessment of garnishment laws to correlation on rate of bankruptcy except to say that I remain disgusted with Vermont's access to the courts by creditors, and it shows that people have little motivation in Vermont to file for bankruptcy since the average creditor has to jump high hurdles to ever get to them.  
 
With only these two provisions in mind, citizens of Alaska do seem to be a bit more responsible with credit, but then the large seasonal and migrant/ temporary population in Alaska may confound that.
Delaware ranks higher than these factors alone would say, maybe there are specific laws in Delaware for unsecured credit co-written by all the banks there, or maybe the higher income levels, or the many people employed in the banking industry there who understand how credit works.

After doing all this work, I find too many confounding variables to rank any state by bankruptcy filings or find a way to compartmentalize this data into a spreadsheet, except to say that given what I know, Delaware looks kind of good for people knowing how to stay within their means and that more people declare bankruptcy in the Intermountain West possibly because collection laws do not protect the debtor any more than federal levels.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on February 03, 2003, 11:08:02 pm
Sorry to inform you, exitus, but the EFI index on our data page is an economic index, the very one you are looking at! Where did you get the idea it was an education index?

Is it possible to quantify this bankruptcy information? I'm confused... it looks like too much bankruptcy is bad, but too little is also (because that means debtors have nothing to fear from creditors). Anyway I don't see how this can be fit in to the spreadsheet. Perhaps we can look at it as just another big strike against VT. Looks like we'd be spending a lot of time digging ourselves out of the hole, there. Personally I don't want to spend 20 years fighting to get back to where most of our other candidate states are already. Strengthening creditors particularly would be a difficult thing to do once people are used to being "protected" from them by government.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on February 04, 2003, 01:37:01 am
Sorry to inform you, exitus, but the EFI index on our data page is an economic index, the very one you are looking at! Where did you get the idea it was an education index?
I assumed that the EFI everyone was talking about was this:
The Education Freedom Index (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_14.htm)
Don't tell me I have been the only one looking at this report and thinking that the other one was one that everybody already knew about!  --I haven't seen any discussion yet about all the wealth of data found in the 1999 Clemson University Freedom in America’s 50 States , what you call EFI, maybe it is too much out of date.  Am I confused or is everyone else?

Quote
Is it possible to quantify this bankruptcy information?
What began as an attempt to look at bankruptcy filings as a way to determine some sort of 'credit-responsibility index' turned into an academic exercise after I found too many confounding factors to make such an index work.  I did some additional editing to the work above and now consider it merely interesting FYI only.  I concur with Zxcv, and see that Vermont has a lot of laws that codify 'rights' that come at someone else's expense.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on February 04, 2003, 09:42:24 am

Don't tell me I have been the only one looking at this report and thinking that the other one was one that everybody already knew about!  --I haven't seen any discussion yet about all the wealth of data found in the 1999 Clemson University Freedom in America?s 50 States , what you call EFI, maybe it is too much out of date.  Am I confused or is everyone else?

Yep, the Clemson University professors' report is where we got EFI.  One of the reasons I'm not terribly thrilled about this measure is that it is a bit outdated.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on February 05, 2003, 01:02:26 am
Exitus, You may also want to consider which states do not require a social (in)security number to apply for a license.  Some enlightened patriots do not use one; have never obtained one; or do not get slave surveillance numbers for their children.  
State by State Analysis of Current Driver's License Laws and Requirements (http://www.networkusa.org/fingerprint/page4/fp-04-page4-winners-losers.html)


At your service! . . .   :)  (http://www.csd.uwo.ca/Infocom/Solutions/zork1.txt)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Robert H. on February 05, 2003, 02:10:15 am
For a state that's ready to feed you to Kodiak bears if you don't meet its auto insurance requirements, I thought Alaska's driver licensing requirements seemed amazingly lenient.  I checked the Alaska statutes though, and all you have to provide them with is proof of your date of birth and some form of personal identification (even a credit card is sufficient).

http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/AAC/Title13/Chapter008/Section330.htm (http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/AAC/Title13/Chapter008/Section330.htm)

It's amazing how governments can be so lenient in some areas and yet so draconian in others.  Given Alaska's overall liberty-friendly status, this makes me wonder if its insurance standards might not have resulted from one or more high profile uninsured motorist incidents that led to some sort of public outcry.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on February 05, 2003, 11:16:25 am

http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/AAC/Title13/Chapter008/Section330.htm (http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/AAC/Title13/Chapter008/Section330.htm)

It's amazing how governments can be so lenient in some areas and yet so draconian in others.


So much of it has to do with the culture of the people:
I read in Reader's Digest where in rural Alaska people still exchange personal checks back and forth; 3rd-party, 4th party, and so on, as a means of exchange almost on par with U.S. greenbacks.   How could a culture that practices this suddenly find it acceptable to present two forms of ID when showing-up in person for a driver's license?
From living in Utah, I observed how statists had a hey-day making up all sorts of liquor laws, so strict that you'd have to go to the Middle East to find anything more strict, and since more than 60% of all Utah voters don't consume alcohol, and since 80% of those who do are indifferent anyways,  most of such laws get passed without any real opposition.  Yet OTOH, when the legislature and governor were set on making a law ensuring that concealed- carry be protected from disarmament or harassment on the state's public universities, the general public hardly even blinked, in fact, most of the opposition was found in a few vocal professors who threatened to leave Utah, this despite admitting that they knew that many students were already carrying weapons on campus.
 
If there was a state today that had the most freedom-friendly of every existing law among the states, all of us would already be there, and our only remaining complaint would be against los federales.

“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.” --Justice Learned Hand, of the 2nd US Court of Appeals, 1944.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on February 06, 2003, 10:35:20 pm
Quote
One of the reasons I'm not terribly thrilled about this measure is that it is a bit outdated.

A few years don't matter much. All this stuff is a snapshot.

BTW, guys, I just realized we have another good indicator not yet in the spreadsheet. I haven't time this second to look through our stuff, but I know there was some discussion of "right-to-work" laws. Can't we fit this into our table?

Or is this part of one of the economic indices? And how about minimum wage and living wage laws, are they in there too?

If no one figures this out I will dig it out when I have time to look at it (I'm in the middle of a move just now!)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on February 07, 2003, 12:25:00 am
Looks like EFNA has minimum wage laws, SBSI has right-to-work laws, and EFI has right-to-work, minimum wage and prevailing wage laws. So the indices have us covered.

I'm beginning to think these 3 indices ought to be weighed pretty heavily in our spreadsheets!

BTW, these were the sources for all the things measured in the EFI:

1. O'Leary Morgan, K., Morgan S., Uhlig M.A., eds. (1998), State Rankings 1998 (Lawrence, KS: Morgan Quinto Press).
2. Keating, R.J. (1998), "Third Annual Small Business Survival Index: Ranking the Environment for Entrepreneurship Across the
Nation," (WA D.C.: Small Business Survival Foundation).
3. CQ's State Fact Finder 1996 (WA D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Incorporated).
4. The Book of the States 31 (1996) (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments).
5. The Statistical Abstract of the United States.
6. The Free Market New 2:1 (2/19/98).
7. Center for Education Reform, http://edreform.com/laws.
8. Teke, Best, Mintrom (1995), Deregulating Freight Transportation (WA D.C.: American Enterprise Institute).
9. State Workers’ Compensation Laws, United States Department of Labor.
10. National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Research Quarterly (April, 1995).
11. Wallman, S.M.H. (1991), "The Proper Interpretation of Corporate Constituency Statutes and Formulation of Director Duties," Stetson
Law Review 21:1, pp. 163-196.
12. Defenders of Property Rights, http://www.defendersproprights.org.
13. Hall, B. and Kerr, M.L. (1991), 1991-1992 Green Index (WA D.C.: Island Press).
14. Frum, D. and Wolfe, F. (January 17, 1994), "If You Gotta Get Sued, Get Sued in UT," Forbes
15. The Fact Book 1995, Insurance Information Institute, NY (LOC HG8523 .I52).

It might be worthwhile getting some of these, if they aren't too horribly expensive. We might find things specifically for FSP purposes that are not in the economic indices.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on February 07, 2003, 03:47:48 pm
Quote
One of the reasons I'm not terribly thrilled about this measure is that it is a bit outdated.

A few years don't matter much. All this stuff is a snapshot.

BTW, guys, I just realized we have another good indicator not yet in the spreadsheet. I haven't time this second to look through our stuff, but I know there was some discussion of "right-to-work" laws. Can't we fit this into our table?

Or is this part of one of the economic indices? And how about minimum wage and living wage laws, are they in there too?

If no one figures this out I will dig it out when I have time to look at it (I'm in the middle of a move just now!)

I looked these numbers up and posted them to the board.  I have right-to-work on my spreadsheet.  I also added hunting, peaceable jouney laws, speed limit laws, medical pot laws, and fire work laws.  I posted some of this stuff to the board, other people posted the rest of it.

here are the numbers I have:

Category    Var. (state weights) WY AK ND VT SD DE MT ID NH ME
Peace Journey 1                   10  10  0   10    0  0   10 10 0    0
Hunting laws    1                   10  8   3    10   1  0  9    7  3   3
Fire Works      1                   10  10  10   0   10 0  10  5   5   2.5
Medical Pot      1                   0   10   0    0    0  0  0    0  0  10
Speed Limits    2                   10  2.5 5    0   10 0  10 10 5  2.5

According to just these variables WY, AK, and MT are the best,
ND, SD, ID, ME, and VT are somewhere in the middle
and NH and DE are the worst.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on February 07, 2003, 04:53:05 pm
Gun-friendly peaceable journey laws are part of the construction of the gun control variable on the State Data page.  Also, Vermont does have a gun-friendly peaceable journey law (it's coded "0" on your table).
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: anarchicluv on February 13, 2003, 08:56:13 pm
I think something like this may be posted elsewhere, but I found this on a surveyor's bulletin board tonight:

Best and worst states to run a small business
Posted By John Giles on 10/11/2002 at 11:48 PM
The top 10

1. Nevada

2. Florida

3. Texas

4. Alabama

5. (tie) Virginia, Arizona

7. Tennessee

8. Colorado

9. South Carolina

10. Georgia

Close behind: New Hampshire, Delaware, Maryland, Utah

And the bottom 10:

50. Iowa

49. Maine

48. New Mexico

47. New York

46. Montana

45. North Dakota

44. Nebraska

43. Vermont

42. (tie) West Virginia, Rhode Island, Hawaii

On the bubble: Minnesota

Here is the link:

http://www.bcentral.com/articles/harper/141.asp?cobrand=msn&LID=3800

Reading through the link, I also found that the Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) and Cognetics ranked the states differently.  I have pasted the info from the link below.  Sorry if I duplicated info that's already out there in the forums.

Jeremy

For the record, this composite ranking diverges somewhat from those by the Small Business Survival Committee (SBSC) and Cognetics.

The top 10 states for conducting small business according to the SBSC survival index: South Dakota, Nevada, Wyoming, Texas, Florida, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Washington, Mississippi, Alabama.

The Cognetics top 10: Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Delaware, Virginia, South Carolina, Alabama.

At the bottom of the heap, starting with No. 50, according to the SBSC: West Virginia, Vermont, New York, Iowa, Rhode Island, California, New Mexico, Minnesota, Maine, Hawaii.

And Cognetics 10 worst, starting with No. 50: Maine, New York, Wyoming, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Iowa, Alaska.

Yes, there are notable disparities in the way the two lists treat individual states. For example, while South Dakota is deemed by the SBSC to have the most business-friendly of all state governments, the lack of entrepreneurial activity in that state puts it near the bottom of Cognetics' list. Clearly, regulatory policy is just one of a number of variables entrepreneurs consider when deciding where to locate their businesses.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on February 15, 2003, 05:25:38 am
I'm using the SBSI index, but haven't bothered with the Cognetics thing, because there may be lots of reasons other than freedom ones causing low enterpreneurial activity in a state. Maybe I'm wrong on that...

Keith, can you give us the URLs that have the data for the rows you've added? I might want to add a couple of those to my spreadsheet too. I'll send you mine if you want it, I have a lot of extra rows.
Title: Superfund sites
Post by: Kelton on February 19, 2003, 10:15:21 am
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to implement the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities are coordinated through state environmental departments.

The National Priorities List (NPL), which is a part of CERCLA is a list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites, identified as candidates for long-term action using money from the Superfund trust fund Sites that contain the worst toxic waste problems are included on the NPL for oversight and clean-up.

If a site does not make it on the NPL, no money from the federal Superfund can be used to help clean it up, although EPA may still be involved in a shorter-term clean-up action.  Public participation in remedial clean-up plans is an integral part of CERCLA. Remedial plans are long term strategies to clean-up the contaminated site. Before a plan can be approved by the government, it must be published, at a minimum, in a major local newspaper. After notice there must be a reasonable opportunity for public comment and an opportunity for a public meeting at or near the facility at issue.

Since public participation is an important step in adopting a remedial action as stated above, and the EPA coordinates its activities with state agencies and state law helps to determine some of the decisions made by the EPA and political maneuvering may dictate whether questionable sites are given priority or not, there is just a little bit more to this list than just pointing out the existence of waste sites in the several candidate states, but it would take a lot of research to determine the extent to this claim.  The following is a list that ranks the states in order by number of actual NPL Superfund sites, it does not take into account how much those sites may actually be affecting the communities surrounding them on any comparison basis except that they were determined bad enough to make it on the NPL.

NH   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nh.htm) proposed=1, Final=18, deleted=0

DE   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/de.htm) proposed=0, Final=16, deleted=4

MT   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/mt.htm) proposed=1, Final=14, deleted=0

ME   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/me.htm) proposed=0, Final=12, deleted=0

VT   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/vt.htm) proposed=0, Final=9, deleted=2

ID   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/id.htm) proposed=4, Final=6, deleted=3

AK   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/ak.htm) proposed=0, Final=6, deleted=2

SD   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/sd.htm) proposed=0, Final=2, deleted=2

WY   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/wy.htm) proposed=0, Final=2, deleted=1

ND   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nd.htm) proposed=0, Final=0, deleted=2
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on February 19, 2003, 01:16:04 pm
Keith, can you give us the URLs that have the data for the rows you've added? I might want to add a couple of those to my spreadsheet too. I'll send you mine if you want it, I have a lot of extra rows.

I got the speed limits from the National Motorists Association
Joe posted the hunting stuff
the fireworks stuff is on the litmus test thread
medical pot came from some pro-pot website
someone posted the peaceable jouney laws

please send me your stuff, thanks
Title: Re:Superfund sites
Post by: freedomroad on February 19, 2003, 01:17:21 pm
The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to implement the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Superfund site identification, monitoring, and response activities are coordinated through state environmental departments.

The National Priorities List (NPL), which is a part of CERCLA is a list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous waste sites, identified as candidates for long-term action using money from the Superfund trust fund Sites that contain the worst toxic waste problems are included on the NPL for oversight and clean-up.

Can you tell us what you think this report means and how it relates to the FSP?
Title: Re:Superfund sites
Post by: DanTheTileMan on February 19, 2003, 01:59:09 pm
The following is a list that ranks the states in order by number of actual NPL Superfund sites, it does not take into account how much those sites may actually be affecting the communities surrounding them on any comparison basis except that they were determined bad enough to make it on the NPL.

NH   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nh.htm) proposed=1, Final=18, deleted=0

DE   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/de.htm) proposed=0, Final=16, deleted=4

MT   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/mt.htm) proposed=1, Final=14, deleted=0

ME   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/me.htm) proposed=0, Final=12, deleted=0

VT   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/vt.htm) proposed=0, Final=9, deleted=2

ID   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/id.htm) proposed=4, Final=6, deleted=3

AK   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/ak.htm) proposed=0, Final=6, deleted=2

SD   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/sd.htm) proposed=0, Final=2, deleted=2

WY   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/wy.htm) proposed=0, Final=2, deleted=1

ND   (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/nd.htm) proposed=0, Final=0, deleted=2

Any idea what this all means in layman terms?  Are you trying to make a point about the states with the greatest problems; the states that are going after the most federal money, instead of the responsible parties; or is it both?  Idaho seemed to have the numbers most different from the rest (NO zeros).  Maybe you can use that in your explanation.

Thanks,

Dan the Man
Title: Re:Superfund sites
Post by: Kelton on February 19, 2003, 08:02:23 pm
Any idea what this all means in layman terms?  
Can you tell us what you think this report means and how it relates to the FSP?

OK.  Sorry for being a little erudite on the whole matter.
This can basically be viewed as livability factor; i.e., color of sunsets, density of forests, humidity, composition of soils, and so forth.  In this case, it may be a big thing for some, high-priority toxic waste Superfund sites in your back-yard.

I tried to explain that sometimes, political factors influence the process that make Superfund sites.  Every so often, it is junk-science that makes mountains out of molehills and creates a Superfund site.  Sometimes, that is, and if I had eighteen months to analyze each case against established toxicology standards and analyze archived news and all available information, I might be able to identify which sites are merely semi-dangerous and which ones are truly worthy of such massive expenditures of federal money.  If I could do this, or such comprehensive analysis were available, it might be a good test of the political climate in our states, but I don't have eighteen months and I don't know of any such comprehensive analysis, so I just offer the numbers as they are.

There are three different numbers to look at in what I just posted,
-Proposed National Priority List Superfund sites under review
-Currently listed Superfund sites that are being treated, or Final sites.
-Sites that are either treated or no longer meet the criteria for being listed as NPL Superfund sites.

The most important may be proposed and final, and if we add the two together, we can see how many such sites that exist in each state:
(Again, it is not necessarily a complete snapshot, as these are not always based on sound science, so don't take this as a measurement of there being an absense of critically toxic sites, or the over-abundance of toxic sites, it just simply a count of "scary" places as determined by the EPA bureaucracy process, and places where the fed is currently pouring lots of money to clean- up, or is forcing private entities to pay for the clean-up)

NH = 19
DE = 16
MT = 15
ME = 12
ID = 10
VT =  9
AK =  6
SD =  2
WY =  2
ND =  0
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on February 19, 2003, 09:24:23 pm
State area may be of interest in this connection. 19 sites in NH, and 16 in DE, are a lot of disasters (imagined or real) packed into little states. Of course the sites themselves may be miniscule or not such a big deal as you say, Joe.

I wonder if this superfund business got into the Morgan Quitno index?
Title: Components of Population Change
Post by: exitus on March 01, 2003, 11:12:56 am
Here's the basic data:
Quote
Components of Population Change by state 1990 to 1999 Chart No. 22. U.S. Census 2001 sec 01
(In thousands)

AK  99  births,  22d,  9 international,  9 federal, (24) domestic, 69  tot.
DE  98  births,  58d,  9 international,  2 federal, 35, 87  tot.
ID  166 births, 78d,  18 international, 2 federal, 136, 245 tot.
ME  138 births, 108d, 4 international,  2 federal, (7), 25  tot.
MT  103 births, 69d,  3 international,  2 federal, 48, 84  tot.
NH  142 births, 84d,  7 international, .5 federal, 30, 92  tot.
ND  79 births, 54d,  5 international,  3 federal, (37) domestic, (5) tot.
SD  98 births, 63d,  5 international,  2 federal, (3), 37  tot.
VT  67 births, 45d,  5 international, .5 federal, 6, 31  tot.
WY  60 births, 33d,  2 international,  1 federal, (4), 26  tot.
Some curious calculations I made from this data:

______________________________________________________________________________


1. Tot. births to net total in- migration, 1990 to 1999 (ratio)

VT 5.8 births to 1 net in-migration resident
NH 3.8 births to 1 net in-migration resident
DE 2.8 births to 1 net in-migration resident
MT 1.09 births to 1 net in-migration resident
ID 1.06 births to 1 net in-migration resident
___

Tot. births by net total out- migration (ratio)
ME 138 births to 1 net out-migration
WY 60 births to 1 net   out-migration
SD 24.5 births to 1 net out-migration
AK 16.5 births to 1 net out-migration
ND 2.7 births to 1 net out-migration

________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Ratio of tot. migration to the total of number of persons created by birth less deaths.


First group, migration rate higher than increase by total lives added by natural vital statisics.

ID 1.8 in-migrants to 1 natural increase
MT 1.6 in-migrants to 1 natural increase
DE 1.2 in-migrants to 1 natural increase


Second group, natural increase in population is greater than that by migration.

NH 1.5 natural increase to 1 in-migrant
VT 1.9 natural increase to 1 in-migrant
SD 8.6 net. natural increase to 1 in-migrant


Third group, natural increase in population is the source of population growth

ME 30 natural increases to 1 out-migrant
WY 27 natural increases to 1 out-migrant
AK 4.3 natural increases to 1 out-migrant

Fourth, North Dakota, a state in population decline

ND, birth rate is almost, but not quite enough to compensate for deaths and out-migrants.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Title: Percentage of population, by age
Post by: exitus on March 01, 2003, 11:24:53 am
Percentage of population, computed from Census Chart 1a and 5a

School-age children 5-17

AK 23.7%  (AK is highest in nation)
ID 20.6%
SD 20.2%
WY 20.0%
MT 19.4%
NH 19.2%
ND 19.1%
VT 18.0%
ME 17.8%
DE 17.5%

Percentage of population, 18-64 computed from Census

AK 70.8
VT 69.7
DE 69.5
NH 68.7
US 68.5
WY 68.5
ME 68.2
ID 68.0
MT 67.4
ND 66.2
SD 65.3

Percentage of population, 65 and above

ND 14.7
SD 14.5
ME 14.0
MT 13.3
DE 13.0
US 12.7
VT 12.3
NH 12.1
WY 11.5
ID 11.4
AK  5.5 (lowest in nation)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JasonPSorens on March 01, 2003, 11:37:36 am
Alaska's low percentage of elderly could be a very good thing.  The elderly tend to be fearful of risk and therefore vote against parties/candidates supporting substantial change.  (This is from standard political science research.)  Also, a high % of elderly tends to be associated with a large health care sector, which brings with it a lot of government regulation and creates dull, low-wage jobs (medical billing, scheduling, etc.) that few of us Free-Staters would want to take.  The Asheville area is a good example of this.  Probably 75% of the new jobs I've seen in the last 2 months have been $8 an hour jobs in medical offices, dealing with red tape, paper work, and data entry.  Western North Carolina is, not coincidentally, a hot retirement spot.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 01, 2003, 12:01:26 pm
Quote
Alaska's low percentage of elderly could be a very good thing.
. . .

Not to mention those on the Social Security Check,

Demographics (http://www.polisci.com/almanac/legis/state/)
As of April 2001:

Social Security Recipients:

        AK 65 and over 4%; Soc Sec 11%
        WY 65 and over 10%; Soc Sec 23%
       NH 65 and over 11%; Soc Sec 23%
       VT 65 and over 12%; Soc Sec 25%
         DE 65 and over 12%; Soc Sec 26%
        ID 65 and over 12%; Soc Sec 27%
        ME 65 and over 13%; Soc Sec 28%
        MT 65 and over 13%; Soc Sec 28%
        ND 65 and over 14%; Soc Sec 29%
       SD 65 and over 15%; Soc Sec 30%
Some Other Statistics:

Families:                                                                 % receiving public assistance:
ID Married 62%, Marr/Chdn 32%, Sngl/Chdn 8%             AK Pub Asst 8%
NH Married 60%, Marr/Chdn 30%, Sngl/Chdn 7%            ME Pub Asst 8%
WY Married 60%, Marr/Chdn 31%, Sngl/Chdn 8%            MT Pub Asst 7%
ND Married 59%, Marr/Chdn 30%, Sngl/Chdn 6%            VT Pub Asst 7%
SD Married 59%, Marr/Chdn 29%, Sngl/Chdn 7%            SD Pub Asst 7%
ME Married 58%, Marr/Chdn 28%, Sngl/Chdn 8%            ND Pub Asst 6%
MT Married 58%, Marr/Chdn 28%, Sngl/Chdn 8%            Wy Pub Asst 5%
DE Married 56%, Marr/Chdn 26%, Sngl/Chdn 9%             DE Pub Asst 5%
VT Married 56%, Marr/Chdn 28%, Sngl/Chdn 8%             ID Pub Asst 5%
AK Married 56%, Marr/Chdn 34%, Sngl/Chdn 11%           NH Pub Asst 4%
Title: Litigiousness
Post by: exitus on March 11, 2003, 02:22:44 pm


The Overall Index of State Litigiousness- place rank among 50 states based on 11 criteria, including political campaigning by judges, from the data contained in the Economic Freedom in America's 50 States: A 1999 Analysis,  by John Byars, Bobby McCormick and Bruce Yandle

UT 50   :)

ND 48
SD 46
ID 43
WY 38
MT 35
AK 26
VT 24
ME 20
NH 8
DE 5

RI #1  :P

Litigiousness is just one of well over one hundred different indexes created to compare the states in this report, I do wish that they would do this report again in the near future.  Their research really 'kicks butt' over a lot of what we amateurs have come up with so far.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 11, 2003, 02:56:22 pm
A closer look at the 10 different criteria that was used for ranking of litigiousness in this report (http://freedom.clemson.edu/) reveals that some are kind of useless for our comparisons, the "Amount Paid by State's Largest City to Settle Liability Claims and Judgements" really seemed to weigh heavily on some states; and there were many criteria too similar for our use.  There does seem to be two that are at least interesting for our use of comparison:

Auto accidents where claimant represented by attorney:

ND 14.5 (lowest in the country) :)
SD 15
MT 20.6
WY 22.2
AK 23.3%
ID 27.8
VT 31.0
ME 33.9
NH 44.8
DE 61.1%


MD 65.7% (Highest in the country) :P

Members of State Trial Lawyers Association per 100000 Pop

AZ 16.4 (lowest in the country)

ID 29.2
AK 36.4
ND 38.5
VT 49.4
MT 53.2
DE 53.5
NH 61.3
WY 70.5
ME 73.3
SD 124.5 (Highest in the country)


I do not wish to be overly- disparaging of attorneys, there are many great libertarian attorneys who we should all be thankful for, and in a libertarian society, justice is served more through civil claims and property rights than any of thousands of silly laws and ordinances trying to make criminals of us all. However, it must be remembered that most trial attorney groups today actually work and lobby for more laws, support statist politicians, support junk-science and spurious claims while actually working to destroy the free market.  The city of Las Vegas is almost completely without orthopedic surgeons, thanks to trial lawyers.  
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: DanTheTileMan on March 11, 2003, 03:11:33 pm
Much litigation is about getting someone else's property or protection of what you have, namely money.  I like Tevia's comment in Fiddler on the Roof - in response to the statement: "Money is the
World's Curse," said, "May I be Smitten with it - and may I never recover!"

Dan the Man

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The sacred rights of property are to be guarded at every point.  I call them sacred, because, if they are unprotected, all other rights become worthless or visionary.  What is personal liberty, if it does not draw after it the right to enjoy the fruits of our own industry?  What is political liberty, if it imparts only perpetual poverty to us and all our posterity?  What is the privilege of a vote, if the majority of the hour may sweep away the earnings of our whole lives, to gratify the rapacity of the indolent, the cunning, or the profligate, who are borne into power upon the tide of a temporary popularity?"
 
                                     -- Judge Joseph Story, 1852
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: mactruk on March 11, 2003, 08:25:16 pm
  Right on.  Can you imagine if we stopped paying taxes how many people would be out of a job - a job by the way that produces no tangible goods.  What really worries me today is the state budget problems that the news reports is only the tip of the negative cash flow iceberg.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: DanTheTileMan on March 11, 2003, 11:18:25 pm
Right on,...those people are not losing a job.  They just need to go out and get a job.  But, wait a minute, being gub'ment employees, they probably voted for GATT and NAFTA, and love to shop at WALMART!!!  Man, don't get me started - we'll have to start another thread!
Title: State Health Ranking
Post by: exitus on March 19, 2003, 01:29:56 pm
From the United Health Foundation (http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr/index.html) website:

State Health Ranking - 2002 Edition

#1  NH 23.9
#6  VT 15.8
#9  ND 14.0
#10 ME 13.8
#16 SD  9.7
#20 ID  7.8
#24 MT  3.7
#26 WY  2.7
#30 AK  0.2
#35 DE -3.9


Quote
Many factors contribute to New Hampshire's success. The state is first in four measures: highest availability of adequate prenatal care, highest support for public health care, fewest limited activity days and lowest infant mortality rate. It is in the top 10 on eight other measures. . . In the last year, New Hampshire reduced its uninsured population from 10.2 to 9.4 percent of the population, however, violent crime rose from 97 to 175 offenses per 100,000 population.
_________________________________
_______________________________
Here are some interesting components of what goes into the scoring of the states for this ranking:


Support for Public Health Care
Source: 1999 data, National Association of State Budget Officers and The Sourcebook for Zip Code Demographics, CACI Marketing Services
Support for Public Health Care is a measure unique to this index.  Total state and local expenditures for public welfare, health and hospitals are divided by the total general expenditures of state and local units to calculate a percentage.  This percentage is then divided by the percentage of the state's population with an annual household income below $15,000. The percentage of population with very low income is derived from updated census estimates.


Table 25 displays the 2002 ranks, based on 1999 data (National Association of State Budget Officers and CACI Marketing Services, The Sourcebook for Zip Code Demographics, Sixteenth Edition, La Jolla, CA). The source for the expenditure data is new in the 2002 Edition per the suggestion of the methods review group.
Scores vary from a ratio of 3.32 for New Hampshire and 3.08 for Colorado to less than 1.00 for Wyoming, New Mexico, Louisiana, Nevada and Oklahoma. The national ratio is 1.66, down from 1.87 in 2001.
North Dakota increased this ratio the most over the last year moving from 1.30 to 1.40, but still remains below the national average. In Alaska, the ratio dropped from 2.08 to 1.21, the largest change among all states.


Rank State          Support Ratio  Score
1    New Hampshire  3.32           63
22   Delaware       1.55           -7
22   Maine          1.55           -7  
24   Vermont        1.52           -8
27   South Dakota   1.45          -13
28   North Dakota   1.40          -16
31   Idaho          1.33          -20
38   Alaska         1.21          -27
44   Montana        1.10          -34  
49   Wyoming        0.91          -45
United States       1.66

_____________________

Violent crime    
Violent crime measures the annual number of murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults per 100,000 population.
Rank State            Offenses per 100,000 pop.   Score
1    North Dakota      81                          -75
1    Maine            110                          -75
1    Vermont          114                          -75
4    South Dakota     167                          -67
5    New Hampshire    175                          -65
7    Montana          241                          -52
9    Idaho            253                          -50
11   Wyoming          267                          -47
41   Alaska           567                           12
44   Delaware         684                           35
Title: Re:State Health Ranking
Post by: freedomroad on March 19, 2003, 01:49:42 pm
Violent crime    
Violent crime measures the annual number of murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults per 100,000 population.
Rank State            Offenses per 100,000 pop.   Score
1    North Dakota      81                          -75
1    Maine            110                          -75
1    Vermont          114                          -75
4    South Dakota     167                          -67
5    New Hampshire    175                          -65
7    Montana          241                          -52
9    Idaho            253                          -50
11   Wyoming          267                          -47
41   Alaska           567                           12
44   Delaware         684                           35


You are right, Wyoming has the 11th lowest crime rate in the country.  However, that rate only compares the amount of crimes to the amount of citizens living in the state.  This makes other low population states look better than Wyoming.  However, Wyoming gets many more tourist, every year, than most of the other small states.  So, crime per people in the state on a yearly basis would be differnt.  Wyoming would do better if this factor was taken into consideration.

The only state of real concern is Delaware.  Not only is it the 6th most dangerous state in the country but it has very restrictive gun laws.  In fact, it is not even a shall issue carry permit state and does not functionally allow open carry, either.
Title: Re:State Health Ranking
Post by: thewaka on March 20, 2003, 01:01:32 am
From the United Health Foundation (http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr/index.html) website:

State Health Ranking - 2002 Edition

#1  NH 23.9
#6  VT 15.8
#9  ND 14.0
#10 ME 13.8
#16 SD  9.7
#20 ID  7.8
#24 MT  3.7
#26 WY  2.7
#30 AK  0.2
#35 DE -3.9


Quote
Many factors contribute to New Hampshire's success. The state is first in four measures: highest availability of adequate prenatal care, highest support for public health care, fewest limited activity days and lowest infant mortality rate. It is in the top 10 on eight other measures. . . In the last year, New Hampshire reduced its uninsured population from 10.2 to 9.4 percent of the population, however, violent crime rose from 97 to 175 offenses per 100,000 population.

How are we to interpret these figures? In the reverse order of good to bad? I looked at the web site b/c my attention was caught by the phrase "highest availability of adequate prenatal care." I didn't think this could possibly mean there were enough OBs and midwives for all the pregnant women. Surely it meant that the state was providing "free" care. From my browsing, these people like it when the statists provide their definition of health care for us. I have personal feelings about "adequate prenatal care" that aren't appropriate to bring up on this forum, but would like to know how you think these numbers apply to the goal of choosing a state. Thanks.

Diana
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 20, 2003, 10:35:44 am
Quote
. . . but would like to know how you think these numbers apply to the goal of choosing a state. Thanks.
O.K.,
Too often, I forget that piles of numerical figures are not as self- explanatory as I think they should be.

The first ranking is basically useless for our purposes, except as an interesting curiosity to know what the United Health Foundation thinks of our states.  For one, they are enamored with first-place New Hampshire, for some reasons that we all would agree are good and for a few others that are questionable; so it is the components of what went into those rankings are what are interesting.
__
That New Hampshire has the highest "Support for Public Health Care" is quite telling.  While some battles for liberty in New Hampshire will likely be easier than in other states, something about this statistic tells me that trying to even think about reducing Medicare funding is going to be tough to do.  Of course, this is not a poll, this is merely a look at how the state prioritizes its money, and like most things, it is open to interpretation.

____________
I brought- out the crime figures, which are different from those on the spreadsheets, because they are newer, I believe. The report mentioned that New Hampshire recently had a large  increase in violent crime, and this would change some of those livability ranges on the spreadsheet.

I really think that crime should be given at least some consideration beyond just as a livability factor.  It seems to be that the statist politicians always like to use the urgency of stopping crime to advance their agendas quickly with the populace.  Crime rates also seem to be indicitive of a measure of personal responsibility and morality, or lack thereof in a populace.   My opinion is that a populace scared for its safety is not going to be very rational towards libertarian reforms that seem to accept danger, and so Alaska and Delaware should rank low for this reason.

We could probably engage in a discussion over in the Religion & Liberty (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=17;action=display;threadid=658;start=0;boardseen=1) topic  about the goodly effect of all those Scandinavian Lutherans and their influence in North Dakota as to why it is #1 lowest crime state, but it would also have to consider how ND is kind of out-of-the way for most of the "riff-raff" as they call it.  Probably all that "Prairie Home Companion" on the radio is a factor too, for that matter.  

The first eight of our states are low-crime states, with Wyoming being at the cusp of that group, followed sharply later by Alaska and Delaware which both are way-way more crime-ridden than not only our candidate states, but most of the  states in the country!  In fact, in the most recent edition of the book, Robert Young Pelton The World's Most Dangerous Places (by the adventurer who brought us an "Inside Look at Afghanistan" and numerous other "Dangerous Places" on the Discovery Channel) he states that Anchorage, AK is one of the scariest places in the world, due to its exceptionally high murder rate, and murders committed by strangers, but of course, the author has a particular bent against all of the U.S. and its 'outlaw environment'.

There were a lot more health-related statistics from the United Health Foundation (http://www.unitedhealthfoundation.org/shr/index.html) website.  Another insight that I gleaned in all that data was that Wyoming has made vast improvements in reducing the number of smokers over the last 10 years, but this was done primarily through voluntary action, as Wyoming has the most lenient (libertarian) smoking laws in the country yet is now #13 in least number of smokers.  At one time, I read that Wyoming was one of the largest per-capita consumers of tobabacco.
There's lots more research to discover in that report, as to how useful it all is . . . you decide?
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: varrin on March 20, 2003, 01:02:17 pm
--forgive me for being unkind, but I think the typical high-school drop-outs are the kind of people who would vote and support legislation for higher minimum wage.  

I realize I'm the exception to every rule (har har), but if you looked at state statistics, I would be counted as a high school drop out and I hardly support any of that statest crap.  I think escapee is a more appropriate term though.

V-

Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 20, 2003, 01:29:55 pm
I considered that, Varrin.  As far as I can tell, it is a measurement of enrollees in 9th grade public school vs. the number of graduates from public school.

I was even thinking of escapees like you, Varrin by my use of the word 'typical' instead of something more comprehensive.  

But maybe I am being too comfortable with the numbers produced by statists, it did say"High School Graduation measures the percentage of ninth graders who graduate within four years and are considered regular graduates by the state." This information would only be useful if we could compare that to the number of people who go on to enroll in private schools or homeschool after 9th grade.


I took this particular bit of info out of my post (the link is still there).
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on March 20, 2003, 01:50:36 pm

The first eight of our states are low-crime states, with Wyoming being at the cusp of that group, followed sharply later by Alaska and Delaware which both are way-way more crime-ridden than not only our candidate states, but most of the  states in the country!  In fact, in the most recent edition of the book, Robert Young Pelton The World's Most Dangerous Places (by the adventurer who brought us an "Inside Look at Afghanistan" and numerous other "Dangerous Places" on the Discovery Channel) he states that Anchorage, AK is one of the scariest places in the world, due to its exceptionally high murder rate, and murders committed by strangers, but of course, the author has a particular bent against all of the U.S. and its 'outlaw environment'.

Alaska is known to be an attractive place to criminals.  In fact, over the years, I've heard several people talk of how criminals 'hideout' in Alaska.  

Also, Alaska does have a very small percentage of old people and a very large percentage of young people.  According to statistics, seniors are less likely to commit crime than he general population, and young people are more likely to commit crime than seniors.  Alaska has a very large % of people on welfare, compared to must states.  Actually, everyone in Alaska is on welfare, ine the minds of some people, because people get paid to just live in AK.  

This whole, getting paid to live and pay almost no tax mentality is the Alaskan way.  It might not work well for the FSP.  Alaska has a tax system that punishes those that do well because it has high corporate income taxes and pretty high property taxes while no general sales or income taxes.  Actually, a few areas have started a sales tax.  Maybe this mentality is why Alaska has a much larger yearly deficit than any of the other FSP states.

If the FSP goes to AK, maybe the members will truely be in the most free state in the country but they will have been attracted to AK by the same reasons that attract all of the criminal to AK.

As a side note, I still think Alaska is one of the best states for the FSP.  I do not, however, plan to live in Anchorage, AK so the crime issue is not a big deal to me.  Not to mention, that if I moved to Alaska, I would carry 2 guns at all times.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 20, 2003, 03:46:25 pm
From the Kaiser Family Foundation State Health Facts (http://www.statehealthfacts.kff.org/cgi-bin/healthfacts.cgi?action=compare&category=Women%27s+Health&subcategory=State+Mandated+Insurance+Benefits&topic=Contraceptives)

Mandatory Contraceptive coverage:

States that allow voluntary contractual relationships in insurance concerning contraception:
AK - No
ID - no (law Repealed)
MT - no
ND - no
SD - no
WY - no

States that restrict voluntary contractual relationships concerning contraception
DE - Comprehensive- religious employer exemption
ME - Comprehensive- religious employer exemption
NH - Comprehensive except exempts certain individual policies from coverage requirements. Requires health insurance carriers that issue or renew any policy of group or blanket insurance that provides prescription-related coverage to cover all FDA-approved prescription contraceptive drugs and devices
VT - comprehensive, including all services such as abortion and sterilization
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on March 21, 2003, 09:08:39 pm
Good find, exitus. I may cook up a simple rating system using all these mandated insurance benefits (not just the contraceptive ones), and add another row to the big spreadsheet. One of the more detestable tendencies that have appeared is the forcing of other entities to provide benefit. Nothing coming out of the state coffers for that - just order people and companies around. Smells of fascism...

I also added that item, "Support for Public Health Care" that you found earlier. You're doing a great job, don't stop now!   :)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 23, 2003, 12:45:56 am
Thanks, Zxcv here's more data to complement that,  though it might be a little redundant or even useless for spreadsheet purposes though, except to note that previous measurement from the Kaiser foundation apparently used 2001 data and this first one goes back a bit to 1998:  (I've added smilies to show my libertarian opinion for interpretation purposes)  ---and the numbers in front are their ranks among the states.
_____________________________________________
Total (Federal and State) Medicaid Spending per Enrollee, FFY1998 :
Rank in Nation, monetary amount
#2 New Hampshire $6,505  :(   :P  :'(
#5 North Dakota 5,450
#10 Maine 5,055
#14 Montana 4,342
#16 South Dakota 4,321
#20 Alaska 4,035
#24 Delaware 3,939
#25 Wyoming 3,918
#26 Idaho 3,769
#44 Vermont 2,880  :)
Average US 3,822
_________________________________________
Federal Matching Rate (FMAP) for Medicaid, FFY2001 (this is a federal dependancy variable but based on Medicaid rules, New Hampshire might just look good here only because they spend so much locally they've maxed-out the FMAP )
5 Montana 73  :(
6 Idaho 71
14 North Dakota 68
16 Maine 66
17 South Dakota 65
21 Vermont 62
23 Wyoming 61
33 Alaska 58  
40 Delaware 50
40 New Hampshire 50  :)
______________________________________________
Total Medicaid Enrollment, FFY1998   (need to compare to 1998 population figures to assess this one)

51 Wyoming 51,367
50 North Dakota 62,115
49 South Dakota 83,111
48 Alaska 87,873
47 Montana 93,298
46 New Hampshire 98,340
45 Delaware 105,153
44 Idaho 118,519
42 Vermont 131,639  >:(  (even without doing the math, I see that Vermont's pretty high for a lower population state).
38 Maine 195,839
__________________________________________
Eliminated Asset Test Under Medicaid for Children, 2002 (This is a good measure, since it is another hurdle people have to jump to receive taxpayer-funded aid).
ID - No  :)
MT - No  :)
All others, yes  ::)
_________________________________________
State-Only Medicaid Spending, FFY1998
( again, I would have to get some 1998 census figures to assess this one and the next one)
35 New Hampshire 384,071,997
36 Maine 377,784,352
43 Delaware 211,122,219
45 Vermont 151,807,165
46 Alaska 148,695,611
47 Idaho 136,505,676
48 Montana 119,333,404
49 South Dakota 116,171,353
50 North Dakota 100,450,505
51 Wyoming 74,466,526
_____________________________________________
Total (Federal and State) Medicaid Spending, FFY1998
39 New Hampshire 768,143,994
44 Idaho 448,884,170
45 Delaware 422,244,438
46 Montana 405,344,444
47 Vermont 401,393,879
48 Alaska 369,889,579
49 South Dakota 360,221,250
50 North Dakota 339,704,109
51 Wyoming 201,369,730


________________________________________
Births Financed by Medicaid as a Percent of Total Births, FFY1999 :
Listed by Rank in Nation

#3 Vermont 53.0     :(
#7 Alaska 47.5
 
#23 Wyoming 38.0
#24 North Dakota 37.7
#25 Montana 36.0
#29 Delaware 33.0
#32 South Dakota 31.0
#33 Maine 30.9
#34 Idaho 30.2  :)

#43 New Hampshire 21.0  :D woohoo!! Go New Hampshire!!


All of the above data was taken from some data I found at the Kaiser Family Foundation website (link is in my previous post )
Title: Re:Motor Vehicle Safety or Emissions Inspection
Post by: vepope on March 23, 2003, 02:06:27 pm
EMISSIONS TESTING
Depending on your libertarian view of polluting vehicles vs. personal responsibility vs. the commons these may be good or bad. I'm guessing that mandatory testing may not be part of a "Free State".

Once industrial hemp is decriminalized, the question of auto pollution in the free state might become moot.  ;)

Ideally, emissions testing would be a moot point anyway.  I have a contact for an auto modification kit that is relatively inexpensive (depending on the car - around $200) which will increase fuel efficiency by about 3x, and reduce emissions to PURE OXYGEN.  It isn't legal to use this kit in many states, for the assinine reason that those states have MINIMUM EMISSIONS REQUIREMENTS to pass the test.  The reasoning is that if there isn't a certain amount of emissions, the test must be flawed (incorrectly used test equipment, holes in the tailpipe, etc.).  A pure oxygen emission would flunk the test - only because the law says it has to!

So, let's ditch the law, and work for what is BEST FOR ALL!
Title: Re:Motor Vehicle Safety or Emissions Inspection
Post by: DanTheTileMan on March 23, 2003, 07:40:24 pm
[quote  if there isn't a certain amount of emissions, the test must be flawed (incorrectly used test equipment, holes in the tailpipe, etc.).  A pure oxygen emission would flunk the test - only because the law says it has to!
quote]

I'm all for ditching the law.  I know that in Maryland, there was mounting evidence that the test was programmed to fail a certain number of vehicles, no matter what the actual emissions were.  Some people were failing and immediately getting back in line and passing.  I have to go back for my second try, and if I fail again I will have to show mechanics receipts for $450 to get a waiver.  I can't afford a mechanic, so I did my own repairs for about $250, but that doesn't count.  I used to use 2 bottles of dry gas in a quarter tank of gas, but as you said, they will now fail your for no emissions.  I also knocked out the catalytic converter when it plugged up, so that will show up, too.  I would like to know more about the $200 system you mentioned.  I bet there is something we could add to the fuel during the test to show emissions temporarily if we put our minds to it!
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 23, 2003, 07:47:14 pm
Vepope, I know what it is that you are referring to, however, having taken all the classes necessary for a chemistry minor except P-chem at the university level, I assure you that pure Oxygen will never flow out of an combustion engine that uses air at its intake.  
But more to your point, yes, it is ubsurd, the level of regulation in this country that stifles and destroys innovation and progress, the very stuff that gives us any hope of building a better world in the first place, an most of the most serious regulation comes at the hands of federal agencies.

I once spoke with an engineer who explained that one of the pipes in emmissions systems is simply there to dilute the concentration of exhaust so it registers better, but actually harms the net efficiency of the car.  And also that the computers in cars are set to operate at a compromise between customer expectations and efficiency.  

Oh, and by the way vepope, welcome!
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on March 26, 2003, 11:48:15 am
Robert tipped me off to Tim Condon's new paper,
http://www.freestateproject.org/wyoming_20feb03.htm
in which Tim cited the RLC Liberty index.
http://www.republicanliberty.org/libdex/index.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the economic freedom ratings.

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

Here are both ratings combined, for a freedom rating:

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

Interesting how this confirms, via a completely different route, the earlier spreadsheet analysis (using indicators like seatbelt laws and gun laws) that WY, ID and NH are our 3 most free states. And big surprise, ME is not last place this time.  ::)  Can someone tell me how ND does such a good job of electing such a collection of authoritarian jerks? What's wrong with them, anyway?

I'm getting very confident we have a good picture of the culture of freedom in our states, lately.

I will add this rating to the big spreadsheet. Not sure whether I should break it out into two rows (economic and personal freedom) or just used the combined measure. Probably go the latter route...
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: craft_6 on March 26, 2003, 02:04:16 pm
Here are both ratings combined, for a freedom rating:

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

Interesting how this confirms, via a completely different route, the earlier spreadsheet analysis (using indicators like seatbelt laws and gun laws) that WY, ID and NH are our 3 most free states. And big surprise, ME is not last place this time.  Can someone tell me how ND does such a good job of electing such a collection of authoritarian jerks? What's wrong with them, anyway?

I'm getting very confident we have a good picture of the culture of freedom in our states, lately.

I think your index confirms what I've been thinking, based on various analyses here, and past personal experience.  I put a lot of confidence in your numbers, because the government people end up with is a reflection (albeit not a perfect one) of what the citizens want.  

I have considered Vermont as one of the top candidates, based on the ability to trade power between the left and the right, but perhaps it is simply too statist.

As for North Dakota, it must be a cultural phenomenon, with the same community-minded Scandivanian population as socialist Minnesota (just an observation, not a knock -- I'm a native Minnesotan with some Scandivanian ancestors myself.)

I wouldn't mind seeing all 5 states with ratings below 50 dropped from consideration.  Montana could also be dropped, since it has the disadvantages of Idaho and Wyoming, without the advantages of either.  Anyone else up for it?  We would still have a choice of the following:

Wyoming:  low population, pro-liberty culture
Idaho:  stronger economy, pro-liberty culuture
New Hampshire:  the Idaho of the East?
Alaska:  low population, geographical and political advantages of isolation

This should cover the low population/abundant jobs debate, the East-West debate, and the Alaska/lower 48 debate.



Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 26, 2003, 02:14:20 pm
. . .
Here are the ratings of Congresspersons elected in these states over the last 10 years, based on personal freedom. Higher numbers are better:

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

Here are the economic freedom ratings.

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

Here are both ratings combined, for a freedom rating:

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


Here is a snapshot of how each state's congressperson(s) voted on key Constitutional votes last fall:
 

According to FAIR (affiliated with the famously outspoken paleoconservative group, John Birch Society)
http://www.trimonline.org/bulletin/select_state.htm

Here they are, as I broke them down according to congressional district:
ME01 . . .  5 out of 8 votes pro- constitution.
ME02 . . .  5 / 8"                                         ".
ND(1). . .  5 / 8
DE01 . . .  4 / 8
ID01. . .  4 /8
ID02 . . .  2 / 8    
AK(1) . .   3 / 8
WY(1) . .   3 / 8
MT01 . . .  3 / 8
SD(1) . . .  3 / 8
VT(1) . . .   3 / 8
NH01 . . .  2 / 8
NH02 . . .  2 / 8

Interesting to note that Bernie Sanders, the socialist sided with the constitution more than some Republicans who claim to uphold the constitution in this last round.  
Also, none of our 10 states had any of the star pro-constitution voters and our discarded Hawaii and Rhode Island fared better than most here.  But it also points out how subjective this can be on just one set of votes.
10 years of votes sure tells us a lot more about people elected into office than just one round, doesn't it?  Wow Zxcv, good find, thanks!

Here's a map of State US Senate Party Affiliation to see which of your favorite 'lesser-of-two-evil' parties is in power to compare with the above findings (hint: it's hard to find a correlation, but Republicans have the upper-  :
http://www.atr.org/maps/11.html

Of course the RLC never mentions David Nolan, they just swiped his idea with their "libergraph".
I much prefer a model that does away with all of this left- right, personal freedom vs. economic freedom distinction  and their underlying political party just looks at liberty as an indivisible condition, that's why I like one I found in my book by W. Cleon Skousen (related to Joel Skousen, who wrote Strategic Relocation (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1109;start=0)), the book is called The Five Thousand Year Leap , published by the National Center for Constitutional Studies, Wash. D.C., 1981 (out of print) It describes the spectrum on a linear line from 100% rule being tyranny to 0% rule being anarchy, with the ideal being a 'people's rule' right in the center, consisting of a self-governing people who balance tyrrany with lawlessness.  He describes how when there is anarchy, people will eventually form government, and when there is tyrrany, people will eventually overthrow it, but movement from that center comes about as people either collectively stop governing themselves and give power to leaders, or collectively stop governing themselves and give power to the lowest common denominator.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on March 26, 2003, 07:09:32 pm
To be honest, I'm a little nervous about this index. The Republican Liberty Caucus is after all, a Republican Liberty Caucus.

Say for example, you were a person of great influence in the Republican Party. Your party has borrowed the pro-freedom rhetoric from the Libertarians, but don't actually do much with it. Say you wanted to reinforce that pro-liberty image.

Wouldn't you form something like an RLC? And wouldn't you create an index like this, and let's be perfectly cynical - looking where people most care about liberty in the country, then cherry-picking the roll call votes for the index to make the R's in those places look good?

But this index did make Dick Armey look pretty awful, so maybe that's not it. And after all, a Democratic Liberty Caucus does not even exist, does it?

Still, I know games can be played by choosing the appropriate roll-call votes. Nothing in the world of politics is ever what it seems...
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 26, 2003, 10:23:27 pm


Still, I know games can be played by choosing the appropriate roll-call votes. Nothing in the world of politics is ever what it seems...

In that report from the paleoconservative TRIM group, it represents, in my opinion, those measures that any solid libertarian would support (or reject however the case may be), but surprisingly, not even Ron Paul, a Republican famous for his libertarianism got the highest marks, he scored fourth or fifth place I seem to recall.  So, nothing in the world of politics is ever what it seems. . .

And will it ever be what it seems when we start putting politicians into office in our annointed state?  Will they do those things that we support, how much confidence should we put in them?  Will they be reduced to doing back-room deals that counter stated principles to get their favorite bill onto the floor?  How much support will they receive when they fail some idealogical purity test?  Will they ever get into office?  What if someone makes a statement on the way to assured victory before an election that clashes with too many supporters and their support dwindles and they crash-and-burn and the statist rides to victory instead. . .

What it comes down to is we can't put too much trust in politicians.  I've given-up on putting too much confidence in politicians and political systems and look to educating the populace as that which will bring about a return towards liberty.  

But I would say that the Republican Liberty Caucus is the best thing going 'within' the Republican party in my estimation, its low number of membership is quite telling, but its place in educating leaders and voters on the issues is where it is making strides.  

It is a difficult task by any means to find trustworthy measures of liberty in supporting any bill in Congress today.  The 'purest' and most resolute libertarian would most likely be rejecting each and every bill that ever came onto the floor because of their many ammendments and hideous surprises that all get glommed together. . . making sausages as they always say. . .  

Just the fact that these findings support WY, ID, NH, AK as being most libertarian, independant of our own methods of finding out the same is good enough for me.
 
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Robert H. on March 27, 2003, 02:12:06 am
He describes how when there is anarchy, people will eventually form government, and when there is tyrrany, people will eventually overthrow it, but movement from that center comes about as people either collectively stop governing themselves and give power to leaders, or collectively stop governing themselves and give power to the lowest common denominator.

It's interesting to see that political harmony has much in common with natural processes when you consider that both seem to function at their ideal state when no one particular force can dominate; but, rather, when all forces are held in balance against one another.  In nature, it's called "equillibrium."  In politics, we might as well call it "law."

...when the law is used in proper context that is: to protect, not to exploit.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on March 27, 2003, 07:03:14 pm
I just noticed that this RLC stuff was already noticed back in this thread:
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=333

Oh, well. It seems there have been an awful lot of indicators looked at and forgotten even in the year-and-a-half of FSP's existence. At least now this one has a place on the big spreadsheet, so it won't be forgotten. I just have to get to work on some of the others, there are so many...
Title: Marriage laws
Post by: exitus on March 28, 2003, 03:52:09 pm
Marriage Laws in the States


AK

Documents, proof of Identification: Picture ID such as a driver's license. If application is mailed or faxed in, it must be witnessed by a Notary Public.
SS# No
Residency Requirement: No
Waiting Period: 3 days.
Fees: $25
Blood Tests: No
Under 18: through parental consent
Valid: for 90 days

DE

Documents, proof of Identification: Valid Driver's License or Birth Certificate
SS# requested: Yes
Application requirement: Both in person
Residency Requirement: No
Waiting Period: 1 day; or 4 days if both spouses are non-residents
Fees: $35
Blood tests: No
Under 18: No
Valid: 30 days


ID

ID Requirement: Valid Driver's License and Birth Certificate.
SS# No
Residency Requirement: No.
Application Requirement: in person  
Waiting Period: No waiting period.
Fees: $28
Blood Tests: No
Except:
• Idaho Code 32-412A requires both parties to read and sign a premarital AIDS educational pamphlet.
Under 18: Applicant under 16 years of age needs the following: A court order
16 through 17: through Parental consent
Common Law Marriages: No.
Cousin Marriages: No.
Officiants: within 30 days after the marriage.
Valid: There is no expiration on the license. It is good forever, as long as the same two parties listed use it in Idaho.


ME
 
Documents, proof of Identification: Picture ID, Birth Certificate, vital stats and geneological info
SS#: Yes
Fee: $20
Blood Test: No
Cousin Marriage: First cousins can marry with a physician's certificate of genetic counseling
Waiting Period: 3 business days (can be waived by a judge)
Application Requirement: In person
Under 18: through parental consent.
Under 16: parental consent and the written consent of a judge.
Expiration: 90 days
Residency Requirement:
• If both are residents of the state of Maine, then each registers in their town of residence.
• If one is from out of state, then they both register in the town where one holds residency.
• If neither one is a resident of the state of Maine, then both must register in the town where the ceremony is to take place.
Fees: $20
Valid: for 90 days

MT
 
Documents, proof of Identification: Picture id and certified copy of birth certificate.
SS#: No
Residency Requirement: No
Waiting Period: No waiting period unless under the age of 18.
Fees: $30.25
Blood Tests: Yes, the bride is required to take a blood test for rubella.

Under 18: If 16 or 17 years old, must obtain consent of both parents unless only one parent has legal custody. Both must attend at least two counseling sessions that are at least 10 days apart. This has to be done with a designated counselor who will then have to provide a letter that states the names of the couple, their ages, the dates of the counseling sessions, and what the counselor thinks about their possible marriage. Then judicial consent signed by a district court judge must be given for the Clerk of court's office to issue a marriage license.

• No one 15 years of age or younger may marry in Montana.

Valid: for 180 days

NH

Documents, proof of Identification: Picture ID
SS#: Yes
Fee: $45
Blood Test: No blood test
Cousin Marriage: No
Waiting Period: 3 days (can be waived by a judge)
Application Requirement: In person
Under 18:  A female between the age of 13 and 17 years and a male between the age of 14 and 17 years can be married only with the permission of their parent (guardian) and a waiver.
A female below the age of 13 and a male below the age of 14 are not allowed to marry under any conditions.  "good and special cause" may allow for waiver of requirements.
 When either of the applicants is not yet 18 years of age but meets the minimum age requirements  whether a resident or marrying a resident of this state, when joined in the request by their parents or guardian, he/she may request and obtain permission to marry by applying to a justice of the superior court or to the judge of probate where one of the parties resides within N.H.
Residency: If non-residents, must be filed with same city or town as marriage. If both parties under 18 and non-residents, cannot marry.
Expiration: 90 days.

ND

Documents, proof of Identification: Picture ID
SS requested #: No
Fee: $35
Blood Test: No
Cousin Marriage:
Waiting Period: No
Application Requirement: In person
Under 18: If a person is between sixteen and eighteen years of age, a marriage license may not be issued without the consent of the parents or guardian. This requires a notarized statement. (This form available at the office that issues Marriage License).  
Under 16: No
Expiration: 60 days
Residency: no



SD

Documents, proof of Identification: Drivers License or a certified copy of a Birth Certificate.
SS#: No
Fee: $40
Blood Test: None
Cousin Marriage: No
Waiting Period: none
Application Requirement: Both parties in person at county office
Under 18: Applicants 16 and 17 must have parental consent. South Dakota law does not permit marriage of those under 16.
Expiration: 20 days
Residency: No


 

VT

Documents, proof of Identification: Picture id and Birth Certificate, know vital statistical and geneological info
SS#: No
Fee: $20
Blood Test: None
Waiting Period: none
Application Requirement: In person at location of residency
Age requirement: At least 16, minors must get consent of parent or guardian
Expiration: 60 days
Residency: Some limitations: Must get license in same county where marriage takes place and provide birth certificate if not resident, must also prove that you are not evading laws of resident state
Cousin Marriage: Yes.
Same Sex Marriage: No. Vermont registers and recognizes civil unions.


WY

Documents, proof of Identification: Drivers license, Birth Certificate, geneological info
SS#: No
Fee: $25
Blood Test: No
Cousin Marriage: No
Waiting Period: No
Application Requirement: bride & groom & personally known witness apply in person.
Age requirement: 18 years old or 17 with parental consent or 16 with court order
Expiration: none
Residency: None

___________
None of our states recognize the initiation of common-law marriages.

No state allows same-sex marriage but Vermont does have a registration for civil unions.

No info is presented here on requirements of who may perform marriages, as differences are almost indistinguishable, --all except for Montana which noticeably has the least restrictions on who may marry.

Montana also apparently allows proxy marriages, or in other words, you can have someone else say your vows for you if you can't make it on your wedding day!   ::)

So, if we are going to assign points to all of the above, Some consideration ought to be given to MT and VT for these.

VT and ME allow cousin marriages

For id requirements, AK, ND, and NH are the least restrictive while WY may be the most restrictive, followed by Maine.  All of the other states fall somewhere in between.

For requsting/requiring a SS# to get married: DE, ME, NH require them, but unknown whether a license may be denied for not providing one.

For blood tests: MT is only that requires one.  ID requires reading an AIDS brochure.

For residency requirements: The Northeastern states of ME,NH,VT have limited restrictions and DE requires 3 extra days to process out-of-state applications.

For waiting periods: ME and NH have 3 day-long waiting periods, waivable by a judge (NH recommends applying 3 weeks in advance),DE=1, AK=3 days, all other states have no waiting periods.

For fees: ME=$20, VT=$20, AK=$25, WY=$25, ID=$28, MT=$30.25, DE=$35, ND=$35, SD=$40, NH=$45

For application requirements, AK is least restrictive followed by all the other states and WY requirement for a witness makes it the most restrictive.
 
For age requirements, NH allows most leeway for minors while DE allows only 18+ to be married. Not enough info to analyze other states to make an accurate comparison , though much info is posted above.

Much of this info came from the state websites and http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml (http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/index.shtml)

Title: Re:Marriage laws
Post by: Robert H. on March 29, 2003, 01:10:54 am
&#8226; Idaho Code 32-412A requires both parties to read and sign a premarital AIDS educational pamphlet.

That's the sort of blatant nannyish behavior that really gets under my skin.   ::)

In a similar example, a few years ago, Florida was considering a measure that would have required expectant parents (maybe only first-timer's, I'm not certain) to take a state-approved child-rearing class.  This was in response to increasing cases of child abuse.

I never heard what came of this, and I suppose that's a good thing because it probably means that it died a quick death.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 29, 2003, 02:03:03 am
Reading a pamphlet is one thing, but taking a blood test in MT, now that is something that will literally get under your skin -ouch!

I can see how there must have been some political pressure in Idaho to pass a blood-test law at one time and the legislators responded, in part, by crafting a brochure for the betrothed to assuage fears about AIDS and avoid the outrage that would have occurred in Idaho with the passage of something so outlandish as a blood test. But at any rate, it is nannyish and kind-of subtracts from all the good feelings about all else where Idaho shines concerning marriage laws.
_______________________________________________
One other thing I forgot to account for the expiration period of licenses:  (After all, you'd hate to go through all that bother of getting a license, and if you should postpone your wedding date, have to go and apply for another).

Idaho, Wyoming = No expiration, good for the life of the intended.
MT = 180 days
AK,NH ME = 90 days
ND, VT = 60 days
SD = 20 days
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 29, 2003, 03:12:16 am
In summary,
Each criteria discussed above, in trying to establish some numerical value for each:


Anybody want to try make this fit into the spreadsheet?
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on March 29, 2003, 10:25:55 am
You do it, exitus. I can't get excited about it (but I'll put in what you figure out). To me, people getting married are probably more concerned about whether or not they want to spend their life with this other person, than with any piddling one-time state requirement!   :P

I don't agree with a couple of your items:
Quote
VT gets a top ranking for allowing adult cousins to marry, while ME gets something close to that for the same, but more restricted.

VT alone receives highest score for recognizing that same-sex couple desire legal recognition.
I'm very nervous about the cousin marriage. That's a law that mirrors a pretty strong taboo, which we have for a good reason (I think). Maybe I'm outside the libertarian mainstream on this one, but I can't see down-rating a state that has this prohibition. Maybe better to just take it off your list.

And the deal with same-sex marriages, that is probably a bad idea too. The answer is not to give them equal recognition, but to get the states out of the marriage recognition business. Going down this path just raises hell with a lot of folks, and gets states involved in religious issues, too.

BTW, I went ahead and added all the state health care mandates you found on the Kaiser site earlier in this thread. There are a lot of them!   >:(  I did not weigh any of them, but just added them together as if they were equal weight (really they are not, but who knows how to figure the relative burden?) Here is what I got (lower numbers are better):

ID 4
ND 6
SD, WY 7
AK 9
VT 11
NH, MT 13
DE 15
ME 17

This is a heavy, unfunded mandate to place on insurance companies and health care providers, and so is passed on to their clients, and is from the "money (or health care) grows on trees" school of thought. Also very in line with fascism, it would seem. I would weigh it rather heavily. I have put this row in the big spreadsheet, along with the calculation for it.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: vepope on March 29, 2003, 10:57:31 am
As far as the whole "cousin marriage" thing is concerned, there is a school of thought dating back quite a ways which says that inbreeding is genetically bad, resulting in birth defects or mental deficiencies.  It would seem that the taboo dates back to Noah in the Bible (if you read the account of his daughter's actions after the destruction of Soddom and Gamorah).

However, I read a published article several years ago (and wish that I'd kept it, as I don't even remember where it was) which related the results of an exhaustive search through many different nation's birth records, interviews with parents to determine relationship, and evaluation of European Royalty (who have been inbreeding for over a thousand years to keep the wealth "in the family").  The researcher concluded that there was no scientific reason for the prohibition against inbreeding (including incest) on the basis of physical or mental defects.  The existence of the taboo is perpetuated almost entirely by gut reaction rather than reason.

That said, I would also like to see mandated anything done away with - like mandated health care or retirement programs.  It's a nanny mentality that we would be better off without.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Robert H. on March 30, 2003, 04:22:29 am
I would agree that it is a good idea not to take things like civil unions to be all that demonstrative of a state's liberty-orientation because it basically equates to the state tapping someone on the shoulder with its scepter and saying: "Okay, you are now acceptable."  The state may permit thus and such to a greater extent than other states, but it is still a matter of what the state permits.

As for minors and cousin-marriages...

Really, when you get down to the core issue, what we're talking about here is state recognition of a union between two people.  That union may already exist, sexually speaking, thus marriage laws are not really applicable in preventing things like inbreeding (or the spreading of AIDS) unless you are also willing to enforce adultery or "lewd behavior" statutes to prevent sexual activity between unmarried persons.

Even then, those statutes only provide penalties for actions that have already occurred, and result in even more state involvement and restriction.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 30, 2003, 01:30:22 pm
You do it, exitus. I can't get excited about it
Just staring at all of that data,  I couldn't get too excited about it either, that's why I put it up here to discuss first.

Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish from good law and good intentions!!

In my idea of an ideal world, the government would not license marriage.  The only role government would ever have is in recognizing the rights of individuals and of families, and the greatest extent necessary for recognizing marriage would be through census activites.  To elaborate on these thoughts, it might be preferrable to go to the General Libertarian (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=1347;start=0) message board topic, I guess.

But since we are dealing with realities as they are, and all of the states license marriages, we should consider those factors in which the state seeks to control the right of individuals to marry and voluntarily form families.

As to cousin marriages, I understand the practice is actually more common than most ever realize, among widowed seniors that is.  But as to people of child-bearing age, no matter how much of it is a taboo and how much is just good breeding,  I think any animal breeder, botanist, geneticist, whoever; will confirm that plants, birds, bees, people, and what have you, will stand a better chance of hardiness and decrease odds of amplifying problems if you breed outside of close relations.  The fact that Vermont hopes that people will get it right without trying to impose speaks well, the fact that Maine accommodates the practice but gets people to take genetic counseling first at least says they are not entirely authoritarian on the matter.

As to Vermont's same-sex "civil unions" law, further reading on the subject reveals that it is not hardly any measure of libertarianism 'open-mindedness.  Instead of trying to reform property laws and such the Vermont legislature adopted civil unions at the urgence of leftist homosexual groups who actually wanted to implace same-sex marriages.  It is an example of where a bad law is reformed through more bad laws.  And as Zxcv points-out instead of correcting enequities in the law, it merely created new ones.  I would not weigh this one all that high, if at all at this point.

As to the seemingly trivial delays in obtaining a marriage license.  It seems silly, but just as we look at waiting periods on the purchase of guns and see potential problems, and as Martin Luther King stated, "A right delayed is a right denied" I think it is a strong factor in light of 'unintended consequences' of the law.  While there are good intentions on having people wait a bit, and there is good evidence that the intention of the law is not just due to administrative functions, but an intentional waiting period.  I can think of one example of where delays may be a problem: my own grandmother and grandfather, who were married for over 60 years before death.  My grandfather had already proposed to my grandmother months before at the time he got drafted into the Korean war.  He had three days of leave before he had to go fight in Korea, somehow they got married, had a honeymoon (conceived a child), flew across the country from Kansas and said farewell in less than 72 hours.  I think a lot of events in our family's history would have been dramatically different if some waiting period had been imposed there.

As to blood tests, I think that is not only an inconveniece but insulting and might even go against some people's religious beliefs.  It is a wonderful good intention to try to stop the spread of AIDS, but it is a bad law.  Along those same lines, when I get to Idaho, when and if I ever do, I am going to make that mandatory reading of that brochure a part of my mission to tackle bad laws.  I think blood tests should be weighed heavily.

Well, just some thoughts.  These decisions of scoring the relative level of freedom within the laws are difficult, to say the least, but if we are going to do it, better to do it out in the open like this where they can be openly debated and all considerations can be made.  I hope that all the people who are going to vote for which state know how much work and consideration has gone into all of this spreadsheet work.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 31, 2003, 07:41:36 am


None of our states, except Idaho, is a community property state.  I feel that Idaho should automaticly move to the bottom of the list because of this.  . . .

. . . community poperty status is the most important thing to consider when dealing with marriages. . . .
I'm not too familiar with all of this, I haven't yet seen the specifics of anything like this discussed.

I'm guessing that community property rights are where people can form a voluntary community and share collective title to their property instead of having individuals named on the title.  How ever in the world could something like this pick your pocket?

You mean supporting the rights of people like the geolibertarians, some Amish communities, certain bands of Hutterites, certain polygamous groups, the United Order sects, and so forth goes against principles of liberty?

Somebody help me out here, marriage has certain common property rights, supported in all 50 states except for Louisiana where wives are still considered chattel under the law.  Corporations, in effect are a form of organizing common property rights.  

What exactly is it that Idaho does wrong?


Title: Zoos and Aquariums in the Candidate States
Post by: exitus on March 31, 2003, 01:43:40 pm
Zoos and Aquariums in the Candidate States

During the last election here in Fresno, California.  The voters voted on "Measure Z" for funding the zoos.  It was narrowly defeated, no sooner than it was defeated, the organizers started a new campaign for the next elections.  The zoo is an entity that seems not to know how to run at a profit.  Anybody who opposes the zoo gets accused of being anti- animals, anti-education, what have you.  For the Free State, how much better it would be to just not have one of these boondoggles to deal with!

AK- (2) Alaska Sea Life Center (http://www.alaskasealife.org/site/about_aslc) in Seward, Alaska Zoo (http://www.alaskazoo.org/)in Anchorage.  Both are owned by not-for-profit corporations that receive taxpayer money.  
The center in Seward receives money from the state through the  University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program (http://www.uaf.edu/seagrant/) and federal money through grants from NOAA among others.  The Center in Anchorage has received various subsidies from the city and through federal pork spending http://hometown.aol.com/sundiii/myhomepage/newyork.html.
 

DE- (2) Seaside Nature Center (http://www.destateparks.com/wilmsp/wilmsp.htm) major aquarium sponsored by Delaware State Parks, located inside of Henlopen State Park.  Brandywine Zoo (http://www.destateparks.com/wilmsp/zoo/index.htm) sponsored by Delaware State Parks
12 other taxpayer- recreation sites where found nearby each of these.

 
ID- (1) Zoo Boise (http://www.cityofboise.org/parks/zoo/index.shtml)  Sponsored by the City of Boise, Parks and Recreation Department

ME  (1)  
--Maine Aquarium Maine Aquarium (http://www.maineaquarium.com/) status unknown

Gulf of Maine Aquarium (http://octopus.gma.org/) From the website: "At a time when most aquariums around the country have assumed a strong conservation stance, GMA's neutrality is unique and highly effective. . . "  :)
GMA aquarium receives grants from various federal agencies including NASA, NOAA, the State of Maine, among others.  It is owned by a non-profit organization.

NH (What with MA close by?)


ND- (0)

SD- (2) Bear Country U.S.A.  (http://www.bearcountryusa.com/) Family owned and operated drive-through wildlife park in the Black Hills,
Reptile Gardens® (http://www.reptile-gardens.com/main%20page/history.html) Privately owned reptile zoo and tourist attraction

VT (0)

WY (0)
Score:
WY, VT, SD, NH, ND  all earn top score

How I would rank them for a spreadsheet:
WY, VT, SD, NH, ND = 10
ME = 5
ID = 4
AK = 2
DE = 0
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on March 31, 2003, 03:09:35 pm
...In my idea of an ideal world, the government would not license marriage.  The only role government would ever have is in recognizing the rights of individuals and of families, and the greatest extent necessary for recognizing marriage would be through census activites.  To elaborate on these thoughts, it might be preferrable to go to the ...
As to blood tests, I think that is not only an inconveniece but insulting and might even go against some people's religious beliefs.  It is a wonderful good intention to try to stop the spread of AIDS, but it is a bad law.  Along those same lines, when I get to Idaho, when and if I ever do, I am going to make that mandatory reading of that brochure a part of my mission to tackle bad laws.  I think blood tests should be weighed heavily.

Well, just some thoughts.  These decisions of scoring the relative level of freedom within the laws are difficult, to say the least, but if we are going to do it, better to do it out in the open like this where they can be openly debated and all considerations can be made.  I hope that all the people who are going to vote for which state know how much work and consideration has gone into all of this spreadsheet work.


Exitus, before you add up all of the numbers and giving them to Paul, please think about one more issue relating to marriage.  Most state are not community property states.  However, a few states, including Idaho, are community property states.  This is the most important factor to look at when researching marriage laws.  I think this is even more important than state requiring blood tests or pre-marital therapy.  Community property is a very bad thing, very bad.  I feel that Idaho should move to the buttom of the list, as far as marriage, because of this issue.

For more information see:
http://family-law.freeadvice.com/divorce_law/1community_property.htm
and
http://www.itslegal.com/infonet/family/community.html
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on March 31, 2003, 04:20:55 pm
. . .Most state are not community property states.  However, a few states, including Idaho, are community property states.  This is the most important factor to look at when researching marriage laws. . . .
No,
this is an important factor when considering divorce laws, not marriage laws.  If you have property you do not want to be a part of the conjugal relationship, you simply enter into a pre-nuptial agreement beforehand.  But in marriage, all states recognize the existance of common property in marriage, all except for a few of the old wives=chattel ideas found in the old French system in Louisiana, so this should not make a difference.  The advice given on that link provided, FreedomRoad, said the following,
"However, in most states a judge may modify this "50/50" approach and divide the property unequally after taking into consideration all of the circumstances, including the ability of each spouse to earn future income.  Because judges in common law states usually divide property fairly between divorcing spouses, the differences between community property states and common law states are no longer as great as they were in the past. "
Due to the special nature of marriage as an intended covenant contract for life, I have little sympathy for people who decide to break that contract and want the state to restore all their property for them, or who enter marriage on a trial basis, holding property they might regret conjoining, who did not enter into a pre-nup.

But fine, if you want to research divorce laws be my guest.  I'll just keep finding more info on some other subjects . .
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on April 01, 2003, 12:23:38 am
exitus, with that aquarium stuff, is the information out there so you can fold tax-funded football/baseball/whateverball stadiums into it? I rip my hair out when I hear for-profit sports teams going to the taxpayers for their stadiums.  >:(
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on April 01, 2003, 01:24:51 am
exitus, with that aquarium stuff, is the information out there so you can fold tax-funded football/baseball/whateverball stadiums into it? I rip my hair out when I hear for-profit sports teams going to the taxpayers for their stadiums.  >:(

I do not know about any of the other states but Casper, WY has a pro football team.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on April 01, 2003, 07:58:35 pm
I wish you wouldn't do this, Joe. I find the disjointed discussions caused by moved/deleted posts more trouble than working through the original long thread.

All that should be moved or deleted are off-topic or silly comments. Even that is not worth it because it still causes a disjointed look to things.

Another problem is that the spreadsheets reference the thread discussions. If you pull out the relevant data, then those spreadsheet references are broken.  :(

Go have a beer, relax, and read a good book, Joe. These are better uses of your time.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on April 01, 2003, 10:36:44 pm
Below is a duplicate of the first post of this thread.

I started this thread to be a catch-all for criteria which may not warrant an entire thread or which may not intuitively go under another topic.
....................
If anyone has a better idea on how to organize the wealth of information on this forum, please suggest it to the FSP leaders and moderators of this forum.
Joe, please do not do that.  This forum is only read by part of the FSP members and most of them rarely post to (and maybe read) this forum.  I feel that this forum is very useful as a reference point and research tool.  I have refered to the forum, and so have other peoples, in some of the things I have written.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: exitus on April 02, 2003, 09:48:34 am
Get more of this stuff that is buried in these forum threads
up on the web pages.
Quote
Thus I'm back to the questions of:
How do we find this stuff, even if we know it is in here somewhere?
How do we know it is in here?

To organize and locate everything is our first obstacle.

How about we create a thread called data only, where posts can only have various rankings of the states or concise data for comparisons with links to where the factual data can be obtained in threads or out on the net,  and have it well moderated; any poster who tries to comment on it will receive a polite private message to move it elsewhere.  Once the data accumulated becomes impressive in its size, we get the whole thing up on the state data main page?

Then we could have a thread entitled "Comments on the 'data only' thread" for all of those necessary comments and questions the 'data only ' thread brings about.
 
Quote
Given that, then perhaps the ability to load an entire thread would facilitate a text search.
We actually DO have that option - yes!! --it's so nice:
notice that little button that's over on my upper-left side of the page, it says, "Print"  I can load this thread clear back to August and it cuts-out most quotes and extraneous member data all in a boring black-and-white format!

Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on April 09, 2003, 01:50:17 am
http://www.onlinedemocracy.com/vote/statesno.cfm

"The following states do not accept the Federal Voter Registration form: Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Wyoming. Please contact your local voter registration office."


3092
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on April 16, 2003, 01:39:14 pm
"Clean Elections"
(Leftist-speak for tax-payer funded election campaigns)
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt000709_maine_politics_feature.html (http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt000709_maine_politics_feature.html)

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

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


Any other states besides Vermont and Maine?  (this was all that I could find, searching each state as I can't seem to find this info gathered anyhwere in a central location).
3126
Title: FYI: Healthiest Cities
Post by: Kelton Baker on April 16, 2003, 04:04:15 pm
Men's Health Ranks 101 Best (and Worst) Cities for Men
Healthiest, Unhealthiest, Fattest, Most Virile and More (http://www.menshealth.com/promos2/best_cities.html)
Men's Health ranked 101 cities across the country based on 20 statistical parameters of long life in the categories of health, environment and fitness (such things as heart disease and prostate cancer rates, body-mass index, motor vehicle accidents, percentage who exercise, number of physicians per person, and air quality). The category results were weighted, totaled, and averaged for a final ranking. Statistical sources included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER database; CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System date compiled and calculated by BestPlaces.net; the U.S. Census Bureau; Health and Healthcare in the United States, County and Metro Area Data, Second Edition, 2000, published by NationsHealth Corporation; and the American Lung Association's State of the Air: 2002.


Anchorage, AK --The only city among our candidate states to make the list came in at #18 most healthy city.  It also has another distinguishing feature as having the lowest impotence in the country.
   
The fair city of Boston came in at #9 over-all near to our New Hampshire.  Boston ranked #1 in the country for skinniest city.

The two Colorado cities of Denver and Colorado Springs, which are situated right south of Cheyenne, WY came in at #6 and #7.

#16 Spokane, WA is situated near the panhandle of Idaho.

On the low-end of the scale,  let's just say that we hope that cities inside Delaware are much better off than the cities approximate to Delaware like Baltimore and Washington D.C.

3137
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: stpeter on April 30, 2003, 08:24:55 pm
Eminent Domain.

The Institute for Justice has published a report on eminent domain abuses among the several states. At first blush it looks like most or all of the candidate states come out looking good on this measure compared to the other 40 states. Details here:

http://www.ij.org/publications/castle/
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on May 01, 2003, 11:00:39 am
Zxcv found this quote that would support that ID,MT,SD,WY are the best states in this category for lack of even potential to do so, with AK,DE, and NH having no record of participating in this type of abuse,
meaning that among our candidate states, only VT, ME, and ND leave us with much concern on the issue of eminent domain .  

Further in, there was this comment:

From a legal standpoint, New York, Missouri and Kansas are the worst states to live in for owners who hope to avoid condemnation for private parties, while Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming appear to be the best. Those states, as well as Alaska, Delaware, Georgia, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C. have no reported uses of eminent domain for private parties.

At least, 7 of our candidates have no problems.

I don't know how to quantify this information for the spreadsheet. If anyone wants to take a whack at it, be my guest. It would be nice to have this in the big spreadsheet somehow.

3173
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Joe on May 10, 2003, 09:12:47 pm
First Drivers License Laws, First Drivers License Exams
You will be surpised at just how late some states were on starting this.
Is it too late to turn back the clock?
Traffic laws: back  to the beginning
http://www.dispatch.com/news/special/wheelsofjustice/woj1Eoldtrafficlaws.html

SD   1954   1959

WY   1947   1947

ME   1937   1937
MT   1935    1947
ND   1935    1947
AK   1935    1937
ID    1935    1951

DE   1909   1924
VT   1905   1926
NH   1905   1912

(Massachusetts and Missouri started it all)

Source of above:
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/summary95/dl230.pdf



Exitus,
Regarding your post about EPA Superfund sites (on page 7 of this thread)
Having dealt directly with EPA Superfund site managers and their PR people at the Superfund site that we live within (it's several square miles of old mine dumps, drainages, and related stuff), and having received a significant amount of training and experience dealing with the technical and political issues of these sites (from drums of whatever to what we have here...

I'll emphasize this
Each site must be evaluated because the raw numbers matter very little other than each one gives the EPA entry into the state in a very helluva heavy handed manner complete with junk science and professional manipulation of the populace in and around the sites.
It can take twenty or more years  (if ever) to remedy the site and get rid of the EPA presence. It has been 18 years so far and we have at least a few more years yet before EPA "de-lists" all of Leadville.
Title: Hate Crimes and Discrimination Laws
Post by: Robert H. on May 25, 2003, 02:53:57 am
Hate crimes laws and most discrimination laws are, in my opinion, exercises in political correctness.  Looking at a state's hate and discrimination laws may be an indication of the strength of political correctness (or special interest lobby strength) in that state.

According to the following MSNBC site, Wyoming is the only FSP candidate state with no hate crimes law (only eight states lack such laws).  Summaries of the hate crimes laws in effect in the other candidate states are available by clicking on each state here:

http://msnbc.com/modules/HateCrimes_SBS/stateframe.asp (http://msnbc.com/modules/HateCrimes_SBS/stateframe.asp)

And here is some more interesting information from the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (http://www.hrc.org/index.asp), an organization that identifies itself as "working for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender equal rights."

This site evaluates each state based on what laws it has in regard to:



There are other categories at this site as well.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 10, 2003, 08:14:38 am
"Clean Elections"
(Leftist-speak for tax-payer funded election campaigns)
http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt000709_maine_politics_feature.html (http://abcnews.go.com/onair/WorldNewsTonight/wnt000709_maine_politics_feature.html)

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

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


Any other states besides Vermont and Maine?  (this was all that I could find, searching each state as I can't seem to find this info gathered anywhere in a central location).


Further research yielded no finds on any other state practicing this tax-payer funding of elections, except that there was some movement in Alaska to start it but hasn't been taken too seriously yet; thus, only Vermont and Maine are states that should cause us concern in this.


3356
Title: Frequency of UFO Sightings by State
Post by: Kelton Baker on June 27, 2003, 02:39:58 pm
Sighting values based on number of sightings and population density for each state for the full range of study based on midpoint of full range, 1941-1996 (54.67 years) and 5,626 reports used.
 
Frequency of UFO Sightings by State (http://ufos.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.pacbell.net%2Fjoerit%2Fdocs%2Fufo70hot.htm)
 
New Mexico #1

Among our candidate states:
Alaska #2
Montana #5
New Hampshire #6
Idaho #7
North Dakota #11
Wyoming #12
Maine #13
Vermont #14
South Dakota #15
Delaware #23

Rhode Island #52

:o

3405
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 02, 2003, 01:00:02 am
Here is an area I only wished that we had researched more, but the time is far spent and there is little remaining in order to make much of a contribution now towards the question of which state:

 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/uniform.html)
Uniform Laws
[/url]


Quote
In the American federal system, both the federal government and the individual states have the power to pass statutes or laws. (Local governments like counties and cities can as well but have more limited power generally seen as derived from their state.) Both are subject to constitutional limitations. Some topics are largely covered by federal legislation, some are handled almost exclusively by the states, and many are the subject of both state and federal law.

As interstate business and individual movement have increased in the U.S. the felt need for greater uniformity of law on particular subjects has grown. One response to such a need is enactment of a federal law on the subject (e.g., the federal Securities Act of 1933). Another approach known by the name "Uniform State Laws" seeks adoption of identical or similar laws by all the states. It dates back to the late nineteenth century
.

Uniform Rules of Evidence Locator
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/evidence.html

Uniform Probate Code Locator
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/probate.html

Uniform Commercial Code Locator
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/ucc.html

Uniform Business and Financial Laws Locator
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/vol7.html

Uniform Matrimonial and Family Laws Locator
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/vol9.html


3433
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 02, 2003, 11:30:51 am
Rankings of candidate state "Fatalities in Alcohol-Related Crashes as a Percent of All Highway Fatalities (http://www.morganquitno.com/tocmls.htm)" 2003 Report by MorganQuitno press (this is already a factor in the 'quality' measure of the spreadsheets)
 
NH, ND tied for 4th highest in nation
AK, MT, WY tied for 12th
SD 22nd
DE 25th
VT 31st
ID 38th
ME 48th (near best)

3445
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on July 07, 2003, 02:33:27 am
Anti-Gun Brady Campaign Lifetime Report Card
The scores range from 1 to 13.  This measures several different rates and laws.  See source for more details.  To the Brady Campaign, a 13 is the best score.  However, since the Brady Campaign is a anti-gun organization, lower numbers are better for us.  Thus, Wyoming and Montana are best for us.


The resources:
State
grades for the last 6 years
lifetime average score (lower is better for us)

AK
d d- d- d- d- d-
3.8

DE
c+ b- c+ c c c
9.2

ID
D D D- F+ f+ f+
2.83

ME
d f f f f f
1.8

MT
f f f f f f
1

NH
d+ d+ d D+ d+ d+
5

ND
d d d d d d
4

SD
d d d d d d
4

VT
d- d- d- d- d- d-
3

WY
f f f f f f
1


The ranking for our concerns: lower numbers are better for us
1. Wyoming 1
1. Montana 1
3. Maine 1.8
4. Idaho 2.83
5. Vermont 3
6. Alaska 3.8
7. South Dakota 4
7. North Dakota 4
9. New Hampshire 5
10. Delaware 9.2


Source:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/rc03/rc_history.pdf
Title: Compulsory School Attendance
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 07, 2003, 03:50:48 pm
Compulsory School Age -- I don't know if this has already been discussed, it could just be a component of the homeschooling laws, but I was just curious...

AK
"between 7 and 16" (A child who is six years old and enrolled in the first grade in public school is subject to the compulsory attendance law. A parent may withdraw such a child from public school within 60 days of enrollment, and the child will not be subject to the compulsory attendance law until age seven.)

DE
"between 5 years of age and 16 years of age"; can delay start (if "in best interests of the child") with school authorization

ID
"attained the age of 7 years, but not the age of 16 years"

ME

"7 years of age or older and under 17 years"

MT

"7 years of age or older prior to the first day of school" and "the later of the following dates: the child’s 16th birthday; the day of completion of the work of the 8th grade"


ND
"a child between the ages of seven and sixteen years."


NH
"at least 6 years of age [on September 30] and under 16 years of age"

SD
"six years old by the first day of September and who has not exceeded the age of sixteen years"; children under age 7 can be excused

VT
"between the ages of six and 16 years"; children attending a post-secondary school (approved or accredited by Vermont or another state) are exempt

WY
"whose seventh birthday falls before September 15 of any year and who has not yet attained his sixteenth birthday or completed the tenth grade…"

My rough analysis of these laws without going into fine points:

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

Out of these, Montana and Wyoming possibly seem to be the lesser evil, but all compulsory school attendance laws have a way of interfering with parent's rights, so couple that with how they give an out, and we can see that from the spreadsheet values for Homeschooling, AK and ID offer the most freedom, followed by DE,MT,WY,  NH,SD take the lower end and DE, VT and ME are bad news.

source: hslda.org (http://www.hslda.org/laws/)
3488
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on July 07, 2003, 11:45:05 pm
Cost of Living in Cities
http://www.bestplaces.net/html/cost_of_living.html

1. Wyoming
Cheyenne 97.6
Casper 96.0

1. Idaho
Boise 96.8
Pocatello 96.8

3. South Dakota
Rapid City 99.9
Sioux Falls 95.4

4. North Dakota
Bismarck 98.8
Fargo 95.7
Grand Forks 100.2

5. Montana
Billings 102.4
Great Falls 100.0

6. Maine
Portland 112.7
Bangor 101.5
Lewiston 101.1

7. Delaware
Wilmington-Newark 111.9
Dover 101.7

8. Vermont
Burlington 113.4

9. Alaska
Anchorage 123.1

10. New Hampshire
Nashua 138.5
Manchester 110.5
Portsmouth-Rochester 138.6
Title: Re:Compulsory School Attendance
Post by: freedomroad on July 07, 2003, 11:47:01 pm
Out of these, Montana and Wyoming possibly seem to be the lesser evil, but all compulsory school attendance laws have a way of interfering with parent's rights, so couple that with how they give an out, and we can see that from the spreadsheet values for Homeschooling, AK and ID offer the most freedom, followed by DE,MT,WY,  NH,SD take the lower end and DE, VT and ME are bad news.

Just a note, in order, the 4 best states for homeschooling are:
1. Alaska
2. Idaho
3. Wyoming
4. Montana
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Rearden on July 08, 2003, 07:35:59 am
Of course, NH and VT are the only two candidate states without a constitutional provision mandating public schools.  

In fact, there's nothing stopping ten porcupines from moving to a small NH town and simply voting to end the schools there.  They would simply end the arrangement small towns like this enter into with other small towns and reduce taxes to compensate.

I suspect that the first town to do this will set off a tidal wave of others.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on July 08, 2003, 07:49:03 am
Of course, NH and VT are the only two candidate states without a constitutional provision mandating public schools.  

In fact, there's nothing stopping ten porcupines from moving to a small NH town and simply voting to end the schools there.  They would simply end the arrangement small towns like this enter into with other small towns and reduce taxes to compensate.

I suspect that the first town to do this will set off a tidal wave of others.

That is not what the NH Constitution says.  It says, at least according to NH law, that public schools are required.  Vermont is the only candidate state that does not require public schools in its Constitution.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Michelle on July 08, 2003, 07:58:12 am
That is not what the NH Constitution says.  

Here are the relevant sections, so people can judge for themselves:

Alaska (Article 7): "The legislature shall by general law establish and maintain a system of public schools open to all children of the State"

Delaware (Article 10): "The General Assembly shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a general and efficient system of free public schools"

Idaho (Article 9): "it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools"

Maine (Article 8): "the Legislature are authorized, and it shall be their duty to require, the several towns to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public schools"

Montana (Article 10): "The legislature shall provide a basic system of free quality public elementary and secondary schools"

New Hampshire (Article 83): "it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools"

North Dakota (Article 8): "the legislative assembly shall make provision for the establishment and maintenance of a system of public schools which shall be open to all children of the state of North Dakota"

South Dakota (Article 8): "it shall be the duty of the Legislature to establish and maintain a general and uniform system of public schools wherein tuition shall be without charge, and equally open to all"

Vermont: (Section 68): "a competent number of schools ought to be maintained in each town unless the general assembly permits other provisions for the convenient instruction of youth"

Wyoming (Article 7): "The legislature shall provide for the establishment and maintenance of a complete and uniform system of public instruction, embracing free elementary schools of every needed kind and grade"
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 08, 2003, 09:33:23 am

Here are the relevant sections, so people can judge for themselves:
Michelle,

Remember this hideous ruling when it first came out, again under the first Claremont decisions?
Quote
Under the plain language of the Encouragement of Literature clause the State is duty bound to "cherish, regulate and control" education. NH. Const. pt. 2, art. 83; Coleman v. School District, 87 N.H. 465, 466 (136); State v. Jackson, 71 N.H. 552, 554 (1902); Farnum's Petition, 51 N.H. 376, 379 (1871).

I'm glad to see that this was challenged, but I remain unclear on the final outcome of this judicial movement to undermine NH and its constitution.  Perhaps you could also bring us up-to-date on all the judicial review of various Claremont decisions and actions by the NH legislature to restore Art. 6 , Pt. I of the N.H. Constitution and the original intent of the word 'to cherish' in 2:83 from where it now seems to be interpreted to mean a guarantee of adequate funding by the state, not any different from the state-funded local control in place in any of our 19th- Century Western constitutions.

Because what matters right now, in practice, is how those in power interpret, rule and act on it differently from what we would like it to be.
 
It is clear that the original New Hampshire advantage is a wonderful one, but to say that it is so because you plainly read it so is to ignore all the real power-plays going on right now to destroy the greatness of New Hampshire.  So I ask that you bring us up to speed on how this is interpreted recently and what the legislature and governor are doing to correct this problem.  I hope the news is for the best, especially if we are moving there, but even if we do not, for liberty's sake!

See here:
http://www.mainstream.com/nhpolitics/ (http://www.mainstream.com/nhpolitics/)

3524

Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on July 08, 2003, 09:51:19 am
You forget to underline :)

New Hampshire (Article 83): "it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools"
Title: Re:Compulsory School Attendance
Post by: Mike Lorrey on July 08, 2003, 10:00:05 am
Compulsory School Age -- I don't know if this has already been discussed, it could just be a component of the homeschooling laws, but I was just curious...

AK
"between 7 and 16" (A child who is six years old and enrolled in the first grade in public school is subject to the compulsory attendance law. A parent may withdraw such a child from public school within 60 days of enrollment, and the child will not be subject to the compulsory attendance law until age seven.)
snip....
NH
"at least 6 years of age [on September 30] and under 16 years of age"
snip...
My rough analysis of these laws without going into fine points:

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

Out of these, Montana and Wyoming possibly seem to be the lesser evil, but all compulsory school attendance laws have a way of interfering with parent's rights, so couple that with how they give an out, and we can see that from the spreadsheet values for Homeschooling, AK and ID offer the most freedom, followed by DE,MT,WY,  NH,SD take the lower end and DE, VT and ME are bad news.

THis is obviously a cherry picking and disinformation. NH has entirely legalized homeschooling, to the point that there are over 3600 children in the state now in homeschooling. Furthermore, we have the highest percent of school age children attending private schools in the entire country.

Try to get your facts straight next time.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Mike Lorrey on July 08, 2003, 10:02:40 am
Cost of Living in Cities
http://www.bestplaces.net/html/cost_of_living.html

1. Wyoming
Cheyenne 97.6
Casper 96.0

snip...
10. New Hampshire
Nashua 138.5
Manchester 110.5
Portsmouth-Rochester 138.6

More biased cherry picking. Try weighting the cost of living against the per capita income. I think you'll find markedly different results, with NH on top and Wyoming at the bottom.

Try to get your facts straight next time.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Mike Lorrey on July 08, 2003, 10:15:02 am
You forget to underline :)

New Hampshire (Article 83): "it shall be the duty of the legislators and magistrates, in all future periods of this government, to cherish the interest of literature and the sciences, and all seminaries and public schools"

Quite so. A more accurate reading of this article would seem to indicate that if the state is to be responsible for funding public education, they must also equally fund religious education, given the equal weight given to cherishing 'seminaries' along with public schools.

The fact is that the Claremont decision, along with our current districting law, were both written by Chief Justice David Brock, a self-styled one-man-legislature who was brought out of retirement to run the court when the previous justice wouldn't go Claremont's way. This is the legacy of Jeanne Shaheen's rule.

At Esc2NH, when we discussed first items on the FSP agenda when we got to the Free State, I sang:

"Get all the rope in Hampshire,
find a tall oak tree,
round up all of them judges,
hang em high in the street,
for all the people to see."

Getting rid of David Brock is item one. Repairing the damage he caused is item two. The people will cheer us all the way. Nothing makes the people cherish freedom regained more than being forced to live in tyranny for a short period.

Credit: paraphrasing "Beer for My Horses" by Toby Keith and Willy Nelson
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: EMOR on July 08, 2003, 10:24:25 am
Cost of Living in Cities
http://www.bestplaces.net/html/cost_of_living.html

1. Wyoming
Cheyenne 97.6
Casper 96.0

snip...
10. New Hampshire
Nashua 138.5
Manchester 110.5
Portsmouth-Rochester 138.6

More biased cherry picking. Try weighting the cost of living against the per capita income. I think you'll find markedly different results, with NH on top and Wyoming at the bottom.

Try to get your facts straight next time.
I actually read something about this on the This is Distressing thread and another thread. I think you should read a little more before you accuse someone of being biased or lying.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Rearden on July 08, 2003, 10:32:46 am
Yes, the Claremont decision was a sick joke, a gross extension of power by a State Supreme Court filled with appointees from a previous governor.  Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1.) For the past five years, citizens in NH have been hopping mad about this decision.  The link you posted is only one of several.  Have you seen the C.A.I.R.E. website yet?  http://www.we-caire-nh.org/caire_a.html  Several towns, tired of paying the donor tax, actually went to court and asserted their right under article 10 to secede from the state!  Ironically, these towns were in the southeastern corner of the state, that portion that has been the most developed and settled by transplants from Massachusetts.  Some people want to call these folks "statists." I call them "allies" and "refugees."

2.) The effect of Claremont is NOT to require public education in all towns.  The scenario I described could go forward, without any interference from the state.  The effect of Claremont was to require the state to institute a statewide property tax, taking money from "donor" towns and transferring it to "receiver towns," such as Claremont.  This tax was initially set at $6.00 per $1000, but due to the controversy has been lowered to $5.80, and the governor has laid out a timetable to lower it to $3.00.  This is still obviously onerous, and I expect our support of local control over education, education tax credits, and abolition of the statewide property tax to be huge selling points for us in NH.

To reiterate: The Claremont decision does not require that towns provide public education.  The NH Constitution does not require public education.  

As gross as Claremont was, all it required was that the state institute a statewide property tax and funnel money into poor towns.  Those towns could still simply abolish their schools.  


You want to see how pissed off the donor towns are about being forced to pay for kids in Claremont?  This is a riot:

http://www.newington.nh.us/pirates.htm

And this is on the town's official site!!!!
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on July 08, 2003, 11:08:40 am
Cost of Living in Cities
http://www.bestplaces.net/html/cost_of_living.html

1. Wyoming
Cheyenne 97.6
Casper 96.0

snip...
10. New Hampshire
Nashua 138.5
Manchester 110.5
Portsmouth-Rochester 138.6

More biased cherry picking. Try weighting the cost of living against the per capita income. I think you'll find markedly different results, with NH on top and Wyoming at the bottom.

Try to get your facts straight next time.

I got the information from Varrin.  He does not think that either WY or NH is the best state.  He said, and I double checked, that data included all of the cities listed on the website (it did).  I did no cherry picking (i've never picked a cherry  :) )



Take a look at the FSP Spreadsheet.  It explains this very issue.

Here are the rankings:

Income: Mean household income scaled by cost of living:

Because Wyoming has a very low cost of living and a good mean household income, it does best on this measure (along with Delaware).  NH does well because both of the measures are high in NH.  This measure really hurts Montana.
   
WY 10.00  
AK 5.00  
ND 5.00  
VT 3.89  
SD 5.56  
DE 10.00  
ID 0.00  
MT 0.00  
NH 9.44  
ME 0.56                              


Clearly, Wyoming is not the worst and New Hampshire is not the best.  They are about equal.

Of course, for those people on a fixed income or that have a job they can do anywhere, states like WY, SD, ND, ID, and MT do much better than NH because they have lower a lower cost of living.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Karl on July 08, 2003, 11:23:30 am
1. Wyoming
Cheyenne 97.6
Casper 96.0

snip...
10. New Hampshire
Nashua 138.5
Manchester 110.5
Portsmouth-Rochester 138.6

More biased cherry picking. Try weighting the cost of living against the per capita income. I think you'll find markedly different results, with NH on top and Wyoming at the bottom.

Try to get your facts straight next time.

Indeed.  When local wage data is considered, Manchester is MORE AFFORDABLE than either Cheyenne and Casper.  Portsmouth and Nashua are still more expensive, but not nearly as much as earlier posts implied.

CityCOLMean WageCOL/Mean Wage (a lower number is more affordable)
Cheyenne97.613.976.99
Casper96.014.076.82
Nashua138.517.717.82
Manchester110.516.736.60
Porstmouth138.615.968.71

Sources:
Wyoming Wage Tables (2001):
http://doe.state.wy.us/lmi/01oespub/toc.htm

New Hampshire Wage Tables (2002):
http://www.nhes.state.nh.us/elmi/oesfiles.htm
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 20, 2003, 01:25:28 am

THis is obviously a cherry picking and disinformation. NH has entirely legalized homeschooling, to the point that there are over 3600 children in the state now in homeschooling. Furthermore, we have the highest percent of school age children attending private schools in the entire country.

Try to get your facts straight next time.

What?!


I work very hard to research and present information  carefully, nothing in this post was intended to mislead.

Quote
NH has entirely legalized homeschooling,
The quote that you are attacking has to do with compulsory school attendance, by the way, but since you brought it up . . .

Quote
NH has entirely legalized homeschooling, to the point that there are over 3600 children in the state now in homeschooling.
 

Entirely legalized you say?

Home School Statute: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 193-A.

Quote
A parent shall notify the commissioner of education, district superintendent, or principal of a non-public school of his intention to provide home education within 30 days of withdrawing from a public school or moving into the school district or by the start of public schools in that school district. Sec. 193-A:5(I), Ed. Regs. 315.03(d).

Notification shall include: names, addresses and birth dates of all children and a list of subjects to be taught each child. § 193-A:5(II).

How about this standard? . . .

Home School Statute: N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 193-A:6(I)
Quote
The parent shall maintain a portfolio of records and materials relative to the home education program consisting of: a log of reading materials used and samples of writings, worksheets, workbooks or creative materials used or developed by the child. Portfolio must be retained for two years by parent.

I can't even fit all the regulations that New Hampshire has on homeschooling here on this post!  Go read them for yourself, here's a good starting point: http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp (http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp)

Quote
NH has entirely legalized homeschooling, to the point that there are over 3600 children in the state now in homeschooling.
 
Really how do you know the number?  Care to share with us the numbers for other states too?  I wonder how many people there are in Alaska and Idaho, being as how parents don't even have to report that they are homeschooling!  Obviously, by the sheer numbers of participants in various lists, organizations and home school activism from Idaho, it is very high, but the number is unknown because the state has no mechanism for keeping count.

Quote
Furthermore, we have the highest percent of school age children attending private schools in the entire country.
Wrong.

Quote
Try to get your facts straight next time.
No, next time, you try to get your facts straight, especially if you are going to accuse others of being misleading and manipulative.
3644
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 21, 2003, 08:34:00 am
AK
Private school enrollment: 6,172
Number of schools: 69
Number of teachers: 572

Public school enrollment: 134,023

DE
Private school enrollment: 22,779
Number of schools: 96
Number of teachers: 1,784

Public school enrollment: 115,486  

ID
Private school enrollment: 10,209
Number of schools: 94
Number of teachers: 790

Public school enrollment: 246,000

ME
Private school enrollment: 18,287
Number of schools: 139
Number of teachers: 1,760

Public school enrollment: 211,461

MT
Private school enrollment: 8,711
Number of schools: 90
Number of teachers: 740

Public school enrollment: 151,970

NH
Private school enrollment: 23,383
Number of schools: 171
Number of teachers: 2,208

Public school enrollment: 211,429

ND
Private school enrollment: 7,148
Number of schools: 55
Number of teachers: 545

Public school enrollment: 106,047

SD
Private school enrollment: 9,364
Number of schools: 83
Number of teachers: 743

Public school enrollment: 126,560

VT
Private school enrollment: 12,170
Number of schools: 122
Number of teachers: 1,361

Public school enrollment: 99,599

WY
Private school enrollment: 2,221
Number of schools: 41
Number of teachers: 241

Public school enrollment: 87,768


Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/Schools/schoolchoice_states.cfm (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/Schools/schoolchoice_states.cfm)

3673
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on July 21, 2003, 10:33:56 am
Hmmm, I wonder if it's worth putting up a measure of the percentage of schooled kids in private schools, with these numbers?

The only drawback is, that this will also be a measure somewhat of affluence (extra money to pay for the private school) and how bad the government schools are (to induce parents to pull their kids out).

I guess I'll add that as a row to my spreadsheet anyway, as it's pretty easy to do.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 23, 2003, 11:04:26 am
My wife is a university trained horticulturist and a certified commercial pesticide applicator in both Utah and California with several additional category certifications.  I trust her authority in analyzing the pesticide laws in our various states.  Here is her opinion of the laws in our various states:


SD>WY  (MT~ID~ME~ND~VT~UT  individual +'s,-'s cancel out) . . .>AK>NH>. . . California>DE

These rankings are weighted heavily in favor of states that do not require additional certifications and licensing for pesticides in the same category, this went against AK, NH and DE heavily, she finds that highly insulting and nannyish for people that already understand a category of pesticide  -- California only requires category, not specific pesticide license.

South Dakota is far and away the best among our states, Delaware is far and away the worst she has ever seen because of the extreme requirements for obtaining a license that she finds would be impossible for her to obtain.  In comparison, everything else might be more of a draw.


Here are some of her notes (largely unreadable, sorry)
Quote
http://www.agri.state.id.us/PDF/Ag%20Resources/frmPrivApp.pdf
ID
name address,
RU=10
CH 20
both=30
reciprocity through application
2 year
$50,000 per person/100,000 commercial only


NH
commercial dealer $5
commercial private non-profit $20
Dealer license $20
Private Permits $20
$50 per pesticide!
reciprocity

DE surety bond >100,000/$300,000
$50 one year
7 categories
marked vehicle requirement
social security #
birthdate, photo ID, notarized application
2 year journeyman training requirement before obtaining license
applies to any pesticide not just EPA restricted-use off own property (employees cannot legally spray Round-up without license).
civil penalties

+does have veterinarian exception other states do not.

Wyoming

Restricted use for private use
Commercial applicator
$0 for private
$25 for 5 years for commerical


Montana
1 year all
proof of financial liability $1500 for aerial and $500 ground
$75 application fee
operator license 100 mile radius limitation for
out -of state must file power of attorney designating sec. state  as agent (no reciprocity)

Alaska
$300,00/500,000 surety bond (can opt-out of this requirement in many situations)
duration of license depends on exam score!
Only certified for individual pesticides
highly detailed record-keeping requirement with official forms
no apparent fee requirements

North Dakota
private general use $25
Fumigation $25
Commercial $53 +$10 per category
$100,000 bond for commercial
very limited exam opportunities per year
license required for general use

South Dakota
Private=
no fee
all $1,000+ commodity producers must obtain
5 years
---
app. license=commercial
$25,20,25 late fee 50

Vermont
http://www.vermontagriculture.com/VTregs91.htm
Pre-app notice req.
civil penalties, $5,000 per viol.
cert. non commercial (class B)
Noncommercial appl (Class C) $40
$20 fee for each category $75
yearly renewal
local regulation (burlington only)

Maine
l.l. 100,000 per person - $300,000 per occurrence.
Regulation civil penalty=Y
$10 per category
5 years
narrow defined requirements all farmers
ag=private, all others = commercial
 




3717
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 25, 2003, 06:52:59 pm
Please click on the link below to send a pre-written letter to your U.S. representative, thanking him or her for voting to stop the DEA raids against state-legalized medical marijuana. (House Roll Call 420)
_____________ (http://www.repconnect2.biz/main/address_form.asp?clientaccountid=JGELHHIIKKLMNRSRCCF&issueID=934)
(http://mpp.org/graphics/action.gif)
Among our candidate states:

ME
 Thomas  Allen D
 Yes
 
ME
 Mike Michaud D
 Yes
 
VT Bernard  Sanders I
 Yes  

ID
 C. L. Otter R
 Yes
 
ID
 Michael Simpson R
 Yes

http://www.mpp.org/house2003/index.html (http://www.mpp.org/house2003/index.html)
3742
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: phylinidaho on July 26, 2003, 08:50:21 am
Our View: ... and an odd coalition

Now here´s an odd political alliance.

Rep. C.L. ?Butch? Otter, R-Idaho.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, who´s running for the White House on an anti-war platform.

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, who once ran for president himself, as a Libertarian.

But give this weird coalition its due.

This week, they were on the winning side of a vote to roll back a portion of the USA Patriot Act, the hasty and overreaching legislative response to 9/11.

Otter and his cosponsors convinced 306 House colleagues to withhold funding for the so-called and much-reviled ?sneak and peek? search.

This provision of the Patriot Act ? the anti-domestic terrorism law passed weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks ? allows federal agents to search a business or home, without notifying the subject of the search warrant.

Tuesday´s 309-118 vote was a milestone, according to Otter´s office; it´s the first time either house has voted to roll back a piece of the Patriot Act. The amendment could be in trouble in the Senate, where the Justice Department and the FBI are gearing up to fight to keep the law intact, Otter spokesman Mark Warbis said.

Otter has gotten plenty of mileage on the service-club circuit railing against the Patriot Act, which he opposed in 2001.

But to his credit, he has done more than just pound the podium. He is looking for coalitions, even unlikely ones, to bring this law back into line with civil liberties.

Edition Date: 07-26-2003  
http://www.idahostatesman.com/Opinion/story.asp?ID=45223

 
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 29, 2003, 11:35:31 am
 
 %Registered    %Voted

U.S.  63.9         54.7  
 
ND    91.1         69.8
ME    80.3         69.2  
AK    72.5         65.5
VT    72.0         63.3
SD    70.9         58.7
MT    70.0         62.2  
NH    69.6         63.3  
DE    67.9         62.2  
WY    68.6         62.5  
ID    61.4         53.9


 
 % of population U.S. Citizens

WY      99.3
SD      99.1
ND      99.0
MT      98.9
ME      98.7
VT      98.5
AK      96.8
ID      96.1
DE      95.6
NH      95.0
U.S.    92.0


Source: Census Bureau
3780
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton Baker on July 30, 2003, 08:14:56 am
FSP state minimum wage laws:
States with minimum wage same as federal ($5.15):
ID, WY, MT, NH, SD, ND

States with minimum wage laws higher than the federal:
These are states with socialist leanings

VT - $6.25
DE - $6.15 (effective 1/1/03)
ME - $6.25 (effective 1/1/03)
AK - $7.15 (effective 1/1/03)


...

States that have at least 1 city with a 'living wage' and have a state minimum wage law:
VT
...

Source:
http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm
3797
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on July 31, 2003, 01:53:27 pm
Number of Operating Public School Districts, Rank in Nation 2000-01

#12 Montana  466
#21 Vermont  287
#22 Maine    234
#23 North Dakota  229
#30 South Dakota  173
#31 New Hampshire 163
#37 Idaho         113
#43 Alaska         53
#44 Wyoming        48
#49 Delaware       19

C-21 Percentage Change In Average Instructional Staff Salaries, 1990-91 to 2000-01 (Constant S)
1 New Hampshire 13.7
5 Idaho 9.9
19 Delaware 3.0
20 South Dakota 3.0
21 Maine 2.9
25 US 1.1
32 ND -1.7
44 VT -5.7
45 MT -7.2
48 WY -7.8
50 AK -12.7


C-19. Average Salaries of Instructional Staff Percentage Of National Average, 2000-01
11 Alaska 109.0
12 Delaware 108.3
15 New Hampshire 103.4
30 Maine 87.5
35 Vermont 84.7
37 Idaho 84.0
45 Wyoming 79.3
48 Montana 73.3
50 North Dakota 68.8
51 South Dakota 68.7

Source: NEA
Title: Private Vehicle registration
Post by: Kelton on August 01, 2003, 02:52:13 pm
I have attempted to compare the different fees, regulations and taxes associated with registering and titling vehicles in our candidate states, after spending about 8 hours doing research on this subject since February,  I still don't have much to offer because of the extreme complexity that is present in trying to compare states that approach it entirely differently.

Here are a few observations, so far:

Only AK, ID have no vehicle safety inspection requirements!  :)

WY only has the requirement upon registering a vehicle for the first time, (it is not recurring)

________________________________________________


DE, VT, ND have state-wide emissions requirements for registering vehicles.  :(

--Alaska, Idaho, Maine? do have limited emissions testing in certain populous areas of each state (AK = Anchorage and ,Fairbanks)  (Idaho= Ada County only)  (Maine= in place, but unknown Portland?)

 Though more researtch is needed, at first glance, Montana seems to be the most expensive, BY FAR for people who want to own a new or leased car in some counties, and quite cheap for people who want to own old 'junkers' throughout the state.

New Hampshire requires a tax that looks like it could be expensive at first glance, but no info could be found on-line for exactly how expensive it really is.  How expensive is it, NH residents?

In basic fees, most of our states seem quite comparable, (except Montana for new cars) though some states have additional taxes due every year and additional fees.

Not much information could be found on Wyoming since the DMV, per se is a county function.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Michelle on August 01, 2003, 03:03:40 pm
Quote
DE, NH, VT, ND have state-wide emissions requirements for registering vehicles.  

NH does not have any emissions requirements or testing.

I vaguely remember having seen a website somewhere that said we do, but that information is incorrect.

Quote
New Hampshire requires a tax

What tax? I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on August 01, 2003, 03:28:13 pm

NH does not have any emissions requirements or testing.

I vaguely remember having seen a website somewhere that said we do, but that information is incorrect.


I read it on SEVERAL web sites, though if you say they were in error, O.K.  , I'll correct my post.  I did find this on the state web-site:
Chapter 207 - Relative to vehicle emissions control equipment and testing (http://www.nh.gov/safety/9799legislative.html)
Quote
RSA 125-J:11 creates a committee referred to as the air pollution advisory committee, empowered to perform an ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of the new vehicle emissions safety inspection program, to be performed by inspection stations. It also establishes an oxygen sensor testing and mobile source remote sensing pilot programs under RSA 207:6.

So, I guess you are right!

Quote

What tax? I'm not sure what you are referring to.
Again, could it be erroneous "helpful" web-sites?
""You must pay a resident's tax as well as a tax based upon your vehicle's current selling price."
--http://www.newhampshire.com/pages/relocationinformation.cfm (http://www.newhampshire.com/pages/relocationinformation.cfm)

Also something on this webite (but not this page) http://www.ncsl.org/programs/esnr/tranrev1.htm#id (http://www.ncsl.org/programs/esnr/tranrev1.htm#id)

So, New Hampshire does not have any ad valorem taxes, it is a fee only?
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JonM on August 01, 2003, 04:17:30 pm
I found this
261:162 Taxation of Motor Vehicles Prohibited. – Motor vehicles owned or controlled by residents of this state shall not be taxed.

in http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/indexes/261.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/indexes/261.html)

That site seems out of date, it mentions emissions, but that stuff was repealed.  See http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/indexes/XXI.html (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/indexes/XXI.html)

Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on August 02, 2003, 03:57:12 pm
Components of Population Change July 2001 to July 2002
Net Migration Rate per thousand
NH 9.0
DE 9.0
ID 7.6
ME 7.3
WY 6.2
VT 4.6
AK 4.4
MT 1.8
SD -0.9
ND -6.2

Rate of Natural Increase (Births - Deaths) per thousand population

11.4 AK
7.7 ID
5.0 SD
4.5 DE
3.7 WY
3.4 NH
2.7 MT
2.3 ND
1.4 VT
0.5 ME


Source: Census Bureau
Title: Re:Zoos and Aquariums in the Candidate States
Post by: Kelton on August 05, 2003, 01:49:40 pm
Zoos and Aquariums in the Candidate States

During the last election here in Fresno, California.  The voters voted on "Measure Z" for funding the zoos.  It was narrowly defeated, no sooner than it was defeated, the organizers started a new campaign for the next elections.  The zoo is an entity that seems not to know how to run at a profit.  Anybody who opposes the zoo gets accused of being anti- animals, anti-education, what have you.  For the Free State, how much better it would be to just not have one of these boondoggles to deal with!

AK- (2) Alaska Sea Life Center (http://www.alaskasealife.org/site/about_aslc) in Seward, Alaska Zoo (http://www.alaskazoo.org/)in Anchorage.  Both are owned by not-for-profit corporations that receive taxpayer money.  
The center in Seward receives money from the state through the  University of Alaska Sea Grant College Program (http://www.uaf.edu/seagrant/) and federal money through grants from NOAA among others.  The Center in Anchorage has received various subsidies from the city and through federal pork spending http://hometown.aol.com/sundiii/myhomepage/newyork.html.
 

DE- (2) Seaside Nature Center (http://www.destateparks.com/wilmsp/wilmsp.htm) major aquarium sponsored by Delaware State Parks, located inside of Henlopen State Park.  Brandywine Zoo (http://www.destateparks.com/wilmsp/zoo/index.htm) sponsored by Delaware State Parks
12 other taxpayer- recreation sites where found nearby each of these.

 
ID- (1) Zoo Boise (http://www.cityofboise.org/parks/zoo/index.shtml)  Sponsored by the City of Boise, Parks and Recreation Department

ME  (1)  
--Maine Aquarium Maine Aquarium (http://www.maineaquarium.com/) status unknown

Gulf of Maine Aquarium (http://octopus.gma.org/) From the website: "At a time when most aquariums around the country have assumed a strong conservation stance, GMA's neutrality is unique and highly effective. . . "  :)
GMA aquarium receives grants from various federal agencies including NASA, NOAA, the State of Maine, among others.  It is owned by a non-profit organization.

NH (What with MA close by?)


ND- (0)

SD- (2) Bear Country U.S.A.  (http://www.bearcountryusa.com/) Family owned and operated drive-through wildlife park in the Black Hills,
Reptile Gardens® (http://www.reptile-gardens.com/main%20page/history.html) Privately owned reptile zoo and tourist attraction

VT (0)

WY (0)
Score:

WY, VT, SD, NH, ND  all earn top score

  • ME Award the state some points for having a facility that is only sponsored by taxpayers per each research project instead of the whole facility, unless there can be found proof otherwise
  • ID should receive a low score for having a taxpayer-sponsored zoo, but sponsored only by the city of Boise
  • Alaska has two, one of which regularly receives federal pork money, the other funded by the state
  • DE gets zero for having entities funded by state taxes  
How I would rank them for a spreadsheet:
WY, VT, SD, NH, ND = 10
ME = 5
ID = 4
AK = 2
DE = 0



Here is some more insight into this post from FreedomRoad's Wyoming website  (http://members.aol.com/keithstour/photos.html) (regarding South Dakota):

Quote
Interesting note: The vast majority of the attractions in the Black Hills are privately owned.  To name a few: Black Hill Petrified Forest, Evans Plunge, Rushmore Waterslide, Black Hills Maze, Old MacDonald’s Petting Farm, Crazy Horse Memorial, Reptile Gardens, Bear County, Rushmore Cave, Stage Barn Crystal Cave, Crazy Horse Cave, Bethlehem Cave, Black Hills Caverns, The Flintstones Bedrock City, Mammoth Site, 1880 Train ride, Wild Horse Sanctuary, Wall Drug, and the 80+ casinos found in Deadwood.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on August 11, 2003, 12:11:39 am
More stats from anti-gun groups.  The lower the score the better for OUR NEEDS.

Brady Campaign Gun Control 2002 Report Card
F  Maine
F  Wyoming
F  Montana
F+  Idaho
D-  Alaska
D-  Vermont
D  South Dakota
D  North Dakota
D+  New Hampshire
C  Delaware
http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/rc03/details.pdf

Open Society Institute in 2000
-10  Maine
-8  Alaska
-6  Montana
-5  Vermont
-5  North Dakota
-4  Wyoming
-3  South Dakota
-3  Idaho
0  New Hampshire
2  Delaware
http://www.soros.org/crime/gunreport.htm
http://www.soros.org/crime/Chart1.pdf
http://www.soros.org/crime/Chart2.pdf

Maine does very well in both.  NH and DE do very poorly in both.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on August 11, 2003, 08:52:18 am

Maine does very well in both.  NH and DE do very poorly in both.

Well, I'm not sure if I would use the term 'very poorly' here, let's put a different perspective on that:
If you moved from Tennessee to New Hampshire, you would be going from a state that Soros gives one point to a state that scores 0.
To gain further perspective, the highest ranking state on either of these reports is Massachusetts, and Soros gave Massachusetts 76 points --that's sure a long ways from New Hampshire's 0 points; and Delaware's 2 points look a lot better than Maryland's 43 points.  I recognize though, that we were only talking about our candidate states here.  

One reason that the Brady Campaign 'promoted' NH and DE higher than our other states is that New Hampshire and Delaware both have Child Access Protection, or CAP (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunlaws/cap.asp) laws, that make adults responsible if children gain access and use to a gun and then use it wrongfully.  The CAP laws that NH and DE have passed are actually pretty mild compared to many states, and not too far different from from libertarian ideals of accountability that might be prosecuted as a civil case in our other states without CAP laws.

The Soros numbers have not been without criticism:
What I don't like about the Soros measure is that it doesn't tell us what's being measured at all.  There are no categories, and we don't even know what the numbers mean.  I also think they might well have fudged the numbers to try to make low-crime states look as if they have more gun control than they really do.  We actually used the Soros measures at one time, but eventually discarded them as suspicious.


Personally, I think that the most objective step-by step analysis of all gun laws that can be found was not by one of our enemies of self-defense, but by an ally, in Boston's Gun Bible.  
Zxcv presented these numbers, as found in his revised April 2002 edition.  It is so easy to follow how he awards points that Zxcv was able to update recent concealed-carry legislation in Alaska into the matrix, as well as NH's recent HB414 strong pre-emption law.
Here is how our states rank, based on 10 different criteria through a detailed matrix:
____________
VT  99
ID  97
WY  93
MT 92
AK 88
ME 73
 NH 73
DE 69
SD 69
ND 61

----------
If you include the NFA break-down, the states rank only slightly differently:
____________
VT 109
ID 107
WY 103
MT 102
AK 98
ME 83
 NH 83
SD 79
ND 71
DE 69

-----------
I give credit solely to Zxcv (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=viewprofile;user=Zxcv) for first presenting this work here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2291;start=msg34229#msg34229) on this forum.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Porcupineapple on August 12, 2003, 04:14:54 pm
How States Rank in Cancer Fight (http://webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/Article/71/81325.htm?pagenumber=2) From the Webmd website

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

ME  9 XXXXXX

DE  8 XXXXXX

VT  7 XXXXXX

AK  5 XXXXXX

NH  4 XXXXXX

ND  3 XXXXXX

WY  3 XXXXXX

ID  3 XXXXXX

SD  2 XXXXXX

MT  1 XXXXXX   :)


Categories: Access to care,coverage for clinical trials,Colorectal Cancer Screenings; Medically underserved,completed all steps for Medicaid option for Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Program; Tobacco Prevention,smoke free air,recommended excise tax,% of CDC min. spending
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Jaytina on August 13, 2003, 10:38:10 pm
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:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on August 22, 2003, 10:56:06 am
Issues pertaining to smoking

Here's a graph showing current state cigarette tax, sales tax (on a pack of cigarettes) , and final retail price by state.

http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0207.pdf (http://tobaccofreekids.org/research/factsheets/pdf/0207.pdf)

Results:
State cig tax as of Jun. 26, 2003

ND    0.44
NH    0.52
SD    0.53
DE    0.55
ID    0.57
WY    0.60
MT    0.70
ME    1.00
AK    1.00
VT    1.19  :P
 

States Ranked by Laws Ensuring Smokefree Air --State of Tobacco Control: 2002 (http://lungaction.org/reports/rank-states.html)


Rank in the nation, State, Grade assigned by American Lung Association

#50 Wyoming  F

#28 Idaho  F

#27 North Dakota  F

#25 Montana  F

#17 South Dakota  F

#13 New Hampshire  F

#8 Alaska  F

#5 Maine  C

#4 Vermont  B

#2 Delaware  A  :P

Other aspects to the ALA data have been explored already for the spreadsheet rankings, such as here: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1200;start=15 (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1200;start=15)

States Ranked by Tobacco Prevention and Control Spending  (http://lungaction.org/reports/rank-states.html?domain=lungusa&select_list_variable_value=funding)


Rank in the nation, State, Grade assigned by American Lung Association

#41 Montana  F
#34 Idaho  F
#32 New Hampshire  F
#28 North Dakota  F
#27 South Dakota  F
#13 Wyoming  D
#12 Delaware  D
#10 Alaska  C
#9  Vermont  B
#1  Maine  A  :P

States Ranked by Cigarette Taxes (2002)

#11 Alaska  B
#13 Maine  B
#17 Vermont  B (has since leaped to the front of the pack, pun intended)
#25 New Hampshire  D
#27 North Dakota  D
#34 South Dakota  D
#35 Idaho  F
#36 Delaware  F
#44 Montana  F
#47 Wyoming  F  (has since noticeably changed ranking, see first list,  above)

Merely interesting facts related to smoking :

PERCENT OF MOTHERS WHO SMOKED DURING PREGNANCY BY STATE, 1999
WY 21.5
ND 19.2
ME 18.3
AK 18.0
MT 17.5
VT 16.5
NH 15.2
DE 12.8
ID 12.7

SD n/a


CURRENT CIGARETTE SMOKING PREVALENCE (%) AMONG ADULTS AGED 18 AND OLDER
AK 25.2
ME 23.8
WY 23.8
ND 23.2
DE 22.9
ID 22.3
SD 21.9
VT 21.5
MT 18.8



SOURCE: NATIONAL VITAL STATISTICS REPORT. SMOKING DURING PREGNANCY IN THE 1990S. VOL. 49(7); AUG. 2001. as reported in American Lung Association's report TRENDS IN TOBACCO USE, 2002.

Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Tony Stelik on August 22, 2003, 11:14:35 am
Looks like there is the opportunity to smugle cigarets from NH to ME and VT :P
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Michelle on August 22, 2003, 11:29:35 am
There is a store here in Somersworth (NH) called Borderline Beverage. As the name suggests, it is *right* on the ME/NH border. I know of people in Maine who drive approximately an hour each way to buy their cigarettes and beer from Borderline Beverage.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on August 23, 2003, 07:20:57 am
Safest states in America
2003 RANK   STATE   SUM   2002 RANK   CHANGE
1   Vermont   -65.63   3   2
2   North Dakota   -65.57   1   -1
3   Maine   -59.84   2   -1
4   South Dakota   -53.23   4   0
5   New Hampshire   -52.39   8   3
6   West Virginia   -49.31   10   4
7   Wyoming   -48.95   6   -1
8   Iowa   -47.82   7   -1
9   Idaho   -44.47   5   -4
10   Montana   -42.21   9   -1
Source:
http://www.morganquitno.com/dangsaf03.htm
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on August 23, 2003, 11:24:53 am
How wonderful! 8 of our 10 candidate states are also among the safest states in America!!

  But where's Delaware and Alaska in this list?

Sitting about 2 points above the median rating at #32 is Delaware and making the most dangerous ten list is Alaska at #43- (sure hope that new Vermont-carry law brings Alaska into the fold of Vermont's top 10 list soon!)

Frequently, the 2000 FBI crime statistics have been presented here, but since then, the 2001 statistics have been presented and the 2002 state-by state FBI data should soon be ready on the FBI web-site.
Following is the FBI DATA: Rate of Violent Crime Per 100,000 Residents, 2001 (http://www.stateline.org/fact.do?factId=299935)


ND  79.6
VT 105.0
ME 111.5
SD 154.8
NH 170.3
ID 243.1
WY 257.3
MT 352.4
AK 588.3
DE 611.4
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on August 23, 2003, 12:48:48 pm
Safest states in America
2003 RANK   STATE   SUM   2002 RANK   CHANGE
1   Vermont   -65.63   3   2
2   North Dakota   -65.57   1   -1
3   Maine   -59.84   2   -1
4   South Dakota   -53.23   4   0
5   New Hampshire   -52.39   8   3
6   West Virginia   -49.31   10   4
7   Wyoming   -48.95   6   -1
8   Iowa   -47.82   7   -1
9   Idaho   -44.47   5   -4
10   Montana   -42.21   9   -1
Source:
http://www.morganquitno.com/dangsaf03.htm

How wonderful! 8 of our 10 candidate states are also among the safest states in America!!
 

I agree.  This is great news.  People ask, what if everything does not work out?  What do I gain?

At least part of the answer is living in one of the 10 safest states in the nation!  That sounds good to me.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on August 25, 2003, 12:31:53 pm
Legal Status of Direct-Entry Midwives

Where and how a woman chooses to give birth should be a very personal decision, chosing midwifery is also a practical one:

According to Dr. Frank Oski MD, [the Country] could save $13 to $20 billion a year by developing midwifery care, demedicalizing birth, and breastfeeding. Frank A. Oski, MD, Professor and Director, Department of Pediatrics, John Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore. Contemporary Pediatrics, Nov., 1993, p9.

The following was obtained by folowing the chart compiled by the Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA), the Midwifery Education and Accreditation Council (MEAC) and the North American Registry of Midwives (NARM), found here: Direct-Entry Midwifery State-by-State Legal Status-Last Updated 5-22-2002 (http://www.mana.org/statechart.html)
and also by doing key-word searches for each state on Yahoo!. with some additional help by http://www.motherstuff.com/ (http://www.motherstuff.com/).  I started work on this in January, and have put many hours into this, though I remain unsatisfied with the incompleteness of this work, (I hate to put something out that is so incomplete) but since times-a- wastin', I figured I have just got to get this out there, what I have.


Ranked by seemingly most free to least free.  .  . ( with quotes from the various websites regarding the legal status).
 

1. Idaho- Legal by constitutional interpretation.

North Dakota (unknown status, though by some accounts, it seems identical to Maine).


2. Maine Legal by Judicial Interpretation or Statutory Inference


3. Montana- license, private accredited training acceptable. Under a 1991 law, direct entry midwives are licensed by the Alternative Health Care Board, which also licenses Naturopathic Physicians. Direct entry midwife apprentices also pay an annual licensing fee to work with a preceptor. About 11 midwives, including 8 Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) are currently licensed and attend home births. The NARM written exam (part of the CPM requirement) is used as part of the licensing process.

4.? Delaware- permit, accept permits by other states through reciprocity only nurse-midwives may practice, because licensing is performed by medical authorities(1)Direct Entry Midwives (DEMs) are legal by licensure. CPM with NARM Exam not required. No MEAC Accredited Schools of Midwifery. No Medicaid reimbursement. Delaware Friends of Midwives is actively working to pass a Rules and Regulations change that would make it possible for all midwives (CPM's and CNM's) to attend births in all settings in this state. (1)

5. Alaska- license required by law. Recip not offered.   Direct entry midwives are licensed and practice in homes and birth centers. The law that permits direct entry midwives to practice was extended in April 1999, granting CDM licenses (Certified Direct-entry Midwife) and uses the NARM exam as part of the credential process. There are some restrictions to the care that direct entry midwives can provide, for instance, a CDM cannot assist a woman with a prior C-Section.



6. New Hampshire- Certification recip recognizes at least one private training, accepts Medicaid reimbursement. After 20 years of being regulated under the Depaartment of Health and Human Services, New Hampshire enacted legislation in 1999 creating an independent Midwifery Council, a regulatory agency with rule-making authority. The council is currently drafting rules for the practice of midwifery.


7. Vermont by licensure, accepts ACCS and MEAC training by private means. Vermont- license On May 5, 2000 International Midwives Day, the entire Senate passed the bill licensing CPMs in Vermont, the final legislative step. The licensing act went to the Governor as part of an omnibus bill, and he allowed the bill to go into effect without his signature. He was opposed to a section of the bill unrelated to midwives, but did not veto it. The bill will go into effect July 1, 2000. Creation of the rules will take place over the summer with the Director of Professional Regulation, two midwife appointees and a physician with home birth experience. This is a public process that allows input, but not final say by all concerned parties (Medical Society, nursing etc.). Law mandates that state Medicare pay for midwifery.


8. Wyoming illegal, prohibited by statute (http://fp1.fiberpipe.net/~jeffek/ArtofHealing.htm). Midwives may attend births in Wyoming, but are restricted from practicing prenatal or postpartum care and a midwife in Wyoming may not deal with a pregnant woman until contractions begin.

9. South Dakota no legal status, specifically prohibited to non-licensed individuals, otherwise unknown.

Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on August 26, 2003, 08:06:45 am
Issues pertaining to smoking
...States Ranked by Laws Ensuring Smokefree Air --State of Tobacco Control: 2002 (http://lungaction.org/reports/rank-states.html)


Rank in the nation, State, Grade assigned by American Lung Association

#50 Wyoming  F

#28 Idaho  F

#27 North Dakota  F

#25 Montana  F

#17 South Dakota  F

#13 New Hampshire  F

#8 Alaska  F

#5 Maine  C

#4 Vermont  B

#2 Delaware  A  :P
...

Smoking Bans in the Candidate States:

AK
As of Jan. 2002Anchorage passed a law making most workplaces (restaurants, bowling alleys and pool halls, but not bars) smokefree.

DE
Smoking ban goes into effect 11/27/2002 and includes all public buildings and workplaces including bars, restaurants, and casinos.

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.

ME
Smoking banned in restaurants

MT
June 2002: Helena banned smoking in all public venues, including bars and casinos.(However, the MT Supreme Court overturned the Helena ban) Missoula has a similar ordinance but exempts bars and casinos. Bozeman bans smoking in restaurants and bars where there is no separation, Nov. 2002.

VT
Smoking banned in restaurants
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on August 27, 2003, 01:58:59 pm
One of the very first indicator tests posed on this forum was about retail sale of raw milk.  Surely any state that allows this "dangerous" practice of drinking unpasteurized milk even despite the existence of harmful diseases in milk is surely more libertarian-leaning, right?  (California is currently the best state in the nation for this, I have access to a variety of different raw milk products here where I l;ive -yum!)

When this question was first posed, it was stated that only the Northeastern states had retail sales of raw milk.  Largely based on information from this website: http://www.realmilk.com/happening.html (http://www.realmilk.com/happening.html) . Recently, I communicated with a resident of Idaho Falls who works in a large store and she stated that she loves the raw goats milk cheese available there.  This surprised me since I had heard on this forum that this was illegal in Idaho.  Not So!  Drinking raw milk and eating raw milk products has a strong following in Idaho and is allowed by law.  A search online revealed the following,
RAW MILK SURVEY RESULTS (WDATCP)  (http://www.magma.ca/~ca/rawmilk/survey.htm)
Candidate states that allow retail distribution of raw milk products:

ID Yes  (Must obtain retail raw milk license.)
ME Yes [must obtain license]
NH No (with exception of direct sale of raw milk [on farms])
SD YES [Only on the farms]
VT No (with [several] exception [only on farms])

That's it.
So, according to this website, it is illegal to sell raw milk in AK,DE,MT,ND,WY  :'(

From the previous-mentioned website, there is more to it, however, here's some more info:

AK State regulations are presently being interpreted to permit raw milk distribution by cow share or stewardship programs.

DE Illegal to sell raw milk.

ID Sale of raw milk is legal with a license. However, there are currently no licensed raw milk facilities in the state. The last raw milk retailer went out of business in the early 1990s.  [Are all raw-milk products being brought-in from California?]

ME Raw milk sales permitted. The milk producer must have a permit and the milk distributor must be licensed. Raw milk must be cooled to 45 degrees F immediately after milking and maintained with low bacteria count. Cows must also have negative brucellosis and tuberculin tests. The regs are contained in 01-001 Chapters 321, 329.

MT Illegal to sell raw milk and “home pasteurizers do not qualifiy as legal pasteurization methods,” according to Rosemary Hinkey, State Milk Inspector

ND Legal to sell raw milk as pet food. The ND Dairy Commission has no control over milk sold for animal consumption.

NHRaw milk may be purchased from the farm. A farmer can sell raw milk if the customer supplies the bottle. Many herds are grass-fed during the warm months. Several biodynamic farms are supplying high quality dairy products.

SD Information needed

VT Small quantities of raw milk may be sold on the farm. Many herds are pasture-fed.

WY Illegal to sell raw milk.



Based on all this information, how I would rank the states for Raw Milk sales:

Good: ID=ME > NH>SD>VT (ID and ME require license where NH and VT do not, yet offer a much greater ability to market products upon receipt of license, and those states which do not license requiore conformance anyways.  Vermont most restictive of these in its many regulations of even the farm sales)

Poor: AK (Based on issues of where in other states like WI that have had difficulty with this issue of cow share or stewardship programs, for all practicality, it is almost as bad as outright illegality in most states, but more info needed.)

Illegal: ND>DE=WY>MT  -(Out of these, ND clearly has a loophole that could be exploited, by selling for pet consumption but intended for humans).  From the descriptions, Montana seems worse in actually going out and prohibiting home pasteurization.

 
Title: Children and driving
Post by: Kelton on August 29, 2003, 07:47:21 pm
State/  Earliest age to obtain learner's permit / Earliest age- driver's license
AK    14 / 16 
DE    15.8 / 16
ID    15 / 15
ME    15 / 16
MT    14.5 / 16
NH    16 / 16.25
ND    14 / 16
SD    14 / 14
VT    15 / 16
WY    15 / 16


These numbers don't tell the whole story, there are probably numerous exceptions.  For instance, in Wyoming, children in rural areas may drive to school or a bus stop if they live outside the area serviced by buses.  In Idaho, 14 yr.-old children may drive farm equipment and farm trucks with certain restrictions.

AK,DE,ID,MT,SD,WY do not require a learner's permit first in order to obtain a driver's license.

Among those that do, there are waiting periods: ME,NH,ND require 90 days. VT unknown

Fans of Neal Boortz out there are probably familiar with the argument that children should not be allowed to drive until age of majority.  Others argue that teenage children should have the right to drive with parent's consent (and willingness to take responsibility).  Others still will argue that the age of majority is set too high/low. Whatever the argument, these numbers are some more facts to peruse.
Major source for this: http://golocalnet.com/drivingage/ (http://golocalnet.com/drivingage/)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on August 30, 2003, 12:06:59 pm
The following is an older post that will do well in this thread.

Quote
SandyPrice on December 16, 2002, 06:45:29 pm
Another problem that we should look into is the "Right to Work" category of each state.  When the state grants a right to work it means one can work in a union position without joining the union.  Arizona has this and we all love it.  This can be as important as the minimum wage.

I covered this in a past thread.
Rankings for top of All 50 states for Freedom (personal and economic)
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=967


Right to work states
VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, TN, LA, AR, OK, TX, KS, NE, IA, SD, ND, WY, ID, UT, AZ, NV

Out of the FSP states that leaves (Right to work states):
SD, ND, WY, and ID

To compare the FSP states for minimum wage, living wage, and right to work:

States with a minimum wage NOT higher than the federal:
MT, ID, WY, ND, SD, NH

States WITHOUT any city having a 'living wage':
ID, WY, NH, DE, AK, SD, ND, ME

Right to work states:
SD, ND, WY, ID

With 1 point for each time a states is listed out of a possible 3 points.

Total:
1. WY, ND, SD, ID with 3 points
2. NH with 2 points
3. MT, DE, AK, ME with 1 point
4. VT with 0 points

Summary:  Comparing the 10 states for all 3 factors shows that WY, ND, SD, and ID are more enployment friendly.  MT, DE, AK, and ME are more against workers and companies than most of the other states.  VT, looks even more socialist then before.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JonM on August 30, 2003, 12:32:47 pm
Regarding right to work legislation in NH from 2003.  From the House Journal 3/25/2003 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hcaljourns/journals/2003/houjou2003_12.html)

HB 821, establishing a right to work act which provides for freedom of choice on whether to join a labor union. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Corey E. Corbin for the Majority of Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: This bill basically would prevent the assessment of agency fees upon non-members of a labor union. The non-members, however, have an obligation to pay their fair share of the costs associated with contract negotiations and collective bargaining, as they enjoy all the wages and benefits as full dues-paying members, negotiated for them by the unions. This bill was comparable to a citizen stating they should not have to pay the education property tax because they have no kids, despite the benefit we all receive from well-educated kids. As a result, and the overwhelming show of opposition to this bill (nearly 10-1 in testimony) the bill was reported ITL. Vote 13-6.

Rep. Jarvis M. Adams for the Minority of Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: There is a fundamental first amendment right of free association that is violated when government regulates the private lives of workers by forcing them to financially subsidize unions against their wishes. In addition, This bill, if passed, would improve the health of unions and our economy by making unions more user-friendly.


Majority report adopted (bill killed) 262-103.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on August 30, 2003, 12:39:34 pm
Regarding right to work legislation in NH from 2003.  From the House Journal 3/25/2003 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/hcaljourns/journals/2003/houjou2003_12.html)

HB 821, establishing a right to work act which provides for freedom of choice on whether to join a labor union. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.

Rep. Corey E. Corbin for the Majority of Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: This bill basically would prevent the assessment of agency fees upon non-members of a labor union. The non-members, however, have an obligation to pay their fair share of the costs associated with contract negotiations and collective bargaining, as they enjoy all the wages and benefits as full dues-paying members, negotiated for them by the unions. This bill was comparable to a citizen stating they should not have to pay the education property tax because they have no kids, despite the benefit we all receive from well-educated kids. As a result, and the overwhelming show of opposition to this bill (nearly 10-1 in testimony) the bill was reported ITL. Vote 13-6.

Rep. Jarvis M. Adams for the Minority of Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: There is a fundamental first amendment right of free association that is violated when government regulates the private lives of workers by forcing them to financially subsidize unions against their wishes. In addition, This bill, if passed, would improve the health of unions and our economy by making unions more user-friendly.


Majority report adopted (bill killed) 262-103.


That is seriously bad news.  I had no clue that the good Reps of the state of NH were so far away from the free market view on right-to-work laws and the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.   This is yet another sign that the last part of New England that is still somewhat free (NH) has large socialist undertones.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JonM on August 30, 2003, 12:55:03 pm
That is seriously bad news.  I had no clue that the good Reps of the state of NH were so far away from the free market view on right-to-work laws the the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.  

Now there is no need to muckrake.  The testimony about this bill during public hearings was 10-1 against.  There were not a great deal of activists in favor of the bill willing to go speak to the committee in support of it.  Thus the committee went against it 13-6.

Now as to the main concern of the opposition of the bill, that basically someone could take the benefits of a union contract without contributing to the union that negotiated the contract, that is a fair point.  Should someone be allowed to take advantage of the results of collective bargaining without contributing to the costs of the bargaining?  The main perceived problem, at least from my view, is that unions branch out from that collective bargaining into politics which the members may not support, and are loathe to fund through their dues.

It's a tricky question, one which I don't have the knowledge to properly answer.  But even with such testimony against it and a dearth of testimony in support, 1/4 of the house supported it.  Had the testimony been in favor of this bill rather than so overwhelmingly opposed, perhaps the committee's recommendation would have been ought to pass, rather than inexpedient to legislate, and more members of the house would have voted yea.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on August 30, 2003, 03:12:15 pm
Still, Jon, it looks bad.

On another subject, I just looked at my bottle of Canada Dry Tonic Water. It says the states of VT and DE require merchants to collect a 5c deposit.

I looked at a pop can too. VT and ME have a deposit for that.

Did you ever see that movie (I think by John Waters) called "Serial Mom"? Kathleen Turner plays a mom who goes on a killing spree against those of her neighbors who aren't religious enough about recycling. It is hilarious.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: JonM on August 30, 2003, 03:24:52 pm
What it means is there aren't enough activists in NH who care enough about Right To Work to go to Concord to testify on behalf of this bill.  It means 25% of the current house likes it even without broad based support, meaning 26% more need to be convinced through letters, testimony, and other activism.

I don't work in a field that is unionized, so I don't have much experience with unions in my own personal work experience.  Someone who has more experience would be better suited to explaining the merits of this particular right to work bill, and if it would need alteration to be more widely accepted, or if it's just a matter of needing more support.

My empty bottle of Otter Creek Stovepipe Porter, craft brewed (heh) in Vermont says DEP: ME, VT, CT, DE, NY, MA 5 cents, MI 10 cents.

Bottle bills (nowadays) are almost never about encouraging recycling but more about a revenue stream for the state.  If 100 bottles or cans go out with a 5 cent deposit, and only 67 are redeemed, that's a net 33*.05 to the state coffers.  Which is what happens.  To most people the 30 cents on a six pack isn't quite worth the effort, so they toss them.  Now, the more kind people who don't give a damn will leave them separate so the people who might otherwise ransack your garbage for them will leave it be and take the bottles and cans with minimal effort.
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on August 30, 2003, 08:59:31 pm
Huh, I didn't know bottle bill money went to the state on unredeemed bottles. I thought the vendors got to pocket it (I think that's how it goes in Oregon, but I could be wrong). That seems reasonable because they have to put up with the pain of redeeming the silly things. The big stores here in Oregon have to invest in can crushing machines that sort the redeemables from non-redeemables, although they might get some help from the state for that. They still have to dedicate floor space.

I was just reading off the labels of pop, those states in our 10 that have bottle bills.

You said something that I'll comment on:
Quote
Should someone be allowed to take advantage of the results of collective bargaining without contributing to the costs of the bargaining?
The answer is, of course! If they are not union members. Because there are free riders, does not give union bosses the right to coerce non-union members to fork over the cash. The most they can do is persuade them to join the union, at least in a free state.

Some here have commented that right-to-work laws are un-libertarian. The correct answer is that right-to-work laws become uneccesary in a truly free state, because unions do not in that case use government to coerce others.

Quote
What it means is there aren't enough activists in NH who care enough about Right To Work to go to Concord to testify on behalf of this bill.
Care enough - or maybe they just don't want bricks hurled through their living room windows by union thugs!
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on September 05, 2003, 12:25:19 am
 # Farms / Acres of Farm land

SD 32,500  44,000,000
ND 31,500  39,700,000
MT 27,000  57,800,000
ID 24,500  12,000,000
WY  9,200  34,600,000
ME  7,000   1,280,000
VT  6,600   1,330,000
NH  3,000     420,000
DE  2,800     585,000
AK    560     910,000


Source: http://www.nemw.org/farmland.htm (http://www.nemw.org/farmland.htm)


Total Gross State Product (GSP) by State: 2001
(in millions of current dollars)

NH 47,183
DE 40,509
ME 37,449
ID 36,905
AK 28,581
MT 22,635
WY 20,148
SD 24,251
VT 19,149
ND 19,005



Source: http://www.nemw.org/gsp.htm  (http://www.nemw.org/gsp.htm)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on September 05, 2003, 09:08:02 am
Oil and Gas Tax Burdens for states belonging to Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission


Total Oil Tax Burden as of Oct. 2002

AK Avg. 9.9% of taxable value
DE n/a
ID 2.0%
ME n/a
MT First 12 months, 0.8%, then variable between 5.8%-9.3%
NH n/a
ND 11.5% 9.0% or 5%
SD 4.74% of value
VT n/a
WY 9.9%-13.7%



Total Natural Gas Tax Burden as of Oct. 2002

AK Avg 5% of taxable value
DE n/a
ID 2.0%
ME n/a
MT First 12 months, 0.8%; then variable between 11.3%-15.1%
NH n/a
ND $0.04 per MCF, adjusted annually per consumer price index
SD 4.74% of value
VT n/a
WY 11.9-13.7%






Source:  http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/ISSUES/Taxation%20Info/2002stateoiltaxchart.pdf
http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/ISSUES/Taxation%20Info/2002%20summaryofadvalorem.pdf
http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/ISSUES/Taxation%20Info/TaxChart.htm
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on September 05, 2003, 11:34:25 am
Comparative look at choice of state residence by foreign-born residents
(ranked highest to lowest by rank of % foreign born among 50 states and D.C.)


State / % Foreign-born (2000) /Rank / % increase 1990-2000 / Top countries represented in growth

AK  5.9% = 22 out of 51 (+50%) Philippines, Korea, and Canada

DE  6.0% = 23 out of 51 (+102%) Mexico, India, and the United Kingdom

ID  5.0% = 28 out of 51 (+122%) Mexico, Canada, and the United Kingdom

NH  4.0% = 29 out of 51 (+31%) Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany

VT  4.0% = 33 out of 51 (+32%) Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany

ME  2.9% = 39 out of 51 (+1%) Canada, the United Kingdom, and Germany

WY  2.0% = 44 out of 51 (+47%) Mexico, Canada, and Germany

ND  2.0% = 47 out of 51 (+29%) Canada, Germany, Bosnia and Herzegovina

MT  2.0% = 48 out of 51 (+19%) Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom

SD  2.0% = 49 out of 51 (+75%) Mexico, Canada, and Germany


Source: http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/statemap.cfm#  (http://www.migrationinformation.org/USFocus/statemap.cfm#)
Title: Re:Farm subsidy dependence
Post by: Kelton on September 08, 2003, 08:57:13 pm
A friend of mine with extensive experience living and working in the western plains states has repeatedly emphasized the degree to which rural people in those states depend on farm subsidies. It is not just the big corporations which we know about, but the small farmer as well. Their dependence of federal farm subsidies would be a major factor for the FSP.

Below are the total dollar amounts from this source.
http://www.taxpayer.net/agriculture/learnmore/tcsanalysis/farmbillfailures-D.htm
These could be also ranked on a per capita basis but the total dollars is a valid measurement of the political power of these subsidies in each state. Any FSP effort to tell the feds to get out of their state will run into a major hurdle -- as measured by the expense and effort needed to wean the recipients off these subsidies. In many respects North South and South Dakota are bought and paid for by the feds. Even in Idaho and Montana this would be a major hurdle for the Free State depending on how much it wanted to free itself and its people from federal "bingo" money.
http://www.taxpayer.net/agriculture/learnmore/tcsanalysis/farmbillfailures-D.htm
         $98,000   Alaska
    $1,329,000   New Hampshire
    $4,088,000   Maine
    $4,396,000   Vermont
  $18,069,000   Wyoming
  $23,520,000   Delaware
$152,736,000   Idaho
$205,929,000   Montana
$572,483,000   North Dakota
$575,744,000   South Dakota

The per capita ranking is:
    $0.16     Alaska
    $1.08     New Hampshire
    $3.21     Maine
    $7.22     Vermont
  $30.02     Delaware
  $36.59     Wyoming
$118.07     Idaho
$228.25     Montana
$762.73     South Dakota
$891.44     North Dakota

Very good point, Joe.  I may need to re-access the Dakotas once again.  Wyoming and Alaska are heavily dependent on energy sources for revenue while the Dakotas take it in with agriculture.
Title: New Hampshire: Fewest historic sites (per capita)
Post by: Karl on September 08, 2003, 09:34:49 pm
The candidate states ranked by number of Historic Sites per 1000 population.

Despite some suggestions otherwise, New Hampshire REALLY IS different than the other New England states ... and the western states for that matter!

RankStateSitesPop(1000s)# Sites per 1000 pop
1.NH67112750.526
2.AK3756440.582
3.ND3806340.599
4.ID96713410.721
5.DE6638070.822
6.WY4524990.906
7.MT9559091.051
8.ME141412751.109
9.VT6896171.117
10.SD11477611.507

Source: National Register of Historic Sites
http://www.nr.nps.gov/nrloc1.htm

Reason umpteen-hundred-and-wow to choose NEW HAMPSHIRE!
;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re:New Hampshire: Fewest historic sites (per capita)
Post by: freedomroad on September 10, 2003, 04:07:59 am
The candidate states ranked by number of Historic Sites per 1000 population.


This is something that anyone will figure out real quite if they spend more than a fews days in New England.  Historic sites are everywhere and they are usually a bad thing.

NH 671
ME 1414
VT 689

Wyoming and AK look a lot better
AK 375
WY 452


Title: Allergy- in the states and near-by
Post by: freedomroad on September 10, 2003, 04:17:14 am
There is a list of the 50 worst cities in the nation for allergies.  None of the FSP candidate state cities are one the list because they are too small.  Here are the rankings for the cities near FSP candidate states.

Worst:
6 Hartford-New Haven, CT (near NH and VT)
9 Harrisburg-Lancaster-Lebanon-York, PA (near DE)
26 Baltimore, MD (near DE)
27 Boston, MA (near NH and ME)
32 Salt Lake City, UT (near WY and ID)
33 Philadelphia, PA (near DE)
38 Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY (near VT)
44 Washington, DC (near DE)
48 Denver, CO (near WY)

DE looks to be the worst (by some distance) and NH, ME, WY, VT, and ID also have problems.  AK, MT, ND, and SD might have problems but because they are not near are large MSAs, they we list leaves info on them blank.

http://www.allergyactionplan.com/topcapitals.html

map
http://www.allergyactionplan.com/capitals-map.html

Title: Re:New Hampshire: Fewest historic sites (per capita)
Post by: Karl on September 10, 2003, 07:44:15 am
The candidate states ranked by number of Historic Sites per 1000 population.


This is something that anyone will figure out real quite if they spend more than a fews days in New England.  Historic sites are everywhere and they are usually a bad thing.

NH 671
ME 1414
VT 689

Wyoming and AK look a lot better
AK 375
WY 452

Sorry, FreedomRoad, raw numbers don't mean much here -- when measured per capita, it is a fair indicator of a population's willingness to accept forced historic preservation of their property.
Title: Re:New Hampshire: Fewest historic sites (per capita)
Post by: DadELK68 on September 10, 2003, 07:41:14 pm
The candidate states ranked by number of Historic Sites per 1000 population.


This is something that anyone will figure out real quite if they spend more than a fews days in New England.  Historic sites are everywhere and they are usually a bad thing.

NH 671
ME 1414
VT 689

Wyoming and AK look a lot better
AK 375
WY 452

Sorry, FreedomRoad, raw numbers don't mean much here -- when measured per capita, it is a fair indicator of a population's willingness to accept forced historic preservation of their property.

Even more obvious - the more history, the more historic sites. You could argue that the fact that WY and AK, having had much less history (involving non-Native Americans) than NH, ME and VT, actually have a surprisingly high number of historic sites.

Historic sites, for the most part, can only be designated if there were people there to take part in events. Non-indigenous peoples have pretty much been predominant in New England for over 300 years, maybe twice as long (and in much higher numbers) as in WY...

If you factor in the greater numbers of people and the longer span of 'history', all other things being equal WY should have no more than maybe 1/4 as many and AK maybe 1/5 as many sites as does NH or ME - instead, both have more than 50% as many as NH! This seems to imply that the smaller populations in these states have, over a shorter period of time, been adopting 'historic' sites at an alarming rate.

Eric
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on September 10, 2003, 11:36:38 pm
Vote for Ed Clark in 1980.  He was the LP member that ran against Reagan, Carter, and Anderson.

However, if we just look at Ed Clark (in 1980) we get this:
Ak was the strongest followed by the Mountain-west states.  The Northeast, and Southeast were the worst.  Well, the entire East Coast from NH to TX did poor.  The entire West Coast, all of the Moutain-west states, and much of the Mid-west did well.

AK 11.7% (wonderful)
MT 2.7% (Mountain-west)
WY 2.6% (Mountain-west)
ID 1.9% (Mountain-west)
ND 1.2%
SD 1.2%
US Average 1.1%
ME 1.0%
VT 0.9%
DE 0.8%
NH 0.5% (horrible)


Selected other states:  
The West did much better than the East or Mid-west.  Even the Mid-west did a lot better than the East.
CO 2.2% (Mountain-west)
OR 2.2% (West)
AZ 2.1% (West)
NV 1.8% (West)
WA 1.7% (West)
CA 1.7% (West)

MN 1.5% (Mid-west)
KS 1.5% (Mid-west)
OK 1.2% (Mid-west)
MI 1.1% (Mid-west)
IA 1.0% (Mid-west)

MA 0.9% (East)
DC 0.8% (even DC did better than NH) (East)
NY 0.8% (East)
PA 0.7% (East)
NJ 0.7% (East)
CT 0.6% (East)
RI 0.6% (East)
NC 0.5% (East)
SC 0.5% (East)
KY 0.4% (East)
TN 0.4% (East)
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Zxcv on September 11, 2003, 11:05:18 pm
I've got a good one, folks (forgive me if this has been reported already somewhere here).

The "State Solvency Index"

I haven't looked for the original document, but it is reported on here (see p. 8 ):
http://www.oregontaxes.org/YT-may-2003.pdf

It's described this way. "One way of measuring the relative fiscal health of states is to calculate how much money would be left over if each state had to cease operations and pay off all debt including pension promises to employees. After this calculation, if money is left over it would be distributed to residents, but a negative result would mean an additional levy on those same citizens."

The following table gives 50-state rank (in order from most solvent to least solvent), states, amount per citizen (negative means insolvent, citizens are liable for more taxes), change from 1993 through 2002, and rank in the country of that change. The latter two show recent trends, of course.

1   AK   $52,945  $31,601  1
2   WY  $9,034   $3,462    3
4   ND  $2,700    $1,682   13
5   DE  $2,576    $2,376     5
8   MT  $1,956   $1,697    12
20 ID    $986       $849     20
21 SD  $912       $385      26
  U. S. Avg $797   $1,101
36 NH  -$720    -$96      36
37 VT   -$789     $272      28
43 ME  -$1,285  $517     25

Title: Teacher pay adjusted for cost of living
Post by: freedomroad on September 13, 2003, 04:12:13 pm
Pay of teachers after adjusted for cost of living in the canidate states.  States with the lowest adjusted pay are listed first

Rank/ State/ Pay adjust for cost of living
1. SD 49
2. ND 48
3. MT 47
4. WY 46
5. NH 41
6. ME 38
7. VT 34
8. AK 31
9. ID 28
10. DE 6

Source
http://drc.cfed.org/measures/avg_teach_sal.html
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: Kelton on September 16, 2003, 10:11:24 pm
Family Support for Families of Persons with Developmental Disabilities in the U.S.: Status and Trends

State governments that provide cash  subsidies to families in neeed:
(among candidate states)

The only state among candidates is North Dakota, which ranks #2 in the nation for cash subsidy per family.
______________________________

Total State Family Support spending in 1998
(Rank of each candidate state among 50 states, amount of expenditure per capita)

Idaho 49  ($0.09)
Maine 39  ($0.67)
Delaware 35  ($0.98)  
South Dakota 30 ($1.61)
Wyoming 14  ($4.18)
North Dakota 7  ($5.87)
Vermont 6  ($6.66)
New Hampshire 5  ($6.77)
Montana 3  ($7.90)

Source: Research and Training Center on Community Living, University of Minnesota
Title: Re:Teacher pay adjusted for cost of living
Post by: Kelton on September 17, 2003, 12:29:27 am
[snip]
Source
http://drc.cfed.org/measures/avg_teach_sal.html
There is a wealth of information at that sight, thanks Jaime!

I thought this one very interesting:

Charitable Giving
Average charitable contribution per return as a percentage of adjusted gross income per return, 2000.
Rationale: A measure of civic capacity that illustrates [voluntary] community involvement.


(Rank of candidate states among 50 states, state)
2  Wyoming
5  Idaho
20 Delaware
30 Montana
41 South Dakota
43 Maine
43 Vermont
47 Alaska
48 New Hampshire
48 North Dakota

http://drc.cfed.org/measures/char_give.html (http://drc.cfed.org/measures/char_give.html)
Title: Re:Teacher pay adjusted for cost of living
Post by: Kelton on September 17, 2003, 01:15:56 am
Pay of teachers after adjusted for cost of living in the canidate states.  . . .
Rank/ State/ Pay adjust for cost of living
1. SD 49
2. ND 48
3. MT 47
4. WY 46
5. NH 41
6. ME 38
7. VT 34
8. AK 31
9. ID 28
10. DE 6

Source
http://drc.cfed.org/measures/avg_teach_sal.html

I compared all of this with another factor and gained a broader understanding of it all:

Expenditures per child, 2001 (adjusted for regional cost differences)
North Dakota    $ 8,983 
Wyoming           8,657
Vermont           8,622
Delaware          8,552
Maine             7,802
South Dakota      7,157
Alaska            7,129
Montana           7,032
New Hampshire     6,967
Idaho             5,853

Source: http://www.idahostatesman.com/Common/PrintMe.asp?ID=30309 (http://www.idahostatesman.com/Common/PrintMe.asp?ID=30309)

For comparison, it looks to me that, there are several factors that give insight into the education funding priority measures.  For example, North Dakota has the lowest pay, yet the highest cost per pupil, which coincides with the fact that so many schools in North Dakota are losing students to out-migration and many rural districts are at a loss to justify keeping some schools open and staffed, resulting in high overhead costs and small classrooms.  On the other hand, you would expect that Idaho schools run more cost-effective, on a per student basis, which is the fact, due partly to over-crowded schools currently in Idaho.

On the other side of this issue, it would seem that Delaware has a strong education priority for funding of public schools, based on the fact that teachers are paid the at the highest level while still having high costs per child  
Title: How's The Weather Today In Our Chosen State?
Post by: Kelton on September 25, 2003, 12:53:02 pm
How's the weather today in our chosen state?

Thursday, Sept. 25, 2003

Anchorage, AK
Today: Rain showers ending this morning with mostly cloudy conditions during the afternoon hours. High around 50F. Winds S at 10 to 15 mph. Chance of rain 50%.
Tonight: Cloudy intervals. Low near 40F. Winds S at 10 to 15 mph.
Tomorrow: Mostly cloudy skies. High 51F. Winds SE at 5 to 10 mph.

Boise, ID
Today: Plentiful sunshine. High 83F. Winds NW at 10 to 20 mph.
Tonight: Generally clear. Low near 55F. Winds SW at 5 to 10 mph.
Tomorrow: Mainly sunny. High 83F. Winds NW at 10 to 15 mph.

Wilmington, DE
Today: Partly cloudy with a slight chance of thunderstorms. High 78F. Winds SW at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 30%.
Tonight: Isolated thunderstorms early, mainly cloudy overnight with a few showers. Low 58F. Winds light and variable. Chance of rain 30%.
Tomorrow: Morning showers, becoming partly cloudy in the afternoon. High 74F. Winds ESE at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 30%.

Portland, ME
Today: Sunshine along with a few clouds. High 71F. Winds S at 10 to 20 mph.
Tonight: Cloudy with a few showers. Low near 55F. Winds WSW at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 30%.
Tomorrow: A few showers early with ample sunshine later in the day. High 66F. Winds E at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 30%.


Billings, MT
Today: Partly cloudy and windy. High 78F. Winds WNW at 20 to 30 mph.
Tonight: Clear skies with gusty winds. Low 54F. Winds WNW at 15 to 25 mph.
Tomorrow: Windy with a few clouds from time to time. High 71F. Winds NW at 20 to 30 mph.


Bismarck, ND
Today: Cloudy. Turning warmer. High 68F. Winds SSW at 10 to 20 mph.
Tonight: Some clouds. Low 46F. Winds WNW at 10 to 20 mph.
Tomorrow: Scattered showers in the morning, then partly cloudy and windy late. High 62F. Winds NW at 15 to 25 mph. Chance of rain 30%.


Manchester, NH
Today: Sunshine along with a few clouds. High 78F. Winds SSW at 10 to 20 mph.
Tonight: Cloudy with a few showers. Low 54F. Winds W at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 30%.
Tomorrow: Showers ending in the morning, then partly cloudy in the afternoon. High 68F. Winds ENE at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of rain 30%.

Sioux Falls, SD
Today: A mix of clouds and sun. High 66F. Winds S at 15 to 25 mph.
Tonight: Partly cloudy skies. Low near 50F. Winds SW at 10 to 20 mph
Tomorrow: Mostly sunny skies. High 66F. Winds WNW at 10 to 20 mph.

Montpelier, VT
Today: Overcast with rain showers at times. High 72F. Winds SSW at 10 to 15 mph. Chance of rain 50%.
Tonight: Partly cloudy early followed by cloudy skies overnight. Low 44F. Winds light and variable.
Tomorrow: Partly cloudy. High near 65F. Winds light and variable.

Cheyenne, WY
Today: Windy with sunshine. Turning warmer. High 79F. Winds WNW at 15 to 25 mph
Tonight: Mostly clear. Low 46F. Winds NW at 10 to 15 mph.
Tomorrow: Sunny skies with gusty winds developing later in the day. High 74F. Winds NW at 15 to 25 mph.

Source: Yahoo! Weather
Title: Re:More and other criteria to weigh states with
Post by: freedomroad on September 26, 2003, 01:48:05 am
Map of states, counties, and cities that have rejected the Patriot Act (at least in name).

Notice that two of the FSP states, AK and VT are 2 of the 3 states that have rejected the Patriot Act.

(http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/images/0924liberty_graphic01.gif)

http://www.sacbee.com/static/live/news/images/0924liberty_graphic01.gif