Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: admin on July 22, 2002, 09:26:47 pm

Title: Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: admin on July 22, 2002, 09:26:47 pm
Here's an interesting question for everyone, plus a demo of the poll capability!

Charles
Title: Re:Location Requirements
Post by: Elizabeth on July 22, 2002, 11:12:36 pm
Ultra cool, Charles!
Title: Re:Location Requirements
Post by: Jim Sheridan on July 23, 2002, 12:22:36 am
Tres cool.

As a matter of fact, this is all first rate. Nice work.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on July 24, 2002, 04:53:03 pm
Yeah this is a cool poll.  Can anyone make one or just you powerfull people?
Anyway I had to answer "There a few states I'd go to but that's it" because my responce should have been:
"I'll go to any state where I can find a job in my field but unfotunately that's probably only a few states"
just FYI.
-Eddie
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Elizabeth on July 25, 2002, 10:07:32 pm

Anyway I had to answer "There a few states I'd go to but that's it" because my responce should have been:
"I'll go to any state where I can find a job in my field but unfotunately that's probably only a few states"
just FYI.
-Eddie


You wouldn't dig ditches for the Free State, Eddie?  ;)
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Freestatepatriot on July 26, 2002, 12:54:10 pm
Quote
You wouldn't dig ditches for the Free State, Eddie?  ;)


I don't know about Eddie, but I've got a family to feed.  Last time I checked, the pay for ditch digging wasn't very good (I'm from a rural farming area in Missouri, so I know a little about digging ditches).

My secular employment in Brazil is English teaching.  I'd like a state where I can qualify to teach grade school quickly (emergency certification or something similar) and get the appropriate teaching degree in the meantime.  NH has some good alternative routes to teaching, it seems.  

Does anybody else have any SERIOUS suggestions for what a bilingual (English/Portuguese) guy with a Bachelor of Ministry and teaching experience can do in the Free State?

Adam G.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on July 26, 2002, 12:58:21 pm
Yeah I would but I would do a cost benifit analysis and find out that if I move to this state and get a job at Mcdonalds I would actually have a greater impact by keeping my old job and sending the excess money I'd be making to the FSP or our politicians or whatever than if I was working double shifts at Mc'Ds to support my family.  Luckily though I think when we choose a state I believe there is a very high chance we choose one where I'll be able to find a job.  Also even if we don't then I think I'll be able to get there eventually because I estimate maybe 8-10 years down the line I might be able to become and independent consultant in which case I can live anywhere.
-Eddie
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on July 27, 2002, 12:21:12 pm

Does anybody else have any SERIOUS suggestions for what a bilingual (English/Portuguese) guy with a Bachelor of Ministry and teaching experience can do in the Free State?

Adam G.


I'd say NH is the best option for you, because Boston has some of the finest educational instituations in the world.  I'd think you could easily find a private religious university and get on the road to proffesorship in teaching Portuges.  Portugese is a difficult language and your teaching experience I'd think would help you get a job teaching this subject in college.  Also you could study and get a phd. in Portugese which probably wouldn't be very difficult for you.  I'm sure there's an institution in Northern Boston that would love to have you teach this language.  Worst case senario you could teach community college portugese.
-Eddie
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Freestatepatriot on July 27, 2002, 07:19:37 pm
Quote
Quote


I'd say NH is the best option for you, because Boston has some of the finest educational instituations in the world.  I'd think you could easily find a private religious university and get on the road to proffesorship in teaching Portuges.  Portugese is a difficult language and your teaching experience I'd think would help you get a job teaching this subject in college.  Also you could study and get a phd. in Portugese which probably wouldn't be very difficult for you.  I'm sure there's an institution in Northern Boston that would love to have you teach this language.  Worst case senario you could teach community college portugese.
-Eddie


The excellent points about NH for my family and I are:

1) Plentiful Universities in the region
2) Enormous Brazilian population in the Boston area
3) Relatively flexible alternate routes for me to teach K-12
4) International Airports accesible.

As for teaching in a University, if I were to do so it would be in religion.  Community College would be fine by me.  I attended a CC where the religion professor was an adjunct faculty member.  His "real" job was serving a United Church of Christ.  LIBERAL (theologically and politically) but a great guy personally.  In any event, my preference is still teaching grade school.  We'll see what happens.

Thanks for the suggestions!

Adam G.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Elizabeth on August 01, 2002, 02:23:45 am
I'm posting on this thread solely so that the people who check new posts can be reminded to please vote in the poll if you haven't already... I'm dying to see more results!
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on August 01, 2002, 08:32:11 am
Quote

I'm posting on this thread solely so that the people who check new posts can be reminded to please vote in the poll if you haven't already... I'm dying to see more results!

Who's inflating their posting #s now?   ;)
-Eddie
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Reaper on August 04, 2002, 11:28:52 pm
When I first signed up for FSP I chose to opt out if Alaska was picked.

I have since changed my mind.  At this point I'd go ANYWHERE to be free of state intervention against people who are not harming the person or property of another.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Budd on August 06, 2002, 12:14:40 am
I would take a corner of hell if I were to have true freedom. If there were no jobs to be had I would make one. If there was no food I would eat bugs. I don't recall hearing anyone saying this would be easy. Anything that is worth having is worth working for.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: cdbern_99 on August 11, 2002, 01:27:43 am
While there are places I would prefer to live, anywhere to get away from Federal intrusion and the usurption of civil liberties takes priority.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Anpwhotep on August 15, 2002, 01:40:51 am
I'll go anywhere there's adequate medical care (that's qualified to treat my medical conditions) and the climate doesn't require the use of antifreeze to keep your blood flowing.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Halo on August 17, 2002, 07:52:41 pm
I said that I would go anywhere, but in reality I do have preferences. I don't like cold weather, snow, etc. 8), but sacrifices must be made. I'm hoping to be retired by the time FSP makes the move, so I won't have to worry about employment. Heck, if I didn't have to pay income tax, social insecurity, etc., I'd be rich and not have to worry about making lots of money.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: stew on August 18, 2002, 03:46:18 pm
The way I see this is. It really doesn't matter which state we go to because; we will be dealing,  many times with each other when it comes to economic issues, trade etc.
The sooner we get the ball rolling the more people it will pick up. We don't want to build this train with too much luxury or no one will want to get off. We want it powerful and pratical, build a bridge across the Rubikhan and then burn it!  
Although, I think for political purposes,  we should make it a state on or near the Canada border, and it should have a good agricultural and industry base. Take over a good hospital and provide the kind of medical care people can pay for out of their pocket, get the the cost of gov't out and away from business and services. Regulate themselves. Remember folks we have in this country a  "Added Value Tax " whether we like it or not. When Mr and Mrs America go to buy that lowly loaf of bread there is built into it,  about 40 to fifty cents of taxes.
Businesses do not pay taxes, although one wouldn't believe it, especially when the do gooders are trying to fill their pockets with tax payer funds. They just collect taxes and pass them to gov't's.
Wouldn't it be nice to know that when you bought a house it would be yours and you wouldn't have to pay rent(property taxes) to county, state and feds.8)
We have an oppourtunity here to start our own economy right on the net, all we have to do, is do it!
I think North and South Dakota would be good. Easy to take over by our votes and and a great base to start. Then Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska would fall in line. Justs some thoughts from a fed up Citzen at Law
W E Stewart
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: stew on August 18, 2002, 03:49:47 pm
The way I see this is. It really doesn't matter which state we go to because; we will be dealing,  many times with each other when it comes to economic issues, trade etc.
The sooner we get the ball rolling the more people it will pick up. We don't want to build this train with too much luxury or no one will want to get off. We want it powerful and pratical, build a bridge across the Rubikhan and then burn it!  
Although, I think for political purposes,  we should make it a state on or near the Canada border, and it should have a good agricultural and industry base. Take over a good hospital and provide the kind of medical care people can pay for out of their pocket, get the the cost of gov't out and away from business and services. Regulate themselves. Remember folks we have in this country a  "Added Value Tax " whether we like it or not. When Mr and Mrs America go to buy that lowly loaf of bread there is built into it,  about 40 to fifty cents of taxes.
Businesses do not pay taxes, although one wouldn't believe it, especially when the do gooders are trying to fill their pockets with tax payer funds. They just collect taxes and pass them to gov't's.
Wouldn't it be nice to know that when you bought a house it would be yours and you wouldn't have to pay rent(property taxes) to county, state and feds.8)
We have an oppourtunity here to start our own economy right on the net, all we have to do, is do it!
I think North and South Dakota would be good. Easy to take over by our votes and and a great base to start. Then Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska would fall in line. Justs some thoughts from a fed up Citzen at Law
W E Stewart
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: smoorefu on October 08, 2002, 12:30:02 pm

It seems to me that another answer would be useful.  Something like, "I'll go to any state where I can find a job in my field."  Moving lots of people is all very well, but if they can't support themselves, it just doesn't seem like it will work.

Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: schm00 on October 08, 2002, 01:44:45 pm
I don't know about anyone else, but IMO I am willing to sweep floors rather than to live in this country the way it is currently run. And believe me, as a software engineer, thats quite a shift in salary. I guess the term would be 'disgusted'. Thats what I am. And I think thats the point every FSP member must be at to consider following through with this project. Just my opinion though.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Stumpy on October 08, 2002, 02:36:37 pm
Schmoo,
I understand you are a software engineer. Is it possible to do what you do (or something similar) as an independent contractor? ???

One possible way to make the move less painful is to establish a small business now. You could spend some time cultivating a customer base and putting into place the system whereby you could work for these customers via Fed-ex and the internet.

When the time came for the move, employment wouldn’t be a concern. You would just need to pack your stuff and find a place to put it.

Just a thought.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: schm00 on October 08, 2002, 02:50:05 pm
Schmoo,
I understand you are a software engineer. Is it possible to do what you do (or something similar) as an independent contractor? ???


Oh yes, I have have owned my own company in the past, and will most likely do so again. I brought up the point above really only to illustrate the level of disgust I have with todays fed and state laws. And I'll tell you this, when I ran my own company (with 1 partner) and we grossed over 400K in one year, I was indeed taken to a new level of disgust after watching the gov take MORE than half of it and piss it away. Being a salaried employee of your own company, the double taxation is horrendous.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: stone on October 14, 2002, 02:23:17 am
 :D

I just read the article on worldnetdaily tonight (10-13-02) and my wife and I (and two sons) are ready to go.

I want to go to a rural state but a few states won't work (see below)...Damn the weather, damn the job climate, damn everything else that doesn't matter... and nothing does matter except for the fact that this WILL work and the economy will blossom like nothingf ever has in this country since the post WW2 days.

The rest of the country will follow our ideas within a few years and
it will keep getting better.

I haven't had a job in 5 years and I still make over $30,000 with ease.  Just finding and buying and selling and doing things for others works just fine and I live just fine.  And the bestr part about it, I decide when and if I pay taxes.

Let's go Libertarians.  The time is ripe.

New Hampshire - NO - Too many Democrats and too close to Liberal Boston.  I grew up in Boston and I spent much time in NH.  We will never win over the hearts and minds of these folks.  Maybe the old-timers but the younger crowd is too dependednt on the big Tit (US government).

Maine - NO - After the textile and shoe industry dried up the government came in and made them all believe they are entitled to be taken care of.   I not only lioved there...but I owned a small business with 15 employees.  Regardless of what they say, they hate independent thinkers.  Again, maybe the old-timers, but not the baby boomers and younger generation.

Delaware - NO - too close to DC and other urban areas.  Real Estate through the roof.  

Alaska, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, etc.... - YES _ You get the picture...Rural, west, Independent thinkers, Agricultural land, Woods, Mountains.  Say no more.

Let's go!!!

Stone
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Ceol Mhor on October 14, 2002, 12:14:08 pm
I'd vaguely known about the FSP for a while (heard references to it from some Liberty Round Table folks), but I never really looked at it seriously until just recently. And what a cool surprise it was! I'm in - I'm a college student right now, and have no serious ties to any particular state - I'll go to whichever state the FSP chooses. The prospect of a free state completely outweighs any potential downsides of the destination. That said, my first choices would be Montana and Wyoming - they have space in a way that New Hampshire can't even compare to.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Shayde on October 18, 2002, 06:44:02 pm
HI!  I am new to the forum - just joined the FSP today too.   :)  I currently live in Butte, MT.  I moved here from Colorado (where I grew up) 5 years ago.  

When I left Colorado I had a really good job, up here I don't.  The cost of living is much less and I don't need to make as much money.  There is a trade off for everything and I chose to make less money, have a less prestigious position etc. in order to live in a place with more freedom, less population and a safer environment.

We are pretty lucky up here not to have much Federal Gov't interference.  It is still too much but it's a lot more "live and let live" than Colorado was and I love it.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: mlilback on October 21, 2002, 11:22:45 pm
I just found out about FSP today and am very interested. I've been reading the site and discussions for almost 5 hours and feel very strongly about the basic concepts. My best friend and I have always talked about purchasing an island once we make enough money to be free of government intervention, but the FSP makes a lot more sense.


Delaware - NO - too close to DC and other urban areas.  Real Estate through the roof.  


I'm the exact opposite. I grew up in rural Texas (I lived 1 year in a town that was population 98 before we moved there) and now I live in New York City. I can not live in a rural area. I have to be near a very large city. (Personal preference and business requirements.) I barely made it through high school without killing myself (only the knowledge that soon I'd be off to college in a city gave me encouragement to live), and I don't think I could ever go back to such an environment.

Any place on the East coast is fine for me, as I can easily get to NYC, Boston, or DC. Heck, I could live in Delaware and commute to NYC and end up spending less time on the commute than my partner who lives on eastern Long Island.

But a lot of the western states really scare me. Nature has no interest to me (aside from an occasional visit at a resort). I'm an urban animal and even visiting my parents for a week is pure hell (and they're only 30 minutes from a 100,000+ city). I can't comprehend living somewhere that doesn't have activity all night long and where you come home at midnight instead of heading out for the night.

And airport access isn't mentioned in most of the state reports, which is critical to me. How many airlines? How many direct flights to the 10-15 largest cities in the country? Are the ticket prices fixed (because only 1 or 2 airlines serve the area) or very competitive?

Another important factor for me would be accessibility of Internet access. Is there competition in the cable and telephone markets? What is the prevalence of broadband Internet access? How good is cell phone coverage? Digital, or only old-fashioned cell units? What about forthcoming 3G phone systems?

Homeschooling is mentioned a lot, but what about the public schools? How do they rank in education standards? How prevalent is bussing? What percentage of communities have non-religious private schools? What portion of those schools give freedom to their students? I'd never send my kids to a school with uniforms, that censors the school paper, or gives more money to sports than academics.

What's the distance to the closest amusement park? To the largest city of 100,000, 500,000, and 1,000,000? How prevalent is public transportation? How often are do theater tours come by? Is there a local music scene? What are the nearest concert venues and how many shows per year are there?

I'm adamantly anti-authoritarian and opposed to most government regulation, but if the project can be located where there is some wilderness and rural communities (NH, VT, ME) along with near-by cities for urbanities, why not select that state? That seem the best compromise to me.

I will sign up at some point, but I feel I need more information on the western states. I don't want to exclude them without more information, but I'm not willing to commit myself to moving somewhere where I would find no happiness.


Mark
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Biddefred, Me. on October 23, 2002, 09:12:22 pm
Well, here goes the first of what will be quite a few, I'm sure......testing one, two, three...

I'm the guy that just voted not to move 8)

As the chairman of the LPME, I'm committed to the liberating Maine.  I think Maine is the best choice for the Project, too.  And soon I'll elaborate.

Best to all.
You're all American heros.
Fred Staples
Biddeford, Maine
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: varrin on October 23, 2002, 11:01:12 pm

And airport access isn't mentioned in most of the state reports, which is critical to me.



In the MT/ID thread (about the weather) I've mentioned airport access a time or two.  Boise is the best western option currently under consideration.  There exists air service in MT and WY, but it's nothing like Boise.  As for WY, I simply can't move there.  Jackson accounts for 1/2 of all of the WY air service and still doesn't qualify for me.  I don't know what prices are like in MT but Boise has lots of service from lots of airlines including the low fare likes of Frontier, Southwest and America West (in addition to, of course, Delta, United, Alaska, Northwest, etc. etc.).  

If air service is at all a consideration, Idaho is the clear winner in the west.  Add to that the climate and geographic diversity, along with strong projected job growth and I really lean in that direction.  

MT, of course, would be the second choice in the west for air service (and most of those other issues).  The seemingly only redeeming quality of WY is its low population.

V-  (yeah, i'm in the aviation industry in case anyone's wondering or has any questions)
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: varrin on October 24, 2002, 11:43:38 am

MT, of course, would be the second choice in the west for air service (and most of those other issues).  


And Billings just moved up in the rankings:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/021024/lath055_1.html

HP just announced service.  That makes me a little more comfortable with Billings for air travel purposes.

V-

Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Ipass on October 25, 2002, 06:24:48 pm
Hello all, recent addition to the project.  Learned of the FSP through a debate forum in Mindfulwisdom.  This is a very comforting thing to know that many feel the same way that I do about going anywhere for the FSP.  After all the debates I have been reading off the Email group I was starting to think that it was hopeless to get people to agree.  But as long as we have people willing to adapt to any environment to make it possible, WOOHOO!

Don't know how many of you are also in the situation I am, but I have three politically passive friends that go where ever I go.  They may not be activists, but they sure voters. 8)
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Stumpy on October 25, 2002, 07:32:29 pm
Welcome Ipass.

Maybe you can convince your 3 buddies to become politically active and join the FSP.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Ipass on October 25, 2002, 08:01:52 pm
Oh believe me I am trying, though they are reluctant to be active in anything, including activity.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: JT on November 01, 2002, 04:18:05 pm
I know what you're saying Ipass.  As a younger person, I find it frustating that many 'kids' my age don't seem to care about politics.  It's amazing how many people seem to have Libertarian tendencies that are apathetic to the world of politics.  A lot of my friends agree with many (but not all) of my views.  But very few seem to care enough to make their voice heard.  I've convinced two of my friends to vote in the upcoming election, so I guess that's a start.  I know it will take time to convince even one of these two that the FSP is a worthwhile cause.  People may agree with the FSP's goals, but not everyone is willing to pack up and move.  If I can't convince anyone to commit to the FSP then I'm gonna be lonely for a little while (although with so many like-minded individuals in the new state it shouldn't be too tough to make friends).  
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Lykaina on November 05, 2002, 07:50:46 pm
Hello, all. I'm new to the forum as well, but my husband and I have been discussing the FSP for a couple of months.

I have to admit there are states I would rather not live in. Fortunately, none of those states have ever even come up as being in the running. I guess, in effect, I'd go anywhere the Free State decides.

As an at-home mom, employment is not my biggest concern, but quality education is. However, if push came to shove, I'd homeschool her. Has anyone considered various states' legislation for homeschooling? In IL (where we are currently), there are no regulations for homeschool, as such. A parent doesn't need any particular certification to educate their child.

- Lykaina
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 05, 2002, 09:27:51 pm
Hi Lykaina--

You can find data on homeschooling regulations on our State Data page:

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

Or on the Homeschool Legal Defense Association website:

http://www.hslda.org
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: thewaka on November 10, 2002, 07:53:10 pm

Has anyone considered various states' legislation for homeschooling?

Lykaina, Hi! I am new here, too. Just found out about the FSP a week ago. Homeschooling is the reason we had already planned to move from Pennsylvania, the 49th worst state to HS in (NY is worse at 50th place). We had already considered Idaho and Wyoming so were excited to see them on the list. The other consideration for which state was the gun laws--CCW permit had to be available (although Vermont is the only state that seems to understand the 2nd amend.).

Of the 10 states on the list, only four have reasonable HS laws: ID, MT, WY, and AK. I would have VT at the top of my list if their HS law was not so draconian. However, just as we have considered here, we would HS underground if the laws were unreasonable. We do not believe it necessary to obey laws that are immoral, unethical, and/or unconstitutional.

Hope to hear from more HSers (or potential ones) on this issue!

Diana
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 10, 2002, 08:02:01 pm
thewaka, welcome aboard. Hope to get your vote for Wyoming.  ;D  

Homeschooling is a key issue for me and the misses also.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: varrin on November 10, 2002, 09:19:07 pm
Of the 10 states on the list, only four have reasonable HS laws: ID, MT, WY, and AK.

Homeschooler here (kids will be 1 and 2 in January).  This is, in the short term, a blow to the eastern states.  Of course, in the long term, this problem would likely be resolved.  Here in the PRC, they're considering regulating homeschoolers.  At the moment, it's not as bad as some states (surprisingly), but *no* regulation would be far superior.

V-  (in Fresno, the heart of the PRC.. ;-)

Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Zxcv on November 15, 2002, 04:38:29 pm
I'm a newbie in the last couple of days, too.

I haven't taken the poll. I would move anywhere, and do anything, to live free. However this is not like the old days when wife had to follow husband wherever he chose to go. I am not willing to divorce my family to move to a free state.

I am working on her, but she is definitely a fair-weather kind of person (and we prefer the West, by the way). You'd think she'd go along since her family was driven out of China by the commies long ago :o, but she's more practical than I am!

She actually owns a business that could probably be moved anywhere!   :P

I'm kinda wondering about the possibility of establishing residence there in the Free State, but spending the winters in a place like Nevada or Arizona. It would be at least some help to the FSP, I suppose.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: varrin on November 16, 2002, 05:28:02 pm
Wow... You'd think I woulda thought of that... Not a bad idea...

Title: A more explicit poll ?
Post by: Sylvain Poirier on November 25, 2002, 09:53:00 am
Why not make the following more explicit poll: For each of the candidate states, would you go there if it was the elected state : Yes, no, undecided ?
Maybe because it would be technically more difficult to implement (10 polls at the same time) ?
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: dmmccleary on December 10, 2002, 05:02:53 pm
I agree. I am in my late 40's and a professional (attorney in sole practice). Moving will require new licensure and a new client base. I am willing to consider a new "career" , but unwilling to "start all over".

Yeah this is a cool poll.  Can anyone make one or just you powerfull people?
Anyway I had to answer "There a few states I'd go to but that's it" because my responce should have been:
"I'll go to any state where I can find a job in my field but unfotunately that's probably only a few states"
just FYI.
-Eddie
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Liberator on December 10, 2002, 07:37:58 pm
When I first signed up I had some reservations about certain states. I am now undecided about where I would be willing to go.

New Hampshire is my first choice as most of my family is from Maine and I would like to be near them. I am unwilling to rule out any state because my objective is  FREEDOM!

I hope this project really takes off soon as I am ready to move now!!
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Jack Harrison on December 17, 2002, 08:22:55 am
Hi all. I signed onto the project some time ago but this is my first foray into the message boards. I'm from Maryland so we get a dose of about every kind of weather possible throughout the year. We also get a dose of the worst kind of repressive government all year long.

My wife is slowly coming around to see the light, but she'd be happy to just move anywhere from here.

Me - while I'd prefer warm, I'd eat broken glass to be free. Gimme what you got, I'm there. I just hope it isn't cold 10 months out of the year.

As a career I'm an IT network management geek. As a life, I do the Ironman triathlon and related silly athletic challenges, am an avid woodworker, gardener, and fishermen. My wife is an elementary school teacher, who outshines me in everthing that I did not mention specifically above. We have no kids, don't plan on having any, but we will be bringing 2 Golden Retrievers along with us.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: cathleeninsc on December 17, 2002, 08:39:30 am
Welcome and nice little bio. I am really looking forward to my future neighbors.

Cathleen in SC
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: redbeard on December 21, 2002, 02:51:48 am
Of the 10 states on the list, only four have reasonable HS laws: ID, MT, WY, and AK. I would have VT at the top of my list if their HS law was not so draconian. However, just as we have considered here, we would HS underground if the laws were unreasonable. We do not believe it necessary to obey laws that are immoral, unethical, and/or unconstitutional.

Kudos on your willingness to educate your kids outside the realm of government. Many of my friends homeschool and I know it's no easy task -  and one that requires true parenting.

Maybe us Wyoming nuts can win you over! It's a great place to teach kids and raise horses and climb mountains and grow vegetables and be free and...

Ooops.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: holy instant on January 10, 2003, 06:16:01 pm
There may be other alternatives.

I like this one:  "I'll go anywhere the Holy Spirit sends me and if that happens to be the State chosen by the FSP, I'll participate fully."

Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vermass on January 23, 2003, 10:45:18 pm
  I answered "some states I won't go to". First of all, getting a job is not an issue with me. I'm a nurse. Unless you just landed from Mars, you know there's a nationwide nursing shortage. I can probably even get a new employer to pay my moving expenses! Why than my answer. Have you ever been to Delaware? Who in their right mind wants to live in Delaware? I'm also not sure I'd go BACK to Alaska. It is thee most beautifull place on earth (I've travelled, just take my word for that). The thing about Alaska is: it's very cold. You're gonna say "no kidding". I'm gonna say "no, REALLY cold". I live in Ma. now on the Vt. border, up in the hills, it's -3 out right now and has hit zero every day for the past ten days now. I grew up here, I'm used to the cold. My mother once asked me " the diference between -50 and 0 isn't the same as the diference between 0 and 50 though is it"? It is! 50 "on the downside" as they call it in Alaska is THAT much colder than ZERO! If Alaska was at least as warm as Ma. I'd be there right now. Having said that the picture "Free State Project" is written on sure looks like the Green mountains in Vt!
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: DanTheTileMan on February 01, 2003, 06:34:01 pm
I had been looking at the possibility of moving to Idaho for some years now (way before coming across FSP).  I will be checking more into this possibility.  Should I move there and by some stroke of luck FSP goes there, too, I would consider it a bonus.  

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

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

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

Dan the Man
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Zxcv on February 25, 2003, 12:41:25 pm
Joe, I think I may have something for you.  ;D

I was thinking, it's too bad the LP, with the "World's Smallest Political Quiz", does not collect state residency information. I was poking around there, then Advocates for Self Government where the quiz came from, and found this   8)  :
http://www.self-gov.org/poll1208_libertarian_litmus_test2_b.htm

Well, I skedaddled over to
http://www.portraitofamerica.com/
but found their site was down...   :-\

However the information is out there somewhere, and presumably the state details are available.

The only thing I worry about is that the sample is small, 822 in the nation. So if they rationed it out by state according to population, that means Wyoming had 1.6 respondents!

Aaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!

Here is a WND article on them. Perhaps they've done a later survey. Or maybe we could commission a subsequent survey of our 10 states? Wonder how much that would cost...
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: AmericanFreeBird on March 05, 2003, 11:31:37 am
Well, I like most of the state possiblities.  I don't particularly care for a "land locked" one as the USA can cut off your access to other countries for free trade (and reenforcements).  NH is particularly attractive because it also cuts off Maine from the CONUS and makes it a likely second target!

Just thinking ahead!
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on March 21, 2003, 01:59:00 pm
I'm a military veteran with a service-connected disability.  However, I hate the "govt. trough" mentality that is turning this country into a welfare state.  I would go almost anywhere (Maine and Alaska not being options because of how the cold would affect my disability), but we would need to consider the library employment options for my wife - she is a professional librarian with a MLS degree.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on March 23, 2003, 01:03:47 pm
I'll go anywhere there's adequate medical care (that's qualified to treat my medical conditions) and the climate doesn't require the use of antifreeze to keep your blood flowing.


I've seen medical care mentioned a few times as a consideration.  Let me state a reason why it should NOT be a consideration.  Please bear with me - this will take a bit to articulate.

I first met my wife about 4 years ago.  At the time, she was already seeing specialists for treatment of endometriosis (non-cancerous tumors in the abdomin & feminin reproductive tissues) and was in moderate to severe pain most of the time.  She had(S) a good job, and got paid time off for sick-days rationed out per month, but she was using nearly all of it just to deal with the endo . . .

The specialists all knew the AMA approved treatment regime for this condition by heart, and never varied from it.  Everything they did made the problem worse!  Yes, WORSE!  Finally, about 2 years ago, she was told that the specialists only had one treatment option left - a radical hysterectomy.  She was 29.  Also, there was no guarantee of 2 things - that it would work, and that she would not be on HRT (hormone replacement therapy) for life as a result.  Since she didn't have any options (that we knew of), in May she scheduled the surgery for the end of November, 2000.  I'm forever thankful that that was the earliest date they could schedule.

What happened in the between time was that she was trying to save up sick-days to go with saved up vacation time and a job-approved medical leave, all to get the 3-6 months of time off she needed to recover from the surgery.  Alright - except that she was still having to deal with the (moderate to severe) pain from the endo on a regular basis - making saving the sick-days tough.  Finally, I got really pissed, and pointed out that this wasn't working.  It was the beginning of October, and we didn't have near the amount of time-off the docs said she would need.  So, I suggested another idea (which we hadn't tried because it wasn't covered by her medical insurance).  We went to a family friend who is a Chiropractor - and a certified instructor of the Sacro-Occipital Technique - a holistic medicine system.  He gave her a complete work-up, and put her on some basic nutritional supplements.  The next day she said she felt better than she had in a long time.  Two weeks later she said she was symptom free.  A week later - with absolute glee on her face - she called the OB/GYN who had scheduled her for surgery, and canceled her appointment.  She has remained symptom free ever since.

Another thought - during all of this, she was also seeing specialists for Asthma and Allergies.  Yes, she carried Albuterol with her all the time, and used it several times a week.  But, by continuing the Chiropractor's care, over the last 2 years the symptoms of both the Asthma and the Allergies have been fully corrected.

One final thought.  The American Medical Association is not your friend, and does not care about your being healthy.  It says in the AMA's own charter that the association exists to guarantee the PROFITABILITY of the practice of medicine in the US.  Now, any college business major can tell you that there are two things you need to maximize profitability - customers that NEED your goods/service, and guaranteed repeat business.  And there, in a nutshell, is the whole healthcare problem in the US.  The AMA doesn't want you well - they want to keep you comfortably ill enough that you need more care.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: larry on May 18, 2003, 04:16:58 am
Folks,

It was late at night, but I couldn't figure how to participate in the
Poll.

Help?

One comment:  I read someone writing that NH should be chosen
'cause it close to Boston.   Good Gawd, I want to be as damned
far away from a major metro area as I can get (and I am, in Idaho, though there is still symphony, rock concerts, and jobs) - and I would think all FSPers would!

So, it's West of Ole Miss for me!!  I ain't no ant in a metro hill, and
I don't even want to be close to one, and I cannot figure why
any FSper would!

So, I guess I ain't gonna get much help with voting, eh?

libertarian larry

Uhh, I *never* use the "S" word, but if there is a single New Hampshire supporter who uses it, well, lock that person up.  He/She, 'sides being nuts, is a threat to liberty.  At least, comes to it,
we could hide in Idaho, in the largest designated wilderness area
on Earth, and a border with Canada.   There'd be no damned way to hide from Boston, even without the "S" word.   What the hell have you NH supporters been thinking.  Fill me in, Pleeeuuuze!

As the former Goldwater supporter, turned Earth First founder,
Ed Abby, wrote, the best damned reason to save wilderness is
so the gummit can't find ya when it wants to.

BOSTON IS A POSITIVE FOR NH???   ROTFLMAO!!!  WHAT GROUP OF NUTS HAVE I SIGNED ON WITH??!!

LF





Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: kbarrett on June 03, 2003, 04:41:08 pm
I won't go to state X because (                      ).


Fill in the blank with "I'm not commited to this".


Bah. Picking a state will weed out the fence sitters.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on June 03, 2003, 04:55:36 pm
I'm liking the legal trends I've seen in 3 states lately.  They are Wyoming, Montana, and New Hampshire.  I don't know what Idaho has going for it that WY/MT don't have, but I do think that the vote will be interesting.

The international boarder isn't a plus - because it gives the gumment justification to regulate our boarder.  This has been pointed out, and exhaustively discussed, elsewhere.

BTW, The only reason I can't go to AK, ND, ME is because of the effect the weather would have on my military disability, so don't scream that everyone who opts out of a state isn't committed to the success of this.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: scottrk29 on June 14, 2003, 08:17:32 pm
     The perceptions that westerners have of the east are  a little skewed . The idea that a major metropolis is within forty miles doesn't mean much to those of us on the east coast. The fact that most cities and towns ( even small towns) have almost all the conveniences in them means that we don't travel to areas that don't interest us. There are actually 20 and 30 acre farms within 15 miles of Boston that are family owned and run. Heck there are even coop farms in Boston common. The notion that living in New Hampshire makes you a part of the metro Boston area is not even close to reality. Many of us Taxachusetts natives go to New Hampshire to get away from the rat race that exists within the pockets of our state. New Hampshire gives the best of both worlds, an area close enough to a metropolis that jobs are available without having to drive excessive miles to find them. Also the fact that many of the smaller companies that would benefit from deregulation, are moving to the areas just outside of metropolis areas (NH. Maine,VT,RI)so that they can take advantage of lower overheadthan if they were in Boston but remain close enough that their prices don't suffer from excessive distance. There is much to be said for the theory keep your friends close and your enemies closer its hard for your enemy to destroy your resources or restrict them if he also depends on them. A trip to an area that statists can just cordon off could leave the movement in a bad and probably dangerous situation. Just my opinion.                                                                                                                       Thanks for listening,                                                                                                                           Scott
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on June 14, 2003, 09:03:32 pm
I was poking around there, then Advocates for Self Government where the quiz came from, and found this   8)  :
http://www.self-gov.org/poll1208_libertarian_litmus_test2_b.htm




That web site is down, at least temporarily.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: JasonPSorens on June 16, 2003, 04:51:13 pm
Just calculated some figures on how many members opt out of how many states...

Opted out of 0: 1715 (42%)
Opted out of 1: 605 (15%)
Opted out of 2: 256 (6%)
Opted out of 3: 275 (7%)
Opted out of 4: 295 (7%)
Opted out of 5: 241 (6%)
Opted out of 6: 267 (7%)
Opted out of 7: 194 (5%)
Opted out of 8: 71 (2%)
Opted out of 9: 158 (4%)
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: jeanius on June 16, 2003, 05:30:17 pm
Ouch!  I know that new folks who opt out of nine can't be members but what's with this opt out of 8, 7, 6 thing?  The opting out that I can understand is by coast.  If you have family, especially previous marriage children, I can see not wanting to be a country away, or wanting to be near aging mother etc.  but opting out of 6, 7, & 8 seems excessive.  I guess it isn't just about liberty for some.

Jean
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: scottrk29 on June 16, 2003, 05:53:29 pm
      Jeanius,                                                                                                             These opt-outs of 6,7,8, can be comprised of people who did make a decision about coast but then also included the criteria of feasibility. I haven't joined yet and probably will wait til after the vote,but from my point of view I could only vote for N.H.(I'm from the east coast)Montana, and possibly Wyoming. I wouldn't be choosing the other states because not enough enthusiasm exists for those states or I see roadblocks to their prospects of success. (I think Vt. and Me. are only realistic after N.H. is successful.)
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: jeanius on June 16, 2003, 11:14:53 pm
And I'm looking at it from the other direction.  Enthusiasm will determine the target state via voting.  Any of the 10 states we choose could be successful if we actually end up with 20,000 (minimum) citizens there.  We (husband and I) have not opted out of any state and will move to which every state is selected.  

I agree that choosing the state based on its ability to succeed is the smart way to go.  But I believe that is an issue for voting - not opting out.  We will vote based on where we think the Free State Project will be most likely to succeed but will move to whichever state is chosen.  

Jean

Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Chad Warner on June 23, 2003, 12:25:45 pm
I would just like to reiterate something that Scott pointed out.  Most people out west are blown away by how "small" the eastern states are.  They think that we are stacked in like sardines.  I don't think that is so accurate.

A friend of mine just gave the short New England tour to a friend of his from eastern Washington state.  His friend from out west was shocked by how much country living could be found just 1 hour east of Boston.  He was surprised that it wasn't just one big strip mall from the coast inland.  

Urban sprawl IS a problem but not nearly so bad in New England as can be found in some of the southern states.  Are the towns that are growing in Montana and Wyoming growing up or out? In the east, people have been living and building for almost 400 years.  In time, the western states will have to deal with this.  I can't see how moving 30,000 people to Missoula wouldn't change its look pretty quick.

The bottom line for me,  I can't wait to see where we all end up.  I hope it is New Hampshire.  I have visited Wyoming and Montana and would move there if that is the vote.

I hope that people who are opposed to moving east because they will feel cramped at least come and take a look.  Fly into Manchester and drive north.  You might be surprised.  

Chad
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: jeanius on June 23, 2003, 12:46:07 pm
I think Easterners think moving West is undesirable and Westerners think moving East is undesirable.  The question becomes will they cross the country for FSP?  We will.  Check out my husband's essay "50 Things All the States Have in Common" in the articles section.  It puts things in perspective.

Jean
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on June 23, 2003, 01:08:44 pm
My wife and I are "somewhere in between" the East states and the West states - being in Missouri.  So, we have no vested interest in any of the states.  There are criteria that we have to evaluate:  Whether she can get work there, how the weather will affect my military disability, etc.  I think there are only 3 states we can't go to.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: BobW on June 24, 2003, 01:10:10 pm
Hi Vepope,

Im sure Madam Vepope can find work anywhere with her skills in LS.  For what it's worth, ref the "etc" you typed above; ..

About 3 times a month I drive someone to meetings/events with DAV.  He is 100% SCD and mentioned he is concerned he will be thrown in to the medicare/mediaid pool.  

This leads me to mention that the "etc" might involve using the regional VARO as a personal criteria for yourself.  Prudhoe Bay, Alaska might not help you but being within a favorable VARO venue will definitely be important.

Then, again, I could be wrong.  The Senate Veterans Affairs Committee could blame us all for being at the wrong place at the wrong time and make all the VAROs equally bad.


BobW
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on June 24, 2003, 09:40:20 pm
Hi BobW -

I admit to not being very creative with picking my "nickname" here.  It's just my first and middle initial, followed by my last name.  Please, just call me Vernon - and defiinitely NOT "Vern" - I had nothing to do with Jim Varney's rise to fame.  :D

About Mrs. VEPope's ability to get a job - that is limited by the fact that she doesn't want to start work for a state funded school, and thus become a part of the problem we are working against.  The number of institutions that don't get government funding, and hire librarians, and can pay them a decent wage, are small anywhere.

As for the various VARO's, the best I've heard of is Seatle, WA.  Since it isn't in a candidate state, it won't help much.  When I lived in Wichita, KS, my disability was rated at 30% permanent (that is only the injuries related to my military service) but upon moving to MO that 30% was cut to 10%. ???

I don't know anything about evaluations on the VARO's in the candidate states.  As far as I can tell, VA hospital care in almost all states stinks.  It would be my guess that the only good way to compare them would be to see how each VARO would rate the same veteran with the same disability.  

But then, what do we expect from an outfit that would keep a person with a foreign object in his foot sitting in the ER waiting room for 6 hours before evaluating the injury for treatment?  Mind you, that person was me, and as a veteran with a service connected disability, I am supposed to get priority over anything other than life-threatening situations!

So, the VARO's probably won't help us that much, but being somewhere that I can either get work based on my limited skills (an ex-wife wasted my VA Voc-Rehab benefits) or create a new income stream would be better.  I'm seriously thinking of taking NRA Instructor Certification courses when they resume in the Fall, and having that as a back-up when we move to the Free State.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: BobW on June 25, 2003, 01:07:53 am
Hi Vernon,

Re: # 67;

There is an informal rating of VAROs. I hesitate to obtain the list because it is changing very rapidly - just like VAMCs - all bad.

Work is available but obtaining it requires organizational assistance.  When time permits, I'll IM you some scratch notes of mine on my idea.


BobW
Title: Set in your ways?
Post by: synthbaron on September 08, 2003, 01:54:49 pm
How many here will only move to their top state, and how many don't care which one is picked?
Title: Re:Set in your ways?
Post by: Rearden on September 08, 2003, 02:06:04 pm
How many here will only move to their top state, and how many don't care which one is picked?

I care quite a bit which state is picked, as there are some very real differences between the states in terms of liberty-orientation and, perhaps even more importantly, accessibility of the political system.  

However, whichever state wins I will go.  The difference is when.

Some states I am confident can attract the next 15K members by September 2006, necessary to keep the project alive and not strand the early movers a la Fort Collins.  If one of those states wins (NH, DE, ID) then I will do my level best to be there next summer.  If a different state wins, one that I doubt can attract the next 15K by 9/06 (AK, WY, ND) then I will likely wait until the project's future is no longer in doubt before moving.

The four states I did not list above (MT, ME, VT, SD) are all states that may, IMO, be able to draw the 15K members.  They are borderline, and if one of them wins I will see how the new membership numbers react to the announcement and study the trendline before deciding exactly when to move.
Title: Re:Set in your ways?
Post by: Dave Mincin on September 08, 2003, 09:44:27 pm
Surprise! :D  Which state matters to me too!  If NH wins I will do my best to get there quickly, but if not I will honor my committment to move to the state selected, but I will need to have some confidence that we have something going on there that can work, which I see little of now.  Just not into being a stranger in a strange land! :(

After all hello real world, it is not so easy to give up much that I hold dear!  Bottom line, I will go but will look to have a bag of money first!
Title: Re:Set in your ways?
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 10, 2003, 11:03:28 am
Surprise! :D  Which state matters to me too!  If NH wins I will do my best to get there quickly, but if not I will honor my committment to move to the state selected, but I will need to have some confidence that we have something going on there that can work, which I see little of now.  Just not into being a stranger in a strange land! :(

After all hello real world, it is not so easy to give up much that I hold dear!  Bottom line, I will go but will look to have a bag of money first!

Either bag of money, or very well researched marked and well defined plan for the own business. Some places will not provide too much job opportunities.
I am afraid if some of the states would be elected, there will not be a chance to attract 20 K in planned time. Without “critical mass” (20K) project will be just another repetition of “Freedom Now” project. It would be a shame. At the same time if some other state would be elected, success is on the horizon.
Everything depends if state population is open minded, if it is libertarian oriented, if there is the plan of action, if there is support of other grass root organizations like Tax Payers in NH, if there is growing economy and abundance of work? If mentality of members let us predict their successful activism and getting the goals?
If such a state is elected I would move without looking back at 20 K who will come for sure.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on September 10, 2003, 11:20:47 am
I know that you think you have carefully considered the "important variables," but I must throw a wet blanket on your statements.  Consider this - - 10K in WY can actually have a larger impact on the politics of the state than 20K will have in NH.  WY is the lowest population state of the 10, while NH barely fits within the limits right now.  In 5 years, NH will be half again as large, according to some forecasts of it's growth.  That puts it more than 25% OVER the maximum population size that we can hope to effectively impact with a full 20K of members.

As for the liberty orientation of the citizens already there, WY was the first state to make law a resolution placing FED agents under the authority of local law officers.  Also, WY has never had a state law against open carry of firearms by law abiding citizens.  They have very generous hunting/trapping laws, and are very liberty oriented on home schooling.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 10, 2003, 11:37:34 am
<- 10K in WY can actually have a larger impact on the politics of the state than 20K will have in NH >
That is true. Percentvise.
Also it is not “critical mass” see Fort Collins
Also

<As for the liberty orientation of the citizens already there, WY was the first state to make law a resolution placing FED agents under the authority of local law officers. Also, WY has never had a state law against open carry of firearms by law abiding citizens. They have very generous hunting/trapping laws, and are very liberty oriented on home schooling.>

Just tell me if you will be successful in changing mind of the locals into more libertarian?
You know that locals will at first be more like Republicans, do not you?
No matter WY or NH, we will not do ANYTHING!!! By ourselves. We will need local people. In NH it will be easy. How about WY?
It is not important how many people live there in the state X, but what kind of the people.
In NH population is benefit for FSP, not a disadvantage.

Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on September 10, 2003, 11:58:37 am
I used to live in WY - in Gillette.  There was a very large "live & let live" sentiment there.  Then, there are the other examples that I've already cited of the liberty-friendly orientation of the locals.  Next, elections are pretty inexpensive to run.  There is no statewide income tax or property tax (I think - my memory is a bit addled by pain killers).

To anticipate the question about how the attitudes might have changed since I moved from WY, I have an uncle who still lives there, and at least Gillette hasn't changed at all.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 10, 2003, 12:01:59 pm
You did not ansver me if you can easyli influence opinionated locals :(
Did the local grass roots organizations extended hand to FSP?
Do we have the plan of the action in WY?
This questions are important
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on September 10, 2003, 12:17:23 pm
I don't know of any grass roots orgainizations - perhaps because WY history is so strongly pro-liberty that there hasn't been much call for orgainizing to fight it before.  As for the "plan of the action" - it is my understanding that Jason has a basic master plan that will be followed, and it will be used no matter where we move to.  I'm sure some adjustments to fine tune it will be done depending on each state's needs, but that is to be expected.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 10, 2003, 12:52:15 pm
I don't know of any grass roots orgainizations - perhaps because WY history is so strongly pro-liberty that there hasn't been much call for orgainizing to fight it before.  As for the "plan of the action" - it is my understanding that Jason has a basic master plan that will be followed, and it will be used no matter where we move to.  I'm sure some adjustments to fine tune it will be done depending on each state's needs, but that is to be expected.
I am not asking what Jason might have unrevealed. What we all know his plan is to cause to move 20K to the state X.
Those who moved will act on their own.
From that point everything is spontaneous,. and will depend on the activism of the individuals.
For example local organizations in NH have already plans, point by point what needs to be done and they are prepared to help those who will volunteer to run and win the offices. Some grass root organizations like National Tax Payers volunteer training for porcupines running for offices if FSP will elect NH.
Some businesses keep openings for potentially interested porcupines.
Local NH libertarians and other local porcupines are preparing banks of information for newcomers, regarding houses, land for sale, jobs available. There are under consideration different counties and related to those counties political goals and needs.
This kind of activism and plans are crucial for FSP.
Please tell me if such activism is known to you in WY or wherever?
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on September 10, 2003, 01:39:49 pm
Crucial????  Not even.   Useful ????  Unarguably.  It looks like a lot of preparation to attempt to lure us there, but the only part that is really of value on the surface is the plan of political actions.  

Holding jobs?  Worthless, unless you know for sure that there are qualified porcupines to fill them.

Banks of data on land sale and homes?  Unnecessary duplication - all of that is already available through realtors.

Jobs available information?  Already exists in a half-dozen different places, including the local papers and state job service offices.

Finally, there is the whole "over 25% bigger" population than what the models are calling for us to effectively influence.  You are totally discounting that because a small number of people are working very hard to make one state look very appealing.  Are you already a resident of NH?  One of those NH porcupines who opted out of every other state?  Should we consider states of over 3 million people if there are 30 there that are working like dogs to gather information that any intelligent person can get on the internet?
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 10, 2003, 01:59:24 pm
From your posts I see you disregard planning and preparation. Also activism. I am confused. What is important from your point of view?
As for the population , if there was 3 million libertarians somewhere it would be no problem with that big population the same as I do not have any problem with 1.3 mil. Of easy population in NH. But I do have problem with .5 mil. of difficult population of WY.
NH-ities  will do whatever they do with FSP or without. With FSP the success would be quick and easy. That is why I promote that state.
As to where I am from – that is CT. I was in NH few times though.
And I am glass eater if that was what you’ve asked.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: johnadams on September 10, 2003, 02:09:00 pm
Quote
Tony Stelik wrote: Please tell me if such activism is known to you in WY or wherever?

Crucial????  Not even.   Useful ????  Unarguably.  It looks like a lot of preparation to attempt to lure us there, but the only part that is really of value on the surface is the plan of political actions.  

Holding jobs?  Worthless, unless you know for sure that there are qualified porcupines to fill them.

Banks of data on land sale and homes?  Unnecessary duplication - all of that is already available through realtors.

Jobs available information?  Already exists in a half-dozen different places, including the local papers and state job service offices.

Finally, there is the whole "over 25% bigger" population than what the models are calling for us to effectively influence.  You are totally discounting that because a small number of people are working very hard to make one state look very appealing.  Are you already a resident of NH?  One of those NH porcupines who opted out of every other state?  Should we consider states of over 3 million people if there are 30 there that are working like dogs to gather information that any intelligent person can get on the internet?

I'll translate vepope's words so that laconic New Englanders can understand them:


"Nope."
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on September 11, 2003, 12:46:35 pm
Johnadams - you don't need to translate my answers - they are clearly written for anyone to understand.  Second, you quoted one of my posts as if it was a reply to the post you quoted above it, putting it in a totally different context than it was written in.  That is dishonest.
Quote
Tony Stelik wrote: Please tell me if such activism is known to you in WY or wherever?

Crucial????  Not even.   Useful ????  Unarguably.  It looks like a lot of preparation to attempt to lure us there, but the only part that is really of value on the surface is the plan of political actions.  

Holding jobs?  Worthless, unless you know for sure that there are qualified porcupines to fill them.

Banks of data on land sale and homes?  Unnecessary duplication - all of that is already available through realtors.

Jobs available information?  Already exists in a half-dozen different places, including the local papers and state job service offices.

Finally, there is the whole "over 25% bigger" population than what the models are calling for us to effectively influence.  You are totally discounting that because a small number of people are working very hard to make one state look very appealing.  Are you already a resident of NH?  One of those NH porcupines who opted out of every other state?  Should we consider states of over 3 million people if there are 30 there that are working like dogs to gather information that any intelligent person can get on the internet?

I'll translate vepope's words so that laconic New Englanders can understand them:


"Nope."


I stand by what I said.  Further, I pose a question.  What percentage of those NH residents are working to assist porcupines in freeing NH?  Is it 30% of the established voting population?  Or even 20%?  Get provable statistics.  Then, add to that number 20K porcupines, and figure out what percentage of the new total population (adjusted for growth - assuming that natural predicted growth won't necessarily be pro liberty) will be with us.  It is true that we won't be working alone, but if we don't plan for the maximum impact AS IF WE ARE ALONE, we lessen our chance of success - because we can't control how many else we will reach.

WY is not the only state that I like, either.  I like Montana, AK, and SD for the same reasons - low population numbers, low growth expections, and existing liberty - friendly attitudes.

Quote
Tony Stelik wrote: From your posts I see you disregard planning and preparation. Also activism. I am confused. What is important from your point of view?
As for the population , if there was 3 million libertarians somewhere it would be no problem with that big population the same as I do not have any problem with 1.3 mil. Of easy population in NH. But I do have problem with .5 mil. of difficult population of WY.
NH-ities  will do whatever they do with FSP or without. With FSP the success would be quick and easy. That is why I promote that state.

Tony, I do not discount planning, preparation, or activism. However, we can each do our own planning, job hunting, house hunting, etc, in a few hours, and there are no NH business people there who know for sure that the job openings that they have right now are able to be filled by qualified porcupines - unless those jobs are at Burger King or Quick Trip.

As for activism, I do, however, want provable statistics on how much of it there is.  It will make a big difference going into a state like NH, because so many other numbers are already going against us.  We need to see an existing base of 50 to 60% of the established voting population (without us) already being activists on projects we would support, just to be sure of not falling below 50% with the projected growth over the next 5 years.  Can you produce that?
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 11, 2003, 01:46:09 pm
Quote
Johnadams - you don't need to translate my answers - they are clearly written for anyone to understand.  Second, you quoted one of my posts as if it was a reply to the post you quoted above it, putting it in a totally different context than it was written in.  That is dishonest.


Actually Johnadams posted honestly. I asked you and first you did not respond directly than you posted your opinion that no activities are needed. That meant no activities are going on in WY or WY camp. Shortly “nope” is what you could post and Johnadams did that for you.


The rest of responce comming
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 11, 2003, 02:02:47 pm

Quote

Quote from: johnadams on September 10, 2003, 03:09:00 pm
Quote:
Tony Stelik wrote: Please tell me if such activism is known to you in WY or wherever?
 

Quote from: vepope on September 10, 2003, 02:39:49 pm
Crucial????  Not even.  Useful ?  Unarguably.  It looks like a lot of preparation to attempt to lure us there, but the only part that is really of value on the surface is the plan of political actions.

It is very poor choice of word “lure”. Those who are serious and professional do such easement for new comers. It will be like coming to foreign country, for many of us, and no matter which state will be elected. If somebody is coming to me from Europe I organize such easement myself (job, place for living, transportation etc.)

Quote
Holding jobs?  Worthless, unless you know for sure that there are qualified porcupines to fill them.
If CT was considered for FSP I would hold positions open in the department I surprise. (manufacturing)
And it is very good if somebody would hold the job for me in NH in the case NH is elected.
For what I know I will have to look for the job miles away on the other side of America for long time if WY is elected. I would not have idea today how to organize my moving to WY. Activism of westerners would be a lot of help – unfortunately there is no such a thing, and never will be.


The rest of responce coming
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 11, 2003, 02:10:40 pm
Quote
Banks of data on land sale and homes?  Unnecessary duplication - all of that is already available through realtors.

Very helpful. Local orientation. It is different if you live somewhere and you looking for property or house, or you do not know area and rely on internet and newspapers. If local activist help with the search you jumping over the obstruction of not knowing the terrain. If you go to realtors , they might have different objection than you and other porcupines.
Quote
Jobs available information?  Already exists in a half-dozen different places, including the local papers and state job service offices.
I have already address that. Besides I would skip newspapers and agencies when looking for job


More is coming
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 11, 2003, 02:35:43 pm
Quote
Finally, there is the whole "over 25% bigger" population than what the models are calling for us to effectively influence.
I think every contending state meets the population requirements. Some states were dropped out.

Quote
You are totally discounting that because a small number of people are working very hard to make one state look very appealing.
They are called activists. I understand ,you have never head of such thing out west.

 

 
 
Quote
I pose a question.  What percentage of those NH residents are working to assist porcupines in freeing NH?  Is it 30% of the established voting population?  Or even 20%?  Get provable statistics.


Nobody knows correct numbers. NH is the state where independents are most of the time libertarians.
Also in NH everybody is active politically. It is their hobby. Everybody knows Constitution of USA and of NH. It is state “do it yourself in politics”



more coming
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 11, 2003, 02:52:46 pm

Quote
Then, add to that number 20K porcupines, and figure out what percentage of the new total population (adjusted for growth - assuming that natural predicted growth won't necessarily be pro liberty) will be with us.  It is true that we won't be working alone, but if we don't plan for the maximum impact AS IF WE ARE ALONE, we lessen our chance of success - because we can't control how many else we will reach.

We will not be alone. We have to work with the local political forces and the population. But in WY we could be alone. That is why I said 1.3 million of easy population is no problem for me but .5 million difficult population is.

Quote
WY is not the only state that I like, either.  I like Montana, AK, and SD for the same reasons - low population numbers, low growth expections, and existing liberty - friendly attitudes.

So do I. I would chose this states if there was no FSP. It would be “running” from socialists and other statists. Since there is FSP I prefer to fight. NH is my strategic choice, for the good of FSP, not personal one

Quote
Tony, I do not discount planning, preparation, or activism. However, we can each do our own planning, job hunting, house hunting, etc, in a few hours, and there are no NH business people there who know for sure that the job openings that they have right now are able to be filled by qualified porcupines - unless those jobs are at Burger King or Quick Trip.

I prefer networking when looking for job and when I am active in politics. Also I would know that I could fill any number of positions in my department with qualified porcupines. Why NH businesses would not be able to do this?
Re Fast Food business, I guess this would be an option in WY?

The rest of the answer I am leaving to more qualified people living in NH.
As for now however I see I do not agree with your post in one sentence.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: johnadams on September 11, 2003, 03:52:46 pm
Johnadams - you don't need to translate my answers - they are clearly written for anyone to understand.  Second, you quoted one of my posts as if it was a reply to the post you quoted above it, putting it in a totally different context than it was written in.  That is dishonest.
Quote
Tony Stelik wrote: Please tell me if such activism is known to you in WY or wherever?

Crucial????  Not even.   Useful ????  Unarguably.  It looks like a lot of preparation to attempt to lure us there, but the only part that is really of value on the surface is the plan of political actions.  

Holding jobs?  Worthless, unless you know for sure that there are qualified porcupines to fill them.

Banks of data on land sale and homes?  Unnecessary duplication - all of that is already available through realtors.

Jobs available information?  Already exists in a half-dozen different places, including the local papers and state job service offices.

Finally, there is the whole "over 25% bigger" population than what the models are calling for us to effectively influence.  You are totally discounting that because a small number of people are working very hard to make one state look very appealing.  Are you already a resident of NH?  One of those NH porcupines who opted out of every other state?  Should we consider states of over 3 million people if there are 30 there that are working like dogs to gather information that any intelligent person can get on the internet?

I'll translate vepope's words so that laconic New Englanders can understand them:


"Nope."


I stand by what I said.  Further, I pose a question.  What percentage of those NH residents are working to assist porcupines in freeing NH?  Is it 30% of the established voting population?  Or even 20%?  Get provable statistics.  Then, add to that number 20K porcupines, and figure out what percentage of the new total population (adjusted for growth - assuming that natural predicted growth won't necessarily be pro liberty) will be with us.  It is true that we won't be working alone, but if we don't plan for the maximum impact AS IF WE ARE ALONE, we lessen our chance of success - because we can't control how many else we will reach.

WY is not the only state that I like, either.  I like Montana, AK, and SD for the same reasons - low population numbers, low growth expections, and existing liberty - friendly attitudes.

Quote
Tony Stelik wrote: From your posts I see you disregard planning and preparation. Also activism. I am confused. What is important from your point of view?
As for the population , if there was 3 million libertarians somewhere it would be no problem with that big population the same as I do not have any problem with 1.3 mil. Of easy population in NH. But I do have problem with .5 mil. of difficult population of WY.
NH-ities  will do whatever they do with FSP or without. With FSP the success would be quick and easy. That is why I promote that state.

Tony, I do not discount planning, preparation, or activism. However, we can each do our own planning, job hunting, house hunting, etc, in a few hours, and there are no NH business people there who know for sure that the job openings that they have right now are able to be filled by qualified porcupines - unless those jobs are at Burger King or Quick Trip.

As for activism, I do, however, want provable statistics on how much of it there is.  It will make a big difference going into a state like NH, because so many other numbers are already going against us.  We need to see an existing base of 50 to 60% of the established voting population (without us) already being activists on projects we would support, just to be sure of not falling below 50% with the projected growth over the next 5 years.  Can you produce that?

It seems obvious that Tony Stelik has read the posts by folks from the LPNH talking about the work people in NH have been doing to prepare the way for the FSP and Porcupines, so that the early movers will receive help right from the get-go, so that work on the foundation for the FSP and libertarian infrastructure is built up in prepartion for the later movers, and so the next 15,000 Porcupines after the initial 5,000 will be attracted more quickly, so that the whole project does not peter out before it reaches 20,000 signers. Tony, if I'm wrong and you haven't read the posts from the NH folks on how the work they have done to smooth the way for the FSP, please let me know.

Tony's fair and polite original question to you, VEPope, was (with some edits of mine, to try to help further clarify): "Just tell me if you [Wyoming Porcupines] will be successful in changing [the minds] of the locals into [a] more libertarian [orientation]?"

Tony further explained his question with the following:

"You know that [the WY] locals will at first be more like Republicans, do not you?
No matter WY or NH, we will not do ANYTHING!!! By ourselves. We will need local people. In NH it will be easy. How about WY?"

Instead of answering Tony's question directly and with specifics your next post talked vaguely about "the liberty-friendly orientation of the locals" in Wyoming. It has already been stated repeatedly by many people in these fora, including WY supporters, that no state is already the Free State, so there will need to be some persuading of at least some of the locals in any state, even with the addition of the 20,000 Porcupines. Jason Sorens has talked about this himself. The whole idea of Jason's master plan, according to Jason and others, is for the 20,000 Porcupines, in combination with other libertarian locals, to influence the rest of the people in the chosen state to move the state toward more freedom, and for the success of the Free State to then influence the rest of the nation.

So Tony asked you again, "Did the local grass roots organizations [extend a helping] hand to [the] FSP [yet]?" and "Do we have the plan of the action in WY?"

You answered him briefly by saying "I don't know of any grass roots orgainizations," but then you went on again about how WY is already strongly pro-liberty and how Jason has a master plan that will be used in any FSP state.

Tony then correctly explained Jason's master plan, in response to your comments:

"What we all know his plan is to cause to move 20K to the state X.
Those who moved will act on their own.
From that point everything is spontaneous, and will depend on the activism of the individuals."

And Tony then further explained what he is asking by saying, "Please tell me if such activism is known to you in WY or wherever?" In other words, Tony is not just asking if you know of any "grass roots organizations" in WY, he is asking if you know if there is ANY effort AT ALL in WY to help prepare the way for the FSP.

Once again you did not answer Tony's question, but instead picked at some of his comments.

I became frustrated by your failure to directly answer Tony's question, so I summarized your vague and tangential response with the word, "Nope," that I think neatly translates into direct and clear language what your answer is to the gist of Tony's questions (Do you know if there is ANY effort AT ALL in WY to help prepare the way for the FSP?).

Instead of either agreeing or disagreeing with my summation of your responses, you went on to criticize my post by claiming that my clipping of quotes for purposes of brevity and clarity "is dishonest." Would you PLEASE answer Tony's questions directly and with more than just a brief quip before moving on to your arguments for WY and against NH? If you disagree with my summary of your response, would you please give a clear, full and direct answer to the question of what, if any, efforts you know of are being made in WY to prepare the way for the FSP? Your claim that I am being dishonest would be a lot more convincing if you would answer Tony's questions clearly and directly.

VE wrote: "...I pose a question.  What percentage of those NH residents are working to assist porcupines in freeing NH?  Is it 30% of the established voting population?  Or even 20%?  Get provable statistics.  Then, add to that number 20K porcupines, and figure out what percentage of the new total population (adjusted for growth - assuming that natural predicted growth won't necessarily be pro liberty) will be with us.  It is true that we won't be working alone, but if we don't plan for the maximum impact AS IF WE ARE ALONE, we lessen our chance of success - because we can't control how many else we will reach."

I don't have statistics on this for NH or any state and I am not aware that they exist for any state. Do you have such statistics for any state? I would be interested in them if you do have them, though I think the more important thing is what sort of actual work is being done and will be done than these percentage statistics--but we may have to agree to disagree on that.

There is already pro-FSP activism in NH, now. If WY is as libertarian as you claim, why aren't we hearing about even more activism in WY? Are people just not telling us about it or does it not exist?
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: DadELK68 on September 11, 2003, 04:07:24 pm
As for activism, I do, however, want provable statistics on how much of it there is.  It will make a big difference going into a state like NH, because so many other numbers are already going against us.  We need to see an existing base of 50 to 60% of the established voting population (without us) already being activists on projects we would support, just to be sure of not falling below 50% with the projected growth over the next 5 years.  Can you produce that?

vepope, I agree with adams response - I don't think you'd be able to get 'provable statistics' like these numbers for any state in question - if even 30% of the population of any state were 'activists on projects we would support', the Free State would already exist.

Almost by definition, 'activists' are always a relatively small segment of the population; remember that at the time of the American Revolution the population was roughly divided into thirds - 1/3 for independence, 1/3 loyalists, 1/3 not wanting to be bothered. If you take that 1/3 in favor of independence, a much smaller fraction might be considered 'activists' - making changes in their lives to support the cause, even going so far as to try to convince others to join and having family members participate in the Continental Army (which constantly had problems with high rates of desertion, soldiers slipping away and going home before their term of enlistment was over).

Someone (such as Jason) probably has more accurate numbers, but I would suspect that if you looked at the percentage of 'activists' (according to the standards we're seeking) who were supporting independence in the Revolutionary War, it would be around or less than 10% of the total population. The other 20% in favor who supported them were probably much less 'activist', by our standards.

Even within this forum, it's evident that some are activists with the goal of demonstrating and spreading freedom, while some are only activists to the extent that they don't want to be bothered, they just want to be left alone.

If you sift through the many threads on this forum you'll see lots of numbers and many debates about 'provable statistics', their accuracy, validity and interpretation. This isn't to say that they aren't vital, but at this point what you see here is pretty much what's available - comparisons of past votes, proxy measures of underlying cultural inclinations. From there, the interpretation of the data is based on various combinations of experience and bias.

In my opinion, the data shows that while there is a strong underlying current for 'freedom' in much of the West, it's predominantly from a Conservative, rather than small-L libertarian, culture. Those states which have reasonable climates and economic strengths are attracting immigrants/refugees from the more statist states, many of whom are moving for economic reasons and many of whom are moving for reasons related to 'freedom' to varying degrees.

The same thing is happening in NH, except that the underlying culture is more small-l libertarian than it is conservative. The large numbers of 'Independents' in New England tend to mostly be 'fiscal conservatives, social liberals' - in other words, small-l libertarian. The reason various candidates do better or worse with this group has a lot to do with which issues seem most predominant - a pro-tax liberal doesn't get far in NH, but neither does a rabidly pro-life conservative. An anti-tax, pro-choice, pro-freedom candidate does very well, if they can get through the primary process with the more extreme bases of their respective parties.

Bottom line - be realistic, and try to be fair. Don't ask of NH or anyone else what you can't produce for WY or any of your other more favored states. Even if someone came up with some data indicating >50% of NH voters strongly favor various things on our agenda, I suspect you would dismiss it with claims that you fear being overwhelmed by statist immigrants.

Consider the numbers Jason used to arrive at the 20k number, and consider NH vs WY or the other Western states. In NH, elections have been closer between Dems and Repubs, with a high percentage of Independents as the 'swing voters'. Much of the reason for these close races goes back to what I just said - by the time a Dem or Repub makes it through their primary, they've had to appeal to the more extreme conservative or liberal voters who make up the base of their party, and the winners on both sides are largely distasteful to the large block of Independents.

However, in the North East when you get a relatively social liberal/fiscal conservative who manages to get through the primaries, they tend to be very popular and successful - Craig Benson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani (remember, I said relatively).

If 20k 'activists' come to NH and join with the small-l libertarians who already active in the NH Libertarian party, approach domination of the NH Republican party and do dominate the registered Independents, that will lead to >50% support for many changes (somewhat incrementally) on our agenda, through whichever party (or parties) works best.

Contrast that to many of the Western states which may be overwhelmingly dominated by Republicans, with the party controlled by social conservatives - and it's a much more difficult fight from the first round, because even if you have a greater percentage of Porcupines to population there is a greater percentage in the underlying population which will be resistant to the Porcupine agenda.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: johnadams on September 11, 2003, 04:07:42 pm
It is very poor choice of word “lure”. Those who are serious and professional do such easement for new comers. It will be like coming to foreign country, for many of us, and no matter which state will be elected. If somebody is coming to me from Europe I organize such easement myself (job, place for living, transportation etc.)

Quote
Holding jobs?  Worthless, unless you know for sure that there are qualified porcupines to fill them.
If CT was considered for FSP I would hold positions open in the department I surprise. (manufacturing)
And it is very good if somebody would hold the job for me in NH in the case NH is elected.
For what I know I will have to look for the job miles away on the other side of America for long time if WY is elected. I would not have idea today how to organize my moving to WY. Activism of westerners would be a lot of help – unfortunately there is no such a thing, and never will be.


The rest of responce coming

That is an excellent example, Tony. While help at the destination is more crucial for international migration, it is still also crucial for a mass migration within a nation--especially for those who will be moving great distances and are unfamiliar with the state they are moving to. This is so obvious that I do not know why someone is arguing this point with you.

I am familiar with how local immigrant groups help new immigrants to get situated in their new country and how they attract more migrants in this way and by communicating with people in the old country. Word spreads that people and groups in a certain city or town are very helpful in getting new immigrants situated and more people are thus attracted to that area. Usually, this involves earlier immigrants helping out later immigrants from the same national and/or ethnic background.

The same sort of thing will need to be done by native Porcupines, early movers, and their allies in the destination state if the FSP is to succeed. It is very disturbing that some people in these fora do not even recognize the importance of this.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: johnadams on September 11, 2003, 04:26:51 pm
....
I have already address that. Besides I would skip newspapers and agencies when looking for job
....

I hear you on that, Tony. In my own past career searches, newspapers and job agencies have been the least helpful. The most help has come from people I knew or came to know who live and work in the area I was moving to or resided in. The statistics I have seen in career search books and resources bear this out, as I recall. I am short on time right now, but anyone can look this up and verify it if they don't believe me or Tony.

In one of my newspaper-search nightmares early on in my career, one job that I applied for that was in a newspaper turned out to have over 8,000 applicants--for a single position. I had to wait for over an hour in a line and then fill out forms, take a screening test, present my resume and undergo a quick interview. When the interview was over the interviewer informed me that the opening did not really even exist!!! They were just collecting resumes in case a position opened up in the future. I later read an article that explained that this is a common practice that many corporations use. They put out ads even when there is not a job and keep resumes on file.

There are some actual openings for quality positions with quality companies in newspapers, but they tend to get a lot of responses. Networking is by far the most effective way to get a good job. If you have an inside connection you can find out about a job opening before it is publicized in the newspapers, and if you are lucky, the person doing the hiring may decide to take you without putting an ad out (this has happened to me), because few owners or managers enjoy the process of finding a new employee any more than job searchers enjoy looking for a job. A business may spend an enormous amount of time and effort to get a good person for a position, only to find out later that they are not what they expected, or have the person quit on them within a few months. I have been on both sides of the process and know it can be a pain from either side. Whatever networking and insider help you can get is invaluable--don't ignore it, you'll only be doing yourself a disservice.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on September 13, 2003, 07:59:05 am


That is an excellent example, Tony. While help at the destination is more crucial for international migration, it is still also crucial for a mass migration within a nation--especially for those who will be moving great distances and are unfamiliar with the state they are moving to. This is so obvious that I do not know why someone is arguing this point with you.

I am familiar with how local immigrant groups help new immigrants to get situated in their new country and how they attract more migrants in this way and by communicating with people in the old country. Word spreads that people and groups in a certain city or town are very helpful in getting new immigrants situated and more people are thus attracted to that area. Usually, this involves earlier immigrants helping out later immigrants from the same national and/or ethnic background.

The same sort of thing will need to be done by native Porcupines, early movers, and their allies in the destination state if the FSP is to succeed. It is very disturbing that some people in these fora do not even recognize the importance of this.

There is a difference of point of view here.  Westerners (I come from the plains states) have a very strong "independent" streak in them.  They prefer to do things for themselves, if possible, so they know it gets done right the first time.  

That also includes not asking the government to do it for them.  Something like the "Brady Bill"  or the "Patriot Act" wouldn't stand a chance in most of the "Midwest" or "North Central" states, because people prefer for government to just leave them alone most of the time.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: johnadams on September 14, 2003, 04:33:34 pm


That is an excellent example, Tony. While help at the destination is more crucial for international migration, it is still also crucial for a mass migration within a nation--especially for those who will be moving great distances and are unfamiliar with the state they are moving to. This is so obvious that I do not know why someone is arguing this point with you.

I am familiar with how local immigrant groups help new immigrants to get situated in their new country and how they attract more migrants in this way and by communicating with people in the old country. Word spreads that people and groups in a certain city or town are very helpful in getting new immigrants situated and more people are thus attracted to that area. Usually, this involves earlier immigrants helping out later immigrants from the same national and/or ethnic background.

The same sort of thing will need to be done by native Porcupines, early movers, and their allies in the destination state if the FSP is to succeed. It is very disturbing that some people in these fora do not even recognize the importance of this.

There is a difference of point of view here.  Westerners (I come from the plains states) have a very strong "independent" streak in them.  They prefer to do things for themselves, if possible, so they know it gets done right the first time.  

That also includes not asking the government to do it for them.
I think that a tradition/stereotype of "independence" and "orneriness" is something that longtime residents of both the Mountain States and New England have in common (recall that the American Revolution started here, for example). While no characteristic applies to everyone or in every case, I think this is an aspect of our historical cultures that we Yankees (New Englanders) and Mountaineers? can celebrate together in commiseration.

I don't know if you are implying it, but I wasn't talking about government help being crucial for immigrant newcomers, I was talking about private help from private citizens and groups. This is something that is well known and understood in immigrant communities--perhaps you have not heard of it?

A mass migration of 20,000 or more people will require the cooperation of a large network of people. A local infrastructure of people and other resources will be required to assist this project, regardless of what state is chosen. The sooner it is developed, the better for the FSP.

Quote
Something like the "Brady Bill"  or the "Patriot Act" wouldn't stand a chance in most of the "Midwest" or "North Central" states, because people prefer for government to just leave them alone most of the time.

I believe the Brady Bill and Patriot act are national, rather than state or local laws, and that the states weren't given any choice about enforcing them. Do you mean that there is not much chance of additional state restrictions on gun ownership or additional invasion of privacy by state government to be enacted in Midwestern or North Central states? The same could be said of New Hampshire (and no state has better gun laws than Vermont).
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on September 15, 2003, 08:25:38 am
I don't know if you are implying it, but I wasn't talking about government help being crucial for immigrant newcomers, I was talking about private help from private citizens and groups. This is something that is well known and understood in immigrant communities--perhaps you have not heard of it?

A mass migration of 20,000 or more people will require the cooperation of a large network of people. A local infrastructure of people and other resources will be required to assist this project, regardless of what state is chosen. The sooner it is developed, the better for the FSP.

Quote
Something like the "Brady Bill"  or the "Patriot Act" wouldn't stand a chance in most of the "Midwest" or "North Central" states, because people prefer for government to just leave them alone most of the time.

I believe the Brady Bill and Patriot act are national, rather than state or local laws, and that the states weren't given any choice about enforcing them. Do you mean that there is not much chance of additional state restrictions on gun ownership or additional invasion of privacy by state government to be enacted in Midwestern or North Central states? The same could be said of New Hampshire (and no state has better gun laws than Vermont).

Yes, JohnAdams, both are national.  I wasn't trying to imply that they weren't.  I was trying to say that the backers of those bills were FORCED to go for national legislation, because so many states wouldn't have passed them if given the chance.  Also, seeing that either bill makes major changes in the interpretation of existing constitutional law, they are both unconstitutional if for no other reason than that neither was sent to the states for ratification as a constitutional amendment.  That is the constitutional "due process" for amending constitutional law.  The current administration has blatantly disregarded that fact.

I wasn't saying that there is anything wrong with NH or VT gun laws, either.  But, some people posting on here seem to have found ONE PARTICULAR hobby horse to ride, and can't seem to see anything good about any other horse when compared with their favorite.  When I see something like that, I just feel compelled to point out the similarities of the others (they all have four hooves, two ears, two eyes, a tail, etc.)   ;)

It seems to me that we MUST plan as if we are going to be working alone, because initial local support is an unprovable unknown.  Because of that, we should pick a state where we have the greatest chance of  success without help.  There are 2 0r 3 states where we could perhaps carry a ballot with only 10K members.  In NH, 5 years from now, 20K might not make a measurable difference.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: johnadams on September 15, 2003, 12:02:52 pm
....
I wasn't saying that there is anything wrong with NH or VT gun laws, either.  But, some people posting on here seem to have found ONE PARTICULAR hobby horse to ride, and can't seem to see anything good about any other horse when compared with their favorite.  When I see something like that, I just feel compelled to point out the similarities of the others (they all have four hooves, two ears, two eyes, a tail, etc.)   ;)
Well, Tony certainly does favor NH and he doesn't pretend otherwise, but his posts have generally been very civil and I think his questions were fair. If you choose not to answer them directly that is your right of course.

Quote
It seems to me that we MUST plan as if we are going to be working alone, because initial local support is an unprovable unknown.  Because of that, we should pick a state where we have the greatest chance of  success without help.  There are 2 0r 3 states where we could perhaps carry a ballot with only 10K members.  In NH, 5 years from now, 20K might not make a measurable difference.
There's nothing wrong with not taking anything for granted and being cautious, but the NH Porcupines and the LPNH have demonstrated their support and have done actual groundwork which could be verified if anyone doubts it. This is one advantage that NH has over the other states, though it is only one to consider among many factors when weighing the various states. Ignoring the help that NH offers would be irrational and only makes sense if one has opted out of that state or does not wish to acknowledge any of the plusses of that state.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on September 15, 2003, 01:52:40 pm
I do recognize that there are benefits to having help, particularly from those who are like minded.  That is the whole point of the FSP, isn't it?  But I do want to be cautious, and therefore question the NUMBERS of the LPNH and the NH porcupines.  The actual numbers that are with us at the polls are the factor that will swing any real advantage to our side, or not.

I also question how committed to the FSP some of the NH porcupines are, since they were the only sub group that I've heard of that joined the FSP, but effectivelly said that they were only with us if they wouldn't have to move, by opting out of every other candidate state.  That action alone makes me suspicious of everything else that comes out of NH - cautious but not unpersuadeable.  In truth, I have already sent in my ballot, and while I won't reveal everything about how I voted, NH did make the top 4, but wasn't number 1 because of the population growth predictions.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 15, 2003, 02:07:19 pm
I do recognize that there are benefits to having help, particularly from those who are like minded.  That is the whole point of the FSP, isn't it?  But I do want to be cautious, and therefore question the NUMBERS of the LPNH and the NH porcupines.  The actual numbers that are with us at the polls are the factor that will swing any real advantage to our side, or not.

I also question how committed to the FSP some of the NH porcupines are, since they were the only sub group that I've heard of that joined the FSP, but effectivelly said that they were only with us if they wouldn't have to move, by opting out of every other candidate state.  That action alone makes me suspicious of everything else that comes out of NH - cautious but not unpersuadeable.  In truth, I have already sent in my ballot, and while I won't reveal everything about how I voted, NH did make the top 4, but wasn't number 1 because of the population growth predictions.
I know that there is around 19 members who opted out all the other states. Also I know that if eastern state is elected big numbers of western members will drop out. I am not sure if you know that most if not all of active NH supporters are glass eaters.
I was skeptical about NH before I visited this state and talked to regular people. NH is already the most free state and NH people are most zealously guarding old “live free or die” style of life and they are passionately  politicking. I call this “do it yourself politics”
If we will find ourselves alone we are doomed to fail even in WY. We need locals to help in what we plan to do. I think WY population is more Republican than Libertarian that is why I am skeptical about WY.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on September 15, 2003, 05:42:29 pm
What is a "glass eater?"

As for WY being more republican than libertarian, that may be the way the registration goes.  I'll not argue that one, I could loose.  But, my own father is a registered republican, but he agrees with the libertarian party more than he realizes.  He won't change his affiliation, won't even talk about it, because he believes that US politics is a two-party system and that voting any other way is just wasting your vote.  I think a lot of people in the midwest feel the same way, but would support us on individual issues.  I admit - that is IMHO.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: johnadams on September 15, 2003, 05:51:36 pm
I do recognize that there are benefits to having help, particularly from those who are like minded.  That is the whole point of the FSP, isn't it?  But I do want to be cautious, and therefore question the NUMBERS of the LPNH and the NH porcupines.  The actual numbers that are with us at the polls are the factor that will swing any real advantage to our side, or not.
I appreciate your caution. I think Tony was talking more about the preparation work that people in NH have done and are doing than the numbers that NH proponents have quoted. Perhaps there was some misunderstanding here?

Quote
I also question how committed to the FSP some of the NH porcupines are, since they were the only sub group that I've heard of that joined the FSP, but effectivelly said that they were only with us if they wouldn't have to move, by opting out of every other candidate state.  That action alone makes me suspicious of everything else that comes out of NH - cautious but not unpersuadeable.
I haven't heard of this. Who is this "sub group"? Can you link me to where this subgroup said this?

Quote
In truth, I have already sent in my ballot, and while I won't reveal everything about how I voted, NH did make the top 4, but wasn't number 1 because of the population growth predictions.
I don't even have a vote, so I don't have much at stake here either. I think that NH, ID, WY, SD and DE all have numerous positive factors and even the other states have survived previous cuts and are better than most of the 50 states. My own weighting of the various factors on two FSP matrices came out with somewhat different rankings (which shows that much depends on which factors you include and how much you weight them), but these states fared well overall. There doesn't seem to be much support here for SD or DE, so I think that NH, ID or WY will win. I think NH and WY do especially well on some of the intangibles that are difficult to enumerate, and I think that some of the business and economic factors probably rank SD and DE higher than they actually deserve.

I'm thinking that WY's low population might hurt it in the actual vote, because there will be fewer people from there voting and Porcupines might be less willing to move there, but we'll see. I am also concerned that if NH is not selected, that a high proportion of Porcupines will be drained from that state, as it has the highest proportional membership in the FSP. It would not be good to undercut the exciting new progress that has been made there recently.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: vepope on September 15, 2003, 06:45:21 pm
responding to johnadams in post #99:

Your first question was: Perhaps there was som misunderstanding here?

I'm certain of it, looking back through the last 10-15 posts of the thread.  I don't doubt that there are porcupines in NH that are working very hard, but what I would like to know is how much impact they will add to ours at the voting booth.

Your second question is answered by Tony in post #97.  I have no information about what percentage of the NH porcupines did this, but I did learn a few months ago that it had happened and resulted in a change in the membership rules that restricted the number of opt-outs for active membership in the FSP.  Those 19 NH who were already in were allowed to keep their votes, but nobody else was given a vote if they weren't willing to move.

As for the rest, I doubt if SD or DE have any chance, along with ND, ME, AK, or (possibly) MT.  Although, since one of my hobby horses is gun freedom, I would like to see AK or MT or WY at the top, if that were my only concideration.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: johnadams on September 15, 2003, 07:40:04 pm
....what I would like to know is how much impact they will add to ours at the voting booth.
That is an interesting but different question that has been addressed elsewhere.

Quote
Your second question is answered by Tony in post #97.  I have no information about what percentage of the NH porcupines did this, ....

Actually, I was asking for a link so I can read about this myself, but I'll go by the 19 figure if both you and Tony accept it and no one can direct me to where this issue was originally discussed.

Regarding percentage: when the count of total members was 4,719, the count of NH-resident members was 154, so that 19 would represent only 12% of all NH-resident Porcupines at the time of that count. The total NH supporters from all states is likely to be much higher than 154, and since no more people were allowed to opt out of all other states, the percentage of total NH supporters who opted out of all states but one is likely to be very small.

Note that Tony also said: "Also I know that if eastern state is elected big numbers of western members will drop out." I don't know about big numbers, but I have seen posts in which WY supporters said they would not move to NH, so that would make the words of WY supporters suspect as well, using your criteria.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Michelle on September 15, 2003, 09:17:22 pm
Hi JohnAdams and Vepope -

I don't have time to read through this whole thread, but did want to clarify one thing. There were members in nearly every candidate state opting out of all but their own state. In NH, from what I understand, there were 20 prior to the rule change. BUT, as a percentage of the membership of each state, DE, AK, and MT all had higher percentages of opt outs than NH ever had.

Until this weekend, I didn't know who any of those 20 in NH were. This weekend I talked to someone who said they had opted out of all states but NH. The reason given was that they believe NH is the only place where success is really likely; if another state is chosen they plan to reevaluate their options then. I imagine the reason is pretty much the same for others who did this too.
Title: Re:Location Requirements (TAKE THE POLL)
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 16, 2003, 07:51:33 am
Quote
Posted by: vepope  Posted on: September 15, 2003, 06:42:29 pm  
What is a "glass eater?"
 

Glass eater means the member will go wherever. If there will be nothing to eat he / she will (exaggerating) eat glass  â€œGlass eaters” did not opt out any state, or they opted in any previously opted out states.
In NH process of freeing the state is underway by now. Therefore I have tremendous respect for NH porcupines who signed up to FSP inspite the process going in there. Even more respect for NH “glass eaters”. Their commitment to FSP is without precedence.
I know some people in VT who plan to move to NH and they do not sign up to FSP – they would be perfectly OK to opt out every state except NH, but they think it would not be ethical.
Many spouses do not sign up to FSP although they are willing to move to FS with their husbands / wives. Since they do not plan to be active, they think signing up for voting would not be ethical.
As for me, I would not have the problem with the people opting out all the states except the one they live in, but that is only my opinion. There are some people in WY who do not wish to move out of WY and that is perfectly OK. After all if one strongly believes his / her state is on the best way to freedom, decision not to move is rational. But if somebody signed up to FSP that means that person can see further than others and has more love for freedom than others. It is more honorable to create new political trend in America than have own little freedom in the neck of the woods.