Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: Penfist on October 27, 2002, 01:24:45 pm

Title: Proximity and related issues
Post by: Penfist on October 27, 2002, 01:24:45 pm
I am hearing a lot of opinions that any eastern state choice is doomed to failure due to the ease with which the feds would be able to interfere in matters. Although such speculation sounds plausible, I'm wondering if any of you have any idea if there would be a formulaic way to determine and prove such a theory.

I think the feds will be watching us closely no matter where we locate. Why will it be easier for them to stop us in New Hampshire than it would be in Montana or South Dakota? Waco is far removed from the seat of power. Ruby Ridge was far removed from the seat of power. The "Freemen" weren't operating anywhere near Washington, D.C.

Of course, the FSP is a completely different concept than any of the three examples I list, but if Washington, D.C. decides to paint the FSP as a weird cult or dangerous movement, it really won't matter what our geographic location is.

Someone convince me otherwise and give me a way to calculate scientifically how distance from Washington/liberalism=added chance of success.
Title: Re:Calculating the level of federal interference by location
Post by: Steve on October 27, 2002, 02:54:36 pm
Afghanistan and Iraq are also far from the seat of US federal power.  Fortunately in this day and age, CNN's cameras are never far away.  Furthermore, as long as we don't bear much resemblance to Branch Davidians, there will be no Waco-like incidents.  Jason, your wife won't let you have a harem of young girls, will she?
Title: Re:Calculating the level of federal interference by location
Post by: Penfist on October 28, 2002, 09:39:07 am
Good points, Joe.

I want to be rural without being too rural. I've already narrowed things down to Maine, New Hampshire or Montana for a variety of reasons. I don't want to be too far from medical care, and I love northern forests.

Also, as you pointed out, the Feds could wipe an isolated group off the face of the earth without anyone noticing, if they wanted too. With the current level of dishonesty and complete lack of morality being displayed by most of the Feds during my lifetime, I do want some neighbors who might miss me if I "disappeared."

I'm already pricing acreage in the four states, with the idea that once we reach 5,000, I'm going to dump my 401k and invest in land in the chosen state.
Title: Proximity and related issues
Post by: MLiq on January 02, 2003, 02:34:44 am
QUOTE:
"I just don't see such close proximity to the statist political and media machines (again, where they can easily march their reinforcements in when needed) as being an advantage. "

First of all, the US army does not keep most of its troops in NYC or DE.  They are all over the country.  No matter where we are it is quite easy for them to take action very quickly.  

Why it is good to be not in the middle of nowhere:  We need media exposure.  If you don't want the government to stop us, the media is our best weapon.  If it comes down to physical combat, I'm afraid I would place my wagers on the government.  But if we win the debate in front of the people, we win.  

The media is necessary to promote the FSP because we need all the people we can get.  We also need them to tell the world WHY we are doing things that most will not immediately understand due to the lies our gov. feeds them about drug legalization, and other issues.  True the news media has a liberal bent.  But there are many independent thinkers and even Libertarians in the national news media, print, television and radio.  

Add to that the fact that most of the country feels very set apart from the middle of the country, and states like Wyoming and the rest.  They are seen as  places were people who want to escape society go to be lawless and plot to overthrow the government.  I'm sorry, but this IS what people think because the only major news story to ever come out of these states besides Mt. St. Helens erupting has been militia groups.  People and the news media will think nothing of it if the government stops us out there.  They may even covertly sabotage us just as we start to realize success.  It would be much easier to do that in an isolated area.  The media is our safety shield and the best weapon and recruiting tool we could have.  

Many people in the US have not heard of FSP.  If they do, significant portions may want to move there.  They may only want to do so because of legalized marijuana or other single-minded reasons, however they will help our cause just the same.  They will be less likely to move to any of the Western states when they do not feel as strongly about all aspects of Libertarianism as we do.  The Eastern states are simply less far away from where most people live, increasing the odds more people will move there.  People don't like to move halfway across the country, and people do not like to live in the middle of the country.  The reason that so few people live in those states, and more people live in the northeast than anywhere else, is a demonstration of where most American's prefer to live.  

We need to appeal to all of America to gain the support we will need for FSPs success.  Very few people will want to move to the Western states compared to those that would be willing to move to NH or DE or VT or ME for our cause.  You may want to escape society and the northeast but that is where the ultimate power lies, you cannot change that.  This is not the Start Your Own Libertarian Nation Project, we WILL have to deal with the nation as a whole and the federal government specifically in the long-term.  And we do need all the supporters we can get.


For example:
If we assume that the majority of people will not be willing to move more than 12 hours drive away for our cause,  we can estimate the pool of people we would draw from in each state.  I believe it is fair to assume that most people do not want to move more than one days drive away from where they currently are.  Many of us are more committed than that, but many more people will not be.  

These figures do not include Canadian population.  All figures rounded up to one digit after the decimal.

the western states pools:
SD: 25 million
ID: 31.3 million, assuming that 10 million of CA is within 12 hours.  A generous estimate considering LA has over 20 million in the MSA, San diego a good few million out of 35 for the state.
MT, ND: less than above
WY: 23 million

the northeastern states:  
NH's pool about 82 million
DE's pool is over 105 million.

These are estimates made using this data:
http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/states/tables/ST-EST2002-01.php

I know some of you will take this as further proof you do not want any of the eastern states but let me remind you that the current group only numbers 2,300, we need a HELL of a lot more people to make this a reality, no matter what the state.  Many of these people will not be die hard enough to move halfway across the country to a place that has less varied job opportunities and much lower average salaries, nevermind the lack of any real proximity to a large urban area, which is also important to most people.
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: Robert H. on January 02, 2003, 05:31:57 am
First of all, the US army does not keep most of its troops in NYC or DE.  They are all over the country.  No matter where we are it is quite easy for them to take action very quickly.  

True, but then again, we're setting ourselves up to secure Jeffersonian liberty, not to fight the government, so troop locations are really inconsequential.  And NY and DC are perceived as being under greater threat of terrorism than other locations in the country.  For that reason, any group advocating a society with lessened scrutiny of its population within range of these "security concerns" will itself be subjected to a greater degree of scrutiny and criticism.

Quote
The media is necessary to promote the FSP because we need all the people we can get.  We also need them to tell the world WHY we are doing things that most will not immediately understand due to the lies our gov. feeds them about drug legalization, and other issues.  True the news media has a liberal bent.  But there are many independent thinkers and even Libertarians in the national news media, print, television and radio.  

The media is not going to serve as a bully pulpit for the FSP and its views.  Some media coverage is good in order to get the word out to those who don't have net access or whatever, but the media does a hatchet job on liberty and Constitution-minded folks far more often than it assists them.  And do you really expect to be able to counteract all of society's prejudices toward libertarians and be able to thoughtfully respond to criticisms in such a way as to appeal to thinking voters in today's soundbite media culture?  Even the most famous and influential people out there hardly get more than a thirty-second nod.

Jeffesonian principles are not well expressed or defended in the soundbite medium.  Statists, on the other hand, can use that forum quite effectively to stage their emotional pleas and class-warfare rhetoric.

Quote
Add to that the fact that most of the country feels very set apart from the middle of the country, and states like Wyoming and the rest.  They are seen as  places were people who want to escape society go to be lawless and plot to overthrow the government.  I'm sorry, but this IS what people think because the only major news story to ever come out of these states besides Mt. St. Helens erupting has been militia groups.  People and the news media will think nothing of it if the government stops us out there.

Transfer a movement like this to the east, and what's to stop those same people who view the west so blandly from trying to portray you as an eastern version of the militia movement?  You're right when you say that most easterners don't care about what goes on out west, and that is a decided advantage.  Establish this project in their midst; however, and they will care very much when the media and politicians try telling them that they have a "bunch of gun, dope and prostitution fanatics" "endangering" and "corrupting" their children.

They'll paint us as an eastern extremist movement; a change of venue, not perspective.  They'll still look at us as lunatics, and some who might otherwise side with us will not do so just to save their hard-earned reputations from the political and media onslaught.  Easterners are arguably more image-conscious, and are, therefore, more likely to be intimidated by media and social pressure.  Westerners are used to being portrayed as "weirdos," and are less likely to be influenced by what New Yorkers think of them.

Quote
They may even covertly sabotage us just as we start to realize success.  It would be much easier to do that in an isolated area.  The media is our safety shield and the best weapon and recruiting tool we could have.  

We're open to sabotage no matter what, and I believe that various elements will seek us out as protection for their illegal activities no matter where we go.  Some will also try to hijack our banner as support for their own causes.  But again, the media is hardly a shield for anyone, and in the groups we intend on concentrating in, we'd be able to support one another quite effectively.

As for recruiting, again, we do want to bring others on board, but at the same time, we need to be selective about who they are.  If we're located where more people can reach us more easily, we're that much more exposed to more extremists attempting to hijack or mischaracterize us, and where those involved in illegal activites can try hiding in our midst for protection.  Drug traffickers are the major risk to us here.

Quote
Many people in the US have not heard of FSP.  If they do, significant portions may want to move there.  They may only want to do so because of legalized marijuana or other single-minded reasons, however they will help our cause just the same.  They will be less likely to move to any of the Western states when they do not feel as strongly about all aspects of Libertarianism as we do.

Do we really want those in our midst who don't feel strongly about we're trying to do?  Would they not simply water us down?  We could use a number of additional folks who could just be counted on for votes if nothing else, but those we're trying to recruit should be pretty much hardcore, at least in the beginning while we're trying to get a foothold in the system.

(continued...)
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: Robert H. on January 02, 2003, 05:39:08 am
Quote
The Eastern states are simply less far away from where most people live, increasing the odds more people will move there.  People don't like to move halfway across the country, and people do not like to live in the middle of the country.  The reason that so few people live in those states, and more people live in the northeast than anywhere else, is a demonstration of where most American's prefer to live.

And what sort of government and culture dominates those places where most Americans live?  Statism.  Is this then a demonstration of how most of them feel about the proper role of government and society?  If so, why would we want to be in such close proximity to them?

Quote
We need to appeal to all of America to gain the support we will need for FSPs success.

Not so.  We need only concentrate the appropriate amount of backing and effort in one or more appropriate places.  The very reason for this state-centered effort is because all of America does not find appeal in our ideas.  If they did, such a project would not be necessary, and the LP would be a major national party.

Quote
Very few people will want to move to the Western states compared to those that would be willing to move to NH or DE or VT or ME for our cause.

We're looking for maybe one in a thousand as it is.  We're not going to draw huge numbers, at least not until we can demonstrate that our ideas can succeed.  Most of the liberty-minded folks I've discussed the FSP with aren't interested because they don't think it'll work and they don't want people thinking they've joined a cult or a militia.

Quote
You may want to escape society and the northeast but that is where the ultimate power lies, you cannot change that.  This is not the Start Your Own Libertarian Nation Project, we WILL have to deal with the nation as a whole and the federal government specifically in the long-term.  And we do need all the supporters we can get.

Why are western advocates constantly accused of wanting to escape something?!  Escape has nothing to do with it!  Flying under the radar and not making waves until we have built a boat sufficient to ride them out is another thing altogether.  This is a fledgling, inexperienced political movement with no significant financial or celebrity backing, and it cannot afford to rush off pel-mel into the thick of the fight.

Would you take a little league time to the World Series hoping to win?  How about a junior high school basketball team to the Final Four?  In the political sense, we are little leaguers; we are junior highers.  Yes, the northeast is the base of power, statist power, the power to crush our little league team and discredit advocates of Jeffesonian liberty for years to come.  

Is it really so shocking a proposal to suggest that we amateurs would likely come out second after stepping into the ring with the political Muhammed Ali's of our day?  Is it too much to ask that we take on some light-weight contenders first?  That we try lifting some political weights and building some endurance before taking on the experienced, conditioned political heavyweights?

Quote
I know some of you will take this as further proof you do not want any of the eastern states but let me remind you that the current group only numbers 2,300, we need a HELL of a lot more people to make this a reality, no matter what the state.  

Many of these people will not be die hard enough to move halfway across the country to a place that has less varied job opportunities and much lower average salaries, nevermind the lack of any real proximity to a large urban area, which is also important to most people.

Most people live where they do because they were born there or else close to there, and most of them are descended from those who first settled or otherwise immigrated to the coastal towns and villages that became our modern eastern cities.  The United States is not a "planned community" where everyone just chose where they'd like to live.  They're likely where they are because someone else, or a great many someone's, "chose" for them before they were born.

Again, we're not looking to flood our ranks with just anyone; we need a specific type of butterfly for this collection.  Those who are more in line with us will make more effort to join us, and we may be able to help others join us once we've established ourselves to some degree.  

Contrary to what some have suggested, going west is not going to the Moon.
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: TedApelt on January 02, 2003, 11:37:03 am
Wherever we go, we will get the same amount of media attention, and it will be both good and bad.
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: RidleyReport on January 05, 2003, 11:01:06 pm
RobertH wrote:

<<Jeffersonian principles are not well expressed or defended in the soundbite medium.  Statists, on the other hand, can use that forum quite effectively to stage their emotional pleas and class-warfare rhetoric.>>

You're underestimating Jeffersonian principles.  Any idea that is good should be simple enough to sum up in a soundbite.  It's our job to break the message down to its brutally honest core and our failing if we can't.  

And don't assume that libertarian soundbites can't have at least as much emotional punch as statist bites.

Example:

A couple years ago one of the newsmagazines did a story about a debilitated back pain sufferer who committed suicide because he couldn't get a doctor to prescribe him decent pain meds (controlled substance concerns, etc.).  I can't remember his name, but for the sake of discussion I'll call him Jack Thompson.  

If you were a congressman and Thompson lived in your district, and if his family wanted you to do so, there are plenty of emotional things you could do.  Hop in front of the cameras with his widow and let her level the canon at prohibition.  Or do it yourself:  "Federal drug prohibition killed Jack Thompson!  Federal drug prohibition kills 5 innocents like him every week.  Mr. President...tear down this prohibition!"  :)

Anyway, point being: it is possible to win the PR war on the East Coast even when the press disagrees with you.  Reagan did it by keeping the message simple and making himself easy to like personally.   No reason we can't do the same, especially considering that, unless they live in the FS,  our policy proposals are unlikely to have near as much direct impact on them than Reagan's did.  


Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: ZionCurtain on January 06, 2003, 04:04:34 pm
Quote from: MLiq

Add to that the fact that most of the country feels very set apart from the middle of the country, and states like Wyoming and the rest.  They are seen as  places were people who want to escape society go to be lawless and plot to overthrow the government.  I'm sorry, but this IS what people think because the only major news story to ever come out of these states besides Mt. St. Helens erupting has been militia groups.  People and the news media will think nothing of it if the government stops us out there.  

The reason that so few people live in those states, and more people live in the northeast than anywhere else, is a demonstration of where most American's prefer to live.  
Quote
Sorry to pick a few things out of your post but Mt St Helens is in Washington which is neither in the middle of the country or in one of the FSP states. Also the reason that more people live on the Eastern seabord is because that is where our country started and people tend to live in coastal areas. Are you in need of a history and geography refresher course? As for being assaulted by the government, I think we are not trying to be some Branch Davidians we are out for political change.
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: Hank on August 13, 2003, 11:21:56 am
ZionCurtain made this great explained why east coast states have so many people.
Quote
Also the reason that more people live on the Eastern seabord is because that is where our country started and people tend to live in coastal areas.
The east coast, especially the central east coast, has a huge pool of potential Porcupines who would flee to a nearby Free State if they had one. For NY, PA, NJ, MD, there is only one state that qualifies as close enough to live but still visit the old homestead and those "left behind".
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: jgmaynard on August 13, 2003, 11:28:49 am
The people of Mass are also fleeing.... And their following the little "N" on their compasses.....

We know... We have a list of 20,000 of them.... :D

JM
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: rambler42 on August 13, 2003, 02:39:25 pm
one of the biggest logistical problems of the eastern seaboard states is the probability of statist carpetbaggins and big money fed into the political machine to fight us. The New Hampshire primary is considered a very important barometer of the national mindset, and they will be loathe to be shown up by a bunch of libertarians.

I have worked in political circles for about 20 years, and the trend is for the public to follow whichever candidate gets the most media exposure (I worked for an immensely qualified losing candidate against a six term entrenched encumbent last year; our candidate ran 42% WITHOUT the endorsement of ANY of the major media in the area, so it was a devastating loss, as the media coverage could have made the difference).

add to the fact New Hampshire's homeschool laws, which are more restrictive than our present state's, and this is why we have opted out of all eastern seaboard states.
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: Sebastian on August 13, 2003, 02:46:58 pm
Present state being Wisconsin?

http://www.atr.org/maps/15.html
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: Karl on August 13, 2003, 02:54:43 pm
The New Hampshire primary is considered a very important barometer of the national mindset, and they will be loathe to be shown up by a bunch of libertarians.

It is?  New Hampshire voted for Pat Buchanan and John McCain in the last two Republican presidential primaries.  I think that it is Iowa that is generally considered to be first real nation-wide barometer.
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: rambler42 on August 13, 2003, 03:44:21 pm
I don't know where they get their information on Wisconsin being "high regulation"; that is very misleading. ALL we have to do is file a one page form with the state Department of Education stating how many children we are homeschooling (NO standardized testing, NO curriculum approval)
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: rambler42 on August 13, 2003, 03:46:58 pm
Not to mention, North Dakota is listed as "Moderate regulation"....this is ALSO erroneous. North Dakota has one of the most difficult homeschool laws I have seen (you need to either have a teaching certificate, or have your homeschool monitored by a "professional teacher" for at LEAST two years (more if your children score too low on standardized tests).
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: rambler42 on August 13, 2003, 03:51:33 pm
aaaahhh, I see the issue. HSLDA is the "source" for this. HSLDA has a vested interest in getting membership using fear tactics, and a great deal of their information is misleading. As a homeschooling parent and an activist within our homeschool group, I can tell you that our laws are NOT very restrictive. Using HSLDA's OWN site, neither are those of Wyoming, Montana, or Alaska, and yet those are listed as "high regulation" states. So the issue comes down to: who do you trust: a bunch of LAYWERS, or those who know the system from the inside and have worked with it even to the point of lobbying state legislators on the issues? Point to note: HSLDA is also an enemy of unschooling; they require their members to list their curriculum choice to be accepted as members.
Title: Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Robert H. on August 21, 2003, 09:31:25 pm
The East/West and Urban/Rural wars have created some clearly defined lines in our ranks when it comes to the issue of proximity to major population centers.  Some of us believe that this can be a good thing, others believe that it may not be such a good thing.  We've verbally battered one another repeatedly on this issue, and yet, after all of that, the only agreement we've managed to reach on the matter is that we vehemently disgree with one another.

So, fully anticipating the universal groan that will undoubtedly greet the title of this thread, I'd like you to briefly consider a couple of points about how proximity to major population centers could potentially affect us.

This will come as no surprise to those who have been around here awhile, but I happen to be an advocate of states that are farther removed from major media outlets and population centers due to a number of factors, including the recent example of how Gephardt supporters were able to easily bus in their comrades from all over New England for a pow-wow in New Hampshire.  That's more of a small land area issue (demonstrating that it will work for the opposition just as well as for us), but proximity was also a factor at work there.

For this thread though, I'd like to take a somewhat different approach to the issue, and in doing so, let's use a libertarian hot-button issue that is particularly controversial: marijuana.

Let's say for a moment that the FSP does choose a state where there is greater proximity to major population centers.  And further, let's say that the FSP succeeds in getting things like marijuana decriminalized.  What effects are such reforms likely to have?

If you answer with "greater freedom for us, of course," you would be partially correct.  However, we are not the only people involved here.  What is the effect of such reforms likely to be with regard to those who surround us in neighboring states and localities?  Again, I'm assuming here that there are major population centers either within the state or else within a very short, convenient distance from us.

If marijuana is decriminalized within our borders, marijuana "enthusiasts" will be drawn to that state like moths to a flame, and we will have to enact near draconian penalties for taking the stuff out of state lest we run into issues with the feds.  And run into problems with the feds we undoubtedly would because of the effect our actions would have on the illegal markets in surrounding states.  

Think about it this way:  if we decriminalize marijuana within our borders, people will probably begin to raise bumper crops of the stuff. This greatly enhanced availability would be a strong incentive for those who want to sell it out-of-state to smuggle to their hearts' content because they would be able to purchase it relatively cheaply within our state, and then turn around and sell it for normal 'underground market' prices in states where it's still illegal.  If they could get away with it, they could potentially make more of a killing than ever.

We're kidding ourselves if we think that the feds and surrounding states are not going to go ape over this.

The above situation involving marijuana is only one example of how we must understand that we are not going to be operating in a vacuum.  Other issues will also come into play, and we're going to have to deal with the aftermath of our reform efforts.  People will take advantage of what we do for their own purposes, as people always do, and this will, in turn, have other consequences, particuarly on the federal side of the coin.

How does this relate to the proximity issue though?

One potential advantage of being located in a state that is more remote or isolated is that this will effectively reduce the degree to which others can take negative advantage of our reforms, and, consequently, the degree to which we can be built into a threat that will cause others to demand some sort of sanction or action.

Think of how much action the federal government takes on 'what if?' scenarios.  The recent invasion of a small middle eastern country comes to mind here, as does the Patriot Act and all of its police state style provisions.  Other examples could be provided, like the Brady Bill, which we are told is designed to prevent gun violence.  These things sell very well to the soccer moms and the chicken-little's out there.  And we've seen how medical marijuana legislation in California has not stopped the feds from breaking down doors there and basically doing as they please regardless of state law.

And even if the feds themselves take no direct action, there is still a strong potential for the matter to end up in federal court due to interstate lawsuits being filed by disgruntled parents when Junior starts road-tripping from the Philly suburbs over to Delaware for pot, or by other state governments when their medical welfare programs start covering abuse problems related to "the ease of accessing marijuana in New Hampshire."

One way or another, we're likely going to have to play ball with the feds on such issues, but it seems to me that the likelihood of clashes and controversy decreases with states that are more removed from major population centers where the risk of having our reforms exploited by opportunitsts would, arguably, be greater.

Thoughts?
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Sean Coven on August 21, 2003, 09:35:17 pm
This is a very valid issue that you highlight here, but there is one pooge factor:

The federal government, over and over again, has overriden any state's action to decriminalize marijuana. I think that it won't happen in one state until it happens nationwide.

California decriminalized marijuana via initiative, and I believe Oregon did the same (not sure on that last count). In both instances the federal government continued to enforce the ban.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Dennis Wilson on August 21, 2003, 09:44:51 pm
Arizona voters also approved medical use, but I haven't heard of any doctor brave enough to defy the Feds.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: JonM on August 21, 2003, 09:46:22 pm
Alaska is about the only state this isn't a factor in.  Every other state would have some degree of exposure to this issue.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: DadELK68 on August 21, 2003, 09:52:12 pm
Interesting thought - is this idea more likely to draw the pro-pot contingent away from voting NH, or is it such a 'pipe dream' ( ;)) as to be largely irrelevant?

Eric
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Dennis Wilson on August 21, 2003, 09:56:20 pm
That proximity issue is one of the major reasons I opted out of the New England states.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2222;start=msg40891#msg40891

Living in NH is living in a deep hole with 14 million (population of New England living is a space smaller than Wyoming) welfare receivers and their tax cows throwing dirt on your head (for example: busing people in for a rally as RobertH pointed out).  

Sure, porcupines could do a counter rally, but that takes time away from productive, positive activities. It makes just one more time waster if it has to be done. Lost time here, lost time there, pretty soon it adds up to a lifetime of lost time!

If you live in New England and you don't end up becoming another Carl Drega, consider yourself fortunate.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: DadELK68 on August 21, 2003, 10:06:26 pm
As a NH resident, I can reassure you that we laugh at things like this - okay, so they bused some people in, bought our gas, ate some food (for which they paid, unless they're part of the Kennedy clan - in which case they probably stiffed the caterer), contributed to the local economy and then were bused home. Who comes out ahead?

Obviously, Gephardt doesn't have enough support in NH to draw an adequate crowd of locals.

On the flip side, it's been fascinating every four years to be inundated with invitations to picnics, home meetings, fund raisers and other activities in which there might be anywhere from ten to a hundred or so people with serious (and/or spurious) presidential candidates. Even without trying, I've bumped into candidates in our local park and town library.

Eric
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: jgmaynard on August 21, 2003, 10:10:39 pm
I don't see migration after a decrim of marijuana to be much of an issue.

1) It's essentially been done already in New Mexico, and there aren't great problems with people trucking it out to Nevada, or vice versa for other adult behaviors we would be likely to de-crim. :)

2) If other states don't like people leaving their state for NH (let's say) for de-crimed pot, then trying to bring it back, that's Massachusetts' (oops! ;)) problem.  ;D

3) If NH de-crimed, Vermont would probably be close behind.

4) Mass has threatened NH recently that they would open up gambling casinos on the NH border if NH did not PAY Mass (IIRC) $200M a year because we don't have a sales tax, and their people are shopping over the border. Craig Benson called their bluff 8), and it hasn't happened yet.  

And think of being able to ask ALL the candidates for President when they were going to catch up to New Hampshire WHILE they are in the state. :D

I ain't afraid of Mass. :D

JM

Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Robert H. on August 22, 2003, 12:15:22 am
Obviously, Gephardt doesn't have enough support in NH to draw an adequate crowd of locals.

The problem there is that this is a day in which there is a strong movement to try and turn every issue into a national issue - subject to a national dialogue - regardless of the wishes of state and local residents.  South Carolina can certainly testify to this, as can Alaska, and, I would now imagine, Alabama (among others).  

The ability of such groups to cause mischief and damage is not necessarily based in whether they can activate a large number of locals, but whether they can focus enough attention on their issue to start a national dialogue and thus intimidate state and local residents into following their wishes.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Robert H. on August 22, 2003, 12:56:38 am
I don't see migration after a decrim of marijuana to be much of an issue.

1) It's essentially been done already in New Mexico, and there aren't great problems with people trucking it out to Nevada, or vice versa for other adult behaviors we would be likely to de-crim. :)

They're also fairly remote areas.   ;)

Quote
2) If other states don't like people leaving their state for NH (let's say) for de-crimed pot, then trying to bring it back, that's Massachusetts' (oops! ;)) problem.  ;D

Well, I think I gave some examples of how they could make it our problem.   ;)

Quote
3) If NH de-crimed, Vermont would probably be close behind.

That might actually be true, knowing Vermont.   :)

Quote
4) Mass has threatened NH recently that they would open up gambling casinos on the NH border if NH did not PAY Mass (IIRC) $200M a year because we don't have a sales tax, and their people are shopping over the border. Craig Benson called their bluff 8), and it hasn't happened yet.  

An economic issue is a bit different.  The feds don't really care about casinos.

I can't believe Massachusetts was stupid enough to threaten such a thing.  Good grief.   ::)
Title: Another Benefit from Proximity to Borders
Post by: johnadams on August 22, 2003, 01:13:09 am
That proximity issue is one of the major reasons I opted out of the New England states.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2222;start=msg40891#msg40891

Living in NH is living in a deep hole with 14 million (population of New England living is a space smaller than Wyoming) welfare receivers and their tax cows throwing dirt on your head ....

If you live in New England and you don't end up becoming another Carl Drega, consider yourself fortunate.
Oh great, another bash--New England thread. Yeah, like that's really going to want to make New Englanders move to a place where YOU are, where we could apparently be expected to be lambasted further with insults. What is the purpose of this stuff other than to vent your frustrations on New Englanders?


Quote
RobertH wrote: For this thread though, I'd like to take a somewhat different approach to the issue, and in doing so, let's use a libertarian hot-button issue that is particularly controversial: marijuana.

As regards marijuana decriminalization BEYOND medical use. If the feds some day allow states to do it, those that will benefit the most are the marijuana crop states on the borders and the shorelines, for export-import trade. The Canadian border will likely be a very profitable one as Canada is likely to fully legalize it before the U.S. Canada has already legalized marijuana for medical use--so it's just a matter of time. So those states bordering Canada (AK, ID, MT, VT, NH, ME) would likely be the first to benefit, especially those states with a more tolerant attitude regarding victimless crimes (VT, NH, ME, and AK?).

Marijuana is already Vermont's #1 crop and the tobacco states like Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee have seen many tobacco farmers convert partially or wholly to marijuana, given the long-term gradual decrease in domestic tobacco smoking and the increases in taxes. The downside is legalization would give the governments something more they could try to tax. That's another reason it's important to liberate these border states before legalization occurs, so that we can fight attempts to tax the stuff.

Arid or isolated states like Wyoming and South Dakota likely wouldn't benefit much from a legal interstate and international marijuana trade.

Also, the people who are already growing, selling and transporting marijuana would no longer have to face criminal penalties and fines, which would be a great relief for them. The old-time Vermont, NH, ME, etc. farmers who are just trying to make a living and supplement their incomes by growing the marijuana crop would no longer have to fear being hauled off and fined or imprisoned like criminals.

Legalization in the states would mean that the Feds had legalized it or were leaving it up to the states--in either case that would mean that marijuana farmers in states would no longer have to worry about prosecution by statist feds and the feds and states would save quite a bit of money on interdiction, prosecution and incarceration. All in all, everyone would benefit, and the northern border states would probably benefit most.
Title: Re:Another Benefit from Proximity to Borders
Post by: freedomroad on August 22, 2003, 03:48:46 am
Oh great, another bash--New England thread. Yeah, like that's really going to want to make New Englanders move to a place where YOU are,

I am not going to get into the issues of this thread but I do have a couple of comments that should help info johnadams and maybe others.

Dennis is from AZ and AZ cannot be selected as the Free State.  He could care less about you moving to AZ and that has nothing to do with the other states.

Quote
Arid or isolated states like Wyoming and South Dakota likely wouldn't benefit much from a legal interstate and international marijuana trade.

I am unable to follow you here.  Did you know that I-80 and I-90, major East-West interstates pass right though Wyoming?  Did you know that parts of Wyoming are not isolated and that it actually has a humid part of the state?  Did you know that eastern SD is not only humid but gets a noticable amount of rain?
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: matt621 on August 22, 2003, 03:58:13 am
This is totally a valid situation and one why I'm really hanging on to the western states. I look at the Idaho, Wyoming, SD, ND, MT, Nevada complex as being very possible. (Yes, I know on NV, hold on a second.)

Its' just like "speeders" on the freeways. One stands out and is pummeled. But if you run in a pack, it's very hard to get anyone. The "school of fish" theory of defense. (study your marine biology if they gets by you. ;) ). In the east, this is clearly impossible. But out west, and with a "friendly" Canadian border above.. this could be a very good thing. Imagine what would happen to the ND/SD farmer subsidies if they converted to "the other cash crop?" Now ND/SD (especially SD) look really good.

As for Nevada.... if ID, Wy or any of our candidates do as you suggest, with the proximity to Nevada, how long to you think they will jump on the wagon?  

As for "bash NE thread...." comment. I don't know how to say this, but none of these threads are meant to be a "bash anyone" thread. It's just discussions. All the states on the list have their positive attributes and should be proud they made the list. NE has a very fine freedom heritage, but lets face it, if heritage got the job done, we wouldn't be here. So we have to discuss all aspects of each state/region. And just like after a party convention, I hope all the members will come together to support the "winning" candidate, whoever that might be.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Robert H. on August 22, 2003, 06:55:10 am
Just for the record, this thread was not started as a "bash New England" thread.  It was started in recognition of the fact that we are not going to be doing any of this in a vacuum.  We are going to cause a ripple effect to one degree or another with what we're planning here, and I personally believe that we ought to weigh the potential consequences of such in our considerations.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: johnadams on August 22, 2003, 01:32:59 pm
Delaware was zapped too, so technically this has started as a bash-the-East thread, though New England and in particular NH seem to be the main objects of ire.

RobertH (a FreeWyoming supporter and ADVOCATE of remote states) wrote:

"I happen to be an advocate of states that are farther removed from major media outlets and population centers due to a number of factors, including the recent example of how Gephardt supporters were able to easily bus in their comrades from all over New England a pow-wow in New Hampshire

.... For this thread though, I'd like to take somewhat different approach to the issue"

A "different" approach? Seems like more encouragement of the usual battles between WY and NH supporters to me.

RH> ".... when Junior starts road-tripping from the Philly suburbs over to Delaware for pot, or by other state governments when their medical welfare programs start covering abuse problems related to "the ease of accessing marijuana in New Hampshire."


S. Coven added some good sense by correctly pointing out:
"The federal government, over and over again, has overriden any state's action to decriminalize marijuana. I think that it won't happen in one state until it happens nationwide."


FreedomRoad wrote:
"Dennis is from AZ and AZ cannot be selected as the Free State.  He could care less about you moving to AZ and that has nothing to do with the other states."

I am from MA and MA cannot be selected as the Free State and I am not even voting. I also could care less about individuals moving to NH or WY or wherever, you are free to move wherever you like, as far as I am concerned and I would actually like to try to encourage some cooling off between the NH and WY camps. But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion on which would be the best state(s) for the FSP to start in and it's quite clear that Dennis does too, so it has EVERYTHING to do with the other states. Dennis has even more personal interest in the selection of the state than I do since he is voting and moving and has admitted that he opted out of ALL the New England states.

What I am trying to discourage is threads which begin with a criticism of a particular state or region, as they encourage remarks like Dennis' re: Carl Drega and they become tit-for-tat battles and flame-wars. Let's turn the temperature down a few notches, eh?

FR> "I am unable to follow you here.  Did you know that I-80 and I-90, major East-West interstates pass rightthough Wyoming?"

Yes, Highways pass through most if not all the states, but WY still does not touch any borders or coasts. What is your point? Don't you agree that border states have an advantage in commerce, including marijuana commerce? Some WY supporters (such as RobertH above) have promoted its relative isolation and remoteness as a benefit. Are you now saying that they are wrong? By pointing out WY's relative remoteness I'm not saying that it is absolute or even absolutely bad. There are plusses and minuses to it, just as there are plusses and minuses to states that are not relatively remote.

"Did you know that parts of Wyoming are not isolated and that it actually has a humid part of the state?  Did you know that eastern SD is not only humid but gets a noticable amount of rain?"  

I wasn't thinking of SD when I thought of arid states, and yes, states which are arid overall often have humid parts too. As an example, I have heard that West of the mountains, Washington is very wet and humid (Seattle is famous for this), but the rain falls when it hits the mountains so that the eastern part of the state is very dry. Is this not true? This is also true to a much lesser degree in NH. That doesnt' change the fact, however that WY is a more arid than average state OVERALL and that WY leaders and residents talk about chronic water shortages over the years that have become more of a problem in certain areas as more people have moved in. But my main point is not to balance out your praises of WY by pointing out some of the problems there, but rather to discourage threads which are dedicated to criticism of a state or region, as they have a greater than avg risk of starting flame wars. Threads like these encourage flames like: "If you live in New England and you don't end up becoming another Carl Drega, consider yourself fortunate." I can't believe someone is hitting NE with Carl Drega again after some of the leadership asked people to cool off about that and to remember that the whole world can read these posts. Please, Dennis, delete that remark and then I'll delete my mention of it so we can erase this unpleasantness and get back to more sane discussion.  


Dennis Wilson wrote:
"That proximity issue is one of the major reasons I opted out of the New England states. ....

Living in NH is living in a deep hole with 14 million (population of New England living is a space smaller than Wyoming) welfare receivers and their tax cows throwing dirt on your head (for example: busing people in for a rally as RobertH pointed out).  

Sure, porcupines could do a counter rally, but that takes time away from productive, positive activities. It makes just one more time waster if it has to be done. Lost time here, lost time there, pretty soon it adds up to a lifetime of lost time!

If you live in New England and you don't end up becoming another Carl Drega, consider yourself fortunate."

Every resident of New England is not turning into another Carl Drega. That statement is so outlandish, incendiary and ridiculous that I hesitate to even respond to it, so I ask you to please delete it, Dennis, in the interests of peace and unity among FSP members and friends.
Title: Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: matt621 on August 22, 2003, 06:10:21 pm
Here is yet another thing I think we need to consider:

Where (from what states) will 20K FSPers come from?

It's my opinion that they would prefer to move to a state that is close to their existing environment. I don't really know whether this favors an east coast or western solution. On the one hand, the western states, by a good margin are more "Free" then the eastern states. So it could be that having a western state as the FSP would be good to gain FSPers from other western states. ie, if wy is picked, we could easily see SD, ND, MT (maybe  ;) ) TX, AZ, NM, et al, move there because it is as least similiar to those western states.

On the other hand, if nh were chosen, then all those FSPers from VT, Maine (maybe ;) ) RI, CT, MA, NY & NJ (Do they have any? ;) ) would move there.

It's my opinion (based losely on living in many of these places) that there are more FSP type people in the west, but the distance is far greater, but then again, westerners are used to that. On ther other hand, I think there are far fewer FSPers on the east coast but the distance and environment are much closer in nh, so the draw could be the same.

I don't have this issue nailed down one way or the other. What do others think of this angle?  Has this been addressed?

Thank you.
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: Karl on August 22, 2003, 06:16:50 pm
We have a good idea of what states people are coming from:

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

Based on the maps, there is no clear east vs. west trend.
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: matt621 on August 22, 2003, 06:30:50 pm
Hey, thanks. That's great! Do you know how often are these maps updated? Also, does the LP party has such maps? I could not find them on their website.

Tanks!
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Dennis Wilson on August 22, 2003, 07:00:59 pm

Threads like these encourage flames like: "If you live in New England and you don't end up becoming another Carl Drega, consider yourself fortunate." I can't believe someone is hitting NE with Carl Drega again after some of the leadership asked people to cool off about that and to remember that the whole world can read these posts. Please, Dennis, delete that remark and then I'll delete my mention of it so we can erase this unpleasantness and get back to more sane discussion.  

Dennis Wilson wrote:
"That proximity issue is one of the major reasons I opted out of the New England states. ....

Living in NH is living in a deep hole with 14 million (population of New England living is a space smaller than Wyoming) welfare receivers and their tax cows throwing dirt on your head (for example: busing people in for a rally as RobertH pointed out).  

Sure, porcupines could do a counter rally, but that takes time away from productive, positive activities. It makes just one more time waster if it has to be done. Lost time here, lost time there, pretty soon it adds up to a lifetime of lost time!

If you live in New England and you don't end up becoming another Carl Drega, consider yourself fortunate."

Every resident of New England is not turning into another Carl Drega. That statement is so outlandish, incendiary and ridiculous that I hesitate to even respond to it, so I ask you to please delete it, Dennis, in the interests of peace and unity among FSP members and friends.

If Arizona was one of the candidiate states, I would be the most ardent opponent to Arizona.  

I'm not willing to make concessions and compromise what I know to be true, in order to appear more like what I am not. I will not conceal my knowledge for fear of non-acceptance or in a futile attempt to avoid a "flame war" with people who want reality served up to them with sugar and honey.  

I do not think that "Peace and Unity" can be achieved by giving up reason and ignoring reality. I am attempting to pass on some of my 40 years of experience watching Goldwater Arizona turn into John McCain Arizona.

Carl Drega tried to appease and work within the system--in New Hampshire--for 20+ years and where did it get him? The crap that Carl Drega had to endure is not that much different from what has happened in Phoenix in recent years. Ignoring his story, especially since nothing has changed in New Hampshire to prevent it from happening again, is the most grotesque blanking out of reality that I can imagine!

If younger people cannot learn from what I have to say, they should at the very least seriously consider whether their lives will end up being wasted like Carl Drega's life.

No, I will not delete what I have said. Ideas and knowledge are too important for me to ever consider doing that.

To quote your namesake (from Zack Bass' signature line)

"This is a revolution, dammit.  We're going to have to offend SOMEBODY."
      --John Adams - "1776 (the movie)"
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: StevenN on August 22, 2003, 07:08:28 pm
Quote
It's my opinion (based losely on living in many of these places) that there are more FSP type people in the west

OK, even though I disagree, I'll say that there more FSP people in the west for arguments sake. Now, there are maybe 20 million people in the NYC area. Now, if only 0.025% of the population are "FSP types", that's still 50,000 people!
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: EMOR on August 22, 2003, 08:12:44 pm
Likewise with California that would be 95,000 people. It all breaks down to the south, west, and midwest people prefering a rural setting mostly, like Wyoming and the northeast types prefering a more city like atmosphere in NH.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Robert H. on August 22, 2003, 08:16:53 pm
Delaware was zapped too, so technically this has started as a bash-the-East thread, though New England and in particular NH seem to be the main objects of ire.

"Bash?"  No.  "Zap?"  No.  Discuss?  Yes.  Is discussion no longer possible around here, at least below a certain decibel level?  There are no "objects of ire" under attack (or being "zapped") in this thread, only discussion of states whose ADOCATES have claimed their proximity to large population centers as an advantage for them.

Quote
RobertH (a FreeWyoming supporter and ADVOCATE of remote states) wrote:

"I happen to be an advocate of states that are farther removed from major media outlets and population centers due to a number of factors, including the recent example of how Gephardt supporters were able to easily bus in their comrades from all over New England a pow-wow in New Hampshire

.... For this thread though, I'd like to take somewhat different approach to the issue"

A "different" approach? Seems like more encouragement of the usual battles between WY and NH supporters to me.

The section that you're quoting from is part of a reference I was making to previous debate that has taken place over this issue.  It was not the focus of what I wanted to discuss at the time, thus it was not part of the "different approach" that I was going for.  I think I differentiated that fairly clearly.

Quote
S. Coven added some good sense by correctly pointing out:
"The federal government, over and over again, has overriden any state's action to decriminalize marijuana. I think that it won't happen in one state until it happens nationwide."

The federal government can do what it likes, obviously, but this does not mean that citizens of various states and localities cannot begin working to increase their freedoms now.  Part of this will undoubtedly entail questioning the federal government's authority to interfere in affairs that are rightly none of its concern, and publicizing federal abuses of power when they occur.  As of yet, no state has really challenged federal interference within its borders on such issues, and such a debate/controversy would be very healthy for the future of freedom in this country.

I don't believe you'll find many here who are in favor of waiting to implement reforms until the federal government is willing to go along with it.

Quote
I am from MA and MA cannot be selected as the Free State and I am not even voting. I also could care less about individuals moving to NH or WY or wherever, you are free to move wherever you like, as far as I am concerned and I would actually like to try to encourage some cooling off between the NH and WY camps.

This was not started as an inflammatory thread, and I noticed that other New Hampshire supporters were able to respond to it without making such accusations.

Quote
What I am trying to discourage is threads which begin with a criticism of a particular state or region, as they encourage remarks like Dennis' re: Carl Drega and they become tit-for-tat battles and flame-wars. Let's turn the temperature down a few notches, eh?

Threads criticizing particular states and/or regions are perfectly legitimate if they bring up genuine material for discussion, as opposed to simply starting flame wars.  For those in doubt, I will reiterate that this thread was not started as a "bash-the-east" or Carl Drega discussion.  It has since been steered in that direction, but it was not started that way.

You can make an argument that any thread started here "encourages" flaming and tit-for-tat contests due to the response that we've seen, but this is more of an indication of the leanings of the participants than of the material itself.  Those who want to flame will do so, no matter what the venue.  We have plenty examples of that in this forum.

I don't believe we should ignore the discussion of potentially legitimate issues simply because there is a risk of a flame war starting.  If we did, there would be no discussion taking place here at all anymore.
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: Sean Coven on August 22, 2003, 08:36:01 pm
If a California FSPer would refuse to move New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, or Delaware, because it's farther then Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, or the Dakotas, I don't want to count him among my ranks.

I'm exempting myself from only four states, and all because I believe the FSP will fail there. Geography shouldn't play a role in this matter.
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: Bruce_Morgan on August 22, 2003, 08:41:26 pm
...prefering a more city like atmosphere in NH.

LOL!  You have obviously never been to New Hampshire!  Ok, ok, so it's not your typical scrubland sagebrush covered rural, but more of your hilly, pastureland rural.  What is so funny is that downtown Concord, the frickin' capitol, is about as citified as the piddlin' little Texas sorghum town I live in now, and a helluva lot friendlier!

Bruce
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: matt621 on August 22, 2003, 09:06:32 pm
I really just wish I had the time to take a trip to all of them before the ballot. We are headed up to Wyoming this weekend, because that's the closest to us, but I wish I had time to visit each state before the vote.
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: matt621 on August 22, 2003, 09:08:45 pm
Quote
It's my opinion (based losely on living in many of these places) that there are more FSP type people in the west

OK, even though I disagree, I'll say that there more FSP people in the west for arguments sake. Now, there are maybe 20 million people in the NYC area. Now, if only 0.025% of the population are "FSP types", that's still 50,000 people!

.025% of 20 million is 5000. And I don't think NYC could find that many FSPers to save it's life.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Sean Coven on August 22, 2003, 09:09:46 pm
Quote
If you live in New England and you don't end up becoming another Carl Drega, consider yourself fortunate.

This would be true IF New England were a single, cohesive political entity, in which case every dissident would likely be rounded up and herded into ideological quarantine pens. But you ignore the fact that New England is divided into states, which range wildly in their politics from conservative Pennsylvania to socialist Vermont to libertarian New Hampshire.

Carl Drega's story is a sad one, a testament to the fact that much work remains to be done in even the most comparatively libertarian of states. However, his story is the exception to Massachusetts' rule, and the fact that he willingly took up arms against what he perceived as government oppression is a similar testament to the beliefs of New Hampshire's citizens at large.

Drega may have been demonized by the national media but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is the reaction of the New Hampshire government; we certainly could have seen a massive gun control backlash as we did in Colorado after Columbine or California after Santee, but didn't. All in all, even after having a needle shoved through their hearts, the NH state government did not react in the violent way that it could have.

NH does have several flaws that cannot be overlooked; this is to be expected when we live in a nation as imperfect and riddled with ideological bullet holes as the United States. So Drega was killed fighting the government; it's one thing to recognize this and protest it but you people should hear your own rhetoric! You act as if now every liberty-minded individual in New Hampshire will be killed in droves, have their homes destroyed by bulldozers, have their families raped by paramilitary social workers funded by the Fourth Reich, and have their relatives disinterred from their graves and replaced by the corpses of US government officials.

This is a project to create a comparative libertarian utopia, not move to an already-existing one. As I said, the NH government's disgraceful handling of Drega is regretable but should not be used solely as a reason to bump NH all the way down to one's list.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: johnadams on August 22, 2003, 09:17:26 pm
I'm not willing to make concessions and compromise what I know to be true,
I didn't ask you to compromise what you know to be true. You do what you want, I can see that appeals to your reason and considerateness fall on deaf ears. Go ahead, flame away if you wish. I wish you would consider saving your ire for the statists, but I cannot control what you do. You are the captain of your own fate.

Quote
I do not think that "Peace and Unity" can be achieved by giving up reason and ignoring reality.
Nor do I. At least we agree on that.  :)

Quote
If younger people cannot learn from what I have to say,
How do you know I'm younger than you?
Title: WHERE ARE THE LIBERTARIAN INSTITUTIONS LOCATED?
Post by: johnadams on August 22, 2003, 10:19:34 pm
WHERE ARE THE LIBERTARIAN INSTITUTIONS LOCATED?

Quote
"For FSP to have a hope of success, all its members have to be battle hardened political warriors with all their skills fresh with current knowledge of organizational methods, campaign strategies and issues that matter to the electorate.

The FSP will arrive in the bull's-eye with the combined political might of the nation pointed right at them. The FSP can't afford to have people show up who have been politically inactive, who are slowly trying to get themselves ramped up to work again. They can't afford the time to train the inexperienced up to task."

Source:
The Free State Project -- Negative Impact on Liberty?
by John Thomas, August 14, 2003
The Colorado Freedom Report--www.co-freedom.com

Given what John Thomas said, the FSP will need all the allies and synergistic networks it can find in the area around the Free State and Free County(ies).

Wherever it goes, the FSP will need to take advantage of the resources, advice and synergies of any existing nearby libertarian-oriented institutions and think tanks (as long as they don't try to change the FSP's views, of course). If there aren't any reasonably close, then the FSP will want to start working on forming its own institution, using the FSP think tank as the seed.

Here is a list of existing libertarian-oriented institutions I could think of-please add any you can think of:

Libertarian and libertarian-leaning think tanks:
Organization                            HQ                                                           Nearby* FS
American Enterprise Inst.        Washington, DC                                       DE
American Liberty Foundation    Alexandria, VA                                          DE
The Beacon Hill Institute          Suffolk Univ., Boston, MA                         NH, VT, ME
Cato Institute                          Washington, D.C.                                     DE
Heartland Institute                  Chicago, IL
Hoover Institution                    Stanford Univ., CA   
James M. Buchanan Center      George Mason Univ., VA                          DE
Goldwater Institute                   Phoenix, AZ   
Ludwig Von Mises Institute      Auburn University, AL   
Milton & Rose Friedman Fnd.    Indianapolis, IN   
Pioneer Institute                      Boston, MA                                              NH, VT, ME
Reason Foundation                  Los Angeles, CA   
The Manhatten Institute          NY, NY                                                     NH, VT, DE
The Objectivist Center             Poughkeepsie, NY                                    VT, NH, DE
--------------------------------
* Within 250 miles

Of course, most states have a Libertarian Party HQ and a college/University with a student LP organization, but I am talking here about Libertarian think-tank-like organizations here. Universities that have a lot of libertarian-oriented professors can also provide some think-tank synergy.

Colleges & universities with a reputation for libertarian scholars and professors and for offering a friendly atmosphere for libertarians:
College/University       Program                              Location                    Nearby* FS
Auburn University       Ludwig von Mises Instit.      Auburn, AL   
Stanford University       Hoover Institution               Stanford, CA   
University Of Chicago  "Chicago School" of econ.     Chicago, IL   
New York University      Foundations of Mkt. Econ.    NYC                          NH, VT, DE
St. Lawrence Univ.      Austrian Economics             Canton, NY                   VT
Suffolk University       Beacon Hill Institute            Boston, MA                NH, VT, ME
George Mason Univ.     James M. Buchanan Ctr        Fairfax, VA                 DE
--------------------------------
* Within 250 miles

Of special interest to the FSP for think-tank synergies would be professors in philosophy, politics, government policy, economics and business.

Like attracts like. The more libertarian organizations you can muster in a certain region, the more that will be attracted to that region.

This particular attribute of existing Libertarian infrastructure would seem to favor DE, NH, VT and ME.
Title: Re:WHERE ARE THE LIBERTARIAN INSTITUTIONS LOCATED?
Post by: Rearden on August 22, 2003, 10:53:51 pm
Heck, there's a good one in New Hampshire:

The New Hampshire Center for Constitutional Studies

www.nhccs.org

Title: Re:WHERE ARE THE LIBERTARIAN INSTITUTIONS LOCATED?
Post by: johnadams on August 22, 2003, 11:39:42 pm
I saw that site but thought it was narrowly focused on the Constitution rather than on broader libertarian topics. Was I wrong? I wasn't able to tell much about them from the Website other than their interest in the Constitution. Who are they, why did they form and what are they about?
Title: Re:WHERE ARE THE LIBERTARIAN INSTITUTIONS LOCATED?
Post by: Kelton on August 23, 2003, 03:23:33 am
I must question the reasoning behind this thread, particularly the idea that we must have such proximity to 'libertarian infastructure' when most of what goes out the doors of these organizations is in the media available in all 50 states.

If you are talking about having lots of guest speakers and such,  perhaps the issue of in-state airports is just as relevant, in which case Idaho easily comes in at tops among our states according to Varrin's air service report, with Alaska and New Hampshire closely behind.

But the mails, the Internet, radio and television, all sound like the areas of emphasis preferred for mass media than to have some office suite nearby.

I live right nearby the home office for the Alliance for Separation of School and State here in Fresno, California.  I have still yet to actually go inside the office building, though I have communicated with people there repeatedly by phone, e-mail and otherwise, including the founder and president, and I've received all sorts of communication from them.  For all practical purposes, I could just as well live in Hawaii and it would not have altered any of my communication with them up to this point.  Even if I did go in and personally shake hands with Marshall Fritz, I still think if either of us wanted to share some documents we would still ask to e-mail.

Sorry to steal your thunder with this criticism, but the best this does is check a lot of the silly criticism that the Eastern state are at disadvantage in also being adjacent to the throes of statist think-tanks and powerful organizations.
Title: Re:WHERE ARE THE LIBERTARIAN INSTITUTIONS LOCATED?
Post by: Michelle on August 23, 2003, 06:44:01 am
I saw that site but thought it was narrowly focused on the Constitution rather than on broader libertarian topics. Was I wrong? I wasn't able to tell much about them from the Website other than their interest in the Constitution. Who are they, why did they form and what are they about?

I can't answer all your questions, because I'm not sure. But, they've been excellent about supporting the LPNH. John Babiarz is even on their Board of Directors. I went to their convention last year and it was excellent. I just got the flyer in the mail a few days ago and think I may go to this year's too.

Anyone who came to Escape to NH met them. They were the group in the back corner of the hall with the huge book display and outreach table.
Title: Re:WHERE ARE THE LIBERTARIAN INSTITUTIONS LOCATED?
Post by: johnadams on August 23, 2003, 09:49:54 am
OK, thanks Michelle. If they've already been supporting the FSP and the LPNH I guess that qualifies them as a supportive libertarian infrastructure.

It's interesting that they're located in Nashua. That seems to be a libertarian-oriented city.


[Note for the subtlety challenged: "seems to be" is not the same as saying "definitely is."]
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: EMOR on August 23, 2003, 10:51:14 am
...prefering a more city like atmosphere in NH.

LOL!  You have obviously never been to New Hampshire!  Ok, ok, so it's not your typical scrubland sagebrush covered rural, but more of your hilly, pastureland rural.  What is so funny is that downtown Concord, the frickin' capitol, is about as citified as the piddlin' little Texas sorghum town I live in now, and a helluva lot friendlier!

Bruce

Actually I have been to NH and it is just a suburb or Boston in the southern part of the state. It's name should be changed to NB for North Boston.
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: Michelle on August 23, 2003, 10:54:31 am
You're full of it, Emor.  :P

I live in Southern NH and I guarantee you that you could ask 1000 people here if they believe S. NH  is a suburb of Boston and 1000 people would tell you "NO" - after they laughed at you, that is. There are worlds of difference between New Hampshire and Boston.
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: EMOR on August 23, 2003, 11:10:57 am
There are worlds of difference between New Hampshire and Boston.
I never said that there wasn't a world of difference. Although it is a Boston suburb. How many people commute to Boston for work?   :P
Title: Re:WHERE ARE THE LIBERTARIAN INSTITUTIONS LOCATED?
Post by: EMOR on August 23, 2003, 11:15:07 am
It's interesting that they're located in Nashua. That seems to be a libertarian-oriented city.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Do some more research before making a blanket statement like that please.
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: Michelle on August 23, 2003, 11:43:54 am
There are worlds of difference between New Hampshire and Boston.
I never said that there wasn't a world of difference. Although it is a Boston suburb. How many people commute to Boston for work?   :P

Of all of the hundreds of friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and relatives that I have in the area - I DO NOT know a SINGLE person who commutes to Boston for work.
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: EMOR on August 23, 2003, 11:52:04 am
There are worlds of difference between New Hampshire and Boston.
I never said that there wasn't a world of difference. Although it is a Boston suburb. How many people commute to Boston for work?   :P

Of all of the hundreds of friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and relatives that I have in the area - I DO NOT know a SINGLE person who commutes to Boston for work.
That is interesting since that is one of your claims of the benefits of moving to NH. Hmmmm......
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: JonM on August 23, 2003, 11:55:43 am
There are hundreds of thousands of jobs between the border of New Hampshire and Boston.  Perhaps they stop short.
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: jgmaynard on August 23, 2003, 11:57:26 am
I really just wish I had the time to take a trip to all of them before the ballot.

I think so too.

That's one of the reasons I put together www.freestatenhlive.com .

People can take a "virtual tour" of NH from the comfort of their own homes through web cams and original photos. Fly over Manchester. Cruise the quad in Durham. Visit a typical house in the woods in East Kingston. You can even take a dip under a New Hampshire lake!  

It's all available at http://www.freestatenhlive.com :D

JM
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: Michelle on August 23, 2003, 12:23:11 pm
There are worlds of difference between New Hampshire and Boston.
I never said that there wasn't a world of difference. Although it is a Boston suburb. How many people commute to Boston for work?   :P

Of all of the hundreds of friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and relatives that I have in the area - I DO NOT know a SINGLE person who commutes to Boston for work.
That is interesting since that is one of your claims of the benefits of moving to NH. Hmmmm......

Yes, quite interesting. It is an hour from here - certainly a "do-able" drive if one actually WANTED TO - but not necessary because the NH ECONOMY AND JOB MARKET IS STRONG and people obviously don't feel the need to commute.
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: telomerase on August 24, 2003, 09:24:23 pm
"Yes, closer! Engage those star destroyers at point-blank range!"  ;D
Title: Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
Post by: Kelton on August 24, 2003, 09:59:16 pm
Ah! ***Thread hijack alert*** Let me hurry and nip this one in the bud, if I can, regarding post #'s 8,9,11,12,13 re: homeschooling.  This map presented at the ATR website ( http://www.atr.org/maps/15.html  (http://www.atr.org/maps/15.html) ) is a little bit old, at least pre-1997.  Idaho has been a leader on the homeschooling front in the West for decades now, but in recent years, many other states have come on board and the lay of the land is much different now than that map.  Since this map was published,  the homeschooling movement has become more polarized, with some states liberalizing homeschooling laws and others (like California) greatly increasing regulation in recent years.

Please don't get down too hard on the case of HSLDA for some minor differences of opinion, they are strong allies in this fight, and will lend us assistance as we try to change the laws in our chosen state.  (though only a few very minor tweaks are needed in the existing level of freedom available in Alaska and Idaho at present in order to be truly free).

Please look at this map and descriptions of the laws for a more recent and updated assessment:
(http://www.hslda.org/img/maps/USRegulatoryMap.gif) Home School Laws (http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp)
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: matt621 on August 25, 2003, 01:23:22 pm
We have a good idea of what states people are coming from:

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

Based on the maps, there is no clear east vs. west trend.


If you look at the gross membership, you are right, it doesn't show any trend one way or the other. So for the purpose of this tread, it's a moot point.

Do anyone know how often those maps are updated?

thanks.

Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: milas59 on August 25, 2003, 01:48:53 pm
matt621

Sorry I cant answer your question about frequency of the updatings

But given I am a FL voter, I just had to comment briefly on your now admittedly meaningless thread> An unnamed board member said he thought WY would win because of proximity to CA voters. Another "old" VTer told me he would never vote for DE because it was too hot.

I think as the majority - not the percentage of population JGM - come from southern states -  CA, TX and FL - DE will win because it is hot, flat and populated just like  "home."

Does it have any alligators or rattlesnakes? :D

Peter Baker

Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: EMOR on August 25, 2003, 05:23:29 pm
Delaware would be hard pressed to finish top 8.  ::)
Title: Re:Something to consider: where are the 20K going to come from?
Post by: JonM on August 25, 2003, 09:20:31 pm
Delaware would be hard pressed to finish top 8.  ::)


I suppose it's pointless to ask for the source fact that led to such a profound prediction, I mean, even YOU ranked it higher than that.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Dennis Wilson on September 03, 2003, 11:14:04 am
Quote
If you live in New England and you don't end up becoming another Carl Drega, consider yourself fortunate.

Drega may have been demonized by the national media but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is the reaction of the New Hampshire government; we certainly could have seen a massive gun control backlash as we did in Colorado after Columbine or California after Santee, but didn't. All in all, even after having a needle shoved through their hearts, the NH state government did not react in the violent way that it could have.

NH does have several flaws that cannot be overlooked; this is to be expected when we live in a nation as imperfect and riddled with ideological bullet holes as the United States. So Drega was killed fighting the government; it's one thing to recognize this and protest it but you people should hear your own rhetoric! You act as if now every liberty-minded individual in New Hampshire will be killed in droves, have their homes destroyed by bulldozers, have their families raped by paramilitary social workers funded by the Fourth Reich, and have their relatives disinterred from their graves and replaced by the corpses of US government officials.

This is a project to create a comparative libertarian utopia, not move to an already-existing one. As I said, the NH government's disgraceful handling of Drega is regretable but should not be used solely as a reason to bump NH all the way down to one's list.


Carl Drega had his life ruined for 20+ years on a day to day basis by NH state and local government employees. And the people who pestered him (except for the individuals that Carl killed) still have the "authority" to do it to any person who owns property or lives in NH. The NH government employees will NEVER be made accountable for what they do, any more than the US government shooters at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Perhaps it is something that needs to be experienced to be appreciated, so indulge me while I explain my own personal experiences and perhaps you may get a small clue about why I could NEVER move to New Hampshire.

In the 1970s, I had my auto stolen from in front of my own house (in Phoenix Arizona). When I reported it stolen, the police said that it was NOT stolen, it was towed away by the city. In order to get my own property back, I had to pay a towing fee and retrieve the auto myself. When I stopped payment on the check, I was summoned into court to explain why. (This episode, I actually won! But it cost me attorney fees, time away from my job, mental anquish that is indescribable and all that time, I was paying the wages of the city employees who were trying to impose their view of the world on me and my private property.)

Since then, I have been served multiple notices about my grass length, the size of my bushes and trees, the "unacceptable" view into my back yard from an alley--a view that existed for 15 years before it suddenly became unacceptable--(that one cost me more than $5,000 to remedy, money that was ear marked for my debt reduction before retirement).

I have also been cited for leaving my trash container near the street for too long after the city monopoly picked up the trash. This, like many other citations, carries a $2,500 per day fine. Try to imagine how long you could survive if you went on vacation for 2 weeks and came back to the accumulated fine!

The most recent citation involved my driveway, (and those of several of my neighbors--I am not just singled out). It seems that the gravel that our driveways have contained for more than 40 years is no longer acceptable. (Never mind that ex post facto laws are forbidden in TWO places in the Constitution!) One of the neighbors received the citation the day AFTER she left on a 1 month vacation! The daily fine was that same $2,500 number that Phoenix seems to favor. She were able to get it waived, but the grovelling required is absurd and obscene.

Each of these incidents (and many more) are similar to what Carl Drega suffered for 20 or more years. NONE of the "laws" that he was cited under have been repealed.

The issue is NOT about how Carl Drega died, it is about how he was COMPELLED--BY NH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES--TO LIVE!

I stated elsewhere that "New England is a trap for FSP, a sink hole of statism. Once committed to one of those states, the vastly overwhelming population of welfare leeches will suck the life energy out of every productive member of FSP".

Trying to be an agent of change while fending off local authorities will sap the life out of any porcupine. The chances of having your own life energy sapped by bureaucrats is considerably less in Wyoming than anywhere in New England. Such is one of many reasons I will be leaving Arizona and moving to Wyoming.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: JonM on September 03, 2003, 11:38:17 am
Carl Drega had his life ruined for 20+ years on a day to day basis by NH state and local government employees. And the people who pestered him (except for the individuals that Carl killed) still have the "authority" to do it to any person who owns property or lives in NH. The NH government employees will NEVER be made accountable for what they do, any more than the US government shooters at Ruby Ridge and Waco.

Perhaps it is something that needs to be experienced to be appreciated, so indulge me while I explain my own personal experiences and perhaps you may get a small clue about why I could NEVER move to New Hampshire.

In the 1970s, I had my auto stolen from in front of my own house (in Phoenix Arizona). When I reported it stolen, the police said that it was NOT stolen, it was towed away by the city. In order to get my own property back, I had to pay a towing fee and retrieve the auto myself. When I stopped payment on the check, I was summoned into court to explain why. (This episode, I actually won! But it cost me attorney fees, time away from my job, mental anquish that is indescribable and all that time, I was paying the wages of the city employees who were trying to impose their view of the world on me and my private property.)

Since then, I have been served multiple notices about my grass length, the size of my bushes and trees, the "unacceptable" view into my back yard from an alley--a view that existed for 15 years before it suddenly became unacceptable--(that one cost me more than $5,000 to remedy, money that was ear marked for my debt reduction before retirement).

I have also been cited for leaving my trash container near the street for too long after the city monopoly picked up the trash. This, like many other citations, carries a $2,500 per day fine. Try to imagine how long you could survive if you went on vacation for 2 weeks and came back to the accumulated fine!

The most recent citation involved my driveway, (and those of several of my neighbors--I am not just singled out). It seems that the gravel that our driveways have contained for more than 40 years is no longer acceptable. (Never mind that ex post facto laws are forbidden in TWO places in the Constitution!) One of the neighbors received the citation the day AFTER she left on a 1 month vacation! The daily fine was that same $2,500 number that Phoenix seems to favor. She were able to get it waived, but the grovelling required is absurd and obscene.

Each of these incidents (and many more) are similar to what Carl Drega suffered for 20 or more years. NONE of the "laws" that he was cited under have been repealed.

The issue is NOT about how Carl Drega died, it is about how he was COMPELLED--BY NH GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES--TO LIVE!

I stated elsewhere that "New England is a trap for FSP, a sink hole of statism. Once committed to one of those states, the vastly overwhelming population of welfare leeches will suck the life energy out of every productive member of FSP".

Trying to be an agent of change while fending off local authorities will sap the life out of any porcupine. The chances of having your own life energy sapped by bureaucrats is considerably less in Wyoming than anywhere in New England. Such is one of many reasons I will be leaving Arizona and moving to Wyoming.

It would seem you've been as abused, if not more abused by the government in Phoenix than Carl ever was by his local government.  How many people have you killed because of it?

You'll finding zoning everywhere.  The question is, how hard it is to change it.  I recall reading a report on the 2002 Town Meeting (http://www1.keenesentinel.com/specialreports/TownMeetings/peterborough.htm) in Peterborough, NH.  In that they voted on quite a few zoning questions on the ballot.  One of which was:

Quote
Question 25 was whether to let John Turner keep cows -- but not chickens or pigs -- on his Hunt Road land for his grandchildren to play with. Voters said yes, 767-231.


Pedantic perhaps, but such is the way of democracy sometimes.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Aleuicius on September 03, 2003, 01:25:06 pm
RobertH's point about proximity is well made and it IS a concern of mine - it's the main reason I opted out of DE - he follows the chain clearly and presents it just as clearly - thank you.

Maijuana was used to make the point, but it could also be guns, drugs, or any other outlawed commodity. There will also be the state vs. state economic issues that the Fed won't care about, but bordering states will.
It's something we will definitely encounter.

BTW - I am sorry to see any thread sidetracked as another NH vs. WY bashing - I see far more similarities than differences between the two. Perhaps that is why both rank so high and generate such fervor?
 
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Dennis Wilson on September 03, 2003, 01:53:05 pm
It would seem you've been as abused, if not more abused by the government in Phoenix than Carl ever was by his local government.  How many people have you killed because of it?

You'll finding zoning everywhere.  The question is, how hard it is to change it.  I recall reading a report on the 2002 Town Meeting (http://www1.keenesentinel.com/specialreports/TownMeetings/peterborough.htm) in Peterborough, NH.  In that they voted on quite a few zoning questions on the ballot.  One of which was:

Quote
Question 25 was whether to let John Turner keep cows -- but not chickens or pigs -- on his Hunt Road land for his grandchildren to play with. Voters said yes, 767-231.


Pedantic perhaps, but such is the way of democracy sometimes.

I haven't killed anyone, and I don't want to. That is why I have sold 11 of my 12 properties and will be leaving not just Phoenix, but Arizona when I sell the last one.

Most of the things for which I have been cited are not even part of zoning regulations! They are misc obscure regulations that were "quietly" passed and left dormant for a few years before enforcement began. Some people have even been jailed for their offenses. No thank you! I'm outta here!  

But I will NOT be moving to any New England state for the reasons I have already stated, and for crap like Question 25 that you quoted. There REALLY ARE places in this country where a man does not have to grovel and beg permission from his neighbors in order to keep or dispose of his own private property. Question 25, and its naming of particular people, is a wonderful illustration of LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A PRINCIPLE IS, on the part of the the town where it came up for vote.  A Question 25 should never have to be raised. NH is far too backward for me to move there.

You are welcome to waste your life fighting such issues, but you will eventually realize that there are far more welfare statists around you in New England who are raising issues faster than you have time left in your life to fight. I recommend that you leave while you are still able.

Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Dave Mincin on September 03, 2003, 02:27:46 pm
Your constant reference to New England, leads me to believe you have no true understanding of that area of the country.  As if it was just one single state, and all there act as one robot.  Perhaps you should look at the various state reports and see that New England is not one state, and the states that comprise that area vary much in there beliefs.  Perhaps you believe that all of the east is like Manhattan Island too?

But back to the orginal intent of this thread, proximity.  With the advent of the internet, and mass media, for us to think that we can hideaway in some remote place in my opinion is foolhardy.  Were can we hide, and no one will know about us?

My thought is not to fear the media, or publicity, but to embrace it.  If we believe our ideas are correct then what do we have to fear?  Ok, the bad guys! :D  But if we believe in the people, and we get our message to them, then we can win, we can create a Free State!

Freedom is the right idea!  Our ideas can prevail, but we must use all our skills and learn new ones to get the word of Freedom to the people!

Hiding away just will not get the job done! >:(

Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Dennis Wilson on September 03, 2003, 02:42:54 pm
Your constant reference to New England, leads me to believe you have no true understanding of that area of the country.  As if it was just one single state, and all there act as one robot.  Perhaps you should look at the various state reports and see that New England is not one state, and the states that comprise that area vary much in there beliefs.  

But back to the orginal intent of this thread, proximity.  

Yes, proximity is the issue of this thread.

The area of ALL of the New England states is just a little over 2/3 the size of Wyoming, yet more than 14 million people live in New England, more that 3 million in just the three FSP candidate states--and most of these millions of people are hostile to libertarian ideas as witness the many reports on the FSP site and the latest Bloomberg Report* on Wealth Friendly states. That report is especially important because it was written by a well respected, independent, outside (of FSP) source.
 
In a serious attempt to make sure I wasn't choosing blindly, I read thru every single one of the 101 reasons why I should choose New Hampshire and when I finished, the fact still remained that less than 1/2 million people in Wyoming--an area 1.47 times larger than ALL of New England--already live in more freedom than any one of the millions of people in New England. Even if they have not explicitly embraced the FSP ideals, those in Wyoming are living most of the ideals every day. Twenty years of libertarian activity in the New England states has not produced anything near the freedom that "non-libertarian" Wyoming residents already enjoy today and have enjoyed for years.
 
There are just far too many wrong minded people living in New England (and even just New Hampshire alone)! The chances of crossing swords with one of those wrong minded people are enormous!

* Search on "Bloomberg" on this site to read the full report which I posted  
 or click here: http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2770

Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Dave Mincin on September 03, 2003, 03:10:22 pm
Again you slide from the basic topic of this thread proximity.

Ok conceded, the Bloomberg Report seems to indicate that if you have wealth then WY is a good place to go.  Ok you sold 11 of your 12 properties, so I would guess you have wealth, but how much wealth will the rest of the porc's have when they come? What will there prospects be?

As best as I have been able to learn from the research, and various reports most of the folks in WY live clustered together.  Why?  All that land but everyone lives in these little clusters?  What good is all that land, if no one can lives there?  Why does no one live there?

Ok so you can move to WY, buy 10,000 arces and live right comfortably, and free so how does that help us create a Free State?

BTW what does all this have to do with proximity? ???
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: DadELK68 on September 03, 2003, 03:17:25 pm
Dennis -

Here is a slightly revised version of something I recently posted on another thread, which seems appropriate in response to your comments above:

Part of the stated objectives of the FSP is to create a model, to demonstrate what can be done in a free society. Those who are willing to consider larger-populated and/or eastern states are not only thinking in terms of their best interests - there's a strong case to be made for their vision of the future.

Consider population growth and demographic trends. The US population is continuing to grow, and most of that growth is spreading in/from urban/suburban hubs. Rural areas tend to have stable or even declining populations, until the spread from metropolitan areas begins to reach them. When this happens, the rural areas are either overwhelmed or seek to preserve themselves by restricting development.

If we select a rural, remote, 'hideaway' state, what are we going to demonstrate? That we believe freedom can only exist in such an environment - and because eventually this environment will continue to dwindle, logically you're suggesting that the cause of freedom is doomed. In time, growth will overwhelm even these areas, and/or those retreating to the more rural areas will become increasingly isolated from the power base of the larger population, losing all chance of preserving and increasing freedom. If your version of freedom requires isolation, perhaps what you are seeking is not consistent with the ideological freedom which is supposedly the goal of the FSP.

On the other hand, if we select NH or ID, a model can be created which may realistically spread, to be emulated by other states and regions both bordering the Free State and beyond.

In some ways it's almost a choice between retreating to the hills with a seige mentality vs recognizing the potential of what we have to offer to the world. Who is thinking more of themselves and their own interests - the ones who would leave the world behind to seek personal isolation and 'freedom in their lifetime' which will most likely not last beyond their lifetime, or the ones who seek opportunities to actively change the world for the better?

Eric
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: JonM on September 03, 2003, 05:03:16 pm
It would seem you've been as abused, if not more abused by the government in Phoenix than Carl ever was by his local government.  How many people have you killed because of it?

You'll finding zoning everywhere.  The question is, how hard it is to change it.  I recall reading a report on the 2002 Town Meeting (http://www1.keenesentinel.com/specialreports/TownMeetings/peterborough.htm) in Peterborough, NH.  In that they voted on quite a few zoning questions on the ballot.  One of which was:

Quote
Question 25 was whether to let John Turner keep cows -- but not chickens or pigs -- on his Hunt Road land for his grandchildren to play with. Voters said yes, 767-231.


Pedantic perhaps, but such is the way of democracy sometimes.

I haven't killed anyone, and I don't want to. That is why I have sold 11 of my 12 properties and will be leaving not just Phoenix, but Arizona when I sell the last one.

Most of the things for which I have been cited are not even part of zoning regulations! They are misc obscure regulations that were "quietly" passed and left dormant for a few years before enforcement began. Some people have even been jailed for their offenses. No thank you! I'm outta here!  

But I will NOT be moving to any New England state for the reasons I have already stated, and for crap like Question 25 that you quoted. There REALLY ARE places in this country where a man does not have to grovel and beg permission from his neighbors in order to keep or dispose of his own private property. Question 25, and its naming of particular people, is a wonderful illustration of LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT A PRINCIPLE IS, on the part of the the town where it came up for vote.  A Question 25 should never have to be raised. NH is far too backward for me to move there.

You are welcome to waste your life fighting such issues, but you will eventually realize that there are far more welfare statists around you in New England who are raising issues faster than you have time left in your life to fight. I recommend that you leave while you are still able.


So if I'm your neighbor, you have no issue with me say, setting up an oil refinery on my land?  Or a Wendy's perhaps, open till 2am for those late night munchies?

Peterborough is located halfway between Keene and Nashua.  The property in question seems just south of nice track of development, but terraserver is only letting me zoom in to 8 meters, and globexplorer doesn't have any detailed shots of that area, so it's hard to tell how close to residential area that lot is.

Now it doesn't matter where you live, if you think you can live in the suburbs in Wyoming and not run into zoning issues, good luck to you.  If you want to buy 50 square miles in the middle of nowhere, chances are not many people will care what you do with that land.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Zxcv on September 03, 2003, 07:05:59 pm
Quote
You'll finding zoning everywhere.  The question is, how hard it is to change it.  I recall reading a report on the 2002 Town Meeting in Peterborough, NH.  In that they voted on quite a few zoning questions on the ballot.  One of which was:

Quote

Question 25 was whether to let John Turner keep cows -- but not chickens or pigs -- on his Hunt Road land for his grandchildren to play with. Voters said yes, 767-231.  

Jon, this is supposed to make us like New Hampshire?

I had the same reaction to this that Dennis did. And even more - is it better to have the mob voting on what you do with your property, than it is to have a representative doing it?

At the very least, existing uses of property ought to be grandfathered in (assuming we have zoning at all). Or they should be bought out by those who don't like them, at a price agreeable to the property owner. Hell, even property-unfriendly Oregon manages that (I believe so, anyway). No way should people moving into your area, be able to tell you not to have pigs any more.

Quote
So if I'm your neighbor, you have no issue with me say, setting up an oil refinery on my land?  Or a Wendy's perhaps, open till 2am for those late night munchies?

I believe the libertarian answer to this is that local "zoning" can be created via voluntary associations. Anyway, you are bringing up a straw man here. How many refineries are sited, anyway? And how many Wendy's are going into the middle of residential neighborhoods, where the return on investment would be low?

We have gotten into the habit of using government to accomplish certain ends and provide certain protections. That does not mean those ends and protections are not available otherwise. We just have to get into a different habit of mind, that's all. I'm not willing to give up on freedom so easily, even though I realize there will be setbacks and bumps in the road.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: JonM on September 03, 2003, 10:08:47 pm
Quote
You'll finding zoning everywhere.  The question is, how hard it is to change it.  I recall reading a report on the 2002 Town Meeting in Peterborough, NH.  In that they voted on quite a few zoning questions on the ballot.  One of which was:

Quote

Question 25 was whether to let John Turner keep cows -- but not chickens or pigs -- on his Hunt Road land for his grandchildren to play with. Voters said yes, 767-231.  

Jon, this is supposed to make us like New Hampshire?

I had the same reaction to this that Dennis did. And even more - is it better to have the mob voting on what you do with your property, than it is to have a representative doing it?

At the very least, existing uses of property ought to be grandfathered in (assuming we have zoning at all). Or they should be bought out by those who don't like them, at a price agreeable to the property owner. Hell, even property-unfriendly Oregon manages that (I believe so, anyway). No way should people moving into your area, be able to tell you not to have pigs any more.

Quote
So if I'm your neighbor, you have no issue with me say, setting up an oil refinery on my land?  Or a Wendy's perhaps, open till 2am for those late night munchies?

I believe the libertarian answer to this is that local "zoning" can be created via voluntary associations. Anyway, you are bringing up a straw man here. How many refineries are sited, anyway? And how many Wendy's are going into the middle of residential neighborhoods, where the return on investment would be low?

We have gotten into the habit of using government to accomplish certain ends and provide certain protections. That does not mean those ends and protections are not available otherwise. We just have to get into a different habit of mind, that's all. I'm not willing to give up on freedom so easily, even though I realize there will be setbacks and bumps in the road.

What is is.  Some people bitch that stuff that isn't pure 100% positive is ignored, don't complain when it isn't.  Read the whole link, the town meeting had 147 people attending to vote on the town's spending (the zoning was covered during the town elections just prior).  In what I'm sure is horror to pure Libertarians, they decided they liked the open space enough to kick in $25,000 of the $60,000 or so needed to buy it from the private owners.

But it's people at the town level deciding what goes on at the town level.  Some guy was living in a place not zoned for farm animals I guess.  He wanted cows, so he asked if the zoning could be changed.  If you want to own property that you don't have to ask for the zoning to be changed to do something, BUY PROPERTY WITHOUT THOSE ZONING RESTRICTIONS.  You know where it is, where everyone else isn't.  No matter where you are, if there are a bunch of people already there when you show up, there are likely to be some sort of zoning restrictions.  The problem isn't people wanting to remove them, it's people wanting to add more.

Now you can read through more of these town meeting reports (http://www1.keenesentinel.com/specialreports/TownMeetings/) from the southwestern area of the state.

And what is a town meeting government if not a voluntary association?
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Robert H. on September 04, 2003, 08:21:20 am
I started this "proximity" thread to illustrate how some of our reforms have the potential to create market environments that others will want to take advantage of for their own purposes, some undoubtedly harmful.  That's just the reality of the world we live in today.  We're not going to be doing any of this in a vacuum, thus we're going to have to consider the potential fallout patterns of the various dominoes we topple.

We'll be exposed to this consideration no matter where we go, but some places will afford us the luxury of greater distance from major population (read "trafficking") centers that could potentially feed off of our efforts and bring disfavor on us from the federal government, as well as other sources.  Our reforms will affect people beyond our borders; for the better, we would hope, but whether they will see it that way is another story.

I believe that this is a very valid consideration, but I see that we are still being subjected to the old accusation that going to any than a few select states would constitute "running away," "hiding," or "bunkering."  Really, that argument is being used as a slightly more polite way of taunting people with the idea that they're just being cowardly, or somehow unsophisticated.   ::)  It would be different if it were being stated as some underappreciation for the potential of urban areas, but, it's being expressed as someone actively trying to "run away," a phrase which carries an entirely different connotation.  Hence the reason that I say it is being used to taunt people.

First off, let's just be honest here: aside from Delaware, none of the FSP's candidate states are considered to be influential centers of activity; and none, including Delaware, are exactly apples in the American public's collective eye.  Most of our states, including the New England states, are on the periphery of the country.  You don't hear about them on a daily basis, and with the unsavory exception of Tom Daschle, the country hears about very few of their politicians and other civic leaders.  

Simply put - none of them are considered that all important to the average Joe.

Secondly, when westerners (and I say 'westerners' here because I don't see advocates of the remote New England states being accused of wanting to "run and hide") say that they favor distancing themselves from the major population centers of the country, they do so for several very good reasons that have nothing to do with running away from anyone.



These are a few very legitimate issues with regard to population centers, and none of them have anything to do with running and hiding from anyone.

Before we can look to exporting examples of libertarian freedom, shouldn't we first have some?  There are various FSP candidate states that do demonstrate the benefits of freedom, but none of them have made much of a splash to date.  The country certainly isn't stopping in its tracks to stare.

Our own success must be primary, and the best environment we can provide for pursuing that success is crucial.  I've compared this effort to planting a field before.  The crop that we're trying to raise is extremely fragile, and must be treated as such.  We should try to protect the seeds we plant from as many harmful elements as possible, including interference from others who may either oppose us or try taking advantage of us.  We must do what we can to make sure our seeds of liberty establish strong roots in the soil so that they can grow to maturity.

Then, once the fields are green and growing strong, we can ask everyone else to come take a look.  In fact, they'll already be looking, as many of our planting methods will seem unorthodox.  Some will be interested in spreading the word about what we've done, and by then they'll have a pattern to emulate.  Success will not silence our opposition, but it will deprive them of much ammunition, and it will undoubtedly embolden those who already tend to agree with us.

Again, our own success must be primary!

If the rest of the country follows along, fine, but if it does not, then we will have at least created one potentially safe harbor for those who want shelter from the storm.

Run and hide?  No.  Obviously, we do want some exposure.  But in the information age, no matter where we go, we can have that exposure.  Alaska is certainly remote, but its recent decisions regarding pot and Vermont-style carry have made national news.  Wyoming's low tax, low regulation environment has caught the attention of the likes of the Washington Post, Forbes, and others who monitor financial doings.

Choosing one of the more remote states will not deprive us of the opportunity to get our message out or influence others, but, as I believe I have illustrated to some degree above, it may just allow this movement to take root with a minimum of harmful outside influences.  This, in turn, may produce a stronger crop, something people will more thoughtfully consider; certainly something that they would be more likely to emulate.

You can't show off what you don't already have.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: DadELK68 on September 04, 2003, 09:00:22 am
Robert, I think you're misunderstanding me ( :'():

...I see that we are still being subjected to the old accusation that going to any than a few select states would constitute "running away," "hiding," or "bunkering."  Really, that argument is being used as a slightly more polite way of taunting people with the idea that they're just being cowardly, or somehow unsophisticated.   ::)  It would be different if it were being stated as some underappreciation for the potential of urban areas, but, it's being expressed as someone actively trying to "run away," a phrase which carries an entirely different connotation.  Hence the reason that I say it is being used to taunt people...

There is a certain element among those posting to these fora who repeatedly advocate for particular states based on their desire for freedoms which will not be easily accepted in any 'settled' area - they want the vast open plains and high plateaus to be able to do whatever they want without worrying about irritating any neighbors (although they couch this in terms of wanting to have neighbors who won't be irritated, we have to deal with the realities of human nature, even within the ranks of the FSP).

These are the ones who want to 'run away', who seem to think that 'Freedom' can't exist within a region with a population density of more than a couple of people per square mile. This may or may not apply to you, but there are those among us whose view of their own self-interest is that they want isolation and to be left alone. Because that isn't the goal of the FSP (although for many it may hopefully be one of the results), perhaps I do 'taunt' them a bit, but I would suggest that it's justified - hopefully encouraging a little self-reflection on their part.

These are a few very legitimate issues with regard to population centers, and none of them have anything to do with running and hiding from anyone.

Before we can look to exporting examples of libertarian freedom, shouldn't we first have some?  

...I've compared this effort to planting a field before.  The crop that we're trying to raise is extremely fragile, and must be treated as such.  We should try to protect the seeds we plant from as many harmful elements as possible, including interference from others who may either oppose us or try taking advantage of us.  We must do what we can to make sure our seeds of liberty establish strong roots in the soil so that they can grow to maturity.

...If the rest of the country follows along, fine, but if it does not, then we will have at least created one potentially safe harbor for those who want shelter from the storm.

You do express reasonable and reasoned concerns and opinions, and I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge them as opinions rather than suggesting otherwise. My response is a rational question which I have yet to see anyone in the 'minimal-population-state' camp address - in fact, you seem to reinforce the point.

Can life in more urban/suburban areas be compatible with 'Freedom'? If so, then we need to demonstrate it. If not, then what's the point of what we're doing? If 'Freedom' is only possible in relative physical isolation, then as rural opportunities continue to decline the future is one without freedom.

The 'safe harbor' will be overwhelmed unless the goal is to create a model from which others can build in other areas of the country - my fear is that if you simply give up on the urban/suburban areas, the 'statist' mentality which is often promoted in most of these areas will continue to dominate, and as these areas are the ones which will continue to grow and increasingly dominate state, regional, national and international politics... Well, creating a tiny remote island of freedom while letting the ocean rage unchecked is likely to lead to ultimately just being washed away.

Perhaps we have to redefine freedom - to create models of freedom which are successul in urban and suburban settings. This has to involve a certain amount of self-regulation based on respect and consideration for others, so as to minimize sentiment favoring governmental regulation. In my opinion, this would be better accomplished in a place such as Manchester NH or Boise ID than in tiny towns and metropolitan areas with less than 100k residents.

Choosing one of the more remote states will not deprive us of the opportunity to get our message out or influence others, but, as I believe I have illustrated to some degree above, it may just allow this movement to take root with a minimum of harmful outside influences.  This, in turn, may produce a stronger crop, something people will more thoughtfully consider; certainly something that they would be more likely to emulate.

You can't show off what you don't already have.

However, if what you have is so different from underlying conditions in the rest of the country that people can brush it off as an aberration, then chances of it spreading are minimal - and it will be overwhelmed within a few generations at most.

My challenge is to those who believe that 'freedom in their lifetime' requires individual and/or collective isolation, that the incubator (or greenhouse, in your analogy) requires isolation and protection. We don't need fragile greenhouse plants, we need hardy freedom-loving weeds - 'activists' need to be able to survive and even thrive in the face of opposition.

You're correct in your thread title - these are 'potential issues', and again I agree that your concerns are valid. My perspective, based on my experience combined with my concerns and opinions, leads me to a different and I believe equally valid conclusion. Call it a different take on your different take!

Eric
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Robert H. on September 04, 2003, 07:27:39 pm

There is a certain element among those posting to these fora who repeatedly advocate for particular states based on their desire for freedoms which will not be easily accepted in any 'settled' area - they want the vast open plains and high plateaus to be able to do whatever they want without worrying about irritating any neighbors...

These are the ones who want to 'run away', who seem to think that 'Freedom' can't exist within a region with a population density of more than a couple of people per square mile. This may or may not apply to you, but there are those among us whose view of their own self-interest is that they want isolation and to be left alone.


To be fair, I believe that there are some who are so tired of being dictated to, or else just frowned upon, that they're ready to head off where they won't catch sight of another human being anytime soon. Ironically, they could disappear just as effectively into the woods of Maine. They seem to be a minority though. Most, I think, just associate freedom with the ability to roam.


You do express reasonable and reasoned concerns and opinions, and I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge them as opinions rather than suggesting otherwise. My response is a rational question which I have yet to see anyone in the 'minimal-population-state' camp address - in fact, you seem to reinforce the point.

Can life in more urban/suburban areas be compatible with 'Freedom'? If so, then we need to demonstrate it. If not, then what's the point of what we're doing? If 'Freedom' is only possible in relative physical isolation, then as rural opportunities continue to decline the future is one without freedom.


I understand the point that you're making here, but I don't believe that it is necessarily a matter of where freedom can ultimately work so much as it a matter of where freedom can best work now, thus laying the foundation for its expansion in the future. I believe that, given time, freedom could succeed in the city as well as in the country. The problem that I see now is that so much of our infrastructure has become dependent upon statism for its support that attempts to reform the system from the top down will get us nowhere fast.

We have used statist methods to create a culture of dependency, and while there are alternatives to that system, the systems that we have put into place in the meantime (and the underlying assumptions about government that we have placed in the minds of the people) will make real, meaningful reform a difficult proposition. Ultimately, our task will be to change the way that people think, and give them incentives to take their future into their own hands as opposed to relying on someone else to provide for them. But "plunder," as Bastiat put it, "is easier than work." Human beings have a basic desire to be free, but they also like to be comfortable, and, when pressed, they'll trade freedom for comfort. Statism feeds that basic impulse. Thus, we are not only contending with human reason here. We're also contending with human impulse, which tends to be stronger than reason.

Because of this, it seems that what we really need is a new foundation upon which to build (or as close to one as we can get). This is why I favor tackling a small city like Cheyenne over much larger metropolitan areas. The task will still be difficult, but it will not likely be as difficult. Success there may be more realistically accomplished in our lifetime, and, with a libertarian foundation in place, continued growth would not immediately foster the growth of government, as it currently does.

What we accomplish will still be demonstrable. As I mentioned previously, the Information Age will help take care of that; combined with our own shameless advocacy, of course. Success is what is paramount. Detractors may try to write it off as "small town" or "small state" success, and they will likely try to pervert it into an "unfeeling culture of greed" as well, but they won't be able to deny it. In a culture of declining liberty and prosperity, we would stick out like a sore thumb.

Quote

The 'safe harbor' will be overwhelmed unless the goal is to create a model from which others can build in other areas of the country - my fear is that if you simply give up on the urban/suburban areas, the 'statist' mentality which is often promoted in most of these areas will continue to dominate, and as these areas are the ones which will continue to grow and increasingly dominate state, regional, national and international politics... Well, creating a tiny remote island of freedom while letting the ocean rage unchecked is likely to lead to ultimately just being washed away.


Unfortunately though, we're assuming that people are going to be impressed with what we accomplish to the point where national politics will change in our favor. Again, I believe that impulse will prevail over reason. People will continue to advocate statism because some will continue to want to live at the expense of others, and some will continue to think that they know what's best for everyone. That's the history of man on earth right there, in spite of some examples that have been laid out as to how freedom can work: like the United States.

I do believe that some will follow, but I think the trend of near future history will either come down to globalization or balkanization. Either we will all be forced to live under one roof, with the goal of supporting the many on the backs of the few, or we'll agree to disagree and part company by creating smaller nation-states and confederations. This is one reason why I've pushed the idea of going where we can best form a regional solidarity, so as to foster the latter. Right now, the prevailing political winds seem to be steering us toward consolidation and globalization. I consider the FSP a mutiny, and an opportunity to help change course. ;)

I may be the gloomy sort, but I just do not see widespread acceptance of the principles and practices necessary to create and sustain liberty in our near future. The US is the closest that we've ever come to seeing it happen, and the same old impulses are steadily 'doing us in' once again, even here.

Our little island may get washed away, true. But then again, we may find ourselves diluted in the ocean as well, if we have no place where we can make a stand. If given a choice, I'd rather create one place where we can make a stand and rally others who feel as we do. The "city on a hill" example comes to mind here: a beacon of freedom that can be seen from afar. But it requires a firm foundation.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Robert H. on September 04, 2003, 07:35:52 pm
Quote

Perhaps we have to redefine freedom - to create models of freedom which are successul in urban and suburban settings. This has to involve a certain amount of self-regulation based on respect and consideration for others, so as to minimize sentiment favoring governmental regulation. In my opinion, this would be better accomplished in a place such as Manchester NH or Boise ID than in tiny towns and metropolitan areas with less than 100k residents.


But to sustain the type of change you hope to implement, not to mention selling it in the first place, will take a people who choose to govern themselves above simply taking what they want from others. Again, the battle between reason and impulse; a war to fundamentally reshape the way that people think and act. I believe that this battle may be more effectively waged where the people are more autonomous and individualistic as a whole, and where the infrastructure is smaller and less burdensome.

Quote


Choosing one of the more remote states will not deprive us of the opportunity to get our message out or influence others, but, as I believe I have illustrated to some degree above, it may just allow this movement to take root with a minimum of harmful outside influences. This, in turn, may produce a stronger crop, something people will more thoughtfully consider; certainly something that they would be more likely to emulate.

You can't show off what you don't already have.


However, if what you have is so different from underlying conditions in the rest of the country that people can brush it off as an aberration, then chances of it spreading are minimal - and it will be overwhelmed within a few generations at most.


When you come right down to it, it's libertarianism that's different. There are enough small towns, cities, and states throughout the country that many will be able to identify with us, if we are successful.  That said though, if we're trending in the opposite direction from the rest of the country, I believe that we will attract attention and interest from all quarters.  There will undoubtedly be some who will speculate on how our ideas might be applied to their own communities.

Besides, progressing from smaller to larger areas could follow the same trend as how people tend to advance from smaller to greater positions based on their experience level and/or training.  Town councilmen become county councilmen, county councilmen become state legislators, state legislators become national legislators and governors, national legislators and governors become president.  Our ideas could advance from the smaller to the larger level in much the same fashion.

Quote
My challenge is to those who believe that 'freedom in their lifetime' requires individual and/or collective isolation, that the incubator (or greenhouse, in your analogy) requires isolation and protection. We don't need fragile greenhouse plants, we need hardy freedom-loving weeds - 'activists' need to be able to survive and even thrive in the face of opposition.

I think that they can survive and even thrive as well; once they've reached maturity, that is.  The problem with weeds - although I understand your analogy - is that they spread by sapping the strength of other plants.  Weeds are more aptly compared to statists.

Consider an example of how an isolation/incubation scenario helped change the world: the United States.  Much of what we are was able to be achieved because we were separated by thousands of miles of ocean from the more aggressive world powers.  That distance allowed us to sink some deep roots and grow strong.  Once we finally entered the world stage, we were prepared for it, and we changed the face of it.

Quote
You're correct in your thread title - these are 'potential issues', and again I agree that your concerns are valid. My perspective, based on my experience combined with my concerns and opinions, leads me to a different and I believe equally valid conclusion. Call it a different take on your different take!

I can respect that.  Libertarians agreeing to disagree?  Who would have thought it?!   ;D ;)
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Zxcv on September 05, 2003, 01:19:37 am
Quote
Can life in more urban/suburban areas be compatible with 'Freedom'? If so, then we need to demonstrate it. If not, then what's the point of what we're doing? If 'Freedom' is only possible in relative physical isolation, then as rural opportunities continue to decline the future is one without freedom.

Robert more or less answered this, but I'll throw my 2c in too.

It's pretty clear freedom can exist in low density areas. The question is, can it exist in big cities?

Let's assume it can. Then to demonstrate this, is it easier for a city to grow up retaining a culture of freedom, or to take a city with some agglomeration of statist rules, culture and constituents, and make it free?

Clearly it's easier to grow that way. It's easier to never become dependent on a bureaucracy, than to root out a bureaucracy that has all the good cards in its hand. Even more so, it's easier to convince citizens who are already free of the benefits of remaining free, than it is to convince a large number of citizens who are fastened on the public tit they'd be better off without it.

We have some new ideas here, and some useful knowledge. We know, for example, that we can't just take for granted that this nation will remain free. We know it is subject to the same incentives that any other country is. Knowing that, we then realize that we must take measures to counter those incentives, and to replace them with different ones. Just as an example, I've talked before about putting in place and nourishing cultural disincentives for statists. A healthy gun culture is going to keep a certain percentage of statists out of our state. The more of these things we can put in place, the better.

More new ideas: moving toward freedom. This is really an old idea, but died out for a while. Most people would look at you funny 50 years ago if you said you wanted to move to a particular state to be free, but these days it's pretty understandable.

And there is the Internet, think tanks, all sorts of tools. We now have tools to work with, and some historical perspective, to see how to make a city grow without becoming a "statist hellhole".

If we can take a city like Cheyenne and make it more free and keep it there, then we will know if free cities are possible. If we can't, we will also know they are not. However if we try to make free an existing, unfree big city, and fail, we still won't know if free cities are possible or not. All we will know is that we couldn't make that one free.

This whole process, using these tools and knowledge, will be a whole lot easier with some distance from media centers and other similar sorts of propaganda and bad influence.
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: DadELK68 on September 05, 2003, 12:34:18 pm
Quote
Can life in more urban/suburban areas be compatible with 'Freedom'? If so, then we need to demonstrate it... If 'Freedom' is only possible in relative physical isolation, then as rural opportunities continue to decline the future is one without freedom.

It's pretty clear freedom can exist in low density areas... is it easier for a city to grow up retaining a culture of freedom, or to take a city with some agglomeration of statist rules, culture and constituents, and make it free?


I appreciate both of you responding to this, as I haven't seen anyone respond in a significant way when I've raised this question in the past. Obviously, we're all speculating - which is interesting and hopefully useful, but in the end we just don't know until we try.

I understand and don't disagree with your example of Cheyenne - however, the counter-examples I can offer of Boise and Manchester might play out like this, when the FSP begins moving to NH (or ID, but for simplicity I'll just use NH - it's also useful because urban Manchester is the most significant 'statist' stronghold in NH and my impression is that it's probably more so than is Boise, although the rest of the state of NH tends to be more 'small-L' libertarian while the rest of ID tends to be more conservative):

First, FSP activists will probably be distributed throughout the state roughly in proportion to the current trends in population density, although some may choose to settle more strategically in a few target towns/counties to strengthen the movement there. Next, their growing influence on the state level (due to statewide distribution) leads to increasing devolution of power from Concord to the local (city/town/township) level.

It seems logical that this be the first step for two reasons: first, it's easier to convince people to accept devolution from the state to local level than to simply enact radical, broad changes on a statewide level. Next, it allows those whose concentration and influence is greatest in specific towns to exert increasing influence within their towns, rolling back central control and increasing freedom locally with more radical reforms. For example, which is more likely to succeed - privatizing the public school system statewide, or freeing up local communities to experiment so that after a few examples exist others might choose to follow?

The result is multiple models (as different steps will be taken at different rates in different communities) throughout the state, with neighboring communities increasingly following their examples or being forced to become temporarily more statist. The increasing freedoms will tend to repel statists from the more free areas, either not moving in, leaving the state, or moving to the few remaining statist enclaves. An example of this is how Liberals currently decry the lack of state-wide kindergarten; those wanting sidewalks and publicly funded kindergarten don't move to towns lacking such amenities of statism.

As this continues, Manchester and Lebanon (as well as a few other communities) have one of two options. As the possibility of aid from Concord (i.e. pillage from other communities) decreases, they either have to begin weaning themselves from statism to compete or they have to increase taxes (taking from their liberal elitist residents to provide for their liberal dependent residents) to the point that the economic foundation is so eroded (by taxpaying people and businesses fleeing to the surrounding increasingly free communities) that there is a localized small-scale socio-economic-political collapse - resulting in the most statist among them being forced to either change their thinking or move, along with the inevitable ascension of those with a better understanding and ability to shift the urban area toward a more solidly free foundation.

To some extent I suspect this will be the pattern in the more urban/statist areas of any state, if the FSP is to succeed. I suspect, however, that having a predominance of taxpaying mostly non-agricultural and non-state employed (donor, rather than recipient) in the underlying population will increase the chances of success in NH vs WY because it makes it much easier to isolate the statists in a few locales - they won't have as many potential allies addicted to government in the other areas of the state.

Another advantage to this process in NH vs any of the Western areas is the opposite of the isolation argument - in NH, there aren't vast distances between different municipalities. When it comes to disseminating changes from a few initial successful model town reforms, it will be more likely that (in NH) Chester will have a potential influence on Nottingham than that (in ID) Middleton will have similar influence on Twin Falls or that (in WY) Evanston will have similar influence on Rawlins. You could argue the concern that the potential for statist influence in proximity is a net negative, but when things actually start changing I suspect the influence for libertarian influence is a net positive.

Eric
Title: Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
Post by: Robert H. on September 06, 2003, 05:17:19 am
I appreciate both of you responding to this, as I haven't seen anyone respond in a significant way when I've raised this question in the past. Obviously, we're all speculating - which is interesting and hopefully useful, but in the end we just don't know until we try.

This is true.  Personally, I place greater emphasis in setting the proper foundation for building upward, particularly given where our society stands at the moment.  However, what you are spelling out here might have a chance as well given that you assume a sufficient degree of success at the state level.  Without such success, the devolution your plan requires will not be able to take place.  I have serious doubts about whether that is feasible in the higher population states, and especially in New Hampshire due to the size of its House of Representatives.

The idea behind what you're suggesting appeals to me in a way because it seems like doing statists the justice they deserve.  "If you want this top-heavy system, you can pay for it yourself."  It essentially seeks to knock the supports out from under the system.  This could work, of course, but knocking the supports out means that whatever those supports are currently holding up will be coming down.  Given the fact that our larger metro areas have grown so heavy as to strain those supports in the first place, I don't believe that places like New York would find such methods appealing.  No one would want to be under that statist Goliath if it were to come down.   ;)

Devolution could be applied to places like New York, but it would have to be done carefully, and with an infusion of free market forces tackling some very difficult issues, right down to things as simple as public highways and utilities (not to mention more socially significant issues).  Again, this is a problem of dependency that we've created and that we currently sustain by statist methods.  Transitioning off of it will take more than a change of policy without creating some significant problems for larger cities.  It will take a total change of perspective and lifestyle, which could take two generations or more.

All of that to say that even if you could potentially pull off devolution in a place like New Hampshire, the larger metro areas you're hoping to influence through that example are in an entirely different pickle.  The best way to start there may be cap the further growth of programs and to start scaling them back and privatizing while try to bring the dependent masses up from their dependency.  No simple task that, and the fact that it would be so difficult gives me little hope that it will take place.  It would take strong, sustained libertarian leadership, and a heavy emphasis on the principles of liberty at the grassroots, individual level to a degree never before seen (and in direct competition with human impulses to the contrary).

Quote
Another advantage to this process in NH vs any of the Western areas is the opposite of the isolation argument - in NH, there aren't vast distances between different municipalities. When it comes to disseminating changes from a few initial successful model town reforms, it will be more likely that (in NH) Chester will have a potential influence on Nottingham than that (in ID) Middleton will have similar influence on Twin Falls or that (in WY) Evanston will have similar influence on Rawlins.

There is certainly potential for this, although given the importance of a city like Cheyenne to the entire State of Wyoming, I believe that a significant level of change there would ripple througout the state in spite of distance.  That's an instance when your emphasis on devolution would begin to apply (only with smaller areas involved).  

Quote
You could argue the concern that the potential for statist influence in proximity is a net negative, but when things actually start changing I suspect the influence for libertarian influence is a net positive.

Well, the aspect of proximity that I'm emphasizing here would apply more to locations outside of the chosen state, places that would not be as likely to change.
Title: Re:WHERE ARE THE LIBERTARIAN INSTITUTIONS LOCATED?
Post by: johnadams on September 06, 2003, 06:15:07 pm
It's interesting that they're located in Nashua. That seems to be a libertarian-oriented city.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Do some more research before making a blanket statement like that please.

Emor, if you've read many of my posts you know I do a lot of research and provide a lot of information as well as opinions. I have read many of your posts and you seem to be one of the most divisive posters in these fora, so methinks the fox smells himself. Nine little faces is no substitute for real research and productive discussion. If you have information you would like to share that refutes my observation, based on information about Nashua and its political leaders that I've read here and learned about elsewhere, please do share it with us. But please spare us your snide and caustic one-liners.

I am fully aware of the attempts that you and other WY supporters made to smear southern NH as a socialist haven and its recent immigrants as seekers of statism. You obviously have chosen to ignore the evidence that was provided time and again which refuted those claims. That is your right and I defend your right to hold whatever views you choose, but now that the voting is likely mostly over why don't we focus more on information than vitriol? I would be happy to review the results of any new research you have done. Most people have probably already voted anyway, so why not relax and work toward peace and reconciliation at this point? I hope you fulfill your dream of moving to WY and I wish you the best of luck.

As a matter of fact, I was just visiting this thread again to provide the results of still more research I have done. I stumbled upon mention of the Ethan Allen Institute, a Vermont free market think tank, which led me to the State Policy Network [note: not all the think tanks listed with the State Policy Network (SPN) are libertarian friendly, but they all allegedly have some free-market connection], which in turn led me to The Josiah Bartlett Center. I checked for a WY think tank listing with the SPN and would have been happy to provide it in the interest of reconciliation, but there were none (if you don't believe me you can check out the SPN map yourself at http://www.spn.org/resources/spn_directory/default.asp.).

There is, however, the Independence Institute in nearby Colorado. This organization looks promising.


The Independence Institute
www.i2i.org  

The Independence Institute is a Colorado-based state think tank founded on the principle of individual responsibility and the small-government philosophy of the Declaration of Independence. The Institute publishes issues papers, editorials, and books.


Ethan Allen Institute
http://www.ethanallen.org/index3.html

"Vermont's Free Market Think Tank"


The Josiah Bartlett Center
http://www.jbartlett.org/

POLICY MATTERS: The Opportunity to Eliminate the Statewide Property Tax
http://www.jbartlett.org/pdf/policy_matters_web.pdf

"The Center has as its core beliefs individual freedom and responsibility, limited and accountable government, and an appreciation of the role of the free enterprise system."


If anyone is familiar with the The Independence Institute, the Ethan Allen Institute or the Josiah Bartlett Center and can let us know how libertarian/free-market oriented they are I would appreciate it. And if anyone has info on other libertarian-oriented think tanks in any of the potential Free States or nearby cities please do share it with us.
Title: Freedom Now failed FSP must succed
Post by: Tony Stelik on September 09, 2003, 09:27:38 am
I was just was about “Freedom Now” project of Cairn in September Quill.
It is impressive the idea has being so many times applied to form the shape of society to the liking of particular group of people. I did not know about this project. Have I knew it, I would probably be living in Fort Collins Colorado. now.
It is sad the project did not succeed. But it is good fundamental experience for all of us, when we are involved in FSP.
I would like to think why that older project failed.
The concept to which Cairn subscribes even now, was to locate in the politically unimportant place. Somewhere, the politicians would not feel treated. Below “radar screen”. Unfortunately such a place could not provide enough work, the living conditions were not attractive enough for the people to move.
From this experience I think we absolutely need  â€œcritical mass” – 20K porcupines.
“Political remoteness” is a mistake. Moving to such a place is counter productive to our goals of creating “critical mass”. To assemble 20 K porcupines we need to be “high profile” movement, the one written about, discussed, and well known. This high visibility is also our insurance policy, no politician or bureaucrat will dare to use the force against us if we will be well known peaceful, respecting constitution movement. No one would describe us as a thread to society and a terrorists. This is serious concern. Everybody I am talking with, considers our end under government jack booths. This also was my concern when I learned about FSP at first.
Also “political remoteness” is for the reason. In such a place business does not exist. There is no money, no people, so there is no interest of government in such location. If one can not provide for self, one would not move. But even if individuals would create the work places and the businesses, government would get immediately interested in the place and would try to step in to get the piece of the action. This would be easy, since the place would be far and away from any public interest. Information in the media would be either nonexistent or span the way the officials would like. The only sign of something happening would be amassment of political analyst and economist of incredible phenomena of unexplainable momentary local business growth in place X.
From my evaluation the “Freedom Now” project was doomed to fail from the beginning due to this one underlying concept:
Remote, unimportant place beyond politicians interests, the place where rugged individualism could be the only powering force.
We need another approach today.
We need to create “critical mass” – 20K moving.
We need to chose the state where are jobs to be able to attract “critical mass”
We need to be high profile to deter those who will not like the political direction we will be going.
We will need to influence local individuals and get involved in local political structures.
Only few of considered states provide us with the opportunities as above.
This states are NH, and than second choice ID, AK and DE. The rest of concerns is less important and in fact would be repetition of Cairn’s “Freedom Now” effort.
FSP in WY would be just another Freedom Now project just maybe on little bigger scale, but not big enough.
BTW, my best regards for Ms Cairn. I wander if she is today a member of FSP. Would be glad to be her neighbor somewhere.