Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: glen on August 29, 2002, 11:54:19 pm

Title: Lone Wolves
Post by: glen on August 29, 2002, 11:54:19 pm
Once a state (any state) has been chosen as the free state, it will become a magnet for every kind of lone wolf and social outcast imaginable. It has been my experience that if these people have enough territory and legal jurisdictions to move around in, they will eventually settle down and become valued (or at least tolerated) members of a community.

For this reason (among others) I am in favor of choosing Idaho as the free state. Idaho borders on six US states and one Canadian province with another province, Alberta, about 90 miles to the northeast.

In addition. all counties bordering on Idaho have very small populations except the ‘I-90 book end’ counties of Spokane County, Washington and Missoula County, Montana.
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: glen on August 30, 2002, 08:27:26 pm
Hi Solitar. Thank you for your kind words about my first post.

Your point that ‘(in the far northeastern states) There is a lot of territory there to get lost in, and little towns back in the woods where a guy can be a logger or barkeep. It also has coastal areas where a lone wolf can take a boat out for a while and fight the sea rather than people’ is well taken.

1) However, I disagree that the people of the northeastern US are more civilized than those of the northern rocky mountain states. My personal view is that the northeast population has been better educated over a longer period of time but that distinction is rapidly fading.

2) As to the settling down process, while some lone wolves and social outcasts are in need of examples of civilized community behavior to conform to, my understanding is that most of these guys and gals simply reach the point where total freedom becomes too much effort to maintain so they opt for the most freedom they can get for the least cost (however measured). When they settle down (or more appropriately, slow down) they often look for kindred souls to live among.

I view this as a self correcting process where lone wolves who have settled down are now in a position to assist others who want to settle down. In time, they create their own communities. If it can be shown that this assumption works out in practice, this means that ‘the thousands of fringe loners that Idaho and Montana have attracted’ become an asset rather than a liability.

3) Finally, no matter what state 20,000 FSP libertarians move to, the FSPers  will be viewed as a bunch of extremists by the locals. My guess is that the more sedentary and traditional the chosen state is, the more the locals will be threatened by the libertarian migration.

Because Idaho has seen at least four waves of immigrants in the last 30 years or so (Mormons, hippies, right-wing conspiracy theorists and now expatriate dot-commers from the west coast) Idaho looks to be the state which would feel least threatened by the libertarian migration.

Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: glen on September 04, 2002, 10:14:12 pm
I like your idea of trying to identify the sheep or degree of sheepness. I have heard them called sheepeople too. How do you think they can be identified?

Television viewing habits come to mind but I cannot figure out how to interpret the data from the TV ratings services.

I think that sheepeople will also be hard core consumers. I define ‘hard core consumer’ as: suspending your judgment in the face of modern advertising techniques with the result that you become programmed to buy planned obsolescent merchandise on high interest credit terms.

Maybe one way to identify ‘probable not-sheepeople’ is to find out what parts of a state have poor television reception or no television at all.
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: Stumpy on September 30, 2002, 08:02:49 am
The states with the greatest percentage of churchgoers might be the also the states with the greatest percentage of sheeple.

Hmm? Let’s look at Tennessee. It has a very high percentage of churchgoers. Solidly in the Bible belt. Tennessee is the home of the: Southern Baptist, Natl. Baptist, Church of God, Church of God In Christ to name a few. One might even say, Tennessee is the buckle of the Bible belt.

Now, reflect on the way the people of Tennessee have thwarted the efforts of those wanting to impose a state income tax on them.

Would you call them sheeple?
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 30, 2002, 10:01:02 am
Good point, Stumpy.  In fact, if anything, the percentage of churchgoers is negatively correlated with the percentage of sheeple.  California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York are probably the most secular states in the country, and they're all pretty socialistic.
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: mactruk on October 04, 2002, 04:34:02 pm
 Hello from Montana.  I think worry about what the press or feds think about the Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming crowd is something to get use to.  When the move to opt out of the US begins you will instantly go to the top of the list of anarchist/separatist/militia.  Most people in my town are from somewhere else trying to get away from big city groups that according to the press and the feds are crime ridden, polluted, and full of socialists.    
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: wilaygarn on October 09, 2002, 10:32:52 pm
In Considering the relationship of churchgoers to sheeple, I remembered those "christians with guns" whose battle cry was "No king but Jesus!", and Payne's quoting of I Samuel chapter 8, when describing how it was not God's intention for his people to be ruled by kings, in his booklet "Common Sense". I'd say the same goes for tyrannical governments.

There are still a few people like that.
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: glen on October 16, 2002, 10:31:36 pm
I think that a good definition of sheeple is: people who complain about the conditions in their cage and then expect someone else to do something about it.
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: glen on November 23, 2002, 09:26:27 am
Please have a look at my photographic argument in favor of Idaho at:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=21;action=display;threadid=502

(reply #4)
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: varrin on November 23, 2002, 01:26:29 pm
Moi pretty. ;-)

V-

Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 23, 2002, 11:23:39 pm
Glen, great picture of clear cutting in Idaho.  ???

Seriously though it makes me miss back home a little.
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: glen on November 24, 2002, 12:27:56 am
I used to be bothered by clear cutting because it looked bad and I had come to think that clear cutting was a desecration of the pristine natural wilderness. It still doesn’t look all that great but I am now able to accept the cycle of responsible clear cutting and replanting as a process necessary to maintain ecosystem health and, of course, to benefit people through the use of this valuable natural resource to generate jobs.

I changed my attitude about our ‘pristine wilderness’ after reading the article at this link: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/03/mann.htm

In a nutshell, the article says the assumption that the pre-Columbian America’s were a pristine wilderness where small tribes of natives lived in harmony with the land is challenged by a school of thought which suggests that the America’s were as well populated as Europe was at that time and that the various ecosystems were managed on a grand scale primarily for the benefit of the people, not the flora or fauna.  

If true, this invalidates many of the basic assumptions built into the environmental movement and the different government wilderness protection and environmental regulation agencies.

If the free staters can turn this theory into hard science and can then transfer that hard science into the political debate, the free staters will be in the position of promoting timber jobs and responsible ecosystem stewardship. This issue, all by itself, would be enough to enable free state political candidates to seriously compete for state level positions.

Comments?
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: wilaygarn on November 24, 2002, 03:01:47 pm
I read where God put Adam in the garden and told him to dress it, which I take to mean to manage it.

I think too much of the "sustainable development" movement is a thinly disguised form of nature worship which sees humanity as evil and is used as a tool to evict people off the land. It is also an easy way for NGO's like the Nature Conservancy to become land barons in their own right.

From what I have seen and read on the subject, I think the healthiest forests, etc are the ones that are managed and used, not just sealed off. Trees do grow back, wildlife reproduces, etc. Nature is in a constant state of change.

I think  if individuals are free to own land and to manage it as they think best it is the most we can hope for. There will be cases of misuse, but the alternative leads to the collective example of mismanagment on a grand scale.
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: redbeard on November 24, 2002, 05:28:00 pm
Indeed. I work in forestry in Northern California and I can tell you from first hand experience that the healthiest (and best looking) forests are those that are properly managed rather than those that are left untouched. Many areas are saved from such things as needle blight and bug infestations by human interventions such as thinning and sanitation logging. It sounds funny but if it weren't for logging there would be far fewer trees on the continent.
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: mactruk on February 27, 2003, 02:12:17 pm
  The problem is not experience or assets - our political process and our elected leaders are crooks.  The problem is people vote without knowing anything.  The idea of tax is nothing more than stealling,  Isnt it strange that a person of principle will not get elected?  The voter wants to hear how much do I get?  If you dont lie you dont get elected no matter how much money you have.  60% of the voter population lives on some sort of welfare - how would you vote if you got a check every month?  
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: Hank on August 05, 2003, 10:20:34 pm
You know what I'm afraid of?
Porcupines like me.
Lone wolves who may move but then disappear.
Or they won't come out because the game is on.
Or they want to go fishing instead.
We don't want to be politicians that other libertarians will swear at.

Sadly, the statists do come out and they do vote and they do run for office.
While the lone wolves cry in their beer.
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: freedomroad on August 05, 2003, 11:00:35 pm
You know what I'm afraid of?
Porcupines like me.
Lone wolves who may move but then disappear.
Or they won't come out because the game is on.
Or they want to go fishing instead.
We don't want to be politicians that other libertarians will swear at.

Sadly, the statists do come out and they do vote and they do run for office.
While the lone wolves cry in their beer.

As long as you are an activist and spend part of yourself encouraging freedom I do not care if you fish.  Heck, I enjoy fishing.
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: Rearden on August 05, 2003, 11:10:38 pm
You know what I'm afraid of?
Porcupines like me.
Lone wolves who may move but then disappear.
Or they won't come out because the game is on.
Or they want to go fishing instead.
We don't want to be politicians that other libertarians will swear at.

Sadly, the statists do come out and they do vote and they do run for office.
While the lone wolves cry in their beer.

Yes, I'm afraid of this too.  I like watching the game as much as anyone, and enjoy fishing too, but we're moving to work within the political system to effect change, and I worry that libertarians are so rabidly individualistic that they just won't work together.  Instead they might choose to sit at their damn computers late at night, bitching about the sad state of affairs instead of doing something about it.  

If this sounds like you, do the project a favor and DON'T JOIN.  The FSP is for activists, not for couch potatoes who hate other people.  Send our candidates a check from whereever you are, and we'll work for freedom.  I love watching that member number climb as much as anyone, but we need to know that those aren't just people that signed up because they don't mind moving to live with other libertarians, we need to know that those are people who signed up because THEY WANT TO WORK FOR FREEDOM, either by running for office or volunteering for campaigns or lobbying politicians.  If this kind of stuff sounds abhorrent to you, please, consider your motives and ask yourself if this is really for you.

Thanks.   :-\
Title: Re:Lone Wolves
Post by: freedomroad on August 06, 2003, 02:58:33 am
You know what I'm afraid of?
Porcupines like me.
Lone wolves who may move but then disappear.
Or they won't come out because the game is on.
Or they want to go fishing instead.
We don't want to be politicians that other libertarians will swear at.

Sadly, the statists do come out and they do vote and they do run for office.
While the lone wolves cry in their beer.

Yes, I'm afraid of this too.  I like watching the game as much as anyone, and enjoy fishing too, but we're moving to work within the political system to effect change, and I worry that libertarians are so rabidly individualistic that they just won't work together.  Instead they might choose to sit at their damn computers late at night, bitching about the sad state of affairs instead of doing something about it.  

Some of these people (or 1,000s) might join the FSP.  The best thing I can thing of is to encourage them to not join as members but to help in other ways.  Or explain how great the FSP will be and encourage them to join to be a part of the fun.

Well, either way, we still might get some of these members.  I actually think we will and it will make a difference when I vote.  I am more likely to vote for the smaller populated/more libertarian leaning states like WY and AK because of this.  Likewise, I am less likely to vote for states that are either big/statists or just growing like crazy and that hurts ME and ID, IMHO.  

Of course, this is not one of the main factors I am looking at but an important one that cannot be ignored, IMHO.