Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: JayPrince on October 29, 2002, 05:06:12 pm

Title: Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: JayPrince on October 29, 2002, 05:06:12 pm
Greetings.

I it has been made clear to me that politically "uncorrect" opinions are not allowed on this board, and that if you disagree with the wrong person, you will be forcibly silenced.

I do not participate in those terms, and thus I am removing myself from this discussion.  
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice. Part 3
Post by: MouseBorg on October 29, 2002, 06:48:09 pm
Cold doesn't bother me in the least... I like it, so its not a negative factor at all.

Quote
author=JayPrince
Oil is the bargaining chip.  20,000 trained libertarians with side arms and the local oil company and alaskan population are the enforcers on our side of it.

Freedom is what we demand in exchange.

It is this very richness of oil that makes alaksa valuable to us, and our willingness to sell it, that makes us valuable to the feds-- if we freely enter an agreement to sell it, then the feds will have MORE Security in the future flows of oil from alaska than they do now- with environmentalists frothing at the mouth.


Why would they bargain to buy something they can simply take? Or in fact, buy something they feel they already own? Or even more to the point, allow people to take something they feel they own?

20,000 libertarians with side arms? Against well trained military M4's with the latest tactical toys, along with full satelite...? Umm, you've thought this part through right? I'm not seeing that so far...
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice. Part 3
Post by: Robert H. on October 30, 2002, 02:44:56 am
Yep.  The slave masters have already taken all the "nice" places to live.

The question is, do you value liberty over convenience?

Other states may be more convenient, but they will be much harder to turn into a free state.  If you are land locked and have small borders, you are easy to control.  

Alaska is defensible, resource rich, primed for freedom, and desires growth.

ITs not the convenient choice, its the only choice.

I sympathize with your appraisal of Alaska as an ideal location for an autonomous state, and have argued many of its finer points.

You are correct in that Alaska is perfectly positioned in many different ways, and its riches would easily support an autonomous state, if you could ever actually tap and exploit them.  The people are already an independent lot, and they are physically as well as somewhat mentally detached from the rest of the country.  People from the "lower 48" often have to be reminded that Alaska even exists, when there's not an on-going Senate debate on drilling in the ANWF, that is.  The Alaskan Independence Party is also a very strong contender in the state and would likely be a willing and useful ally.

The greatest problems with the state center around Washington's heavy military interest in it, its status an environmental sacred cow, and the blessing/curse of abundant oil reserves beneath its soil.  On the "Alaska, nothing comes close (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=164)" thread, I argued that the federal government might actually benefit from a more autonomous Alaska in several ways.  And while I still believe that this is true, I think that it would be a dangerously precarious coin-toss for us to make.  It would be inherently dependent upon what administration controls the White House and what party controls Congress, to say nothing of a thousand other variables.  

If Republicans control the government, they're probably not going to allow Alaska to become more autonomous because of military/economic interests dealing primarily with missle defense and oil.  If Democrats control the government, they're probably not going to allow Alaska to become more autonomous because of the environmental lobby.  Our biggest bargaining chip would be to play off Democratic environmental restrictions against a Republican administration/Congress in order to allow them more access to Alaska's resources, while at the same time guaranteeing a substantial, continued military interest in the state.  This could conceivably work, but it's a long shot at best, and it would take quite some time to negotiate/implement...by that time, the political situation could have reversed and negated all of your efforts.  This is a special consideration of course, but then, Alaska is a special place.

I'll more than gladly move to Alaska if the FSP chooses it, but the above factors are genuine difficulties that we would encounter, not just smoke and mirrors.  

There is also the problem that perception accounts for so much, even among our number.  So many people view Alaska as so forbidingly harsh that I don't think we'd ever get a majority vote on it.  There's more discussion of weather factors over on the Yahoo list than there is here, but this is a major concern to some people who seem willing to hinge their vote on it.  For this reason, I would much rather reach a consensus on one of the western lower 48 that has a much better chance than Alaska currently does, rather than end up splitting our votes to the point where we land ourselves in Delaware.

Accordingly, we must not only take our most ideal choices into account in the final vote, but also the worst, and then try to cast our votes in such a way as to contend for several best choices so that we do not end up unwittingly painting ourselves into a less than desirable corner.  Right now, I just don't see that Alaska has that strong of a chance, no matter how much I like it.  In that way, it's something of a double-edged sword.
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 30, 2002, 02:18:25 pm
Oil reserves are generally a big bonus for autonomist and secessionist movements.  After oil was discovered in the North Sea in the early 1970s, the Scottish National Party ran campaigns on the themes, "It's Scotland's Oil" and "Rich Scots or Poor Britons?".  As a result, they won 22% of the vote in the February 1974 election and 30.4% of the vote in October of the same year, their highest vote percentage to date.

Mouseborg argues that the presence of oil equates to mass death at the hands of the US government.  My analysis of international affairs differs somewhat from his... Oil doesn't drive US foreign policy quite so completely.  Oil has meant mass death in the Middle East because of the unnatural support the US government gives to the Israeli government.  The covert war in South America is mostly about drugs, however, and the aggression against Yugoslavia had to do with European Union politics and setting a precedent for future interventionism in domestic affairs.  Thus, I'm not sure that if we chose Alaska it would be suicidal; in fact, I'm 95% sure it wouldn't be for most of our members.  It might be for some of our leaders, however.  The founder of the Alaska Independence Party was murdered in the early 90s, and some believe the gummint did it.
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: Robert H. on October 31, 2002, 06:17:12 am

Thus, I'm not sure that if we chose Alaska it would be suicidal; in fact, I'm 95% sure it wouldn't be for most of our members.  It might be for some of our leaders, however.  The founder of the Alaska Independence Party was murdered in the early 90s, and some believe the gummint did it.


Jason,

I've studied secession movements a bit myself and have wondered about what you suggest; my only concern is that the US is the most powerful political-military force in the world and determined to remain so, which means clamping down on all available resources.  I wonder if they would react a bit differently to Alaska's secession than the British are to Scotland's push for increased autonomy?  The best bids for independence seem to come when a nation is in overall decline and begins to pull back from its outer provinces, as Rome did, for example.  This is another reason, I think, for locating farther away from DC.  Autonomy may come to us more naturally as a result of Washington's failure to be in complete control any longer rather than us actively asserting ourselves against it.

What do you think of the possible angle of using the lure of increased access to Alaska's resources and land as a bargaining chip for autonomy?  I think we could possibly use that successfully with a Republican administration, but it's a long shot.  Still, they might be intrigued by the possibility of an Alaska out from under Tom Daschle's friends at the Sierra Club.

Alaska is so ideal in so many ways, but I just wonder if our membership could handle the expense and transition of living there.  I think it scares people to the point where few will really seriously consider it.

And yes, I heard that Joe Vogler was murdered under rather bizarre circumstances.  Since that time, very few in the AIP have been anxious to take the driver's seat.
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 31, 2002, 09:40:54 am

I've studied secession movements a bit myself and have wondered about what you suggest; my only concern is that the US is the most powerful political-military force in the world and determined to remain so, which means clamping down on all available resources.  I wonder if they would react a bit differently to Alaska's secession than the British are to Scotland's push for increased autonomy?


Well, we don't have to cut off the oil spigot.  In fact, as you and others suggest:

Quote

What do you think of the possible angle of using the lure of increased access to Alaska's resources and land as a bargaining chip for autonomy?  I think we could possibly use that successfully with a Republican administration, but it's a long shot.  Still, they might be intrigued by the possibility of an Alaska out from under Tom Daschle's friends at the Sierra Club.


I think it's certainly a possibility.  Oil and the prospect of attaining control over large swathes of land makes autonomy or independence attractive to Alaskans, and ultimately if Alaskans voted for one of those options, the only thing the federal government could do is negotiate.

Quote

Alaska is so ideal in so many ways, but I just wonder if our membership could handle the expense and transition of living there.  I think it scares people to the point where few will really seriously consider it.


Possibly - if so, that will show up in the final vote, certainly.  But I think those who currently support Alaska should not be scared off by what they think others might do.  Otherwise, we have a self-reinforcing situation, in which people think other people won't vote for Alaska, so they don't vote for Alaska.  I don't think that's a fair thing to happen to any state.
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: MouseBorg on October 31, 2002, 10:59:43 am
Quote
author=Jason P. Sorens
Quote

What do you think of the possible angle of using the lure of increased access to Alaska's resources and land as a bargaining chip for autonomy?  I think we could possibly use that successfully with a Republican administration, but it's a long shot.  Still, they might be intrigued by the possibility of an Alaska out from under Tom Daschle's friends at the Sierra Club.


I think it's certainly a possibility.  Oil and the prospect of attaining control over large swathes of land makes autonomy or independence attractive to Alaskans, and ultimately if Alaskans voted for one of those options, the only thing the federal government could do is negotiate.


I've already made my case on this point many times, though I do see a certain validity concerning the negotiation aspect.

However, what has repeatedly occured globally is that at some point - for whatever reasons - negotiations have failed (see Iraq, Afghanistan, and pretty much any country sitting on, or blocking the flow of, oil), and the US finds or creates reason for intervention.

To presume we will be, and will remain, cozy with the feds is umm... well, IMO, wishful thinking at best. Perhaps if we were composed mainly of sheeple we could pull that off.

But thats not what I seem to be seeing around here. I see some pretty opinionated folks who are more than likely to be head to head with the feds over even the most minor issues at some point. For example of what an agreeable bunch we are, read almost any thread in this forum...

Should be interesting. No doubt the media will eat it right up when the fireworks start. ;D
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 31, 2002, 11:39:35 am
Well, I think the Middle East is different because of the Israel/terrorism/autocracy factors.  Would the USG crush a democratically elected government in North America willing to remain fairly close international allies?  That remains to be seen.
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: MouseBorg on October 31, 2002, 12:17:57 pm
Quote
author=Jason P. Sorens
Well, I think the Middle East is different because of the Israel/terrorism/autocracy factors.


I agree things are never simple and clear cut concerning world events. I try to only tackle the most glaring as otherwise I'd be sitting here typing till the cows come home. :)

Quote

Would the USG crush a democratically elected government in North America willing to remain fairly close international allies?


As it has done in the past with puppet govs it has set up, even the pseudo-democratic ones, then fallen into disagreement with?

Saddam, along with a list of similar people, used to be quite cozy with the US (even though he was well known to be a rather unsavory character way before that.) Then something seemed to mysteriously tick him off... Some think it was the Iran-Contra thingie, but I dunno. Either way, here we are, with the results of such playing out while we watch.

Observe how public opinion was strategically shifted by the media from Saddam as close friend to Saddam as major enemy (both stands made on emotional appeals to the sheeple rather than appeals to their logic.)

Could this happen to FSP? Who knows, as there are large differences between the situations, though I strongly suggest carefully examining the similarities prior to any decision. Remember what we deal with:

"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire; a dangerous servant and a terrible master."
-- George Washington

Quote

That remains to be seen.


Yup. I do hope I'm mistaken on this one, especially if the FSP selects Alaska, but everything I've seen up till now says otherwise.

The positive aspects of Alaska are truly awesome, and have been mentioned here by myself as well as others.

However, the negative aspects... those give me serious pause & concern - enough so that I feel Alaska isn't worth the risk. At least not initially. Seen from the standpoint of morale alone, we can't afford an immediate failure - certainly not of those potential proportions.

Later perhaps, after we've successfully gained a more workable state, along with a bit of experience, then we could look to Alaska.
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: JasonPSorens on October 31, 2002, 03:13:32 pm

Before we get to the point of voting-- we need a debate that involves all the membership.  Not just these fora where all the membership can show up (but doesn't) but a publication with advocates for each state putting forth their case in a formal way, that every member will receive prior to voting.  


That is precisely what we plan to do: we'll include state reports for each state written by advocates of those states in the packet that we send out with the ballot when the time comes.  That way every state will get a fair shake, and people should vote on the basis of their own preferences rather than hunches about which states might be most popular.
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: cathleeninsc on October 31, 2002, 04:38:47 pm
I had heard tales too. When we spent some time around Alaska, I may have swatted something away from my face absentmindedly a time or two, but the only mosquito I saw was taped to a card as an exhibit. It was a big one.

Cathleen in SC
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: Matt Arnold on October 31, 2002, 04:51:55 pm
You would be interested in this invention. http://www.mosquitomagnet.com/
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: wolf_tracker on October 31, 2002, 04:54:00 pm
we spend 8 days in alaska in may ... we were told that they
dont have mosquitos ... the run ways are not big enough ...

while we where they ... they did have a far number ... nothing
a person can not handle ...  we stayed at a b and b and the
ppl had a fogger for the back yard ... we got several bites
but then we have had bites in La and Va and a number of
other places ...

Alaska was one of the pretties places I have every been
and I can not wait to go back ...

The plane ride is a bit long from the east coast though
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: wolf_tracker on October 31, 2002, 05:02:13 pm
I believe from what I heard that the bug season is
around what is called breakup and from the lady at the
b and b I believe it lasts about 4 to 6 weeks ... so that
would be about mid may to late june ...

this from someone who has only been there a total of
8 days ... and this was around the anchorage area ...

how about the alaskans speaking up ...
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: Barbara on October 31, 2002, 05:04:25 pm
You would be interested in this invention. http://www.mosquitomagnet.com/
We have one - it works! - In Washington.
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: FTL_Ian on November 01, 2002, 01:54:25 am
     4 to 6 weeks!  That's child's play.  It seems like 4-6 months here in Florida!  Mosquitoes don't care for cold too much.  And I can't even believe someone here is worried about them.  We're talking about freedom!  Are a few bites a year too high a price to pay?  Plus, no doubt, the government is in charge of mosquito "control" up there too.. and if we had our way, organizations that would actually be effective could take over.
    By the way.. I love the Alaska idea.  Unlike the lower 48, moving to Alaska sounds like an adventure.  It's like an undiscovered country to us lower 48ers.
    Hell, the opposition to Alaska you read in the forums could be the vocal minority.  If someone like me, Florida born and raised, is willing to move to Alaska, perhaps there are more than you think.

Meph


I believe from what I heard that the bug season is
around what is called breakup and from the lady at the
b and b I believe it lasts about 4 to 6 weeks ... so that
would be about mid may to late june ...
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: Solitar on November 01, 2002, 04:17:45 am
Mosquitoes are friendly little buggers! Often they come and go without inflicting any pain. Their legacy gives you something which feels good to scratch. By comparison the blackflies and deerflies take a chunk out of you that hurts and bleeds - sorta like leeches (another critter I encountered in Algonquin Provincial Park in SE Ontario). But at least the deer flies are, most of the time, slow enough to swat as they circle around one's head.

As to the season for mosquitoes, here near treeline in Colorado and in Northern Maine I've experienced mosquitoes from May to October. They start hatching in the first warm sunny puddles of mud season and stay with us beyond aautumn's first frost. Some of us look forward to winter's first hard freezes because the first few frosts are not enough -- the little buggers are still out there!

I expect the mosquito season to be the same five months or so across the northern tier anywhere there is sufficient moisture -- northern Vermont, New Hampshire and the lakes and prairie potholes of the Dakotas, Wyoming's northwest mountains (which a friend tells me about), Montana, Idaho, and Alaska of course.  As to the latter, here is an interesting item.
"Six- to ten thousand mosquitoes can simultaneously draw blood from one caribou, Morschel wrote, citing the work of a Russian scientist who also estimated that individual caribou in a certain region of Siberia lost more than five pounds of blood per summer to mosquitoes."
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/ScienceForum/ASF13/1344.html
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: Robert H. on November 01, 2002, 04:58:23 am
The parts of Alaska that I've generally heard as being mosquito country are in the SE panhandle, where they have something of a rain forest climate, the interior, and believe it or not, the north slope.  Like someone else mentioned, that standing water on the permafrost serves as quite the breeding ground for them.

I've seen video of musk oxen out on the tundra, and I noticed that they were quite often surrounded by hoards of insects.  I'd imagine that bug season up there would have to be fairly short though, especially in the northern most parts of the state.

I've been told by various Alaska residents that the coastal areas, like Anchorage, don't have much in the way of a problem with mosquitos like the rest of the state because of winds coming in from off of the ocean.  That would seem to make sense.
Title: Re:Alaska: The only choice.
Post by: rocket-j-squirrel on November 04, 2002, 03:48:07 pm
Hello, all...

While I realize that Alaska is pretty low on most peoples' list, it seems to me that such a wealth of natural resources should not be overlooked - - despite the climate (and I am writing this from SoCal).  To that end I have a question about the following...

On the state reports page, under Alaska, Joseph Littlejohn writes:  "Their [the Alaska Independence Party's] main issue is self determination. A vote was held in 1958 giving Alaska the right to either become a state, remain a territory, or become a commonwealth. The AIP believes that United Nations resolutions on the right to self-determination meant that they should have been given the right to choose independence. Therefore, they favor a new referendum including independence as an option."

So what happens if FSPers move to Alaska, push the vote in the UN, and independence passes?  Could the newly-founded country of Alaska just nationalize all the assets in the state?  This would not be warmly welcomed in D.C., but are they likely to invade?  Additionally, federalizing the land would allow the citizens of Alaska to decide on how the resources could be developed, etc., not to mention probably providing a fair number of jobs as these resources are mined, drilled, etc.

To be clear, I am no fan of the UN, but with so many people worried about getting other nations' ok before acting, if the independence vote went through the UN, the fedgov might be less inclined to invade, attack, etc., because of public and international opinion and pressures.

I am new to all this but if there is that much of a spirit of independence in such a sparsely populated state, which just happens to have a wealth of natural resources, doesn't it merit a closer look?

Just a thought...