Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: libertyVSlibertine on November 03, 2002, 01:48:19 am

Title: Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on November 03, 2002, 01:48:19 am
The goal of the project is to reform a state.  All of the stated objectives indicate choosing the smallest.

It's difficult to get people to relocate.  The capability to challenge the Free State Contingent simply won't be there if a large enough percentage of population is committed to the cause.

No other criterion is logical or sensible, providing the goal is success.

Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 03, 2002, 04:37:34 pm
I agree. Alot of the people on this board are not serious about the success of the project.

Seeing that a majority of US citizens live in the eastern portion of the country they vote for NH because they wish to stay close to home. They want NH even if it will fail there rather than picking Wyoming or North Dakota where the chance are greatly increased.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: mdw on November 03, 2002, 06:13:55 pm
While I agree that state population is the single most important factor, and that undue emphasis is sometime placed on NH due to QOL (quality of life) issues, there other important factors in addition to population that deserve careful consideration.

For example, when advocating a state one must consider what type of vested interests exist and if these could run counter to the FSP goals. Might the oil interests in Alaska or the mineral / chemical interests in Wyoming rule the state, almost irrespective of electoral outcomes? Could the FSP achive political goals that ran counter to the DuPont agenda in Delaware? Furthermore, there is a need to take into account the existing culture. Is the FSP likely to be embraced at the local level, or will there be extreme resistance?

Please do not denigrate others for considering various aspects of which state should be selected as the target state. Ad hominem statements do nothing to further the goals of the FSP. Make the contributions you are able to make and persuade others using reason, not character assasination.

Regards,
mdw
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on November 03, 2002, 07:16:59 pm
That's good, as there were no ad hominem attacks, nor character assasinations in my note or the response to it, just honest analysis of the situation.  The responder believes that some persons recommend states at times based on personal preference rather than success.  This is just an analysis.  He is almost certainly correct.  It is a bit naive to assume that this doesn't happen.

We can't engineer all of those things.  If committed individuals move to the least populous state and are committed, they will be able to overcome whatever difficulties are present because they will win all of the votes.

Simple numbers, that's the way to go.  Get the highest percentage of voting block!
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Penfist on November 03, 2002, 07:55:39 pm
If committed individuals move to the least populous state and are committed, they will be able to overcome whatever difficulties are present because they will win all of the votes.

The Free State Project won't fail or succeed based on the raw population of the state we move to. The project will fail or succeed based on what kind of neighbors the 20,000 new residents prove to be. We could move to a state with 500,000 or a state with 1.5 million. It really won't matter. What will matter is what those people think of us and whether or not it motivates them to vote with us or against us.

I'll move wherever we pick as a group, but I have to disagree that the smallest population state has the best chance of success. It's quite a bit more complicated than that.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: mdw on November 03, 2002, 08:11:14 pm
I agree. Alot of the people on this board are not sreious about the success of the project.

LvsL, Z.C. et al.-

Perhaps it was a bit rash of me use the term "character assasination". However, the above comment did indeed strike me as an insult and gross over-generalization. "Alot" of the people on this board are in fact FSP members. As FSPers they have committed to moving their entire life to a completely different and potentially distant locale. That strikes me as a "serious" level of commitment indeed.

To argue that a state should or should not be considered because of its location on the East Coast is one thing. To argue that people who disagree with a particular position are not serious seems unfounded. Perhaps this low bandwidth online medium is partially to blame, so we should all be careful about how we articulate our ideas. Let us focus on the factual arguments at hand and use reason to make the best choice. Let us leave aside questions of character or motivation that are difficult to determine in a web-based forum. Perhaps the best approach in a venture such as ours is to grant everyone some modicum of respect and standing until they prove that they do not deserve it.

Regards,
mdw


Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 03, 2002, 09:38:13 pm
My post may have seemed more harsh than was intended. I guess maybe it is because I want it to be a success. I just wonder how many people opt out if there state is not picked. I am a little skeptical when it comes to human nature.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on November 04, 2002, 12:28:48 am
No other criteria is more important but an extremely close second is job prospects because that directly affects the probably of actually getting people to move to a state.  Job prospects = proximity to a large metropolitan city.

Personally I think anyone who thinks that people will be actually be able to find a job and move to one of Western states under consideration have their heads in the clouds and are dreaming about some furture Arachist  utopia empire that will never come close to existance.

-Eddie
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 04, 2002, 09:06:03 am
You are right Eddie there are no jobs out west. Everyone must move to the Eastern seaboard to work in Boston or such. That is ludicrous. Maybe you all should watch Braveheart.

"You all are so afraid to give up your titles and posessions for one chance at actually being free." said William Wallace. Or something like that.

Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Elizabeth on November 04, 2002, 12:14:44 pm
Quote
author=ZionCurtain
You are right Eddie there are no jobs out west.

Umm... I live out west, am not on welfare, and not a thief, but managed to purchase a few DVD's the other day (with money I earned). So I suppose there might be a job or two out this way if someone wishes to work.

Ummm... I think ZC was being sarcastic.  ;)
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 04, 2002, 12:19:01 pm
Quote
author=ZionCurtain
You are right Eddie there are no jobs out west.

Umm... I live out west, am not on welfare, and not a thief, but managed to purchase a few DVD's the other day (with money I earned). So I suppose there might be a job or two out this way if someone wishes to work.

Ummm... I think ZC was being sarcastic.  ;)
Yes, I was being sarcastic. I live out west therefore I can also say there are jobs out here.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on November 04, 2002, 10:39:05 pm
Consider this, if you really believe in freedom...

If the majority of votes are cast for Freedom, if government is taken out of the way, the FSP state will be the most desirable place to be.  It has little to do with jobs or with what sort of neighbors those who relocate are (though those are important), it has to do with the benefits of freedom.

Do you really believe?

If so, the votes to repeal tyrannical government are the only real issue.

Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: PongGod on November 04, 2002, 11:49:15 pm
Consider this, if you really believe in freedom...

If the majority of votes are cast for Freedom, if government is taken out of the way, the FSP state will be the most desirable place to be.  It has little to do with jobs or with what sort of neighbors those who relocate are (though those are important), it has to do with the benefits of freedom.

Do you really believe?

If so, the votes to repeal tyrannical government are the only real issue.

You're correct about the votes, but we cannot succeed solely with the votes of the immigrant FSPers.  Moving to a state where a sizeable portion of the native population is already in agreement (or very nearly so) with our objectives, gives us a big boost.  I think our chance of success in NH would be much greater than in much less populated VT, for example.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Chuckster on November 05, 2002, 09:05:10 pm
Consider this, if you really believe in freedom...

If the majority of votes are cast for Freedom, if government is taken out of the way, the FSP state will be the most desirable place to be.  It has little to do with jobs or with what sort of neighbors those who relocate are (though those are important), it has to do with the benefits of freedom.

Do you really believe?

If so, the votes to repeal tyrannical government are the only real issue.

You're correct about the votes, but we cannot succeed solely with the votes of the immigrant FSPers.  Moving to a state where a sizeable portion of the native population is already in agreement (or very nearly so) with our objectives, gives us a big boost.  I think our chance of success in NH would be much greater than in much less populated VT, for example.

I wouldn't be too sure about Vermonters being less in agreement with FSP ideals than New Hamsters or that FSP would be more likely to succeed in NH than in VT.  From what I've been able to learn about VT over the past four years in my personal quest for a better place to live (The result of intensive research of my own including numerous visits to the state and consultations with Vermont farmers, real estate agents, contractors etc.) I've come to the conclusion that the real people who live in Vermont share most of the same ideals that Free Staters do.  There is even a secessionist faction in Vermont!  

Rural Vermonters I have met are, without exception, very independent and classically liberal or Libertarian in thier views.  Excepting Burlington, a university town and, like all such, a hotbed of leftist political thinking, Vermonters are rural conservatives.  Almost all of whom are angry at the leftist takeover of the state a few years ago. The same qualities that made it possible for the leftists to hijack the state make it a good choice for FSP and , given the ubiquitousness of the "Take Back Vermont" signs on barns throughout the state, I'd say we'd get good support from Vermonters.

Vermont also has the advantages of cheap land and housing (to a lesser extent in Chittenden county) and an entreprenuer friendly environment.  The economic bottom line is actually better than NH as far as taxation as a % of income goes.  The first order of business I think would be to repeal the VERY unpopular Act 60 (Statewide property tax).  Get that done and we will be very popular with the locals and improve the economic opportunities even more.

Besides, don't forget the importance of the NH primaries in the nat'l Prez election.  There is a lot at stake for the major parties in NH and they won't take kindly to us disrupting that.  That will mean LOTS of $$$ poured in to the state to campaign for the major players and will certainly have a negative effect on the chances for Libertarians and independents; yes, even in state races.

Agreed that once the Free State has been chosen and changes have begun; when "government is taken out of the way, the FSP state will be the most desirable place to be. " But first FSP members will have to move in and get established and begin the political process.  This will require the kind of opportunities that will allow each of us to flourish individually.  The vanguard will have to set the example for the rest to follow therefore the state chosen must be amenable to economic prosperity.  From my point of view this pretty much rules out the Western states :'(

Purely personal preference of course (Or is it?) but my analysis led me to buy property in VT.  Now that I have discovered FSP, I might consider selling and moving to NH or ME, but maybe not.  I think that if  FSP chooses one of these three states, all three might eventually come into the fold.  I don't see this happening in the West.

As an aside; long before I discovered FSP, the wife and I decided to leave Hawaii and relocate to the mainland.  Our first look choices were MT, WY, ID, AZ, NM, SD, VT, NH and ME.  We eventually narrowed it down to MT, and VT.  We visited both but since I am a fourth generation Vermonter that was my preference.  My wife, originally from BC, favored MT until we spent more time in VT and got to know the people and places better (I had left VT in 1959 and didn't go back again 'til 2000).  Since our plan was to build a horse farm we both originally thought that MT would be the natural best choice but after visiting a few Morgan Horse farms in VT we both agreed.  VT (And NH and ME) have all of the advantages of the Western states plus better economic opportunities and cultural amenities.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: freedomroad on November 08, 2002, 12:01:46 am
If we want to pick the smallest possible state that can make it we need to look at the 5 states with the lowest voter turnout in the 2002 November election.

1. WY 185,195 (1/2 of voters 92,597.5)
2. AK 197,352 (1/2 of voters 98,676)
3. VT 226,458 (1/2 of voters 113,229)
4. ND 230,420 (1/2 of voters 115,210)
5. DE 232,152 (1/2 of voters 116,076)

WY and AK voted R
VT, ND, and DE voted D

WY has a some-what strong LP party
AK's Green Party did better than its LP and AI parties combined.

What about jobs in these 5 states?

The order is:
1. DE
2. AK
3. WY
4/5 VT/ND

What about out of state possible jobs, tele-commuting, and the like?
1. DE
2. WY
3. ND
4. VT
5. AK

What about crime?
1. ND/VT
3. WY
4. AK
5. DE

What about cost of living?
1. ND
2. WY
3. VT
4. DE
5. AK

Wyoming comes out on top in the main, most important factor.
In the minor factors, Wyoming is usually in the middle or higher.  The other state with very few voters during the 2002 election is Alaska.  However, AK ranks near the bottom in the minor factors.

If population or number of voters, or voting age population, or primary voters is the most important factor, then Wyoming is by far, the best state.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: JT on November 08, 2002, 12:20:37 am
Click here (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=740;start=0) for the voter turnout and election results of 2000 and 2002 (last thread on page).

188,533 ballots (78.1%)

 241,200 registered voters

Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Robert H. on November 08, 2002, 04:28:47 am
The actual voter turnout percentage seemed rather key, as it might indicate what we might be up against if we ticked off the locals and they all (or a serious percentage) decided to show up to vote.

This is definitely a key percentage for that very reason.  Also key, I believe, is the voting age population.  There are people out there of voting age right now who are not even registered to vote because they think their vote doesn't count, etc...  But if we start stirring up the water, we could prompt them into action.  For that reason, this % reveals the total theoretical amount we could be up against, while actual voter turnout shows what we will likely be up against.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: JT on November 08, 2002, 06:01:23 pm
But a lot of the people who don't vote will be very receptive to our ideas.  Don't forget that.  Hopefully we can convince those people to register and maybe even become activists for us.  Historically, the people who are most receptive to Libertarian ideas are the ones who don't already have their minds made up politically.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Robert H. on November 09, 2002, 01:10:15 am
Historically, the people who are most receptive to Libertarian ideas are the ones who don't already have their minds made up politically.

Very true.  The voting age population stats could be indicative of what we could be up against, or what basis of support we might have waiting for us in the wings.

If we come along with a message that is really unique, and this one will be, we may stir people to action who have otherwise given up on the system.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on November 09, 2002, 04:03:13 am
I do understand the concepts of gaining support from the current residents of such a state, but if 20,000 is enough to sway any vote, as it is in Wyoming for example, where the Senatorial election was about 95,000 for each candidate, it will win the day.  In the society that we have today, it is highly unlikely that the existing factions could agree to organize against Free Staters in time to prevent the spread of freedom.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: freedomroad on November 09, 2002, 08:25:55 pm
I do understand the concepts of gaining support from the current residents of such a state, but if 20,000 is enough to sway any vote, as it is in Wyoming for example, where the Senatorial election was about 95,000 for each candidate, it will win the day.  In the society that we have today, it is highly unlikely that the existing factions could agree to organize against Free Staters in time to prevent the spread of freedom.


Generally Republicans are conservative in the South and West.
Generally Republicans are moderates in the Northeast.

So, generally R and D are more likely to agree on more issues in the Northeast.  I am not sure if that applys in this case or not.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on November 09, 2002, 11:15:52 pm
Freedomroad is right about the Northeast, Liberal Repubs and Demos might be able to have a coalition there.

I'd say the same is true in the Northwest.  I'd say Montana and Idaho are too close to Washington from that perspective.

Wyoming would work (Western) (I'm not really trying to push Wyoming, but the recent election results seem to indicate that 20,000 votes would allow freeing the government most effectively).
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Robert H. on November 10, 2002, 07:08:27 am
Wyoming would work (Western) (I'm not really trying to push Wyoming, but the recent election results seem to indicate that 20,000 votes would allow freeing the government most effectively).

It does seem to have all of the best elements for success, combined with the fact that it lacks the problematic aspects that would come with border or coastal access.

It is also second only to Montana in regard to positioning, as it neighbors several other liberty-friendly states where we could easily expand in the future.  But it trumps Montana overall because its population, voting age population, and voter-turnout is so much more favorable to us.  Montana also has more of a Green Party presence than Wyoming does.

We also have a chance to bring real economic prosperity to Wyoming in a shorter amount of time than elsewhere (other than perhaps ND).  This, in turn, could lead the people of that state to appreciate our presence more than they would in a richer, more populous state where our short term presence would basically amount to more competition for housing, a longer line at the store, and more traffic on the road.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: freedomroad on November 10, 2002, 10:32:18 pm
Quote
Quote

It does seem to have all of the best elements for success, combined with the fact that it lacks the problematic aspects that would come with border or coastal access.


I thought not being near coasts and borders was a bad thing.  Why do you think it is better to not be near a border or coast?
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: JT on November 10, 2002, 11:35:06 pm
if we're in the middle of the country, then noone will care about us.  It's easier for the feds to have their way in border states...
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Tyler on November 11, 2002, 12:36:49 am
Oh, I'm quite sure they're reading everything on this board right now. However, the only states with useful borders, in my opinion, are Montana, Alaska, and Maine (the first is huge and next to Canada, the second is gigantic with two neighbouring countries, and the third has one of the largest coastlines in the country and an international border), and I think two out of those three won't finish in the top five (Alaska would probably be your best bet if everyone moved there, but too many people in your project seem to truly mind the cold, and a good many others think Maine is just too statist).

No, I think if reforming this country from the inside, and really precluding the possibility of seccession (which was rather remote to begin with), is your ultimate goal, a landlocked state isn't a bad choice. I will reiterate that Wyoming is a pretty good choice, but, South Dakota, probably the state you hear the least of, isn't too bad of a pick either (even if it has two democratic senators, including the loathsome Mr Daschle).
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Robert H. on November 11, 2002, 03:40:07 am
Quote
Quote

It does seem to have all of the best elements for success, combined with the fact that it lacks the problematic aspects that would come with border or coastal access.


I thought not being near coasts and borders was a bad thing.  Why do you think it is better to not be near a border or coast?

Initially, I thought that it was better to be near a border or coast, but this was mainly with regard to trade and the future likelihood of secession.  Then, various issues with regard to homeland security and the drug war began to make me think that it was probably not a good idea after all.

The biggest problem we face in those areas is the fact that the federal government is tightening security there, and closely monitoring who and what comes and goes across the border or through the ports.  State and local officials are backing them in these efforts, and the general public is also behind the effort due to fears about the possibility of another 9/11 or drug smuggling from Canada, etc.  

The FSP's goal is to set up a free state, one in which there will be less scrutiny and restriction of those who come and go.  This fundamentally conflicts with the federal government's homeland security agenda and the general attitude of the American people, whom it seems, would rather trade their liberty for "security."  This increases the likelihood that we will clash with the feds in areas where they have legitimate, constitutional authority:  border defense, customs, etc...  They would have the support of local and state government behind them, as well as the general population (for the above stated reasons).

Some people think that we should have border or port access in order to thwart the feds in a conflict, such as continuing trade if they should cut us off in some other way.  Others, again, see them as an avenue to facilitating our possible secession in the future.

Given the risks involved, I have come to believe that it is better for us to avoid these areas because of the inherent problems that come with them:  1) the feds have indisputable, constitutional authority there, and 2) fear of 9/11 or drug traffic will bring added scrutiny and condemnation on us for attempting to create a free state where one is seen as, well, less than desirable (by the American public).

Check out the following imbedded links.  The first was originally created to discuss TEOTWAWKI scenarios, but some recent posts have changed the tune to more of a discussion of the merits of borders and ports in general.  Scroll down to the bottom for those remarks:

Maybe we *should* pick an inland state (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=111)

Also, see the following for further thoughts on the issue:

Pick a Midwestern State (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=769)
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: freedomroad on November 11, 2002, 08:59:07 am
Initially, I thought that it was better to be near a border or coast, but this was mainly with regard to trade and the future likelihood of secession.  Then, various issues with regard to homeland security and the drug war began to make me think that it was probably not a good idea after all.

The biggest problem we face in those areas is the fact that the federal government is tightening security there, and closely monitoring who and what comes and goes across the border or through the ports.  State and local officials are backing them in these efforts, and the general public is also behind the effort due to fears about the possibility of another 9/11 or drug smuggling from Canada, etc.  

The FSP's goal is to set up a free state, one in which there will be less scrutiny and restriction of those who come and go.  This fundamentally conflicts with the federal government's homeland security agenda and the general attitude of the American people, whom it seems, would rather trade their liberty for "security."  This increases the likelihood that we will clash with the feds in areas where they have legitimate, constitutional authority:  border defense, customs, etc...  They would have the support of local and state government behind them, as well as the general population (for the above stated reasons).

Some people think that we should have border or port access in order to thwart the feds in a conflict, such as continuing trade if they should cut us off in some other way.  Others, again, see them as an avenue to facilitating our possible secession in the future.

Given the risks involved, I have come to believe that it is better for us to avoid these areas because of the inherent problems that come with them:  1) the feds have indisputable, constitutional authority there, and 2) fear of 9/11 or drug traffic will bring added scrutiny and condemnation on us for attempting to create a free state where one is seen as, well, less than desirable (by the American public).

Check out the following imbedded links.  The first was originally created to discuss TEOTWAWKI scenarios, but some recent posts have changed the tune to more of a discussion of the merits of borders and ports in general.  Scroll down to the bottom for those remarks:

Maybe we *should* pick an inland state (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=111)

Also, see the following for further thoughts on the issue:

Pick a Midwestern State (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=769)

Thank you for your insightful answers.  I am still not sure of this although i do see your point.

I'll think more about your points and they might reinforce my already favorite choice of WY.  They also make SD and DE look good but I think DE is pretty much a lost cause and I guess you could argue that having a coast is also bad.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: RidleyReport on November 11, 2002, 04:25:08 pm
<<We also have a chance to bring real economic prosperity to Wyoming in a shorter amount of time than elsewhere (other than perhaps ND).  This, in turn, could lead the people of that state to appreciate our presence more than they would in a richer, more populous state where our short term presence would basically amount to more competition for housing, a longer line at the store, and more traffic on the road.>>

Bingo.  That is what keeps failing to get enough attention  in these debates.  We keep talking too much about what's good for *us.*  But what do the people who already live there want?  Would we be a help or a hindrance to their quality of life *as they perceive it?*  
To me that's more important than even the population question.  

Ability to get us going in a western state will depend on our abillity to create jobs; that's why we need to be working on that as hard on that (such as some are doing under the "FSP business" threads).

Also some of these voter numbers do seem to indicate we wouldn't even have to run for office to start massively impacting election outcomes in WY or ND.   That's another way to stay popular....just be a voter instead of a politician.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Robert H. on November 12, 2002, 03:07:32 am
Also some of these voter numbers do seem to indicate we wouldn't even have to run for office to start massively impacting election outcomes in WY or ND.   That's another way to stay popular....just be a voter instead of a politician.

Very good point.  An FSPer could have more sheer impact in such a state just by voting as opposed to having to actively take on a run for public office, which many more would have to do out east in order to have an equivalent impact.  This would allow us to have more bang for our political buck overall, and it would allow us to make changes much sooner as well.

Eastern elections are generally much more expensive, and the political infrastructure tends to be much more entrenched (often related to expense as fewer can afford to run).  We could spend a considerable amount of time, effort, and expense just trying to gain minimal access to such a system to say nothing of changing it.  And for a new political movement, time, effort, and funding are at a premium as it is.

Joining up with an established party like the GOP could possibly offset some of that time, effort, and expense that would otherwise be needed to access the system, but this in turn would make us more dependent upon that party and thus more restricted by its wishes.

I'd rather see us somewhere it would take less time, effort, and expense for us to access the system, and where we can do so more on our own as opposed to being dependent upon those who could betray us or marginalize us in exchange for "helping us."
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: milas59 on November 13, 2002, 08:30:52 pm
Ten states ranked from largest to smallest projected population in 2025 .  Population in thousands

State       2000                 Increase                          2025
                               number         percent

ID            1,296        1,128            87 %                 2,424

NH           1,236           383            31 %                 1,619

ME           1,250           125            10 %                 1,375

MT              914           320             35 %                1,236

DE              784           392             50 %                1,176

SD              740           170             23 %                   910

AK              627            243             35 %                   870

VT              608            132              22 %                  740

ND              640                9                1 %                  649

WY              594            117              24 %                  611

Numbers extracted from study referred to in Tim Condons paper  that suggests population and growth rates are major
factors for our success

Peter Baker
FSP living in Florida ready to go anywhere we can succeed

Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 13, 2002, 09:07:13 pm
I knew Idaho was growing rapidly, but...wow.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 14, 2002, 01:39:40 am
Looks like we need to get rid of Idaho, NH, Maine, and Montana.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Solitar on November 14, 2002, 04:31:08 am
What we have lost in freedoms is so much, so bloody damn much, at a local, state, and federal level that Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc. would be shocked even at the best which the Free State could do. After decades of work in the best libertarian environment the FSP is now considering, please envision a meeting with the above founders' ghosts and the Free Staters. The proud Free Staters would be pointing to what they've accomplished and the above founders would say --
"Good God! Is that all you've been able to salvage of the Free Nation we left to you to take care of ?!!? "
The only hope for a Free State achieving even the above is by moving 20,000 serious, experienced activists AND two hundred thousand of the most liberty-minded supporting voting "Friends of the FSP" you can recruit to the least populous state. ONLY by outnumbering the 90+% non or anti-liberty-minded people in the chosen state may the Free State be able to return to even a small fraction of the liberty our founders gave us. Only by numerical superiority does Free State have a chance at getting to the liberty which our "liberty-minded" founders would regard as just a shadow of what they would regard as "free". Where would the FSP find that many people?
The only people whom Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc. would likely regard as "liberty-minded"  now may be less than one percent of the population. These freedom-starved people are an endangered species. The best hope for them and the Free State is the gathering together of these one in a thousand who are 1) truly liberty-minded in the above sense, 2) willing to pack up and move to a new state to seriously work for liberty in the above sense. This one in a thousand in the US, Canada, UK, and a few other countries amounts to four hundred thousand people! See this link for more of that dream of freedom.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=518
Out of any community, town, county, or neighborhood of 10,000 there are hopefully at least 10 who would meet the above qualifications. THAT’s where the FSP can find that many people!
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=593
To reiterate what Robert said:
"I think that we're going to get one shot at doing this thing right, folks, and that leaves us a very slim margin for error.  My question is then how can we justify risking so much based on so little?"  Do you all realize what is at stake here and just what the costs will be to all of us nationwide if the Free State fails?  You are going to meet massive resistance to your most "libertarian" agendas. Even your own supporters you bring with you will fight you on some of those agenda items. You will have a fight that will tax the very best ability of every "libertarian activist" you can muster. Please do not go into this with what you "think" or "hope" will be enough based on your academic estimates. Go into this with ten times the activists, support, and training you now think you may at most need. If it does prove to be an easy success - great. But if you run into a buzz saw, a call for reinforcements will result in too little, too late. Even your own people will be heading for home. Once they have you down and running, they will make sure you never, never have a second chance - at least not in your grandkids lifetime!
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on November 16, 2002, 02:25:32 pm
Ten states ranked from largest to smallest projected population in 2025 .  Population in thousands

State       2000                 Increase                          2025
                               number         percent

ID            1,296        1,128            87 %                 2,424

NH           1,236           383            31 %                 1,619

ME           1,250           125            10 %                 1,375

MT              914           320             35 %                1,236

DE              784           392             50 %                1,176

SD              740           170             23 %                   910

AK              627            243             35 %                   870

VT              608            132              22 %                  740

ND              640                9                1 %                  649

WY              594            117              24 %                  611

Numbers extracted from study referred to in Tim Condons paper  that suggests population and growth rates are major
factors for our success

Peter Baker
FSP living in Florida ready to go anywhere we can succeed



Thanks for posting the good stats!
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: milas59 on November 16, 2002, 10:08:42 pm
Joe

So now its apples and oranges? (<:   Do you know why DELAWARE shows so much smaller growth in your survey?  Otherwise the results are very similar.

The Pick The Smallest creator should be given a medal as he/she may result  in our quick success.  

When you look at all the factors many of us are arguing the finer points over, hey,  the bottom line is, isnt it,  that we really have no way of knowing whether a heretofore REP and considered liberty leaning state will go for our message or whether a small government state wont grow.

My home state VT a good example, eh? Socialists have taken over in spite of its solid liberty leaning origins(REP) . It did have small population and low growth, so they are succeeding and do register consistent 10+% in state races.

Dont you think because we have no way of knowing how the other factors will affect our success, we have to give greatest weight to the factors that will be relevant - small population and low growth?

Peter



Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on November 17, 2002, 12:28:51 am
I'm glad this has been a fruitful discussion.

One thing that sticks out in my mind (even did when I first saw the FSP idea) is that 20,000 isn't enough.

In Wyoming, for example, 20,000 would clearly be adequate votes to sway a current national race (about 95K were cast for the 2 senatorial candidates last election).  However,  that sway can only be achieved in alliance with some other voting block.  A third party or independent candidate, with the full support of FSP, would only result in 95K to 95K to 20K:  a loss.

Am I missing something here?

I know it's ambitious, but perhaps we should shoot for 100,000 (which would win WY).

How was 20,000 arrived at?
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: freedomroad on November 17, 2002, 01:21:11 am
I'm glad this has been a fruitful discussion.

One thing that sticks out in my mind (even did when I first saw the FSP idea) is that 20,000 isn't enough.

In Wyoming, for example, 20,000 would clearly be adequate votes to sway a current national race (about 95K were cast for the 2 senatorial candidates last election).  However,  that sway can only be achieved in alliance with some other voting block.  A third party or independent candidate, with the full support of FSP, would only result in 95K to 95K to 20K:  a loss.

Am I missing something here?

I know it's ambitious, but perhaps we should shoot for 100,000 (which would win WY).

How was 20,000 arrived at?

I have no clue how Jason thinks (but I am sure he does) 20,000 activists could win a state like NH with well over 1,000,000 people.  I do know a few ways 20,000 voters could win WY.  WY voters put out around 215,000 votes in the 2000 election.  More people would come out when the FSP is push new issues.  More people will be in WY in 10 years when the election wheels will start to turn.  Plus there will be 20,000 FSP supporters.  Lets just say that is around 260,000 voters in total.  About 63% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote R or about 151,000.  About 33% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote D or about 79,000.  The other 4% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote LP, Con., Reform P, or the like (10000).  Plus you have 20,000 FSP votes which equals about 30,000 total freedom votes to start with.

If each of the FSP voters gets 2 R and 1/2 a D to vote for a freedom friendly politian then the totals are: 111,000 R, 80,000 FSP, 69,000 D
In a few years if we are good, friendly people and show positive results with local political changes that is doable.  That makes us number 2.  If the R run a very weak can. and we run a real good one and we out spend them and get some D support we might win a state wide office.  

Let's say we all got 2.5 R and 1.5 D which somepeople think is doable (we are activists).
That means: 110,000 FSP, 101,000 R,  49,000 D
The key here is that we are not taking over a state.  We are simply convincing the population of a state (or 1/3+ of it in a 3 way race) that greater economic and personal freedom will make their lives better.

However, initally, the FSP will mostly focus on local politics.  We will run for state House and Senate positions and some lower positions.  In a house district you might need 3000 or so votes to win.  Maybe even less in a 3 way race.  If 700 activists moved into that one district and did earlier voting drills, made speeches, spent on the radio and TV, went to public meeting, were interviewed by the press, helped out the other people in the district, and the like they should be able to win the set.  Lots of state house seats can and will be won like this.  Many other local seats can and will be won like this.

We must start out small and then move up.  This will take many years of winning small elections and showing that libertarianism works.  Only then will we be able to get a couple Senators and a Gov.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on November 17, 2002, 05:55:56 pm
I'm glad this has been a fruitful discussion.

One thing that sticks out in my mind (even did when I first saw the FSP idea) is that 20,000 isn't enough.

In Wyoming, for example, 20,000 would clearly be adequate votes to sway a current national race (about 95K were cast for the 2 senatorial candidates last election).  However,  that sway can only be achieved in alliance with some other voting block.  A third party or independent candidate, with the full support of FSP, would only result in 95K to 95K to 20K:  a loss.

Am I missing something here?

I know it's ambitious, but perhaps we should shoot for 100,000 (which would win WY).

How was 20,000 arrived at?

I have no clue how Jason thinks (but I am sure he does) 20,000 activists could win a state like NH with well over 1,000,000 people.  I do know a few ways 20,000 voters could win WY.  WY voters put out around 215,000 votes in the 2000 election.  More people would come out when the FSP is push new issues.  More people will be in WY in 10 years when the election wheels will start to turn.  Plus there will be 20,000 FSP supporters.  Lets just say that is around 260,000 voters in total.  About 63% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote R or about 151,000.  About 33% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote D or about 79,000.  The other 4% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote LP, Con., Reform P, or the like (10000).  Plus you have 20,000 FSP votes which equals about 30,000 total freedom votes to start with.

If each of the FSP voters gets 2 R and 1/2 a D to vote for a freedom friendly politian then the totals are: 111,000 R, 80,000 FSP, 69,000 D
In a few years if we are good, friendly people and show positive results with local political changes that is doable.  That makes us number 2.  If the R run a very weak can. and we run a real good one and we out spend them and get some D support we might win a state wide office.  

Let's say we all got 2.5 R and 1.5 D which somepeople think is doable (we are activists).
That means: 110,000 FSP, 101,000 R,  49,000 D
The key here is that we are not taking over a state.  We are simply convincing the population of a state (or 1/3+ of it in a 3 way race) that greater economic and personal freedom will make their lives better.

However, initally, the FSP will mostly focus on local politics.  We will run for state House and Senate positions and some lower positions.  In a house district you might need 3000 or so votes to win.  Maybe even less in a 3 way race.  If 700 activists moved into that one district and did earlier voting drills, made speeches, spent on the radio and TV, went to public meeting, were interviewed by the press, helped out the other people in the district, and the like they should be able to win the set.  Lots of state house seats can and will be won like this.  Many other local seats can and will be won like this.

We must start out small and then move up.  This will take many years of winning small elections and showing that libertarianism works.  Only then will we be able to get a couple Senators and a Gov.

For statistical purposes, I'd have to say that getting any democrats is a long shot.  Maybe .5, but certainly no more.

I agree that the state offices will be winnable right away.  Once the state government is influenced substantially by the FSP presence, winning national elections and gaining larger percentages of those now registered as Rs and Ds, is reasonable.

I think 20,000 will take too long though.  There is some element of 'taking over' a state involved in this project, regardless.  The issue is not to overdo that aspect.  Perhaps just enough to determine the outcome to Ds and Rs - (i.e., a Republican who really is pretty pro-freedom will have to fielded in order to court the FSP vote).

I suppose though, that a 20,000 movement is a decent enough indicator to make the move and continue to bring others who love freedom along.

It is really awesome that our founders set things up in such a way as to have this opportunity, rather than the open revolution they had to accomplish!

Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Robert H. on November 28, 2002, 04:34:55 am
Very well said, Joe.  

The Founders would be more than a little astonished at the degree to which things have deteriorated in this country in such a relatively short span of time.

We have largely fulfilled Benjamin Franklin's prophecy:


"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults; if they are such; because I think a general government necessary for us...and I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."


In a Republic, freedom is not taken away so much as it is given away, and we would do well to remember this in our efforts.  With regard to liberty, each American generation has been born in a box somewhat smaller than the previous generation was, largely not missing what liberties they never had.  Some of us look back in time and see what should have been ours, or chafe under what is being taken from us now, but we are, as Joe has pointed out, very much in the minority when it comes to doing anything about it.

Many people think of us liberty-minded types as being "ungrateful" or "unpatriotic," and wonder why we would criticize the government or the course of the country when "we have it so much better than any other country on earth."  Such people generally speak of freedom in glowing terms and do little else.  But if all you're willing to do in the name of freedom is pay homage to it, then you might as well be eulogizing it.  Some of the most beautiful tributes I've ever heard have been delivered at funerals, but beautiful words cannot raise dead men anymore than they can restore lost liberties.  That takes work, and those who choose to walk that road had best be prepared to keep small company.

As a result, we are best served by choosing a place where our small numbers will count for more rather than locating in a more populous state and hoping that those who currently only pay homage to liberty will suddenly feel like putting on their walking shoes.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Blayne on December 05, 2002, 08:37:08 pm
It's simple it's not 20,000 agains the rest of the state. Success depends on the 20,000 winning enough already in the state to the cause period. The whole thing is a gamble in any state.

Joe keeps saying the numbers have to be low, but that creates a whole nother perhaps more serious problem and that is economical survivial in such a state. We can't divide our energies on survival and loose the goal of political change....

Thats why the premise is flawed looking at it in just terms of numbers.

The principle is; it takes a small amount of yeast to leaven the whole loaf of bread!

While it might be easier with a smaller population just looking at the numbers there is no garuntee that is the case. Being able to make a living is crucial to success!

Blayne

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on December 06, 2002, 08:07:33 am
It's simple it's not 20,000 agains the rest of the state. Success depends on the 20,000 winning enough already in the state to the cause period. The whole thing is a gamble in any state.

Joe keeps saying the numbers have to be low, but that creates a whole nother perhaps more serious problem and that is economical survivial in such a state. We can't divide our energies on survival and loose the goal of political change....

Thats why the premise is flawed looking at it in just terms of numbers.

The principle is; it takes a small amount of yeast to leaven the whole loaf of bread!

While it might be easier with a smaller population just looking at the numbers there is no garuntee that is the case. Being able to make a living is crucial to success!

Blayne

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams



Joe is absolutely correct.

Leaven in bread is a nice sounding analogy, but this application of it isn't logically consistent.  One could use that to say that a small amount of, name anything, put into a larger amount of, name anything, will always change the second thing into the first.  This simply isn't the case.  Yes, a little yeast does leaven the loaf, but a little liberty doesn't necessary liberate the whole population.

Survival?  May I ask you a question?

Are you a hearty soul?  Are those who will move to the Free State hearty souls?

This move is an action of near revolutionary proportions.  Can anyone out there actually imagine the founders of this nation or the settlers of the west thinking they would be too distracted by the difficulty earning a living TODAY?  I wonder what those who settled Wyoming in the 1800s would think of that statement?

I would also add that even if it really were so difficult to earn a living, which as you can see I contend it is not (e.g., today one can just drive to another state - or hitch a ride with a FSP friend, either every day for a job or once in awhile), that would hardly be a terrible distraction to keep one from going to the polling place once in awhile and voting for liberty (states provide the ballots and pencils).  It's also pretty easy to identify which candidates and issues are libertarian in this often liberty-free-zone we call the United States (i.e., it doesn't take alot of costly or time-consuming research).

Please forgive me if this sounds harsh.

Be of good cheer.  This can be done, but it needs the most significant percentage of population possible!

Success is sure if there are enough truly hearty souls, such as those who originally settled this nation.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Steve on December 06, 2002, 09:54:56 am
Quote
LibertyVsLibertine wrote:
Are you a hearty soul?  Are those who will move to the Free State hearty souls?

This move is an action of near revolutionary proportions.  Can anyone out there actually imagine the founders of this nation or the settlers of the west thinking they would be too distracted by the difficulty earning a living TODAY?  I wonder what those who settled Wyoming in the 1800s would think of that statement?
The Founders of this nation were, I believe, wealthy landowners.  The pioneers were probably poor, with little to lose, and much to gain.  They were searching for prosperity, not freedom.  In any event, we are living in a different, non-agrarian world. To compete with an opponent you need comparable material and human resources, whether that opponent is a British army, the leftist media, the entrenched political parties, or the football team of the highschool on the wealthier side of town.  20K un- or under-employed libertarians might have the human resources for success, but they will lack the financial resources.

I suggest that you can divide the FSP membership into two groups: those who want to live in freedom (and let the rest of the human race go hang), and those who want to see freedom live and spread, even though they themselves might be living vicariously in a place that is less than free.  I am in the latter category: eventually, I want to see a Free Planet Project. Of course, we all value both goals; we just prioritize them differently.

For years I lived by choice in a bona-fide dictatorship, moving there of my own free will.  I now live in an unfree land called Deutschland, at the core of a coalescing dictatorship called the European Union.  In a few weeks I will move back to Russia, where my job skills are at maximum value, and where some measure of freedom is returning (in the form of a low 13% flat tax).

Am I a "hearty soul" or a wimp? I am moving to a Russian island called Sakhalin, north of Japan, where the winters are probably harsher than anything most readers here have ever experienced.  You can probably imagine the rest of the conditions.  The motivator is of course money, which I can use to support the liberty movement.  If the FSP selects a state where I cannot be sufficiently productive, I can be a better patriot by fighting from behind enemy lines.  Don't dismiss the patriotism of those of us who place some value on financial power.  Rather, I question the intelligence of those who dismiss economics, and I doubt their chances for eventual success.  Darwinism will snuff them out.

This does not mean that the FSP should move to New York or wherever salaries are highest, but the potential for economic prosperity should remain on our list of selection criteria.  A place where people in general are likely to succeed is a place where libertarians are likely to succeed.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Blayne on December 06, 2002, 06:20:13 pm
LVS: Joe is absolutely correct.

Leaven in bread is a nice sounding analogy, but this application of it isn't logically consistent.  One could use that to say that a small amount of, name anything, put into a larger amount of, name anything, will always change the second thing into the first.  This simply isn't the case.  Yes, a little yeast does leaven the loaf, but a little liberty doesn't necessary liberate the whole population.


Blayne: I disagree; it is logically consistent. The yeast has to be active to leaven the bread. Likewise the FSP has to be active and innovative to change the political climate of the state.

LVS: Survival?  May I ask you a question?

Are you a hearty soul?  Are those who will move to the Free State hearty souls?

This move is an action of near revolutionary proportions.  Can anyone out there actually imagine the founders of this nation or the settlers of the west thinking they would be too distracted by the difficulty earning a living TODAY?  I wonder what those who settled Wyoming in the 1800s would think of that statement?


Blayne: Many of the Founders were already wealthy men.  We’re not moving someplace where you can just stake out some land and start building a homestead. If that were the case I would be there in a heartbeat because that sort of self-sufficient lifestyle appeals to me. Were moving where people will need to be productive members of society and there needs to be sufficient opportunity to make a living to support the primary goal of political activism.

LVS: I would also add that even if it really were so difficult to earn a living, which as you can see I contend it is not (e.g., today one can just drive to another state - or hitch a ride with a FSP friend, either every day for a job or once in awhile), that would hardly be a terrible distraction to keep one from going to the polling place once in awhile and voting for liberty (states provide the ballots and pencils).  It's also pretty easy to identify which candidates and issues are libertarian in this often liberty-free-zone we call the United States (i.e., it doesn't take alot of costly or time-consuming research).

Blayne: If you think all we need to do is vote then you’re not what FSP is looking for.  FSP is looking for activist to leaven the whole. But in the mean time their families need to live and be able to eat etc… It’s nice to appeal to the founders of this nation etc for inspiration but reality has to be faced, if those moving to the state cannot find work or opportunity within 3 months chances are high they will leave much less become politically active. Those are the harsh realities. This is not some hippie commune where we can all just move and not worry about it and hey man peace love dope we’ll all just live off the land… ;)

LVS: Be of good cheer.  This can be done, but it needs the most significant percentage of population possible!

Success is sure if there are enough truly hearty souls, such as those who originally settled this nation.


Blayne: Why then are some of the so-called “hearty souls” balking at the task of leavening a little larger loaf of bread? Seems to me it would be much easier then worrying about where the next meal is coming from and ending up on the street?
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on December 07, 2002, 02:23:41 pm
Don't dismiss the patriotism of those of us who place some value on financial power.  
This statement takes my comments entirely out of context, as I specifically stated my apologies for these perhaps harsh, but motivational statements.

Likewise, the use of "am I a... or a wimp," implied negativity that was not stated nor intended.

My intent was and is to point out that there is no state in the union (Wyoming included) that does not have adequate resources for the liberty minded individuals to not only survive, but to do so in an excellent manner.  

The pioneers survived the move with not even an iota of the resources that are available to us.

As to wealthy landowners, some of the founders were, but foresook those resources or used them (some personally funded the revolutionary war and had to be buried as paupers when they died), to undertake the same sort of hardships as the western pioneers suffered, and worse (at least nobody was chasing the pioneers and trying to kill them and their families).  Others were quite middle class (John Adams, for example).  Many were preachers and farmers without great wealth.  The characterization of 'the founders' as 'wealthy landowners' is an inaccurate, liberal stereotype.

I acknowledge that if all things are equal, financial concerns should be given consideration, but they are not equal.  

Resolved:

1)  None of the states under consideration is poor enough that persons cannot move there and reside comfortably,

2)  The fastest way to gain the desired liberty is by winning elections,

Therefore, gains in economic status from choosing a more financially prosperous state (pretty subjective anyway), do not outweigh the benefits of a larger voting percentage.

If we truly believe in the liberty we promote, we will have confidence that the ability to implement that freedom most quickly (voting percentage) will cause the desired financial prosperity.

I also propose that adversity brings strength.  The camaraderie developed in improving a less-developed state by means of liberty might be just the added edge necessary to make the free planet project work.
 
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on December 07, 2002, 02:44:29 pm
Blayne: I disagree; it is logically consistent. The yeast has to be active to leaven the bread. Likewise the FSP has to be active and innovative to change the political climate of the state.

For the purpose of demonstrating activism, it is logically consistent, for the purpose of demonstrating that a smaller amount is adequate - as was the case in the original post - it is not.

Blayne: Many of the Founders were already wealthy men.  We’re not moving someplace where you can just stake out some land and start building a homestead. If that were the case I would be there in a heartbeat because that sort of self-sufficient lifestyle appeals to me. Were moving where people will need to be productive members of society and there needs to be sufficient opportunity to make a living to support the primary goal of political activism.

Again, the 'wealthy men' stereotype is a liberal and inaccurate mischaracterization, if thoroughly examined.  I don't think it is so unreasonable as you imply to 'statke out some land and...'.  A poorer economy means less expensive land.  It is highly reasonable to think that groups of FSPers could band together to buy large portions of land - perhaps the more wealthy would be more helpful - in Wyoming or Montana and settle them.

Blayne: If you think all we need to do is vote then you’re not what FSP is looking for.  FSP is looking for activist to leaven the whole. But in the mean time their families need to live and be able to eat etc… It’s nice to appeal to the founders of this nation etc for inspiration but reality has to be faced, if those moving to the state cannot find work or opportunity within 3 months chances are high they will leave much less become politically active. Those are the harsh realities. This is not some hippie commune where we can all just move and not worry about it and hey man peace love dope we’ll all just live off the land… ;)

I wouldn't say all that is needed is to vote, but that's why we have a republican form of government.  We elect a few good, liberty-minded individuals who oversee those things.  Those with adequate resources to free themselves up to do the more time-consuming things do, those with less resources vote and influence their culture in more close-to-home, personal ways (which incidentally should not be under-rated).  I do think the vote is the most effective means of freeing a state, and I also think that mentality is precisely what the FSP is looking for.  The whole idea of the Free State Project implies this approach.    

Appealing to pioneers of the U.S. government, U.S. military, and U.S. land, is very much reality.  I propose that the hardships involved in settling the Free State pale in comparison to the truly harsh realities faced by those individuals.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on December 07, 2002, 03:45:46 pm
Quote
author=libertyVSlibertine
1)  None of the states under consideration is poor enough that persons cannot move there and reside comfortably,

Precisely. Some states will of course be easier than others, but as I am not afraid to work, even if it may not immediately be in my favorite field, I have no doubts that it won't present that big a problem.

There is another aspect too which has given me some pause when reading some of the arguments in favor of particular states. Its quite obvious that, for business owners already located within a state, were it to be selected by FSP, that their business would stand to profit nicely.

That is to be expected, and perfectly reasonable. As was already discussed a while back, most of us would wish to support each others businesses (while at the same time contributing to the local economy, which will help us be accepted there.)

However, the possibly questionable part would be for those in such position to heavily lobby for their own local area were this profit aspect to be of central importance to them, perhaps clouding their judgement in more important aspects of state selection. This is similar to how our government currently operates, with the defense industry being a prime example.

Not a major issue here of course, but it does deserve mention and consideration, as it could constitute, to some degree, a slight conflict of interest. Though individual profits are quite important, the actual long term success of FSP must have a higher priority.

An important point is that libertarians and/or Libertarians aren't immune, as sometimes they seem to think, from self-centered motives.

I think, and you may not agree, the drug legalization effort is a prime example (sorry to digress a bit here).  It may be true that drug legalization is consistent with freedom (I leave that for another discussion somewhere), but it isn't important to most Americans, is a distraction from more significant freedom issues, and marginalizes the cause (i.e., Libertarians look to the public like a bunch of hippies and druggies who want to be able to do their own personal thing).

It really is important to examine our own, and be wary of others, motives.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Steve on December 07, 2002, 06:08:36 pm
Quote
[drug legalization] isn't important to most Americans, is a distraction from more significant freedom issues, and marginalizes the cause (i.e., Libertarians look to the public like a bunch of hippies and druggies who want to be able to do their own personal thing).
Sorry for continuing the digression....The same goes for the right to bear arms: it makes us look like a bunch of "gun-nuts".  Also those who want low taxes must surely be greedy rich people who want to avoid paying their fair share.  

The FSP exists because some of us libertarians have given up hope on ever convincing the sheeple, at least not in our lifetimes.  What the sheeple think might be important to the LP, but it is not important to the FSP.  We will fight for all freedoms, though we will prioritize that according to some criteria.  The loss of any freedom is a tragedy, and an erosion that will lead to further losses that might matter more to you.

About drug legalization in particular, it is the LP's #1 issue, and for good reason.  Drug prohibition is an underlying factor in much of the state's increase in power, and our loss of rights.  The narcotics black market feeds the violent crime that gives the gun-grabbers the ammunition they need....
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Steve on December 07, 2002, 06:24:34 pm
Quote
MouseBorg wrote:
However, the possibly questionable part would be for those in such position to heavily lobby for their own local area were this profit aspect to be of central importance to them, perhaps clouding their judgement in more important aspects of state selection....
Not a major issue here of course...
Since the target states are necessarily small ones, only a tiny percentage of our membership would be a business owner in one of them. But you are right in that the opinion of anyone advocating their own state has to be taken with a bit of skepticism, though they are of course the ones who would know their state best.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Blayne on December 07, 2002, 08:38:03 pm
Where is the data to support the premise that the smaller population economies such as WY etc. can support the influx of 20,000? Like wise where is the data the larger population states will be too hard to change? Since some here seem so certain?

Blayne
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on December 08, 2002, 06:20:17 pm
Quote
[drug legalization] isn't important to most Americans, is a distraction from more significant freedom issues, and marginalizes the cause (i.e., Libertarians look to the public like a bunch of hippies and druggies who want to be able to do their own personal thing).
Sorry for continuing the digression....The same goes for the right to bear arms: it makes us look like a bunch of "gun-nuts".  Also those who want low taxes must surely be greedy rich people who want to avoid paying their fair share.  

The FSP exists because some of us libertarians have given up hope on ever convincing the sheeple, at least not in our lifetimes.  What the sheeple think might be important to the LP, but it is not important to the FSP.  We will fight for all freedoms, though we will prioritize that according to some criteria.  The loss of any freedom is a tragedy, and an erosion that will lead to further losses that might matter more to you.

About drug legalization in particular, it is the LP's #1 issue, and for good reason.  Drug prohibition is an underlying factor in much of the state's increase in power, and our loss of rights.  The narcotics black market feeds the violent crime that gives the gun-grabbers the ammunition they need....

Most of those things about drug legalization are speculation.  Personally, and supportably, I think taxes have exponentially more impact on freedoms than do illegal drugs.  Likewise, keeping firearms is an ultimate defense against tyranny (as included by the founders and as recently supported by the U.S. attorney general.  The fact that the citizens, while they were still thinkers, counted those things sufficiently important to protect in the Constitution and Bill of Rights lends some evidence to the idea that they are demonstrably higher priorities.  

Agreed, however, any taking of rights is a shame.  
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on December 08, 2002, 06:37:27 pm
Where is the data to support the premise that the smaller population economies such as WY etc. can support the influx of 20,000? Like wise where is the data the larger population states will be too hard to change? Since some here seem so certain?

Blayne

How do you define an economy that can support the influx of 20,000?  Isn't that non-liberty, economic-engineering-speak?  

Nonetheless, the answer is by empirical evidence.

It has been demonstrated for centuries in this country that there are abundant and certainly adequate natural resources to support a large influx of people into any state.  Now, we have even more resources, primarily by way of wealth, communication, and travel, which are all much greater than they were at the time tens of thousands were routinely moving into (new) states.

If the puritans could survive Massachusetts winters in the 1600s on almost nothing (using only a few square miles worth of resources), after weeks of sea travel, it most certainly can be done in today's luxurious environment.

Data isn't needed to support the population numbers, beyond ordinary statistical analysis and common sense.  

First of all, in WY, 20,000 votes would be enough to determine the outcome of all national elections in that state (but would require the assistance of partisans).

20,000 votes, in a 200,000 electorate state, will have more impact - simple math - than 20,000 in a 500,000 electorate state.

If FSP can change the elected officials, there is then more ability to change the attitudes of citizens, at least that is the premise behind choosing a number.  Otherwise, the FSP would just be 'all liberty-lovers come' - no structure or numerics needed.  The premise would be that a taste of liberty, given by electing liberty-minded officials, is likely to be a quick and effective means by which to change citizens' attitudes about it.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Blayne on December 08, 2002, 07:39:35 pm
LVS: How do you define an economy that can support the influx of 20,000?  Isn't that non-liberty, economic-engineering-speak?  

Blayne:  Thank you for the response.

Defining an economy that can support an influx is simple, enough demand for new business and new workers… Why is looking at the amount of available opportunity somehow associated with non-liberty? That simply makes no sense to me.

LVS: Nonetheless, the answer is by empirical evidence.

I have been asking for it since I came on the list. Where is this evidence?

LVS: It has been demonstrated for centuries in this country that there are abundant and certainly adequate natural resources to support a large influx of people into any state.  Now, we have even more resources, primarily by way of wealth, communication, and travel, which are all much greater than they were at the time tens of thousands were routinely moving into (new) states.

Blayne: Just how does natural resources translate into businesses and jobs for 200,000 new folks? Natural resources have to be developed which takes lots of cash, time, equipment and know-how etc. before there is any return on all those invested. Which its obvious FSPers will not have at least the cash nor the time…

The other resources such as comms. travel etc… are much more easy to gauge whether there is enough opportunity to support a large influx. This is the data I am asking for.

I keep hearing things like with business that comes with FSPers there will be enough, but no one has given any evidence that will be the case, and how do you gauge how much business will come?  

With all the analyzing going on in  the FSP I would think this would be a no brainier that it needs to be done. This is my point in picking a state with an already thriving economy.

I think a larger population diluting the FSP political influence would be easier to overcome with some innovative marketing then a small economy unable to support the basic needs of the influx.

Influencing larger populations with the right marketing campaign has a track record of success, and large influxes into weak economies is known to make them worse.

LVS: If the puritans could survive Massachusetts winters in the 1600s on almost nothing (using only a few square miles worth of resources), after weeks of sea travel, it most certainly can be done in today's luxurious environment.

Blayne: What in the world has this got to do with anything?  Quite living in the past and address the realities of today. Which is those moving to the target state will need enough opportunity to survive economically. Yes they can bring some with them but will it be enough?

LVS: Data isn't needed to support the population numbers, beyond ordinary statistical analysis and common sense.  

First of all, in WY, 20,000 votes would be enough to determine the outcome of all national elections in that state (but would require the assistance of partisans).

20,000 votes, in a 200,000-electorate state, will have more impact - simple math - than 20,000 in a 500,000 electorate state.


Blayne: I am not asking about the voting numbers, I have agreed numerous times with the voting numbers being easier in small population state. But it doesn’t mean a thing if people cannot support themselves for lack of opportunity

Until this is addressed with some hard data folks are basing their choices on speculation in my view
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on December 09, 2002, 12:27:26 am
Blayne: What in the world has this got to do with anything?  Quite living in the past and address the realities of today. Which is those moving to the target state will need enough opportunity to survive economically. Yes they can bring some with them but will it be enough?

What you call 'realities' today are merely preferences.  The standard of living most U.S. citizens are used to is not necessary.  They can live on much less.  Why is it that how humans settled areas in the U.S. in the 1600s doesn't apply today?  Are we inferior to them, unable to survive when they were?  They went to a new land with no resources, but a very few resources they could bring along and minimal capability to get additional help in any short order.  Are we not in thousands of times better shape than that.  Economic survival isn't an issue, not if we truly desire liberty.  If so, we'll get it or die trying.

OK, its your turn.  Why is it that it must be proven there is adequate economic support for a great influx?

All of U.S. history demonstrates that not much is really needed to survive given a desire for true freedom.  Now not only the motivation of freedom exists, but nearby prosperity, technology, communication, and relatively easy travel.

Prove that it there isn't adequate support.  Show the 'hard facts' to demonstrate that survival is a serious issue.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Zxcv on December 09, 2002, 03:48:16 am
liberty... I agree with your statement about people being able to live on very little. I have known people to live enjoyable lives on almost nothing as long as they had land and a few animals and gardens and simple housing.

Also keep in mind a place like Wyoming has very low housing prices and land prices. Gardening is an issue in any of these northern states, we will have to get creative with that. Hunting is possible for folks who are not completely citified. Anyway there are lots of things that can be done.

Finally remember that there will be a lot of help in the form of other Free Staters.

In fact, to be honest, the economies in the little rural towns are pretty slow. You could say the entire town is working on this semi-subsistence, no-known-source-of-income type of living. So we will have lots of examples to follow in the small towns!

I go back and forth on this issue; I understand Blayne's concerns.

I suspect the first Free Staters who will move will be the retirees; they have no jobs needs. They can scout out opportunities for the next wave, maybe put up a couple of RV pads in the back yard, that sort of thing.

You know, the more I think of it, the more it looks like we need retirees, lots of them. They have a lot going for them, and would be a big help with the initial immigration. Maybe we should direct some recruiting effort in that age group, even if we don't actually make activists of them. Friends would be just about as good, for getting over this initial hump...
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Robert H. on December 09, 2002, 07:38:07 am
I suspect the first Free Staters who will move will be the retirees; they have no jobs needs. They can scout out opportunities for the next wave, maybe put up a couple of RV pads in the back yard, that sort of thing.

Singles, retirees, people who work from home, those with businesses that can be transplanted or expanded, RVer's:  all of these types will likely be the first people to move because they're not so firmly rooted as others.

Their independence will not only allow them to make the move first, but it will also quite likely allow them to prepare the way for others to follow.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: libertyVSlibertine on December 09, 2002, 08:56:48 pm
Zxcv,

   Very well said.  You are nicer to Blayne than am I.  I do also understand the concerns, but this is the time for boldness.

   In Wyoming, with only 454,000 (and a host of other good factors, though some are a little down), the Free State Project would immediately, get this, be 5% of the population.

   Now that would be a decent forum for liberty!!!!!

Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Hank on July 28, 2003, 09:33:46 pm
Quote
I acknowledge that if all things are equal, financial concerns should be given consideration, but they are not equal. 
Resolved:
1)  None of the states under consideration is poor enough that persons cannot move there and reside comfortably,
2)  The fastest way to gain the desired liberty is by winning elections,
Therefore, gains in economic status from choosing a more financially prosperous state (pretty subjective anyway), do not outweigh the benefits of a larger voting percentage.
If we truly believe in the liberty we promote, we will have confidence that the ability to implement that freedom most quickly (voting percentage) will cause the desired financial prosperity.
I also propose that adversity brings strength.  The camaraderie developed in improving a less-developed state by means of liberty might be just the added edge necessary to make the free planet project work.

TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN HERE.
Title: Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
Post by: Dalamar49 on July 28, 2003, 09:41:47 pm
What the Hell are you doing, Hank?  ???

"Must not get annoyed," Speaks my mantra.