Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: freedomroad on November 08, 2002, 04:31:22 pm

Title: Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: freedomroad on November 08, 2002, 04:31:22 pm
WY is the best state for the conservative leaning libertarians

WY has some of the lowest personal taxes, no corporate taxes, very low land taxes, a pro-corporate legal system, LP major party status, a strong R presence, lots of wide open spaces, and close loaction to major cities.  WY also has some of the best weather and a central West - Midwest location.


VT is the best state for the liberal leaning libertarians

VT already has open nudity laws, joint homosexual rights, very high taxes, lots of state controlled 'public land', strong anti-corporate laws, a very strong socialist group, pro-welfare laws, a very liberal christian community (women and homosexuals may be church leaders) , and more hippies than anywhere.

WY can handle 25,000 people but has a better chance of winning with only 15,000 than most of the larger states do with as many as 30,000 people.  If 15,000 move to WY it might still win.  WY FSers could lower the sales tax, attract more jobs and companies, legalize pot, end affirimative action, make WY the best home school state, make the already rare gun laws even more rare, make the Drivers L. a little bit more secretive, force groups of armed feds to ask before entering the state, and get ride of the seat belt laws on adults.  WY is close to 500,000 people from CO and another few 100,000 from UT so jobs are certainly there.  WY is also within reach of populated areas of MT and SD.  WY has the 2nd highest livability rating.  WY is in the West where the FSers are more conservative.  WY could be come the free state economicly and one of the most free states personally.  


VT cannot be won unless 25,000-30,000 people moved to the state and even then socialism would still be the subculture. The remaining 10,000 or so (the people that did not move to WY) could move to VT and live there small town, high taxes, anti-corporate, pro-liberal life.  The VT FSers could make pot legal, make assisted suicide legal, stop selective service reg., and make 3rd parties like the Green, Grass Roots, Progressive, and Libertarian Party official major parties.  VT is in the East where the FSers are more liberal.  VT could become the most free state personally and kind of free (in some ways) economicly.

Thus, all FSP members will get what they want.  This is meant to be a serious question or at least help members think.

Of the 10 states, where WY and VT Rank (lower # is better):
Personal Taxes :          WY 3,     VT 9
Possible near-by jobs: WY 4-6,  VT 10
Personal Freedom:       WY 1-3,     VT 4-5
Economic Freedom:      WY 1,     VT 9-10
Gun Laws:                    WY 3-5,  VT 1-4
Cheap Land:                 WY 2-4,  VT ?
Near Entertain. Center: WY 3,    VT 6-8
Corporate Taxes:           WY 1,    VT 9-10
Nudity Laws:                  WY ?,    VT 1
Weather:                        WY 3,    VT 6
Central Location:            WY 2,    VT 6-7
Central to East:              WY 6,    VT 2
Central to West:             WY 1,    VT 8
Amount of private land:  WY 4,    VT 8                          
Total (lower # better)     WY 37,  VT 80

Only human controlled factors:
Personal Taxes :          WY 3,     VT 9
Possible near-by jobs: WY 4-6,  VT 10
Personal Freedom:       WY ?,     VT 1
Economic Freedom:      WY 1,     VT 9-10
Gun Laws:                    WY 3-5,  VT 1-4
Cheap Land:                 WY 1-2,  VT ?
Near Entertain. Center: WY 3,    VT 6-8
Corporate Taxes:           WY 1,    VT 9-10
Nudity Laws:                  WY ?,    VT 1
Total (lower better):       WY 19,  VT 47

Uncontrollable factors:
Weather:                        WY 3,    VT 6
Central Location:            WY 2,    VT 6-7
Central to East:              WY 6,    VT 2
Central to West:             WY 1,    VT 8
Loaction (Costal, CA)      WY 10,  VT 4
Amount of private land:  WY 2,    VT 8
Total (lower better)         WY 24, VT 34

WY has better human controlled conditions, and Better Natural conditions than VT for the FSP to win.  Both states have very small voting populations.  Both states have boarder states with strong LPs.  CO is the home of the LP and is a strong state to feed off of.  NH has more than 2 dozen elected LP members.  VT is the most socialist of all of the states.  This is good on quite a few issues such as child rights, drug laws.  VT has many community villages and also the most powerful 3rd party movement in the country.  VT also has a history of electing libertarians, more so than any other small state.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 08, 2002, 11:04:03 pm
I also had feelings like splitting the FSP into 2 groups one out west and one out east. That way us Westerners have our wide open life style intact and the Easterners get what they want. I don't think the people in charge would agree to do this.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 08, 2002, 11:22:23 pm
There's no reason to split up the movement right when we're gaining momentum.  Getting 40,000 participants would be extremely difficult, probably impossible.  IMO anyone who's really serious about liberty will be willing to move just about any state for freedom.  The diehard pro-Easterners and pro-Westerners should get their priorities straight.

(Sorry if this sounds a little grumpy; I've had to deal with a lot of whiners about state "fairness" lately.)
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 08, 2002, 11:37:26 pm
My personal opinion is that I would have to want to live in the state FSP or no FSP. Why? I am the main provider for a family of 5, with 3 being very young. I would have to move my entire family 3000 miles to a state like NH or DE that has no shot at success with only 20,000. Those facts have been presented time and again. Also who is to say that all 20,000 come through. What if say only 10,000 do the move? I would have just screwed my family up, I would have to uproot my family again to move back west. It is not an easy task. For the single people here it is not as big a risk.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Solitar on November 08, 2002, 11:58:35 pm
So who is now saying it is impossible.
If the FSP can't round up 20,000 serious activists worthy of the name and responsibility AND another several tens of thousands who can only move and help support with a vote then, though the "FSP" succeeds, its Free State probably will not -- unless the very easiest state is chosen. ZionCurtain has valid points about Delaware and New Hampshire and his first responsibility to his family.

Freedom Road has a good analysis of the two choices. With the above numbers of activists and voters which could likely be recruited to move, the two smallest states are as likely to succeed as Free States as putting all the eggs in either an Idaho or New Hampshire basket. I expect a divide to happen anyway because there really is a divide between the westerners and easterners that many from each camp will not cross! Thus having a plan "B" of an eastern nexus and a western nexus is worth considering -- especially if it doubles the number of recruits -- both serious activists and those who can only move and help support the effort with a vote and maybe a little bit of help here and there.

Even Jason agrees that I have a point in this thread on the idea of having a second category of voting supporters.
Is 20,000 enough?
Quote
That's a good point, Joe - some people will probably move in who will not be activists, and we'd need to have a separate category for them.  I guess we could include them in the "Friends of the FSP" category.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=369;start=15
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 09, 2002, 12:01:35 am
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but all the basic research indicates that 20,000+ could win in any of the 10 candidate states given enough work.  The only question is which states would be easiest to target.  I don't think the FSP should be held hostage to the demands of a small minority devoted to their particular geographical areas.  And it is a small minority - so far over 50% of FSP members haven't opted out of any states, and probably about 75% have opted out of 3 or fewer.

If we get 20,000 signers, I expect at least 15,000 of them to move.  At the very least.  Why would someone sign up and then not move?  Doesn't make sense.  But we'll be trying to get more than 20,000 anyway, for "insurance."
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Solitar on November 09, 2002, 12:27:08 am
Though I'm sure FreedomRoad was entirely serious in the analysis, it almost sounded tongue- in-cheek OR a challenge, throwing down the gauntlet, a double-dare-ya to the east coast or left leaning FSP'ers and libertarians to "Take Back Vermont" -- literally since even traditional Vermonters feel that way - those who are left  ;)

Even I could be persuaded to move to Vermont to join the fight to liberate not only Vermont, but then also New Hampshire, Maine, and even Massachusetts. Yes, even Massachusetts. The more I research the voting patterns there the more I see evidence of a large repressed contingent of conservatives, independents and even libertarians there. If the northern states went Free, the native resistance in Massachusetts could very well turn that state around. Then Rhode Island too (which was an FSP candidate at one time).

Jason, as to why they would not move. Who is John Galt?
But my compatriots and the cause of liberty has been left hanging out on point too often to discount the likelihood. It would be much better to push hardest for 20,000 serioius political activists and get a broad spectrum "of all types" but heavily loaded with political "slick operatives"  than a broad spectrum heavily loaded with "not tonight, I've got a headache or a party (which gives them a headache), " types.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Tyler on November 09, 2002, 09:57:54 pm
Looking at this from the outside it seems like a good idea. After all, being in two states gives you double the chances of success, a fallback position if only one fails, and it will make your group harder to break up. The downsides, not enough people, your resources being spread too thin, etc., make it seem like a poor choice.

The way I see it, you need to choose one state and do the best that you can with it. Splitting in two may well doom the project, especially if one side gets nearly everyone signed up on its behalf, leaving a rump membership in either an eastern or western state. In all honesty, I think you guys have a very small chance of success and that you need to concentrate on finding the single best state. By example then, you will lead the rest of the nation towars a freerer worldview, and, hopefully, the government back to its proper role.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Nicrocreon on November 09, 2002, 10:45:30 pm
Ladies and Gentlemen,
FSP members must face facts regarding the movement.  In order for it to work, unity must be paramount.  If all goes well, many states will follow the lead set by the first.

Another thought... the terms liberal and conservative fit within the notions of the existing political structure and are charged with divisive qualities.  In the pure sense, we must all be liberal in order to change the government structure to suit a more free, a more liberal society.  So, no matter what your particular beliefs are regarding abortion, religion, etc., you must face the realityof the world that you want to create to protect your rights will also protect the rights of people of people with which you cannot agree.  Such is the nature of a truly free society and this discussion.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Kelton on November 10, 2002, 12:46:23 am
IF THE LAST PLACE ON EARTH TO BE FREE WAS FAR AWAY IN A FOREIGN LAND AMONG A FOREIGN PEOPLE, THEN I WOULD GLADLY LEAVE ALL, TRAVELING ANY WAY I COULD, EVEN RISKING LIFE AND LIMB TO GET THERE, AND, ONCE ARRIVING, I WOULD BE GLAD TO TAKE ON A FOREIGN NAME AND LANGUAGE, AND HAPPILY EKE OUT A LIVING, EVEN IN POVERTY. TEACHING MY CHILDREN THAT THIS IS THEIR MOTHER COUNTRY.  IF I SHOULD EVER THINK THIS COST TOO GREAT A PRICE TO PAY, THEN I WOULD NO LONGER KNOW MYSELF, A DESCENDANT OF THOSE WHO DID ALL THESE THINGS AND MORE FOR FREEDOM.
  -Kelton Baker
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Johnny Liberty on November 10, 2002, 04:56:10 am
This is where I must give Jason S. credit (despite his pro-Confederate leanings); the free state will only be realized as a left-right libertarian coalition. If you split the potential activists/members into two states, geographically isolated, you will not acheive the "critical mass" necessary to influence and/or dominate a state. Unity around core issues in a single state (legalize/liberalize drugs/prostitution, gun rights, lower taxes, sexual freedom, education vouchers/home schooling subsidies, decreased dependence on the welfare/warfare state) is the only realistic way forward.  Any scheme to split into two states will weaken the libertarian forces and play into the state capitalist/socialist desire to marginalize the movement .    
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: mlilback on November 10, 2002, 01:28:00 pm
I agree that splitting things up would be very bad. And I agree with the assessment that you can't really have conservatives -- they oppose change, and the FSP is all about change, and accepting the right of others to live their lives the way they want to.

As to the ratings FreedomRoad posted, I really have to differ on quite a number of them:

> Possible near-by jobs: WY 4-6,  VT 10
> Near Entertain. Center: WY 3,    VT 6-8

VT borders NH, MA, and Canada. Albany is very close, and NYC is only a few hours away. (I've driven to there from Manhattan on Friday and come back Sunday afternoon. If you discount NYC traffic, it isn't even two hours away.) Montreal is less than 2 hours from Burlington and Montpelier. What entertainment centers, compared to NYC, Boston and Montreal, are there near WY? If VT is a 6-8, WY should be a 50. And that's being conservative. (How many major artists actually play concerts in WY? Am I forgetting about sports teams located nearby? And while I'm sure there is fine local theater, it's no comparison to Broadway.)  

The same applies for jobs. I could live in VT and still commute to NYC for a few days a week, working from home the rest of the time. I know a good number of artists and programmers living in VT and they've had no problems with finding work (Burlington has an unemployment rate < 3%). And WY is listed on the FSP state page as having the worst outlook for job growth.

As to cost of living and land, http://www.aft.org/research/reports/col/Colpape3.htm (http://www.aft.org/research/reports/col/Colpape3.htm) shows that MT and WY have comparable costs of living.

>Amount of private land:  WY 2,    VT ?

The FSP state page shows that VT has a smaller percentage of land owned by the government than WY.

>Personal Taxes :          WY 3,     VT 9

On this one, it looks like you are really off base. http://www.stateline.org/fact.do?factId=601 (http://www.stateline.org/fact.do?factId=601) shows that VT  collects fewer taxes (as percent of income) than WY does. NH looks the best in that regard. (And local taxes aren't as important as state taxes, as they are the easiest to change.)

You really shouldn't post stuff like this without researching it first. You attack Michelle for posting valid numbers for NH while asking to see them for other states, but you produce numbers with no backing and in some cases, numbers that are the opposite of what is on the FSP state research page. Posts like these aren't helping anyone, just hurting.

This is the first (and hopefully last) time I've made a negative post. I really try to stay in a positive frame of mind. But I really felt I had to point out the flaws in your message. (And I'm not saying my stuff is perfect, but I just spent over an hour working on this message to verify numbers.)

And back on the issue of selecting a state, I am largely inclined to only consider an Eastern state. And that's why I haven't actually signed up as an FSP participant yet. I'm not going to list states as opt-outs until I'm positive I'm not willing to live there. I've got a good friend who moved to WY earlier this year and I'm going to try to visit her early next year so I can make a more informed decision.

Mark
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: freedomroad on November 10, 2002, 10:24:24 pm
>mlilback
>I agree that splitting things up would be very bad. And I agree with the >assessment that you can't really have conservatives -- they oppose change, >and the FSP is all about change, and accepting the right of others to live their >lives the way they want to.

>As to the ratings FreedomRoad posted, I really have to differ on quite a number >of them:

>> Possible near-by jobs: WY 4-6,  VT 10
>> Near Entertain. Center: WY 3,    VT 6-8

>VT borders NH, MA, and Canada.

I agree, I hope this means we have found common ground :)

>Albany is very close, and NYC is only a few hours away.

I also agree with this.  Albany does offer some jobs.  However, Albany does have a worse job outlook then Salt Lake City and worse or better depending on the numbers than Billings and Ft. Collins.  I did not figure for driving to NYC.  From WY, you can drive to Denver (in much less time) and I did not figure driving to Denver for jobs, either.

>Montreal is less than 2 hours from Burlington and Montpelier.

I agree, but Montreal is not exactly the best place for an English speaking American to work.

>What entertainment centers, compared to NYC, Boston and Montreal, are there near WY?

I would compare Denver to Boston and Montreal.  However, when doing my comparison I did not figue distances as far away as NYC or Boston.  I looked at Albany and Montreal for VT and Salt Lake City and Denver for WY.  This gave WY a 3 and VT a 6-8.

> If VT is a 6-8, WY should be a 50.

Or a 3  ;D

>The same applies for jobs. I could live in VT and still commute to NYC for a few >days a week, working from home the rest of the time.

You certainly could and I glad you have a possible plan.  I could live in SD and commute to St. Paul, Denver, Lincoln, Omaha, and De Moines.  However, I will not.  I could and would live in WY and commute to Ft. Collins, Rapid City, Billings, and Salt Lake City.  I figured I (and many other people) would be willing to travel 35min to 70min to get to work everyday.  I figured most people would not be willing to travel longer than that and some people would not even be willing to travel that long.  

>And WY is listed on the FSP state page as having the worst outlook for job growth.

Right.  That lists instate job growth.  WY does have the least amount of people so this can be somewhat expected.  The FSP state page does not include expected job growth within a 1 hour drive of the 10 states, though.  I think this figure would be much more useful for those of us that like working.

>>Amount of private land:  WY 4,    VT 8

>The FSP state page shows that VT has a smaller percentage of land owned by >the government than WY.

This is not related to amount of private land.
MT has the most amount of private land followed by WY.
AK and ME have a large amount of private land.
VT is very low in this ranking.
One of the FSP members posted the exact figures in the forum if you need to look them over.

update: exact figures (posted by Joe):
Amount of land NOT owned by federal or state governments in square miles.
(this is not all privately owned since local city, county, and special districts own some)
area left  State  (federal&state ownership of total area in square miles)
91,010  Montana (54,545 of 145,556)
69,186  South Dakota (6,712 of 75,898)
62,684  North Dakota (6,310 of 68,994)
42,782  Wyoming (54,323 of 97,105)
29,103  Maine (1,762 of 30,865)
24,520  Idaho (58,231 of 82,751)
23,770  Alaska (546,605 of 570,374)
  7,791  Vermont  (1,458 of 9,249)
  7,360  New Hampshire (1,609 of 8,969)
  1,812  Delaware (143 of 1,955)

>>Personal Taxes :          WY 3,     VT 9

>On this one, it looks like you are really off base. http://www.stateline.org/fact.do?factId=601[/url] shows that VT  collects fewer >taxes (as percent of income) than WY does.

I was unable to find the data you speak of on that page (though it might be there).  I did find the opposite data on the page, though.

State Tax Collection as Percent of Income, 2001  
 
Fact Name                                                                                VT  WY  US Data  
State Tax Collection as a Percent of Income, 1997 (Percent)  6.9  6.5  6.9  
State Tax Collection as a Percent of Income, 1998 (Percent)  7.1  7.9  7.0  
State Tax Collection as a Percent of Income, 1999 (Percent)  6.9  6.8  6.8  
State Tax Collection as a Percent of Income, 2000 (Percent)  9.6  7.6  7.0  
State Tax Collection as a Percent of Income, 2001 (Percent)  9.5  8.3  null  
 
State Tax Collection by Source, 2001  
 
Fact Name                                       VT   WY   US Data  
Corporate Income, 1999 (Percent)  4.9  none  6.1  
Corporate Income, 2001 (Percent)  2.9  none  5.7  
Individual Income, 1999 (Percent)  37.9 none  34.5  
Individual Income, 2001 (Percent)  31.1  none 37.1  
Other, 1999 (Percent)  12.1  34.9  9.1  
Other, 2001 (Percent)  8.2  46.3  9.2  
Per Capita State Tax Collection, 1999 (Dollars)  1704  1694  1835  
Per Capita State Tax Collection, 2001 (Dollars)  2,533  2,274  1,968  
Property, 1999 (Percent)  0.9  12.2  2.3  
Property, 2001 (Percent)  23.7  9.8  null  
Sales, 1999 (Percent)  20.3  42.8  33.2  
Sales, 2001 (Percent)  13.8  36.1  null  
Selective Sales, 1999 (Percent)  23.9  10.1  14.8  
Selective Sales, 2001 (Percent)  20.3  7.8  14.1  
 
Total State Tax Collections (millions of dollars), 2001  
 
Fact Name                                                                    VT   WY   US Data  
Total State Tax Collections, 1997 (Millions of Dollars)  899  662  443493  
Total State Tax Collections, 1998 (Millions of Dollars)  958  856  474991  
Total State Tax Collections, 1999 (Millions of Dollars)  1012  813  499510  
Total State Tax Collections, 2000 (Millions of Dollars)  1,471  964  539,640  
Total State Tax Collections, 2001 (Millions of Dollars)  1,553  1,124  559,225  
 

>You really shouldn't post stuff like this without researching it first.

I researched it for a great deal of time.

>You attack Michelle for posting valid numbers for NH while asking to see them for other states,

I do not remember doing this.  And, Michelle, if I attacked you I am sorry.  I am trying to be friendly and factual in all of my dealings with the FSP.

>but you produce numbers with no backing and in some cases, numbers that are >the opposite of what is on the FSP state research page. Posts like these aren't >helping anyone, just hurting.

I never posted anything that was the opposite of what was posted on the free state project state research page.  I do feel the state research pages does need some correcting, though I'll deal with that in somewhere other then this post.  For a few on my references see http://thestc.com/STrates.stm and www.taxfoundation.org .

>But I really felt I had to point out the flaws in your message.

I am glad you are trying to help me.  That is what we need, 1000s of people helping each other make a free state.

> And that's why I haven't actually signed up as an FSP participant yet. I'm not going to list states as opt-outs until I'm positive I'm not willing to live there.

I hope you do sign up.  I am of the opinion that you could do many great things to help the FSP.

>I've got a good friend who moved to WY earlier this year and I'm going to try to visit her early next year so I can make a more informed decision.

I am looking forward to your report.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 10, 2002, 11:32:27 pm
(I've driven to there from Manhattan on Friday and come back Sunday afternoon. If you discount NYC traffic, it isn't even two hours away.)
I used to live in Connecticut, Groton to be exact and my brother lives in Wallingford currently. So from experience I have to say driving from NH to NYC would most definitely take more than 2 hours try 5 hours with traffic if you are lucky maybe 4. Please be honest in your dealings here because I know it takes 2 hours just from Groton to NYC.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 11, 2002, 05:55:20 pm
This is where I must give Jason S. credit (despite his pro-Confederate leanings);

Off-topic note: I'm actually both anti-Confederate and anti-Lincoln.  Had I lived during the Civil War, I probably would have emigrated (or gone to the West) rather than be forced to pick a dog in that fight.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: mlilback on November 12, 2002, 09:14:46 pm
I used to live in Connecticut, Groton to be exact and my brother lives in Wallingford currently. So from experience I have to say driving from NH to NYC would most definitely take more than 2 hours try 5 hours with traffic if you are lucky maybe 4. Please be honest in your dealings here because I know it takes 2 hours just from Groton to NYC.

The problem is your considering driving through CT, which is the bane of East Coast driving. We drive through NY state up until MA or VT and then drive east. I don't remember the actual roads, 'cause I don't normally do the driving. But I remember one time we left manhattan around 4 and went via CT. The other group left at 7 and went via NY state instead of taking I-90. We got to the cabin in Killington around 10 and they'd already been grocery shopping and started a fire and the whirlpool.

I've never driven through CT since, unless I'm going to Boston.

Mark
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: mlilback on November 12, 2002, 09:39:03 pm
I figured I (and many other people) would be willing to travel 35min to 70min to get to work everyday.  I figured most people would not be willing to travel longer than that and some people would not even be willing to travel that long.  

I forget things like that living in a big city. Back home in Texas it was a big deal to get my parents to drive me to Beaumont, which was only 30 minutes away. Yet here in NYC, I've got co-workers who commute for up to two hours each way, and friends have talked about people they know who commute from PA and DE. When you're taking the train, the long distance isn't such a big deal because you can get a lot done while riding.
It takes me 30 minutes to get to work and I'm not even 5 miles away and don't cross a bridge or tunnel. (And I actually miss the time I used to  have on the train when I lived in New Jersey.)

Quote
Right.  That lists instate job growth.  WY does have the least amount of people so this can be somewhat expected.  The FSP state page does not include expected job growth within a 1 hour drive of the 10 states, though.  I think this figure would be much more useful for those of us that like working.

Good point. Though there do seem to be a few posts saying the commute to Denver isn't very reasonable in the winter.

Quote
>The FSP state page shows that VT has a smaller percentage of land owned by >the government than WY.

This is not related to amount of private land.

What would you consider private land? I assumed anything not owned by the government. I will search for that post you mentioned.

Quote
I was unable to find the data you speak of on that page (though it might be there).  I did find the opposite data on the page, though.

The page I linked to was 1998 data, which was the first useful page google gave me. Clicking on the link to the 2001 data (which I somehow missed) shows that apparently there was a tax hike in VT in 2000, as the numbers went up about 2.5% then.

Though looking at that data makes me lust for NH. I'm loosing over 45% of my paycheck to taxes, and boy do I want to see that cut. And that's not counting the fact that cigarettes are $8 a pack in NYC because of taxes. I've been considering re-incorporating my business offshore for tax purposes.

I also want to apologize if my post seemed personal. I'd just finished reading the NH thread and thos messages left me feeling a little bitter at the pro-WY crowd.

Quote
I hope you do sign up.  I am of the opinion that you could do many great things to help the FSP.

Thanks. I plan to, but I just want to limit the opt-out states as much as possible. Freedom means a lot to me, but growing up in an insular, rural community left me very cautious about being outside a major metropolitan area.

Mark
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: freedomroad on November 13, 2002, 01:32:59 am
I figured I (and many other people) would be willing to travel 35min to 70min to get to work everyday.  I figured most people would not be willing to travel longer than that and some people would not even be willing to travel that long.  

I forget things like that living in a big city. Back home in Texas it was a big deal to get my parents to drive me to Beaumont, which was only 30 minutes away. Yet here in NYC, I've got co-workers who commute for up to two hours each way, and friends have talked about people they know who commute from PA and DE. When you're taking the train, the long distance isn't such a big deal because you can get a lot done while riding.
It takes me 30 minutes to get to work and I'm not even 5 miles away and don't cross a bridge or tunnel. (And I actually miss the time I used to  have on the train when I lived in New Jersey.)

OK, I'll use map quest and figure out the possible commute times for a few states up to 2 hours each way.  This will take some time and I'll start a new thread.

Quote
Right.  That lists instate job growth.  WY does have the least amount of people so this can be somewhat expected.  The FSP state page does not include expected job growth within a 1 hour drive of the 10 states, though.  I think this figure would be much more useful for those of us that like working.

Good point. Though there do seem to be a few posts saying the commute to Denver isn't very reasonable in the winter.

I've traveled in the Denver, Boulder, and Vail areas during the winter and the commute is almost always possible (from my experince) but it may get so bad the commute times double.  However, I really was not considering going all the way to Denver for jobs.  Salt Lake City, on the other hand is closer and possible in the winter.

Quote
>The FSP state page shows that VT has a smaller percentage of land owned by >the government than WY.

This is not related to amount of private land.

What would you consider private land? I assumed anything not owned by the government. I will search for that post you mentioned.

I only consider the amount of miles or acres that are private.  I do not think percent of private land is related to what was being discussed in this thread.  So, WY is number 4 with 42,782 square miles when it comes to amount of land for use.  VT is near the bottom with only 7,791 square miles.

Quote
I was unable to find the data you speak of on that page (though it might be there).  I did find the opposite data on the page, though.

The page I linked to was 1998 data, which was the first useful page google gave me. Clicking on the link to the 2001 data (which I somehow missed) shows that apparently there was a tax hike in VT in 2000, as the numbers went up about 2.5% then.

Though looking at that data makes me lust for NH. I'm loosing over 45% of my paycheck to taxes, and boy do I want to see that cut. And that's not counting the fact that cigarettes are $8 a pack in NYC because of taxes. I've been considering re-incorporating my business offshore for tax purposes.

WY, of course has the cheapest cigarette tax by far.  WY 12¢, MT 18¢, DE 24¢, and all of the New England states are around 2-3 quarters.

I also want to apologize if my post seemed personal. I'd just finished reading the NH thread and thos messages left me feeling a little bitter at the pro-WY crowd.

All is well in FSP Land

Quote
I hope you do sign up.  I am of the opinion that you could do many great things to help the FSP.

Thanks. I plan to, but I just want to limit the opt-out states as much as possible. Freedom means a lot to me, but growing up in an insular, rural community left me very cautious about being outside a major metropolitan area.

I am really not sure what a rural community is to you.  From what I have seen only one of the states (ID) has any cities that come close to the size of the largest cities in my home state of TN.  I grow up in a town of 45,000 and had a great life.  Now, over 56,000 people live in that city (10 years later) and I've moved to a city with 18th largest city population in the country.

From what I have seen cities are centers of gun control, welfare, giveme groups, political dyeNASTIES, and gangs.  I think a town of 50,000 is fine for me.  I know WY has 2 and MT has a couple.  VT has Burlington which is able to act as one and really is a great town even though the anarchists are always traveling the streets and trying to preach.  Really, all of the states meet the 50,000 mark (except VT) so you can at least have that.


Mark

Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: neiby on November 22, 2002, 11:54:43 pm
While I don't have too much of substance to contribute to this particular thread, I would like to mention that if WY were picked, the only people who would consider a commute to Denver would be those who chose to live in Cheyenne, and even that would be a stretch.  Ft. Collins and Greeley are much closer.

Salt Lake City is only close if you're in the far southwestern corner of Wyoming, and while that would be close to my old hometown in Colorado I still wouldn't want to live there.   :)

While it certainly is feasible, I don't think it's practical to expect people to commute two hours each way to get to work.  I'm a little worried about available jobs in my line of work (data communications), but that's a post for another thread.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Solitar on November 23, 2002, 12:42:34 am
By weighing several factors, including population, voting patterns, and number of potential FSP recruits for specific states, I believe the following:
The chances of success for Idaho or New Hampshire  or Maine
are very similar to the chances of success for Vermont and Wyoming.

If Vermont is not a good choice, then neither are the more populous three.

They each have socialist/liberal or potentially libertarian-resistant areas and populations of about the same population as Vermont.
They also have conservative or at least potentially libertarian-supportive areas and populations of about the same population as Wyoming.

One of the reasons is that with both an east and west state the FSP may get 10,000 to move to each whereas with only an east or a west state the FSP may get only 15,000 to move (10,000 from the same side of the Mississippi and 5,000 from the opposite side. With either Idaho on one side or New Hampshire or Maine on the other, that 15,000 is hobbled by population that is twice that of the least populous candidate states (Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming) and by other factors that Robert and others have documented elsewhere on this forum.

Thus again,
choosing Idaho or New Hampshire or Maine
would be like getting Wyoming and Vermont in the same package.

The population in 2015 is projected by the US Census to be:
    641,000   Wyoming
    662,000   Vermont
    704,000   North Dakota

    791,000   Alaska
    832,000   Delaware
    840,000   South Dakota

1,069,000   Montana

1,372,000   New Hampshire
1,362,000   Maine
1,622,000   Idaho

If an East-West split between VT & WY won't work because it splits FSP activists between two states with a combined population of 1.3 million in 2015, THEN none of the more populous three states with over 1.3 million in 2015 will be successful for the FSP either!   This reasoning against VT & WY means New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho should not be considered either!

P.S. the "geographic" centre of population for the US is in eastern Missouri.
(though there is a difference between the "mean center" and the "median center".
The former is in eastern Missouri, the latter is in southwesstern Indiana.
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/cntpop2k.html
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Robert H. on November 23, 2002, 06:07:42 am
Quote
Quote
While it certainly is feasible, I don't think it's practical to expect people to commute two hours each way to get to work.

When I lived in So Cal, daily I spent at least an hour in each direction from home to work. Some days it was considerably more. Wasn't the distance... it was the traffic. Where I live now, I can ride a bike to most anywhere. More fun that way too... can enjoy the scenery along the way (especially this time of year.) ;)

Living and working in the Northern Virginia area, I knew quite a number of folks who spent anywhere from 30 minutes to well over an hour traveling to and from work each day.  I knew some people that came to work in the DC area everyday from as far away as the Shenandoah Valley and even West Virginia.  And anyone who had to travel the beltway to work in the morning either left very, very early or counted on spending at least half an hour in traffic depending on where they were headed.

I know from personal experience that Atlanta traffic is a nightmare even worse than DC, and have often wondered how anyone gets to work on time down there at all.  I've also heard similar comments from those living in the New York and Boston areas.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Robert H. on November 23, 2002, 06:28:57 am
One of the reasons is that with both an east and west state the FSP may get 10,000 to move to each whereas with only an east or a west state the FSP may get only 15,000 to move (10,000 from the same side of the Mississippi and 5,000 from the opposite side. With either Idaho on one side or New Hampshire or Maine on the other, that 15,000 is hobbled by population that is twice that of the least populous candidate states (Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming) and by other factors that Robert and others have documented elsewhere on this forum.

This is true in addition to the possibility that there are those who have not yet signed up because they don't want to end up in a state they don't believe is workable.  They could always opt out of states they didn't like, but then this would still leave the possibility of them expending time, effort, and hope in a program that might not turn out to be feasible to their way of thinking.  If there were an east/west choice, we might have more signing up because they would at least have the knowledge that they were going to end up somewhere they found more feasible, and thus might be persuaded to get involved now as opposed to waiting it out (and maybe still not joining up even then).

Either way, whether the FSP goes east or west, we're going to lose prospective members.  Wyoming and Vermont (since they're the ones that have been suggested here) could probably work with 10,000 to 15,000 initial activists.  While this would divide the effort, it would probably not do so fataly as these states in particular have small enough populations to still be workable with those numbers, and those choosing to locate to them might be more successful by virtue of being more like-minded from the very beginning.

Having a large army is certainly an advantage, but only if the troops can work well together.  Having a large army where the troops work badly with one another can simply lead to a greater chance for disaster as opposed to a greater chance for victory.  The 70,000 Romans that Hannibal dispatched at Cannae with his 40,000 could testify to that.

Just something to consider...
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: wolf_tracker on November 23, 2002, 08:22:29 am
This is true in addition to the possibility that there are those who have not yet signed up because they don't want to end up in a state they don't believe is workable.  They could always opt out of states they didn't like, but then this would still leave the possibility of them expending time, effort, and hope in a program that might not turn out to be feasible to their way of thinking.  If there were an east/west choice, we might have more signing up because they would at least have the knowledge that they were going to end up somewhere they found more feasible, and thus might be persuaded to get involved now as opposed to waiting it out (and maybe still not joining up even then).

Something else to consider is that there are ppl out there that do not
want their names on the web that would be willing to move.

There is no way to measure this number, but my gut feeling is that
when the Free State is picked, that certain ppl will move there that are
on no list.

So there could be more then 20K ppl

Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Zxcv on November 23, 2002, 07:17:34 pm
This east-west split is an interesting thing to think about - it's occurred to me as well. But we have this inconvenient fact:

Quote
so far over 50% of FSP members haven't opted out of any states, and probably about 75% have opted out of 3 or fewer.

Setting up a second project state would necessarily siphon off a huge number from the first. If there were a distinct and near-unanimous east-west split in the opt-out, then it would make a lot more sense.

A better procedure would be to go ahead as planned. If things look good and we are getting what we are hoping for in the first state (which means, that state is getting a reputation for freedom and drawing freedom lovers generally), then a second state on the other side of the country would be an obvious next step - and not such a dangerous one. If it is not going well, then people would know not to waste their time on a second one.

It might take 5 years to know how well things are going, know what kind of population influx we can count on. Surely we can wait that long for a second state?

The first state has to work for us, it has to. That mandates against spitting our forces. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: redbeard on December 09, 2002, 07:52:35 pm
I'll go wherever but man would I like to live in WY.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: mtPete on December 10, 2002, 01:45:58 am
IF THE LAST PLACE ON EARTH TO BE FREE WAS FAR AWAY IN A FOREIGN LAND AMONG A FOREIGN PEOPLE, THEN I WOULD GLADLY LEAVE ALL, TRAVELING ANY WAY I COULD, EVEN RISKING LIFE AND LIMB TO GET THERE, AND, ONCE ARRIVING, I WOULD BE GLAD TO TAKE ON A FOREIGN NAME AND LANGUAGE, AND HAPPILY EKE OUT A LIVING, EVEN IN POVERTY. TEACHING MY CHILDREN THAT THIS IS THEIR MOTHER COUNTRY.  IF I SHOULD EVER THINK THIS COST TOO GREAT A PRICE TO PAY, THEN I WOULD NO LONGER KNOW MYSELF, A DESCENDANT OF THOSE WHO DID ALL THESE THINGS AND MORE FOR FREEDOM.
  -Kelton Baker


Here Here!!

My grandfather left Germany for America to escape Hitler, leaving all his culture and family behind and adopting our American culture. I too will do the same if necessary. I owe it to myself and my family to do everything possible, even completely uprooting us and moving to a place (climate, culture, language, etc) in order to secure for ourselves liberty. To do anything else is to choose slavery. Even if it means hardships, poverty, and hunger to move, no price is too great for liberty.

Liberty or Death! That is the cry the started the revolution, and only with that much resolve will we gain back our liberty!
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Franklin on December 10, 2002, 09:52:52 am
There are a million fighting to legelize pot.  There are a million upon a million fighting for the unborn.

BUT ONLY the FSP is fighting for liberty.  Let the differences fade and realise that if we don't fight for liberty together no one will.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: SandyPrice on December 10, 2002, 05:26:22 pm
Thank you Taylor!  that is exactly how I feel.  We all have agenda items on our list but without a team we are nothing!  I don't smoke or take drugs but I have no problem with anyone who does as long as they are not a hazard to me.  Same with abortions.  I never had one and actually never needed one (I was very quick on my feet and could out run the husband) but I would never try to tell anyone else not to have one.  The keyword is FREEDOM! To be able to make our own choices is everything.  Of course the Conservatives will interpret this to mean I have the freedom to rob a bank or kill one of them.  Actually I do have that freedom but I would pay dearly for it by going to jail.  

Years ago I accepted an invitation to a BBQ in the Hollywood Hills.  I arrived with a platter of deviled eggs and wandered out by the pool only to discover everyone was naked.  The nudity didn't bother me by I had been through a nasty car accident and my body scars were not pretty so I kept my clothes on and nobody said a thing.  After 5 minutes I didn't even notice the nudity, of course, I was a costumer for years.  This is FREEDOM to do what we want where we want to do it.  No laws were broken as we all stayed in the large yard.  

I honestly feel my association with these new Conservatives has annoyed me so thoroughly that I probably would do anything for freedom, even if I didn't take advantage of it.  Hell, I'm too old to running around nekkid.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Robert H. on December 11, 2002, 03:55:55 am
The main thing that concerns me right now is the fact that the issues we are polarizing over in our debates concerning "which state?" betray a fundamental conceptual breach in our midst.

There are those who insist upon more urbanized and rapidly growing states because of the amenities they offer, and also because they feel that we must demonstrate that our ideas can succeed in dense urban areas (an "America in miniature" as one put it) in order to vindicate those ideas to the rest of the country.  Then there are others who feel that we must start off in less densely populated areas so that we can gain access to the system faster, and also gain experience by taking on smaller challenges first and then working our way up to larger tasks.

The problem this breach presents to us is two-fold:  1) Both sides believe that their approach is absolutely critical to success, therefore, they are mostly unwilling to compromise to any great degree on it.  2) We face a possible debilitating split in priorities once we are actually in the chosen state.

With regard to number two, consider a scenario in which we choose a state that is more dependent upon dense population areas.  To succeed in such a state, most of our membership would have to be located in those urban areas (or very close depending on how the districts are drawn up).  After all, that's where most of the people are, and if you're going to influence state government, you're going to have to influence a majority of the voting population (or else be the majority yourself).

Those who voted for the state because it has such urban areas are naturally going to locate in them or close to them, and they'll want to focus on influencing those areas, which will again require more participation.  Others who don't want that sort of lifestyle will not be locating where they could be of assistance in influencing these areas though.  So, for those who are calculating that 20,000 activists could easily sway Wilmington, Boise, or the Manchester area, I would simply remind you that not all of your activists will be locating near such places.

The point is that these divisions will not dissipate in the future.  If anything, they'll grow stronger because we will have moved past the theoretical stage and will actually be getting down to where people choose to live and work.  And most people are not very flexible when it comes to choices they have to live with on a daily basis.

So, we can either proceed and expect these differences will resolve themselves when it comes to choosing where to live and prioritizing political action, or we can facilitate this conceptual divide by creating an actual divide.  The FSP could divide its efforts among two states, possibly picking up more recruits due to the expanded choice of location and lifestyle (as speculated above), and also enjoy the advantage of each group being a more cohesive (and possibly effective) unit as a result of being more like-minded in lifestyle and approach.

Wyoming and Vermont, since they're the subjects of this thread, could serve both sides nicely.  Not only would they appeal to the aspects of "left" and "right" libertarianism, but they would also facilitate the urban/suburban/rural and east/west issues.  Vermont should do nicely for those looking for access to a "major" population center because of its proximity to east coast cities and Montreal, Canada, but primarily because of Burlington.  The Burlington, VT MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) is populated by roughly 169,391 souls.  The Cheyenne, WY MSA, in comparison, has 81,607.  Burlington is also larger than the Fargo (123,138) and Billings (129,352) MSA's.  Thus, the Burlington MSA is twice the size of Cheyenne, is considerably larger than Fargo and Billings, and should qualify in just about anyone's book as a major population center.

Therefore, those who wanted the amenities of a large population center could also retain the advantages of one of the smallest overall population states in Vermont.  Or you could try Alaska, which has the Anchorage MSA at 260,283 inhabitants, and is still one of the overall lowest populated states.  More people are apt to move to Vermont than Alaska however. Or you could throw a real "Hail Mary" and go for Delaware, which could attract more people desiring a warmer climate, although you'd have to contend with a somewhat more formidable task:  The Wilmington MSA, which is populated by 500,265 on the Delaware side alone.  Still, it's a low population state and it's close to just about anything you could probably want.  In fact, you might get more than 20,000 to move to Delaware alone besides another 10,000 going to Wyoming.

Wyoming by itself of course could work with 10,000, thereby reducing the housing and employment needs that have raised concerns with regard to that state's viability.

All of that to say that a multi-state approach would not be the end of the world.  It might actually result in greater membership due to the greater chances that those who sign-up to move will end up somewhere they find more acceptable and workable.  It could also reduce the overall time, expense and scope of moving for a larger number of participants if there were two destinations at opposite ends of the country.  This factor could then garner more signatures because it would make the move less expensive and involving, and thus more "do-able" for a larger number of people.  And again, those who did move to one or the other would likely be more compatible and effective when surrounded by more like-minded folks.  Unity by itself (in terms of having everyone in the same place) is no guarantee for success if it impacts your effectiveness with internal operational divisions.

And in case of a crisis, either movement could fall back on the other without having to start all over again.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: JasonPSorens on December 11, 2002, 09:34:16 am
It's not going to happen.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: ZionCurtain on December 11, 2002, 11:48:08 am
It's not going to happen.
Care to elaborate more?  :D
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: JasonPSorens on December 12, 2002, 09:10:22 am
We're not going to break up the FSP. <shrug>
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Eddie_Bradford on December 12, 2002, 12:40:38 pm
Yeah and besides that these two choices are super crappy anyway.
-E
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: ZionCurtain on December 12, 2002, 01:04:38 pm
Yeah and besides that these two choices are super crappy anyway.
-E
Ok, but Delaware and NH are Ultra crappy. Stick that in your pipe.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: wolf_tracker on December 12, 2002, 03:03:10 pm
Yeah and besides that these two choices are super crappy anyway.
-E

neither are as bad as deleware is

Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: NHArticleTen on December 12, 2002, 04:02:15 pm
Personally, we think allowing the possibility for more than one "target state" is a very good idea and it sure isn't going to "hurt" the movement...  We must remember that no matter what state or states we choose...a certain percentage of our "members" are not going to accept that particular area or areas and will subsequently...not relocate with us...This particular subject reflects some of the real "issues" that serve not only to divide our members...but members of society as a whole...We have confidence that the further we get in this project...the better we will be able to work together and select a state or states to relocate to...Thanks, Rob and Beth Jacobs - Cincinnati Paraflight,Inc. - www.cincinnatiparaflight.com
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Robert H. on December 12, 2002, 04:19:35 pm
Welcome to the forum, Rob and Beth.   :)

For what it's worth, I agree with your comments on the nature of the dispute.

Ultimately, I expect the issue will be resolved by one faction simply outnumbering the other and winning the state vote.  The disputes over population, urbanization, proximity to New York and DC, borders and ports, etc., are, at their core, conceptual disagreements: the most difficult of all to address (outside of religious beliefs, that is).  

That's just one opinion though.   ;)
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Zxcv on December 12, 2002, 04:51:51 pm
Quote
And in case of a crisis, either movement could fall back on the other without having to start all over again.
This is the key point.

As I mentioned earlier, we could work on our one state, and when that looks viable, another project would naturally start on the other end of the country.

You are suggesting the reverse - start two projects and if one of them fail, the "survivors" can then concentrate on the remaining viable state.

I think the first way is the more prudent.

Let's just imagine for a moment that Wyoming gets chosen. People start moving there, including some from the East who would have preferred an eastern state but...

Wow, what a flashback!

When I wrote the above I just remembered something from my past. I was working on a statewide political campaign, and some of what I did was delivering printed material down to Roseburg, Oregon. The campaign had imported someone from the east coast to run the campaign down there.

I remembered having the strong opinion that was a big mistake! It was clear that easterner had no clue what life was about in a town like Roseburg, which is one of the timber-dependent communities around here.

Maybe there is something to this two-state idea.

Still, I think it makes sense to do the 2nd state a few years later than the first. We really have to concentrate on our first state. And maybe we should do our best to get leaders for the local groups from among the population already in the state, so we don't come off as ignoramuses when we get there.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Racer X on December 12, 2002, 05:18:05 pm
We're not going to break up the FSP. <shrug>

Ha!  I knew Jason wasn't a secessionist ! ;D


Racer X
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: mtPete on December 16, 2002, 01:39:54 am
This problem we are having here is probebly something that will not be resovled. It is just an extension of the age old WY vs VT, rural vs urban, South vs. North, plantationers vs merchants battle that has divided this country since the American revolution.

Honestly, if this nation is to ever live free the two sides are going to have to either understand and leave each other alone, or break up the union. Not to say that is the answer for the FSP. In theory we should be of the same ideological mind concerning liberty, so this cultural/ideological divide shouldn't be as much of an issue. But who knows.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Mark on December 16, 2002, 02:31:32 pm
perhaps when the "there can be only one" state is chosen (or two as in this thread) there can be a Free County Project stated in each of the other states (or for that matter every state). Personally I wouldn't like to see Wyoming (currntly my fav - and I'm an easterner) chosen and then people move there from Montana or the Dakotas. Activists should stay there and organize a strong grassroots movement that could create a "Western Bloc" as well as take in people that would only move there from some of the hopeless case states.


Maybe Joe could answer this: would 200, 500, 1000 or even 2000 immigrants from inside your state who moved from neighboring counties help your local liberty movement?

I think in San Fransico they had a non-binding resolution where they asked if people wanted to move out of the area if taxes are raised. I think the response was something like 80% in moving to a new county.

Many people simply won't move at all. Some would move but only on an east/west basis (I could move easily to Vermont right now but will move to any western bloc state). A second or even multiple choices shouldn't be seen as destructive to the "main goal". The "main" FSP state will be chosen and run by those people who would have supported the "there can be only be one" state any way. I think.  :P
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Mark on December 17, 2002, 01:13:59 am
Quote
Maybe Joe could answer this: would 200, 500, 1000 or even 2000 immigrants from inside your state who moved from neighboring counties help your local liberty movement?
How much "help" are you talking about? Enough to actually effect adequate change for liberty as our founders intended -- at least to the extent possible at the local city and county level (which is far more than most here understand).

Answer: For this county's population of 6,000 Americans...
We would need 2,000 libertarian immigrants (a quarter won't vote, a quarter will vote against any particular initiative (the gunnies against the druggies, the druggies against small business, the yuppies against the gunnies, ad infinitum). Result? maybe 1,000 voting for most of the libertarian initiatives or candidates.
One tenth of them need to be serious experience political "activists" of which several percent of FSP'ers qualify -- and one quarter of that 200 need to be officeholders and government department heads - see link below for details)

Number of FSP'ers needed to change local politics
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=365

Step by step plan to gain office and make changes
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=400

Is 20,000 Enough?
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=369



damn, you are a wise ass.    ;D
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: Robert H. on December 17, 2002, 02:25:56 am
A second or even multiple choices shouldn't be seen as destructive to the "main goal". The "main" FSP state will be chosen and run by those people who would have supported the "there can be only be one" state any way. I think.  :P

An excellent observation.

The state vote will go to those who hold the majority perspective on what is most important for the FSP to succeed.  If that majority is made up of those who want to be close to mega population centers (for whatever reason), then the chosen state will reflect this, as will the majority of focused activities taking place in that state following the move.  Of course, the same thing is true of those who prefer less populous, less population dense states.

The degree to which this will affect our activities will likely be determined by how we choose to proceed in general:  as a new political party, joining up with an existing party, etc.  It would affect us to the maximum extent as a new political party because it would involve the same group of people.  On the other hand, choosing an existing party would mitigate that majority influence somewhat depending on the mood of whatever organization it is that we join up with (as will the same individual libertarian issues that we disagree about now).

But I believe that the majority perspective in regard to what is most important for us to focus on in terms of urbanization in particular (the town/county/city debate) will be unchanged once we reach the chosen state.  If anything, it will probably get stronger.

In regard to number, theoretically-speaking, a second state would be quite viable, but personally, I wouldn't go past two.   :)
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: JasonPSorens on December 17, 2002, 09:17:32 am
Mark, Joe has complained about your post.  Please don't call him a "wise ass."  I know it was probably a joke, but still.
Title: Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
Post by: redbeard on December 30, 2002, 06:05:56 pm
I'm for two states. The east is just too liberal. Any of the eastern candidate states are in close proximity to millions of liberals many of whom would be as adamant in keeping socialism healthy as we would be in destroying it. What I mean is, vote Wyoming!