Free State Project Forum

Archive => Which State? => Topic started by: JasonPSorens on September 11, 2002, 11:09:41 am

Title: urbanization, city and country attitudes, pop density issues
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 11, 2002, 11:09:41 am
I've added an urbanisation measure to the State Data page:
http://freestateproject.org/state.htm
It's taken from the Census figures for both "urban clusters" and "urbanized areas."  The data Solitar gave earlier are basically just for urban clusters, i.e., official city limits.  Delaware and Alaska are the most urbanized; Maine and Vermont are the least urbanized.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Elizabeth on September 11, 2002, 11:57:07 am
Jason -- your s' and z's are appearing chaotically.  Go Brit if you must, a la Madonna, but at least do it consistently.   ;)
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 11, 2002, 02:38:34 pm
LOL  Thanks for pointing that out; I'm still unlearning my Yankee spelling.  Although in my defense (or is that "defence"? ;)) I could say that because in the Census it has the heading "urbanized areas" I was simply quoting their usage. ;D  But then I still screwed up the last sentence.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: forestar53 on September 11, 2002, 06:51:22 pm
Alaska urbanized?  Obviously you've never been here.  I don't what that measurement is suposed to indicate, but Alaska is hardly "urbanized".  

-forestar
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: forestar53 on September 11, 2002, 06:59:49 pm
P/S.  The table indicates that the ratio of urban to rural residents in Alaska is 79.6.  I guess it depends on your definition of "urban".  Anchorage has about 300,000 people, Fairbanks about 70,000, Juneau about 30,000, Ketchikan about 13,000, Sitka (fifth largest) has less than 9,000.  

The panhandle of Alaska is roughly equal in size to the entire state of West Virginia.  However, total SE population is only about 70,000.  

Anchorage and Fairbanks are separated by over 350 miles with very little in between.  

There's lots of "rural" here and you don't have to look very far to find it.  Statitistics can be funny things sometimes.

-forestar
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: JasonPSorens on September 11, 2002, 07:31:12 pm
Just a quick note: it's actually the percentage of the population that is urban, not the ratio, being measured.

Statistics are indeed funny things - as you see from the tables, urbanisation and population density do not necessarily correlate with each other.  A state may have huge open spaces with no one living in them, but a high rate of urbanisation because the people who do live there are clustered in scattered towns and cities.

Remember that incorporated Anchorage alone is about a third of the population of the whole state (and that doesn't include the suburbs).
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: amyday on September 12, 2002, 10:46:02 am
I think when they are giving the population of Anchorage they are including every one who lives in the municipality of Anchorage which is 1,958 sq miles, the whole state of Delaware has only 1,956 sq miles. So even if 1/3 of the state lives in Anchorage, it isn't crowded. I would even wonder if it is that urbanized. People are scared of living in the middle of nowhere, and if any where is in the middle of nowhere, wilderness Alaska is. It is only reasonable that most people would live in proximity to civilization. That doesn't make them city people.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: amyday on September 12, 2002, 11:03:24 am
I was reading more and I need to add some more info. The main part of Anchorage is called the Anchorage Bowl and is only 126 sq miles, and 212,637(1996) people live there. For comparison Manchester NH is 33.9 sq miles, and has a population of 105,330(2000) people. Wilmington DE is about 11 sq miles and has about 72,000(1997) people.
Title: Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
Post by: Solitar on October 15, 2002, 10:36:22 am
It may be harder for the FSP to be successful in states dominated by large cities. In large cities it may be more difficult and expensive to gain office in the city government (harder to win in a city of 100,000 than in a city of 10,000). The mayors of large, dominant cities have a disproportionate influence within a state. A state government may seem to cater to the large dominant city at the expense of smaller towns.

Most people in large cities also may be more communitarian by their nature or temperment or they wouldn’t be living in a large city but would be in small towns instead - even if they have to commute. The individualist or libertarian culture may have stiffer resistance in large cities and in states dominated by large cities.

In the following tables in this and following posts, I’ve tabulated the population of the largest cities and counties  in each of the FSP’s candidate states and ranked the states by the percentage of their population in large cities and by urban and rurall, farm and nonfarm populations as per US Census 2000 data.

Among the states being considered by the FSP, “large” could mean anything over ten or thirty thousand people (Vermont’s largest city had 38,889 people in 2000). For us small town folks “large” may mean anything over ten thousand people. But for others who are used to cities of a million people a "decent" sized city must have at least 50,000 people.

Percentage of state population in cities of more than 25,000 people.
(See following posts for the list of cities included in these numbers)
  6%   Vermont   (38,889 of 608,827)
10%   Maine   (131,412 of 1,274,923)
11%   West Virginia   (196,223 of 1,808,344)
17%   Delaware   (133,346 of 783,600)
23%   New Hampshire   (289,643 of 1,235,786)
24%   South Dakota   (183,582 of 754,844)
26%   Wyoming   (129,859 of 493,782)
32%   Montana   (290,771 of 902,195)
36%   North Dakota   (232,019 of 642,200)
39%   Idaho   (500,623 of 1,293,653)
51%   Alaska   (321,218 of 626,932)

Percentage of state population in cities of more than 13,000 people.
(See following posts for the list of cities included in these numbers)
12%   Vermont   (71,995 of 608,827)
17%   Delaware   (133,346 of 783,600)
21%   Maine   (266,010 of 1,274,923)
28%   New Hampshire   (349,401 of 1,235,786)
34%   Montana   (304,994 of 902,195)
37%   Wyoming   (184,017 of 493,782)
38%   South Dakota   (288,943 of 754,844)
43%   Idaho   (556,418 of 1,293,653)
46%   North Dakota   (295,214 of 642,200)
51%   Alaska   (321,218 of 626,932)

Ranked by absolute number of people in such small cities and towns with LESS than 13,000 people. because they are the most likely allies of the absolute number of 20,000 FSP members (and because ranking by percent would be the same order as listed above and different ways of looking at data can provide different information)
1,008,913   Maine   (79% of 1,274,923)
   886,385   New Hampshire   (72% of 1,235,786)
   737,235   Idaho   (57% of 1,293,653)
   650,254   Delaware  (83% of 783,600)
   597,201   Montana   (66% of 902,195)
   536,832   Vermont  (88% of 608,827)
   465,901   South Dakota   (62% of 754,844)
   346,986   North Dakota   (54% of 642,200)
   309,765   Wyoming   (63% of 493,782)
   305,714   Alaska   (49% of 626,932)

After gaining a foothold with a smaller elective office
If the jump from a small local elective office to a larger state office is too difficult, there is another layer of local government between states and their small cities, townships, and towns. FSP'ers who gain elective seats in small towns may be able to "graduate" to seats in county governments or larger cities before making the jump to a state legislative seat (example: our districts' state senator and our state representative were prior county commissioners - and one is now bidding for Congress). Even LP state officers and ex-officers are finally realizing this. See this thread.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=442;start=30

Note...
Though "towns" in many places are small cities or large villages. "Towns" in New England are almost rural sub-counties and are similar to "townships" elsewhere. Thus even in the most populous counties of New England, there are numerous such towns just as there are townships (and township offices) in other counties in other states. For example: Hillsborough county in New Hampshire contains the large city of Manchester but it also has 29 towns -- two of which have about 25,000 people and one only 200 people. Similarly Maine's Cumberland County contains the city of Portland but also 24 towns of which one has about 22,000 people, one has about 200, and one -- Frye Island -- which is a secessionist independent town! See this link for the enabling state law which Maine passed.
http://www.fryeisland.com/sec/sec-law.htm

The population to be campaigned to is a comparative measure of the difficulty in jumping from a small town, township or city to the next level in a county government. Higher level seats in the governments of very populous counties (or cities in the posts above) may be quite difficult to gain -- especially if they have more than 50,000 people. On the other hand, once a seat such as mayor, commissioner, treasurer, etc. are gained in such a large city or county, the jump to a state seat is much smaller or even perhaps a downward move such as mayor of Boise or Anchorage down to state representative. In comparing states perhaps a feature to look for is a lot of potential seats in mid-level governments which are truly mid-level -- easy to reach from below and easy to step up from to state seats.

The following posts address that by looking at the most populous and least populous cities and counties and the percentage of urban and rural, farm and nonfarm.

States ranked by the most populous counties.

WYOMING
Laramie County:  81,607
Natrona County:  66,533
Total of 148,140 which is 30% of 493,782

NORTH DAKOTA
Cass County:  123,138
Burleigh County:  69,416
Grand Forks County:  66,109
Ward County:  58,795
Total of 317,458 which is 49% of 642,200

MONTANA
Yellowstone County:  129,352
Missoula County:  95,802
Cascade County:  80,357
Flathead County:  74,471
Gallatin County:  67,831
Lewis and Clark County:  55,716
Total of 503,529 which is 56% of 902,195

VERMONT
Chittenden County:  146,571
Rutland County:  63,400
Washington County:  58,039
Windsor County:  57,418
Total of 325,428 which is 53% of 608,827

SOUTH DAKOTA
Minnehaha County:  148,281
Pennington County:  88,565
Total of 236,846 which is 31% of 754,844

ALASKA (no counties but, instead, "boroughs")
Anchorage Borough:  260,283
Fairbanks North Star Borough:  82,840
Matanuska-Susitna Borough:  59,322
Total of 402,445 which is 64% of 626,932

MAINE
Cumberland County:  265,612
York County:  186,742
Penobscot County:  144,919
Kennebec County:  117,114
Androscoggin County:  103,793
Aroostook County:  73,938
Oxford County:  54,755
Total of 946,873 which is 74% of 1,274,923

IDAHO
Ada County:  300,904
Canyon County:  131,441
Kootenai County:  108,685
Bonneville County:  82,522
Bannock County:  75,565
Twin Falls County:  64,284
Total of 763,401 which is 59% of 1,293,653

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Hillsborough County:  380,841
Rockingham County:  277,359
Merrimack County:  136,225
Strafford County:  112,233
Grafton County:  81,743
Cheshire County:  73,825
Belknap County:  56,325
Total of 1,118,551 which is 91% of 1,235,786

DELAWARE (only three counties in the state)
New Castle County:  500,265
Sussex County:  156,638
 Kent County:  126,697
Total of 783,600 which is 100% of 783,600
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Charley on October 28, 2002, 08:27:35 am
There is an article of interest in USA Today today that may indicate that we'd find a more receptive and urbane population in the western mountain states.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-28-gop-west-1acover_x.htm

Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Rearden on October 28, 2002, 11:44:40 am
I'm a new member of the FSP, and this is my first post.  I live in inner city Baltimore, and am studying for a graduate degree in urban planning at a local university.  I say this by way of explanation for my point-of-view regarding urbanization and freedom.

Socialists often point to increased interaction between citizens as the cause of bigger, more intrusive government.  They argue that urbanization makes bigger government INEVITABLE.  Reading this and previous threads, many FSP members seem to agree.  They suggest we would be wise to pick a state with no cities, so we can avoid the socialist tendencies found therein.  

I cannot disagree more, for two primary reasons:

1.)  Many people who love liberty, who believe in America's founding principles of individual freedom and responsibility, happen to also love cities.  The urban lifestyle may not be for everyone, but it is clearly for some.  We like the convenience, the culture, and the history of cities.  We also enjoy the increased interaction found in urban areas.  We see the melting pot at work every day.  NOT ALL URBANITES ARE SOCIALISTS, and if the FSP chooses a state without an urban area we stand to lose a potentially huge demographic.

2.)  It seems to me that one of the long-term goals of the FSP is to prove to the rest of the country that we have it right, that less government is better, that when you let people be free a civil society flourishes.  Since most Americans live in or around urban areas, if you agree with the socialists that government INEVITABLY grows in cities due to increased interaction you are essentially admitting that this goal is unobtainable.  You are saying that states with large cities are irreversibly socialist, and further, that our urbanized nation is irreversibly socialist.  

Urban libertarians like myself know that our cities have in the past been centers of freedom, and that nanny-style governments do not necessarily follow density.  We can have our urban lifestyle and live free.  For this reason I urge members to pick a state that is balanced, with a large amount of rural area, but at least one decent-sized city.  Delaware has Wilimington, and Vermont has Burlington and Rutland.  Another factor in Vermont's favor is that its northern two-thirds are exceptionally rural, with hardly a village of more than 100 people.

I look forward to everyone's comments.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Penfist on October 28, 2002, 12:20:46 pm

I'm a new member of the FSP, and this is my first post.  I live in inner city Baltimore, and am studying for a graduate degree in urban planning at a local university.  I say this by way of explanation for my point-of-view regarding urbanization and freedom.

Socialists often point to increased interaction between citizens as the cause of bigger, more intrusive government.  They argue that urbanization makes bigger government INEVITABLE.  Reading this and previous threads, many FSP members seem to agree.  They suggest we would be wise to pick a state with no cities, so we can avoid the socialist tendencies found therein.  

I cannot disagree more, for two primary reasons:

1.)  Many people who love liberty, who believe in America's founding principles of individual freedom and responsibility, happen to also love cities.  The urban lifestyle may not be for everyone, but it is clearly for some.  We like the convenience, the culture, and the history of cities.  We also enjoy the increased interaction found in urban areas.  We see the melting pot at work every day.  NOT ALL URBANITES ARE SOCIALISTS, and if the FSP chooses a state without an urban area we stand to lose a potentially huge demographic.

2.)  It seems to me that one of the long-term goals of the FSP is to prove to the rest of the country that we have it right, that less government is better, that when you let people be free a civil society flourishes.  Since most Americans live in or around urban areas, if you agree with the socialists that government INEVITABLY grows in cities due to increased interaction you are essentially admitting that this goal is unobtainable.  You are saying that states with large cities are irreversibly socialist, and further, that our urbanized nation is irreversibly socialist.  

Urban libertarians like myself know that our cities have in the past been centers of freedom, and that nanny-style governments do not necessarily follow density.  We can have our urban lifestyle and live free.  For this reason I urge members to pick a state that is balanced, with a large amount of rural area, but at least one decent-sized city.  Delaware has Wilimington, and Vermont has Burlington and Rutland.  Another factor in Vermont's favor is that its northern two-thirds are exceptionally rural, with hardly a village of more than 100 people.

I look forward to everyone's comments.


You are right, not all socialists are urbanites. What makes New Hampshire or Maine any less attractive than Vermont or Delaware?
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Rearden on October 28, 2002, 12:59:50 pm
Quote
Quote


You are right, not all socialists are urbanites. What makes New Hampshire or Maine any less attractive than Vermont or Delaware?


Nothing at all, I would consider either state to be well-balanced.  Manchester, NH has about 100,000 residents while Portland, ME has about 70,000.  Both are sufficiently large to have the amenities urbanites look for.  Of course, one benefit to Delaware would be that Wilmington (pop 270,000) is centrally located between Baltimore, Washington, Philadelphia, and New York.  Hence, it would be much easier to convince companies to relocate there to take advantage of lower taxes than, say, Maine.  Also, Delaware has no sales tax, which already brings in plenty of business from surrounding states.  I think our common beliefs would fit in well there.
Title: Re:Ranking state by metropolitan populations
Post by: Solitar on October 28, 2002, 01:18:29 pm
Tabulation of the population of the largest cities in each of the FSP’s candidate states.
Note that the below MSA, PMSA, and CMSA populations (in red) are the portions within the candidate states. With increasing growth north of Denver, Cheyenne will become a part of the Fort Collins to Pueblo metro corridor just as southwest NH is (and Portland, ME may) become part of the northeast coast metro corridor.

VERMONT
Burlington MSA: 169,391
Burlington: 38,889
Rutland: 17,292
South Burlington: 15,814
Total of above cities: 71,995 out of 608,827 (12%)
Total of above MSA: 169,391 out of 608,827 (28%)

DELAWARE
Wilmington—PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA: 500,265 (DE part)
                (470,583 of the above is north of the C&D canal)
Wilmington-Newark, DE-MD PMSA: 500,265 (DE part)
Dover  MSA: 126,697 (the only "MSA" in DE according to the Census Bureau pdf)
Wilmington: 72,664
Dover: 32,135
Newark: 28,547
(No other cities until under 10,000)
Total of above cities: 133,346 out of 783,600 (17%)
Total of above MSA & PMSA: 626,962 out of 783,600 (80%)

MAINE
Portland MSA: 243,537
Bangor, ME  MSA: 90,864
Lewiston-Auburn, ME MSA: 90,830
Portsmouth-Rochester, NH-ME PMSA: 41,375 (ME part)
Boston-Worcester-Lawrence,MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA: 41,375 (ME part)
Portland: 64,249
Lewiston: 35,690
Bangor: 31,473
South Portland: 23,324
Auburn: 23,203
Biddeford: 20,942
Augusta: 18,560
Saco: 16,822
Westbrook: 16,142
Waterville: 15,605
Total of above cities: 266,010 out of 1,274,923 (21%)
Total of above MSA's & PMSA: 466,606 out of 1,274,923 (37%)

NEW HAMPSHIRE
Boston-Worcester-Lawrence,MA-NH-ME-CT  CMSA: 739,699 (NH part)
                  NH has the following sub-parts of the above CMSA
Portsmouth-Rochester, NH-ME PMSA: 199,323 (NH part)
Manchester, NH  PMSA: 198,378
Nashua, NH  PMSA:190,949
Lawrence,MA —NH PMSA: 131,357 (NH part)
Lowell, MA-NH PMSA: 10,914 (NH part)
Boston, MA-NH PMSA: 8,778 (NH part)
Manchester: 107,006
Nashua: 86,605
Concord: 40,687
Rochester: 28,461
Dover: 26,884
Keene: 22,563
Portsmouth: 20,784
Laconia: 16,411
Total of above cities: 349,401 out of 1,235,786 (28%)
Total of above PMSA's: 739,699 out of 1,235,786 (60%)
(note: there are no "MSA's" other than the above PMSA's which form the one CMSA)

MONTANA
Billings MSA: 129,352
Missoula MSA: 95,802
Great Falls MSA: 80,357
Billings: 89,847
Missoula: 57,053
Great Falls: 56,690
Butte: 33,892
Bozeman: 27,509
Helena: 25,780
Kalispell: 14,223
Total of above cities: 304,994 out of 902,195 (34%)
Total of above MSA's: 305,511 out of 902,195 (34%)

WYOMING
Cheyenne  MSA:  81,607
Casper  MSA:  66,533
Cheyenne: 53,011
Casper: 49,644
Laramie: 27,204
Gillette: 19,646
Rock Springs: 18,708
Sheridan: 15,804
Total of above cities: 184,017 out of 493,782 (37%)
Total of above MSA's: 148,140 out of 493,782 (30%)

SOUTH DAKOTA
Sioux Falls  MSA: 172,412
Rapid City  MSA: 88,565
Sioux Falls: 123,975
Rapid City: 59,607
Aberdeen: 24,658
Watertown: 20,237
Brookings: 18,504
Mitchell: 14,558
Pierre: 13,876
Yankton: 13,528
Total of above cities: 288,943 out of 754,844 (38%)
Total of above MSA's: 260,977 out of 754,844 (35%)

IDAHO
Boise City  MSA: 432,345
Idaho Falls MSA: 82,522  (not per US Census but it rates like Pocatello)
Pocatello MSA: 75,565
Boise: 185,787
Nampa: 51,867
Pocatello: 51,466
Idaho Falls: 50,730
Meridian: 34,919
Coure de Alene: 34,514
Twin Falls: 34,469
Lewiston: 30,904
Caldwell: 25,967
Moscow: 21,291
Rexburg: 17,257
Post Falls: 17,247
Total of above cities: 556,418 out of 1,293,653 (43%)
Total of above MSA's: 590,432 out of 1,293,653 (46%)

NORTH DAKOTA
Fargo-Moorhead, ND-MN  MSA: 123,138 (ND part)
Bismarck, ND MSA: 94,719
Grand Forks, ND-MN MSA: 66,109 (ND part)
Fargo: 90,599
Bismarck: 55,532
Grand Forks: 49,321
Minot: 36,567
Mandan: 16,718
Dickinson: 16,010
Jamestown: 15,527
West Fargo: 14,940
Total of the above cities: 295,214 out of 642,200 (46%)
Total of the above MSA's: 283,966 out of 642,200 (44%)

ALASKA
Anchorage  MSA: 260,283
Anchorage: 260,283
Juneau: 30,711
Fairbanks: 30,224
(No smaller "city"  until under 10,000)
Total of above cities: 321,218 out of 626,932 (51%)
Total of above MSA: 321,218 out of 626,932 (51%)

Source: Census 2000 (state pdf files)
Table DP-1.Profile of General Demographic Characteristics:2000
and American Factfinder
P1. TOTAL POPULATION [1] - Universe: Total population
Data Set:  Census 2000 Summary File 1 (SF 1) 100-Percent Data
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Rearden on October 28, 2002, 02:25:24 pm
Quote
Quote


Irishinbaltimore,
You state that Burlington, with 38,889, is big enough to be "decent sized" even though, in all the candidate states, it is the smallest "city" though in a much larger MSA of 169,391. Perhaps then even Cheyenne which, at 81,607, is the smallest MSA would qualify as "decent sized".

As to the correlation of socialist, communitarian, authoritarian governments and voting patterns with large urban areas, I believe it still holds for urban areas of a million or more or any dense urban area even if only of a few hundred thousand. Yes, there are liberty-minded people in such areas and I do not discount them. They are just outnumbered and thus they may be the best potential recruits for the FSP.


"Decent-sized" is of course a very subjective term.  I honestly never would have thought Cheyenne would have over 50,000 citizens, the number I usually think earns "city" status.  Again, that's just my personal interpretation.

To me, the primary strike against Wyoming is that it would be quite difficult to convince companies to relocate there, no matter how good the tax benefits.  Delaware's Wimington, on the other hand, could pick off companies from over-taxed cities from Atlanta to Boston.  it doesn't hurt that Wilmington has an seaport, as well.  It seems to me that attracting and growing businesses is key to our overall goal -- proving that freedom and liberty brings success.

Although the skiing would be nice...
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: Rearden on November 05, 2002, 11:06:23 am
Quote
Most people in large cities also may be more communitarian by their nature or temperment or they wouldn’t be living in a large city but would be in small towns instead - even if they have to commute. The individualist or libertarian culture may have stiffer resistance in large cities and in states dominated by large cities.

Joe, while I find your number crunching impressive I refute your premise.  I am certainly an individualist.  I am also an urbanist.  There are, I'm sure, plenty of other libertarians like myself in America's cities.  

Look Joe, by definition cities are concentrations of people.  The postives and negatives of our society are magnified there due to that concentration, so they are made all the more visible.  That doesn't mean that a higher proportion of citizens are necessarily statist, despite prevailing opinion.  It just means that the problems created by that state's statist attitudes are all the more obvious.  

Let me prove my point.  You describe Vermont as being the least urbanized state, at 6%.  Of the ten candidate states, Vermont has the 9th highest proportion of citizens receiving welfare, 2.55%.  You describe Idaho as being the 9th most urbanized state.  Idaho has the lowest proportion of citizens receiving welfare, .11%.  This is a far better indicator of the individualist/statist culture of a given state than the degree of urbanization.  Cities are not inherently statist, it's just not as long a walk between welfare cases as it is in Vermont.  

It is also my opinion that the cities of America, being the places most oppressed by zoning, health, and other regulations, are brimming with people like myself, people that realize that national overreliance on the nanny state is the primary cause of the disintegration of their communities.  Although I acknowledge that a given government reflects the desires of the population at large, there is a large number of people scattered throughout cities that realize that their freedoms are being stripped away one by one in the name of the greater good, and see where this road leads.  Do not discount this!  We can recruit as many FSPers from the cities as we can from the backwoods.  


Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: catsRus on November 05, 2002, 12:10:19 pm
Quote
Joe, aka, Solitar---There is a correlation of decreasing liberty as population density increases and as the population of the polity itself increases.

Will this not render the FSP moot in the long run?
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: Rearden on November 05, 2002, 12:11:44 pm
Irish in Baltimore,
As to your and my examples of cities in the candidate states, their people are likely far more liberty-minded and have more of such mind-set than in really large urban areas. That's why their states are candidates and places like Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, California, and New Jersey are not.  

So you acknowledge that cities are not necessarily inherently statist?  Maryland, Massachusetts, Illinois, California, and New Jersey are not viable candidates not because of their density, but because of their large populations and demonstrated big government attitudes.  My point is that density and urbanization is not an accurate indicator of the likelihood of success of the project.  You can have urbanized populations that are profreedom, as is the case in Idaho.  You can have rural populations that are socialist, as is the case in Vermont.  That's my point.  Don't judge the ten candidate states on their density.  Judge them on their demonstrated policies.  

Quote
The FSP can certainly draw many liberty-starved refugees from the urban states but the FSP and a resulting Free State can not succeed in those urban states. There is a correlation of decreasing liberty as population density increases and as the population of the polity itself increases. That is why I give a ranking of our candidate states for size of urban communities and population of counties.

Um, no.  This is a gross generalization which my previous post addressed.  Idaho's population is more urban than Vermont's, but has a lower proportion on welfare.  This is demonstratable fact, not anecdotal folk wisdom.  

Quote
for the FSP members who are voting on a state, the differences may affect their decisions - some for very large cities, some for states without such (and many of us may regard anything over 100,000 as a large metropolis - which is a mere neighborhood for those used to cities of millions.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't hold cities and the percentage of urban population against the ten candidate states.  I've shown why -- it's a completely inaccurate indicator.  There are much better ways to judge the political culture of the states, like comparing actual policies.  Libertarianism and urbanism are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  

Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: Rearden on November 05, 2002, 02:03:57 pm
Irish In Baltimore,
There is a continuum of statism, authoritarianism, and communitarianism. Some areas of people have it worse than others. The more populous and  more dense the city, the  more their people are afflicted with these ideas. Cities ARE inherently more statist and  more communitarian and their governments  more authoritarian.

If what you say is true, and I don't think it is, then, as Americans overwhelmingly choose to live in cities and their surrounding suburbs, our country is irretrievably lost forever and the FSP is completely moot.  Even if we succeed somewhere, our success will doubtless attract many others, resulting in rapid growth of our cities and towns.  We will become urbanized, and, you argue, inevitably more socialist.  

You say that a libertarian city is impossible.  I disagree.

Quote
According to people who've moved here from Vermont and New Hampshire and according to others on this forum and elsewhere, the socialists in Vermont came from New York and other metropolitan areas...

The socialists who invaded Vermont were spoiled educated children of wealthy suburban families who were seeking to "get back to nature," which usually meant trying to grow the best quality pot possible.  Drawn there by freedom, they quickly set about erasing it.  In a very ironic way, Vermont's individualist culture resulted in its conversion to socialism.  

Quote
My point is that density and urbanization are accurate indicators of the likelihood of success of the project.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this.  My facts clearly show they are not.  Your own figures show that 39% of Idahoans live in cities of more than 25,000 people, a percentage second only to Alaska.  Yet Idaho has a _significantly_ less porportion of citizens on welfare.  Montana - 1.55%, North Dakota - 1.20%.  Idaho only has .11%!  That means that Montana has a welfare rate that is more than 14 times grater than Idaho! That is statistically significant.

Quote
Even the policies they have implemented may not be true indicators of the liberty-mindedness of their residents. Vermont, for instance, may have a large proportion of conservative traditionalists who have given up voting in the face of the invasion of socialists. Thus we try to infer the liberty-mindedness of their residents as best we can using other measures.

I partially agree with this statement.  We cannot simply look at one date point, for that does not paint an accurate picture.  Vermont, for instance, has the most libertarian gun laws in the nation.  Looking at only this consideration would be horribly misleading.  On the other hand, if you look at a candidate state, and see that it has no sales tax, no income tax, no helmet laws, no seatbelt laws, has a low number of people on welfare, and spends the least amount in the country on government, well, that points to a culture of freedom.  Compared to that, your "low density=freedom" argument... well, I just don't think it holds water.  

I respect your opinion, Joe, and I sincerely hope we're neighbors one day.  But we're on different sides of this fence.
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: Rearden on November 05, 2002, 03:11:08 pm
Quote
[qote]
Having lived about 25 years or so in one of the largest population centers in the US (LA area) I understand your perspective,
My sympathies.  While I've never lived in LA my friends that have uniformly describe it as a dehumanizing experience, surrounded by your fellow man but perpetually separated by the fact that you can't get a carton of milk without a car.  
Quote
however I would rather suggest that such folks as are here are exceptions to the rule. For the most part, we folks who like liberty like to see it, which directly equates to having a bit of elbow room.

Hmm.  I'd like to see liberty, too, in conjunction with my choice to live in a city.  Do you, like Joe, argue that this is impossible?  I don't disagree that libertarianism is the exception to the rule in most cities, I'm simply saying that libertarianism is also the exception to the rule in many rural areas.  

Honestly, Mouseborg, in all those wide open states you advocate for, how many people really would support legalizing heroin?  That sentiment is expressed much more in cities, where the damage of the failed drug war is readily seen, than in the western wilderness.    I believe the state we choose will have to be a marriage of the values of both east and west, urban and rural.  

Quote
I would also strongly suggest that the system set up by our Founding Fathers was not intended to work properly in our present situation of huge population centers.

To illustrate: how many here who intend to vote can say they have actually met, in person, and spoken with, the people attached to the names they see on the ballot (concerning local candidates of course)?

In cities this is rare (yes I know there are exceptions, but once more, those are precisely that - exceptions), but in small towns such as where I live, it isn't at all unusual.

Knowing who that person is, on a genuine basis, makes a world of difference, since most get their info on such from the media.

Actually, I personally know five of Baltimore's six state senators, twelve of our eighteen state delegates, and all of our eighteen city councilmen.  Not to mention the fact that I'm on a first name basis with the Mayor.  This is in a city of 650,000 people.  Now, I know I'm more politically involved than most, but I will argue strongly that the more dense the area in question, the more "face time" citizens are likely to get with the candidates in question.  This fall I ran five reelection campaigns in Baltimore, and we went door-to-door for four hours every night for three months.  My candidates talked to virtually all of their constituents.  In addition, they regularly attend community meetings, and have an open-door policy for any constituent.  They are not "Senator Smith" to those in the neighborhood, they are called "George."

Campaigning in rural areas, according to my colleagues who work in western Maryland and the Eastern Shore, consists of a series of rallies and "sign waves" over highway overpasses.  They just don't have the density to make "face time" feasible.  

MouseBorg, it's good to debate this issue again with you.  
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: George Reich on November 05, 2002, 03:33:33 pm
irishinbaltimore -

I know exactly what you mean about getting to meet and chat with candidates in a more populated area. Here in New Hampshire it is required for candidates to really "press the flesh" or they won't get votes. That's one of the arguments people always use to  justify keeping the first presidential primary in NH.

Some FSP-ers have made the argument that NH must be statist because John McCain won the primary. Far from the truth - they do not know what a perfect campaign McCain ran here (he must have had some good advice). He was all over the state in town meetings, forums, and many other venues where actual discussion could take place. Anyone who wanted to could have met and talked to him several times. Bush not only ran a lousy campaign, but New Hampshirites don't warm up to him easily to begin with.

As an amusing aside, here are a few I've met over the years with my personal observations: Al Gore (cold and creepy), John McCain (came across as quite thoughtful), Steve Forbes (very warm and personable - he just came walking up my driveway one day and introduced himself - very down-to-earth), Bob Dole (seemed crotchety like his image), Elizabeth Dole (very warm and friendly), and Bill Clinton (actually seemed like someone who would be fun to go have a beer with!).

 ;D
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: JasonPSorens on November 05, 2002, 05:02:56 pm
Pedantic interlude:

Houston is actually the city with no zoning.  8)
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: Elizabeth on November 05, 2002, 06:21:48 pm
Oh, and nearly forgot, the Denver Zoo rocks!

Mousie!  As a small furry creature, you must know that zoos are evil.  >:(
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Steve on November 05, 2002, 07:30:14 pm
Quote
irishinbaltimore wrote:
Urban libertarians like myself know that our cities have in the past been centers of freedom, and that nanny-style governments do not necessarily follow density.  We can have our urban lifestyle and live free.  For this reason I urge members to pick a state that is balanced, with a large amount of rural area, but at least one decent-sized city.

Glad to have you aboard, and I agree with you fully.  

Who remembers the movie "Footloose"?  Sorry, I just don't buy the argument that rural or small-town folks are natural libertarians.  Look where all the libertarian institutions are located: Reason is in LA; Cato moved from San Francisco to Washington, DC; George Mason University is in Virginia near DC.

Low-density Sweden is one of the world's most socialist nations, while high-density Singapore is one of the least.  But Singapore is only economically free? Okay, the Netherlands is Europe's most dense country (what a traffic nightmare), and yet has the greatest personal freedom.  We can have our cities and our freedom too.

Cities exist for a good reason.  Trying to avoid them completely defies laws of economics, and will detract from our prosperity, and thus harming our ultimate success.

We need to keep beating into libertarians' heads the concept of subsidiarity: people living together in a city, or gated community, should be free to regulate at the *local* level, just not at the state level.  If a community doesn't want alcohol, prostitution, or ferrets, fine.  I would hope that urban libertarians would at least retain the reflex to regulate as little as possible, but if they want to live in a particular environment (e.g. family-friendly, nudist, no-children) that is their business.  If they want a gun-free environment, that is their risk; I wouldn't live there.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 05, 2002, 07:41:53 pm
Was the movie Footloose based on fact? Unless it is I would not use it as the foundation of my argument. My only problem with the city issue is what you define as a city. Some on here seem to define city as over 25,000 while others define city as the eastern megapolis. I tend to go with the former.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Lykaina on November 05, 2002, 08:29:50 pm
I grew up in a dinky farm community of 550. My HS graduating class was less than 100. I attended college in Des Moines, which was a major shock to this small-town girl, but not nearly so much as moving to Chicago 4 years later.

After 5 years in that place, I was quite happy to move to the 'burbs. During my sentence in Chicago, I witnessed some of the most socialist and least patriotic behavior; I was thoroughly disgusted. I have nothing against urbanization, but socialist thinking is often a symptom of it, in my experience. Even the 'burbs are not immune. I am quite ready to go back to my rural, country roots, so to speak.

- Lykaina
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Robert H. on November 06, 2002, 02:38:44 am
Government generally tends to grow for two reasons:  1) People refuse to govern themselves properly, leading to conflicts that require control lest they produce chaos, and 2) People think they know best how others should live, leading to government philanthropy, "paying your fair share," bowing down to the powers-that-be, etc.  

More people in less space equals increased competition for fewer resources, which in turn lends itself to the natural growth of monopolies, which in turn restrict freedom.  This increased competition for less return inspires some to take what they can get however they can get it, leading to either increased regulation and restriction to maintain control, or confiscation and redistribution in order to be "fair."  On the other hand, this increased competition for less return also causes those who do hold power and control to do whatever they can to keep from losing it, leading to measures that further restrict freedom and access to the system thus increasing dependency.  This is the urban dilemma.

The more people you place together in one location, the more their increased interaction with one another will increase either their interference with one another or their dependency upon one another.  It may take time to develop, but there is a consistent pattern that we can observe throughout history, including the history of our own country.  The most statist areas of the United States revolve around large population centers.  Can this all be just coincidence?  

As for libertarian organizations, etc., think-tank groups generally like to locate close to centers of government and policy so that they can lobby for maximum effect and for maximum exposure of their ideas.  But I would have to ask here, for all of those organizations that are so close to the large population centers, how much of an impact have they had there?  They may inspire followers from many different places, but their mere presence has not made those areas any more libertarian than they were before.  L.A., Washington DC, and Northern Virginia are growing increasingly more statist in spite of Reason, Cato, and GMU.

In contrast, more suburban and rural peoples already live somewhat separated from one another, which forces them to be more naturally independent.  There is less competition for greater resources.  Conflict still exists, but there is simply less of it, and thus less of the natural consequences of it as described above.

To build a successful libertarian society, I believe that you have to start small and work your way into the population centers.  For one thing, you need to prove that your ideas can work.  I don't know of anyone who builds a skyscraper before building a scale model, so consider suburban or rural reforms as a scale model for what you intend to do on a much grander scale.  Another aspect in favor of suburban or rural areas is that there is greater access to the system, thus a greater chance to actually get in there and build your scale model in a realistic timeframe and with less natural resistance.

We can stand back and say:  "Well, if we'd just apply libertarian principles, this would not need to be the case.  A city could be just as free as the countryside."  This is a fine notion, but it has some fundamental flaws:

1.  People tend to be creatures of passion and impulse rather than creatures of reason and deliberation.  We must deal with the world as it is, not as we envision that it should rightly be.  The greatest challenge to our long-term success will be to change fundamental aspects of the way people think about government and about their relations with one another.  This will take a tremendous amount of time and effort, and we may ultimately be successful, but we must first deal with the system as we currently find it.

2.  The more people that are gathered in one place, the more they tend to see one another less as individuals and more as "society."  This in turn encourages the belief that society itself is an entity with various "rights," an idea that ultimately destroys individual liberty.  We can argue that this is not a correct viewpoint to hold, but once again, we must face the reality that we do not live in a perfect world where reason always prevails.  We should not view each other this way, but this does not change the fact that we often DO.  This "society" mentality is the reason why someone who would not think of robbing anyone for money in an alley will still eagerly vote a statist into office to do essentially the same thing under the guise of law.  We de-individualize one another, and what was once unthinkable becomes perfectly acceptable because it does not impact any one person that we can identify.  It impacts "society."

3.  The necessary trappings of city life prevent you from being as free as someone in an urban or suburban area can be.  If I live in a high-rise apartment complex, can I drill a well for my own water?  Can I set up a windmill to generate my own power?  Can I install solar panels?  You may have multiple choices in who supplies you with water, power, gas, etc., but you do not have the choice to meet those needs for yourself and thus be independent of others.  You merely have a choice between multiple suppliers for your dependency.

If someone else's apartment catches fire or their pipes burst, does that not affect me in ways that it would not affect someone else who did not live in such an environment?  I'm not knocking city life per se here; some people enjoy living in close quarters with others and taking advantage of what amenities the city does have to offer, but there are also some things that you indisputibly lack in the way of freedoms as well.  If you choose to give up one for the other, that's your decision and more power to you.  I myself prefer to live farther out of the city, but still within reasonable reach of what it has to offer.

So all of this to say that I believe it is demonstrable that urbanization trends negatively with regard to freedom in general.  It seems that the best way to prevent people from interfering with one another, or from depending upon one another, in ways that facilitate the growth of government, is to spread them farther apart.
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: Robert H. on November 06, 2002, 03:59:05 am
If what you say is true, and I don't think it is, then, as Americans overwhelmingly choose to live in cities and their surrounding suburbs, our country is irretrievably lost forever and the FSP is completely moot.  Even if we succeed somewhere, our success will doubtless attract many others, resulting in rapid growth of our cities and towns.  We will become urbanized, and, you argue, inevitably more socialist.  

Joe answers this well, I think.  The FSP, by handling smaller, more manageable and more easily accessible areas, can provide successful examples of libertarian ideals in practice, examples that might then appeal to more populous areas.  But they're not going to take us seriously if we don't first show them some evidence that we should be taken seriously.  Smaller population areas provide more in the way of access to the system, and more access to the system equals more opportunity to set our plans in motion, see them succeed, and thus provide that evidence we need.

Joe also points out that we can be, at the very least, a refuge for those fleeing statist areas in the future.  This by itself would make us far from moot.

Quote
You say that a libertarian city is impossible.  I disagree.

It would not be impossible, but it would be extremely difficult in the long run.  Cities crowd more people together in tighter competition for fewer resources and exacerbate their natural tendencies to either interfere with one another or depend upon one another.  History teaches us that when society begins to crumble, it starts with the cities.  After all, how many examples have you heard of people "fleeing to the cities" in times of crisis?  They generally flee from the cities, "head for the hills," etc.

If the FSP succeeds, we will be literally changing the foundational basis upon which many people currently think, altering their view of government, and of their interaction with one another as well.  This will be a tremendous task involving tremendous amounts of time and effort no matter where it is attempted.  But it will be arguably simpler away from the major population centers.  For one thing, big city infrastructure is currently based on ideologies that support conformity and dependency.  Dismantling that sort of system could be a life's work just by itself.  I'd rather see us suceed somewhere else first, that way we at least have a workable blueprint to use in attempting to take our reforms to the big city challenge.

If we succeed in a rural or semi-rural area, and we begin to attract others, we will have a luxury that none of the current major populations centers possess:  the ability to build upward on a foundation of solid ideals.  Changing the big cities now would involve more of a tearing-down and restructuring process on a massive scale.  I think that it's far better to build the building right the first time than to tear it down and put it all back together again.  It will undoubtedly collapse in the distant future, as all human institutions inevitably do, but at the very least, it may outlast the competition.

Also, higher population does not automatically equal "big city."  People can still be spread out in a suburbia fashion rather than heaped together, and I think this would be preferrable as far as the future of freedom is concerned (if you don't have the luxury of dealing with a small population, that is).  But this still requires space, something in short supply out east.
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: Steve on November 06, 2002, 08:49:51 am
Quote
Robert Hawes wrote:
They generally flee from the cities, "head for the hills," etc.

People generally flee from where life is bad to where life is good.  Crises tend to happen where the people are ("I rob banks because that's where the money is."), and the people tend to be in cities.

Quote
After all, how many examples have you heard of people "fleeing to the cities" in times of crisis?
Lots.  

For starters, the overwhelming global trend over the past couple of centuries has been urbanization, as agriculture becomes more efficient, and people move to the cities to work in factories.

But if you want acute crises, people do flee famine and war in the countryside for the wealthier, defendable city.

In the US, blacks fled the rural South for northern cities.  Whites then fled the cities for the suburbs.

Quote
History teaches us that when society begins to crumble, it starts with the cities.
I must have missed that lesson.  Perhaps I was in Russia, where the rural villages are decaying, as everyone capable moves to Moscow.

Quote
Cities crowd more people together in tighter competition for fewer resources
You keep repeating that "competition for resources" bogeyman, and I just don't see it.  I live in a city, and I am not "competing for resources" more than I would be anywhere else.  Yes, some resources (e.g. land) are more scarce, so the price goes up (e.g. of parking spaces), but the cost of other resources (e.g. communication means) goes down.  Overall, life is more efficient, and the standard of living higher, so there is money to spend on the less-scarce resources (e.g. food).  Resources not found in the city (e.g. water and food) are brought in, same as resources not found in the country (e.g. manufactured goods) are brought out.

That line of argument is non-productive. If you want to argue that inherent weaknesses of human psychology turn us statist as we crowd together, I'll listen to that.  For example, it probably is the case that politically unsophisticated people who want to extend regulations appropriate to the local level to the state or national level.  I have observed this in Swedes, who think that the laws and welfare state model of a nation of 8 million should be used in the US, with 30 times the population.

If you want to argue that prosperity attracts parasites, I could go along with that as well.  The fight against parasites is unending.

Quote
While I've never lived in LA my friends that have uniformly describe it as a dehumanizing experience, surrounded by your fellow man but perpetually separated by the fact that you can't get a carton of milk without a car.
I grew up in Simi Valley, a suburb of LA and now home of the Reagan Library.  There was nothing dehumanizing about having to drive for groceries; we had nice neighborhoods with good relations.  By the way, in rural areas, you have to drive your car to see your neighbors and friends, and also for milk (unless you have your own cow).  I spent two years at UCLA, and did not feel at all dehumanized as I biked to the beach.

What was dehumanizing was socialism in Russia, where I had to go from store to store in search of milk.  That I was on foot did not make it any better.

I am not insisting on a 100% urban state, and I wish you would just throw us urbanites a bone and accept that some people like cities (you don't have to understand or agree with it) and expect to have one nearby.  Even if what you say is true, that they necessarily breed statists, the risk to the FSP is outweighed by the lack of participation you can expect if we pick a completely rural state, and the lack of employment you can expect among those who do move.
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: Robert H. on November 06, 2002, 11:33:14 am
Quote
Robert Hawes wrote:
They generally flee from the cities, "head for the hills," etc.

People generally flee from where life is bad to where life is good.  Crises tend to happen where the people are ("I rob banks because that's where the money is."), and the people tend to be in cities.

That's exactly the point.

Quote
After all, how many examples have you heard of people "fleeing to the cities" in times of crisis?

Lots.  

For starters, the overwhelming global trend over the past couple of centuries has been urbanization, as agriculture becomes more efficient, and people move to the cities to work in factories.

But if you want acute crises, people do flee famine and war in the countryside for the wealthier, defendable city.

I wouldn't say that the trend has been toward urbanization so much as there are more people than at any other time in world history (so far as we can tell) and the cities in general are thus much larger than in the past.  The Industrial Revolution also helped to greatly increase urban populations.  In the past, the Industrial Revolution aside, most people would probably have lived in cities, or at least large villages, because they were safer from raiding enemy forces there.  With the changes that have occurred over the last few centuries though, we seem to have more people living outside of cities than at any point in the past.  It's simply safer for them to do so for one thing, and for another thing, wealth is no longer solely the property of kings and princes.  

More recent trends have shown a migration away from the most heavily populated areas, particularly in the U.S. where census results show people moving south and west from the north and east.

Quote
In the US, blacks fled the rural South for northern cities.  Whites then fled the cities for the suburbs.

It would have made sense for them to do so because the North was a more industrialized society, hence a larger emphasis on cities.  And a large number of blacks actually went to Canada instead of stopping in the North due to the fugitive slave laws.

Quote
"History teaches us that when society begins to crumble, it starts with the cities."

I must have missed that lesson.  Perhaps I was in Russia, where the rural villages are decaying, as everyone capable moves to Moscow.

Perhaps you were.  Russia, where everything is basically decaying, is absolutely no comparison to the U.S., rural or otherwise.  Russian society was extremely centralized for a very long time, and it makes sense that the bulk of resources and capital would still remain in the major cities.

Quote
"Cities crowd more people together in tighter competition for fewer resources"

You keep repeating that "competition for resources" bogeyman, and I just don't see it.  I live in a city, and I am not "competing for resources" more than I would be anywhere else.  

Competition for resources is not a bogeyman, it's a fact.  No matter where you live, if there are available resources, and more than one person present, there will be some sort of competition for those resources.  If you've ever tried to do anything to further your career, enhance your pay, reduce your cost of living, or just "get ahead" in general, you have competed for resources.  The better pay goes to the person with better qualifications, etc...

Quote
Yes, some resources (e.g. land) are more scarce, so the price goes up (e.g. of parking spaces), but the cost of other resources (e.g. communication means) goes down.  Overall, life is more efficient, and the standard of living higher, so there is money to spend on the less-scarce resources (e.g. food).  Resources not found in the city (e.g. water and food) are brought in, same as resources not found in the country (e.g. manufactured goods) are brought out.

Living has to be more efficient in cities because there is a large population living in a relatively small area.  Also, the standard of living is higher partly because the cost of living itself is higher.  Granted, there is also greater wealth and power concentrated in cities as well, so both elements have something to do with it.

And which would you rather be without?  The water and food that must be brought in, or the manufactured goods that you ship out?

Quote
That line of argument is non-productive.

I don't see why.

Quote
If you want to argue that inherent weaknesses of human psychology turn us statist as we crowd together, I'll listen to that.  For example, it probably is the case that politically unsophisticated people who want to extend regulations appropriate to the local level to the state or national level...If you want to argue that prosperity attracts parasites, I could go along with that as well.  The fight against parasites is unending.

All true.

Quote
I grew up in Simi Valley, a suburb of LA and now home of the Reagan Library.  There was nothing dehumanizing about having to drive for groceries; we had nice neighborhoods with good relations.  By the way, in rural areas, you have to drive your car to see your neighbors and friends, and also for milk (unless you have your own cow).  I spent two years at UCLA, and did not feel at all dehumanized as I biked to the beach.

I never said that you did.  I was referring to a general principle of what seems to happen to people when they crowd together.  Again, most people will readily vote for someone to go to Washington, or the state capital, and take money out of other people's pockets when they would never think of doing it on an individual basis.  Viewing "society" in general de-individualizes people and makes statism more attractive or at least less threatening.

You also have to realize that, as a liberty-minded person, you have a fundamentally different way of viewing society and the individuals that comprise it.

And some people still have milk and groceries delivered.  I understand that this is more common in the cities.  As for driving to the store, I don't live in the sticks and yet I have to do that anyway.  For most cities that I've been in, it seems like you'd have quite a walk to the nearest store, and quite a haul on the way back.  Personally, I'd rather load everything up in the car than carry or push it back home anyway.

Quote
What was dehumanizing was socialism in Russia, where I had to go from store to store in search of milk.  That I was on foot did not make it any better.

I'm sure it didn't.  But once again, comparing Russia to America really isn't a good comparison so much as it is a good contrast.  

Quote
I am not insisting on a 100% urban state, and I wish you would just throw us urbanites a bone and accept that some people like cities (you don't have to understand or agree with it) and expect to have one nearby.  

I'm not insisting on a 100% rural state, and I wish you would just throw us suburbanites a bone and accept that some of us don't like the big crowds (you don't have to understand or agree with it).  Please understand that I'm not mocking you here, just illustrating that this statement is totally reversible.  

And just because we don't necessarily like the big crowds doesn't mean that we don't like to be within relatively close proximity to good-sized malls or good places to eat either.   ;D  I think that we sometimes look at this "urbanization" issue as a choice between either downtown Chicago, Illinois or Sticks, Nebraska.  There are happy mediums out there.

Quote
Even if what you say is true, that they necessarily breed statists, the risk to the FSP is outweighed by the lack of participation you can expect if we pick a completely rural state, and the lack of employment you can expect among those who do move.

What about the risk to the FSP that those who don't like crowded places won't join?  And as far as lack of employment goes, there are definitely jobs to be had in the west, and we will create further opportunities wherever we go as well.  Locating to a western state doesn't necessarily mean living in a sleeping bag on the mesa and eating cactus.   ;)

I actually think that the greatest risk to the FSP is being marginalized by taking on too powerful and entrenched a system with too inexperienced a group of activists.

Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Rearden on November 06, 2002, 12:10:05 pm
Question to those who believe liberty can be made to work in urban areas.
Would city dwellers permit the repeal of the many varied building and fire codes?
Would they permit neighbors or fellow tenants to build anything in any manner?
Specifically, as these are the ones included in our city ordinances by reference.
(each one or two lines in our ordinance incorporates a few volumes of codes)
Note that there are international versions of these that are now being adopted.

The ICBO Plumbing Code
The Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
The Uniform Building Code
The Uniform Mechanical Code
The National Electrical Code
The Uniform Fire Code
The Colorado Model Energy Efficiency Construction and Renovation standards for Non-Residential Buildings.
The Colorado REcommended Energy Conservation "Performance" Code for New Construction and Renovation of Residential Buildings.

The above codes are, with maybe one or two exceptions, are not available online because they are copyrighted by the issuing organization. CD's or hardcopy can be bought - for a hefty price.

Joe,  

As a longtime libertarian and city dweller, I have given a lot of thought to what form a libertarian city might look like.  I am in total agreement with you and Robert and MouseBorg about how American cities, with some exceptions, managed to become "sinkholes of statism," as I've heard them described.  I agree that mass industrialization drew people, many of whom came from wildly different cultures that sometimes conflict, to the cities.  

Where they went wrong, I think, is that they made the same mistake the country at large did -- they looked to the government for answers.  For both ruralalites and urbanites, the solution is to recognize that what people have turned to for answers is part of the problem.  Instead, citizens should look to themselves, their families, and their neighbors to solve urban problems without government's help.

So, in answer to your question, yes, I would repeal zoning laws.  My neighbor can build a factory on his property if he wishes.  If his property use causes me discomfort (loud noises, etc) I can turn to the traditional, pre-zoning solution -- the courts.  

Yes, I would repeal building codes.  Caveat Emptor.  You want firewalls?  Fine, make sure they're in the house you buy.  How do you know that your electric and plumbing service is safe?  Look for the seal of an independent electrician/plumber association that attests to competence.  

Furthermore, I would encourage city dwellers to make greater use of property convenants, which could dictate in perpetuity standards of maintenance and use that as a whole would keep neighborhoods in far better shape than zoning ever could.  Government is not involved, except for the recording of the deed.  For example, a friend of mine lives in an exclusive Baltimore neighborhood.  He went to replace his rainspouts, and was told by his neighborhood association that they must be made of copper.  Of course, this is tremendously expensive, and he protested.  I cannot sympathize, because a previous owner attached that requirement, as did all owners in the community, to his deed.  You don't like a provision?  Fine, don't buy the house.  

For vacant homes, or property not being maintained properly, or homes run by absentee landlords that take section eight certificates while their tenants eat lead paint chips and spraypaint on walls, nonprofit community development corporations can intervene, buy the property, renovate it, and sell it.  This is already being done with great success even in the most socialist of cities.  Check out www.ppcdc.org for the one in my neighborhood.  

Yes, increased density does result in more "elbow-rubbing," as my friend MouseBorg described it.  But there are ways to deal with the conflict that results without government involvement.  This is exactly how a libertarian city would and could (and in some places) does work.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: RidleyReport on November 06, 2002, 12:55:03 pm
Hi Irish!  When you say urbanization doesn't automatically mean socialism, four words prove you right economically:

20th century Hong Kong.

And one word proves you right socially:

Amsterdam!

Nevertheless I fear choosing the small eastern states until someone can soothe my worries that we will loose a serious housing shortage upon the innocent.
 

Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Rearden on November 06, 2002, 01:58:59 pm
Hi Irish!  When you say urbanization doesn't automatically mean socialism, four words prove you right economically:

20th century Hong Kong.

And one word proves you right socially:

Amsterdam!

Nevertheless I fear choosing the small eastern states until someone can soothe my worries that we will loose a serious housing shortage upon the innocent.
 



Dada, thanks for the support in regards to cities.  I can understand your reluctance to choose Delaware, as I have realized that a large number of FSPers want a lot of land, which just isn't feasible there.   But I think that New Hampshire may just be perfect.  The northern counties are huge, with lots of room.  As far as housing shortage upon the innocent, it's not primarily a question of land availability, it's a question of the existing housing market and the amount of laborers ot assist in building new housing.  I honestly think that any of the states under consideration could easily absorb 20,000 people over a five year period; some states are already absorbing people at a faster rate than that.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: caseykhan on November 06, 2002, 03:19:44 pm
Dependence on government is just a prevalent in rural areas as in urban ones.  The dependence just reveals itself in different ways.  Many farmers and ranchers depend on federal subsidies.  Indian Tribes live almost entirely on welfare.  What about regulations out in the rural areas about wetlands, grazing, endangered species, and even zoning?  The rural areas, just like the rest of this country, is on the government take.  Let's not forget that.  

Urban Hong Kong and Singapore are good examples of the virtues of urban economic freedom.  Rural China and Russia are good example of the vices of rural collectivism.  One can find freedom in urban and rural areas, and despotism in urban and rural areas.  

Some great historical examples of "free" cities include, Philadelphia, Boston, Amsterdam, New Amsterdam (old New York), Vienna, and Florence.  

I would agree that having cities is just as important to having rural areas in the Free State.  Eitherway, which ever state we choose, who knows what new cities may evolve in the spontaneous order created by a truly free state.    
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: RidleyReport on November 06, 2002, 10:26:17 pm
<<people living together in a city, or gated community, should be free to regulate at the *local* level, just not at the state level.>>

Whoa there....too much local governmental autonomy and you won't be able to drive from City A to City B with your liberty intact!  Maybe not even your freedom itself if penalties are severe enough!
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: mlilback on November 08, 2002, 01:02:51 am
I grew up in rural Texas, even living for a year in a town with a population of 98 before my family moved there. Now I live in New York City.

I find rural areas to be a lot more restrictive on freedom of expression, association, religion.

I lived in a dry county in Texas, but I've never heard of a dry city. I've never heard of a city trying to force prayer in school.

Also, education levels and opportunities are much higher in cities.

I think the Footloose example is a good one. There are plenty of rural communities that still would ban dancing, drinking, sodomy, gay marriages, etc. That would never happen in a city.

Sure, cities have problems, and there are plenty of lazy, gready people that want to live off the work of others. But I've never heard of klansmen burning crosses in a city, but I've seen that plenty of times in Texas.

Mark
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: Solitar on November 13, 2002, 12:37:19 pm
Robert has a point.
Quote
we sometimes look at this "urbanization" issue as a choice between either downtown Chicago, Illinois or Sticks, Nebraska.  There are happy mediums out there.
Like Robert, I question why urban metropolites who like big cities assume that any "city" (and they denigrate small "cities") with less than several hundred thousand people is the rural sticks? Regardless of Robert's play on words, I am convinced that many urban metropolites here from really big cities really do think that every FSP candidate state other than Delaware and New Hampshire are 100% rural!!!!!. Similarly, rural westerners assume that eastern states are 100% urban. Please see later posts which put numbers under those assumptions. South Delaware has lots of open farm country, New England has wilderness, Idaho is second only to Delaware for urban pecentage and Wyoming has the greatest percentage in urban "clusters".

Over on the Urbanization thread
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=405
some have regarded 50,000 people as the threshold to be a decent sized "city". When they learn that even Cheyenne, Wyoming would qualify they then up the ante to 100,000. When they learn that Billings and Fargo might soon cross that threshold, they up the ante to a quarter million. Oops, Anchorage has that many and they "know" that is not a city worthy of the name since it is obviously not in the same "class" as Baltimore or Boston. Hmmmm, gotta up the threshold to a half million. Oh my gosh, Boise is an MSA that may soon qualify and then be in the same class as Wilmington, Delaware. They can't have that so they then denigrate anything not part of a real metro area of more than a million people as not really a "city" worthy of being called urban. That permits their favorites of Delaware and New Hampshire to qualify because at least some parts of them are part of "real urban areas" of Boston or Philadelphia.

As a rebuttal,  I have to consider  any urban/suburban area much larger than 100,000 people may be poison to State's ability to let people be Truly Free. Communitarian or statist voting trends correlate too much with population density to refute this. Though some western cities are more individualist than similarly large eastern cities, there are exceptions. New England cities have more independent people and the Western cities are being taken over by those from large coastal metro areas who bring their demand for urban laws with them. Thus even little western towns such as mine are getting citified with ever more codes and regs. But some rural western areas are fighting back with a "Code of the West" warning to urban newcomers.
Gunnison County, Colorado’s
"The Code of the West"
or, "How to Avoid Surprises, and Be a Good Neighbor When You’re
Buying, Building, and Developing in Gunnison County, Colorado"

http://www.co.gunnison.co.us/Planning/codeofwest.html
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: smoorefu on November 13, 2002, 04:15:14 pm
Quote
Like Robert, I question Why do urban metropolites who like big cities assume that any "city" (and they denigrate small "cities") with less than several hundred thousand people is the rural sticks?

I can only speak from my own experience.  As a mechanical engineer, I tried for many years to find a job in Ann Arbor, because I like living there and was trying to have a shorter commute.  I only finally managed to succeed because I got a job that allowed me to work remotely and only go to the office once in a while.  But allowing for telecommuting is *quite* rare in the types of jobs I can do.  

I don't have the current figures, but the 1980 census number for Ann Arbor was about 100,000.  I can only assume that it is larger 20 years later.  So my guess is that for me to be productively employed, I'd need a city of 200k or more.

I am probably not the only person who has this issue, so I don't think it is *only* about people who just like living in cities.



Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: cathleeninsc on November 14, 2002, 09:30:06 am
Just a note on this urban/rural debate. Objectively I see the restrictions of urban life and the freedoms of rural life and the exceptions to both. But on the subjective side, having lived in both environments, I felt the most intruded upon by the small town nosiness of rural life. The craning of necks when a cop stops someone, and knocks on the door if an emergency vehicle arrives are examples. The only alternative to participating in the examination of everyone's personal life is to accept the label of hermit.

In the final analysis, real liberty is more important but one's comfort level and peace can't be ignored.

Cathleen in SC
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Rearden on November 14, 2002, 11:19:01 am
Over on the "Have You Noticed Thread" Irish in Baltimore wrote in response to my comment about Chicago"
Quote
Quote from: Joe, aka, Solitar on November 13, 2002, 02:39:44 pm  
Quote
Chicago has been broke in many respects for over a hundred years. Yet many still live there in that hive. And people wonder why I abhor large cities and have little respect for the socialist, communitarian, metropolites who live in them.
Et tu, Joe?  It seems like I spend a great deal of time responding to your posts about how cities are pits of socialism, yadda yadda yadda, and how everyone should just live in the great wide open where the deer and the antelope roam, where everyone is free...

4.) I've lived in the country (southwestern Pennsylvania).  I'm not knocking it, but it's not for everybody.  Even the women chewed tobacco, my dog was shot by a drunk hunter while tied up in my yard, and my neighbors were drug addicts that dumped their garbage in the yard and drew rats that found their way even to my home, a quarter-mile away.  Here, in the city, we have some of the same problems, but at least here I can walk to a football game or an art museum if I want to.
Irish,
Though you state you are not posting insults specifically insulting rednecks, your paragraph 4 above certainly does imply that and may be some of the basis for an apparent poor view of rural folk...

As to my insult of some of those who live in cities, I specifically wrote:
 "I abhor large cities and have little respect for the socialist, communitarian, metropolites who live in them."
I realize that not everyone who lives in cities meets the above description. Sometimes via internet or personally I meet people from large cities who are libertarian or classical liberals or intelligent patriotic gunowners who vote for freedom.... I find myself thinking that it would be a tragedy if those cities were nuked and we lost such people.

Well, at least I would be missed!

The word "some" wasn't in your original post, so it wasn't clear that you were only referring to a segment of American urbanites.  I can see how that would happen.  For instance, I certainly didn't mean to infer that all rural citizens are ignorant dirty drug addicts.  I'm well aware that that's only a segment of the rural population.

And that was my point.
Quote
Given the laws and regulations that cities have imposed upon their residents (or, more accurately, the laws that city voters have permitted their governments to impose upon them), I often I wonder why they continue to live there...  You can perhaps see that some of us get as exasperated with a city-centered perspective as some of you do with our rural perspective. So what is a reasonable balance? What size cities and how much urbanization would be adequate for you folks? How large can the present cities we are considering be in the Free State without biting off more than this bunch of neophyte activist politicians can deal with?
I have consistently said that I think the state we choose should be a marriage of both rural and urban, for several reasons.  One, to show the rest of the nation that libertarian principles are applicable everywhere the state should be representative of America.  Two, FSPers have wildly varying preferences, and the state chosen should be able to reasonably accommodate everyone.  Three, companies and citizens looking to relocate for freedom will want and expect a city.  There's a reason why Boeing relocated from Seattle to Chicago, not from Seattle to Bozeman.

As far as how big cities can be and still be winnable by the FSP, it is my opinion that all cities in the candidate states are winnable.  I helped run four campaigns in Baltimore City, with 11,000 per square mile, and won three of them.  The secret to winning these campaigns is that, unfortunately, most don't really care how you feel about taxes, or the environment, or farm subsidies.  They care about what you can do for them.  Can you get their sidewalk fixed?  Can you have their alley cleaned?  Can you get the dead tree at the corner replaced?  

With an army of activists, going door to door and making phone calls and getting the little things done for citizens, winning the cities will be no problem.  I gaurantee it.  

Yes, I recognize Cheyenne and Boise as cities, but I still wouldn't want to live there.  The reason is, in a word, convenience.  There's the convenience you can find in any city: close to your neighbors, close to shopping, and basic cultural assets.  And then there's the convenience you can only find in a major metropolitan area: major sports teams, symphonies, large art museums, etc.  None of the states we are considering contain a major metropolitan area, but three are close enough to easily commute: Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire.  If I live in Cheyenne, and want to take my kid to a baseball game, how far do I have to drive?  

This is obviously a preference, one that if necessary I will waive.  I am committed to this project, regardless of where it takes me, and I hope you share this commitment.  If we pick Wyoming, I'll be there.  If we pick Delaware, I hope you follow through as well.  

I think that New Hampshire may be the best compromise for all of us, for reasons that I will shortly post in response to Robert's post at

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=82
Quote
Yes, I know you apparently think highly of Hong Kong and Amsterdam. But we are dealing with American cities that have, for the most part, sunk pretty low in the freedom index. Maybe Anchorage or Boise can be saved since they have "only" a quarter million or so people. Maybe increasingly socialist northern Delaware or southern New Hampshire can be turned around even though they each have a half million people or more. Yet many here doubt the FSP can turn around tiny Vermont with only 600,000 people and the Burlington MSA with only 170,000. If the FSP's activists can't handle Vermont, they won't be able to handle northern Delaware or southern New Hampshire.

Your logic is far too simplistic.  I think we probably could handle Vermont.  The primary problem there isn't the size of the population, it's the political culture there.  Vermont was traditionally very freedom-oriented, but it was unfortunately the object of an organized invasion, similar to the FSP, but with very different goals.  Hence, the completely inconsistent application of some libertarian principles (guns, gay marriage, pot, school choice) and some socialist ones (taxes, welfare, etc.)

New Hampshire has a larger population, but it's citizens are much more freedom-oriented.  It was never the subject of such an ideological invasion, and I think the majority of people who are migrating there now from Taxachusetts are drawn there by the kind of freedom we seek for ourselves.  New Hampshire isn't under invasion, it's already a refuge.  Again, if you wait until the end of the day I can provide ample evidence for this at the above thread.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: ZionCurtain on November 14, 2002, 12:46:47 pm
Irish, to answer your question if you lived in Cheyenne how long would you have to drive to see a baseball game. The answer is about 100 miles to Denver. Ever heard of the Colorado Rockies? Denver Nuggets(basketball), Denver Broncos(football), Colorado Avalanche(hockey)? Man you really are out of touch with reality.
NH is undoable just for population reasons let alone add any other criteria.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: freedomroad on November 14, 2002, 02:37:47 pm
And then there's the convenience you can only find in a major metropolitan area: major sports teams, symphonies, large art museums, etc.  None of the states we are considering contain a major metropolitan area, but three are close enough to easily commute: Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire.  If I live in Cheyenne, and want to take my kid to a baseball game, how far do I have to drive?  


Salt Lake City is closer to WY than Montreal is to VT.  Denver is just a little bit further and a large sports town.  So, if you only include the top the states for that you have to say DE, NH, and WY.  WY has two very distant parts of the state that are both close to large cities.  The northern part of WY is close to the largest city in MT.  Jackson, WY is fast become a very rich area and is getting some entertainment for the wealth.  The mid-west part of WY is close to Pocatello which is the 2nd largest city in ID.

WY is much closer to the top of the line in two sports than any of the Eastern states.  Think about Rodeo, it was created there.  Most of the best ski slopes in the country are in CO, which would make an excellent weekend ski trip from WY.  WY also has good skiing, snowmobiling, snowboarding, water skiing, ski diving, fishing, and hunting.  Cleanly, the West has many sports.  

If you look at the growth stats 20,000+ people are already moving to NH every year.  No one would care if the FSP went there.  The state would not even notice us.  

What happens when some people do not move and then some of the people that do move do not like it and leave.  Both of these things will happen no matter which state we pick.  Would you rather have 16,000 FSP activists in NH or WY in 35 years when WY's population is 1/3 of the NH population?
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Rearden on November 14, 2002, 04:38:16 pm
Irish, to answer your question if you lived in Cheyenne how long would you have to drive to see a baseball game. The answer is about 100 miles to Denver. Ever heard of the Colorado Rockies? Denver Nuggets(basketball), Denver Broncos(football), Colorado Avalanche(hockey)? Man you really are out of touch with reality.
No, Zion, I'm very much in touch with reality.  We're not looking at Colorado, are we?  I would rather not have to drive two hours to take my kid to a baseball game.  Maybe out there two hours qualifies as just around the corner, but here that's considered a serious trip.  Now, compare that with this: 46 minutes from Nashua to Boston!  20 minutes from Manchester to the beach!  That's the convenience I was referring to, and that's convenience Wyoming and Montana can't touch.  To reiterate, I will go out to those empty square states if the project requires it, but I'm pushing hard for an eastern state.  
Quote
NH is undoable just for population reasons let alone add any other criteria.
This is absolutely untrue, but I won't be so rude as to question your grip on reality.  If the population were too large it wouldn't even be under consideration.  The population might be a concern if the state had big-government tendencies, but as the good people of the New Hampshire have a demonstrated small government tilt they could make very good allies.  I like our chances better in a state of 1.2 million small government citiizens than one with 600,000 big government citizens.  
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Rearden on November 14, 2002, 04:49:11 pm
Do you really want to tackle all the services and departments and laws that a large metro city has gotten itself into? Here is the list that will intimidate the most ambitious libertarian.
I copied the list of departments and ordinance sections from the website
and posted the website too.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=338;start=15

Joe, the answer is an unequivocal "YES."  I've never wanted any other career besides city politics.  I always thought I would do that here, in Baltimore, until I realized that my political beliefs are too far out of the mainstream for me to be successful here.  I'm fully aware of the maze of city ordinances (Baltimore has a law against putting ATMs in residential neighborhoods!), and have spent a great deal of time thinking about how to untangle them.  

I'm ready!  
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: catsRus on November 14, 2002, 05:20:22 pm
Quote
No, Zion, I'm very much in touch with reality.  We're not looking at Colorado, are we?  I would rather not have to drive two hours to take my kid to a baseball game.  Maybe out there two hours qualifies as just around the corner, but here that's considered a serious trip.  Now, compare that with this: 46 minutes from Nashua to Boston!  20 minutes from Manchester to the beach!  That's the convenience I was referring to, and that's convenience Wyoming and Montana can't touch.  To reiterate, I will go out to those empty square states if the project requires it, but I'm pushing hard for an eastern state.  




I hope this isint really an issue. ???
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Rearden on November 14, 2002, 05:27:42 pm
Quote
And then there's the convenience you can only find in a major metropolitan area: major sports teams, symphonies, large art museums, etc.  None of the states we are considering contain a major metropolitan area, but three are close enough to easily commute: Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire.  If I live in Cheyenne, and want to take my kid to a baseball game, how far do I have to drive?  

Salt Lake City is closer to WY than Montreal is to VT.  Denver is just a little bit further and a large sports town.  So, if you only include the top the states for that you have to say DE, NH, and WY.  WY has two very distant parts of the state that are both close to large cities.  The northern part of WY is close to the largest city in MT.  Jackson, WY is fast become a very rich area and is getting some entertainment for the wealth.  The mid-west part of WY is close to Pocatello which is the 2nd largest city in ID.
Salt Lake City didn't even cross my mind, because like Cheyenne it has grown but still lacks the assets of a major metropolitan area that I hope to live near: world-class museums, football/baseball, etc.  Denver has these things, but as I explained to Zion it is almost two hours from the Wyoming border.  I probably shouldn't have said Vermont, because it, like WY and MT, is too far from those same assets.  You were right to point that out.  I just had VT on the brain bacause I was using it to make the point about population.
Quote
WY is much closer to the top of the line in two sports than any of the Eastern states.  Think about Rodeo, it was created there.  Most of the best ski slopes in the country are in CO, which would make an excellent weekend ski trip from WY.  WY also has good skiing, snowmobiling, snowboarding, water skiing, ski diving, fishing, and hunting.  Cleanly, the West has many sports.  
Yes, the West has many sports, skiing being the one I partake in most regularly.  I can't claim that I'm a big rodeo fan.  I spend two weeks a year skiing, and have been to Sun Valley and Jackson Hole.  It's beautiful country, with lots to do.  It's just not convenient to the things I like to do on a regular basis.
Quote
If you look at the growth stats 20,000+ people are already moving to NH every year.  No one would care if the FSP went there.  The state would not even notice us.  

What happens when some people do not move and then some of the people that do move do not like it and leave.  Both of these things will happen no matter which state we pick.  Would you rather have 16,000 FSP activists in NH or WY in 35 years when WY's population is 1/3 of the NH population?

In 35 years!  If this project is successful we'll have transformed the state into a libertarian refuge, with at least two million liberty-loving people.  It will be won or lost well before then.  

I guess my answer is I'd rather be living in a libertarian NH, with many more people and companies, than be in WY or MT, with 1/3 the people, and have the FSP dismissed as just another crackpot lunatic fringe group.  Can we take WY?  I'm sure of it.  Will the rest of the nation see our success as the breakthrough of libertarianism?  I don't think so -- they'll just shake their heads and say, "That will never work here."  We need an America in Miniature to experiment with, and NH is that state.  
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Rearden on November 14, 2002, 05:34:37 pm
Quote
No, Zion, I'm very much in touch with reality.  We're not looking at Colorado, are we?  I would rather not have to drive two hours to take my kid to a baseball game.  Maybe out there two hours qualifies as just around the corner, but here that's considered a serious trip.  Now, compare that with this: 46 minutes from Nashua to Boston!  20 minutes from Manchester to the beach!  That's the convenience I was referring to, and that's convenience Wyoming and Montana can't touch.  To reiterate, I will go out to those empty square states if the project requires it, but I'm pushing hard for an eastern state.  




I hope this isint really an issue. ???

If you had read the entire thread leading up to this, you would have seen the two parts where I said that this is merely a preference, and one that I will waive if necessary.  I said that I will go to Wyoming or Montana if need be, but I'd really rather we pick a state that is winnable yet is convenient to a metropolis.  

Preferences do matter somewhat; just ask Joe or Zion if they would like to move to low population but high density DE.  
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: catsRus on November 14, 2002, 07:35:29 pm
Quote
If you had read the entire thread leading up to this, you would have seen the two parts where I said that this is merely a preference, and one that I will waive if necessary.  I said that I will go to Wyoming or Montana if need be, but I'd really rather we pick a state that is winnable yet is convenient to a metropolis.  

Preferences do matter somewhat; just ask Joe or Zion if they would like to move to low population but high density DE.  

I read the thread and this was not directed at you specificaly i just dont see how this can really make a lot of difference we want a low population for obvious reasons, so needless to say I wont be here in San Jose, CA which is much like your neck of the woods.
My worry is that there will be enough others who feel the same way you do with out being as flexable. I  see a lot of folks have favorites here and the state chosen I hope is for reason of success not access to baseball or whatever big city thing one likes. We have given up a lot of freedom inderectly to have these activities, having lived in both situations i really dont care if i ever saw a baseball game again. I want freedom not convience or a flashy lifestyle.

I understand some folks reservations about jobs, but i am sure even these poor little cities out west can support them, albeit not as they are accoustomed to.


Quote
There is also a real downside to going outsided the chosen state for shopping, etc. because it takes trade from the businesses inside the chosen state and gives it to the surrounding states. That is a present concern in Vermont where a lot of people shop across the border in Lebanon, NH. Conversely, if the Free State has lower sales taxes and a better business environment, it can lure a lot of business away from the cities just across the border - especially for alcohol, tobacco, etc. which is/was an age-old "tradition" between many states.


I understand this too i moved to San Jose from a village of 20,000 in rural New Mexico and i did a lot of shopping on line whereas i can get what ever i want here and now. (computer hardware for instance was just not available locally) Other than the migration of needed local capitol for the FSP to the statists, i really dont care which way i shop it is all the same in the long run. But i can see the oppsite being good work in the other state bring the $$ home for the cause.

Sorry I am rambeling today. ::)
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Robert H. on November 15, 2002, 04:28:40 am
I guess my answer is I'd rather be living in a libertarian NH, with many more people and companies, than be in WY or MT, with 1/3 the people, and have the FSP dismissed as just another crackpot lunatic fringe group.  Can we take WY?  I'm sure of it.  Will the rest of the nation see our success as the breakthrough of libertarianism?  I don't think so -- they'll just shake their heads and say, "That will never work here."  We need an America in Miniature to experiment with, and NH is that state.  

The FSP will be denounced as a crackpot lunatic fringe group wherever it goes, and your more socially-conscious urbanites will distance themselves from it simply not to be associated with that label (if for no other reason, of which there will be plenty).

And New Hampshire is hardly an "America in Miniature," which criteria, I believe, would be arbitrary at best as you will never get anyone to agree on exactly what America "looks like," nor should they be required to.  This sort of criteria also smacks heavily of Leftist ideology.  We need ethnic, racial, gender, and sexual-orientation preferences in society, they say.  Why?  Because we need to have a government, judiciary, fire department, K-4 class, etc., that "looks like America."

Do you really think that people in Chicago, New York, Seattle, Miami, or Los Angeles are going to be impressed with libertarian reforms in Manchester?  No matter what you do or where you do it, people are going to find reasons to say, "That will never work here because Chicago isn't at all like <insert your favorite city here>."  You can say:  "Well, they'd be darn well more impressed with reforms in New Hampshire than in Wyoming," but you then assume that your opposition is going to listen to reason or view you objectively.  Politics in this country is anything but reasonable or objective, and that fact stretches from the lofty party bosses themselves, in their smoke-filled conference rooms, all the way down to the soccer moms chatting at the local beauty parlor.  If they don't like you to start with, your success will be seen more as a threat than as a call for change.

Reagan showed that taxes prohibit economic growth instead of facilitating it, and his reforms created a time of prosperity in this country that was unparalled since the second world war.  And what did the American people do?  A few short years after Reagan left office, they voted in a man who denounced Reagan's prosperity as a "decade of greed" and actually promised to tax them more!  Reagan's simple, limited demonstration of supply-side economics, country-wide no less, did not impress enough of the population sufficiently to carry on that legacy.  What then is to say that we can impress that very same country by the goings-on in one small state?

The point here is that we should first be concerned with success!  Then, once we have succeeded, we can showcase that success.  You obviously know something of the urban mentality, and having lived in the greater Washington area most of my life, I do as well.  Are they easily impressed with anything new or untried?  To take these "Americas in miniature," you will first have to convince people that your system is worth trying in the first place, and to do that you're going to have to provide them with more than idealistic notions.  The larger the city, the more entrenched the infrastructure, the more dependent or co-dependent the people will be, and the harder it will be to sell this agenda or buy the air time in order to try selling it.  Then you have to contend with the increased cost of elections, more powerful, financially-backed political opposition, trying to get contributions out of activists who are already being milked by a high cost-of-living, high tax area, etc.

We shouldn't be out to impress anyone.  We should be working to create a place where we can be free to live our lives without the interference of others.  Some of those others will undoubtedly be impressed, and the movement can, and probably will, spread to other areas including larger cities.  If that happens, great!  If not, then we'll still have at least one place left where we can be free.  But this entire conversation is all just so much wishful thinking if we do not locate someplace where it is easier for us to access and reform the system from the start.  Then we can worry about impressing others when we have something to impress them with.

Rocket science did not begin with the creation of the Saturn-V.  It started out small and worked its way up over time as man learned more about the basics of rocket flight.  We too are starting out new here in terms of launching a free state, something that has never really been tried before, and if we are to succeed then we must emulate the same pattern that has repeated itself so successfully throughout human history:  start slowly, humbly, basically, and progress from there as you learn and achieve.  This pattern has held constant from the invention of the wheel to the building of the space shuttle, from simple addition to quantum physics.  Should we abandon it now, after all that history has taught us, and risk a quantum leap from the nanny state to the free state because it might impress someone if we could do it?  And how will it impress them if we fail so very publicly?

Some of the greatest disasters in history have been the result of man trying to leap too far on legs that were too weak.
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: TedApelt on December 26, 2002, 12:04:25 am
Actually, I was thinking of moving to Dover, because not only is it the state capital (in addition to being a city small enough to elect somebody in right away), but also from there you can get to just about anywhere in the state in less than an hour.  I don't know of any other state on our list that has such a location.
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: glen on December 26, 2002, 12:55:25 am
Hi Joe

Here is a link to a web site that does demographic analysis of the election campaigns of the members of congress.

I am not quite sure what constitutes the ‘home page’ so I have left the link at the Idaho first congressional district which is what I was interested in.

Hope this helps with your research!

http://www.polisci.com/almanac/legis/district/ID01.htm

Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: Robert H. on December 26, 2002, 01:10:39 am
That's an excellent link, Glen!

One factor in that listing (that I don't think we've covered much in these discussions) is the following:

Quote
Housing: Own 73%, Rent 27%, Homeless <.1%

This is an additional factor that may give us insight into our target audience.  If 73% of the people in a given area own their own home, this could potentially be representative of what % may also be interested in supporting property tax reductions, etc.
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: Zxcv on December 26, 2002, 03:39:49 pm
Joe, we have to make some kind if distinction here between the person running for office, and the campaign helpers. The candidate will indeed have more of a problem covering the miles, but we can guess the helpers will be spread somewhat so they won't have quite that problem to deal with.

Also, this is more a problem for those few statewide races. Maybe in a place like Wyoming we'd need some folks with small aircraft around to cart candidates around, help save some time.

There is also a flip side to this picture you are presenting. Concentration ain't all good. Maybe many small towns fairly close together is the ideal; but if concentration comes in the form of large cities, then another ugly factor pops up. Large cities are almost invariably more statist than small towns and rural areas.
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: varrin on December 26, 2002, 04:25:03 pm
I'm no pro here (I'll defer to Joe anyday), but I just ran for Congress in a district that went about 100 miles south of my home.  Granted, I wasn't running a campaing with the expectation of winning, nor did I have the time to devote that would have been necessary to do so.  However, my experience still holds some value, I think.

I did essentially all of my campaigning in the 1/2 of my district that was closest to home.  It takes two hours to get from Fresno to Bakersfield, v.s. 20 minutes for me to get pretty much anywhere in Fresno and 45 minutes to get to Hanford and Lemmore (the significant towns in the next county south).  Number of times I went to Bakersfield: 1.  

I realize the details of campaigning in the Free State will be different, but time is time.  If it takes 2 or 3 or 4 hours to get to someplace in your district, that's time wasted from a campaign standpoint.  DE definately has the advantage there.  The western states are all very large.  Idaho has a small advantage in that there is a significant population concentration around Boise (MSA about 1/2 Mil IIRC), but the rest of the state is pretty big.  

I'm not saying we should simply choose the smallest *geographical* state (much like I don't advocate choosing the smallest population state).  But these factors should at least be considered...

V-

Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: Solitar on December 26, 2002, 05:51:27 pm
Varrin,
You're the pro for campaigning on a large scale. I'm a small town, small county guy. Of the California counties, Del Norte would be out of my class. Alpine county would be more like my size and population except that it's out of my income class. My present county is four hundred sq. miles and seven thousand or so people - and running for county commissioner is long job of lots of door knocking. Thus running for Congress or a big state seat is so far out of my league that I'll leave it to you big population folks.

Idaho is indeed huge. Though one could concentrate on Boise, Pocatello, Idaho Falls and, on the way between them, drop by to say hi to the folks in Twin Falls. Unfortunately may leave the folks in Lewiston and points north feeling like they don't belong to the same state. Yet I bet the folks in Berlin or Gorham, New Hampshire feel the same. I know that was the case in Pennsylvania and now in Colorado. The statewide campaigners concentrated on Pittsburgh and the Phily/Allentown area -- the rest of us were ignored. Same here where they concentrate on Denver/Boulder and Colorado Springs and leave the West Slope and Plains for their "spokespeople" to make appearances at -- which makes it even more obvious that we don't rate more than direct mail up here. It would be neat to be in New Hampshire and have Presidential candidates walking up the sidewalk to say hello. Shucks, it would be neat just to have our state rep drop by to sincerely ask how things are going and then to take the time to listen (and it's not like I live in the boonies, I'm in my store six days a week on main street).
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: varrin on December 28, 2002, 04:59:24 pm
Varrin,
You're the pro for campaigning on a large scale.

Thanks Joe.  Ya just made my whole holiday season ;-)  (even if it is the overstatement of the year)

What you say is true, though.  Rural people do tend to feel left out.  I had a much warmer reception in Lemoore than I did here in Fresno, partly because of population.  It's just nicer to make contacts in rural areas than it is in big cities.

Nevertheless, big cities offer the oppotunity of more productive work.  When petitioning, I was able to get lots of sigs in a small are in town.  My success rate per hour was dramitically higher than in the rural areas I went to.

If we're going to be successful, we'll need people in the urban areas and in the rural areas.  For local and/or nicely districted races, geographic state size won't have so much of an impact.  If the districts are all messed up (like they are here in California) or for statewide races, the smaller the state, the better (geographically speaking)....  Just makes sense I suppose ;-)

V-

Title: Air travel-land area considerations
Post by: MLiq on December 30, 2002, 09:50:39 am
I have seen posts about how Idaho has the best air service and Delaware has no air service but does this really matter?  I don't think so.  Personally I hate flying, since 9-11 especially, so I think the fact that one can get on a train in Delaware and go to an airport or a number of major cities including dc easily is a huge plus.  

But the more important issue here is, if we are going to be campaigning door-to-door, or putting up/handing out flyers and such, we will have a much easier time in a more dense urbanized area.  With only 20,000 people, we can be really effective in a state the size of DE, NH, VT, whereas in Wyoming or MOntana or some such place we would have a really hard time.  I would be afraid that some of the residents there would pull a gun on me for trying to campaign at their door for one thing, but gas isn't cheap either and people are just so spread out in the Western states.  
Title: Re:Air travel-land area considerations
Post by: Zxcv on December 30, 2002, 04:19:56 pm
Yeah, you can get to people easier in urban areas, but they are far more statist in the first place so the added ease of access hardly pays off.

Probably the best state for campaigning is Vermont, with lots of relatively small towns, not that far apart.
Title: Re:Air travel-land area considerations
Post by: varrin on December 30, 2002, 06:05:52 pm
Air travel is important to some people (even critical to others).  Philly and Baltimore should be satisfactory solutions for DE.

V-

P.S. - I, too, hate going through all the hoops required to fly these days.  I think that's what you meant, right?  Flying itself, of course, is still fun ;-)

Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: thewaka on December 31, 2002, 02:58:17 pm
Joe, hope you don't mind me adding to your list, but I just found this:

If Wyoming is the state, only outdoorsmen gun-rights people will move there and it will turn into a strange militia type organization the government will want to shut down.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1094

Several of these are downright offensive. I hope that if a Western state is chosen, the current residents don't read any of this stuff. We might find it much harder to be accepted.

Diana
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Solitar on December 31, 2002, 04:17:20 pm
Diana,
Thank you for referring us to such a quote
Quote
"If Wyoming is the state, only outdoorsmen gun-rights people will move there and it will turn into a strange militia type organization the government will want to shut down."
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1094
The above goes beyond legitimate concerns about media which we expect to tar the movement. For FSP'ers to have such impressions again means they are easy prey to stereotypes that some use against the westerners, or easterners or country folk or city folk for that matter. One of our long-time posters stated:

"What I don't like is that so many people have this impression and unlike Megadeath they don't bother to find out more information about the east coast states!!!!"

Yet they turn around and badmouth the Western states as "sagebrush and sand", "desolate", and "empty".

“I've been to some areas of the West and wouldn't mind living there at all, provided my wife and I wouldn't starve.”
“You say Montana has WATER?  I've heard stories of people who drilled 600 foot wells and came up with nothing!  Maybe some parts are better than others, but in that case, we'd fill up the waterin' holes pretty quickly.”
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=35

"I'll bet the average elementary school size in Wyoming is smaller than in more densely populated states. Small towns with isolated populations, each with their own little school," [I respond to that on that thread]
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=3;action=display;threadid=1116

"another benefit of choosing an East Coast state is that finding jobs for 20,000 people will be exponentially easier.  The housing/job infrastructure is in place." [and we're living in log cabins and have no jobs beyond roping horses or prospecting? and then there is this precious quote]
"Delaware is enviably located in the middle of the country;"
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=673

Please remember that I'm not intending to pick on any one poster but, rather, the attitudes that seem too common. There are easterners who think the Appalachians are the wild, gun-totin, moonshining west. Anything beyond the Hudson is barely civilized bear-invested boonies.

Keep adding to the list as you find such stereotypical misconceptions.

Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Zxcv on December 31, 2002, 05:19:09 pm
As a western proponent, I have to say the misconceptions go both ways.

When people say these sorts of things, what they really are saying is, "I don't want to go there."

That's all it is. I wouldn't get too worked up about it.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: wes237 on December 31, 2002, 08:41:31 pm
"So aren't those rodeo chicks the best?!?!"

That was part of a short conversation acknowledgement I had with Redbeard if my memory serves me right.  It was meant in the nicest way. As one who did a bit of rodeo'n many years ago, I have no idea what the problem is here. I don't get it.  I do have a problem with those who would obviously show their ignorance of western states because of their bias towards eastern states. It is obvious to me they don't get out much. I have lived all about the US ( east and west),  watched the population of the US almost double in my lifetime, and know this whole conversation is idiotic.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: TedApelt on January 01, 2003, 03:02:46 pm
Keep talking.  I've got a lot of misconceptions by western country people about the East that I'd like to post  Most of them are equally silly.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Solitar on January 01, 2003, 03:56:15 pm
Wes,
I pulled that quote because it was kinda neat. If Southern California had a tiny candidate state there likely would be a quote for them too. Now is there something for the Eastern states?

Ted,
I thought about starting a "Misconceptions about the East by Westerners but I figured it would best be done by somebody from the Eastern cities. Go for it. ;D
Title: Re:Ranking states by city and county populations
Post by: Raider on January 01, 2003, 11:54:54 pm
So my guess is that for me to be productively employed, I'd need a city of 200k or more.

I work for Adelphia.  When they were one company they were the 5th largest Cable provider.  The telecom side is also quite large.    The corporate headquarters is located in Coudersport ,PA  Population 2,650.  http://coudersportpa.com/#Community%20Profile (http://coudersportpa.com/#Community%20Profile).  If sticks PA could make this attractive to Adelphia, it could be done any where for any company.
I'm sure a mechanical engineer could find some work anywhere.  You might have to tone down your spending and tighten your belt.  But so will the rest of us.
Title: Re:Air travel-land area considerations
Post by: freedomroad on January 02, 2003, 01:39:44 am
But the more important issue here is, if we are going to be campaigning door-to-door, or putting up/handing out flyers and such, we will have a much easier time in a more dense urbanized area.  With only 20,000 people, we can be really effective in a state the size of DE, NH, VT, whereas in Wyoming or MOntana or some such place we would have a really hard time.  I would be afraid that some of the residents there would pull a gun on me for trying to campaign at their door for one thing, but gas isn't cheap either and people are just so spread out in the Western states.  

It is not like a group of 100 people are going to hand out all of the flyers and show up at all of the county fairs and food festives.  In a state like AK with 3 major population centers FSP people or native people that like freedom will live in all 3 of the major population centers and work there 3 centers.  The same thing is true for WY and MT and there cities.  People will live in all of the cities and they will work those cities.  The FSP will not run for state wide offices at first and when it does it will do that the same way the other parties do.  Besides, if the FSP decided to join the Republican party because many of the FSP members are or used to be Republican and the state we pick has a Republican party with lots of libertarians and classical liberals than we will be working through the Republican party and many of its activists will help us as we help them.  In VT we could combine with the LP, Constitutional P, and 1-2 more of its many 3rd parties and there would already be 100s of activists spread thoughout the state.  In AK we could combine with the LP, AIP, and the Constitutional P and do the same thing.

Those arguement about needing a small state to help activism has weak backing.  The FSP member will move to all partys of the state and join with like minded folks from all over the state.  We will run local TV and radio ads from Freedom groups like the American Liberty Foundation and LP.  We will also make our own.  The same goes for print adds.  We might creat a jounal or 2.  We will use bummper stickers which residents from all over the state will see.  Some of us will use yard signs and we might even stamp the money.  The marketing will not be much different in any state.  Think positive.  Everything is going well.  More people will experince the joys of freedom because of our work.

As for air travel, all of the states have at least 1 city that flyes to a large airport in a near by state (AK kind of suffers here).  God bless, we may all fly in planes to the rest of the county.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: MLiq on January 02, 2003, 03:34:08 am
My comment:
"If Wyoming is the state, only outdoorsmen gun-rights people will move there and it will turn into a strange militia type organization the government will want to shut down."

was fueled by some of the discussions on yahoo group FSP cracker barrel where many people are insisting on having many hundreds of acres, being over 100 miles from any "city" defined as a mere 10,000 people, and starting our own nuclear weapons program so that we can fight the Feds when they come calling.  

I realize that not ONLY outdoorsmen gun-rights types would move to Wyoming but I am willing to wager that a much smaller percentage of the general population and FSP would want to move there than would go to an east coast state.  

A state that empty, with only one city of 50,000 people, simply does not appeal to me at ALL and I think many people share my views as evidenced by the fact that almost no one lives in Wyoming as it is.  

I realize that the extreme militia oriented people are probably being more vocal than others so its unfair to characterize all Westerners that way, but of the Western states I think ID is the best and it is still extremely unappealing to me, whereas the most vocal western people are saying the Wyoming, Montana, or SD is the best, and I refuse to move there and feel that many others will agree with me.  

I guess it will come down to a vote anyway, so this is somewhat pointless.  The Westerners on FSP cracker barrel have made it clear that even though they admit there is only one strictly logical reason that the western states are inherently better for them than the east, it is a good reason, I suppose.  They favor the West because land is cheaper there, and they want to live on 100-200 or more acres.  

Can't argue with the cold hard facts, it is cheaper.   I personally don't see why anyone NEEDS 100 acres and that hadn't been answered yet last time I checked but perhaps I just need to catch up on my reading over there.  

Land in NH can be found for less than $1000/acre but land in Wyoming can be found for as little as $300/acre, according to one of the posters.  It is an ongoing search to see what the cheapest land prices in all of these states are to satisfy the Western rurals so please post here or there if you find some cheap land in any FSP state.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Robert H. on January 02, 2003, 04:04:31 am
I guess it will come down to a vote anyway, so this is somewhat pointless.  The Westerners on FSP cracker barrel have made it clear that even though they admit there is only one strictly logical reason that the western states are inherently better for them than the east, it is a good reason, I suppose.  They favor the West because land is cheaper there, and they want to live on 100-200 or more acres.  

Can't argue with the cold hard facts, it is cheaper.   I personally don't see why anyone NEEDS 100 acres and that hadn't been answered yet last time I checked but perhaps I just need to catch up on my reading over there.  

Well, I believe that there are many logical reasons for choosing the west (and I've lived in the east all my life), but cheap land is one of those considerations for anyone.  I don't have a 1000 acre spread in mind, but I wouldn't mind being able to get a few acres for the kids to roam on without mortgaging my soul for it.

Land is a good bit cheaper here in the South Carolina midlands than it was in Northern Virginia, but being able to lower that mortgage would put some much-needed cash back in the bank for other things (like activism).
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Robert H. on January 02, 2003, 04:17:07 am
Keep talking.  I've got a lot of misconceptions by western country people about the East that I'd like to post  Most of them are equally silly.

Hmmm...some western misconceptions about the east:

1.  It's all one big, crowded city with no green growing things or open space in sight.
2.  Everyone is rude and in a constant hurry.
3.  The whole place is polluted.
4.  There are no relatively inexpensive places to live.
5.  Everyone has to wear a three-piece suit to work.
6.  Everyone is money and power hungry.

Yes, there are a number of misconceptions on both sides.  On the whole, however, I believe that Southerners and Westerners are the brunt of more misconceptions than those living in the northeast.  When's the last time you heard a mainstream comic joke about a northeasterner as opposed to joking about Southern "hicks" and "rednecks," or Western "dirt farmers" and "sheep-herders?"
Title: Re:Air travel-land area considerations
Post by: varrin on January 02, 2003, 11:11:20 am
Except Deleware.  It doesn't have any air service.  You'll have to drive to Philly or BWI (which both have great air service).

V-

Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Zxcv on January 02, 2003, 12:25:25 pm
Well, Robert, I found some. Here's what a good old boy posted on another forum, you'll probably enjoy these. I did...   :D

-----------------------------

Because of misunderstandings that frequently develop
when Yankees cross states such as North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, and Georgia those states' Tourism Councils have adopted a new policy. In an effort to help outsiders understand the rural Southerner's mind, the following list will be handed to each person as they enter the State.

1. That slope-shouldered farm boy did more work before breakfast than you do all week at the gym.

2. It's called a 'gravel road.' No matter how slow you drive, you're going to get dust on your Navigator. I have a four wheel drive because I need it. Drive it or get it out of the way.

3. The red dirt - it's called clay. Red Georgia clay. If you like the color, don't wash your car for a couple weeks - it'll be permanent. The big lumps of it - they're called "clods."

4 . We all started hunting and fishing when we were seven years old. Yeah, we saw Bambi. We got over it.

5 . Any references to "corn fed" when talking about our women will get you whipped...by our women.

6 . Go ahead and bring your $600 Orvis Fly Rod. Don't cry if a flathead breaks it off at the handle. We have a name for those little 13-inch trout you fish for...
bait.

7 . Pull your pants up. You look like an idiot.

8. Men, if you want to wear earrings, pierce your nose and whatevers, and wear your hair long - go right ahead but if we call you ma'am, don't be offended.

9. If that cell phone rings while a bunch of mallards are making their final approach, we will shoot it. You might want to ensure it's not up to your ear at the time.

10. No, there's no "Vegetarian Special" on the menu. Order steak. Order it rare. Or, you can order the Chef's Salad and pick off the two pounds of ham and turkey.

11. Tea - yeah, we have tea. It comes in a glass over ice and is sweet. You want it hot - sit it in the sun. You want it unsweetened - add a lot of water.

12. You bring Coke into my house, it better be brown, wet, and served over ice.

13 . So you have a sixty thousand dollar car. We're real impressed. We have quarter of a million dollar combines that we use two weeks a year.

14. Let's get this straight. We have one stoplight in town. We stop when it's red. We may even stop when it's yellow.

15. Our women hunt, fish, and drive trucks - because they want to. So, you're a feminist. Isn't that cute?

16. We eat dinner together with our families, we pray before we eat (yeah, even breakfast), we go to church on Wednesdays and Sundays, we go to high school football games on Friday nights, we still address our seniors with 'yes sirs' and 'yes ma'ams', and we sometimes still take Sunday drives around town to see friends and neighbors.

17. We don't do "hurry up" well.

18. Greens - yeah, we have greens, but you don't putt on them. You boil them with either saltback or a ham hock.

19. Yeah, we eat catfish, bass, bream, and carp, too. You really want sushi and caviar? It's available at the bait shop.

20 . They are pigs. That's what they smell like. Get over it. Don't like it? Interstate 95 goes two ways! Interstate 40 goes the other two. Pick one.

21. Grits are corn. You put butter, salt, and pepper on them. You want to put milk and sugar on them - then you want cream of wheat - go to Kansas. That would be
I-40 West.

22. The "Opener" refers to the first day of deer season. It's a religious holiday. You can get breakfast at the church.

23. So every person in every pickup waves? Yeah, it's called being friendly. Understand the concept?

24. Yeah, we have golf courses. Don't hit in the water hazards. It spooks the fish - and if you hit it in the rough, we have these things called Diamondbacks, and they're not baseball players.

25. That Highway Patrol Officer that just pulled you over for driving like an idiot...his name is "Sir"...no matter how old he is.

26. We have lots of pine trees. They have sap. It drips from them. You park your Navigator under them, and they'll leave a logo on your hood.

27. You burn an American flag in our state - you get beat up. No questions. The liberal contingent of our state legislatures (all 4 of them) enacted a measure to stop this. There is now a $10 fine for beating the
person up.

Now, enjoy your visit... I emphasize - "VISIT"




Title: Re:Best state to get a foothold in - and choosing the footholds.
Post by: Zxcv on January 02, 2003, 01:24:12 pm
I think the disagreement between Joe and Irish can be explained.

Joe is correct, larger population cities correlate with more statism.

Irish is right, the more urban Idaho is less statist than Vermont.

The explanation is that there are multiple factors that influence statism. City populations are just one of them.

Idaho is a western state, and these states still have a reflection of the old days when people came out to be free. Idaho particularly has garnered a peculiar reputation that is likely to be off-putting to statist individuals. And finally, Idaho does have wide-open spaces even if it has more urban populations; their urban populations probably spend a lot of time out in the boonies, one reason they are in Idaho. So even if they have their city jobs they may philosophically be rural types to a large extent. And there is simple inertia; it may take a while for statism to build up.

All these factors contribute to whether people are statist or not, and apparently they overwhelm the fact that Idaho is more urban.

As to large city populations making FSP moot, I disagree, for these reasons.

1) We now know what people did not know in the 19th century, when some of these other cities were growing. We can guard against creeping statism, and impose legal and cultural barriers to it. It is a lot easier to prevent something happening like this, than to tear it down once it is established.

2) We can actively encourage freedom-seeking immigrants and discourage statists.

3) We will be working to reduce the influence of institutions that create statists, i.e. government schools.


Quote
Percentage of state population in cities of more than 13,000 people.
12%  Vermont  (71,995 of 608,827)
17%  Delaware  (133,346 of 783,600)...

Joe, can you explain this ranking to me? Is Delaware so low because Wilmington proper has a small population while the metropolitan area is large? We need a metropolitan area ranking that is more representative of whether the city is large or not. I know a hell of a lot more than 17% of people in Delaware live in big cities.

Also what is MSA, PMSA and CMSA?
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: TedApelt on January 02, 2003, 01:26:44 pm
Ted,
I thought about starting a "Misconceptions about the East by Westerners but I figured it would best be done by somebody from the Eastern cities. Go for it. ;D

I just did.
Title: Re:Best state to get a foothold in - and choosing the footholds.
Post by: JasonPSorens on January 02, 2003, 01:54:13 pm
The best measure is "Urb," the urbanization variable on the State Data page, taken from the 2000 Census figures.  It includes as urbanized population suburbs and other dense areas that are outside the city limits of large incorporated cities.
Title: Re:Best state to get a foothold in - and choosing the footholds.
Post by: Solitar on January 02, 2003, 08:55:19 pm
Zxcv,
For that ranking by percent in cities below a threshold, I simply added up the populations of the cities above that threshold. Wilmington surprised me that the "City" according to the Census, has so few people. These are the populations which the Mayors and councils would be "responsible" to or for. See this link.
http://www.ci.wilmington.de.us/demographics.htm
The rest are either smaller incorporated cities or their local government is the County.
Wilmington: 72,664
Dover: 32,135
Newark: 28,547
(There are no other "cities" over 10,000)

Census definitions of CMSA, PMSA, and MSA are at:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metroarea.html
(Which has lots of other definitions if you are curious.)
I got there by going to the bottom of the page at American Factfinder and choosing "M" for MSA
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet?_lang=en
There are independent MSA's and the PMSA's make up the CMSA.
They do include entire counties around a city and thus a lot of potentially "rural" people.
Definitions of Rural and Urban, etc. are found here
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua_2k.html
and here is a piece of the entire Index
http://www.census.gov/acsd/www/sub_u_v.htm

In the following table I've the percent of the total population after the category. In other words the Percent of Total Population which is "Inside Urban Clusters" is under the "UrbClu%" and the Percent of Total Population which is "Inside Urbanized Areas" is under the "UrbArea%". (note that the Census states "Urbanized" and not "Urban" when referring to those areas. The above Census links define these as follows:
Quote
"For Census 2000, the Census Bureau classifies as "urban" all territory, population, and housing units located within an urbanized area (UA) or an urban cluster (UC). It delineates UA and UC boundaries to encompass densely settled territory, which consists of: core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile.  In addition, under certain conditions, less densely settled territory may be part of each UA or UC. The Census Bureau's classification of "rural" consists of all territory, population, and housing units located outside of UAs and UCs."
Note that Wyoming has the greatest percentage "Inside Urban Clusters".  :-\

Here are Census numbers for Urban
StateTotal:UrbanUrban%InUrbAreaUrbArea%InUrb.Clu.UrbClu%
VT608,827232,55038.2%105,57317.3%126,97720.9%
ME1,274,923512,59240.2%313,97524.6%198,61715.6%
SD754,844391,93651.9%194,38225.8%197,55426.2%
MT902,195487,46554.0%233,96925.9%253,49628.1%
ND642,200358,39455.8%230,21735.8%128,17720.0%
NH1,235,786731,35259.2%550,94044.6%180,41214.6%
WY493,782322,07365.2%125,70625.5%196,36739.8%
AK626,932411,95565.7%278,01344.3%133,94221.4%
ID1,293,953859,10466.4%604,13846.7%254,96619.7%
DE783,600627,04580.0%531,12767.8%95,91812.2%
In the following table I've the percent of the total population after the category. In other words the Percent of Total Population which is "Farm" is under the "Farm%" and the Percent of Total Population which is "NonFarm" is under the "NonFarm%".

Here are Census numbers for Rural, Farm, and NonFarm
StateTotal:RuralRural%FarmFarm%NonFarmNonFarm%
VT608,827376,27761.8%11,2021.8%365,07560.0%
ME1,274,923762,33159.8%11,0160.9%751,31558.9%
SD754,844362,90848.1%58,2407.7%304,66840.4%
MT902,195414,73046.0%39,9304.4%374,80041.5%
ND642,200283,80644.2%43,8256.8%239,98137.4%
NH1,235,786504,43440.8%4,5990.4%499,83540.4%
WY493,782171,70934.8%15,1503.1%156,55931.7%
AK626,932214,97734.3%1,2240.2%213,75334.1%
ID1,293,953434,84933.6%38,9393.0%395,91030.6%
DE783,600156,55520.0%4,8510.6%151,70419.4%
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Solitar on January 03, 2003, 07:56:23 am
Robert may be quite correct in the following:
Quote
Do you really think that people in Chicago, New York, Seattle, Miami, or Los Angeles are going to be impressed with libertarian reforms in Manchester?

This may be true since even many here apparently don't regard any city under a few hundred thousand as not really a city and thus not really much of a challenge (see their arguments for choosing Delaware to prove their point). But again as some of us stress, the goal is to get the Free State to work. Picking an incredibly tough opponent may be great for glory if you win, but what does it get you when you lose? Even Cheyenne or Manchester are going to be much tougher opposition to Freedom than most anyone here fathoms.

For Census data to back up the above numbers regarding urban and rural, farm and non farm
see this thread
Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5&action=display&threadid=569
Title: Re:Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
Post by: Zxcv on January 03, 2003, 02:53:46 pm
Jason, I looked at the definition of "Urb" on the state data page and it said:

Urb=urban population as a % of total population, 2000 Census

As a general comment it would be a good idea to put the links to the data right in the definitions (some of them have them).

Joe, this is difficult stuff to plow through. I was trying to find definitions, and found this:

Quote
Urban Area
Collective term referring to all areas that are urban. For Census 2000, there are two types of urban areas: urban clusters and urbanized areas.

Urban Cluster
A densely settled territory that has at least 2,500 people but fewer than 50,000. New for Census 2000.

Urbanized area
(UA) An area consisting of a central place(s) and adjacent territory with a general population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile of land area that together have a minimum residential population of at least 50,000 people. The Census Bureau uses published criteria to determine the qualification and boundaries of UAs.

As far as I'm concerned, for the purposes of the Free State Project: Urban clusters good; urbanized clusters bad!

Sorting (so good is on top) your table by the desirable small-city urbanization (Urban Clusters) percentages we have:
(BTW Joe how did you get your tables to line up nicely in columns?)

State InUrb.Clu. UrbClu%
WY 196,367 39.8%
MT  253,496 28.1%
SD 197,554 26.2%
AK 133,942 21.4%
VT 126,977 20.9%
ND 128,177 20.0%
ID 254,966 19.7%
ME 198,617 15.6%
NH 180,412 14.6%
DE 95,918 12.2%

Sorting in reverse order (so good is still on top) for undesireable large city urbanization percentages, we have:

State InUrbArea UrbArea%
VT 105,573 17.3%
ME 313,975 24.6%
WY 125,706 25.5%
SD 194,382 25.8%
MT 233,969 25.9%
ND 230,217 35.8%
AK 278,013 44.3%
NH 550,940 44.6%
ID 604,138 46.7%
DE 531,127 67.8%

What's with Wyoming on this last measure? Are they adding together Cheyenne and Casper? At any rate Wyoming has no cities large enough to cause FSP indigestion in passing freedom-friendly legislation, while Delaware looks pretty indigestible!

Personally, I don't see how FSP has a prayer in Delaware.

I tried to make these jive with the "Urb" measure on the state data page, but it is apparently a cruder measure that combines all types of urbanization. It makes Wyoming look one of the worst, while with these two more refined measures Wyoming is arguably the best. VT and SD also look good here.
Title: Re:Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
Post by: JasonPSorens on January 03, 2003, 03:24:01 pm
Yes, the State Data page puts together urban clusters and urbanized areas.  I still think this is probably the right solution; how are urban clusters good?!
Title: Re:Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
Post by: Zxcv on January 03, 2003, 05:00:31 pm
Well, it's just my opinion! But to me, they provide the amenities, employment opportunities, housing, etc. (some of them, anyway - these little cities aren't exactly cosmopolitan!  ;) ) that we look for in cities without having enough population to suffer the statist tendencies that large cities often have. They also make campaigning easier.

I thought from reading around here that small cities were recognized to be about optimum for us (all other factors being equal). Or am I missing something? If some other population configuration is better for us, please let me know!
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Zxcv on January 03, 2003, 05:26:18 pm
Why dredge up this old thread, Joe? Aren't we juggling enough as it is?  :)

Just on the matter of showcases, I think it is a priority - not as much as having success in the first place, but still somewhat important.

I have a feeling that North Dakota won't be our state, but if we do go with Wyoming or Montana or South Dakota and are successful, North Dakota may well follow our example, in order to reverse its population decline...
Title: Re:Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
Post by: JasonPSorens on January 03, 2003, 08:00:58 pm
Aha, I see what you mean, Zxcv.  But I think somewhat dense small towns can be even more statist than big cities sometimes.  For example, such towns are usually more restrictive in restrictions on architecture, signs, and such things, putatively to preserve their historic character.  <shrug> I guess you could go both ways on that.  Also, I wouldn't typically think of towns under 50,000 as having a whole lot of amenities. ;)  I've lived in towns of various sizes (from 5000 to 3 million), and I'd say once you get up around 40,000 towns start to become cities in the ordinary sense of the word.  But everyone has a different idea about this, apparently.
Title: Re:Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
Post by: Zxcv on January 03, 2003, 10:12:10 pm
Usually when I say "amenities", I mean a place I can get a decent hamburger and a beer.   :D

Slightly more seriously, I did a google on Wyoming+art+sculpture and got 46,000 hits. There must be something out there... of course Wyoming artists might not have the requisite lisp, so maybe they are not serious.  ;)

I see your point on historic preservation (although when I look for my town I will be wanting to see an occasional dead car just to make sure they are serious about freedom, ha ha). But this historic preservation is a fairly minor tyrrany. When we are looking to pass an end to regulatory takings, gun control or homeschooling regulations, or removing charity from government, those small cities and towns should be more friendly to us than the big cities. Don't know about drugs, though...
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: mactruk on January 05, 2003, 09:00:56 pm
  My 2 cents.  I live in Montana and it would be nice if people from the east or big cities would just stay there.  
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Zxcv on January 06, 2003, 01:50:59 am
Yeah, I've run into an example or two of eastern or California arrogance. It's pretty stupid.

Quote
Yet there are people from cities and even from eastern cities who've come here, watched, listened, read the old histories, talked to the oldtimers and managed to fit in. But they are rare.

When we move to our chosen state (and I mean everyone, not just easterners), we need to make an extra effort to learn the local ways, read the history and the novels set in that area, and just try to appreciate folks. If you really are having a problem with moving there or with liking the place, or if you just want to stay in a little outlander ghetto somewhere, maybe you'd better not come.

I know I've seen fair number of Californians move to Oregon, and I'd just wish they had taken the time to read Oregon novels like Ken Keysey's Sometimes a Great Notion or Craig Leslie's Winterkill, or that old classic history/guide Oregon For The Curious, so at least they'd have a clue.

We may have more trouble with our own arrogance than we have with the public employee unions. We'll just have to work on it...
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Zack Bass on January 06, 2003, 03:16:03 am
 ... if you just want to stay in a little outlander ghetto somewhere, maybe you'd better not come.

This is the second subject I've found on which a lot of Porcupines seem to be less liberty-minded than current U.S. law.

How about if I am allowed to move any damn place I please, as long as I own the property or someone will rent to me?  And how about if I have the same rights, when I get there, as anyone who happens to have lived there for 40 years?  Even if I don't choose to change my accent or my beliefs or my ways.  Even if I choose to live in a ghetto with other liberty-minded folks.

Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: cathleeninsc on January 06, 2003, 09:38:07 am
Living in liberty is your goal, and mine as well. The process of effecting change is entirely different. Americans have a great deal of experience at making enemies. We need to try something different. Let's be effective in our actions so that the liberty that we want to live in is available as soon as possible. As an FSP member, I don't see that being left alone is an option for quite some time. We have to do something and I intend to create a network of friends here and in the state we select to help me get there quickly.

In the end, I may crawl in a hole. I have had a premonition that I will be a little old lady with a shotgun, standing at the end of my drive telling everyone to "git off my land".

Cathleen in SC

                             
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Zxcv on January 06, 2003, 01:08:49 pm
Zack, in what sense is my suggestion less liberty oriented? You can do what you want. You can take my suggestion or leave it. I am forcing nothing on you.

What a strange conception of liberty, you seem to have.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Zack Bass on January 06, 2003, 04:14:32 pm
Zack, in what sense is my suggestion less liberty oriented? You can do what you want. You can take my suggestion or leave it. I am forcing nothing on you.

Of course you're right.  Sorry, but that attitude just rubs me the wrong way.  Yes, it is only a suggestion, not an infringement on my Liberty.  I felt the same way when the black guy moved in across the street.

Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: mactruk on January 06, 2003, 04:20:13 pm
 I want to put in one more cent.  The biggest problem city population types have when they move to a small or rual areas is to be able to rely on your nieghbors as opposed to government.  If the power is out or you need the police you must be able to deal with it on your own until help comes,  maybe for days.  Most city people come here and the first thing they want done is the expansion of government services and thus higher taxes.  If a place in the west is chosen it might be nice to hold - how to cope classes first.  
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: cathleeninsc on January 06, 2003, 05:38:19 pm
I would appreciate such classes.  I don't know how to winterize the house or car. I don't even know what to look for in a house that would make it practical or identify the impractical for being in the rural north, east or west.

Cathleen in SC
Title: Re:Air travel-land area considerations
Post by: freedomroad on January 08, 2003, 05:30:01 am
Except Deleware.  It doesn't have any air service.  You'll have to drive to Philly or BWI (which both have great air service).

V-



Really?  So if I owned a personal plane I would have to store it in PA  or MD?
Title: Re:Air travel-land area considerations
Post by: varrin on January 08, 2003, 03:44:16 pm
In all my discussions of air service, I'm speaking of scheduled commercial air service.  Flying your own plane isn't really consider service since it's not really a service to anyone but yourself.  There are airports in DE, just none with commercial air service.  So if you want to buy an airline ticket out of DE, you're out of luck.

If anyone in the FSP is interested in starting an airline, let me know ;-)

V-

Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Robert H. on January 11, 2003, 04:04:25 am
Well, Robert, I found some. Here's what a good old boy posted on another forum, you'll probably enjoy these. I did...   :D

Zxcv,

Thanks, I've seen these before and thought they were hilarious, but I'd lost my copy.

DakotaBound once posted a series of regulations for conducting yourself in North Dakota (and the consequences for not doing so, which were all pretty much the same - with varying degrees of intensity) on the Yahoo list and they were hilarious as well.  As luck would have it, I can't find those either at the moment.

I'll keep looking.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Zxcv on January 11, 2003, 06:50:27 pm
Huh, your mention of North Dakota and the South made me think of the "Wild and Free Pigs"! Ever read about the "Wild and Free Pigs"? A great story:

http://www.sepschool.org/TestPages/Wild_Pigs.htm
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Kelton on January 17, 2003, 01:27:05 am
One of the trendiest events in the whole country is happening right now, and it's not going- on in the east, and it's not happening in a big city.

http://movies.yahoo.com/hv/sundance/ (http://movies.yahoo.com/hv/sundance/)

  Just think if you lived in Southern Idaho or Western Wyoming right now.  You wouldn't even have to fly there, you could drive out tomorrow and spend the weekend schmoozing with the Hollywood stars in Park city, you could go shopping at DKNY or one of dozens of other trendy stores in town, stop  at one of numerous restaurants for some fine culinary cuisine, or even go visit Robert Redford's Sundance resort, all just before strapping on some skiis and hitting the slopes and experiencing "The Greatest Snow on Earth"  If you didn't like skiing with all those Hollywood stars, don't fear, there are 4 other world- class ski resorts in the area, including some Olympic venues, (you remember Salt Lake City hosted the world for the 2002 Winter Olympic games-- it's a quick drive a little further west if you want to check it out, you know, if you would rather spend a couple of hundred dollars less per night for a room, but don't worry, even if on a budget,  Salt Lake is known for its luxurious 5 star hotels and restaurants, it's a relatively clean and safe city too and you can find decent accommodations on a budget too).

This isn't just what I've heard, I've been there, done that, and it's all lots of fun, summertime too, and really not that much of a drive, especially with all the new freeways everywhere in the whole vicinity.  
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Kelton on January 17, 2003, 05:20:26 am
Very interesting article in Colorado Central Magazine, June 1996 page 13.

Some excerpts:

"From Thomas Jefferson to William Jennings Bryan, anti-urbanism has been a mainstay of American political thought. It was only during the New Deal, led and conceptualized largely by urbanites, that cities such as New York began to move from exceptions to trend-setters."

On the more recent trend of people migrating out of urban areas and populating rural areas:
 
"The new migrants, notes William Frey, a demographer at the University of Michigan, tend to be older, less affluent and less well educated, and often close to retirement age. Roughly one-fourth of people moving into Colorado, for example, are older than 55; the migration has been so much older than predicted that the anticipated pressure on many school districts there has not materialized."



online source:
http://www.cozine.com/archive/cc1996/00280137.htm (http://www.cozine.com/archive/cc1996/00280137.htm)

Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: DadELK68 on January 17, 2003, 05:32:07 pm
This is a fun thread. Having grown up in Idaho, lived in California for 6 years and now living in New England for the last 10 years, I've actually found that people in California are just as likely as Easterners to say, "Oh, potatoes" or "I've been through the Midwest a couple of times".

I also agree that Westerners have many misconceptions about the East. It's different - different culture, different climate and ecology. I like the weather and mountains in the West much better than the East (the White Mountains seems like foothills).

However, the East is beautiful and not as densely settled as I had expected (especially Northern New England), and many people tend to be much more politically active - passionately so - and are more inclined to speak their minds than are many in the West. It's more polarized out here; democrats are proud of being liberals are often almost unabashed socialists, and republicans are staunchly conservative and more likely to express libertarian tendencies (particularly when it comes to economic issues) than anything I ever experienced in the West.

Some of the misperceptions listed, on both sides, do have some basis in reality. From where I grew up in the Boise Valley, it was a 4-6 hour drive to the next moderately metropolitan areas of Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Salt Lake City, or the panhandle small cities of Lewiston/Moscow/Coer d' Alene. Portland and Denver were 9 hours in opposite directions, and LA was something like 16 hours.

Face it, compared to the East that is isolated. From Southern NH (near Manchester, comparable in size to Boise) I'm 30 minutes or less driving time from Nashua, Concord, Salem, and Exeter (NH), Lowell, Lawrence (MA); less than an hour from Boston (MA) and Portsmouth (NH), within about two hours from the White Mountains, Dartmouth/Hanover (NH), Portland (ME), Providence (RI), Albany (NY), Hartford (CT) and Montpelier (VT), within 4 hours or less from Quebec (CAN), upstate or downeast ME, NYC (NY)...

Not that there's anything wrong with either East or West - it's strictly a matter of preference and priorities. I love Idaho and dream of possibly returning there eventually; meanwhile, there's no place in the East I'd rather live than NH.
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: Solitar on February 05, 2003, 06:36:17 am
Regarding physical smallness of a state...
Over on The Case for New Hampshire (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=797;start=45) thread Eric wrote:
Quote
My name is Eric, at the moment I live in Montana just minutes from Wyoming. I have resided here for approx. 15 years now.  My first 21 years, I grew up in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. I have personally experienced the best and worst of both places and I could speak for hours on the subject...
 Now we want to get together with our members to plan, rally and meet one another, in a place like New Hampshire the longest one would travel to get to say Concord is 2 Hrs. You could do this with very little notice even during the week. Now try Wyoming or Montana. You may want to take a day off of work (If you can afford to) and then plan to stay for the weekend as a 7 Hr trip is possible and 4 to 5 hrs is likely. These are very serious considerations if this project is going to come to fruition.

Eric is entirely correct in his concern over travel times. Montana is the worst of the states in that regard (Alaska is both worse and better -- depending on whether you stay in Anchorage or travel the rest of the state--see above).

The ease of making casual get-togethers with others of similar political thought should be an important consideration even if for only morale purposes. Sharing of experience over dinner, coffee, or drinks can be great to keep spirits up as well as for planning. Being able to quickly run down to the state capitol for appearances, testimony, to personally talk to legislators is also hugely valuable. To make filings with or get information from the many state bureacracies can be a hassle if you have to take time off work but it can be a barrier to political activism if you have to make an overnight trip because you have to appear personally or local activists in the capital city can't do it for you.

Alaska
Anchorage to Juneau is 740 miles. Fairbanks to Juneau is 860. In both cases it'd be better to fly (unless the weather is bad in which case let's hope for good telecommunications since you won't be driving either).

Montana
Billings to Helena is 240 miles-- less than four hours in good weather, a white knuckle all-day fight in rough winter weather. Kalispell to Helena is 200 miles. Kalispell to Billings is 440 miles. Folks in the hinterlands of the state will be unlikely to see each other except for annual summer gatherings or for really special meetings where overnight stays would be planned on -- as Eric notes above.

North Dakota
At least the state capitol is centrally located. Grand Forks to Bismarck is 270 miles--four to five hours in good weather, a white knuckle all-day fight in winter blizzards. Williston to Bismarck is 230 miles. Grafton to Bismarck is 300 miles -- a likely overnighter for the folks from the northeastern corner. Other mileages to Bismarck:  Minot is 110, Jamestown is100, Fargo is190.

Idaho
Coeur d'Alene to Boise is 450 miles--an overnighter for those in the northern panhandle. Boise to Idaho Falls is 280 miles or four to five hours in good weather, a white knuckle all-day fight in rough winter weather. Other mileages from Boise: Pocatello is 240, Lewiston is 270, Twin Falls is 130.

South Dakota
At least the state capitol is centrally located. Sioux Falls to Pierre is 230 miles-- less than four hours in good weather, a white knuckle all-day fight in bad winter weather.  Other mileages to Pierre: Vermillion is 270, Waterton is 190, Rapid City is 190, Aberdeen i s160. Belle Fourche is 250.

Wyoming
Casper to Cheyenne is 180 miles -- less than three hours in good weather, a white knuckle all-day fight in bad weather. Laramie to Cheyenne is 50 miles over the hill. Other mileages to Cheyenne: Sheridan is 330, Jackson i s 440, Cody is 400, Rock Springs is 260, and Evanston is 360.

Maine
Almost western in some respects, eastern in others. Portland to Augusta is 60 miles. Van Buren to Augusta is 270 miles or four to five hours in good weather, a white knuckle all-day fight in rough winter weather. Other mileages to Augusta: Bangor is 80, Eastport is 200, Houlton is 200, the southwest corner near Portsmouth NH is 120 miles.

Vermont
The state capitol is centrally located. Burlington to Montpelier is 40 miles (an easy trip for those folks). Bennington to Montpelier is 120 miles or two hours in good weather, a white knuckle half-day struggle in bad winter weather. Newport to Montpelier is 80. Newport to Bennington is 200 miles -- just shy of the corner to corner distance of 230 (Canaan to Pownal). Other distances to Montpelier: Rutland is 70, Brattleboro is 120, St Johnsbury is 40.

New Hampshire
Portsmouth to Concord is 50 miles. Berlin to Concord is 120 or two hours in good weather, a white knuckle half-day struggle in rough winter weather. Keene to Concord is 50 miles. Keene to Berlin is 170 --  just shy of the corner to corner distance of 190 (Ashuelot to The Glen). Other distances to Concord: Lebanon is 60, Nashua is 40, Manchester is 20.

Delaware
The capitol is centrally located. Wilmington to Dover is 50 miles. The southeast corner is 60 miles from Dover or a one hour trip in good weather (Delaware rarely gets bad weather like the rest of the candidate states though an inch of snow or quarter inch of ice brings them to their knees). Other distances to Dover: Newark is 45, Georgetown is 35, Milford is 20.
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: mtPete on February 06, 2003, 09:55:37 am
The thing you guys have to remember is that even though these rural states have a lot of land mass, most of the people live together in small towns and cities. In addition, you won't have miles of faceless urban sprawl to try and compaign in.

As far as the distance issues go, its a matter of perspective. To someone back east driving an hour or 2 to get the nearest own of good size may be unreasonable, but we don't even think twice about it. Its just the way it is.

But then, as mentioned above, the campaigners will work in their local comunitee, just the candidate and staff has to drive long distances. But that is no big deal because so do all the other candidates, its equal footing.

As far as reaching the rural folks, it is easy to do that by hitting the right comunitee events that happen around the year.

I'm from MT, sure its a long ways across, but most people don't endevor to drive from one end to the other, there is just no reason. I lived on the far eastern side of the state, its a closer drive to Bizmark than Helena. People in Missoula are closer to Spokane than I was to Helena. Many people are used to having a mall near by. For me, it was at best a 4 hour drive to the nearest mall. But many don't think twice about traveling that far for a weekend to go shopping. And a mall ain't all that important in the scheme of things.

In the end the two things you have to remember about MT. 1. the distances aren't a big deal to us. 2. Because of the long distances, and the liberal cities in the western half, MT is really two states, Western MT and Eastern MT. The political leanings are different in both.
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: Zxcv on February 06, 2003, 10:13:28 pm
Yeah mtPete, I think Joe is making far too much of this issue.

City offices, no effect at all. County offices, there is a little there, but just taking Sweetwater County (one of Wyoming's largest) as an example, it is maybe 100 miles from one end to another, with the vast majority of population strung out in a 40 mile section of I-80. Not such a big deal. And other counties have similar situations.

State rep races deal with similar-sized districts. Still not a problem.

State-wide races, yes, it is an issue. We may need to find someone with an airplane, oh well.

And opponents will have the same distance to deal with.

Joe says they will have the advantage due to more money they can spend on media ads and the like. But how important is this small effect compared to having to deal with a big statist mass of population in a large city? And a big-city statist media? The two don't even compare.

The money (for media) is a big help to our statist opponents in completely rural areas where door-to-door and meetings are impossible, but that is a small part of the population - and one more likely to vote with us anyway!

This issue will be handled the obvious way: we will need to find a driver for our statewide candidates. Just like our opponents handle it.
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: Robert H. on February 07, 2003, 01:34:35 am
State-wide races, yes, it is an issue. We may need to find someone with an airplane, oh well.

Most of our effective campaigning will still be conducted on the local level though, even with state-wide races (get out the vote drives and such).  If we are effective activists in our own communities, we should have a pretty good overall portrait of the political situation in the state, and we will know where we need to concentrate more effort to be successful.  Our plans for a non-partisan league will then come into play in uniting and targeting our efforts to the most needy areas.  This will allow us to use our resources to maximum effect as needed.

The only people who would really need to travel in these instances would be the candidates themselves and their closest support staffers.  Also, the candidates are likely going to have state-level party support, which will assist them in deferring expenses, and our non-partisan league will also be able to assist with some fund-raising to that end.  Free staters who live nearby to an area where a candidate is visiting could always show up for support, but I don't think we'd need any mass state-wide rallies for that.  We might want to schedule such a get-together in the state capital in the event of a win though.   ;D

There is also this very important point provided by Zxcv:

Quote
And opponents will have the same distance to deal with.

If it's a problem for us, it will likely be a problem for our opposition as well, and this is a critical point to keep in mind.  Also, if we are successful in the creation of our non-partisan league, then we may have the added coordination necessary to give us a greater advantage.

I believe Joe is correct when he writes about not being able to get together and socialize as easily over greater distances, and this may not make us as close-knit as might otherwise wish to be.  On the other hand though, I believe that the distances separating these western communities are a large part of what keeps them so free.  Since they're not constantly rubbing shoulders with one another, they have no reason to meddle with one another.

There's also something else to consider with regard to distance...

Keeping our forces more or less divided into local community groups (decentralized) will go a long way toward ensuring that corruption and domination do not rise up in our own ranks and ultimately spoil our efforts by either: 1) tainting the entire group with some scandal or infamous identity, or 2) turning us into a partisan vehicle and destroying our dedication to the pursuit of a liberty agenda above all else.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Kelton on February 11, 2003, 02:36:51 am
On the How would you vote if we voted today? (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1223;start=45) thread, Lars H from Oregon authored this quote that identifies some assumptions behind chosing New Hampshire. . .  
Quote
I've made my choices based on a few assumptions that seem to be shared to a lesser or greater extent among the membership here:
  • Armed secession is not an option.  The Feds have the guns & resources to quickly doom any such effort; talk of such is damnfoolishness.  This greatly reduces the value of international borders and coastal access in my calculus.
  • The endgame is not to have just a single Free State that sinks into a sea of Federal socialism, but to provide a beacon of freedom that spreads like wildfire to neighboring states.  This reduces my scoring of states that are essentially isolated (primarily the Western candidates).
  • An existing culture welcoming of freedom and of new residents is critical. . .
  • We need to avoid like the plague getting mired in white supremacist or radical militia movements.  Such involvements would immediately defeat our goal of being taken seriously as a force for positive change.  ID and MT, as well as AK and WY, harbor a few of these folks, and I'd be very nervous about them seeing us as folks with whom they could make common cause.

 I see using these quotes as a chance to expand on these ideas and offer another viewpoint to help identify some misconceptions about the West, even if only in some small way:

Quote
We need to avoid like the plague getting mired in white supremacist or radical militia movements.  Such involvements would immediately defeat our goal of being taken seriously as a force for positive change.  ID and MT, as well as AK and WY, harbor a few of these folks, and I'd be very nervous about them seeing us as folks with whom they could make common cause.

The Western states of Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Wyoming are guilty of harboring all sorts of folks, this is true, and there is a good reason for this, one is that the Western states, in general, are more open to outsiders.  This is largely a result of history. . .

    Many of the Native American tribes from Idaho to the Dakotas to Wyoming all used to live a little further East, that was until Westward expansion forced them to settle in and near vast areas that are now designated as reservations.  Resentment for the treatment of their ancestors is something that is spoken of softly, largely without anger by many Native Americans today who largely are in turmoil over how much to  follow the ways of their ancestors or adapt to the life of the 'white man', but it is commonly recognized that those who gain a college education and adapt to modern life are more empowered to take steps to preserve their native culture and even return to live on the reservations if they so choose.  Most Native Americans today are friendly and generous people who are deeply proud of their culture and will go out of their way to explain their own traditions and culture.
    Then there was that little upstart religion in upstate New York that was not tolerated there, so its adherents moved to adjoining states yet continued to be persecuted, until the legendary plight brought them to begin settling the Salt Lake Valley.  Say what you want about the closed- society of the 'Saints' in Utah, and the surrounding regions, but you can find almost any language on earth spoken even in small Mormon communities found throughout several Western states that send-out tens of thousands of missionaries throughout the world every year.
    These are only two broad examples in history , from among hundreds of other different groups of people who came from the East and helped settle the West.  There was an abundance of needed labor found in mining, timber, the railroad, cattle-grazing, as well as opportunities to farm under the homestead acts, which all offered many opportunites for immigrants of every different culture and nationality to work together and settle the West, as commoners.
    The territories of Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Wyoming also have a unique history in not participating in the Civil War, in fact, they were even places of refuge for those who refused to be conscripted into that bloody conflict, including former slaves who became cowboys and part of the legendary Old West.  For some people, especially in the South, the Civil War will just not die, but in the West, the Civil War is simply a part of history that is not only separated from residents by time, but by location.

    Now just to contrast, my next- door neighbors, who are Canadian, used to live in rural New Hampshire (in addition to many other places).  They related how even after a couple of years, they were still referred to as 'outsiders'.  They said that until people had two generations of family in the local cemetary, they would continue to be called outsiders.  Whether this anecdote is just an anomoly or more the rule and the norm in rural New England, it still illustrates why radical white racist groups are more inclined to set-up their operations in the West instead of Maine or Vermont or New Hampshire, even though they are far less diverse and have a much more concentrated white- caucasian population than any Western state.  
     In fact, as illustrated by population numbers, Wyoming, "The Equality State" and Idaho are actually the third most racially diverse states among our candidate states, even after discounting the Native American and hispanic populations in that count, just after Alaska and Delaware.  (See More and other criteria to weigh states (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=247;start=75) for a break- down of racial diversity among our candidate states).

Furthermore, it is a myth that these groups are only located in these Western states, as this map clearly shows:
ACTIVE U.S. HATE GROUPS IN 2001 (http://www.tolerance.org/maps/hate/)
(http://www.tolerance.org/images/maps/hate/hate_map.gif)

One thing that FSP activists are going to have to do in the state we chose, is to be sensitive to racial issues yet not be dissuaded by those who would accuse us of being racist, because the fact of the matter is, that no matter how hard you may try, there are many groups out there who only know how to use the charge of racism as the end- all to any argument.  Here is a short list of prominent groups and individuals who have been seriously labeled as racist, despite their best efforts to please everyone, (including Frosty The Snowman!) :
http://www.vdare.com/fulford/southern_poverty_center.htm (http://www.vdare.com/fulford/southern_poverty_center.htm)

As to militia groups, there are some who are certainly dangerous and to be avoided at all cost, yet there are many proud libertarians and even FSP members who are former militia members.  The militia movement has largely been detered (http://squawk.ca/lbo-talk/9907/0077.html)  into silence and inactivity , but among them are many patriotic and responsible individuals who are frustrated at the loss of liberty in this country and would gladly get behind a political cause instead of a military one if only shown the way, including many of those groups located in New England, including New Hampshire.
   It is also instructive to point- out that many militia groups are automatically labeled as racist or revolutionary, despite adequate proof to show that they are not.  I could show plenty of proof of this, suffice it to say that it  tends to be the rule when the national media covers anything milita- oriented.

Quote
 The endgame is not to have just a single Free State that sinks into a sea of Federal socialism, but to provide a beacon of freedom that spreads like wildfire to neighboring states.  This reduces my scoring of states that are essentially isolated (primarily the Western candidates).
   Throughout the West, the apparent isolation because of distance is somewhat deceiving to individuals who are used to the closer communities found in the East and elsewhere.  Where the Pony Express began as a Western necessity and the technologies that replaced it, from the telegraph and the railroad to the telephone and beyond were readily embraced in the West.  Many cities in the West were wired with electric lights and telephones before several large cities in the East.
 
   Regularly traveling large distances by road is also something taken for granted in the West, where freeway speed limits have not enjoyed popular political support.  A look at the freeway system in the United States reveals lots of straight lines over mountain and plains and freeways, whereas freeways in the East are built like rounded and jagged hubs around major metropolitan areas.  Just ask anyone who competed in high school or collegiate sports in the rural West and they will tell you that it involved lots and lots of road trips.  Just because places in the rural west are further spread- apart does not necessarily mean they are more isolated.  

     As to whether freeing just one state in the West will result in a wildfire of freedom spreading throughout other states, well. . . probably one of the most popular threads of all time here on this forum was a thread entitled Idaho+ that dealt with the subject of whether freeing one state would cause resultant freedom to spread to other states.  The majority opinion was yes, and especially applicable to the West because they share so many common grieviances with the Federal Government, especialy concerning public land and self- determination on environmental and agricultural issues.
 
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: freedomroad on February 11, 2003, 05:12:34 am
 
     In fact, as illustrated by population numbers, Wyoming, "The Equality State" and Idaho are actually the third most racially diverse states among our candidate states, even after discounting the Native American and hispanic populations in that count, just after Alaska and Delaware.  (See More and other criteria to weigh states (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=247;start=75) for a break- down of racial diversity among our candidate states).

Your map says that most of the hate groups are out east and a few in TX and CA, also.  I however, reject your map and everything it stands for.  Some of the groups included on it are not hate groups, to begin with.  The map is left-wing misuse and confuse information.  Also, the 2nd American Revolution, as a great libertarian once called it, did hurt the West a great deal.

However, thanks for trying to show something.  If people think the West is racist, for whatever reason, they are dead wrong.  If someone spends some time in the northern cities or the South they will see that the East is much more racist than the West.  I have always known this.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Robert H. on February 11, 2003, 06:53:57 am
The Western states of Idaho, Montana, Alaska and Wyoming are guilty of harboring all sorts of folks, this is true, and there is a good reason for this, one is that the Western states, in general, are more open to outsiders.  This is largely a result of history. . .

Very good point here, Exitus.  Out west, who a man or a woman was didn't depend so much on what family they were born into, what their holdings were, or where they were from as much as it depended upon how they had proven themselves.  Family money and prestige didn't save you from a drought in the Dakotas; hard work and preparation did, and the land was merciless on anyone who underestimated it.  

Individual merit apart from social or political hierarchy created an atmosphere of acceptance that still endures in the region to this day.  It may fade more as the west is settled more heavily, but for now, it still endures to some degree.

As for the war not "being over" in the South, and how it has shaped that region's character since, our distance from that conflict has eroded our appreciation for just how horrible it truly was in the Southern states and how deeply it marked them as a result.  Entire regions were destroyed and much of the adult male population decimated.  The Southern states were brutally suppressed in the name of "democracy," and then "reconstructed" and re-annexed to the Union as little better than conquered provinces.  

You'll generally find that wherever the war hit hardest back then, the people have forgotten the least to this day.  South Carolina and Georgia, for instance, two of more staunchly "southern" states today, suffered the brunt of the atrocities waged against their civilian populations by Sherman, and Vicksburg, Mississippi refused to celebrate the Fourth of July for 100 years.  The end result, among other things of course, was that Yankees were hated for many many, years in the South, and are still viewed with suspicion to this day.

American regionalism has always been a fascinating and complex study, and will probably only grow more so due to the introduction of so many new ethnic groups into our midst.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Zxcv on February 11, 2003, 02:14:02 pm
Great post, exitus, although as Keith suggests, SPLC is a federally-funded propaganda center. To make that intolerant bunch our "tolerance police" is a joke!

I personally had a run-in with racist skinheads in downtown Portland, Oregon, the most "progressive", "liberal" place around here (we are an "inter-racial" couple).

I've found small town westerners a lot of really friendly folks. Personally I think the statist media likes to scare people away from these freer states (and taking shots at freedom generally) by bringing out this racist smear.

I agree with what you say, Robert, about the South. Lately there's been some interesting ferment from there (from what I see on the Internet, anyway) of secessionist attitudes. I don't blame them...
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: anarchicluv on February 12, 2003, 03:54:49 am
I don't think that a large state would be as much of a hindrance as some seem to think.  Obviously more area and smaller population means more freedom; that's already been discussed.  Another thing to take into account is the fact that Westerners are used to driving longer distances.  I have lived in Salt Lake City all my life, and distance driving is a part of life out here.  Not that I live in a small city by any means, but I regularly travel long distances without really thinking much about it.

If a Western state is chosen, there will be plenty of volunteers willing to do the driving, and they won't even complain too much.   ;D

Jeremy
Title: cowboys?
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 12, 2003, 07:46:20 pm
Hello folks reality check.  I have had some cowboy friends did the cowboy thing drank had fun with them, even rode a one of those dam bulls once, but hello if you really think a group of pointy eared intellectuals can show up and make changes you are dreaming.

Remember you once saying that all political movements were started by intellectuals Jason and I do believe you are correct, but the groups we have as I have observed would be eaten alive by the cowboys.

My experience with cowboys is if you are not prepared to go into the bar or head off in the pick-up full of beer and be wild and crazy, you have no credibility.

How many in our group would even be brave enough to walk into a country and western bar?  Would know how to be accepted?  Could adapt to that kind of life style?  The folks from California, the ones from east?

Hey don't get me wrong I think cowboys and the way they live is great, but I am doutful that most of our numbers would be excepted by such a wild and free spirited group!
Title: Re: cowboys?
Post by: freedomroad on April 12, 2003, 10:47:37 pm
Remember you once saying that all political movements were started by intellectuals Jason and I do believe you are correct, but the groups we have as I have observed would be eaten alive by the cowboys.

Thanks for your comments.  Since I have lived in the rural South, which is almost exactly like the rural West, I have a few additional comments.  Note, I currently live in Memphis and it is hard to adapt to city life (but would be easy if there was not so much crime.)

Many rural people do not drink.  Seriously, this is true.  They either do not drink, or rarely drink.  Think of dry counties, almost all of them are rural counties.  Many rural people only drink on weekends.  Lots of rural people work 10 hour days in hard labor.  They read the paper in the morning, go to work, come home, and watch the news....but no drinking until the weekend.

Most rural people are not cowboys.  Most rural people are very friendly and helpful and have a good basic education.

I feel that your comment might have been directed at Wyoming, although I am not sure.  You do know that Wyoming is called the "Cowboy State," don't you?  What you have described is not anything like the average citizen of Wyoming.  I hope you understand that most of the people in all 10 of these states, with the exception of Delaware are rural/small town folks.  That is right, the number one or two type of music in all of these states is Country music.  They have country bars in Vermont, Alaska, Idaho, and Maine.

If the FSP picks Wyoming, I agree that some people might not think they will get along with the nice people in a town of 12,000-20,000.  These people can live in or about Cheyenne, Laramie, or Casper.  These towns are filled with people that previously lived in larger cities.  Laramie is a college town and has anti-war protests.  Casper is where people from Wyoming move to when they want to get away from rural life; when they want to move to the city.  Cheyenne is the center of an 80,000+ MSA, and a 170,000 extended MSA (all in Wyoming).  Cheyenne is 40 minutes from a CO MSA with 260,000 people.  Cheyenne is part of a trade region with over 3,000,000 people.  Cheyenne is used to people from this entire region visiting it, throughout the year.  Many people that live in Cheyenne travel to other parts of this region, throughout the year.  They understand what large cities are like.  They do not hate large cities.

Also, there is something you should know about all of Wyoming.  Wyoming is a tourism Mecca, because of its beauty and unbelievable list of exciting outdoor activities.  Many tourists decided that they will one day move to Wyoming.  And they do move.  These tourist are usually conservatives that enjoy the outdoors or classical liberals that like little taxes, little regulation, and nature.

The people of Wyoming got used to these tourists many years ago.  After all, Wyoming had the first national park, the first national monument, and the first national forest.  Wyoming has a long history of tourists.  Without tourism, Wyoming's economy would be hurting.  Wyomingites are not about to be mean to tourist or city folks unless they have to be.

Title: Re:How would you vote if we voted today?
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 13, 2003, 08:16:44 am
 My comments were not directed towards any state but to my experiences with cowboys, and the roudy lot that they are.  As a rule they not very accepting of outsiders.  I will concede that my experience is of a personal nature, but the nature of that lifestyle tends to exclude outsiders.

I'm hopeful that this thread will not like so many of the others become a battle between the states, it was not my intent in posting, but rather looking at the difficulties we will face as we migrate to our new home.
You are entitled to your thoughs, but geez does every post have to come down to that issue?

Would agree with your comments in general about rural folks, but I must confess until my children were of school age, and I become involved in cub scouts, little league, school activities, etc, I was pretty much considered and outsider there too.

Moving to a state with no friends, no contacts, and little understanding of the local culture, will be much more difficult than many have lead us to believe.  The outsider tag is a difficult one to loose, and until we do our chances of doing much political will be minimal.







Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zxcv on April 15, 2003, 02:59:29 pm
These "cowboys" you are talking about probably don't vote. Why worry about them? If you don't like rowdy bars, don't go to them.

There are groups in any state that would not accept me. That's OK, I wouldn't accept them, either.  ;)

I have to dispute your contention that being accepted is hard. I've lived in Wisconsin, Delaware, California, Florida, Washington (the state), Oregon, Hawaii. I spent extended periods of time in Maryland and Colorado. And I've done work in a lot more states. The only place I got even a remote feeling of being an outsider was Hawaii, and that was pretty minor, and I could always stick with others more like me. It is easy to be accepted. Just be nice and respectful to people, and act like you enjoy where you've moved, and don't use the phrase "where I come from..."

The only acceptance issue the FSP need concern itself about is how important it is that a candidate be a native. In some states this is more important; in those it means we have to rely more on local candidates to carry our flag of freedom. In others apparently it is not an issue. (Say, did Joe's research on the legislature note whether office-holders were native born? We need a row in the spreadsheet showing percent native born in the legislature...)

Hey, Keith, you wrote above:
Quote
Many rural people do not think.
You might want to consider reworking that...   ;)
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: freedomroad on April 15, 2003, 04:54:57 pm
The only acceptance issue the FSP need concern itself about is how important it is that a candidate be a native. In some states this is more important; in those it means we have to rely more on local candidates to carry our flag of freedom. In others apparently it is not an issue. (Say, did Joe's research on the legislature note whether office-holders were native born? We need a row in the spreadsheet showing percent native born in the legislature...)

The higher the percentage the better, right?  Or, wait, the lower?  No, that does not sound right.  maybe you should not add this row.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zxcv on April 15, 2003, 06:44:24 pm
I guess I don't get the point. Maybe there is some cliquishness (sp?) to some of these groups, but if they want to act that way, who cares? I don't feel I have to be accepted by, e.g., loggers (although the ones I know are pretty friendly, esp. if you have "I like Spotted Owls - Fried" on your bumper. )  ;)

I can see two items, the one I mentioned about specifically about the native status of candidates. The other is just a general acceptance in society. Are people going to snub you continually because of your skin color, or your accent? That would not be good, and if bad enough might drive people out to the extent the project is harmed. Do we have any states like that? I don't think so. Maybe Maine, but we aren't picking that state anyway. Among the leading candidates I see no problem, in general acceptance. Do you?

Seems like we're making a mountain out of a molehill, here.

BTW, just as an aside, I read an interesting article about a group called the "Pink Pistols", alternative sexuality types who are arming themselves. The leader of the local group said she had gotten more acceptance from conservative old gun owners at the range, etc., than she has gotten from liberal groups she associated with formerly before they knew she had become one of us gun nuts.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: phylinidaho on April 15, 2003, 07:09:17 pm

* Social Service workers, Health care workers and Educators. Many (most?) of these share a "socialist" outlook that is almost a unified we-against-them attitude and operating agenda. They team up against those advocating less social funding, less hate crime legislation or less gun control -- to name only a few hot issues. If you don't share their agenda, you are more than an outsider, you're the enemy.
If this is true, then I'd say it represents either a change in the last 20 years, or a difference between the Northwest and the rest of the country. In the 60s, 70s & 80s, I worked in Social Service in the state of WA. We were a diverse group, with many (most?) of us favoring welfare reform and self-determination. :)
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 16, 2003, 02:01:27 am
Zxcv,
I posted the other examples because there was a developing focus on "cowboys" as a whipping point by the non-westerners. Thus my point was that other regions, states, localities, etc. also have similar groups.

But the Wyoming CowBoys are the only ones who have 100% threatened to expel those of us who don't care to act like CowBoys - The Barrel of a Gun.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Robert H. on April 16, 2003, 05:21:53 am
I posted the other examples because there was a developing focus on "cowboys" as a whipping point by the non-westerners. Thus my point was that other regions, states, localities, etc. also have similar groups.

The union issue could also affect those living in smaller communities where a larger percentage of the inhabitants are employed "at the factory."  If that group also happens to be unionized, those who are not in the union may have to endure some hardships both on and off the job site.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 16, 2003, 01:18:10 pm

Zack, quit running on with your anarchistic takeover because such talk destroys what the FSP is trying to accomplish.


No it doesn't.
They will NEVER willingly stop imprisoning people for Victimless Crimes.  They LOVE their stinkin Land Use and Zoning Laws.
But we have a legal and moral right to STOP them from enforcing and enacting those Laws.  We CAN take over a County.  We CAN be a Majority, and it would be evil if we allowed the imprisoning to continue when we had the power to stop the madness.

If the FSP ever can succeed, there WILL come a time when we have the votes to control a County.  To suggest that we ought to go S LO O O W W then is contrary to the FSP goals.  Our goal IS to get rid of all the Victimless Crime Laws, for example, and it is dishonest to pretend that we will not.  The CowBoys in Wyoming do not want us to do that.  I recommend that we not go there to take over.  They recommend the same thing.

As for my being an anarchist, which you imply here and outright stated earlier, I believe you know for a fact that I have often stated that I am a minarchist.  I would LIKE to be an Anarchist, but not one of them has been able to explain to me how they can avoid having their lunch money being stolen every single day, without LAWS and a Police Force.  Best they've come up with is that everyone in town will be an Anarchist of Good Will... which sounds unstable at best.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: WyoRancher on April 16, 2003, 04:49:31 pm

Zack, quit running on with your anarchistic takeover because such talk destroys what the FSP is trying to accomplish.

"Destroyed" would be the appropriate tense.

Frankly, I'm getting very tired of the "cowboy bashing" going on in a number of these forums. I'm downright EMBARASSED to show any of the FSP messages to my compatriots here in Wyoming, Idaho or Montana, let alone give a link to your site.

If the FSP doesn't have the courage to prevent ONE MEMBER from destroying their reputation and giving everyone the impression that y'all are nothing but a bunch of drug pushers, how on Earth do you expect anyone to believe that you have the courage to make any effective change at the state level, where ever you go???

Vote New Hampshire. Please.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 16, 2003, 05:27:10 pm

If the FSP doesn't have the courage to prevent ONE MEMBER from destroying their reputation and giving everyone the impression that y'all are nothing but a bunch of drug pushers


Awesome!
In one half of a sentence you have shown that Wyomingites favor (1) imprisoning drug merchants and users, and (2) censorship.

The FSP could easily keep me off this Forum entirely.  But you don't seem to understand that that is exactly what we MEAN to oppose.  We have free discussion of ideas, within bounds of propriety decided by the Board. Content itself has not yet been grounds for dismissal.  If they kick me off for using profanity, that's fine, that's what they have said they forbid.  But they cannot kick someone off for disagreeing with you, ESPECIALLY IF THAT PERSON'S STATEMENTS AGREE WITH THE AIMS OF THE FREE STATE PROJECT.  Did you think maybe most of us were NOT in favor of legalizing drugs?  Most of us are libertarians, see.  As Joe used to be.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 16, 2003, 06:16:01 pm
Don't send 'em to the forum; send 'em to the website.  The forums are only for those who like to take & dish out a little punishment, unfortunately.  Believe it or not, this forum is one of the best of the bunch.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 16, 2003, 07:00:43 pm
When we get to the Free State, we'll have a more traditional, hierarchical, disciplined structure, as far as our political vehicles are concerned.  Those working counter to our purposes can be isolated & disowned at that point.

A lot of the best state research is being migrated to the website; of course, there's still some work to be done there!  Those of you with html'ing skills will want to sign up with Matt Cheselka's tech volunteers to work on this; write him at: mcheselka@freestateproject.org .
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: ZuG on April 16, 2003, 10:06:20 pm
Zack,

Grow up. Seriously. You're probably twice my age and you're acting like you're half of it.

WyoCowboy made a point that he would not welcome invasion or a hostile takeover, and would defend himself with whatever means necessary.

You keep trying to turn that around to make him sound like the bad guy, but everybody here can read exactly what was said and see that you're using false propaganda to your own means. We see through your little tricks. Enough, okay?
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zxcv on April 16, 2003, 10:14:49 pm
Quote
When we get to the Free State, we'll have a more traditional, hierarchical, disciplined structure, as far as our political vehicles are concerned.  Those working counter to our purposes can be isolated & disowned at that point.
It will probably be too late at that point.

Here is a scenario for you:

"We're here speaking with Jason Sorens, the founder of the Free State Project. Jason, what do you have to say about the many comments by prominent member Zack Bass that FSP should take over and invade the state? The people of our state want to know what you have in store for them. Will we see naked pot-smoking hippes dancing on the statehouse lawn?"

<1st possible answer from Jason>
"Er, that was the Free State Project. We didn't want to stifle alternative viewpoints in that organization. I don't advocate dancing naked on the statehouse lawn."

<2nd possible answer from Jason>
"Zack Bass is not a member, let alone a prominent member. We kicked him out when we decided he was either a federal agent - or addled - bent on destroying one of the last, best hopes for preserving freedom in this country. Last we heard, he is still on some beach down in Florida, antagonizing old ladies with his rants."
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Robert H. on April 16, 2003, 11:26:39 pm
WyoCowboy made a point that he would not welcome invasion or a hostile takeover, and would defend himself with whatever means necessary.

Which is one of the hallmarks of a truly individualistic and free people; a people that will stand firmly for individual sovereignty, without which liberty is impossible.

I can't understand how some among us here believe that a people ripe for domination could, in any way, be considered ideal partners for a liberty movement.  They can only be considered targets for domination.  After all, who do bullies usually target?  The strong or the weak?  Those who are prepared to defend themselves against all comers, or those who will allow others to ride roughshod over them?

And for any who might claim that take-over schemes are motivated only by the best of intentions ("liberation" and so forth), I would remind you that many (if not most) statists in this country have tried to justify their domination of others with very similar claims: "no child left behind," "social security," "welfare," etc...

Liberty requires a people who are principled, vigilant, and determined on all levels.  Can we really believe that anyone who is willing to stand idly by and let the FSP (or any other group) come in and dictate to them will miraculously grow a backbone later on and come to the defense of liberty when it's threatened?  

Surround yourself with sheep if you will, but don't be surprised if you get sheared.  Who's going to defend you?
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 12:48:13 am

I can't understand how some among us here believe that a people ripe for domination could, in any way, be considered ideal partners for a liberty movement.
  ....
Liberty requires a people who are principled, vigilant, and determined on all levels.  Can we really believe that anyone who is willing to stand idly by and let the FSP (or any other group) come in and dictate to them will miraculously grow a backbone later on and come to the defense of liberty when it's threatened?  


Every libertarian in this country has ALREADY let the Statists dictate to him - the Tyranny of the Majority.  If the Majority is Statist (which they are everywhere today) libertarians are in exactly the position you describe.  Of course, we don't "stand idly by," but there is nothing we can do, really, as has been proven by the record of the last 30 years.

The Statists have "taken over" and dictated to libertarians.
Are you saying that it would be immoral for a group of libertarians to move into a County in the chosen Free State and become the Majority and REPEAL the filthy Laws that are repressing them?
http://Secede.US

If the FSP decides to repudiate this strategy, then I will say no more about it here.  Until that time, don't tell people that my strategy is contrary to the aims of the Free State Project.

Sure, not all of us are libertarians, but so far the great majority of us have been, and honestly what do you think we WILL be pushing for when we begin to gain power in the Free State?  The FSP has made no particular declaration of what we will do when we arrive, except that we will agitate for Freedom, but be realistic.

We will never ever convince the Majority of the current residents of any State to repeal all the Victimless Crime Laws.  What we CAN do is create ONE SHINING BEACON where a man can be 50% Free (as far as State vs. County Law will allow), so many many more liberty lovers can have somewhere to GO and vote with their feet.  There is no such place anywhere in the world today, so they have no choice but to remain isolated and powerless.  When there is my single County beachhead, they can know that there is a place where they can have Freedom NOW!!  This will attract enough liberty lovers to become the Majority in the rest of the State - especially when the Statists begin moving out.

Polarization rocks!  All hail Eris!

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 12:56:30 am

WyoCowboy made a point that he would not welcome invasion or a hostile takeover, and would defend himself with whatever means necessary.

You keep trying to turn that around to make him sound like the bad guy, but everybody here can read exactly what was said and see that you're using false propaganda to your own means


I have never said that he said anything but what you just said he said.
That alone is enough.
Some people would WELCOME a takeover of their State by libertarians.  We call these people libertarians.
Some people LIKE the Laws they have now.  We call these people Statists.

There are lots of people in New Hampshire who will welcome a takeover of New Hampshire by libertarians.  I prefer Montana, and I am hoping to discover that there are lots of liberty lovers there too who yearn for liberation.

How would YOU feel if a bunch of libertarians came into YOUR State and repealed all of the Zoning Laws and Victimless Crime Laws and School Taxes?  Would that make you feel sad? :(  Or happy? :)

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Joe on April 17, 2003, 01:51:39 am
Robert wrote:
Quote
Liberty requires a people who are principled, vigilant, and determined on all levels.  Can we really believe that anyone who is willing to stand idly by and let the FSP (or any other group) come in and dictate to them will miraculously grow a backbone later on and come to the defense of liberty when it's threatened?
Many of us have been in groups who contentedly let anyone "take over" and do what others in that group don't want to be involved in. A few are left to do most or all of the work. Too often those group members don't even show up at meetings or activities, let alone run for offices. The "activists" who volunteer to fill offices and chair committees find themselves doing it by themselves or with very few close friends. Too often they burn out and quit. Or they get a power complex and enjoy running things and telling others what to do and when -- given they have some who let them do that.

Robert has a point about the latter sort. They are willing to be led by whoever pushes their buttons or offers them "security". Let the vigilance that Robert speaks of above slack off and you'll find these sheep following some other leader. That is how this nation has lost the freedoms it was born with. They are NOT the sort of people with whom a Free State can be built and maintained.

Quote
The union issue could also affect those living in smaller communities where a larger percentage of the inhabitants are employed "at the factory."  If that group also happens to be unionized, those who are not in the union may have to endure some hardships both on and off the job site.
And if the union is of miners, or oil workers or of teachers, or firemen, or police, or any other group that really does have political and/or economic power in a community then, when you cross them they can and will make your political and/or economic life difficult.

* Social Service workers, Health care workers and Educators. Many (most?) of these share a "socialist" outlook that is almost a unified we-against-them attitude and operating agenda. They team up against those advocating less social funding, less hate crime legislation or less gun control -- to name only a few hot issues. If you don't share their agenda, you are more than an outsider, you're the enemy.
If this is true, then I'd say it represents either a change in the last 20 years, or a difference between the Northwest and the rest of the country. In the 60s, 70s & 80s, I worked in Social Service in the state of WA. We were a diverse group, with many (most?) of us favoring welfare reform and self-determination. :)
There are a few in those agencies who favor self-determination. But there are many who work for or control those agencies whose mission and livlihood is "helping people". If you are perceived as a threat -- via legalizing drugs, guns, fireworks, "immoral behaviour" -- to the "welfare" of their charges or to the continuance of their social programs they will gang up and publicly scourge you as a threat to civilization as we know it.

Of the various groups written of above, I'd much rather entrust my freedom to those who might disagree with some of the liberties I want but will stand beside me in defense of those liberties because they too have liberties they need help in defending.

Yet you can push any group too far. Cowboys, miners, veterans and shootists may defend the liberty to smoke pot, but ask them to defend legalization of harder drugs and drug pushers or open borders which threaten their families and communities and they will be a formidable enemy you will wish you had not made.


If the FSP doesn't have the courage to prevent ONE MEMBER from destroying their reputation and giving everyone the impression that y'all are nothing but a bunch of drug pushers
Awesome!
In one half of a sentence you have shown that Wyomingites favor (1) imprisoning drug merchants and users, and (2) censorship.Did you think maybe most of us were NOT in favor of legalizing drugs?
...
  Most of us are libertarians, see.  As Joe used to be.
Correction. Most of us are, or should be, pragmatic classical liberals who want a Free State to succeed rather than yet another "Libertarian" exercise in political futility.
Thus saying that I "used to be" a libertarian is a very great compliment. It raises my credibility among the miners, cowboys, veterans, shootists, and other patriots I depend upon to help me defend our liberty.
Thank you!
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Robert H. on April 17, 2003, 02:03:32 am
Quote
The Statists have "taken over" and dictated to libertarians.
Are you saying that it would be immoral for a group of libertarians to move into a County in the chosen Free State and become the Majority and REPEAL the filthy Laws that are repressing them?

Well, it doesn't look like we're ever going to see agreement on the conceptual aspects of this issue given the degree of discussion that has taken place on the issue here and elsewhere.

So, failing that, let me ask once again if you really believe that the citizens and government of any state would be helpless before such a migration if they chose to oppose what you were up to?  The state legislature would likely just repeal your enactments, and if you gave them sufficient trouble, call in the state militia or the feds.  Again, you can't pretend that you'd be doing all of this in some sort of vaccum.

You'd be better off building an independent town from scratch.  You'd be surrounded by supporters (thus, you'd automatically be in the majority) and the take-over issue would be eliminated.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 02:35:27 am

You'd be better off building an independent town from scratch.  You'd be surrounded by supporters (thus, you'd automatically be in the majority) and the take-over issue would be eliminated.


We need a COUNTY in most places.  One Town has no power.  A Western Sheriff has enough power to assure me the Freedom I need to carry on the fight.
Of course, one way to take over a County is to create a Town with sufficient liberty-loving population.  And I think that is the way to go, in the West.

In New Hampshire, I'm not sure my strategy would work at all.  I get conflicting (or maybe just confusing) descriptions of how the power is distributed there.  I know for sure that a COUNTY in New Hampshire is useless, since the Sheriff has NO power.  Towns there have some autonomy, but it may not be much.  It seems that the STATE has all the REAL power in New Hampshire, and dictates how much School Tax the locals have to pay, for example.  This may be unconstitutional, and NH might have it declared so, in which case perhaps a Town in NH would be the way to go.  But to have a Town, you have to get permission from the STATE to create a new one, or you have to take over an existing one.  I agree that taking over an existing Town that has limited housing is probably not feasible; and the STATE is not going to grant us a Charter to create a Town.
That leaves only the Western County option - in Montana.
http://FreeMontana.com

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 02:53:03 am

Most of us are, or should be, pragmatic classical liberals who want a Free State to succeed rather than yet another "Libertarian" exercise in political futility.
Thus saying that I "used to be" a libertarian is a very great compliment. It raises my credibility among the miners, cowboys, veterans, shootists, and other patriots I depend upon to help me defend our liberty.
Thank you!

May I ask you, what is that "liberty" that they will help you defend?
What Freedom do you hope for in the Free State, that you don't have now?
I have a LOT of freedom now.  Florida has even effectively legalized polygamy within the last 20 years - as long as you don't marry anyone legally, you can have as many wives as you like - unlike Utah, which has imprisoned Tom Green for having "common-law" wives.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1339341.stm

I want MORE Freedom.  LOTS of it.  What do YOU want?

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 03:00:06 am

Why don't y'all take over one of the half dozen Florida Panhandle counties which have less than 15,000 people?


Sorry, it would be sweet, but Jason is right:  We need a STATE.
A County is the place to start, but lots of the Laws cannot be repealed except at the State level.  So it has to be a County in the chosen Free State.

Secession would get us the most power of all (e.g. no Federal drug laws or income tax), and a Free Country right next to the U.S. would be in an awesome trading position, but I don't know how to pull that off.  I DO know how to move a Majority into a low-population Western County.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 03:25:08 am

Most of us are, or should be, pragmatic classical liberals who want a Free State to succeed rather than yet another "Libertarian" exercise in political futility.


Okay.
Let's say we do that, and the Free State DOES succeed.
What then?
There are two possibilities from that point:

(1)  The Free State leaves in place many of the victimless Crime Laws the current residents so dearly love.
What the hell kind of Free State is that?  You are imprisoning people who are innocent of any wrongdoing.  If that is what the FSP is aiming for, I might as well stay home and avoid the heartbreak.

(2)  The Free State abolishes and repeals all Victimless Crime Laws, even though the (now outvoted) pre-Free State residents want them to stay in place.
In that case, we have (horrors!) TAKEN OVER - against the will of the Statists.

Do you honestly believe that we will have our successful Free State, AND it will continue to have Victimless Crime Laws for long?  I would not call that Successful.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Kelton Baker on April 17, 2003, 10:05:20 am
My personal favorite is #3:

3) work among people at the personal level and through mass-media campaigning to bring about a majority of voters and the population at large demanding the repeal of victimless crime laws.
 
Speak at community centers, get people within churches to present the message of libertarianism, distribute flyers, write letters to the editor, call-in on talk radio shows (overwhelm the station's lines with a group of callers),  stage protests.  Rally around local victims of this senselessness.  Alert people to the destruction of families that is occuring because of victimless crime laws.  Bring about a an awful sense of guilt in people in the populous to ever think that they supported such evil.  Buy space on a billboard,  distribute bumper stickers.  Form strategic alliances between people of other parties on the issues.

Even if it takes ten years begin serious change within a state, it will all be too slow for those of us who understand the dire need to do something now, but gives more hope than witnessing the present rate of things going backwards everyday.

There are signs of hope that it can be done, based on polls shown at the NORML website there is a majority in this country who favor medical marijuana laws --that's a good start.  I think most people are more libertarian in their personal opinions than the rhetoric of typical politicians says, they just lack the knowledge and understanding of how wrong most leaders today truly are.      

Try taking-over the debate before taking-over the reigns of power.  Considering the system of power in the world at-large, outside of a county or even of that of a state,  any other way is sure to bring about tragedy.  If a large part of a population, even if not a plurality, within a political entity is allowed to feel it is brought into subugation, they have higher policing authority on which to call which may be sympathetic to their cause.  If, however, a movement is brought about through a long and difficult struggle, where the victor is conceeded a win by the opposition, democratic institutions carry forward.  If a political entity is regarded as having been taken-over through illegitimate means (real or imagined), the opposition will not engage in arguments based upon principles, but will only see their opposition as an enemy.
I think that the lessons of history validate my point.
227
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: ZuG on April 17, 2003, 10:15:53 am
Zack Said:
Quote
How would YOU feel if a bunch of libertarians came into YOUR State and repealed all of the Zoning Laws and Victimless Crime Laws and School Taxes?  Would that make you feel sad?   Or happy?

I would be happy that things were changing, but pretty darn p'd off that a bunch of arrogant jerks thought they could come in and take over without consent of the people already there.

Another example. I'm happy that Afghanistan and Iraq were liberated, they were living under nasty totalitarian/violent anarchist systems for quite some time. However, I'm pretty pissed off about the way Bush is handling the situation and the reasons he had (versus the reasons he stated, many of which were shown to be false later) for freeing these countries.

We took over, won, and then basically walked away from Afghanistan with a propped up "president" who has no real authority whatsoever and a bunch of disillusioned people who actually believed that we might help. I have a strong feeling that we'll do the same for Iraq. Prop up a dummy president so we can have access to the oil and damn the people.

The ends don't always justify the means, Zack.

(edited to remove cursing)
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zxcv on April 17, 2003, 10:24:27 am
You've got the right idea, exitus. And I'll bet a majority of the FSP population agrees with you.

Of course, Zack only pretends he wants the end of victimless crime laws. What he really wants is the destruction of this project, which he is attempting by raising the ire of the people in the state we decide to move to.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 10:44:49 am
 ....
 I'm happy that Afghanistan and Iraq were liberated, they were living under nasty totalitarian/violent anarchist systems for quite some time. However, I'm pretty pissed off about the way Bush is handling the situation and the reasons he had (versus the reasons he stated, many of which were shown to be false later) for freeing these countries.


In the case of Iraq, I agree.  There was never a link to Terrorism in Iraq, until the recent capture of Abu Abbas - whom Clinton had already pardoned!!!!!!  Iraq has never even been one of the Arab-Muslim fundamentalist fanatic strongholds.  Saddam Hussein was one of the most secular rulers in the region.
Afghanistan was a different matter entirely.

Quote
We took over, won, and then basically walked away from Afghanistan with a propped up "president" who has no real authority whatsoever and a bunch of disillusioned people who actually believed that we might help. I have a strong feeling that we'll do the same for Iraq. Prop up a dummy president so we can have access to the oil and damn the people.


I don't favor putting in a propped-up "president."  I think that walking away is the proper action after winning such a war.  I mean just plain walk away the moment your objective is achieved - which was about a week ago in Iraq, when the Hussein Regime completely lost control of the country.  Just walk away, and let them sort it out.  Same in Afghanistan.  Let them know that, if they harbor Terrorists, or whatever it was we objected to, we will return again and again whenever it happens.  We walk away, and check back from time to time to see if they're doing something that threatens us again.  If they are, carpet bomb them again, with ZERO loss of American soldiers, and walk away.  After a few times there won't be many people in the country in favor of attracting our attention again.

As for the "we did it for access to the oil" crap, don't you think that $100,000,000,000 would buy a LOT of oil?  That's how much TAX MONEY we're planning to spend on Iraq, without any oil or anything else in return!  Obviously this was NOT for the oil, since that was always available on the open market.  Why in the world would we embargo the oil, if we wanted it so much?  We could have simply kept buying their oil these last dozen years, if that was the goal.
Oil is far too simplistic a paranoia for this situation.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: phylinidaho on April 17, 2003, 01:34:07 pm
You've got the right idea, exitus. And I'll bet a majority of the FSP population agrees with you.
I agree. If I had thought otherwise, I never would have signed up at a time when the membership was about one-tenth what it is now.
Quote
Of course, Zack only pretends he wants the end of victimless crime laws. What he really wants is the destruction of this project, which he is attempting by raising the ire of the people in the state we decide to move to.
I disagree. I think he is just having fun - not realizing the impact his craziness may have on first-time readers. Those who stay around long enough will know by his inconsistency that he is not to be taken seriously.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 02:13:42 pm

I disagree. I think he is just having fun


I'm not JUST having fun.

Quote

 - not realizing the impact his craziness may have on first-time readers.


What you're losing track of is whom we're targeting here.
You're looking at the residents of the chosen Free State.
I'm looking at people who have a motive to ACTUALLY MOVE for Freedom.  Those people are not your namby-pamby medical-marijuana-and-that's-enough timid guys.  They are the weirdos who are severely inconvenienced by current Laws and will be willing to sacrifice for Freedom.
The residents of the Free State will oppose repeal of their beloved Victimless Crime Laws, NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO HIDE YOUR INTENTIONS!  So it is useless to appeal to their better nature; they have none.
The people I'm talking to, on the other hand, will not be turned off by my straight talk.  They WILL, however, be turned off by talk of going S L O O O W W and allowing Victimless Crime Laws to continue to imprison us even after we become a Majority in a County.

And, I thought we had it settled, no personal attacks, you can point out flaws in my reasoning all you want, and express your opinion of my conclusions in any way you like, but it is not helpful to characterize me personally as crazy.

Quote

 Those who stay around long enough will know by his inconsistency that he is not to be taken seriously.


Oh, I am dead serious, in addition to having a bit of fun while I'm at it.  I have not taken any positions I do not agree with simply to stir up controversy... well, tongue-in-cheek a couple of times, but then it was obvious.

You have made a serious accusation.  So tell us EXACTLY WHAT HAVE I SAID THAT IS INCONSISTENT?
It is certainly possible that I have inadvertently done so, but not willy-nilly, as you imply.  Any of us can be guilty of error; you accuse me of worse than a simple mistake or typo, you are saying that I am so often inconsistent that it is insanity or insincerity.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: freedomroad on April 17, 2003, 02:39:58 pm
You have made a serious accusation.  So tell us EXACTLY WHAT HAVE I SAID THAT IS INCONSISTENT?
It is certainly possible that I have inadvertently done so, but not willy-nilly, as you imply.  Any of us can be guilty of error; you accuse me of worse than a simple mistake or typo, you are saying that I am so often inconsistent that it is insanity or insincerity.

Zack, all of this is off-topic.  In fact, the only reason this thread was created is because someone else was posting off-topic in another thread.  Now you are posting off-topic in here.  I am not going to report you, but please stop this nonsense.  Stick to the message.  This thread is not about you or how quickly to move.  This thread is about groups that stick together and will require a greater understanding of before we are able to think like them and explain our message to.

Thank you, Zack.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 02:47:25 pm

Zack, all of this is off-topic.  In fact, the only reason this thread was created is because someone else was posting off-topic in another thread.  Now you are posting off-topic in here.  I am not going to report you, but please stop this nonsense.  Stick to the message.  This thread is not about you or how quickly to move.  This thread is about groups that stick together and will require a greater understanding of before we are able to think like them and explain our message to.


This thread is about CowBoys who will oppose us by Force even though we are peacefully going about our lawful business.  That naturally brings up the question of whether to be intimidated by them or to have some other reaction to their aggressive threats.

Not one single post of mine was anything but a RESPONSE to another post, exactly addressing the subject of that post.  If that subject is something you consider off-topic, talk to the one who posted THAT, not to me.  I did not insert a change of subject.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Hank on April 17, 2003, 02:49:27 pm
Quote
I'm looking at people who have a motive to ACTUALLY MOVE for Freedom.  Those people are not your namby-pamby medical-marijuana-and-that's-enough timid guys.  They are the weirdos who are severely inconvenienced by current Laws and will be willing to sacrifice for Freedom.
We don't want drug pushers (pushing more than marijuana or codeine).
We don't want perverts flagrantly violating our community's moral standards with public Prostitution (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=514;start=60) and Indecent Exposure (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=128;start=210).
We don't want anarchists destroying our institutions and causing chaos.
You troublemakers can stay ON THE BEACH !!!!
You want to debate the above, take it to the above links.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: phylinidaho on April 17, 2003, 02:53:25 pm

I'm not JUST having fun.

Which is to say that you are having fun

Quote
What you're losing track of is whom we're targeting here.
You're looking at the residents of the chosen Free State.
Wrong! I'm looking at the intelligent liberty-minded people who have recognized the value of Jason's dreamchild.
Quote
I'm looking at people who have a motive to ACTUALLY MOVE for Freedom.  Those people are not your namby-pamby medical-marijuana-and-that's-enough timid guys.  They are the weirdos who are severely inconvenienced by current Laws and will be willing to sacrifice for Freedom.
I hope the "weirdos" are in the minority here. Otherwise, I find myself in the minority. IMO, it takes more courage to be willing to move S L O O O W W than it takes to rush in and try to cram your agenda down everyone's throats.
Quote
The residents of the Free State will oppose repeal of their beloved Victimless Crime Laws, NO MATTER HOW YOU TRY TO HIDE YOUR INTENTIONS!
I agree, if we are talking about the immediate future. That's why it is advisable to take time to build groundwork.
Quote
So it is useless to appeal to their better nature; they have none.
I respectfully disagree.
Quote
And, I thought we had it settled, no personal attacks, you can point out flaws in my reasoning all you want, and express your opinion of my conclusions in any way you like, but it is not helpful to characterize me personally as crazy.
Please re-read my statemen: "not realizing the impact his craziness may have on first-time readers. "  I did not call you crazy. I referred to your postings as "craziness". There is a difference.

Quote

 Those who stay around long enough will know by his inconsistency that he is not to be taken seriously.

Quote

Oh, I am dead serious, in addition to having a bit of fun while I'm at it.  I have not taken any positions I do not agree with simply to stir up controversy... well, tongue-in-cheek a couple of times, but then it was obvious.

You'd be surprised how many readers don't recognize obvious tongue-in-cheek.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: freedomroad on April 17, 2003, 02:54:11 pm
Quote
I'm looking at people who have a motive to ACTUALLY MOVE for Freedom.  Those people are not your namby-pamby medical-marijuana-and-that's-enough timid guys.  They are the weirdos who are severely inconvenienced by current Laws and will be willing to sacrifice for Freedom.
We don't want drug pushers (pushing more than marijuana or codeine).
We don't want perverts flagrantly violating our community's moral standards with public Prostitution (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=514;start=60) and Indecent Exposure (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=128;start=210).
We don't want anarchists destroying our institutions and causing chaos.
You troublemakers can stay ON THE BEACH !!!!
You want to debate the above, take it to the above links.

Other group that might stick together and be hard to reach with out message is gang members.

Hank, I do think it will be had if you try to legalize Ephedrine, either.  Maybe there are other drugs, maybe stronger types of wiskey that are now illegal.  Maybe, later we can do even more.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 03:03:38 pm

 Please re-read my statemen: "not realizing the impact his craziness may have on first-time readers. "  I did not call you crazy. I referred to your postings as "craziness". There is a difference.


OHHHH - you said "his craziness" when you meant to say "his postings' craziness."  A simple typo.

Quote

 Those who stay around long enough will know by his inconsistency that he is not to be taken seriously.


And see, you have forgotten to let me know where I have been inconsistent.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 03:05:58 pm

We don't want drug pushers (pushing more than marijuana or codeine).
We don't want perverts flagrantly violating our community's moral standards with public Prostitution (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=514;start=60) and Indecent Exposure (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=128;start=210).


Sorry, you are not entitled to imprison innocent people for these Victimless acts.  That would be immoral.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 17, 2003, 03:12:19 pm

I'm not JUST having fun.


Which is to say that you are having fun


Sure Phyllis, if you're not having fun, you're doing it wrong.  May I E-Mail you some jokes to cheer you up?  I really don't want to fight with you.  WyoHank, yeah, but not you.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: phylinidaho on April 17, 2003, 04:58:16 pm

Zack, all of this is off-topic.  
My apologies, FreedomRoad. I read this AFTER I posted my reply to Zack. If he wishes to continue, it will have to be privately.

Phyllis
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Hank on April 17, 2003, 05:49:32 pm
Quote
Hank, I do think it will be had if you try to legalize Ephedrine, either.  Maybe there are other drugs, maybe stronger types of wiskey that are now illegal.  Maybe, later we can do even more.
How about Prozac? ;D
And what should be standard first aid supplies:
Oxygen (would you believe that it is a prescription item? :-\
Injectable Epinephrine (when you need it, you need it STAT - bee stings, etc.)
IV supplies (normal saline, D5W, tubing, catheters, etc.) SOP for at least TKO.
.
.
.
and the list goes on but should be discussed ELSEWHERE -- AT THIS LINK. (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=1592)
 
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: George Reich on April 17, 2003, 08:07:09 pm
If Zack Bass were to move to Wyoming, the natives would probably do to him exactly what they did to Matthew Shepard.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: phylinidaho on April 17, 2003, 08:18:26 pm
If Zack Bass were to move to Wyoming, the natives would probably do to him exactly what they did to Matthew Shepard.
http://www.wiredstrategies.com/mrshep.htm
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 18, 2003, 03:32:56 am

If Zack Bass were to move to Wyoming, the natives would probably do to him exactly what they did to Matthew Shepard.


Exactly.  My point.  So it's Montana then.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zxcv on April 18, 2003, 08:01:18 am
That's very smart, basing an important decision like this on what one or two a**holes did, in a population of 500,000. And going to a state that is near the bottom of the spreadsheet ratings.

Tell you what, Zack. YOU go to Montana, and the rest of us will go to Wyoming. We will invite you down whenever we feel we need a lecture about victimless crimes.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 18, 2003, 12:42:39 pm

That's very smart, basing an important decision like this on what one or two a**holes did, in a population of 500,000. And going to a state that is near the bottom of the spreadsheet ratings.


I used to prefer Wyoming, because I agree that population is one of the strongest factors.  But it's not just a couple of a**holes, as you say.  Not only Hank's and WyoRancher's threats to expel me BY FORCE (there is no other way), but Ben Irvin has LIVED there (I think he still does), and he has assured me that Wyomingites will harm our faggots and drug users and drug merchants and nudists - "Wyoming is just too much horse" is an expression he has used more than once.

We CAN take Wyoming, if we start in one County as a Majority and thereby attract a LOT more than 20,000 to take over the Legislature.  But there will be armed conflict.  Contrary to what you may think, I do not favor that.
I believe the same may be true in Vermont, which is also small enough for us to take over.
Idaho?  We'd NEVER get past the Mormons, and it's ALSO too big.

So... it's Montana, if we're to have the West at all.  But since the East is concentrating on New Hampshire, and the Western vote is split, the final vote will be NH.  Pity.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 18, 2003, 02:00:12 pm
"Splitting the vote" is impossible with our new voting system.  Please shed yourselves of your electoral preconceptions developed by living all your lives in a first-past-the-post system!  ;D
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 18, 2003, 02:25:59 pm
"Splitting the vote" is impossible with our new voting system.  Please shed yourselves of your electoral preconceptions developed by living all your lives in a first-past-the-post system!  ;D

True.  In a sense.

Suppose all 2,000 Easterners rank NH #1.
Suppose 1,000 others rank MT>NH>WY>ID.
Suppose 1,000 others rank ID>NH>MT>WY.
Suppose 1,000 others rank WY>NH>MT>ID.
Seems to me NH will win, whereas if ALL of the Westerners had voted MT first, it would win.

This is a good voting system, because it looks at how people preferred NH over so many others; but certain kinds of vote splitting can make a difference.  I think.  Takes some working out.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 18, 2003, 02:49:07 pm
"Splitting the vote" is impossible with our new voting system.  Please shed yourselves of your electoral preconceptions developed by living all your lives in a first-past-the-post system!  ;D

True.  In a sense.

Suppose all 2,000 Easterners rank NH #1.
Suppose 1,000 others rank MT>NH>WY>ID.
Suppose 1,000 others rank ID>NH>MT>WY.
Suppose 1,000 others rank WY>NH>MT>ID.
Seems to me NH will win, whereas if ALL of the Westerners had voted MT first, it would win.

Yes, but if MT had won, then everyone would be unhappy relative to a NH victory, except for those 1,000 who really did prefer MT to NH.  So anyone who really has the preference ID>NH>MT>WY, for example, will never be persuaded to rank MT first and to reduce the placement of NH: strategic voting is pointless.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 18, 2003, 08:57:29 pm
Well started this out talking about cowboys!  Just want to state for the record, that I am not a cowboy, but have never met a cowboy I didn't like :)
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 19, 2003, 02:52:33 am
Zack Said:
Quote
How would YOU feel if a bunch of libertarians came into YOUR State and repealed all of the Zoning Laws and Victimless Crime Laws and School Taxes?  Would that make you feel sad?   Or happy?

I would be happy that things were changing, but pretty darn p'd off that a bunch of arrogant jerks thought they could come in and take over without consent of the people already there.


Some of you guys seem to think that a long-time resident has more right to a State than someone who has moved there recently.
Say I and 2,000 like-minded folks buy property in a Wyoming County.  Is our position different from any other resident?  Why?
Do we not have the exact same moral right to enact our kind of Law as the long-time residents?  If not, why not?

We are residents too.  They don't own Wyoming, only their own homes and businesses.  Just like us!

Do the long-time residents have any right to use Force against us for enacting our kind of Law?
They vote, we vote.  What's the problem?
Who's been threatening to use Force to kick out whom?  We don't propose to kick THEM out, we merely propose to make them stop imprisoning their neighbors for Victimless Crimes.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 19, 2003, 03:08:45 am

 Please re-read my statemen: "not realizing the impact his craziness may have on first-time readers. "  I did not call you crazy. I referred to your postings as "craziness". There is a difference.


I think I get it now:
"... not realizing the impact her bitchiness may have..."
That's not calling her bitchy, it's referring to her postings as "bitchiness".
Neat trick.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 19, 2003, 03:13:13 am
Quote
I'm looking at people who have a motive to ACTUALLY MOVE for Freedom.  Those people are not your namby-pamby medical-marijuana-and-that's-enough timid guys.  They are the weirdos who are severely inconvenienced by current Laws and will be willing to sacrifice for Freedom.
We don't want drug pushers (pushing more than marijuana or codeine).
We don't want perverts flagrantly violating our community's moral standards with public Prostitution (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=514;start=60) and Indecent Exposure (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=128;start=210).
We don't want anarchists destroying our institutions and causing chaos.
You troublemakers can stay ON THE BEACH !!!!
You want to debate the above, take it to the above links.

Good thing you Fascists don't own Wyoming.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Hank on April 19, 2003, 09:31:35 am
Zack Said:
Quote
How would YOU feel if a bunch of libertarians came into YOUR State and repealed all of the Zoning Laws and Victimless Crime Laws and School Taxes?  Would that make you feel sad?   Or happy?
I would be happy that things were changing, but pretty darn p'd off that a bunch of arrogant jerks thought they could come in and take over without consent of the people already there.
Some of you guys seem to think that a long-time resident has more right to a State than someone who has moved there recently.
Say I and 2,000 like-minded folks buy property in a Wyoming County.  Is our position different from any other resident?  Why?
Do we not have the exact same moral right to enact our kind of Law as the long-time residents?  If not, why not?

We are residents too.  They don't own Wyoming, only their own homes and businesses.  Just like us!

Mr. Bass,

Long-time residents do have more right to decisions affecting a state, a community, and its residents than newcomers do. You ask why?  Wisdom. They've paid their dues. They've learned local history, traditions, and how to get along with each other and their environment. You won't have the same rights until you prove to them you've learned the same. It can be done in a year or so if you work at it. Otherwise long-time locals will prove you are not welcome at the ballot box. Many of your "majority" of newcomers will "go native" and vote against you. Regardless of what you are trying to do, they'll vote against you simply because of your attitude.

You pick on Wyoming. The above applies in all ten states. None of these states have communities which will tolerate your kind of takeover.  New Englanders and Dakotans will freeze you out socially, economically and politically. That's if they're polite about it. Those in Alaska, Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming will make New England seem kinder and gentler.

Delaware?  Maybe you could try your tactics there.
One county would be a third of the state.
You would get a warm reception at Bethany Beach. 8)

P.S. I'm more favor South Dakota than Wyoming. South Dakota will be even less welcoming of your type than Wyoming. Where Wyoming would leave you to the coyotes (the same sort that did in Shepherd) Dakotans would leave you to our Native Americans. ;D
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 19, 2003, 11:26:22 am

We are residents too.  They don't own Wyoming, only their own homes and businesses.  Just like us!

Long-time residents do have more right to decisions affecting a state, a community, and its residents than newcomers do.


The libertarian view of rights differs from the Wyomingite view.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Dalamar49 on April 19, 2003, 01:59:13 pm
I would think that any taxpaying member of the community would have the right to participate in a group's decision making.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 19, 2003, 05:54:55 pm
I would think that any taxpaying member of the community would have the right to participate in a group's decision making.

Heck, around here we even let non-taxpayers vote.
Usually they vote for more taxes and welfare.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 20, 2003, 07:29:23 am

Anyways, I hope this experience gives another angle to the whole discussion here.


I now realize that Wyomingites are far more diverse than it appeared.
There are actually TWO kinds of Wyomingites:

(1) CowBoys

(2) People who don't dress like CowBoys but are interested only in CowBoy stuff

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 20, 2003, 09:27:19 am
Hank,

As much as I hate to say it the locals don't have any more political rights than we will have, but they will be so much deserving of our respect and deference.

It will be us who our outsiders, we must listen, learn, and adapt to the native culture, not the reverse.  We must give fair counsel to their ideas, their thoughts, before we have any chance of making a difference.

People are distrustful of outsiders, so our greatest task will be to earn their respect, and that can not be accomplish by shouting and insulting.

I'm hopeful we are up to the task!
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 20, 2003, 09:52:23 am

  ... the locals don't have any more political rights than we will have, but they will be so much deserving of our respect and deference.


No bully who favors imprisoning his neighbor for a Victimless Crime deserves my respect.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 20, 2003, 10:05:07 am

It will be us who our outsiders, we must listen, learn, and adapt to the native culture, not the reverse.


If the Founding Fathers had had that attitude, we'd all be living in wigwams, hogans, and teepees.  Europeans had a better way to live (technology).

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 20, 2003, 11:00:31 am
A number of the western states have indian reservations, perhaps you would be more comfortable there :)
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 20, 2003, 01:30:13 pm

A number of the western states have indian reservations, perhaps you would be more comfortable there :)


HAHA.

The great majority of them have agreed with us.
They found the repeating rifle invaluable in wiping out the buffalo, which had proved resistant to the drive-'em-over-the-cliff method they employed to exterminate the mammoth.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Dalamar49 on April 20, 2003, 05:58:51 pm
What are the jobs like there though?

We should have some kind of job in the Free State thread.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 20, 2003, 09:33:08 pm

Don't they have backwoods swamprats who 'rastle Gators just east of your neighborhood? They're sorta cowboys too. ;)


No, except for tourist shows, and that's further south.
I did run into a guy in Polk County who claimed to have used a nest of alligators to dispose of a body, no parts are ever found.

I've got a cousin who runs some cattle and a bunch of horses around Okeechobee, all my relatives on both sides are cowboy types or "country folk", not rednecks but just kinda slow, bumpkin types, I don't mean stupid slow, just in no hurry.  And funny accents: use "salt poke" for fish bait.

I've got nothing at all against CowBoys, never have.  Except for Wyoming CowBoys who are violently opposed to our goals.  And I never suggested that anyone reciprocate; I have suggested that we leave them alone, as they wish.  No use going where we're not wanted.
There are lots of people who would LOVE to see thousands of libertarians come to their State and help them repeal the Victimless Crime Laws and Zoning Laws and Compulsory Schooling.  We're better off going to one of those places.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Dalamar49 on April 20, 2003, 10:10:42 pm
No offence, but what states would those be?  ???

Unfortunately, any state we choose is going to have drug laws.

Oh well, maybe we can be next door neighbors. At least we won't have to worry about ratting eachother out.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 21, 2003, 07:50:31 am

No offence, but what states would those be?  ???
Unfortunately, any state we choose is going to have drug laws.
Oh well, maybe we can be next door neighbors. At least we won't have to worry about ratting eachother out.


I'm not so concerned with what anti-liberty Laws a State currently has; we're going to change all that.  AS IS OUR RIGHT - NO MATTER WHAT THE FASCIST STATIST CURRENT RESIDENTS SAY NOW.

The Laws that ought to concern us are the ones that make it difficult for us to win.  AND WINNING MEANS WE CHANGE THE STATE - NO MATTER WHAT THE FASCIST STATIST CURRENT RESIDENTS SAY NOW.

But, you ask, what States are those, where I said lots of people would welcome aid from thousands of libertarians in repealing all of their current Zoning Laws and Compulsory Schooling Laws and Victimless Crime Laws?  Well, NEW HAMPSHIRE is one.  Florida is another.  I would bet just about any other State except Wyoming.  There are lots of people under the heel of the Statists.  They would welcome us.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: George Reich on April 21, 2003, 08:14:16 am
The Laws that ought to concern us are the ones that make it difficult for us to win.  

AND WYOMING'S ELECTION LAWS ARE EXCELLENT EXAMPLES OF THOSE TYPES OF LAWS!!!
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 21, 2003, 08:18:16 am
The Laws that ought to concern us are the ones that make it difficult for us to win.  

AND WYOMING'S ELECTION LAWS ARE EXCELLENT EXAMPLES OF THOSE TYPES OF LAWS!!!


I don't know.
I know that the low population makes it easier for us to win.
And it would be very easy to have a County of our own, right away.
And a Wyoming Sheriff has a LOT of power - and, like Montana, one of them has actually used that power to tell the feds to leave them alone.

I like just about everything about Wyoming - except Arrogant Wyomingites who think that they have more right to Wyoming than we do, although they do not own Wyoming any more than we do.

They have every right in the world to say what takes place ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.  And we have the same exact right.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Ceol Mhor on April 21, 2003, 12:39:44 pm
Quote
I'm not so concerned with what anti-liberty Laws a State currently has; we're going to change all that.  AS IS OUR RIGHT - NO MATTER WHAT THE FASCIST STATIST CURRENT RESIDENTS SAY NOW.

Well, no state has a low enough population to give us a majority by ourselves. So despite the fact that new residents have every moral right to demand the end of rights-violating legislation, it will be essential for us to persuade other residents that our view is the correct one.

With that in mind, the states with less objectionable legislation are probably the states where it will take the least work to obtain the majority needed to change the laws from within the legal system (which is the Project's stated goal).

A large part of the project is going to revolve around our skills as salesmen of our philosophy, like it or not. If we act like we have the right to change the state government over the objections of the other residents (even though we do), we will almost certainly alienate those people, and fail to spread our ideals. If the Project is to succeed, the other people in the state are going to have to desire to follow our example, and that won't happen if we act like arrogant invaders.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: JasonPSorens on April 21, 2003, 01:13:04 pm
A large part of the project is going to revolve around our skills as salesmen of our philosophy, like it or not. If we act like we have the right to change the state government over the objections of the other residents (even though we do), we will almost certainly alienate those people, and fail to spread our ideals. If the Project is to succeed, the other people in the state are going to have to desire to follow our example, and that won't happen if we act like arrogant invaders.

Amen.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 21, 2003, 05:07:05 pm

A large part of the project is going to revolve around our skills as salesmen of our philosophy, like it or not. If we act like we have the right to change the state government over the objections of the other residents (even though we do), we will almost certainly alienate those people, and fail to spread our ideals. If the Project is to succeed, the other people in the state are going to have to desire to follow our example, and that won't happen if we act like arrogant invaders.



The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
        -Jean Gieraudoux

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: freedomroad on April 21, 2003, 10:31:21 pm

A large part of the project is going to revolve around our skills as salesmen of our philosophy, like it or not. If we act like we have the right to change the state government over the objections of the other residents (even though we do), we will almost certainly alienate those people, and fail to spread our ideals. If the Project is to succeed, the other people in the state are going to have to desire to follow our example, and that won't happen if we act like arrogant invaders.



The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
        -Jean Gieraudoux



Zack, the thing about it is that NONE of US are going to fake it.  You cannot fake it for your entire life.  Creating a Free States will take a lifetime of activism for us and our children.  You are either a nice person and able to get along with others, even if they want to throw you in jail, or you are just gonna turn people off to our message.


Please, Zack, buy Michael Cloud's The Essence of Political Persuasion (sp?)
The Avocates for Self-government sell it.  It will give you better ways to explain libertarianism to other people.


Zack, below is what might happen if you continue to try to SHOCK people with you amazing logic

Zack, it is up to you, decide which one you want to be.  Your 'macho flash' will not help the movement in anyway.  Well, actually, if you act all crazy and almost all of the rest of us work through the Republican party....

1. You will destroy what is left of the Libertarian Party
2. Most people will wish you would just go away
3. We, since we will use reason and kindness to influence people, will gain more power and influence
4. You will get the attention of other um, interesting people from around the country
5. They will act just like you
6. We will kick you out of the Free State and the native population will fall in love with
7. We will all get elected to office and allow adults to exercise more control over their lives
8. You can sneak back in, if you want
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Robert H. on April 21, 2003, 11:41:23 pm
If the Project is to succeed, the other people in the state are going to have to desire to follow our example, and that won't happen if we act like arrogant invaders.

Quite so.  And to your point about not acting like arrogant invaders, I would also add that we cannot go around acting like arrogant messiahs either; as though the FSP were some sort of libertarian missionary movement out to save the heathen.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 22, 2003, 01:48:09 am

6. We will kick you out of the Free State


Oh great, now YOU are Threatening me with the Initiation of the Use of Force too.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: freedomroad on April 22, 2003, 02:34:16 am

6. We will kick you out of the Free State


Oh great, now YOU are Threatening me with the Initiation of the Use of Force too.


Nevermind that I have just using a fake example of what might happen.  Nevermind that I was talking of "we" or ous kicking you out.  Nevermind that the initiation of force does not have to be used.  

That's kind of out there.  That is like saying I'm trained to "seek and destory" or "kill, kill, kill" just because I am in the Army.  Oh wait, I am, nevermind.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 22, 2003, 02:37:57 am

6. We will kick you out of the Free State


Oh great, now YOU are Threatening me with the Initiation of the Use of Force too.



That's kind of out there.  That is like saying I'm a trained to seek and kill just because I am in the Army.  Oh wait, I am, nevermind.

P.S. Since this post has no real value, I will delete in in the next 6-24 hours.

Kewl.  Do that.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 22, 2003, 03:00:26 am

  .... I was talking of "we" or ous kicking you out.  Nevermind that the initiation of force does not have to be used.  


We all know that it DOES have to be used.  There is no way in hell you can kick someone out of a State without the Threat of Force.

If you mean to say that you have now changed your mind, and you will NOT try to kick me out of the Free State, why thank you, and welcome neighbor.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: phylinidaho on April 22, 2003, 05:56:10 am
P.S. Since this post has no real value, I will delete in in the next 6-24 hours.
I have seen several references to deleting one's post. For future reference - how is this done?
 :)
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 22, 2003, 06:02:39 am

I have seen several references to deleting one's post. For future reference - how is this done?
 :)


There is a button at the top right of your own posts.
It is not displayed to you on others' posts.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: phylinidaho on April 22, 2003, 06:09:12 am

I have seen several references to deleting one's post. For future reference - how is this done?
 :)


There is a button at the top right of your own posts.
It is not displayed to you on others' posts.
Thank you, Zack. I'm embarrassed that I didn't notice that until you pointed it out. I guess I pay less attention to my own messages, once posted, than to those of others. :)
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zxcv on April 22, 2003, 03:53:58 pm
Quote
The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
        -Jean Gieraudoux

Only Zack would assume that to do it any way other than the way he advocates, is to be insincere.

Actually, now that I said that, I realize a lot of people think that way.

As I mentioned before, Zack is from the "to be principled, you must be obnoxious" school of thought.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 22, 2003, 04:13:14 pm

As I mentioned before, Zack is from the "to be principled, you must be obnoxious" school of thought.


Not at all.  Obnoxiosity is optional.
Lots of people are both principled and diplomatic.  I don't happen to be one of them.

It's not that I am not able to code-switch when it is absolutely necessary.
I got through 18 months of Okeechobee Correctional with all my teeth.
But a man shouldn't have to compromise that way.  Some actually enjoy the give-and-take of personal interaction and candy-coated discourse, just as some enjoy insincere flirting.  I don't.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on April 22, 2003, 04:19:29 pm

Quote
The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
        -Jean Gieraudoux


Only Zack would assume that to do it any way other than the way he advocates, is to be insincere.


Not at all.
But for me to do it any other way, I would have to be insincere.
Maybe you could do it sincerely.

So what would you have me do: do it my way, or be insincere?

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zxcv on April 22, 2003, 05:01:35 pm
Quote
So what would you have me do: do it my way, or be insincere?
I would have you go away.

Not because I don't find you interesting or entertaining, but because I think your penchant for "doing your thing" has a strong potential to wreck this movement, or at least make life very difficult for us.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Ceol Mhor on April 22, 2003, 11:43:37 pm
Quote
Lots of people are both principled and diplomatic.  I don't happen to be one of them.
If you aren't willing to expend the energy to effectively persuade (rather than simply rant at) a large number of people that freedom is a desirable state of being, then the Free State Project is not the place for you. We can't do anything magical - at best, we can move to a place where we're "only" outnumbered about 10:1. To go from that to a majority of the voting block simply cannot be done without recruiting a lot of enthusiastic new supporters.

I don't enjoy doing this sort of preaching either. I'm doing it now, so that I can get practice and find the most effective ways to convince people of my views. I find it difficult and uncomfortable, and I would much rather spend my time doing any number of other things. I would love to move to a place where liberty existed, and I could simply enjoy living my life. But I can't, because no such place exists. It won't be an easy task to create such a place, but it valuable enough to me that I'm willing to suck it up and work hard to get it.

I hope a lot of my fellow FSPers are too, because that is what will make or break our efforts.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Robert H. on April 23, 2003, 02:31:52 am
I don't enjoy doing this sort of preaching either. I'm doing it now, so that I can get practice and find the most effective ways to convince people of my views. I find it difficult and uncomfortable, and I would much rather spend my time doing any number of other things.

I find myself in this sort of situation as well when it comes to politics; I'm very much a live-and-let-live sort of person, and I try to avoid confrontation when I can.  Unfortunately though, if you don't take a stand eventually, you get walked all over by those who live to lord over others.

It's a nasty business all around, and yet, in the end, victory is worth of the cost of having engaged in the war because it leave us to be free.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: phylinidaho on April 23, 2003, 05:38:16 am
I don't enjoy doing this sort of preaching either. I'm doing it now, so that I can get practice and find the most effective ways to convince people of my views. I find it difficult and uncomfortable, and I would much rather spend my time doing any number of other things.

I find myself in this sort of situation as well when it comes to politics; I'm very much a live-and-let-live sort of person, and I try to avoid confrontation when I can.
I, too, am a live-and-let-live person. Judging from the majority of messages I have read over the last year - on the forum and in the email groups -  I'd say we are in the majority among porcupines. :)
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Kelton Baker on April 23, 2003, 11:33:15 am
 ;)  All of those rebellious rural New Englanders and Western Cowboys, always trying trying to resist good and prudent laws, don't even know what's good for them, do they?  If only they would start conforming faster, we could get on to this whole glorious police state a little sooner.  And darn it, here's another example posted on the Christian-Libertarian forum of that darn cowboy culture run-amok:
 


Quote
By CURT WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer  

HELENA, Mont. - Montana lawmakers are about to go home for the year without banning open liquor containers in cars and trucks, a decision one activist against drunken driving blames on the state's cowboy culture.  

"I think there's still perhaps some carry-over from people whose view is their individual rights are being trampled on," said Bill Muhs, president of a local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving.  

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 13 states do not have open-container bans that meet federal standards (news - web sites). Muhs said the bans are cheap and effective at reducing drunken driving, but critics have stalled efforts at the Montana Capitol to enact one by raising the specter of increasing police power.  

Republican state Rep. Jim Shockley, who has led the push against a ban, said such a law would be mostly a feel-good measure. He suggested greater enforcement of laws already on the books would do more to curb drunken driving.  

Shockley also said advocates of tougher restrictions shouldn't try to change Montanans' attitudes about drinking and driving.  

"It's not their business to change our culture," Shockley said. "If they don't like our culture, they should go somewhere else."  

Driving is a necessity in Montana, the fourth largest state. Driving 550 miles from North Dakota to Idaho is the equivalent of driving from Portland, Maine, to Richmond, Va.  

Montana's rebellious streak has always been visible when it comes to conforming with federal highway safety demands. More than two decades ago, legislators railed against the federally imposed speed limit of 55 mph by making violations punishable by just a $5 fine.  

And for three years after the 55 mph speed limit disappeared, Montana drivers were allowed to go as fast as they wanted on most highways, as long as it was "reasonable and proper" based on conditions and traffic.  

Statistics suggest driving in Montana is becoming increasingly dangerous. Montana's highway traffic fatality toll for 2002 * at 268 * was the highest in nearly two decades, state officials say. Fatal highway crashes involving alcohol have jumped more than 30 percent between the first four months of 2002 and 2003.  

And Montana remains the only state to flunk a 2002 study of drunken driving laws sponsored by MADD. Officials said it was the first time a state received an "F" since MADD began rankings a decade ago.  

While the Montana Legislature has refused to ban open containers, it did strengthen other laws dealing with drinking and driving this session. It lowered the blood-alcohol limit from 0.10 percent to 0.08 percent and made alcohol tests mandatory for drivers after serious accidents. It also increased fines and jail time for drunken driving convictions.  

But lawmakers are expected to wrap up the session this week without taking on open containers.  

Muhs said his job always has been tougher than that of counterparts in most other states. After all, he noted, Montana was one of the last states to raise the legal drinking age to 21.  

"So here we are, the last state to enact some of the most fundamental drunken driving laws," Muhs said.  

___  


On the Net:  

MADD: http://www.madd.org

920
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 23, 2003, 04:26:07 pm
one good :) one bad :(, but in the interest of fairness did read somewhere recently that MT did repeal the ban on smoking in all public places.  Heard it was killing the business in Helena.  So I guess that's 2-1 in favor of freedom :)
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: RidleyReport on April 29, 2003, 01:52:26 am
WyoRancher wrote:

<<If the FSP doesn't have the courage to prevent ONE MEMBER from destroying their reputation and giving everyone the impression that y'all are nothing but a bunch of drug pushers, how on Earth do you expect anyone to believe that you have the courage to make any effective change at the state level, where ever you go???>>

Wyo:

I doubt it's got anything to do with courage.  It's probably more a matter of inefficiency.   Like most volunteer organizations, most of the work (including forum banning, expulsion, etc.) seems to fall on a couple of people who will never have time to get to it all.  Jason is still the one who handles banning, I think!  He may not even know yet what's going on in this thread because of his attention being split up into so many other responsibilities.

Some of us are doing things we hope will fix this failing of ours, but it is a failing of organization and delegation.  It's not a failing of moral courage on the part of our leadership; I think they have sufficient moral guts.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Dave Mincin on April 29, 2003, 08:37:09 am
WyoRanchers comment is so valid.  How will others see us?  Have seen this happening among us.  Were one individual has caused us to splinter and break into factions and fight among ourselves.  

I do not doubt the moral courage of the leadership, but I would also ask them to understand that most of us speak only as individuals, and that they realize that those who attack them are speaking only for themselves.  

I a hopeful any decisions made by the leadership, will factor in this thought.

Freedom of Speech!  Should think with that freedom comes responsibility!  At least that is what my momma taught me, and she's my boss, still :)
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Hank on May 02, 2003, 05:25:51 pm
Over on The FSP is the talk of the town in VT! (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=1686)
Wyoming is in the middle of nowhere with only two major cities nearby, land-locked, technologically backwards, has little job growth, and living in WY would be "roughing it" to say the least.

I respond to LeRuineur6's West-trashing statement at the
Wyoming discussion (click here) (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=795&start=120)
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: ZuG on May 02, 2003, 05:48:56 pm
Guys,

Nobody seems to be thinking clearly about the urban vs rural issue. Everybody is saying "urban is more statist", "no, rural is". You're both wrong.

Urban areas tend to be socially liberal (gay rights, drugs, etc), but economically conservative (restrictions on business, gun control, etc)

Rural areas are just the opposite. You've got all the gun control and economic freedom you could ask for, but they'll run you out of town if you promote some of the social freedoms, like drugs.

Our strategy for the FSP is going to depend highly on whether we pick an east or a west state. Our reforms will vary widely, and we'll have difficulty on different sorts of things.

Now whether it is easier to get a "bunch of hippies" to go for economic freedoms, or "conservative christian rednecks" to go for social ones, I don't know.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: di540 on May 02, 2003, 07:03:22 pm
Now whether it is easier to get a "bunch of hippies" to go for economic freedoms, or "conservative christian rednecks" to go for social ones, I don't know.
Many of the current big-business worshippers also were
hippies or beatniks, such as the neo-con Michael Savage
Whatever their politics, they all tend to be parasitic
on those who can produce w/out the need for the state
to grant them privileges, or to subsidise one transport
infrastructure for one group over another.

I think it would be harder to convince "the hippies", as
they are more dependent on gov't programmes, than "the
rednecks" who won't be bothered by social freedoms as
long as they don't have to pay for them.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: freedomroad on May 02, 2003, 10:41:18 pm
Guys,

Urban areas tend to be socially liberal (gay rights, drugs, etc), but economically conservative (restrictions on business, gun control, etc)

Special right for gays is anti-libertarian.  Also, the 2 most important issues to libertarians are guns (face it, we want to be able to stay alive) and taxes (we do not want to help the government grow).
Quote
Rural areas are just the opposite. You've got all the gun control and economic freedom you could ask for, but they'll run you out of town if you promote some of the social freedoms, like drugs.

This is not exactly true.  Rural areas tend to have more, if not much more social freedoms than urban areas.  Speed limits, tinting laws, gun laws, farming laws, fireworks laws, well laws, horse-allowed laws, hunting laws, fire laws, grass laws, traffic laws, leash laws, watering laws, building codes, and many other type of laws tend to be less restrictive in rural areas.
Quote

Our strategy for the FSP is going to depend highly on whether we pick an east or a west state. Our reforms will vary widely, and we'll have difficulty on different sorts of things.

Agreed.  It will depend on which of the 10 states is selected.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Robert H. on May 03, 2003, 12:08:33 am
Our strategy for the FSP is going to depend highly on whether we pick an east or a west state. Our reforms will vary widely, and we'll have difficulty on different sorts of things.

Part of our consideration here will deal with the way that easterners and westerners view their place in society.  By and large, easterners are more socially-conscious: who wears the nicest clothes, who's climbing the ladder at work, what kind of car one drives, what kind of house one owns, what organizations one belongs to, what one has in the bank, how nice the lawn looks, etc.

I would say that the opinion of others matters more to the average easterner than to the average westerner - although the urban and rural designations are probably more accurate here (the western states are just more rural in general).  For this reason, I believe public opinion will be a much more effective weapon against us in the east than in the west.  People in the west are used to being mocked for their "backwardness," and yet they go about their lives anyway because what the "eastern city folk" think matters less to them.  

People in the east just care more about their public image in general.  Being seen as "progressive," "cutting-edge," and "with the times" matters more to them, and thus could be a greater hindrance to us because this is exactly the argument that the Left uses in its cause: socialism and behavior control is not only compassionate (they say), it's also "progressive," "forward-thinking," and "intellectual."

If anyone doubts how this public image sensitivity could possibly affect us, they can check out some of the posts in this forum for confirmation.  Many objections to the idea of choosing a western state fall along the lines of "no one cares what goes on out there anyway, and we need to go where people will pay attention to us."  

Liberty is heavily reliant on one's own perception of being an individual and exercising individual sovereignty; the less individualistic a person is, the more likely they are to be drawn into conformity and servitude.  For this reason, I believe we stand a greater chance of success by working amidst a people who are more individualistic because they're apt to care less when 60 Minutes trashes them for not keeping up with the Joneses (ie, the Leftist "progressives").
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: ZuG on May 03, 2003, 02:39:05 pm
Guys,

Urban areas tend to be socially liberal (gay rights, drugs, etc), but economically conservative (restrictions on business, gun control, etc)

Special right for gays is anti-libertarian.  

Agreed, FreedomRoad. By gay rights, I meant only gays getting the same rights as the rest of us have, such as being able to have sex in their private homes without running the risk of getting arrested (sodomy laws), and to get married if they so please (of course, government doesn't have any business telling people what to do with marriage, but that's another thread).
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: BobW on May 03, 2003, 04:20:46 pm
Hi all,

Here's my agreement with Robert's post.  I, of course, also did not take a literal 100% geographic view of eg Georgia being "Eastern" and "urban" since the place is a split.

The key is the public opinion molders.  Public opinion eminates from the East; New York City runs the broadcasting.  Three of the big newspapers are the NY Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

I full agree that public opinion attacks have more weight in the "East".

Horace Greeley said : "Go west, young man, go west".

Good advise even though Greeley stayed in New York City and became a millionaire.

BobW
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: freedomroad on May 03, 2003, 05:43:33 pm
Guys,

Urban areas tend to be socially liberal (gay rights, drugs, etc), but economically conservative (restrictions on business, gun control, etc)

Special right for gays is anti-libertarian.  

Agreed, FreedomRoad. By gay rights, I meant only gays getting the same rights as the rest of us have, such as being able to have sex in their private homes without running the risk of getting arrested (sodomy laws),

Idaho is the only FSP state that has sodomy laws on the books.  Sodomy laws are not a rural vs. urban issue.  Across the board, people hate the laws.

I thought gays could only form Unions in one state, Vermont.  I may be wrong, maybe there are other states.  

Here are other personal/economic issues.  You will rarely find rural areas setting up huge drug busts, they are less likely to arrest hookers, and they tend not to have TRAFFIC CAMERAS! Traffic cameras are one of the worst inventions of mankind and they are all over cities.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: ZuG on May 03, 2003, 09:05:53 pm
Zug, you've some very penetrating points:

Thank you Joe, that's a high compliment coming from you. =)

Quote
ZuG's point about social issues in rural areas warrants more discussion.  Smaller populations, especially if they are more religious, may not tolerate more "license" regarding drugs, sex, or other issues which impact the "moral fiber" of a small community. Conversely, small communities seem to be very tolerant of alcohol abuse and, often correlated therewith, domestic abuse. Drugs at home may be okay, but not in the schools. The line seems to be drawn at the family door. But even that does not hold true. In rural areas you may have no laws against public drinking (open containers) but you may have blue laws (religion again?).


Unfortunately, this issue isn't simple at all. I'm making some pretty big generalizations here, since we don't have the specifics of what area we need to focus on, but my generalizations may not be true of all states or all areas. Once we know what state we're picking, we'll be able to be much more specific.

Quote
Overall, though, I believe rural areas are more apt to live and let live -- given that "license" doesn't go beyond one's property line. I say this because people with more property, even if it is an acre or two, can be more tolerant. This tolerance breaks down when people live on small city or suburban lots with a house a few meters away or, worse, in apartments. See Roberts comments above for a better explanation.

Agreed. The main problem I envision, which you address in a minute, is the religion factor. It may interfere with our efforts, even if the people would not otherwise care.

Quote
Thus, back to ZuG's question.
I believe it would be easier to get rural people to allow more freedoms.
People in urban/suburban areas and those who have moved to rural areas from urban/suburban areas will be the greatest impediments to a Free State.

Continue your train of thought, why do you believe this? It's important to have justifications for beliefs here, since this is such a complex issue. I truly don't know the answer to my own question, but other people's inputs can perhaps answer it.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Zxcv on May 04, 2003, 11:05:26 pm
Quote
Overall, though, I believe rural areas are more apt to live and let live -- given that "license" doesn't go beyond one's property line. I say this because people with more property, even if it is an acre or two, can be more tolerant. This tolerance breaks down when people live on small city or suburban lots with a house a few meters away or, worse, in apartments. See Roberts comments above for a better explanation.

Yeah, Joe, but there is a twist to it.

People in cities can be anonymous. They do not depend on each other, other than formally, through government. You sit down in a restarant, and someone sits next to you with rings through body parts and foul language, and you just put up with it. Informal, social disapproval is almost absent.

In the country, people are both more independent (they can do for themselves) and at the same time, due to their circumstances like isolation, more dependent - but in an informal way. When you see a car broken down you stop to ask them if they need help, because they really might be in trouble if there is no traffic on the road for hours and the cell phones don't work.

When this is true, people have to conform more. They may curb their urge to pierce body parts (assuming they even had such an urge in the first place) because it would offend others whom they may have to depend on, or even just because there are few enough people in town as it is, and why antagonize them? You have to get along.

So in a way people in the country are more conformist, but it is a conformity enforced socially, not via government and laws. And even a certain unconformity will be tolerated if you are good for the "important stuff".

Personally, I think people with this habit of mind are just naturally more in tune with freedom, although I understand John Stuart Mill railed against social conformity (it was much more rigid in his day). They are not in the habit of depending on government and lawyers and "experts". And if it's no longer the case that a handshake is enough to seal a deal, that habit died out last in the country.

I guess I am rambling...
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Robert H. on May 06, 2003, 09:54:24 am
Here are some interesting East/West and Urban/Rural perspectives I found in the Casper Star-Tribune's Letter's section over the last two days.  I thought they might be interested as anecdotal insertions in this discussion.  So, for what it's worth...

The first letter excerpt has to deal with a Wyoming man who is wondering if some special interest group activity in Wyoming is indicative of more big city interference from the two coasts, and the second excerpt is from a Washington DC man thanking Wyomingites for rescuing his runaway daughter:

***

May 5, 2003

Editor:

After reading the submitted press release regarding the lawsuit against the BLM, I have a couple of questions.

Why do people calling themselves ranchers and environmentalists list their names with various acronyms and phone numbers from Washington, D.C., to San Francisco?

Is this another East/West Coast agenda attempting to influence the activities of Wyoming and Montana folks?

Full Letter:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/05/06/editorial/letters/81089f09709b6bd12cc05b9ddf0929cf.txt (http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/05/06/editorial/letters/81089f09709b6bd12cc05b9ddf0929cf.txt)

***

May 6, 2003

My father, who grew up in Missoula, explained to me once that Westerners throughout history haven't had to know or even like each other in order to watch over each other. So it had always been since pioneering days.

My dad is gone, but his words gained even more credence in Hanna. People like Jack -- 3rd Marine Division, Vietnam, I noticed on his off-duty cap -- are tough enough to have the kind of manners and decency that make Easterners blush, Dad used to say. As someone who enjoyed a highly successful career in New York, he spoke passionately while making such comparisons.

Full Letter:

http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/05/06/editorial/letters/2d3193903371d259ff84ccc4e0769ac2.txt (http://www.casperstartribune.net/articles/2003/05/06/editorial/letters/2d3193903371d259ff84ccc4e0769ac2.txt)
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: radracer on May 06, 2003, 01:28:35 pm
I have re-edited my letter since I have learned a lot upon reading many of the various threads on this site. Well as a newbie to this topic I'd just like to point out that Wyoming has no housing shortage (even if you MAY want to build your own to suit yourself) and no HUMID temperature problems (eastern ice) and less narrow-minded people than the east coast. Sure they are country folk somewhat, but these days country folk CAN be our (LP) best supporters as they have a heritage of Independence I've seen on display in the little (600 Pop) town I'm living in here in Texas. I have been a Dallas native for 34 years and am used to a very stodgy Conservative type of person entrenched in doing things 'the family way' regarding political opinions, meaning their parents were Conservative and so are they, period. Reading threads from Vermonters and of those from Maine and New Hampshire makes me think we'd be dealing with the same kind of entrenchment in those populous areas. I actually lost friends debating the recent War with a few who couldn't bend their views and actually came to be hostile over any other viewpoint in Dallas.
I simply think Wyoming may give us the best chance to influence a smaller, more open-minded populace and the physical ability to have the state grow with us, e.g. the NMA, an organization which basically is like a Libertarian Auto Club of America which sees it's first responsibility as getting rid of the draconian speed limits currently implemented as a tax on driving and an excuse for searches and seizures. Since Montana has exercised it's right to eliminate a highway speed limit to some extent the length of Wyomings highways (unlike crowded, tree obscured, roads on the east coast) would be perfect to show that the safety fallacy about speeding is just that. Those of you bitching that it's 2 hours to a big city or an hour to take your son to a soccer game subtract 40% from all time estimates on driving (maybe not right away but eventually). That Honda or Beemer you are likely driving will SAFELY do 120 + mph if we were allowed to. Even MY Chevy Tahoe (once I fixed it) will now do 128 mph (trust me ;D) but even stock would do 97 mph).
Part of the benefits of the freedoms we are advocating will benefit us in many such ways which can then help in showing the rest of America the benefits of self-government. Regarding changing people's thinking I wouldn't want to try to convert people so stuck in their ways (like I'm hearing from a few people on here) on the East coast who'd see us as invaders to be voted against just to stop us.
At this time I have been transplanted 70 miles outside of Dallas in a ranching job where I've been for 2 years and feel as a few others have said that there are far more freedoms already in place in such rural settings already and that as long as it ends at their property line rural people are more forgiving of other freedoms they may not partake in themselves. I noted how one person on this thread noted that you don't see people with multiple piercings and lots of tatoos in rural areas because cultural/social pressures keep people in line exactly as we have been saying will work for years. However there are now people getting lots of tatoos and piercings here in rural Texas so don't feel that such cultural pressure is the final say. In fact there is a large "problem" with meth labs out in the country around here so drug use is NOT as uncommon in rural areas as it might seem.
The backwoods rural setting that Wyoming may seem presently won't have to be permanent socially and geographically it's only a plus if you're not stuck driving a mind-numbing 65 mph. Put it this way, in the local Gun shop 'in the sticks' where I live, below the anti-BATF cartoon stuck right over the checkout counter is a bumpersticker saying "Charlton Heston is my President". I'm telling you, country folk are a riper market for us.
The naysayers who don't like using a sparsely populated state should realize that if we are to accomplish anything we must utilize the lack of population as our advantage to actually get the power to change policy then show what can be done with it. Soon after (though some of you may fear this I don't think it will be a problem if you've read Dr. Mary Ruwarts take on law enforcement which should be our role model) other groups wanting sanctuary such as people stuck on the wrong side of the drug war all over America will either flock to us, or use our success example to change things where they live.
Free market policies and minimal government bonuses that showcase Libertarian ideals may start to change policy all over America and advertise the LP ideals which 90% of people currently have no clue about. This FSP idea is sure to garner media comment (the key to show LP ideals) all over the U.S. regarding our accomplishments and promote the LP. Since voting in LP representatives is not realistic in the current media environment which chooses to ignore our existence this is a surefire way to prove the theories of our founding fathers do apply as much to modern America as they did in the 1700's.
I'm ready to sign up and leave behind not only my family and friends but also the heavy hand of big government so I can enjoy life as it should be.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: freedomroad on May 06, 2003, 09:42:33 pm
I have re-edited my letter since I have learned a lot upon reading many of the various threads on this site. Well as a newbie to this topic I'd just like to point out that Wyoming has no housing shortage (even if you MAY want

Radracer, thank you for your post.  I support Wyoming for some of the same reasons you just mentioned.  

Please edit your above post.  There is an edit button at the top of your post.  Please break your post down into paragraphs.  Thank you.
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: radracer on May 06, 2003, 10:25:25 pm
Thanks for agreeing FreedomRoad. Sorry about my grammar. I went to public (government) schools (shules) and hated grammar. Creativity was more my forte'. I'll try harder not to embarass you in the future.  ;)
 Amazingly I have 2 English degrees but also a gut full of white wine (I'm not on the clock right now) so I guess I have to apologize to no one! Getting a taste of freedom reality out of the classroom?
Title: Fear of Cities, and of states dominated by them.
Post by: Hank on May 07, 2003, 01:32:55 pm
I certainly can identify with this fellow's experience. I quote it below because I really don't have any confidence that the links after the quote will find this article again.
I'd hope that none of big cities in the candidate states are even a tenth this bad. Wilmington maybe?

I've moved the quote over to another thread
1000 miles from Nowhere (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2157)
But you may still also find it at one of these links.
http://tm3am.com/redirect.htm
http://tm3am.com/index_content_archive.htm
http://tm3am.com/article_030122.htm
Title: Re:Fear of Cities, and of states dominated by them.
Post by: Karl on May 07, 2003, 02:52:59 pm
I certainly can identify with this fellow's experience. I quote it below because I really don't have any confidence that the links after the quote will find this article again.
I'd hope that none of big cities in the candidate states are even a tenth this bad. Wilmington maybe?

Yes, NYC has bad traffic.  It was not designed for automobiles, but pedestrians.  This is a common annoyance of suburban and quasi-rural people used to a sparse population and gigantic highways.  Many of them can't imagine a life without driving to Wal-Mart via government megahighways in their big fat SUVs.  The American obsession with the automobile is a disease.  Indeed, this is the real reason highway privatization will be so difficult in the free state, because even many people who call themselves libertarians believe it is their "right" to drive on a highway for "free."

The guy who wrote this rant needs to get out of his gosh-dang car and walk a little; otherwise he deserves his traffic jams.

I don't think you have to worry about Wilmington, since Delaware has a good chance of being dead last in the vote.  So who cares?  None of the other candidate states have anything comparable to big city traffic, excepting possibly a tiny nugget of southeastern NH, and even that doesn't compare to NYC.
Title: how important small land area?
Post by: JasonPSorens on May 09, 2003, 09:20:03 pm
This was discussed a few months ago, but I thought I'd give it its own thread.  I'll let Robert Maynard have the opening salvo, this from a private e-mail:

Quote
Jason,
 
 
In an e-mail exchange, I once commented to you that it would actually be easier to move
Vermont in a libertarian direction than a conservative direction.  This may sound counter
intuitive to most of the FSP membership, but I believe that it is true.  Many posters on
the web site write off  Vermont because it is so socialistic.  There is no denying that
Vermont leans more in a socialistic direction than practically any other state in the
union.  Of course, the obvious conclusion drawn from this fact is that Vermont has a very
statist population.  Though it may be the obvious conclusion, it is one that I believe is
wrong.  We already discussed the so-called take over of Vermont by the left.  How much
this was planned out and organized ahead of time is open to debate.  What is not open to
debate is that Vermont became the focus of leftist organizers from around the country
soon after the migration period.  I believe that Vermont has faced a statist
onslaught unlike any other state in the past 35 years.
 
The "progressive" migration is not the whole story here, as John McClaughry,
the President and founder of the Ethan Allen Institute noted "What constantly astounds me
is that in 35 years Vermont has had No Opposition Movement to modern liberalism."  There
is a saying among some political operatives in the state that goes something like this:
"The right wing in Vermont could not organize a beer run from camp".  Given that the
statist onslaught has gone largely unchallenged for 35 YEARS, the real story here is that
Vermont is not even more socialistic.  We still have the most libertarian gun laws in the
country, and while I consider the Vermont Supreme Court's Baker Decision and the Civil
Union law it inspired to be a bastardization of the "Common Benefit" clause of our
constitution, we do have a live and let live frame of mind when it comes to what most
would consider "peculiar" behavior.  (Those who are singularly obsessed with
"homosexuality" will not get very far in the long run here)  Of course I have covered
some of this ground with you before.  Let me now offer some more concrete data to
buttress my claim.  Below is a summary of the results from the 2003 LP survey taken at
Town Meeting Day as reported in the latest VTLP newsletter.
 
 
"Fifteen hundred voters from 30 towns participated in the third annual survey.  The
tallied responses show that voters want more personal control over their lives and less
government regulation of health care, worry about the impact of the "War on Terrorism" on
civil liberties, and support cuts in government programs as opposed to higher taxes.
 
The survey contained questions on topics ranging from fiscal policy to health care, drug
policy to education.  The most significant results came on questions about fiscal policy
and health care, ... 67% of respondents believe that the Vermont state government spends
and taxes too much ...Vermont law requires health insurance companies must buy coverage
for specific treatments.  By a margin of 68 to 18 percent (14% answering "Maybe")
respondents opposed mandates and think that individuals should be free to pick and choose
the items they want covered."
 
 
The results from the VTLPs three annual surveys reinforce something that I have felt all
along.  Despite the statist onslaught we have experienced and the lack of any meaningful
opposition, the spirit of Ethan Allen still lives in the souls of Vermont's average
citizens.  Over the years, I have seen one statist outrage after another pushed upon the
voters of this state.  The initial outrage causes a temporary opposition movement to rise
up (Take Back Vermont was just the latest in a LONG line of such backlashes).  Without
coordinated and sustained leadership, the movement has always died away and people go
back to getting on with their private lives.  What is really needed here is a small cadre
of dedicated freedom lovers who will form the core of a coordinated and sustained
movement for liberty.  A few thousand people who would dedicate themselves to organizing
small "Town Hall" style meetings around the state on various issues, write letters to the
editor, join existing pro-liberty groups, form new ones where appropriate, start new
newsletters, etc., could turn this state around in a heart beat.  I can not stress enough
the importance of having regular "Town Hall" style meetings on various issues all over
the state, year in and year out.  Vermont combines a small population with a small LAND
MASS better than almost any other state being considered.  Again, the web site criteria
has VASTLY underestimated the importance of a small land mass in aiding the success of
the Town Hall approach to promoting an agenda.  (This has to be done before political
candidates can get elected to advance that agenda)  In fact, I have seen little
discussion of the need to employ the "Town Hall" approach.  Perhaps most people on the
list come from a state where there is no strong tradition of local Town Meetings.
Despite the statist onslaught, local Town Meeting style democracy is still a highly
revered tradition in this state, as it is in New Hampshire.  I am personally skeptical of
the western states because of the long distances it would require that one travel to
organize such meetings all over the state on a regular basis.  Besides the size issue,
the tradition of local Town Meeting style democracy is stronger in places like Vermont
and New Hampshire.  You could take advantage of this by promoting the FSP as an attempt
to rescue Vermont's lost decentralist libertarian heritage.
 
 
Regards,
Robert
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: Robert H. on May 10, 2003, 04:12:47 am
Maynard is well-spoken and knowledgeable about Vermont politics, but I would have to take issue with his ideas concerning land area considerations.

As someone has said, all politics "is local."  Most campaigning that goes on, whether for county, state-wide, and even national office, occurs at the local level: local activists getting together within the confines of their own towns and cities to hold rallies, operate phone banks, pass out literature, stuff envelopes, write letters, set up booths, distribute yard signs, etc.  Most activists do not travel far from where they live and work and technology has made them even more independently effective than ever.  The ones who travel the most are the candidates themselves, and even most of them do not have far to go unless they're running for statewide offices such as state senator or governor.  Other candidates have no need to travel outside of their towns, counties, or districts as they have a narrower constituency to reach.

If the FSP were to choose a state like Wyoming or Montana, the distances between cities would not present so much of a daunting challenge to activism given that most of us would not be scattered out "in the bush country."  We'd either be in or near the major population centers, and thus close enough to get together pretty much whenever we needed to within our own local clusters.  Our western candidate states are more "urbanized" when it comes to this factor, as the population of our eastern states is more spread out via numerous towns and smaller cities.  

Oddly enough, even though the eastern towns are closer to one another, I believe they would serve to scatter our numbers and resources to a greater extent than western cities that are farther apart from one another.

Consider two scenarios in which we're dealing with the disposition of 20,000 activists:

Scenario A:

This is more of your Wyoming sort of model state where most of our activists would be concentrated around the two major population centers: Cheyenne and Casper.  Take 20,000 activists and disburse them evenly (for simplicity's sake):

City 1       City 2
10,000    10,000

Each of these two major population centers now has 10,000 activists voting and running for office within the same electoral districts.

Scenario B:

Now consider a state with more numerous population centers (more of a New England model):

City 1      City 2      City 3      City 4    
5,000       5,000       5,000       5,000

Each group of 5,000 activists is effectively isolated from the others when it comes to voting and running for office within the each of these four cities (since you cannot vote or run for office outside of your own district).

The above examples are simplified for the ease of illustration, so, yes, I am aware that there are other factors involved (city size, etc...), and each state will be somewhat different.  The point here is that having a population that is scattered to a higher degree has the potential to diminish our effectiveness by erecting more numerous barriers between us.  Town A and Town B may be five miles apart, but if they are truly independent entities, then they might as well be 5,000 miles apart when it comes to voting or running for office: you can't do it in both, so their proximity really doesn't matter all that much.  States with more concentrated populations may be easier for us to influence because they will be more conducive to allowing larger numbers of us to vote and run for office within the same districts.

There are extremes on both side of this, of course.  Alaska is the extreme when it comes to the concentrated population side because Anchorage holds over 40% of the state's population, while Vermont is the extreme when it comes to a scattered population.

Far from being a disadvantage, I believe this is another area where Wyoming really shines.  With most of the population and economic opportunity in the Casper and Cheyenne areas, we can anticipate that most of our membership will also end up in these areas.  That means that more of us will be clustered together so as to support one another to the highest degree in both local and state politics.

And if FSPer's decided to meet between Cheyenne and Casper once or twice a year, that would effectively mean that most FSPer's would be only 150 miles apart from one another anyway.  Other than that, most of our work would be local.  I don't see why we would need to meet en mass more frequently than once or twice a year anyway, no matter where we went.
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: Dalamar49 on May 10, 2003, 10:16:46 am
Unfortunately, many FSP members won't be living in either Casper or Cheyenne, many will choose to enjoy Wyoming's expansive wilderness.

Also, even 5000 activists in a city can make considerable change. In Nevada we only have about 30 activists...maybe less...so I think 5000 isn't as bad a you make it sound.
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: Robert H. on May 10, 2003, 10:54:25 am
Unfortunately, many FSP members won't be living in either Casper or Cheyenne, many will choose to enjoy Wyoming's expansive wilderness.

Also, even 5000 activists in a city can make considerable change. In Nevada we only have about 30 activists...maybe less...so I think 5000 isn't as bad a you make it sound.

Yes, I'm sure that a number of FSPer's will live in other areas as well, but based on what I've seen from the discussions that have taken place, many more will probably congregate around those two major population centers (at least in the beginning).  It will be easier to find work there, and those of our number who enjoy a more urban lifestyle will find an environment closer to what they want.  These cities are also major transportation hubs on the road to other places, and a number of us have expressed interest in taking advantage of that sort of location as well.

As for the 5,000, that was just a number illustration.  The overall point was how we could find our efforts divided if we became scattered over many different districts.  States like Wyoming provide for a more natural form of migration; that is, new migrants will most likely go where the majority of the population and opportunity can be found, both of which are mainly available in a few select locations.  The advantage is that it would also yield a very favorable atmosphere for both local and state influence.

States with more of their population scattered about are still winnable, of course; however, I believe they would require more of a targeted or "smart" migration for us to be really effective there (especially in the short run).  That is, we would have to try to get people to move in a more organized fashion given the political dynamic of the state, something I think will be almost impossible to do.  Given family influences, job prospects, and other more subjective considerations, the last thing we'll be able to do is tell people where to live.

That said, there are certainly places in Wyoming where I would rather live than Cheyenne and Casper.   :)
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: jgmaynard on May 11, 2003, 03:55:44 pm
I was thinking this afternoon that campaigning is easier in less rural environments. If you're driving 5 mins between houses, you can MAYBE cover 7 houses an hour. In even a small city, you can hit 30 or 40 houses in the same time.


JM
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: Zxcv on May 11, 2003, 09:54:53 pm
This is one of those factors that get far more attention than they deserve. Wyoming does not have a significant advantage over NH or VT in this, nor is the reverse true. Every factor having to do with physical configuration of the state is faced as well by our opponents, so it all cancels out. And I don't buy the argument that they have so much more money than we have, that they can get the advantage on us with this factor. It is all a lot of bunk.
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: George Reich on May 12, 2003, 09:01:12 am
The Vermont and New Hampshire Libertarian parties are able to get at least some people elected to office. The LPs in our western states cannot even get organized enough to endorse the FSP. I believe the "land area" issue is responsible for this difference.
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: Hank on May 12, 2003, 09:41:32 am
You talk of land area and knocking on doors.
Western rural people are already libertarians (but don't call them that or you'll get punched).
It is in Western cities you have your hardest work cut out for you. Those urban and suburban doors are as near to each other as in urban and suburban New Hampshire (or DE, or VT, or ME).

P.S.
Here in the West our town councils and county commissioners are fully-fledged lawmakers. Wyoming has a Libertarian elected to town council. (http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php)
That's more power than your NH selectmen in Lisbon or Merrimack.
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: di540 on May 12, 2003, 11:14:11 am
Here in the West our town councils and county commissioners are fully-fledged lawmakers. Wyoming has a Libertarian elected to town council. (http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php)
.
I can't believe that they are 'fully-fledged' law makers,
since the 10th Amendment reserves default law-making
power to the States or the People. Thus, they can
at most be tenants-in-chief, such that Wyoming has
delegated lawmaking power to the towns & counties.
Or, they can propose laws and have the People vote on
them. Otherwise, they themselves could pass bonds.
.
Do you have any links that explain the system?
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: Robert H. on May 12, 2003, 05:10:40 pm
The Vermont and New Hampshire Libertarian parties are able to get at least some people elected to office.

It seems that most libertarian types in the west run under the GOP label, as opposed to the LP label.  We have other examples of this, of course, including Ron Paul, whose libertarian views are beyond question.  And the Republican Liberty Caucus has ranked Wyoming's Senators and Congressional Representative as "libertarian" in their voting records although they are all members of the GOP.  We're also being told that New Hampshire's Governor Benson is a libertarian in GOP clothing, so examples abound here.

"Number of LPer's elected to office" is an interesting consideration, but I don't hold it up as being a supreme consideration, or as a criteria that demonstrates which states are most pliable for our purposes.  We are, after all, interested in crafting majorities, something which will almost necessarily have to be accomplished via the major party infrastructures.  

The most we could accomplish with third parties in most states is to annoy the Big 2 and get statists elected by splitting the liberty vote.  Alaska might be an exception here though because it has so many voters who have chosen to designate themselves as "non-partisan" or "undeclared."  There, we could potentially form a majority third party, if we could unite those interests.

In the meantime, it seems that third parties are most effective where state politics is most contentious.  Thus, "number of LP'ers elected to office" may merely be a sign of which states are most politically polarized.  Political polarization could be an asset to us, but it could just as easily turn on us as well.  And I believe such an environment could serve to foster activist burn-out more readily.  The residents of more politically laid-back states may be more difficult to excite, but this could also mean that we could have a greater shot at creating significant political momentum ourselves, and it would likely prove to be a more conducive training environment for the green political activists that we are currently assembling here with the FSP.

Quote
The LPs in our western states cannot even get organized enough to endorse the FSP. I believe the "land area" issue is responsible for this difference.

Personally, I don't believe that their failure to endorse the FSP has much to do with their level of organization or effectiveness.  When you think about it, all that an endorsement requires is a vote and someone to draft it and send it out.  Endorsements require a minimal amount of invovlement and organization to pull off, so I'm not terribly impressed by any group's ability to endorse us (or their failure to, for that matter).

It could then be asked why they cannot aspire to even this minimal amount of effort, a question that I will answer with the same answer that we sometimes see from the NHLP representatives among us when they're asked why they're not as prominent in these discussions:  they may be too busy doing other more important things.   ;)  I'm poking fun here, but not being mean.

I think it should also be pointed out that the FSP is not entitled to anyone's endorsement; and, I've said elsewhere, I question whether or not endoresments are something we really need or want.  It seems that they label us to a degree, thereby leaving us less room to create our own identity, and thus possibly allowing our opposition to marginalize us to a degree - "guilt by association," if you will.  I mean, let's face it, the LP does not exactly have a sterling reputation in most quarters.  

Alaska (my own 2nd favorite state) just endorsed us (or rather, their LP did  ;)), and I didn't really find much significance in it other than they were the first western state to do so.

Thinking about this a bit more though, the Alaska LP's endorsement would tend to call the geographic size/activist effectiveness correlation into even greater doubt.  This is due to the fact that Alaska is the geographically largest FSP candidate state, and is the most remote and isolated state in the Union (with locations within Alaska itself being remote and isolated from one another to a degree seen nowhere else in the lower 48 states).  So, if we construe some sort of relationship between geographic size and activist effectiveness based on whether or not their state LP's endorse us, then Alaska would seem to have the most effective and eager LP of the bunch.
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: jgmaynard on May 13, 2003, 12:06:19 pm
"Western rural people are already libertarians (but don't call them that or you'll get punched)."

Charming!  ::)

"Wyoming has a Libertarian elected to town council. "

Good for a start.... We have 28 people currently serving, many to budget committees, and our chair is advising the Governor.
We should have at least 2 City Council members this November, and will likely once again have a powerful caucus in the state house next year.

Now go get some more people elected. ;)

JM
Title: We Hate NY Liberals More than You Do
Post by: jgmaynard on May 28, 2003, 11:46:12 am
Because sometimes politics gets too serious...

We Hate NY Liberals More than You Do

In an effort to show how the people of New Hampshire hate New York big Government liberals (and RINO's!) even more than anyone in the west possibly could, Rick LaPointe has started a new Yahoo! discussion group at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/wehatenewyorkliberalsmorethanyoudo

Come join us for the fun, funny photos, and polls like "Who is the worst NY liberal?"... See how much fun we in the "Live Free or Die" state have poking fun at, and being different from, NY Big-Governmentites.

It won't be the most serious thing you have done today, but it could be the funnest!

JM
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: LibertyLover on June 02, 2003, 03:14:12 pm
I just discovered and joined FSP a few days ago and have been reading these boards practically non-stop since then. I am thrilled to find so many people who share so many of my beliefs, but this thread in particular shows some of the challenges we will be facing.

We all believe in freedom, but what does that really mean in terms of how we behave toward other people? I don't think it means much if we take the attitude that we are right and anyone who disagrees with us is an "idiot," a "statist," or a "cowboy" in the sense it is being used here. Not that idiots, statists and stereotypical cowboys don't exist, but  libertarian nutjobs exist also. Only it doesn't do anybody any good to put those kind of pejorative labels on individuals in this kind of forum, no matter how dangerous one thinks they are to one's own goals.

WyoRancher's posts have convinced me that Wyoming offers the best chance to accomplish the FSP goals, and this city girl would love to have him for a neighbor, but I think he is mistaken in wanting the FSP leadership to make Zack shut up.

I cringe when I read Zack's posts that express so much hatred and distrust of everyone who disagrees with him. My beliefs are probably even more extremist than Zack's when it comes to victimless crimes, but I think that, if he is for real, he is seriously mistaken in the means he uses to achieve his goals.

However, if I have the right to express my opinions, then Zack has the right to express his. As much as I hope that WyoRancher and others like him don't judge the FSP by people like Zack, all I can do about it is express my hope that Zack learns to respect the opinions of others so he can effectively communicate the benefits of freedom.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Stumpy on June 02, 2003, 03:36:11 pm
Welcome to the Free State Project. ;D
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: George Reich on June 02, 2003, 04:16:30 pm
I cringe when I read Zack's posts that express so much hatred and distrust of everyone who disagrees with him.

With time Zack may not bother you so much. I used to feel the same way about him that you do, but now tend to view him as sort of "the black sheep of the family". A family member nonetheless....
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Zack Bass on June 02, 2003, 04:53:04 pm

I cringe when I read Zack's posts that express so much hatred and distrust of everyone who disagrees with him.


Sorry, I missed that part.  Where did I ever do that?
I hate and distrust those who threaten to use violence against me when I propose to move with my friends and change Wyoming's Laws, but I do not hate and distrust those who merely disagree with me.

Hank Hill threatened me with violence.  That's the difference.
What's more, despite many many opportunities, he never rescinded his threat.

Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: LibertyLover on June 02, 2003, 06:01:18 pm
With time Zack may not bother you so much. I used to feel the same way about him that you do, but now tend to view him as sort of "the black sheep of the family". A family member nonetheless....

I think I already feel that way. I do like some of his posts.

Living in LA, I have learned to accept and be friends with people whose beliefs horrify me. I have a good friend who told me that he feels safer in London than in Los Angeles because of England's gun laws. He is not stupid, but no amount of statistics about how England's gun ban has made London's crime rate skyrocket will convince him that gun control is wrong. However, I have finally got him to see that there is some value in supporting the Second Amendment.

Even the most vocal leftist activists in Hollywood are doing what they think is right. I adore actors, but the profession doesn't attract the most intellectual people. The ones who get involved in political discussion mostly feel that they are doing it out of a responsibility to give back to the community. I don't know Susan Sarandon, but I'm sure her feelings would be hurt if you accused her of advocating the armed robbery of some Americans in order to enslave other Americans in government dependency. She would also think you were crazy.

On the other hand, I have a very good friend who is a retired deputy sheriff. She loves to vent to me about those idiot liberals, but when I questioned whether the US had the moral or legal right to invade a country to overthrow a government that hadn't attacked us, she insisted that the Iraqi people wanted us to free them from their evil dictator so much that they wouldn't mind the "collateral damage." Telling her that was the most idiotic thing I had ever heard would not have accomplished anything. Listening to her made me realize that any of us are capable of getting caught up in beliefs that will not survive the test of reality.

I believe that a few thousand of us can make our country a better place, and I am willing to pledge "my life, my fortune and my sacred honor" to that proposition. Only time will prove whether my belief is true, so I better not be too arrogant about it.  :-\
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: LibertyLover on June 02, 2003, 07:53:15 pm

I cringe when I read Zack's posts that express so much hatred and distrust of everyone who disagrees with him.

Sorry, I missed that part.  Where did I ever do that?

I wasn't referring to one particular post, and I don't think YOU feel that you are expressing hatred and distrust, but when your overall tone in multiple posts gives the impression that you believe anyone who doesn't agree with you is your enemy, you make enemies for yourself and for the rest of us.

When you talk about getting enough people to go in and take over a town or county as if everyone who lives there now will be against us, you make it a self-fulfilling prophesy. Maybe you are right in your implicit assumption that people's hearts and minds can't be changed, that once a statist, always a statist, but just maybe people are more flexible than that. If you give them the benefit of the doubt, they might surprise you. The only thing I know for sure is that you can't force people to accept the responsibility of freedom against their will.

You said in one post that you aren't an anarchist. Well, I am an anarchist in the sense that I believe the best prescription for a peaceful and prosperous society is no government at all. Very few people agree with me; I may be wrong; and, even if I am right, I have no idea how to get from here to there.

I do know that it can't be done with force or fraud or browbeating, so nobody has to be afraid that I'm going to get rid of any amount of government they believe is necessary for a civil society. My ideal society will only come about if all the tiny steps toward it prove to be successful. That means that it will probably take longer than my lifetime to even find out if my beliefs are true.

For example, you talk about victimless crime as if any idiot should realize that it is wrong to punish someone for doing something that doesn't harm anyone but himself. The fact is that many intelligent and good-intentioned people believe that laws are necessary to protect people from themselves and/or that bad behavior somehow harms society even if it doesn't harm a specific person.

I don't think those beliefs can be changed without a major paradyme shift from a justice system based on punishment to one based on reparations. The major institutional changes necessary to convert to a reparations system will never happen unless major cultural changes cause people to give up the impulse to tell other people how they should live their lives.

I think our biggest challenge is to discipline ourselves individually to honor other people's beliefs so they will give us a chance to explain and try to prove ours. If we can't show them an example of respecting their rights and beliefs, how can we expect them to respect ours?
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Hank on June 13, 2003, 06:38:52 pm
From 101 Reasons to Vote for NH (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1999;start=msg27335)
Quote
#35) New Hampshire does not suffer from the unfortunate and unfair characterization by the media that many of the western states have been subjected to. If our goal is to establish a beachhead of freedom that will serve as an example of freedom to the rest of the nation and world, New Hampshire is the best choice. If we choose a western state we run a serious risk of immediately being stigmatized by the media.
Quote
#37) The bulk of the nation's population is concentrated east of the Mississippi. By going where the population is we have the opportunity to establish a credible, mainstream political movement and beachhead in the fight for freedom. By choosing a western state we run the risk of immediately isolating and stigmatizing the movement.

From New Hampshire (http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=27;start=msg3038)
Quote
Yet Noyes and other Lebanon residents are hardly as radical as antigovernment militia types out West.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Rearden on June 13, 2003, 11:44:57 pm
It is undeniably true that some of the western states are characterized for having an extreme right-wing militant element.  Being chosen as the home of a white supremacist church (Montana) or leaving a gay college student tied to a fence to die (Wyoming), both widely reported in national media, does not help.

For the record, I am sure that these incidents are not representative of the vast majority of the people of those states.  They will not enter in the slightest into my voting decision, and I am not recommending that anyone else base their voting decision on these sad events.  

However, the point of the reasons quoted from the NH report is that the west is stigmatized in the minds of most Americans, and it suggests that anything we do there will not be taken seriously.  It's an argument.  Buy into it or not -- it's up to you.  For some, the isolation granted by the west is a positive.  For others, it's a distinct negative.  Like borders, ports, and federal land ownership, it's a double-edged sword.

VERY IMPORTANT:

Also, the newspaper article that Hank quoted above was from a newspaper IN LEBANON, MAINE.  It was not said by any FSP member, and had nothing to do with New Hampshire.  From the same article:

"Indeed, a hardy skepticism of government pervades this place. After all, this town in southern Maine is just a few miles from New Hampshire, where big government is practically evil incarnate."

I recommend that everyone reads Hank's posts very carefully, and question everything.  No offense, Hank, but I find that you have a tendency to leave out important details such as this, and you're not above a little manipulation and truth-twisting in order to boost your favorite state.  If Wyoming wins, it wins, but do you have to resort to this type of thing?  
  :-\

In fact, this thread has been dead for five months!  Why do you distract from the worthy discussion of fact and opinion by attempting to reinforce this unfortunate east/west division?  This is supposed to be a search for the best state for liberty, not East vs. West.  It's clear there is a natural division that shows itself during discussions of facts and opinion, but you seem interested in the division FOR ITS OWN SAKE.  

 
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Hank on June 14, 2003, 09:45:20 am
No thread is dead if it has relevant information or opinion. Rather resurrect an old thread than start yet another new one on the same subject. The indexes to each section are getting rather long. Duplicate threads don't help.

Quote
I recommend that everyone reads Hank's posts very carefully, and question everything.
Quite right!

I recommend that everyone reads EVERYONE's posts very carefully, and question everything.

As this state question heats up EVERYONE will be using manipulative tricks, insults, innuendos, and baseless accusations and claims. EVERYONE will be guilty of omitting inconvenient or embarassing items about their favorite state.
EVERYONE will be guilty of embellishing items which reflect favorably on their favorite state.
EVERYONE should be suspect of inventing some things to make their state look better.


I recommend that everyone reads Karl's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads FreedomRoad's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Keith Murphy's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Zack's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Michelle's posts very carefully, and question everything. (she posted the above quotes)
I recommend that everyone reads Exitus's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Libertarian40's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Zxcv's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads LeReneiur's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Jacobus's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Joey's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Joe's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Maynard's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Robert's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Alaska's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Wyoming's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Montana's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Idaho's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads S.Dakota's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads N.Dakota's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Vermont's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Maine's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads New Hampshire's posts very carefully, and question everything.
I recommend that everyone reads Delaware's posts very carefully, and question everything.

P.S.  Posters who post articles are, to some degree, agreeing with those articles unless they post a disclaimer.

Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Dalamar49 on June 14, 2003, 10:01:05 am
Sweet! No one has to read my posts very carefully and question everything.

 Buhahahahaha!
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Michelle on June 14, 2003, 10:19:35 am
I recommend that everyone reads Michelle's posts very carefully, and question everything. (she posted the above quotes)


LOL. Yes, I did Hank. Thanks for helping me promote my report. To read the other 99 reasons to vote on NH, go to http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-Vote-NH.pdf

Seriously though, you'll note that I phrased these carefully to indicate that I felt the media often unfairly mis-characterizes western states (in other words, I don't agree with the characterization), but pointed out the fact that they do and that this could be a disadvantage to FSP.

Hank, it is clear that you are angry about the competition I have introduced into the state choice issue. For the sake of the FSP as a whole, let me suggest that you deal with this anger by promoting the state of your choice in a positive way, with facts and data, rather than simply attacking other states or FSP members with innuendo and hyperbole. Your attacks simply serve to tear down the FSP rather than build it up. That isn't what I want and I don't think it is what you want.
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: BobW on June 14, 2003, 12:31:09 pm
Hi Hank,

(If only I could mobilize all this internal warfare at my state capitol!)

Is it a forum rule or custom that a posted article reflects the poster's views unless a disclaimer is attached?

I've posted a few where I agree in part and disagree in part, without mentioning this.  My view was to add an article to help in some way.

May I ask for clarification.

BobW

Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Zack Bass on June 15, 2003, 06:28:18 am

Is it a forum rule or custom that a posted article reflects the poster's views unless a disclaimer is attached?


I doubt that there's such a Rule, but Hank has a good point.  Without a disclaimer, you might get an argument from someone who actually agrees with your own view.

Title: Re:Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
Post by: Hank on July 26, 2003, 06:30:13 pm
I notice that Wyoming has the highest percentage of people living in urban clusters.  Wyoming's 40% is way ahead of the runner up (Montana at 28%) and leaves DE, ME, and NH way behind.  That's also while it is third in percent farm (the Dakotas are first in farm percent :)

This explains why Wyoming commuting times are so short. People work in their home cities.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2485
Title: Re:Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
Post by: Robert H. on July 26, 2003, 07:54:31 pm
I notice that Wyoming has the highest percentage of people living in urban clusters.  Wyoming's 40% is way ahead of the runner up (Montana at 28%) and leaves DE, ME, and NH way behind.  That's also while it is third in percent farm (the Dakotas are first in farm percent :)

This explains why Wyoming commuting times are so short. People work in their home cities.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2485

This is also why I don't buy the idea that campaigning will be more difficult in Wyoming just because it is a geographically large state.  Most of us will settle in the more populated areas, which, as you note, have a larger number of people clustered together.  Spread out between Cheyenne, Casper and Laramie, we would be able to access the majority of the state's population rather easily, as well as the centers of government, which should be our major concern.  
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: Hank on August 11, 2003, 02:50:02 pm
With local Porcupine chapters in all the larger towns and cities, even the west can be liberated. Don't worry about people out in the wide open spaces or up in the hills. They are already the most "libertarian".  Getting them out to vote is the hardest part unless you get 'em riled up about an invasion of Californians or Easterners (because it is happening).
Title: Re:how important small land area?
Post by: Robert H. on August 12, 2003, 07:50:38 pm
Much of what we discuss here in terms of the FSP's future activities, and how our plans might pan out, is theoretical, but we do occasionally see some real life examples played out.

One of those debates has concerned whether we should target geographically small states for "ease of campaigning" purposes; another has concerned whether being close to large population centers is a positive or negative factor.  

One recent article from the New Hampshire Concord Monitor seems to speak to both issues.  The Teamsters gathered a large group of Gephardt supporters to a rally in New Hampshire back on August 9th, bussing them in from nearby states.

If small land area means easy campaigning for us, it will also mean the same for our opposition, and with large population centers nearby, they'll have plenty of people to draw numbers from (there are more statists than libertarians).  This is a real life example of it happening in one of our candidate states:

Gephardt fans bused in from all over New England (http://www.cmonitor.com/stories/news/state2003/teamstersidebar080903_2003.shtml)

Sunday, August 10, 2003

By MEG HECKMAN
Monitor staff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MANCHESTER - The Teamsters threw one great party last night, complete with a massive barbecue, a soundtrack packed with '80s-era get-pumped songs and a fair number of out-of-state guests.

About 950 people attended last night's rally to watch the Teamsters endorse Rep. Dick Gephardt in the Democratic primary. Many came by the busload from Massachusetts, Maine and Rhode Island in hopes of helping New Hampshire get psyched about Gephardt.

"I think a lot of people in New Hampshire haven't taken a good look at Gephardt," Tom McGarthy shouted over "Eye of the Tiger." McGarthy, a Teamster who lives in Boston, thinks many New Hampshire residents are hung up on either Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry or former Vermont governor Howard Dean.

"This is a great way for Gephardt to come to New Hampshire and get the word out," he said, a cloud of smoke from the grills billowing overhead.

U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy brought a contingent with him from Rhode Island. Before coming to the rally, the crew sent the day waving the Gephardt banner in southern New Hampshire.

"Small states need to stick together," he told the crowd before Gephardt's arrival.

As the rally drew to a close and the out-of-state visitors headed back to their busses and cars they tossed around their opinions on the event.

"It brought attention," said Brian Dunigan, who came from Massachusetts with some of his fellow Teamsters.

"It would at least give you a couple of seconds to consider the guy," replied his friend Tom Noyes. "Free food was nice too."

Sunday, August 10, 2003
Title: Re:Fear of Cities, and of states dominated by them.
Post by: Hank on August 22, 2003, 10:11:08 am
Quote
The guy who wrote this rant needs to get out of his gosh-dang car and walk a little; otherwise he deserves his traffic jams.
Apparently you relish jostling elbow to elbow in crowds or stacked up fourteen deep in lines or being herded like sheep.  There really are people who just barely keep from going berzerk in crowded malls, sidewalks, and parks.  These are the sore who, upon entering an nearly empty park will gravitate to the open spaces and distant vistas and away from clusters of people.

Conversly, there are also those who, upon entering an nearly empty park will gravitate to the nearest cluster of people.

Quote
None of the other candidate states have anything comparable to big city traffic, excepting possibly a tiny nugget of southeastern NH, and even that doesn't compare to NYC.
 NYC is abomidable off the end of the scale. Even the cluster jams in and around Nashua or Boise or Sioux Falls drives some of us nuts.
Title: Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
Post by: Kelton on August 22, 2003, 01:42:23 pm

These are the old figures, from Political Money Line,
http://www.tray.com/cgi-win/indexhtml.exe?MBF=CAND

AK - $6.1 mil (95-96 cycle)
DE - $8.7 mil (99-00)
ID - $7.7 mil (97-98)
ME - $11.4 mil (95-96)
MT - $10.9 mil (99-00)
NH - $8.2 mil (95-96)
ND - $4.2 mil (99-00)
SD - $13.8 mil (95-96)
VT - $4.3 mil (99-00)
WY - $4.7 mil (95-96)

Some states increased after the 01-02 election cycle.  I do think NH's current number probably overstates the spending we'd normally be facing there, but in general, I wholeheartedly agree with keeping only the *highest* figure in recent elections, rather than *averaging* all elections.  Most election cycles do not feature a close election; therefore, fundraising and spending are low.  Cycles with tight, important elections will see an explosion of spending, and these are the elections when we see what the political establishment can throw at us if they *really* feel threatened.
I decided to look at these numbers in a different way and plugged them into :
Eligible voter population (2000)
Wyoming - 364,909
Alaska - 436,215
Vermont - 461,304
North Dakota - 481,351
South Dakota - 552,195
Delaware - 589,013
Montana -672,133
Idaho - 924,923
New Hampshire - 926,224
Maine - 973,685  

The result, I found quite surprising, in terms of dollar$ per potential voter in campaign expenditures:



ID   8.32
ND   8.73
NH   8.85
VT   9.32
ME  11.71
AK  13.98
DE  14.77
MT  16.22
WY  16.72
SD  24.99
Wow! big differences in these states!

Of course, these figures have been presented in terms of $/Porcupine and other ways, but I find this insightful.  And of course, these figures are old, the 2002 cycle would show yet another different story.

Please, someone find an error with the way that I did this.  Could this be an accurate description of how things really are?  Is this a good way to look at this?  Criticisms please.
Title: A visual case for Western states
Post by: anarchicluv on August 25, 2003, 02:24:02 am
Check out this view from space.  Where will we fit all those freedom lovers if we choose an Eastern state?  

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories/images/usa-nightlights1994-1995b.jpg

*sMiTe*
Title: Re:A visual case for Western states
Post by: anarchicluv on August 25, 2003, 11:06:54 am
*bump*
Title: Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
Post by: Hank on August 31, 2003, 10:31:54 pm
From Zack:
Quote
I doubt that there's such a Rule, but Hank has a good point.  Without a disclaimer, you might get an argument from someone who actually agrees with your own view.

Even on the Free Republic Forum which generally requires all threads to start with some article, the initiating poster posts some comment in agreement or disagreement. The latter is needed to prevent the other forum members for climbing all over them for "apparently" agreeing with the article simply by posting it.

From Bob:
Quote
I've posted a few where I agree in part and disagree in part, without mentioning this.  My view was to add an article to help in some way.
 Bob, in many forums that I've frequented over the years, if you don't mention your relationship to the article, people will assume you agree with it.  Why would you post it if otherwise?  Make it explicit your agreement or neutrality, but don't expect people to respect neutrality.
Title: red nation,blue nation
Post by: Bonner County on September 03, 2003, 10:46:51 pm
Anyone remember "THE MAP"?You might what to take another look at it before you vote.
   NH is surounded.
   Back when I studying tactics in the army the rational response would be to pull out as many of your troops as possible before they're overwhelmed.The stupid plan would to be to send in reinforcements to to help a doomed contingent because you would sacrifice to many too save too few.
   How many of you want to sacrifice the rest of your productive years trying to save a dying populace.
   It would be much wiser to evacuate and create a home for them behind enemy lines.

   In case you forgot here is a site with the map
        democraticunderground.com/articles/01/08/pl27_map
Title: Re:red nation,blue nation
Post by: jgmaynard on September 03, 2003, 10:55:35 pm
The argument doesn't hold up to the lessons of history.
New Hampshire has held off statists for 225 years, and we have no intention of letting them win now.
In fact, support for new or raised taxes in NH has dropped 65% in the last 27 years.
More info and references are at http://www.freestatenh.com/SAQ.html#mass

JM
Title: Re:red nation,blue nation
Post by: George Phillies on September 04, 2003, 10:34:12 am
No matter where you go (except Alaska, which is between Russia and Canada) you are going to be substantially surrounded by states with large Democratic-Republican majorities, states loaded with the two gun-grabber parties, homophobic bigots and  antiabortionists who want their personal opinions made into law, drug warriors, people who have replaced tax and spend with spend and spend and see half-trillion dollar deficits as real yawners....    The Red and the Blue symbolize the two statist parties, each of which have some good people and some profreedom ideas, but neither of which is any better than the other, and both of which are poisonous for America.

The objective of the Free State Project is to show that our ideas work, their ideas do not, and provide an example of the real choice.  And having provided that example, we advance forward to convert the good people of neighboring (depending on which state wins)  Maryland , Nevada, Utah, New York, and so forth that our ideas will work in their state too.

Title: Re:Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
Post by: Hank on September 04, 2003, 01:33:46 pm
I see that South Dakota doesn't make it to the final cut.
That's because Sioux Falls is too darn big and dominant.
Thank gosh we have Rapid City or the western half would be sunk.
At least North Dakota has several spread out population centers.
Same for Montana but, my gosh, they are so, so spread out.
No doubt in Idaho what Boise wants, Boise gets.
Same in Alaska with Anchorage.
The cluster in southern New Hampshire is just one large metro area which orders the rest of the state around with its overwhelming power in the state legislature. The reps from Coos county may as well not bother driving down to Concord.
Title: Re:Fear of Cities, and of states dominated by them.
Post by: Hank on September 04, 2003, 01:42:45 pm
And another thing.

Cities may be a necessary evil, but with mail order and internet they can be kept hundreds of miles away. Far enough to go to when we have to but far enough to keep the hoards away most of the time.  It's terrible though when they can drive 80mph and be in the hills and build a second home AND then start changing the local laws by showing up at meetings and making phone calls. More building codes. More laws. More traffic.

Dang it!

You can stay in your cities.
Leave us alone.

And don't worry.
I won't be coming to visit.
I'd go nuts.
Title: Re:Fear of Cities, and of states dominated by them.
Post by: Karl on September 04, 2003, 02:31:06 pm
And another thing.

Cities may be a necessary evil, but with mail order and internet they can be kept hundreds of miles away. Far enough to go to when we have to but far enough to keep the hoards away most of the time.  It's terrible though when they can drive 80mph and be in the hills and build a second home AND then start changing the local laws by showing up at meetings and making phone calls. More building codes. More laws. More traffic.

Dang it!

You can stay in your cities.
Leave us alone.

And don't worry.
I won't be coming to visit.
I'd go nuts.

Actually, Hank, the faux rural lifestyle you promote is far more likely to cause traffic, and the roads needed to get everywhere are paid from the public dole.  In cities, walking, biking and using motor services (bus, train, taxi) are more efficient than the automobile dependant world you inhabit.

I'll work to end subsidizing your faux rural lifestyle in the Free State.  Libertarian policies, thus, will implicitly favor cities as centers of commerce and living.  If you can satisfactorily sustain your lifestyle without highway subsidies, then ultimately this will be good for you, since the cities will stay put.

Regardless, don't be surprised if the city appears near you one day.  But I expect you to drop all pretense of libertarianism then and invoke your own Carbon County-style zoning.  So long as its favorable to you, what the hell, right?


Title: Re:Fear of Cities, and of states dominated by them.
Post by: jgmaynard on September 04, 2003, 02:37:00 pm
Apparently you relish jostling elbow to elbow in crowds or stacked up fourteen deep in lines or being herded like sheep.  

Good thing none of the states we are looking at are like that. I think you're thinking of Coruscant (http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/coruscant/index.html). :D

JM
Title: Re:urbanisation
Post by: Hank on September 08, 2003, 08:14:57 pm
radracer has very good arguments.
Quote
I simply think Wyoming may give us the best chance to influence a smaller, more open-minded populace and the physical ability to have the state grow with us
Quote
The naysayers who don't like using a sparsely populated state should realize that if we are to accomplish anything we must utilize the lack of population as our advantage to actually get the power to change policy then show what can be done with it.

Wyomingites have been asking us to help them keep Cheyenne from going liberal. We have a chance to prevent it.  In other cities, especially those near big metro areas, that chance is, if not gone, so very slim against the flood that we'd just be bailing instead of paddling.
Title: Re:cowboys?
Post by: Hank on September 08, 2003, 08:25:04 pm
Marshrobert could be a cowboy if he tried.
Even Zack could be one. :o

Seriously,
We need to grow to a point where we are credible in the eyes of the big leagues.  We could leave the hotheads and idealists take over the LP.

Then the real cowboys could get some work done. ;)
Title: Re:urbanization, city and country attitudes, pop density issues
Post by: Dave Mincin on September 10, 2003, 02:54:58 pm
Amazing Hank :o  Started to respond to your post days ago, and by the time I had finished, the post disappeared, now mysteriously it has showed up here??? ::)

Anyway ???, not sure I could every become a cowboy, but that does not mean that I have not known and liked a number of cowboys in my life.  Had a few that were good friends back when I was a pup!

Not talking about the drugstore type, that put on the hats, and boots but the real ones who walk the walk and talk the talk.  They didn't take much to outsiders, and less to someone telling them how to run there lives, and think it would be near impossible for a bunch of outsiders to gain there confidence anytime in my life time.

How did I fit in?  Well hey I can fit in most anywhere, but can the rest of the porc's?

Then again maybe there really aren't too many real cowboys left! :(