Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 18   Go Down

Author Topic: urbanization, city and country attitudes, pop density issues  (Read 68897 times)

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5718
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
urbanization, city and country attitudes, pop density issues
« 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.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2003, 09:02:25 pm by JasonPSorens »
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #1 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.   ;)
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5718
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #2 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.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

forestar53

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • I'm a llama!
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #3 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
Logged

forestar53

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5
  • I'm a llama!
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #4 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
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5718
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #5 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).
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

amyday

  • Guest
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #6 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.
Logged

amyday

  • Guest
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #7 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.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2002, 12:04:27 pm by amyday »
Logged

Solitar

  • Guest
Ranking states by city, county, urban, & rural population & percent
« Reply #8 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
« Last Edit: January 03, 2003, 06:49:28 am by Joe »
Logged

Charley

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • Where's the country I grew up in?
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #9 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

Logged
Charley in WC

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #10 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.
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

Penfist

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 814
  • Work together to build something that lasts.
    • Penfist
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #11 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?
Logged
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #12 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.
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:Ranking state by metropolitan populations
« Reply #13 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
« Last Edit: December 18, 2002, 01:12:16 pm by Joe »
Logged

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #14 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...
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 18   Go Up
 

anything