Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: In Idaho and Wyoming, a reminder of what makes America great.  (Read 10867 times)

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:Can the FSP help save Rural America?
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2003, 06:05:17 pm »

Ah, Joe - I've been away, but return and happily embrace the opportunity to disagree with you (respectfully, of course)!

Can the FSP say it is trying to preserve the way of life posted above? Are the FSP activists allies in that fight or will they be bringing big city ways with them? Can we be accepted as honorary locals who help the natives and other honorary locals hold back the tide? ...Even if Boise and Wilmington are becoming too urban, people in the other cities and towns have at least sorta-rural country within walking distance.

Is 'urban' necessarily incompatible with 'freedom'? While I can understand that some freedoms (e.g., nude sunbathing or burning trash in your yard, and other activities which impinge on neighbors who are closer than one would have in more rural areas) may be easier to pursue in rural states, I hope that fundamentally this isn't the case. After all, the earth's population is continuing to grow, and logically the long-term projection is more urbanization, even in the selected states.

If a rural environment is required for freedom, then in the long run the FSP itself is almost pointless - while we may strive for 'freedom in our lifetime', logic suggests the implication from that premise that freedom is ultimately doomed. If we are to refuse to accept the conclusion that freedom is ultimately doomed, then those who think that it is only possible to achieve freedom in a more rural area should reconsider their definition of freedom.

To my way of thinking, freedom does not necessarily mean absolute license, nor does it have to involve physical isolation. It does mean learning, understanding, and living in harmony with certain universal laws of human behavior, both individually and civilly. In order to work in more densely populated areas it may require a certain willingness to tolerate and cooperate with others, to treat each other with a certain fundamental respect so that there is less call for restrictive government.

Those who don't want to tolerate and cooperate and have respect for others, as well as those who just prefer a little more nature and elbow room, should be free to flee to the country - but unless you accept the premise which leads to the conclusion that freedom is doomed, there is no reason to dismiss more urban areas as 'hopelessly statist', even if most of them are currently nests of encroaching socialists.

More directly on-topic - as you well know, review of the data measuring 'urbanization' reveals that the populated areas of the Western states seem to be more urbanized, more densely populated, than most of the areas of the Eastern states. This relates directly to the amount of land which is favorable for population growth - the growth is consuming the best farmland in the most liveable areas, near the small cities, and most of the growth in the West is taking the form of subdivision developments with each house on a lot less than an acre in size, often less than 1/2 acre. Much of the rest of the 'rural' land is unavailable (owned by government, or large farms/ranches owned by families or corporations) and/or inhospitable (desert) and/or simply so far from the nearest hint of civilization that very few people would be willing or able to live there.

Given demographic predictions that population growth will continue, these areas of 'rural America' will probably only be saved if you're willing to control development - either through individuals or foundations purchasing land for preservation, or through government restrictions. Ironically, because the last option is something the FSP does not favor, it is much more likely that the FSP will minimize regulation and allow more rapid development in what have been historically 'rural' areas in the West - family farms within reasonable driving distance of small cities in the river valleys.

'Rural America' may not survive, just as the carriage industry has largely died out since the invention of the automobile - but the values and principles which make it so vital can, and must, be preserved. You might even argue that Boise and Manchester are the perfect laboratories to discover how freedom can be compatible with urbanization, so that other states and cities now seen as hopeless might follow.

Eric

Logged

wolverine307

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
  • I could have swore I left my clue here somewhere
Re:In Idaho and Wyoming, a reminder of what makes America great.
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2003, 06:09:36 pm »

DadELK68:

Let me give you an applaud for that post. Well done.
Logged
NH>DE>SD>ID>WY>VT>ME>AK>MT>ND

Your mileage may vary.

Hank

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • "The Men That Don't Fit In"
Re:In Idaho and Wyoming, a reminder of what makes America great.
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2003, 06:38:21 pm »

Eric,
Urban and suburban is incompatible with freedom because most people who live in such areas are not tolerant enough of their neighbors freedoms. Neither are such people respectful of other people in such tight quarters.  Sure, people could get along in urban and suburban areas without so many rules and regs against their neighbors. But they don't.

Western cities are no better than eastern cities in the above respects.
The nuisance arseholes may often be even more obnoxious.
The meddling busybodies may be even more regulation demanding.

It IS the really, really rural areas where Freedom finally has a decent chance

Where do I draw the line between "rural" and "urban/suburban"?
About 100 people per square mile.
More = Bad.
Less = Good.

You can't use county averages either.
City and suburb people are packed together at thousands per square mile
even though they are surrounded by lots of farm, ranch and forest land.
Most people just like living in tight colonies.
Most people just like making rules and regs against their neighbors.
Most people are socialists and statists.
That's where we have to outnumber them with freedom loving locals and Porcupines.
Can even Porcupines live next door to each other and still leave each other be?
« Last Edit: August 08, 2003, 08:50:59 pm by Hank »
Logged
There's A race of men that don't fit in,
A race that can't stay still;
So they break the hearts of kith and kin,
And they roam the world at will.
http://www.internal.org/view_poem.phtml?poemID=295

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:In Idaho and Wyoming, a reminder of what makes America great.
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2003, 08:09:39 pm »

Quote
Those who don't want to tolerate and cooperate and have respect for others, ...
should be free to flee to the country
They may be free to flee to the country, but they won't.
They will stay in their city lots and demand more laws against their neighbor's behaviour.  Where such intolerant people are a majority,
or just reptitious or loud enough in their demands,
or where they are informal leaders,
they get those laws against their neighbor's behaviour.

So it is the freedom lovers, like Hank, who flee to the country.
And we see the cities becoming ever more statist, communitarian, & socialist.  We see cities becoming more anti-gun rights. We see cities becoming more dependent on social and government programs.

Can we reverse that trend?
Can we bring enough freedom lovers back into the cities
in order to help those freedom lovers still living in cities?
Can we help them defend their freedoms instead of moving?
« Last Edit: August 11, 2003, 08:15:28 pm by Joe, aka, Solitar »
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Can the FSP help save Rural America?
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2003, 03:56:57 am »

Is 'urban' necessarily incompatible with 'freedom'? While I can understand that some freedoms (e.g., nude sunbathing or burning trash in your yard, and other activities which impinge on neighbors who are closer than one would have in more rural areas) may be easier to pursue in rural states, I hope that fundamentally this isn't the case. After all, the earth's population is continuing to grow, and logically the long-term projection is more urbanization, even in the selected states.

If a rural environment is required for freedom, then in the long run the FSP itself is almost pointless - while we may strive for 'freedom in our lifetime', logic suggests the implication from that premise that freedom is ultimately doomed. If we are to refuse to accept the conclusion that freedom is ultimately doomed, then those who think that it is only possible to achieve freedom in a more rural area should reconsider their definition of freedom.

A rural environment is not required for freedom.  However, freedom is much easier to achieve in a more rural area.  

I do not think that makes the FSP pointless, though.  When America was founded it was a rural nation.  Slowly, as the years passed, America became both less free and less rural.  Are they related?  We have reached the point where America is no longer free and we must resettle the most independent and freedom loving of the American people in one state.  Is it best to restart the dream of America in a more rural area?  You bet.  Will it make freedom easier for us to achieve?  You bet.

When Thomas Jefferson thought of the ideal state, he thought of a rural freedom loving state.  He did not think of the urban and anti-freedom America we now live in.  Even though his dream is lost, he did not waste his life by fighting for freedom.  We are not wasting our lives by fighting for freedom.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2003, 05:32:59 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up