Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip  (Read 7102 times)

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« on: January 23, 2003, 12:52:24 pm »

Spreadsheets and number-crunching are useful tools, but can never fully appreciate the realities. It all comes down to the preferences of the person designing the spreadsheet and weighting the variables.

There's been a lot of talk about the East vs West split, but there's also the rural/remote/isolationist leave-me-alone vs the freedom-within-a-larger-society division. Libertarians (capital 'L', party members) may predominate in the former group, but there are a lot more of the latter (libertarians with a lower-case 'l', who probably tend to vote Republican) out there who will likely be the ones needed to reach the kinds of numbers required.

People in the first group are less concerned about things like jobs, quality of life, and long-term goals like demonstrating and spreading the movement; they just want to be left alone - if they predominate, it's sort of like self-immolation for the FSP in protest against an intrusive society. If this group predominates early on and the vote goes for AK, WY, or to a lesser degree MT, I suspect that the goal of 20,000 won't be reached and the result may be a bunch of freedom-loving loners disappearing into the Eastern Rockies.

The second group is more likely to succeed in the long run, because these people are more likely to work with others to further political and social goals. These are the ones who will push forward with a visionary activism. Logically, there are more of them out there to be recruited to the FSP over time, so this is the population which has to be reached.

The second, and potentially much larger group, will tend to favor NH and ID - better economic prospects, more opportunity to create a regional impact which can lead to greater influence nationally. Of these two, I would argue that NH is the best choice for the FSP movement because it does more to further the long-term goal of spreading the movement - success in NH should sway VT and ME to create a regional block which would be and ally for the Western states, much more sympathetic to the Rockies states' needs.

If we pick a Western state, it may weaken the movement regionally by disproportionately drawing people from neighboring Western states with smaller populations, while simultaneously weakening the movement nationally by drawing supporters from the Eastern bulkhead states. If a state is going to move toward tying off the federal umbilical cord, it won't be able to do so in isolation - the movement needs to have strong enough support across different states and regions to influence the national response.

New Hampshire first, Idaho second.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #1 on: January 24, 2003, 02:15:18 am »

Quote
Spreadsheets and number-crunching are useful tools, but can never fully appreciate the realities. It all comes down to the preferences of the person designing the spreadsheet and weighting the variables.

There's more to it than that.

I made a post inviting people to generate a weight for their favorite states, something we can discuss.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1226
Hard data with a plausible weighing of factors gets things beyond simple assertions that "state X is better". Let's see the weights. Unfortunately, no one has taken me up on it.

If you like NH and ID, let's see the weights that will put them over the top.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #2 on: January 24, 2003, 03:00:56 am »

People in the first group are less concerned about things like jobs, quality of life, and long-term goals like demonstrating and spreading the movement; they just want to be left alone - if they predominate, it's sort of like self-immolation for the FSP in protest against an intrusive society. If this group predominates early on and the vote goes for AK, WY, or to a lesser degree MT, I suspect that the goal of 20,000 won't be reached and the result may be a bunch of freedom-loving loners disappearing into the Eastern Rockies.

I think that there is a fundamental misunderstanding of what individualism really is, a misunderstanding predominantly held by urbanites.  An individualist is more likely to be an introvert, but this does not necessarily mean that he or she favors disappearing into the bush, never to be seen again.  It simply means that they do not want society intruding into their individual spheres of influence.  That "leave me alone" mentality does not necessarily indicate a "world, go away" desire, so much as it indicates a "let me live my life as I choose" desire.

As for jobs and quality of life, of course western advocates and individualists care about such things.  Most of them aren't independently wealthy, so they have to work, and a good economy is important to that end.  As for quality of life, individualists and westerners care very much about where they live and what surroundings their children are raised in. Spreading the movement should also be very important to such persons because the more people they convert to the idea of leaving others alone to live as they choose, the greater the chance that they themselves will actually have that right.

I don't know why it is that some people have this impression that wanting to go west or "be left alone" equals building a castle with a moat around it out in the middle of some Godforsaken wasteland a thousand miles from the nearest payphone.   :D

Quote
The second group is more likely to succeed in the long run, because these people are more likely to work with others to further political and social goals. These are the ones who will push forward with a visionary activism. Logically, there are more of them out there to be recruited to the FSP over time, so this is the population which has to be reached.

Again, individualists will work with others (their mere presence in this group testifies to that fact) in order to further the goal of achieving liberty for all people to live their lives free of intrusive government mandates and communal, utopian notions.  And these words "further political and social goals" and "visionary activism" concern me.  They imply the pursuit of the same social "consciousness" that is currently destroying our liberty via statism, even where such statism is based on purely philanthropic notions.

Liberty is, at its core, individual.  When we start to talk of "furthering social goals," we diminish the core of liberty itself, the individual, and begin transforming society into a living, breathing thing capable of asserting itself against the individual and demanding subservience.  This may not be what such socially-conscious folks have in mind in the beginning, nor would they use terms like "subservience," but social tyranny is the end result, nontheless - whether it be benevolent or malevolent.

Quote
The second, and potentially much larger group, will tend to favor NH and ID - better economic prospects, more opportunity to create a regional impact which can lead to greater influence nationally. Of these two, I would argue that NH is the best choice for the FSP movement because it does more to further the long-term goal of spreading the movement - success in NH should sway VT and ME to create a regional block which would be and ally for the Western states, much more sympathetic to the Rockies states' needs.

I wouldn't be too sure that the other New England states will follow New Hampshire's lead.  New Hampshire is freer than its neighbors now, and so far, this has not swayed them to adopt its methodologies.  If they are not doing so now, what is to persuade us that they will do so in the future?  Statism is still on the rise in that region.  On the other hand, the western states form a block of more liberty-minded states that are already sympathetic to one another's needs.

Quote
If we pick a Western state, it may weaken the movement regionally by disproportionately drawing people from neighboring Western states with smaller populations, while simultaneously weakening the movement nationally by drawing supporters from the Eastern bulkhead states. If a state is going to move toward tying off the federal umbilical cord, it won't be able to do so in isolation - the movement needs to have strong enough support across different states and regions to influence the national response.

The western states are not likely to be weakened regionally by the success of our movement in one of their number.  There is evidence to demonstrate that freedom lovers are already migrating into the western and plains states, therefore, their numbers are already on the rise there.  The freedom-oriented bent of these states would only likely increase with our success in one of them due to the fact that they are already very much alike.  They don't have as far to go on the road to Jeffersonian liberty.

Success in New Hampshire, on the other hand, would more than likely bring an influx of freedom lovers into that state as opposed to spurring them to duplicate its results in the surrounding states.  Again, New Hampshire is more different from its neighbors in these terms than it is like them, and it would take more effort to bend those neighboring states toward freedom than it would take to simply leave them.  Drawing freedom lovers away from those states would strengthen New Hampshire, but it would also isolate it because it would leave the surrounding states more firmly in statist hands.

Again, don't assume that these states are just dominoes waiting to fall.  Statism is prevalent in that region of the country because quite a lot of folks who live there like it that way.

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #3 on: January 24, 2003, 08:42:54 am »

As a resident of the region (and former resident of the Rockies), I can personally reassure you that 'statism' in New England is a matter of a relatively thin margin in states like ME and VT. Ideological division seems much more pronounced out here - liberals are often proud of the label (or tout similar labels like 'progressive'), and conservatives tend to be more libertarian (small 'L'). While 'statism' may be dominant in VT and only slightly less so in ME, it's a surprisingly thin margin, and I suspect it wouldn't take many people to tilt the balance in the other direction.

Just as the Rockies states are drawing migration of many people looking for more freedom, NH is drawing many from the East and upper Midwest. If NH is the 'free state', I suspect VT and ME will become more free partly due to current residents changing their views (but not much - these people do tend to be pretty stubborn), but more because of the influence of the cross-border 'spillover' of FSP immigrants and their economic activities.

Again, having lived for many years in both regions, my observation about economic and environmental esthetic preferences is based on sampling from my experience. There is a hard-core dedicated group of people who will go pretty much anywhere and do just about anything in order to be 'left alone' - in a venture like the FSP these are likely to be the 'early adopters' who may tend to look at the numbers and select a state which is less appealing to the 'later adopters' who will be needed to reach 20,000.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding about the phrase 'visionary activism' - in this setting it was assumed that the understanding is that we share a vision of lower taxes and greater individual freedom, and that political and economic activism will be required to move toward this vision. Quite the opposite of how it was taken.

As for introverts/individualists gathering in this forum and working together - remember, I'm suggesting trends, not describing individuals. Overall, I would argue that if you get a bunch of introverted individualists and collect them in one state - and if they are active and aggressive enough to be successful to the point that they feel they are achieving a comfortable level of freedom - that the tendency will be to relax and quietly enjoy the fruits of their labors, effectively 'disappearing'.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #4 on: January 24, 2003, 11:14:37 am »

It is of course possible that the other New England states could turn in New Hampshire's general direction, but I think it would take an influx much larger than what the FSP is contemplating to accomplish that.  Historically, people have tended to migrate in order to escape oppression, or other difficult circumstances, whenever possible.  

For this reason, I believe freedom-oriented Vermonters and Mainers would probably just cross the border and be done with it.  Losing numbers to New Hampshire in the first place would probably make it even tougher to institute reforms in those states, and we Americans tend to be a more convenience oriented culture as it is.  

Then again, you never know.  ;)

Again, having lived for many years in both regions, my observation about economic and environmental esthetic preferences is based on sampling from my experience. There is a hard-core dedicated group of people who will go pretty much anywhere and do just about anything in order to be 'left alone' - in a venture like the FSP these are likely to be the 'early adopters' who may tend to look at the numbers and select a state which is less appealing to the 'later adopters' who will be needed to reach 20,000.

It's possible, but then there are other factors that will also play leading roles in whether or not we reach 20,000 beside the urban and rural questions.  Also, the "early adopters" are often the types of folks necessary to start something like this off in the first place as they are the more highly motivated of the two groups.  As for the "later adopters," if we build it, I believe they will come as well.  None of the places that we're considering are so awful as to be unacceptable to those who are truly in search of liberty.

Quote
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding about the phrase 'visionary activism' - in this setting it was assumed that the understanding is that we share a vision of lower taxes and greater individual freedom, and that political and economic activism will be required to move toward this vision. Quite the opposite of how it was taken.

We do indeed share such a vision.  My response was more directed by the words "social goals," as I've seen some libertarians, even here, who advocate a 'reduced statism' approach for the sake of social philanthropy, as opposed to establishing true individual liberty.  In your case though, I see I was mistaken.   :)

Quote
As for introverts/individualists gathering in this forum and working together - remember, I'm suggesting trends, not describing individuals. Overall, I would argue that if you get a bunch of introverted individualists and collect them in one state - and if they are active and aggressive enough to be successful to the point that they feel they are achieving a comfortable level of freedom - that the tendency will be to relax and quietly enjoy the fruits of their labors, effectively 'disappearing'.

Well, I think that's generally the case for most people, not just individualists.  If they're successful, they grow content, and once content, they often become apathetic, which is often how liberty is lost in the first place: lack of vigilance.  I sometimes think of it as "social entropy," the decay of organized social systems through 'natural' processes (i.e., human laziness).

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2003, 11:53:49 am »

Quote
As a resident of the region (and former resident of the Rockies), I can personally reassure you that 'statism' in New England is a matter of a relatively thin margin in states like ME and VT.

If you can quantify this assertion (and others like it) for inclusion in our spreadsheet, then we have something. Otherwise it is just a feeling, something that may satisfy you, but probably not the rest of us.

You base a lot of your argument on immigration of libertarians. Some how, in western states this immigration harms freedom in surrounding states, but in New England that does not happen. Seems like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

Another part of the problem is immigration of statists (seeking jobs, etc.) It appears NH and VT have less success discouraging this than the western states. I started a thread about ideas for discouraging this, and I don't see the tools for doing this being available in New England. How are you going to enhance and encourage the gun culture, for example, in a place like NH? Yet that is the kind of stuff that can scare statists off.

It's fine to bring up intangibles, or things not easily quantified. I do it myself. But that can't be your whole argument; you have to accompany it with some hard data. Your arguments apply about as well to Maine as to VT and NH, yet it would be silly for us to pick ME since it routinely takes last place in the spreadsheet. I'd still like to see you propose a weighing for the spreadsheet that puts one or the other of your New England states near the top. Then we'll have something worth talking about.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5705
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2003, 12:23:30 pm »

How are you going to enhance and encourage the gun culture, for example, in a place like NH?

Well, NH and VT are freer on guns than MT, WY, SD, ND, and AK. ;)  By a very small margin, to be sure.
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

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #7 on: January 24, 2003, 12:53:38 pm »

Quote
As a resident of the region (and former resident of the Rockies), I can personally reassure you that 'statism' in New England is a matter of a relatively thin margin in states like ME and VT.

If you can quantify this assertion (and others like it) for inclusion in our spreadsheet, then we have something. Otherwise it is just a feeling, something that may satisfy you, but probably not the rest of us.

I'd have to take the time to go back and look for it, but there was a recent posting about the breakdown of each state in terms of party registration - VT and ME, as I recall, were almost equal in percentage of registered Republicans and Democrats, with the balance being others (in these states, the margin which pushes statewide elections in a more liberal direction).

As for it being 'a feeling', I've been living here participating in election cycles for the last 10 years - talking with people, listening to radio, reading newspapers and online resources - and it's quite a contrast from my previous experience anywhere in the West during the previous 25 years. It's possible that in the West everyone is just quieter and more 'genteel' about it, but my perception is that a much higher percentage of people out here are far more passionate and polarized ideologically than out there.

Quote
You base a lot of your argument on immigration of libertarians. Some how, in western states this immigration harms freedom in surrounding states, but in New England that does not happen. Seems like you want to have your cake and eat it, too.

Actually, the answer to this is using logic, considering both geography and the fact that the region is within a few hours' drive of high-population-density 'statist' states such as NY, MA, CT, RI, NJ... Of course I can't show numbers without polling the target demographic of 20,000+ FSP participants, which doesn't yet exist. So, consider the reasoning.

From everywhere in NH, anywhere in any of these states is within roughly 8 hours' driving time - millions more people within a region (with similar climate, social and economic activity) from which to pull out 20,000 than you will find anywhere in the West. Keep in mind that I'm focusing on the goal of 20,000 and others to follow later, and ensuring that these numbers will be attainable. Logically, it's much more likely that 20,000 freedom-loving people will be eager to move the relatively short distance from their oppressive statist current locations to NH/VT (along with a few thousands from the rest of the country) than that this number and more would move from the East to any Western state, or from all of the Western states combined to any one Western state.

If people are more likely to move to a target area within their region of the country, (arguably true, assuming that many people will prefer to be within a few hours' drive of extended family they may be leaving behind) then any state in the West will predominantly draw from neighboring states (anything further becomes either long-drive or flying distance). The West is less densely populated (until you get to the Left Coast) and much of the region is less 'statist' to start with, which means that you have to scour a much wider geographic range to find 20,000 or draw more from the immediately adjacent states - and fewer people will be as fed up with their local situation and itching to move.

I'm not saying that the FSP can only work in NH - only that NH is the best choice for the long-term goals of the FSP.

It's true that if NH is selected some may move from ME and VT, and I agree that ME is less of an issue - but when you look at NH-VT the physical distances are so minimal that I suspect it's more likely that people in these states will tend to stay in place and focus on promotion of the movement in their own states.

I wonder how many FSP participants have signed up from each of the states in question - it would be interesting to do an analysis estimating the relative long-term impact in each state of losing that many FSP-supporting people. I don't have time - any takers?

Quote
Another part of the problem is immigration of statists (seeking jobs, etc.) It appears NH and VT have less success discouraging this than the western states. I started a thread about ideas for discouraging this, and I don't see the tools for doing this being available in New England. How are you going to enhance and encourage the gun culture, for example, in a place like NH? Yet that is the kind of stuff that can scare statists off.

The gun culture isn't exactly weak in NH, by any means, although it will naturally be stronger in areas more predominantly rural. Offhand, some of the things that keep statists in MA rather than moving to NH include the lack of sidewalks or statewide kindergarten.  ;D

Possibly an even bigger factor is that NH is already mocked by the Northeastern elitist statists - they roll their eyes and sneer 'Live Free or Die' contemptuously as if it's a ridiculous concept (but then every weekend bring the freeways to a standstill as they flee to our mountains and lakes). Those who want to live in a 'nanny state' are welcome to live in MA and commute to their jobs in ecomonically free NH. The more free NH becomes, the less appealing it is for statists to move here; their social circles won't allow it.

As for impacting neighboring states, there have been many ridiculous socialist initiatives which have been proposed in MA and have failed after being labeled by opponents as 'Another Southern New Hampshire Development Plan'. This impact can only grow, and if there is any freedom-loving immigration overflow into VT it won't take much to tip the balance dramatically there.

Quote
It's fine to bring up intangibles, or things not easily quantified. I do it myself. But that can't be your whole argument; you have to accompany it with some hard data. Your arguments apply about as well to Maine as to VT and NH, yet it would be silly for us to pick ME since it routinely takes last place in the spreadsheet. I'd still like to see you propose a weighing for the spreadsheet that puts one or the other of your New England states near the top. Then we'll have something worth talking about.

You and others have provided a great deal of hard data - I'm using your spreadsheets and numbers which pretty consistently rank NH quite highly, and depending on what you emphasize also have VT doing pretty well. Add to that the logical intangibles I'm proposing (try to quantify them if you can), and the position of NH only improves.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #8 on: January 24, 2003, 02:48:06 pm »

Quote
Well, NH and VT are freer on guns than MT, WY, SD, ND, and AK.   By a very small margin, to be sure.
Yeah, Jason, but which state would you be more comfortable carrying openly? Which state could you have more long-range rifle competitions in? There's probably not a 1000-yard range east of the Mississippi! Where can you have machine-gun shoots?

I'm looking for factors that will discourage statists, and concealed carry is not a very strong one. Besides, we'll have Vermont carry in Wyoming in short order!  ;D

Quote
I'd have to take the time to go back and look for it, but there was a recent posting about the breakdown of each state in terms of party registration - VT and ME, as I recall, were almost equal in percentage of registered Republicans and Democrats, with the balance being others (in these states, the margin which pushes statewide elections in a more liberal direction).
How does a small registration margin between R's and D's translate into a thin margin of statism?

Quote
It's possible that in the West everyone is just quieter and more 'genteel' about it, but my perception is that a much higher percentage of people out here are far more passionate and polarized ideologically than out there.
Or maybe it means Westerners are just more rational. I've had my fill of passionate people who don't bother to think.

Quote
From everywhere in NH, anywhere in any of these states is within roughly 8 hours' driving time - millions more people within a region (with similar climate, social and economic activity) from which to pull out 20,000 than you will find anywhere in the West. Keep in mind that I'm focusing on the goal of 20,000 and others to follow later, and ensuring that these numbers will be attainable. Logically, it's much more likely that 20,000 freedom-loving people will be eager to move the relatively short distance from their oppressive statist current locations to NH/VT (along with a few thousands from the rest of the country) than that this number and more would move from the East to any Western state, or from all of the Western states combined to any one Western state.
OK, I understand your argument, as far as it goes. But we are not just drawing from neighboring states, especially for our activists (your argument is more true for "friends of FSP"). We are drawing from everywhere.

The other side of the leger, too, is that it is easier to draw statists from regions surrounding NH/VT (in fact that's already the case).

The important thing is not how many FSP folks can be drawn, but the ratio of the number of FSP folks to the current population, and the ratio of freedom-lovers the state will draw compared to statists it will draw. By these measures, NH, and to a lesser extent, VT, fall on their face.

Quote
I wonder how many FSP participants have signed up from each of the states in question - it would be interesting to do an analysis estimating the relative long-term impact in each state of losing that many FSP-supporting people. I don't have time - any takers?
We shouldn't worry about the states we draw from. What people and states need right now is an example of freedom working. The loss of a few freedom-lovers to Wyoming or whatever is less important. However, in the ideal world, I'll agree that it is better to draw our population of freedom-lovers from places that are already hopelessly statist (while hoping that statism hasn't to some extent rubbed off on them).

Quote
Those who want to live in a 'nanny state' are welcome to live in MA and commute to their jobs in ecomonically free NH. The more free NH becomes, the less appealing it is for statists to move here; their social circles won't allow it.
Yeah, sure. Take a look at the recent voting trends in NH.

Quote
You and others have provided a great deal of hard data - I'm using your spreadsheets and numbers which pretty consistently rank NH quite highly, and depending on what you emphasize also have VT doing pretty well. Add to that the logical intangibles I'm proposing (try to quantify them if you can), and the position of NH only improves.
OK then, if you are working with them, you can post your weights here so we can take a look. Let's see them.

I'll send you my extended spreadsheet, you can play with that too, if you'll send me your email address.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2003, 02:53:19 pm by Zxcv »
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #9 on: January 24, 2003, 03:01:50 pm »

Quote
Statism or neo-liberalness is a thin margin in VT, NH, and ME. The legislative analyses of VT and NH show that with such a huge proportion of seats being won by a very few percent.

OK, Joe. But the next thing that occurs to me is to ask, once we overcome this thin margin, where will we be? Will we be, in the "statism quotient", where Wyoming is already, without an FSP?

Wyoming doesn't look so "swingable" if you only look at general elections, but as I keep trying to ask you, why don't we look at the primary margins in such states? That's where we would naturally work, in the primaries.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5705
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #10 on: January 24, 2003, 04:29:26 pm »

Quote
Well, NH and VT are freer on guns than MT, WY, SD, ND, and AK.   By a very small margin, to be sure.
Yeah, Jason, but which state would you be more comfortable carrying openly? Which state could you have more long-range rifle competitions in? There's probably not a 1000-yard range east of the Mississippi! Where can you have machine-gun shoots?


I don't know about all that, as I've never handled a gun in my life. ;)  But I do know that open carry is legal without a license or any other kind of regulation in all of the states under consideration except parts of Delaware.
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

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #11 on: January 24, 2003, 05:50:17 pm »

Yes, open carry is actually legal in a lot of states if I understand correctly - at least as a theoretical consideration. The problem is, how does that translate in practical terms? In other words, if you actually strap one on and walk down the street, is the old lady next door going to have a heart attack? Are you going to be shadowed by a cop car, or thrown up against a building while they check you out? Are you going to be shunned? If numbers of people start carrying openly, are there going to be cries in the legislature to ban the practice?

It's clear there will be a practical difference between eastern states and Wyoming or Montana.

There is a very interesting article that I unfortunately cannot find on the internet to cite for you, "Treat them to a good dose of lead" by historian Roger D. McGrath. He studies the frontier mining camps of Aurora, Nevada and Bodie, California, and found that despite everyone being armed, despite having many saloons and lots of gold and silver going around, people (especially women) were safer there than they currently are in most big cities. It's a very interesting read, especially the quotes from newspapers that encouraged people to be armed and use them when necessary! They have a quote from Samuel Clemens whose first writing job was for the Aurora "Esmeralda Star" newspaper, and who said that while in Aurora he had always worn a revolver, not because he planned to kill anybody, but "in deference to popular sentiment, and in order that I might not, by its absence, be offensively conspicuous, and a subject of remark".

I can just barely imagine this kind of sentiment becoming common again in a state like Wyoming, at least in the smaller towns; but for some reason I cannot visualize it in Vermont.  ;)

Jason, next time you show up in Oregon, let me know. We'll go out and blast something.  :D

"Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons.... Pick up a rifle - a really good rifle - and if you know how to use it well, you change instantly... from a subject to a citizen.
-- Jeff Cooper, "The Art of the Rifle"
« Last Edit: January 24, 2003, 05:57:39 pm by Zxcv »
Logged

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2003, 05:57:54 pm »

Zxcv,
Sure, the primaries are worth looking into also.
But for some of these states, such as Wyoming and now South Dakota, digging up how many terms these people have been in office means digging up the stats for each general election for as far back as these incumbents have been in office or as far back as the Secretary of State has data on the web.
In other words, I've put a lot into finding the general election info
and I've posted the links to the sites where I got it (or ask me for 'em or search google.com for 'em).

If somebody wants to do the primaries in each district in each state
go for it.
Somebody did do some of it for Wyoming and maybe a few others.

As to present Wyoming-style liberty versus present New Hampshire style liberty
It may be a toss up when you look at the whole spectrum of personal through economic.

And the chances of getting elected to a legislature in significant numbers or percentages is a lot better in VT, NH, and maybe ME (when Amanda get that state done) than in some of these die hard Republican western states.

Please go look again at the districts in NH and VT that have been posted on the web site.
http://www.freestateproject.org/statelegs.htm
For very little effort or votes, the Free Staters can win a lot of those races at the general election.

Will primaries be easier in the one-party dominant states? Maybe. But maybe not.
I only know what I've researched so far.

Ideally we should narrow this list of candidate states down to about four and really do an indepth analysis of every primary and general election race from local through state and congressional.
But I really shouldn't spend the time to do that since other issues are pressing.
I'd like to dig into the voting records of some of these incumbents the Free Staters will be trying to take seats from.

Nevertheless, I do appreciate the work you have done.
We need more activists doing research!
Logged

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2003, 06:10:37 pm »

Professor McGrath
some links about his research on Violence in the West and guns
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26436
http://gunscholar.com/details.htm

Since his work is recent,  it won't be in the public domain (free on the web)
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Trends, splits, and goals - keep a firm grip
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2003, 07:23:03 pm »

Quote
Please go look again at the districts in NH and VT that have been posted on the web site.
http://www.freestateproject.org/statelegs.htm
For very little effort or votes, the Free Staters can win a lot of those races at the general election.

I looked. I don't understand stuff like this VT entry:
Party, Win% (seats/field), Hi Dem, Rep, Margin, County-District, Last Name, First Name
R, 22.3% (2 of 6), , , 0, Chit-6-2, Kirker, Linda F.

Are you saying Linda won with 22% of the vote? What is (2 of 6)? What does "Hi Dem" mean? etc.

Quote
And the chances of getting elected to a legislature in significant numbers or percentages is a lot better in VT, NH, and maybe ME (when Amanda get that state done) than in some of these die hard Republican western states.

I guess I don't understand this assertion. Maybe you can explain it to me. Are you suggesting that because a guy has little competition in the general, that means he is going to have little in the primary? My personal experience is to the contrary. Mark Hatfield was Oregon's entrenched US Senator for many years, yet he was scared out of the primary because he had become so liberal and finally a serious challenger came up to contest the seat. He knew he was going to lose the first primary race he had had for years. So he just quit and took his pension.

Besides, WY, SD, MT and ME are the only states with term limits. It's an awful lot easier to run for an open seat, than one with an entrenched opponent, no matter whether you are talking primary or general. So this feature alone puts these 4 states on the top in terms of electability of FSP candidates.

Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

anything