Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Why Go West?  (Read 18148 times)

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Why Go West?
« on: October 17, 2002, 02:20:26 am »

In regard to the west in general, I favor it as the best ground for the free state idea to take root and flourish in for the following reasons.

1.  Western states are far away from the liberal, statist Washington-New York corridor and thus more "out-of-sight, out-of-mind."  East coast socialists would be extremely concerned about a free state popping up in their midst and would do whatever they could to quash its chances of success.  They would have abundant nearby media and political resources to draw from in this endeavor, along with a mostly complicit population among which to whip up fear and angst as a precursor to governmental intervention of some type.

2.  Westerners are more spread out and their towns and cities are generally lower in population.  The more people you crowd together in one place, the more their increased interaction with one another will cause them to interfere with one another or depend upon one another.  Socialism grows more naturally in a more populous, urbanized environment.  Marx himself thought that his future communist revolution would actually take place in a heavily industrialized, urbanized area for that reason.  He would have been been greatly surprised by where it finally did spring up in rural Russia, but the fact that it did finally take place in a rural society does not reverse the natural socialist bent to urbanized areas.  Czarist Russia was nothing like the American west.  It was a top-heavy, corrupt, monarchial system that was ripe for overthrow.

3.  There is a greater chance that our neighbors will be more accommodating out west than they would be in the east.  Going back to number one, we're going to be opposed by various forces no matter where we go, but I think the chances of us being successfully quashed are greater in the east.

New Hampshire and Delaware are surrounded by large, liberal metropolitan areas, which are certainly not going to be sympathetic to libertarian reforms.  They not only can, but I think will, make more of a fuss over our reforms than westerners would, and they could take action to involve the feds if they can make a case that they are adversely impacted by us.  For instance, easing certain ridiculous environmental regulations would be just such a scenario.  If we share a water body or forested area with an unfriendly neighbor, this will almost certainly happen.  

It could happen in other areas as well though, particularly where we would make larger, more fundamental reforms.  For instance, Maryland often accuses Virginia of being a "gun-running" state, and has claimed that this factor is resulting in higher gun-related deaths in DC and MD.  If we enacted gun-rights reforms or other types of criminal justice reforms with a neighboring state like that, in today's political climate, we could easily end up in federal court facing interstate crime issues.

4.  Less urban sprawl.  Having lived most of my life in Northern Virginia, I can testify to the gradual effects of urban sprawl, particularly within the last few years.  Communities in outlying areas of the major cities are facing this issue more and more.  The major population centers are growing quickly and pushing farther and farther out into the countryside.  I knew people who moved out into the Shenandoah Valley and commuted an hour or more to work in DC every day, and their numbers are growing.  Small towns in outlying areas are growing at an unbelievable rate.  Virginia itself has almost been split into two states by the spill-over from Washington, by which I mean that Northern Virginia is worlds apart from the rest of the state.  Battles in the state legislature are growing increasingly more intense between the two sections in terms of funding, government programs, etc.  The cultural differences are also quite striking, and are mostly the result of developments over the last 20 years or so.

New Hampshire and Delaware are badly situated with regard to this factor.  I have already seen some discussion of sprawl from Boston into southern NH, and if patterns hold true, this will intensify.  Delaware is also easily poised to begin receving more in the way of transplants itself.  Urban sprawl brings with it other unpleasant urban issues besides crowding, namely increased crime and the need to provide for greater infrastructure, both of which tend to quickly foster the growth of government.

Now we anticipate and actually hope that others will join with us in the free state, so we expect and want growth, but this also suites us better in the west.  For one thing, you have more room for people to go, thus a longer amount of time before sprawl or crowding become issues.  Our reforms are going to take some time to implement under the most favorable conditions, and if you're in a climate suseptible to exponential growth to start with, you will necessarily have less time to implement your plans and see them succeed.

And sprawl by itself is only part of the issue.  Heyduke was commenting on one of the NH threads that he objects to more people moving into his state, and this assertion was combated by others claiming that the type of people moving in was even more important than the simple number of people by itself.  I agree with this, and think that it also favors a western location.  The reason is that, on the east coast, the majority of people moving out from the cities are doing so because of overcrowding and heavy traffic, not necessarily because they want to escape the socialist machine.  Those people I knew who were moving out into the countryside from DC sometimes joked about bringing the city to the country and bringing "civilization" to the ''natives."

People moving out west tend to be more the type that are actually wanting to escape other factors besides the crowds and the traffic.  They're usually looking for a different kind of life in general.  That doesn't mean that you don't find those who want to take the city mentality with them out west too, but just that there tend to be fewer of them, and of those that do, they tend to be less successful.  When they move way out there, they tend to be "cutting the cord" more than people who are moving a few miles farther outside of the beltway.  Dealing with urban sprawl in the east generally means exporting socialistic tendancies to the country, not striking a blow for freedom.  These are generalizations, and they can be challenged with individual instances, but I think the pattern holds true.

The west provides a greater chance for us to consolidate or extend our influence in general.  Again, as related to some of the above factors, population growth and density are lower out west, which will give us more time and room in which to manuever in order to implement our ideas and see them succeed.  I think these are crucial elements to our long-term success.

Out west, we would be surrounded by mostly favorable neighboring states, particularly in Montana, which is surrounded by Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and the most libertarian Canadian province:  Alberta.  Even Idaho, as favorable as it would also be, borders more liberal Washington and Oregon.  These states would be less likely to challenge us or threaten us in any way, and their populations might actually prove supportive.  While out east we would have a more socialistic pool from which to possibly draw a few liberty-minded folks to increase our numbers, out west we'd have a much larger pool of more liberty-minded people in general from which to draw.  And they would also be much closer to us, hence able to move more easily should they wish to join us.  It would be a larger pool from which to draw more supporters more easily.

(Continued below...)
« Last Edit: October 17, 2002, 05:35:27 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2002, 02:21:04 am »

(Cont...)

5.  Without trying to sound like a prophet of doom or a conspiracist here, we have to somewhat attempt to anticipate how downtimes or other serious issues could effect us.  By this I mean economic or civil strife.  If this country runs into hard times, not an unforeseeable event by any means, then the larger population centers and governing entities are going to see the worst of it, as well as a coinciding growth in government that will naturally follow as a countermeasure.  Think back to the problems that we encountered in the Depression, as well as the growth of government that resulted, and then imagine such a scenario placed on top of today's society.

They didn't have the welfare state back in the 30's.  We already have a whole class of people, mostly urbanites, who are heavily dependent upon the government as it is.  Those of you who have lived on the east coast, especially in or near one of those major population centers, imagine for a moment if you will what life would be like with a major unemployment crisis, dirty bomb attack, etc., in those areas.  I think most of you, like me, would be heading for the hills.  

With so many dependent upon the government already, and with so many problems in the government as a result, what would happen if there was suddenly an issue that prevented the government from providing for all of those people?  All of us who are participating in the FSP recognize the fact that socialism doesn't work, that it actually destroys societies in the long run.  But at the same time, we as Americans often tend to think that we're somehow naturally immune from those problems and tendencies that have so consistently destroyed other nations throughout history.  But how much longer can our government grow more intrusive and socialistic, and our population more dependent and subservient, before the country either 1) becomes tyrannical, or 2) falls apart?  History teaches that one or the other of these ends ultimately awaits travelers on the particular road we've chosen as a nation.  In actuality, the tendency is more toward tyranny, to combat the strains of a society that is coming apart, with a final collapse in the end.  I don't know about you, but I don't want to be anywhere near the heavy end of the teeter-totter when it finally comes down.

The argument could also be made that it's better to be closer to large resource pools during hard times, but I think that if we succeed in our endeavors, we will become a resource by ourselves, and well-positioned to weather a storm.  We would have a small, light infrastructure, less dependency among the population, and probably a better economy as well.  Lighter taxation would equate to more money in the average family's bank account, hence more of a shield against hard times.  Being cut off from resources only becomes a crisis if you are dependent upon them in the first place.  A more independent and self-supporting society would naturally be less effected by a crisis of dependency.  We would also be less susceptible to an immediate, mass influx of desperate populations.

The western job market may be somewhat of a factor, but there are two considerations here:  1)  We will be moving in gradually, not all at once, and those who get there first can help prepare the way for others, and 2)  Our presence will increase the job market by itself as a result of a greater demand for goods and services.

All of that to say that I believe that the west, particularly Montana, is best suited to our long-term success for a variety of reasons.

Agree or disagree?  Discuss.   ;D
« Last Edit: October 17, 2002, 02:34:32 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

Mr. Roboto

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2002, 05:22:01 pm »

I agree 100%.
The west is the only way to go.
Let's hear it for the west!!
Logged

glen

  • Guest
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2002, 09:26:39 pm »

Hi Robert Hawes

Congratulations on making an outstanding argument in favor of the west in general and Montana in particular.

It is almost enough to make me change my vote from Idaho to Montana.  
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #4 on: October 18, 2002, 12:18:22 am »

Joe,

Thanks for your comments!  As usual, you make excellent points.

In the east the Free State could be more likely scapegoated for being a haven for drugs, guns, porn, prostitution, gambling, drunkenness, etc. Could a neighboring state put up "border entry points", aka state patrol "checkpoints" to search cars and travelers for contraband? And Robert does have a point, could the neighbors call the feds in. Yet Nevada was successful doing the prostitution and gambling -- so much so that many other states have jumped on the casino and lottery bandwagon. The bright side is that the competition could pressure the neighbors to let up on their laws and taxes too.

This is a stronger possibility out west, I would think, the example of Nevada being cited, and again the fact that western locations are so much more "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" for the feds and special interest groups back east.  It would be another thing if prostitution were legal in say, New Jersey.  They'd be raising holy hell about that on Capitol Hill...although I guarantee you that congressmen would be among some of the leading contributors to NJ's new economic element.   ;D

Quote
OR
 Neighboring states would have their hatchets out because the Free State could be "stealing" their businesses, industries, shoppers, etc. Let's assume a state chosen that is central to its region of candidates. Would the Free Staters in New Hampshire rather be taking the above from Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts or would they rather be in Montana taking the above from Idaho, Wyoming, and the Dakotas -- the later three not being much able to afford such an exodus?

That could definitely be an issue in the west, since, as you note, they have fewer people to lose.  I would think that any economic prosperity that resulted from our influence would probably benefit the region as a whole though, through the creation of jobs, increased goods and services, and the whole economic infrastructure created by a growing economy.  There would probably be some overflow there, or, as you indicated previously, neighboring states could witness the success of our ideas and adopt the same approaches, possibly stimulating their own economies as well.

Quote
Robert,
You posit that there would be a larger pool of liberty-minded folks to draw from out west. I'll differ with you on that one. Though the percentage is less in the northeast urban areas, the absolute numbers of potential liberty-minded refugees willing to vote with their feet if the move is not far from "home" is likely much greater. Furthermore, the neighboring westerners are likely to stay where they are because their states are not that bad -- that's why those states are also FSP candidates. For that reason let's consider only non-candidate states within a 500 mile (400 miles straight line) radius of NH or MT. The potential refugees from Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Connecticut,  New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland could easily outnumber those from Washington, Oregon, and Colorado...and the easterners are in a much worsening situation and thus more likely to move...

That's a very good point.  The east being what it is, they might very well move to escape those influences, while, as you note, those out west don't have it so bad off to start with.  One thing that might somewhat offset this in the beginning though could be our economic standing.   If we succeed in stimulating economic growth and prosperity, people currently living in poorer areas of the west might re-locate to take advantage of the new jobs and opportunities being created.  As noted above, I think that the other western states could possibly try to emulate our example and keep their people by doing so (as well as possibly attract some others), so the gain might taper off in time.  So much of that remains to be seen though.  Our success in stimulating anything at all, including economic growth, is going to be the product of time, patience, careful planning, and growing experience.

Another factor out east though (that might keep people from flocking to us from the socialist quagmire) could be the media hype that is liable to ensue from any measures we take to reform things.  Easterners are pretty image-conscious.  They understand and respect the power of the media, and the threat of bad PR scares them pretty effectively.  If we're being constantly portrayed as a threat to the existence of man on earth (exaggerating a little here  ;D), then some might:  1) believe it and stay away, or 2) not want to get caught up in it for fear of being too close to the fan when the you-know-what finally hits.

I've talked to some friends about the FSP, and although they are sympathetic, they still look at me sort of sideways and say that they doubt it'll work, and for that reason, they're not really interested.  For as much as many conservatives hate socialism out here, I think that most of them are so overwhelmed by the size and power of government that they can't see past it (to say nothing of the media).  If the FSP locates on the east coast, I think that a lot of these eastern conservatives, libertarians, etc, will sit back and wait for the political earth to open up and swallow it.  If that doesn't happen, and if we are successful, then they'd probably join up, but they're a very skeptical lot when it comes to such things.  For these reasons, I really doubt that we'll see an immediate influx of conservatives and such on the east coast, even if they sympathize with us and want to escape socialism.  I could be wrong, but I see patterns that tend to make me think that way.

Quote
As to potential for exponential growth being greater in the west. Not likely! The worsening supply of water is going to put a real limit on growth here.

We may be misunderstanding each other here, I'm not sure.  So, I'll re-state what I meant and you can let me know.   ;D

When I referred to the potential for exponential growth, I was referring to the east.  I understand that the west is not suited to such growth, for some of the reasons you describe, and actually think that this favors our purpose as exponential population growth tends to create a corresponding growth in government.  If we have to deal with more people, and their multiplied problems, we'll have a harder time instituting reforms.  Reform is much easier to institute in a more static environment because it requires some degree of consistency to implement.  If things are constantly changing, it's much harder to get a grasp on what needs to be reformed and how.

Quote
The situation in the plains will get worse as the aquifers are drawn even farther down. And being on a river is no assurance of water because it belongs to someone else. Western water rights are something that eastern folks have no equivalent to

This is something that I need to investigate more.  I think that some better free market approaches could assist with the water issue, but that remains to be seen.  Some more innovative approaches might be necessary, like the water via condensation from the air approach that Glen mentioned on another thread.  Practicality would obviously factor in here as the west is much drier than the east, but it could still be a possible solution.  This issue could assist us somewhat again in keeping population growth fairly static though.

One problem out east that I think is going to begin to rival the water issue out west is the power problem.  The demand for power keeps growing with the cities, and we're not building anything like what we need to keep up with that growing demand.  California may just be a preview of things to come on the east coast.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2002, 01:50:38 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2002, 12:34:29 am »


I can vouch that even in the smaller cities like mine (under 10,000 people) the immigrants from larger cities and more socialist states are making such interference with government backing ever more prevalent. We've had two successive mayors here who came from the Boulder/Longmont area and have made things worse (okay, the present guy hasn't gotten away with much worse yet because we "libertarians" have held the line and even improved things a bit. But if he had had his way...)


Correct me if I'm wrong here, but isn't Colorado in somewhat of a unique position here with regard to outside transplants?  (Maybe Idaho too, to some extent from what I've seen on other threads...migrating Californians, etc).  You and MouseBorg could probably enlighten me here since you both come from that direction.

From what I understand, Colorado, due its reputation as a "vacation/resort destination" hotspot has attracted new residents from pretty much everywhere, particuarly those who want to get away for the scenery.  I understand that it's growing faster than the rest of the western states, so you may be experiencing more of a disproportionate increase in the influx of statist residents (including those who think they need to move out there to help "protect" it).

I also understand that Colorado has become a destination for many Hispanic immigrants from Mexico, etc, and that the Hispanic population has really grown dramatically in recent years in the larger cities.  I don't say this to pick on Hispanics, but many Hispanic immigrants don't speak English (at least very well) and have a tendency to be more dependent upon government services, or to at least increase the cost burden of those services due to language barriers or economic factors.  For instance, non-English speaking immigrant children in the schools have driven the cost of education up in many areas (including Northern VA, where I'm from).  These factors may be contributing to Colorado's statist growth.

Again, I could be wrong here, but I thought that Colorado might not exemplify trends in the other western states, particularly to the north.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2002, 12:41:18 am »


Hi Robert Hawes

Congratulations on making an outstanding argument in favor of the west in general and Montana in particular.

It is almost enough to make me change my vote from Idaho to Montana.  



Thanks, Glen.   :)

Do you currently live in Idaho?  How would you compare it with the other western states as far as pro's and con's go?  Three things that I mainly wondered about were:  1) the population growth being greater than the other western candidates, 2) the % of government-owned land, and 3) the presence of groups that might be hostile to libertarians.

Concerning the last one, I wondered how Idaho's large conservative, Republican population would react to a libertarian influx.  I myself come from a conservative, Republican background, and was raised to believe that libertarians are pretty much the party of "sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll."   ;D  I know that a lot of conservative Republicans still think that way and might have a knee-jerk reaction to libertarians for that reason.

Idaho's a gorgeous state though, and there are definitely far worse candidates, in my opinion.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #7 on: October 20, 2002, 04:06:58 am »

Just posted something on the Yahoo forum that I thought might be valuable to consider here as well in regard to East vs. West.  

There has been some discussion to the effect that we will need access to a deep-water port for growth purposes, and this argues against the west.  I see that somewhat differently, and just wanted to express some thoughts on it.

In regard to the usefulness of deep water ports for the free state, yes, there would be a number of advantages; however, these are easily off-set by actions that the federal government could and, I believe, would take against us.

Water routes can be blockaded much more simply and inexpensively than land routes.  Why?  Because your means of travel are far more reduced on a water route.  You absolutely have to have a boat or some other floating conveyance, or you go nowhere (unless one of you has a submarine).   ;D  All you need for a land route, ultimately, is your own two feet.  A waterway can be blockaded much more simply and inexpensively for this reason...because there are fewer practical means of crossing it.

As to "blockading," I don't think the feds will use the military overtly.  That would seem too threatening and would likely produce an outcry of "police state."  They'll just come in with a heavier than usual Coast Guard influence citing "terrorist infiltration concerns or "customs" concerns.  If need be, they'll make the free state's position on drug laws public in order to whip fear among the masses that, unless a rigorous screening of shipping in Delaware is instituted, the state will become a haven for illegal drugs, drugs that will then make their way inland, etc...  They would demagogue that angle to death and they would have the full support of much of the American population.  This is to say nothing of the fact that they would argue that any state that holds reduced public scrutiny as one of its core principles, and has port access to boot, would be a perfect infiltration point for al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

Using the "war on terror" or "war on drugs" angle, they would come in and effectively slow your port operations down to a crawl.  It would amount to a blockade, only less sinister in appearance, and therefore more palatable to the American public.  It would be relatively simple to implement and would certainly be more cost-efficient than guarding long land borders that are far simpler to cross.  If we bet the show on port access, we invite this sort of trouble, and no one will question the federal government's role in the matter because the Constitution gives it full authority with regard to both interstate and international shipping.  We will have painted ourselves into a fatal corner.

As for Montana being surrounded by "hostile" states, I would point out that every state that surrounds it is an FSP candidate state, and the Canadian provinces that border it are much more libertarian than the eastern provinces.  Delaware is surrounded by powerful leftist states, and New Hampshire is little better off.  Maine borders Quebec, but Quebec is too culturally and politically different from us to be counted on for support.  

These states are also located very close to major population and governmental centers.  This not only exposes you to the increasingly significant problem of urban sprawl (which will bring the growth of government with it...see southern New Hampshire's proximity to Boston and the subsequent growth there), but it also exposes you to the problems of the "war on terror" again.  

The pattern our federal government is following is one of increased, not decreased, control in the name of "security."  Washington and New York are obviously considered to be highly vulnerable and desirable targets for terrorists, and are, therefore, under the most scrutiny of all.  Can we really think that, with this established pattern of increased security control, the federal government is going to tolerate the existence of a state dedicated to the ideal of reduced control so very close to Washington and New York?  They would demagogue us to death here as well, and the fear-ridden masses of those metropolitan centers would back them.  They'll argue that a free state would be a haven for terrorist groups to infiltrate and operate from, particularly if we have port access and are located close to Washington and New York.

The best bet, in my opinion, is to select a state far away from those major population centers that are so very vulnerable to interference on the grounds of "security" or drug "concerns" and are "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" with regard to the political and media machines.  Western states are also far less susceptible to exponential population growth and the growth of government that almost always accompanies it.  We may have to surrender the idea of a deep water port out west, but given the way things are, I think that this only invites trouble in the long run anyway.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2002, 12:45:55 am by Robert Hawes »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2002, 07:55:07 am »


Having read your post & Ben Irvin's report, I'm looking Montana over more thoroughly now... playing with maps, census figures, etc. Entry of FSP into a state will of course alter numeric stats.


I posted some statistical info comparing Alaska and Montana under Joe's "Number of FSPer's needed to change local politics" thread.  The numbers are not perfect by any means, but they might prove helpful.  At the very least, I think that they somewhat demonstrate what we're up against in terms of our mere presence in those respective states at our stated goal of 20,000 participants.  There are other factors to be considered too, of course, but it's still interesting to occasionally take a look at the "big picture" as well.

You can find that comparison here:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=365

Quote

The terrain looks quite fun... and theres a lot of it to play in (I'm spoiled by my current playground, so for me this is a serious factor). The western area of Montana looks especially fun on a relief map.  :)


Indeed it does!  I've been looking forward to having some time to go play in the Rockies!   ;D  Our mountains out here in the east can be enjoyable and challenging, but the west is a whole different ball game entirely.

Quote

If the opportunity arises, perhaps a good review of Montana's down sides would also be useful, though some of course are pretty obvious.


That would definitely be good to have.  I think it looks very promising overall, but I'd still be interested to hear other viewpoints on its feasibility for the FSP.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2002, 12:49:39 pm »


I looked through that, and am still pretty much way up in the air on the state part itself. I certainly agree on west of course... painting oneself into a small box would be a poor strategy, which would be the likely result from picking an eastern state (Maine perhaps being something of an exception, due to its size.)

Unfortunately what would have been my favorite choice - Alaska - had to be eliminated due to several issues, the primary one being its oil reserves. The simple equation sums that aspect up: [sitting on oil reserves] - [playing footsies w/US gov] = [death on massive scale]


In terms of sheer numbers, I suppose that Wyoming would be the best overall candidate because it has the lowest population to start with, and we would thus have a much easier time influencing the process there.  Unfortunately, it's landlocked without even an international border, and it's economy does not particularly inspire confidence.  There's also quite a bit of government-owned land in Wyoming as well from what I understand.

North Dakota would seem to rank next according to raw population figures, and then Alaska, with Alaska emerging as the superior candidate due to its international border and coastline, but then there's the problem of oil and government-controlled land again, as you mention.  It's possible that we might be able to work around those issues in the long run, but that's a coin toss at best.  North Dakota's economy is also on the slumps, and South Dakota is land-locked like Wyoming.

Idaho might be workable in terms of economy and international border, but its population is a good bit larger than the ideal, and the federal government owns a considerable amount of land there.  

Montana seems to be the stand out candidate in the west even if the population is larger than we would probably prefer for it to be.  It just seems to consistently work out as the best among those various considerations.

But I've run my mouth about all of this enough already, so I promise to shut-up for now!   ;D

caseykhan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • semper fidelis
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2002, 04:13:03 pm »

Being landlocked may not necessarily be a huge disadvantage.  Looking at Switzerland and it's geographic position, they have been able to maintain a strong, relatively free economy amidst a sea of national socialism.  Wyoming may be able to do the same.  
Logged

Jeffersonian Democrat

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • The Truth will set you free
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2002, 09:20:45 pm »

I've seen some great arguements for the West and some great ones for the East.  It seems to me that Alaska is the best of both worlds.
Logged

Biddefred, Me.

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2002, 09:49:10 pm »

While I love the West, I would have to say that I believe the best shot at causing a major impact, one that would precipitate a domino effect of liberation, would be Maine.

How's that for a twist? The new domino effect.

Maine, which has one border with the US, the New Hampshire border, is the largest of the New England states.

Aroostook County is the largest county east of the Mississippi and is the state's bread basket.

Maine's coast meanders for 3000 miles.  The fishing is great.  Both commercial and recreational.

Half of all registered Mainers chose no party.  Ross Perot came in second here.  Mainers want change, but the socialists from away have swayed the vote in the cities.  It can be swayed back.

I'm an eighth generation Mainer.  I live a half a mile from where my ancestors cast their lot with the patriots and risked it all.

I'm committed to liberating Maine.  I sure hope you decide to join me.

Best,
Fred Staples
Biddeford Maine
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2002, 02:44:35 am »


While I love the West, I would have to say that I believe the best shot at causing a major impact, one that would precipitate a domino effect of liberation, would be Maine.


Fred,

Welcome aboard!

While I do believe that the west is a better soil in which to plant this particular crop (none of the clustered, western FSP candidates, with the exception of Montana) has gone for a Democrat in the national elections since 1964!), I do have to say that Maine would be my preferred choice if it were necessary to set up shop on the east coast.  It has a substantial international border, substantial coastline, a penchant for "dissension votes" (Ross Perot beat Bush there in 1992), and perhaps mostly importantly, it is farther from the Washington-New York corridor than the other eastern candidates.

The biggest downside for it (other than its eastern location   :)) is that it has a larger than usual voting population:  this could possibly marginalize our effectiveness.

firefox702

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • MORT AU TIRANTS!
Re:Why Go West?
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2002, 12:10:29 pm »

Robert; good point re: ports. However, as I mentioned in my replies to other blogs, if you want to be free, you must be willing to fight . You are very correct about the Central Committee riling the "sheeple" up about drugs and terrorists, because all too many of the GREAT HERD out there do not understand freedom- most "sheeple" are marxists and don't know it --as an example, one group asked if "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs" was in the Constitution, found that about 45% responded "yes". How many sheeple have you heard say "The Government ought to do something" . Make no mistake-- THEY will try to shut it down-it will represent a formal challenge to THE STATE. I have no solid answers to the blockade question yet, but will think more about it. However, in a coastal state, there are still air ports, and flying out or in over open water is a way around a sea blockade. The blockade could be "dealt with" from the air, also, correct??
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up