Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: The 5 bottom states  (Read 8813 times)

freedomroad

  • Guest
The 5 bottom states
« on: November 04, 2002, 02:24:04 am »

 ;D

 8)

 ???

 :P

 ;)
« Last Edit: August 26, 2003, 02:24:53 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2002, 03:52:06 pm »

I think VT should be eliminated for the reasons stated above.  

ND should be eliminated because it will be virtually impossible to win the support of their people.  I wouldn't mind living there, but if we're going to liberate a state, there are better choices.

AK  should be eliminated because of the large amont of gov't interference.  It would take forever to rid the state of all the 'help' the government gives.

DE also needs to be gone from the list because of its Socialist nature.

I think Maine is doable, but there are better choices.

Maybe more attention should be given to SD.  Sure they elected Tom Daschle, but they have  a decent number of freedom-oriented people already (note the state amendment they're trying to pass regarding jury nullification).

my $.02
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5720
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2002, 05:11:48 pm »

Is Delaware socialistic?  It seems to me they are more mushy centrists.  Pete DuPont, their governor for a time in the 80s, was one of the most libertarian governors in recent memory.

Another interesting note about Delaware: of the low-population states we are considering (Wyoming, the Dakotas, Vermont, Alaska, Delaware) it is the only one that has a decent job market, with the possible exception of South Dakota.  

By "decent" I mean over 50,000 new jobs predicted over the 1998-2008 period.  Any state with fewer than that would be inhospitable indeed; many of us simply could not work.  South Dakota has just over 50,000 jobs predicted.  Delaware has just under 80,000 in-state and has easy commuting access to several other states.  Alaska, Vermont, North Dakota, and Wyoming all are predicted to have fewer than 50,000 new jobs over a ten-year period: how are 20,000 to find jobs over a 5-year period while competing with the locals?
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

Chuckster

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2002, 10:24:41 pm »

 how are 20,000 to find jobs over a 5-year period while competing with the locals?

Some of us, perhaps a substantial number, will be creating jobs.  It seems to me that those of us that will be building houses, barns etc. will look first to other Free Staters for help.  Also it would seem self evident that the kind of folks attracted to the Free State concept will be more self reliant than the average sheeple.  I expect we will have more than the usual number of contractors, freelancers, farmers and small businessmen etc.

My own plans include a small farm and a publishing and mail order business so I may well create one or two jobs myself.
Logged
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." George Bernard Shaw

mlilback

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
  • I'm nobody's llama!
    • home page
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #4 on: November 06, 2002, 06:42:59 pm »

VT - This state is socialist, make no mistakes about it.  I have been to VT several times and the only area with any people has poor job prospects, a high cost of living, and is one of the most socialist places imaginable.

As is mentioned in other threads, many of us find VT far from socialist. They are fiercely independent, which seems very critical to me. If they are that far to the left, then why do they have the least restrictive gun laws?

They've shown they will consistantly vote for 3rd party candidates, which is a very important factor, IMHO.

High cost of living? Must be a matter of perspectives. I'd imagine my cost of living will go down by at least 50% in any state we pick, so to me the difference in cost of living between the states is negligable. (I currently live 3 blocks from ground zero and am paying around $4 per sq foot/month.)

I've got a lot of family in NH (my uncle who lives outside Manchester just set the world's record for the largest pumpkin -- over 1300 lbs), and was considering it very heavily. But the more I research the states, the more inclined I am towards VT. I'd love to choose the "live free or die" state, but because of population sizes and the factors I mention above, I really think VT is the best state.

Mark
Logged

Tyler

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20
  • Making soap!
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #5 on: November 07, 2002, 05:40:29 am »

Jason,

I used to live in Delaware and I can tell you that, in all honesty, the people there will probably not go for the FSP. It's not that they'd be turned off by it but the truth is that they are far too moderate and too complacent to really go out and do something as uncomfortable as to boot out their incumbent elected officials (when I was there no incumbent ever lost, except to another incumbent who took his job). The state is definately fiscally conservative, but they are not great lovers of liberty, at least it seemed to me.

I will say though, for those considering it, outside of New Castle county there is plenty of open spaces (Hell, most of New Castle south of the "major" cities is pretty open compared to where I'm living now) if you want to farm or have a few acres. I'm not sure about land costs, but you can drive for miles and see nothing.

Logged
The world is not thy friend, nor the world's law.

Shakespeare Romeo and Juliet V.i

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #6 on: December 22, 2002, 07:00:30 pm »

Quote
Living in cold weather is simply something one learns to do properly. Naturally we do loose folks here every year to the cold, but most are out of towners (we get lots of those as tourists), as well as party kids (out stoned, lost, and they freeze). The majority of that sort of thing is of course due to lack of proper preparation and good sense on the individuals part.
FreedomRoad, you are quite correct with the above. I've lived in snow country all my life except for a several-month stint in Texas during the summer. ::)

People who don't want to tackle the cold are looking for an excuse to not do the work needed to bring freedom to a Free State.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #7 on: December 22, 2002, 10:31:34 pm »

I agree. The cold weather can also help keeping the socialist riff-raff out.  :)

Keith, I agree with your suggested elimination of 3 of the 5 states. I'm having problems with eliminating ND (although it is not one of my favorite states), not the least because Tim Condon makes a pretty persuasive case it should be our chosen state:
http://www.freestateproject.org/important.htm

Another one I'm having trouble eliminating, in my own thinking (although again not one of my favorites) is Delaware. I just don't think it has problems so serious we should toss it out of consideration. What's more, when I run the spreadsheet, I end up with Delaware having the top score!  :P  Since it is not one of my favorites, I take this to mean the spreadsheet is in serious need of more criteria; but still that is impressive to me.
Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #8 on: December 23, 2002, 05:18:12 pm »

The biggest struggle seems to be between high(er) population, and other factors.  I notice nobody on *this* thread wanted to eliminate Idaho, yet on all the Idaho threads people complained like *crazy* about the population.  So which is is???

If the population is really that big of an issue, then we need to eliminate ID, NH, and MT for sure, yet they wern't eliminated here.  

That brings us back to DE.  Lower population, yet best of the bunch weather and job outlook.  Hummmmm.....

V-

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #9 on: March 17, 2003, 12:05:18 am »

I agree. The cold weather can also help keeping the socialist riff-raff out.  :)

Keith, I agree with your suggested elimination of 3 of the 5 states. I'm having problems with eliminating ND (although it is not one of my favorite states), not the least because Tim Condon makes a pretty persuasive case it should be our chosen state:
http://www.freestateproject.org/important.htm

Tim Condon has given the question a great deal more thought and now he no longer thinks that ND is the best state.  He thinks that Wyoming is the best state for the Free State Project.  His old article is outdated and he said he is working on a new one.  His new article will explain why Wyoming is better than all of the other states for the Free State Project.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #10 on: March 17, 2003, 11:00:33 pm »

Not only has he given it more thought, but I have too, since I wrote those words. More important, the standard spreadsheet has had several critical variables added, and my everything-but-the-kitchen-sink spreadsheet has a whole pile of them (I didn't have one when I wrote the above).

Based on the new information, I can confidently eliminate from consideration (my consideration, anyway  ;) ):

ME - Always ends up at the bottom of the spreadsheet pile, no matter how I work it. Even if I completely eliminate size variables, it still ends up in last place. No state so bad in measurable variables deserves to be picked.

DE - This state went from (usually) first place in the early spreadsheet, to (usually) 9th place with the new variables added. I'm breathing a sigh of relief because I couldn't mentally picture DE as our project anyway. I'm happy to give it thumbs down...

I'm less sure about the following:

MT - It does poorly in my big spreadsheet. It's too big. It's very federally dependent, and has a healthy hunk of California-style liberalism infecting it. Yet, hell, it's Montana! Still has a lot going for it, probably in the non-quantifiable issues. Hard to kick this one out, but I'm tempted.

NH - This is even harder. It has the third most libertarian culture from my spreadsheet measures (after WY and ID), yet it is way too big for our purposes, and has a lot of statist pressures. The unions are in the catbird seat. All that's holding them off is innate taxpayer resistance, and that can be ground down in time. Too many statists are moving in, chasing those jobs, and there's nothing there to stop them except "Live Free or Die" on the license plate. And if we are picking a really big state, ID looks better, sorry. But NH? Really, eliminate NH, with its reputation? Hard to imagine.

ND - This state gets 3rd place in my spreadsheet! But FSPers would have a really hard time moving there, and they have a huge demographic problem. The plains will be empty of people in a couple of decades, and it will just be a few smallish cities separated by vast distances. Picking a state with problems is not a bad idea, but you have to be able to turn them around, and I'm afraid that's not possible here - it's not a political problem. Oh, they are too fed-dependent too.

Well, that's my current reading on eliminating states.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2003, 02:50:19 am »

ND - This state gets 3rd place in my spreadsheet! But FSPers would have a really hard time moving there, and they have a huge demographic problem. The plains will be empty of people in a couple of decades, and it will just be a few smallish cities separated by vast distances. Picking a state with problems is not a bad idea, but you have to be able to turn them around, and I'm afraid that's not possible here - it's not a political problem. Oh, they are too fed-dependent too.

Yes, picking a state with various problem issues could be a good idea to a point, but I also agree that North Dakota seems a bit extreme in this area.  I believe the Census project ND as having a 1% growth rate between now and 2025.

This state gives the impression that it's on its way to becoming one giant ghost town.

Hank

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • "The Men That Don't Fit In"
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2003, 02:53:34 pm »

DE
ND
NH
AK
ID
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

EMOR

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 351
  • I'm a llama!
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2003, 03:10:02 pm »

My bottom 5:
NH
ME
DE
ID
MT
Logged
WY>SD>AK>VT>ND>DE>MT>ID>NH>ME

Sean Coven

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
  • I Hate Maryland!
Re:The 5 bottom states
« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2003, 06:03:09 pm »

VT - This state is socialist, make no mistakes about it.  I have been to VT several times and the only area with any people has poor job prospects, a high cost of living, and is one of the most socialist places imaginable.

As is mentioned in other threads, many of us find VT far from socialist. They are fiercely independent, which seems very critical to me. If they are that far to the left, then why do they have the least restrictive gun laws?

They've shown they will consistantly vote for 3rd party candidates, which is a very important factor, IMHO.

High cost of living? Must be a matter of perspectives. I'd imagine my cost of living will go down by at least 50% in any state we pick, so to me the difference in cost of living between the states is negligable. (I currently live 3 blocks from ground zero and am paying around $4 per sq foot/month.)

I've got a lot of family in NH (my uncle who lives outside Manchester just set the world's record for the largest pumpkin -- over 1300 lbs), and was considering it very heavily. But the more I research the states, the more inclined I am towards VT. I'd love to choose the "live free or die" state, but because of population sizes and the factors I mention above, I really think VT is the best state.

Mark


These, remember, are the "true" socialists -- left-libertarians, not left-authoritarians. The "true" socialist genuinely believes that the government only has a right to dip into people's pockets, not peak through their windows. Minnesota is much the same way. Gun ownership is simply part of the culture and not something they perceive as needing to be regulated (especially since Vermont is the second safest state in the country!).

Quote
They've shown they will consistantly vote for 3rd party candidates, which is a very important factor, IMHO.
Greens are not Libertarians. Greens are like Democrats on crack (or with rabies), so a state that votes strongly Green is ultra-liberal.
Remember that Vermont was the target of a similar mass relocation effort, only with socialists. It succeeded. I believe this alone should discount VT as a candidate state; how would we like it if socialists made a mass migration to the Free State a decade after it was set up?

Quote
Is Delaware socialistic?  It seems to me they are more mushy centrists.  Pete DuPont, their governor for a time in the 80s, was one of the most libertarian governors in recent memory.
Delaware's a bit unpredictable when it comes to nailing down a political definition. They've abolished the sales tax but have moderately tough gun control; the two Senators from Delaware are little-known but, by my understanding, somewhat extreme.
They are rather centrist, as you accurately stated, but I think they lean statist. 20,000 might make a difference, but we're not looking at "mights," we're looking at "wills," and we will make a difference in WY, AK, or NH.

I've opted out of ME and VT, because both states have among the highest tax burdens in the country and I'm simply not willing to move there only to watch the project fail (as it inevitably would). I've also opted out of DE because of the overwhelming apathy of it's voters (they appear to be the type of liberals who don't really know much about politics, and are simply liberal because their parents are).
Pages: [1]   Go Up