Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: South Dakota  (Read 14125 times)

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5720
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
South Dakota
« on: November 15, 2002, 09:34:00 am »

This is a message I got from Nathan Barton, chair of the South Dakota Libertarian Party:

South Dakota is very strongly divided into two very different regions (moreso than Montana): East River is Scandanavian-German, corn, hogs, recently high-tech, oriented towards the Great Lakes; almost as much a Scandanavian nation as Minnesota and North Dakota, and has 2/3 of the 750,000 population.  West River has the other third: mostly descendents of internal immigration ("old Yankees", Texans, Coloradoans) and Indians (Lakota) (15% of the population statewide), ranching and some wheat, mining and timber, tourism.  There is a stronger military influence in the west; it is oriented towards Denver and the Rockies, acts and thinks "western" while East River is "midwestern".  East River is flat, with very flat river valleys, and wet: West River is broken plains and mountains (the Black Hills) with big Badlands areas that are virtually empty, and dry.  West RIver has a milder climate, too, than East River or most of the other states around, because of the Hills.  East River is strongly populist, with conservative enclaves; West River is conservative with Demo enclaves in the reservations.  This division effects economy, politics, higher education, everything.  South Dakota is fractured and therefore less regimented than ND, and the very powerful influence of Minneapolis (and Chicago) is diluted by Denver.  South Dakota is rural, although not as rural as your charts make it out to be: Sioux Falls metro area is near 150,000, while Rapid City's immediate urban area is 90,000 (the Black Hills in SD and WY in many ways functions like a very large (120x120 miles), low density (200,000 year-round, 400,000 during Rally) urban area.

North Dakota, on the other hand, although it has a West River and East River, has a much smaller West River (probably only a quarter of the population) and
is much more heavily Scandinavian and looks exclusively to Minnesota (Denver is too far); if Minnesota is the sixth Scandinavian nation, ND is either
seventh or a colony.  There is of course some strong Canadian influence, and a stronger military influence statewide.  It is wheat and some cattle, very little industry (even compared to SD), and very strongly populist/socialist:  a State Bank, strong prohibitions on corporations, many more local governments which own/operate "businesses.  Because the climate is much harsher than SD, there is a certain "communal" aspect that is missing in SD.  Although rural, the abandonment of rural areas is much greater than in SD, which makes the major cities (Bismarck-Mandan, Fargo, Grand Forks, Minot) more powerful.

Montana is BIG.  There is the natural split between the more mountainous west and the "Plains" of the east; most of the population is in the west and intensively colonized by California and Washington State yuppies and liberals.  The Eastern Plains is more conservative, but with little political power.  There are enclaves of democrats on the Rez (and some odd clusters of
native Communists), and it is a western state, but was for many years a colony of the Great Lakes industrial states.  It has a harsh climate, which mixing with the western tradition makes for odd contrasts: communalism with bitter-to-the-bone individualism.  Most political power is in the cities which are more dominant than in either North or South Dakota: Billings, Great Falls, Bozeman, Missoula.  It is a beautiful state.

Wyoming is the "real" West: big, open, rowdy.  Slightly bigger in population than ND, it is much larger in size, and more Western; its main disadvantage is that Cheyenne and Laramie are too close to Denver and Boulder respectively: socially, economically, politically.  It has a harsh climate, but not as bad as ND or even MT.  It has been infiltrated by large colonies of eastern and western Liberals and yuppies, especially Jackson Hole, and shares a fairly strong union movement with MT.  But it is cowboys and oilfield workers and miners and hunting guides that set the pace.

I can elaborate but this gives you an idea of why Debby and I settled on SD and the Black Hills in particular 12 years ago: she had been in Montana with
roots in Colorado and far northern California,  and I had been in Colorado with roots in Texas (but had lived in MT and SD while growing up).  I have done a lot of traveling for professional purposes in all four states, so know them fairly well.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2003, 09:47:32 am by JasonPSorens »
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #1 on: November 15, 2002, 03:09:42 pm »

This is a message I got from Nathan Barton, chair of the South Dakota Libertarian Party:

South Dakota is very strongly divided into two very different regions (moreso than Montana): ........ South Dakota is fractured and therefore less regimented than ND, and the very powerful influence of Minneapolis (and Chicago) is diluted by Denver.  South Dakota is rural, although not as rural as your charts make it out to be: Sioux Falls metro area is near 150,000, while Rapid City's immediate urban area is 90,000 (the Black Hills in SD and WY in many ways functions like a very large (120x120 miles), low density (200,000 year-round, 400,000 during Rally) urban area.

Wyoming is the "real" West: big, open, rowdy. Slightly bigger in population than ND, it is much larger in size, and more Western;

WY has close to 494,000 people while ND has close to 634,000 people.  ND is larger.

Quote
its main disadvantage is that Cheyenne and Laramie are too close to Denver and Boulder respectively: socially, economically, politically.  
Boulder is much more of a college town than Cheyenne or Laramie.  Boulder is also much more liberal.  Politically Cheyenne and Laramie are R (but progressive) and boulder is D (but more like socialist).  Dever is D but almost all large cities are.

Quote
It has a harsh climate, but not as bad as ND or even MT.  

WY's climate is also better than SD.  Also, AK, ME, VT, and NH have a more harsh climate than many parts of WY.  ID, DE, and WY have the best climate of all 10 states.

Quote
It has been infiltrated by large colonies of eastern and western Liberals and yuppies, especially Jackson Hole

Teton County (the county Jackson Holes is in) is R.  However, these Rs seem to be of the Cali and New England type (they are for big government).  For many of the races D do not even run.  Check out
http://www.tetonwyo.org/news/default.asp?news_id=10238 for 2002 election results.  They are solidly R and gave the LP Secr. of State 25% of the vote.

Quote
I can elaborate but this gives you an idea of why Debby and I settled on SD and the Black Hills in particular 12 years ago: she had been in Montana with
roots in Colorado and far northern California,  and I had been in Colorado with roots in Texas (but had lived in MT and SD while growing up).  I have done a lot of traveling for professional purposes in all four states, so know them fairly well.

Overall, I thank you Jason and Nathan Barton from the SD LP for all of your hard work.  The information was interesting and useful.  I had to make a couple of possible corrections and I felt a couple additions were needed but solid work, for sure.  Thank you, Nathan, for taking the time to write this.  It certainly casts doubts on ND and SD, at least in my mind.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2003, 11:57:47 pm by FreedomRoad »
Logged

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #2 on: November 18, 2002, 06:00:12 pm »

I will NEVER give a dime to a labor union, such as they exist today, entrenched in marxist ideals and full of statist supporters.  I grew up in a home that saw significant portions of my father's paycheck literally taxed against his will by the powerful AFL/CIO.  
Some have suggested that they would be willing to dig ditches for the opportunity to have a free state; I feel the same, but I will not feed a union parasite.  Right to Work States allow that right.  I guess that means I am going to re-think New Hampshire and Montana.
It may also reveal political power in the states we consider-- look at this map. . .
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm  
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #3 on: November 18, 2002, 06:33:03 pm »

I think the idea of a border with Canada is also a little over-rated.  By most libertarian standards, Canada is less free than the U.S.  True, there are many social "freedoms" and they have more liberal laws toward illegal drug posession, but as far as the argument for trade is concerned, one would want a neighbor that had more respect for private property first and foremost.
The eastern provinces, including independence-minded Quebec are largely leftist.  Alberta and British Columbia are a little more centrist. Furthermore, resource- rich Alberta is probably the only place that has a considerably large percentage of the population that resents strong environmental and socialism laws, most notably their rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on scientific and economic grounds. Thus, this argument for having a border with Canada only holds water for me if it is Montana or Idaho.  Am I wrong?  
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #4 on: November 19, 2002, 01:46:24 am »

exitus, you make a couple of good points there. I for one am not willing to join a union just to get a job. I don't like the government taking my money let alone being squeezed by the Hoffa's of the world.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2002, 01:25:58 pm by ZionCurtain »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #5 on: November 19, 2002, 02:14:33 am »

Some have suggested that they would be willing to dig ditches for the opportunity to have a free state; I feel the same, but I will not feed a union parasite.  Right to Work States allow that right.  I guess that means I am going to re-think New Hampshire and Montana.
It may also reveal political power in the states we consider-- look at this map. . .
http://www.nrtw.org/rtws.htm  

Exitus,

Thank you for posting this!  The right to work without being obligated to join a union is extremely important, so fundamental, I would think, that I'm amazed that it's actually not a fact of life in every state.

And the idea that a union can take dues that you are forced to pay and use them to support political candidates that you might personally despise is abhorrent to me.  I don't know how anyone can even attempt to justify that sort of thinking.

Mark Alexander

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • Professional geek, amateur pianist
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2002, 02:12:23 pm »

Quote
Quote from: FreedomRoad
Check out
http://www.tetonwyo.org/news/default.asp?news_id=10238 for 2002 election results.
That link got a little mangled; here's the correct one:
2002 election results.

What's the explanation for the popularity of the Democratic candidate for governor?
Logged

Hank

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • "The Men That Don't Fit In"
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #7 on: June 16, 2003, 03:51:05 pm »

On the Western FSP Yahoo list Ben Irvin posted this which seems to be one heck of an argument for South Dakota being the best "consensus" or "compromise" state.  The Sioux Falls side for the Easterners and urban people. The Black Hills side for the Westerners.
Quote
Perhaps, one of the reasons South Dakota has generated little support is that it is neither fish nor fowl. Western South Dakota (West of the Missouri River) is culturally and historically part of the West (the West's Mason-Dixon line) , while the eastern 45% is Mid-Western (or even considered "Eastern" by some Westerners. It doesn't appeal to anyone (except maybe South Dakotans). It is to the West as perhaps what West Virginia or Kentucky is to the South. Similar situations tend to hurt states like Maine (too different) or Idaho (too urban for some in the West); however, neither Maine or Idaho are part of two regions. None of the states just mentioned may ever become a consensus candidate; but, they should be given another consideration.

 In short, no state has satisfactorily made its case so that a consensus has been reached. Perhaps it may never happen. However, we are currently following a plan that may not lead us where desired. I do not feel that there has ever been a serious attempt to arrive at a consensus state....a state that most porcupines would really accept. Thus far, it is the extremes that gather the most minority support.

 Following a pre-determined timeline has advantages; however, it fails to be useful when it cannot produce the desired outcome: a state that the vast majority want to live. At the recent GWC, South Dakota did poorly (last place) because of the reasons listed earlier, and because months of active and massive debate of its merits has not been attempted. Montana, New Hampshire, Wyoming, Delaware, etc. supporter have been vocal; but, all groups have failed to generate a consensus opinion.

 For almost twenty years I've made a living developing consensus among those not generally inclined to do that. My hardest work was on the CS&KT reservation. I was constantly trying to generate a consensus from Indian parents representing 34 tribes (not counting sub-tribes or bands), speaking 23 languages, 9 language families, and 19 states (from Alaska to Florida). One particular tribe(s), the Confederated Salish (two tribes) always seemed to have 40-45% of an up or down vote. They could usually convince a few others to vote with them to gain a slight majority. However, if decisions were arrived at in this manner, without extensive (and often heated) debate to generate a consensus, whatever was approved tended to be a win-lose situation that failed to have a large minority onboard. Such forced majority actions were not as successful as they would have been if a win-win operation had been approved via consensus. For plans to work effectively, I always sought to procure a super-majority.

 It may be too late to postpone the vote at the 5,000 count; however, it is not too late to attempt to generate a consensus state that a large majority will select as acceptable to most porcupines. Perhaps think of what state would be most accommodating to: urbanites, farmers, cowboys, warm weather freaks, the old, the young, Westerners, Easterners, Southerners, hunters, small businesses, out-of-doors-types, large businesses, and freedom. We only have a few months left to reach a decision.
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

Eddie Willers

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 236
  • "Neo" Objectivist
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2003, 10:08:22 pm »

I keep reading above, and elsewhere, about certain areas being "solidly R". So what? There is little difference between being "D" and being "R". The only difference seems to be that the "R" candidates will steal liberatarian rhetoric during the election cycle, and the "D" candidates won't.

In the end, the "D" and "R" people are two sides of the same coin.

And between Bush & Aschroft, I'm no longer sure if the "R" people are better than the "D" people. My wife says that the worst party is the party in power.

She's been right before.

'nuff said.

Eddie
Logged
Take care of the means and the End will take care of itself.

guy777

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 75
  • I'm a llama!
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #9 on: June 16, 2003, 11:13:13 pm »

I just wanted to add that I lived in Sioux Falls, S.D. for 3 years and was surprised at how many people were against unions. Probably, why Sioux Falls has one of the best economies in the country.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #10 on: June 18, 2003, 03:08:54 am »

I just wanted to add that I lived in Sioux Falls, S.D. for 3 years and was surprised at how many people were against unions. Probably, why Sioux Falls has one of the best economies in the country.

That is great to here.  Almost all educated people I know, though, are against unions.  Maybe that also indicates that the people in the Sioux Falls area are educated.

On the other hand, states like VT, ME, and NH, which seem to otherwise have educated people, have great masses of people (and laws) that treat unions as gods.  

I should be traveling by Sioux Falls next month, I will ask a few people what they think of unions.  According to my research and your experinces, they will agree that unions controls over government should be banned (they already are in SD and WY).
Logged

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #11 on: June 18, 2003, 07:25:11 pm »


On the other hand, states like VT, ME, and NH, which seem to otherwise have educated people, have great masses of people (and laws) that treat unions as gods.  

No, they just treat unions as voluntary associations, which is what they are.  Right to Work laws are unlibertarian, as they impinge on the rights of citizens to associate and contract.

Unions in and of themselves are not bad things, IMO.   They can, however, have bad effects when they exercise control over the political process, especially unions of government employees.  The answer isn't to use the power of government to control the unions (Right To Work Laws), but to take power away from the government so unions have nothing to control.

Just my two cents.

Keith
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

robmayn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • Freedom Rising!
    • Citizens For Property Rights
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #12 on: June 18, 2003, 09:13:24 pm »


On the other hand, states like VT, ME, and NH, which seem to otherwise have educated people, have great masses of people (and laws) that treat unions as gods.  

No, they just treat unions as voluntary associations, which is what they are.  

Before I went into business for myself, I worked for IBM here in Vemont.  There was a drive going on to have a union there.  If that drive had been successful, all IBM employers would have had to join the union or leave IBM.
I informed my manager that I would leave before allowing myself to be subject to forced union membership.  Some "VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION"!!!!  
Logged

mtPete

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 98
  • I'm a llama!
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #13 on: June 18, 2003, 10:12:34 pm »

I'd take WY or MT over SD. Having spent time in MT and SD, SD has much more of a totalitarian, control what other people do, bent.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:South Dakota and other Western states
« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2003, 12:07:58 am »


Just my two cents.

Keith

Keith, thank you for sharing.  You certainly are not afraid to face a fire.  I think you and one of the NHLP members are the only 2 libertarians that I have ever met that think right-to-work laws are a bad thing.  Even though almost no libertarians share your view, you still stand by it.

It makes quite a bit of sense that government should not try to control unions and I agree that in a truely libertarian world that would not be needed.  However, I doubt there will ever be a truely libertarian world.  If they government makes laws that say people cannot be fired if they join a union or talk about joining a union than the laws have completely throw out the original right to voluntary association.  

So, you see, we do not have the right to voluntary associate in America.  Since that is true and most courts are controlled by statists and socialist, without right-to-work laws, unions treat people like crap.  Some people even say that in the Northern states unions treat their members as slaves or steal their members money.  Well, I would not take it that far but to force people to join a union under current laws is barbaric, to say the least.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2003, 12:10:44 am by FreedomRoad »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

anything