Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Wyoming or Montana  (Read 4841 times)

St.Jayne

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Wyoming or Montana
« on: July 05, 2005, 02:00:54 pm »

Hi. I've seen several posts that allude to the issue of there being people who are not really interested in moving to the New England area. Most of them have mentioned Wyoming and Montana. I am aware that there is a FSP for Wyoming. But between the two states which is best? I found on here one time a list of states and it showed the states gun laws or gun freedoms. Can't seem to find that link anymore. It seemed there was a difference between WY an MT on a few gun issues. Anyhow I'd just like to hear some opinions.  :)
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #1 on: July 05, 2005, 04:29:32 pm »

Hi. I've seen several posts that allude to the issue of there being people who are not really interested in moving to the New England area. Most of them have mentioned Wyoming and Montana. I am aware that there is a FSP for Wyoming. But between the two states which is best? I found on here one time a list of states and it showed the states gun laws or gun freedoms. Can't seem to find that link anymore. It seemed there was a difference between WY an MT on a few gun issues. Anyhow I'd just like to hear some opinions.  :)

I've been to WY and met with several state Senators, the leaders of the state gun group (although it is not very political, mostly about shooting), the tax group (although it is mostly paid for by the large companies in WY and mostly just provides info to the state government and the people).  I couldn't find any other groups in WY that were pushing freedom, other than the local LP.  The state is very big and nice.  I liked the people and the land. 

The state has a very low population and is not very political so elections are cheap.  Those are its main two selling points.   I'd say that the people of WY are slightly less free than the people of NH (the people of MT are even worse off).  I like NH because of its huge amount of jobs, much higher pay, the much shorter driving times, and the fact that 1000s of people have said they are going to move to NH and we already have 100s of people in the state.  I think there are a few dozen people in WY and I am not sure how many more are going to move.  Maybe a couple 100 people have signed up for the WY FSP or something.

Unless the WY FSP can get 1000s of more people to agree to move there, I think NH has much better chances of reaching liberty in our lifetime.  Right now, if you move to a place like Dorchester, Drummer, Groton, Hill, Landaff, Pittsburg, or Windsor NH you will be noticeable more free than anywhere in WY.
Logged

St.Jayne

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #2 on: July 05, 2005, 05:49:22 pm »

Really? How so?
Logged

Dave Mincin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #3 on: July 05, 2005, 05:59:19 pm »

Might check the FSP archives for the information you seek.  We already have our Free State....NH! :)
Logged
Please join us!
http://www.nhliberty.org/ New Hampshire Liberty Alliance.

" A leader knows that if he is generous with his time, his people will be generous with their effort."

Plug>>>>Realtor Lovejoy Real Estate!

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #4 on: July 06, 2005, 12:48:40 pm »

Really? How so?

Of course, this has been debated for years.  It seems that NH won the debate everytime.  Of course, you know that, because the FSP members selected NH, after all.

For example, taxes are much, much lower in those towns than in WY.  You don't have to wear your seatbelt, have auto insurance, or put motorcycle helmets on your kids.  Open  carry is more excepted in those NH towns than it is in WY.  Also, you have much, much more local control in those towns than in WY.  The people actually vote on issues at town meetings.  The people and the town council share power.  In NH, the towns control the schools, but in WY, the counties do.

Hope that helps.  Check out
http://www.lpnh.org/101-Reasons-to-Move-to-NH.pdf
and
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TN-FSP/files/NHvsTNflyer.pdf
for more info.
Logged

svillee

  • Friend of the FSP
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 105
  • I favor a constitutional plutocracy.
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #5 on: July 06, 2005, 08:22:43 pm »

But between the two states which is best?

It seems the earlier replies have not really answered your question, as they have compared WY with NH.  You asked for a comparison of WY with MT.

In the summer of 2003, there were a set of reports on this site comparing all 10 candidate states.  There was a lot of specific information about WY and MT.  Anyway, all that data is gone now.  It may be in the FSP archives, but I'm not sure where those are!

I found Wyoming Success, a site put together in the summer of 2003 pushing Wyoming as the right choice for the FSP.  Some of the links are no longer valid, but some of them are, so you might check it out.

My own opinion is that Wyoming is a perfectly fine state, on a par with New Hampshire, and preferable to Montana.  It should be no suprise that WY was a close second behind NH in the FSP voting, well above MT.  The main advantage WY has over MT from my point of view is that WY has no state income tax, while MT has a fairly big state income tax (top rate 11%).  As far as a comparison of gun laws, I'm afraid I have no idea.

Good luck with your decision.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2005, 01:12:40 am »

But between the two states which is best?

It seems the earlier replies have not really answered your question, as they have compared WY with NH.  You asked for a comparison of WY with MT.

In the summer of 2003, there were a set of reports on this site comparing all 10 candidate states.  There was a lot of specific information about WY and MT.  Anyway, all that data is gone now.  It may be in the FSP archives, but I'm not sure where those are!

I found Wyoming Success, a site put together in the summer of 2003 pushing Wyoming as the right choice for the FSP.  Some of the links are no longer valid, but some of them are, so you might check it out.

Thanks for reminding me to close my AOL account.  I no longer use AOL but I see my website is still up.

If the question is, which is better WY or MT?

I feel that WY is much better.

Just the latest example of how MT is getting worse.  http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-traf08.html  In the last 10 years MT has done away with most of its special freedom perks: created interstate speed limits, banned smoking in private company, ended ability to drink and drive, and now the cops have to pull over at least one person an hour.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2005, 08:59:51 pm by NH Bound »
Logged

Ben F. Irvin

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
  • Kahe', Sho' da' she'
    • Dr. Irvin's Cherry Wood Tampers, etc.
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #7 on: July 13, 2005, 06:47:37 pm »

Montana and Wyoming are both great places to live if liberty is your quest.  It was mentioned earlier that Wyoming doesn't have an income tax; however, it does have a sales tax which
Montana does not have.  The major cultural differences between the two states is that
Montana is much more socially liberal than Wyoming.  Last fall, Medical Marijuana was passed by a larger percentage of voters than in any other state (2 to 1).  Such legislation and/or public vote would never happen in socially conservative Wyoming. 

In the Western movement, those libertarians more interested in aternate lifestyles, freer drug laws, or greater diversity tend to move to Montana, and those that don't select the "Cowboy State."  I'm headed to Montana.

~ Ben
Logged
Ben

Dave Mincin

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2099
  • I'm a llama!
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #8 on: July 14, 2005, 05:59:08 pm »

Just curious? :)

Wondering how many of you folks who believe that MT or WY is the best place
for freedom to flurish have actually put your money were your mouth is and
moved?

Perhaps we can do a head count here?  Hey, might get more folks to join you! :)
Logged
Please join us!
http://www.nhliberty.org/ New Hampshire Liberty Alliance.

" A leader knows that if he is generous with his time, his people will be generous with their effort."

Plug>>>>Realtor Lovejoy Real Estate!

Aaron Collins

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #9 on: July 14, 2005, 08:22:35 pm »

I thought I could possibly help in this area, since I would love to live in a "Free State", but have not signed up to move to New Hampshire.

I think the primary reason for low recruitment (i.e., not 20,000) is the selection of New Hampshire as the Free State.

1.  I think the selection criteria is wrongly placed on the current form and status of the state's government and economy, rather than where those are going.  I see New Hampshire as the most freedom loving state in the middle of many liberal states.  I predict that its surroundings will eventually lead New Hampshire in a more left/liberal direction, rather than toward a libertarian state. This can already be seen from the switch it made from voting for Bush in 2000 to voting for Kerry in 04.

2.  New Hampshire is just too cold.  Let's face it, humans like nice weather.  I think it would have been a better idea to pick a place that was more geographically advantageous.

3. New Hampshire has millions of residents.  While I know that 20,000 activists can make a difference, I think it would have been more practical to shoot for a smaller goal first, like a city of 120,000 or so.  I am aware that laws are made primarily at the state level, but if you control the city government, you control what laws are enforced, what fines are imposed, or even if they are imposed.
(i.e. If the police officer is libertarian, he is less likely to ticket you for doing something he thinks should be legal.)

4. No prominent Universities. This is important in a couple of ways.  First, many people would move to a place for freedom if they can combine it with another motive, like getting another degree.  However, New Hampshire is not well known for it's large educational institutes.  A university would also allow libertarian professors to move and obtain employment, as well as teach students their view of government.

5. New Hampshire is not centrally located.  Since it is in the far north east corner of the country, the majority of the people who move there are going to have to live far away from family and friends.  Again, this is not kind toward human nature.

6. The people of New Hampshire do not have a proclivity toward changing to accept the views of a libertarian government.  I think a better choice would have been a place where people are suspicious of government or have a culture of wanting to be left alone.

7.  Job and other forms of potential growth.  I don't see New Hampshire as a state with a potential for lots of growth.  There's not a whole lot of area to grow with, which leads to property and employment problems.  For one, the housing prices are above average compared with the rest of the country, making it harder for people to move.  It might have been wiser to consider a place that was set in a location with several miles of open land surrounding it.

There are some other reasons I have, but after looking around, I think the best idea would have been to pick a city in Texas and, with 20,000 libertarians, influence the population there.  Having grown up in Texas, I can testify to the anti- big government mentality. 

There are a number of cities that would be willing to accept a smaller government, but the one I though had the most potential was Bryan/College Station.  These twin cities are approximately 120,000 - 150,000 in size.  But most importantly, it is the home to Texas A&M, one of the most conservative, large public universities in the country, and is favorable to a small government in comparison to it's rival, the liberal University of Texas in Austin.  A&M holds the Bush Library.

There are no state taxes in Texas, and the size of Bryan/College Station is one where 20,000 libertarians could essentially control the entire community government, and have a big impact elsewhere, since this would have a huge influence on A&M.  I went to high school here, and this was where I was taught by multiple economics and government professors the positive impact of smaller government and unfettered capitalism.  Even the students were generally not in favor of increasing the government.  So, the people there are more open to libertarian ideas. 

The city also is surrounded by thousands of acres of open land, has cheap housing with large homes and yards, has a low crime rate, and is almost directly in the middle of Dallas and Houston.  The economy there is one of the best in the country, and the cost of living is very low.  A person could sell there home elsewhere, purchase one twice the size here, go to college and get another degree, open a business, or find one of the many job openings (the unemployment rate is less than 2%, I believe). 

I realize the downfalls, like the heat.  But if Libertarians want to make a difference soon, and live in freedom within a few years, it would only take the 20,000 moving to this medium sized town to ensure complete Libertarian control there.  I predict there would be no resistance from the locals, because Libertarian ideals are not much different than what many believe there, and the constant influx of students has adjusted the residents and economy to be accepting toward new comers.  And then, of course, there's always the general friendliness of Texans.

I know it's not practical to change course at this point, but if the New Hampshire goal hasn't materialized 20 years from now, I would seriously consider this other possibility.
Logged
If our Constitutional authors were alive today, they would all be considered Libertarian.

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #10 on: July 14, 2005, 11:22:31 pm »

I thought I could possibly help in this area, since I would love to live in a "Free State", but have not signed up to move to New Hampshire.

I think the primary reason for low recruitment (i.e., not 20,000) is the selection of New Hampshire as the Free State.

Quote
1.  I think the selection criteria is wrongly placed on the current form and status of the state's government and economy, rather than where those are going.  I see New Hampshire as the most freedom loving state in the middle of many liberal states.  I predict that its surroundings will eventually lead New Hampshire in a more left/liberal direction, rather than toward a libertarian state. This can already be seen from the switch it made from voting for Bush in 2000 to voting for Kerry in 04.

The only state paper in NH is conservative/libertarian leaning.  I've read MTs and WYs major papers, WYs seem to be better, but they all lean statist/liberal.  NH is located near many liberal states, this is good for continued recruitment.  Also, I cannot imagine how voting for Kerry over Bush has anything to do with freedom (same coin, different sides).

Quote
2.  New Hampshire is just too cold.  Let's face it, humans like nice weather.  I think it would have been a better idea to pick a place that was more geographically advantageous.
  NH is about similar to MT in climate and similar to WY except that Torringtion, Cheyenne, and a few other towns have better winters than NH.

Quote
3. New Hampshire has millions of residents.
  No, it does not and will not in 20 years. 

Quote
While I know that 20,000 activists can make a difference, I think it would have been more practical to shoot for a smaller goal first, like a city of 120,000 or so.  I am aware that laws are made primarily at the state level, but if you control the city government, you control what laws are enforced, what fines are imposed, or even if they are imposed.


The only movement that I saw about a city was the Ft. Collins movement.  Ft. Collins is a statists college town around 30 or so mins from WY.

Quote
4. No prominent Universities. This is important in a couple of ways.  First, many people would move to a place for freedom if they can combine it with another motive, like getting another degree.  However, New Hampshire is not well known for it's large educational institutes.  A university would also allow libertarian professors to move and obtain employment, as well as teach students their view of government.

NH is known for being in one of America's college centers.  The greater Boston area is full of colleges, many of the best known in the nation.  Dartmouth, one of Americas most famous colleges, is in NH.  The other states were really bad in this area.  Places like WY (the 2nd place state in the state vote) were just terrible.

Quote
5. New Hampshire is not centrally located.
Population wise, NH is closer to more people than any state that was looked at, except for DE.

Quote
6. The people of New Hampshire do not have a proclivity toward changing to accept the views of a libertarian government.  I think a better choice would have been a place where people are suspicious of government or have a culture of wanting to be left alone.
Welcome to Live Free or Die NH.

Quote
7.  Job and other forms of potential growth.  I don't see New Hampshire as a state with a potential for lots of growth.  There's not a whole lot of area to grow with, which leads to property and employment problems.  For one, the housing prices are above average compared with the rest of the country, making it harder for people to move.  It might have been wiser to consider a place that was set in a location with several miles of open land surrounding it.
When cost of living (including housing) and wages were compared for the 10 states we looked at, NH and WY tied for best.  Employment wise, NH is doing very well and has lots of in-state and near-by jobs.  After all, it is located in the #2 high tech area in the country.

Logged

KBCraig

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1466
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #11 on: July 15, 2005, 03:23:07 am »

NH Bound has already replied to portions of this, so please allow me to pitch in as well.

I think the primary reason for low recruitment (i.e., not 20,000) is the selection of New Hampshire as the Free State.

That's partially correct. A better explanation would lay blame at the common misperceptions about NH, such as yours, which you express below

Quote
I see New Hampshire as the most freedom loving state in the middle of many liberal states.  I predict that its surroundings will eventually lead New Hampshire in a more left/liberal direction, rather than toward a libertarian state. This can already be seen from the switch it made from voting for Bush in 2000 to voting for Kerry in 04.

Yes, it's an island in a sea of liberalism. To borrow a quote, that makes it a beacon on the hill, a place to which refugees can retreat.

The 2004 Presidential vote doesn't reflect a love of Kerry's Massachusetts liberal Democrat politics. It reflects a strong disagreement with Bush's wartime decisions (i.e., the decision to enter Iraq instead of confining the war to Afghanistan). That didn't set well with the rock-ribbed NH conservatives, nor the libertarians.

Quote
New Hampshire is just too cold.  Let's face it, humans like nice weather.  I think it would have been a better idea to pick a place that was more geographically advantageous.

Are you talking about geography, or weather?

Every possible choice for the Free State is too "something". The western states are too isolated, and many areas can't get landlines or cell service, much less high-speed internet. Some states are too crowded; others are too sparse. NH is perceived as being "too cold" by people who have to scrape frost a few times a year, but those same people are griping bitterly about the heat right now.

Quote
New Hampshire has millions of residents.

Ummmm.... 1.2 million, not "millions". Not only does the Free State have to be small enough for participants to make a difference, it has to be large enough for people to move there. They do need jobs, and houses. I believe NH has a very good balance.

Quote
No prominent Universities.

Umm, helLO! Some of the finest public and private universities are in NH!

http://www.dartmouth.edu/
http://www.plymouth.edu/
http://www.unh.edu/
http://www.fpc.edu/
http://www.dwc.edu/

As for prep schools:
http://www.exeter.edu/

Quote
New Hampshire is not centrally located.  Since it is in the far north east corner of the country, the majority of the people who move there are going to have to live far away from family and friends.  Again, this is not kind toward human nature.

Again, we're battling perception, rather than reality. Within 350 miles of NH, live 70,000,000 people.

Quote
The people of New Hampshire do not have a proclivity toward changing to accept the views of a libertarian government.  I think a better choice would have been a place where people are suspicious of government or have a culture of wanting to be left alone.

Good Lord, man. Do you know anything at all about the state, and its residents?

Quote
I think the best idea would have been to pick a city in Texas and, with 20,000 libertarians, influence the population there.  Having grown up in Texas, I can testify to the anti- big government mentality. 

There are a number of cities that would be willing to accept a smaller government ( . . . )

There are no state taxes in Texas ( . . . ) So, the people there are more open to libertarian ideas. 

I only thought you hadn't paid attention to what NH is really like. Now I see that you haven't the first clue about your home state! I happen to live in Texas, and have for the last 16 years.

No state taxes in Texas? The statewide sales tax is 6.25%, and Perry's current special session seems certain to raise that to 7.25%, an increase of 16%. We live under a Robin Hood school funding program, where property taxes from middle class counties are re-directed to the Valley and west Texas.

"Open to libertarian ideas"? Smoking bans in Dallas, Texarkana, and other cities; rampant enforcement of drug laws; enthusiastic use of asset/property seizure laws, even when there's no evidence of a crime. (You have a better chance of making it to Arkansas on 59-North with a trunk full of marijuana, than of making it to Laredo with an envelope full of cash down 59-South. Catching you with dope costs them time and money; seizing the cash is very profitable!)

The city of Freeport didn't wait for the ink to dry on Kelo v. New London before declaring their plan to seize two fish canneries in order to convert them into residential marinas.

Quote
I realize the downfalls, like the heat.

Ummmm....

[
New Hampshire is just too cold.  Let's face it, humans like nice weather.

Oh,that's right. You believe we shouldn't choose a state with weather extremes!

I just got my electric bill for June. For my modest (1,600 square feet heated/cooled) ranch-style suburban home in NE Texas, I'm on the hook for $240, including a "fuel surcharge" of $84. Fuel oil isn't cheap in NH, but 4-5 months of heating, and 1 month of A/C, versus 9 months of A/C... give me NH any day!

Quote
But if Libertarians want to make a difference soon, and live in freedom within a few years, it would only take the 20,000 moving to this medium sized town to ensure complete Libertarian control there.

The hundred-plus activists who've already moved to NH could completely take over Nash (where I live), and do a major shakeup in Texarkana. The difference is, they're welcome in NH, but they'd just piss off a large part of the "pragmatic Democrats" who live here. I guarantee they'd have the same effect in "conservative" Bryan/College Station. Let's see if the Aggies would whoop for someone lighting up a joint in protest of the marijuana laws. Or suppose they lit a flag... how "libertarian" would B/CS be then?

With 20,000, you could have a "free city" in any state. This isn't about a free city; it's the Free State project. Cities don't influence national policy (with a couple of exceptions). States do.

Quote

I know it's not practical to change course at this point, but if the New Hampshire goal hasn't materialized 20 years from now, I would seriously consider this other possibility.

If the NH goal hasn't materialized in 20 years, there won't be any place to which we can fall back.

Kevin
« Last Edit: July 15, 2005, 03:27:27 am by KBCraig »
Logged

Aaron Collins

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 69
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #12 on: July 15, 2005, 04:19:38 am »

1.3 million.  20,000 would be 1.5%.  The point is that it is too low of a percentage to see a reasonable impact in the amount of "freedom changes".  10% is a more practical goal, which can only be done in a city.

Sorry, I meant no state income taxes.  Should've been more specific.

I knew about Dartmouth and some others, but I am talking about large universities with 40,000~ students.

There are definately anti-liberty bastions in Texas.  I was thinking more of west Texas and, of course, B/CS.  I even remember my science teacher telling me we shouldn't help Africa because of "survival of the fittest".  There would definately be those opposed to others burning the flag, but across the country the statistic just came out that 73% agree with an ammendment to ban desecrating the flag, so that's not so extreme.  However, I see it a much easier task to convert a largely conservative populous to libertarian ideas than a predominantly liberal people group.  That might just be my opinion, but that's what most of this is, anyway.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to be proved incorrect.  And if I am, at least this can be somewhat helpful in assisting to dispel misconceptions.

Aaron Collins.
P.S.
I just saw your "free city" comment.  I think that's a cool idea - create a city of 20,000 libertarians.  They would live in real freedom upon the moment of arrival.  Federal taxes would still impede, but then everyone could see what a society would really be like if it was purely libertarian.  I'm not so confident that even if NH changes some, Libertarians would be given their proper credit.
« Last Edit: July 15, 2005, 04:31:22 am by Aaron Collins »
Logged
If our Constitutional authors were alive today, they would all be considered Libertarian.

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #13 on: July 15, 2005, 04:57:24 am »

However, I see it a much easier task to convert a largely conservative populous to libertarian ideas than a predominantly liberal people group.  That might just be my opinion, but that's what most of this is, anyway.

The majority of the people in Texas are socially conservative and  fiscally middle of the road.  The majority of the people in New Hampshire are socially middle of the road and fiscally conservative.  NH’s population  has a much better chance of being converted to libertarianism. 

I don’t think you understand the research that was put into the Free State Project.  I put over 1000 hours of research into the state selection process myself and I assure you Texas was not in my top ten.  Oh, and yes, I have lived in Texas (and so has my dad, and his dad).

Logged

Jennie89

  • Guest
Re: Wyoming or Montana
« Reply #14 on: July 15, 2005, 06:50:36 am »

Regarding the 40,000 + state colleges.

Why would a liberatarian be looking for bigger state colleges that are more tightly run by the state (Texas) compared to smaller state colleges with looser state controls (NH)? I fail to see how the Texas state university is more libertarian than UNH. UNH has much more freedom to do what they want re: admissions requirements, and the like.

I don't care about the size of the school. I care about the quality. Dartmouth is  great school.  An Ivy, Harvard University is commuting distance. Brown University, another Ivy , is a few hours drive. Texas is nice and all, but it doesn't have a prayer of beating the Ivies. Sorry. 

Leaving the liberal arts schools alone, and looking for science, you've got MIT in commuting distance.  With the exception of Cal Tech, there's nothing in North America that rivals MIT, reputation wise. It's not a hotbed of liberalism, but a community of brilliant scientists from all sides of the political spectrum. People don't go MIT because they're Massholes, they go to MIT for science that's unavailable anywhere else on our continent.

edited: clarification
« Last Edit: July 15, 2005, 06:57:57 am by Jennie89 »
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up