Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration  (Read 14160 times)

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2003, 05:47:05 am »

I don't mean to insult anyone, but I can't help but think of some of these type of  posts as a little childish.  Some of the posters here need to realize that their libertarian paradise already exists.  It's called Somalia, or maybe Afghanistan.  No laws, no healthcare, no public schools, no zoning, no laywers, and you can blow up whatever you want.  

To date, I have not seen all that many pure anarchists in the FSP; I think that most people realize that pure libertarianism and anarchy won't work.  No laws?  Certainly we need laws.  Freedom can only exist in the true sense if it is defended as being a corporate extension of individual right.  The alternative is either tyranny or vigilantism, both of which will ultimately destroy the very thing they are instituted to protect.

Public healthcare (I assume you mean "public" here), and public schools?  This is a totally different issue.  These things are not established as extensions of individual rights, they are established as infringements upon individual rights in the name of corporate philanthropy and "the general welfare."  My parents sent me to private schools all of my life, but this didn't stop the state from taxing them for public education (money they could have really used, by the way).  But they weren't using the system; why should they have had to pay for it?  This amounted to an infringement on their individual rights to keep what they earned.  The same thing would apply to healthcare.

I'm not an anarchist, and I don't advocate tearing down these systems over night and "throwing" anyone into the street.  But to my way of thinking, part of working for a free society is scaling back these "forced philanthropic" and "general welfare" schemes until we can ultimately get rid of them, at least at the state level.

We've discussed "communes" to some extent on these threads before, and it's possible that some counties might vote to continue public education or provide for public healthcare at the general expense of tax payers within their boundaries.  That's fine by me because it's a matter of choice.  Right now though, we have no choice at all, and that is what matters most to me.  There should also be havens for those who object to such coercion, and I think that both of these may naturally develop over the course of time.  Again, the key element would be that state government didn't force the same agenda on everyone.

Quote
I'm all for reduced government, but I'm not for turning America into the third world.  For example, how about tax credits or rebates for health insurance rather than throwing people on the street.

Zack Bass would be ashamed of me, but I would say that any attempts to scale back or eliminate these systems should certainly be incremental, and that we should be working diligently at finding market solutions.  For one thing, tax reductions should greatly assist the average person in being able to afford that which they otherwise would not be able to.  The methods that you suggest still employ government control in an area that I think government ought not to be involved, but they may represent examples of such incremental steps as may be necessary to transition to a state where individual communities would be granted the freedom to decide these matters for themselves.  At the very, very least, we would need individual opt-outs to be available.

Quote
At the risk of drawing some flames, I have to say that the Western FSPers still seem to cling to romantic or survivalist fantasies, while ignoring the enormous federal dependance of the western states.  The people pushing for the East(even those against Vermont)seem to be much more realistic, IMHO.

Well, until now, I hadn't seen anyone, east or west, advocating the continuation of "forced philanthropic" or "general welfare" programs as being a permanent part of our entire society.  I haven't see anyone here who advocates a western state "clinging to romantic or survivalist fantasies" either, but maybe I missed something and you can point out an example.  And the homesteading issue (if that's what you're thinking about) is not a survivalist fantasy; it's about getting "off the grid," not going into the bunker with Eva and Adolf.   ;)

If, on the other hand, what you say is true, and many here do wish to see such programs continued at the forced expense of the entire tax-paying population, then I would say that they're "clinging" to statism.  If so, then we have a serious ideological breach here, and FreedomRoad's suggestion for splitting our efforts between left and right libertarian state efforts is the correct one.  Otherwise, we'll ultimately end up fighting one another, dividing our ranks, and marginalizing ourselves by our own hand.

If this is the case, maybe we need to set up a poll and try to determine this right now because I believe the FSP is currently laboring under the assumption that this is not the case.

Newt

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 65
  • Oregon pioneer family
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2003, 12:22:28 pm »

If this is the case, maybe we need to set up a poll and try to determine this right now because I believe the FSP is currently laboring under the assumption that this is not the case.

I've seen a number of transitionary state arguments such as you have made, but I haven't seen anyone ague for the eventual state to run social service programs, ect.
Logged
"As one comes to penetrate deeper into the intimate thoughts of these parties, one sees that some parties are working to restrict the use of public power and the others to extend it."
Alexis de Toqueville

ida dawn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
  • Paleolibertarian
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #17 on: January 09, 2003, 03:02:32 am »

My two twenty cents :

Seems that there are three important characteristics for informal immigration, as well as for FSP migration :
 whether the place is inhospitable or attractive, and in what way, and to whom.

 I am not convinced that bad weather is needed to weed out the unserious.  In spite of the fact that they have worse weather (numbers don't relay wind chill and sudden change like the real thing), would I go from MN to ND or SD, IF they were seen to be the best choice ?  Yes; it's close to home.  Would folks come from far western MT ?  Maybe.  From WI, where I suspect there a many libertarians ?  Yes.

  My guess would be that distance from friends and relatives would be a more important factor, especially for the non-FSP folks. Those from the east coast or the west coast who are non-FSP may not move the distance. So there may be some value in proximity. if we can get  a handle on the  numbers of probable joiners in nearby states.

I  believe  there is a more important kind of attractiveness, for the wrong kind of immigrants, as Zxcv says, a "slop trough to feed at." Example : MN has spent  30 years determining the threshold level of welfare payments which would get people to come to the frozen North from Chicago, Gary, and Milwaukee. When they found out what that level was, they decided to see what level of payment was required to get people to come from West VA, and St.Louis.  (We are told Greyhound had to add extra runs to some of these cities on the days prior to check dispersals.) Eventually, of course, it was just easier for them to stay here. So people WILL put up with very cold weather, far colder than they would otherwise accept, when motivated.  

Bad weather is not needed as a disincentive as there will  be migration out from a properly run state.  However,  making a state inhospitable for economic/philosophic undesirables will be difficult in a place where many of the inhabitants are not of a freedom mindset.   Which is why I am not in favor of many of the eastern states: the battle to become  "unattractively" free will be severe and the effort will be endless, given the mindset of the surrounding neighborhood.  

Those who want all the advantages of living  near a huge city which is in large part dependent on a massive government apparatus are possibly unwilling to make the FSP their first priority. Strict opportunists will certainly be a help, but  our core must be comprised of those with strong principles.  For  non-FSP immigration,  just as surely as for FSP success,  we should try to be near those whose principles are more near our own.  

As an aside, before I heard of the FSP, I was searching for the most hospitable state for a person who is tired of the socialists of the north country (McGovern, Daschle, two Mondales, Wellstone, MN Public Radio, et al), while also finding weather that is less severe.  My conclusion : Wyoming. Though my mind is open, after reading all the posts here.  

So to MLiq (Dec. 30)  : Not everyone going to WY would fit your stereotype. I am fond of walking in the woods and fields, but certainly do not think of myself as a gun-toting outdoorsman  about to be sucked into a rabid militia group.    :D   I tend toward Shakespearean comedy and tragedy, and musicals, and the St.Paul Chamber Orchestra, and books.  As to "a varied membership that includes many professionals"....I once lived in a town of 1,000 that had nearly a dozen doctors and about seven lawyers and lots of professional transplants from Chicago.   Course I thought the place was boring because there were no Great Books Discussion Groups....  :)















Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #18 on: January 12, 2003, 05:59:03 am »

I  believe  there is a more important kind of attractiveness, for the wrong kind of immigrants, as Zxcv says, a "slop trough to feed at."

Welcome, Ida Dawn!   :)

In regard to the "wrong kind of immigrants," I think that there are basically two types that will be attracted to the free state:

1.  Those who just want to make a fast buck off of a growing economy.
2.  Those engaging in illegal activities who think we'll cover for them.

Both types are opportunistic groups that must be discouraged if their activities threaten our objectives.  I have less of a problem with the first group as I fully understand the desire to make money, and they could contribute to our economy - as long as they don't try to undermine the foundation of liberty we're working to establish.  The greatest danger they'd represent is forming a class of persons who employ significant portions of the voting population.  If they're not liberty-minded, they may try to use government to protect their business interests against competition, and their efforts could spur their employees to activism in the hope of cashing in on the benefits.

If we've managed a sufficient level of reforms to accomplish heating up the economy though, we should also be able to enact provisions to prevent corporate welfare and such, so I don't consider this group to be as much of a threat as the latter.  We'd be most at risk of this sort of problem cropping up in the beginning of an economic growth spurt due to outside investors and entrepreneurs throwing their hats into the ring before we've had a real chance to fully institute other necesssary measures.  So we should do our very best to attract liberty-oriented business owners and entrepreneurs first if at all possible.

The second group could represent a significant threat to us by ushering in federal action or bad publicity, or possibly undermining the voting population's confidence in us (if they think their children, or their own well-being, are at stake).  Let's face it:  if we're emphasizing liberty and personal freedom above all, then we are at risk of nefarious groups setting up in our midst to take advantage of that.  It's one of the risks that make true freedom so unacceptable to so many, in my opinion.  They love the idea of freedom for themselves, but they just don't trust others with it, and don't want to risk the possible consequences of it.

We must do whatever we can to discourage such groups from setting up shop in our state in the belief that they can best hide out there.  At the very least, we risk the possibility of an undesirable element growing in our midst, and at most, we risk action being taken against us on the grounds that we're a lawless state.  Even if the feds are not a concern here, such a perception could lead to the loss of business, tourism, etc.  After all, even if we are successful in setting up a free state, we still have to deal with the fact that we'll be surrounded by a world that doesn't think like us, and may never think like us no matter how much we demonstrate the value and impact of freedom.

It'll take us enough to time as it is just to try and influence the next generation within our own borders.

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #19 on: January 12, 2003, 01:50:59 pm »

Robert, one example of a solution to the problem you mention would be to keep penalties there for export across state lines, of drugs, at the same time we are working toward decriminalizing them internally. I don't know how that would fly constitutionally, but it's something to think about.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #20 on: January 13, 2003, 06:46:59 am »

Robert, one example of a solution to the problem you mention would be to keep penalties there for export across state lines, of drugs, at the same time we are working toward decriminalizing them internally. I don't know how that would fly constitutionally, but it's something to think about.

Constitutionally speaking, the crossing of state borders would certainly come under federal jurisdiction.  So, if we prosecuted someone for transporting something across state lines, the feds would the right to take the case from us if they wished and prosecute it themselves.

At the same time though, we could certainly work to discourage it in some way.  I just can't think of anything off-hand that would prevent transporting items across state lines without setting up checkpoints and invading privacy without probably cause - which probably wouldn't be practical on interstate highways even if we wanted to do it.

I suppose we could regulate certain substances even if they were decriminalized (specifically to keep them from being transported out of state), but then we'd have our own scaled-down version of the drug war and invasion-of-privacy issues to contend with.  Quite a Catch 22, isn't it?

Any ideas?

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #21 on: January 13, 2003, 01:59:10 pm »

No. But this is off-topic, so that's a good reason to drop it.  ;)
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2003, 04:17:36 pm »

Quote
Some libertarians seem to love the idea of no government, but places with no government tend to be hellholes.

This sounds like a logical fallacy to me; perhaps the "fallacy of exclusion"? http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/exclus.htm

Just because various places in the world (which were hellholes even when they had government) remain hellholes without it, does not mean that would be the case were it tried with the proper culture (one of freedom and respect for others) or with the proper tools (Internet, guns, libraries, etc.)

I don't claim a decent anarchism is as easy as falling off a log, but I don't eliminate it as impossible either. On even numbered days I am an anarchist, odd numbered days a minarchist. Are you either of those, Racer?

Quote
tax credits or rebates for health insurance rather than throwing people on the street

My comment was a linguistic one. Don't use orwellian terms for subsidies, it just confuses the debate. BTW, the above is a logical fallacy called "false dilemma" http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/fd.htm

As to people without insurance clogging emergency rooms with sort throats and runny noses, throw them out! Or at least charge them before serving them. The reason we have these problems is because insurance is not used the way it was intended to be. Its original intent was to share the risk for unusual, terrible events - not as simple pre-paid medical care. As Mises said, shortage of any resource is a sure sign it is not priced correctly.

Quote
Western FSPers still seem to cling to romantic or survivalist fantasies

Here's your flame: you are the one with the fantasy, a paranoid fantasy about westerners. You'd better not come to Wyoming...

The dependence on fed subsidies is not being ignored. That is the prime reason SD and MT don't get much play here.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2003, 08:45:06 am »

Quote
RobertH, if you can't find examples of extremism in the pro-west FSPers, you're not looking very hard.

RacerX, I think you may be trying a bit too hard.  Yes, the group that Exitus referred to is controversial, and he stated as much in the following:

Quote
His following is about as diverse as this group, there are soccer-mom homeschoolers to objectivists to pro-militia groups hanging around that water-cooler, they share having read something by Mr. Skousen.  Sometimes the group is a little loopy, and they like to dwell on preparing for calamities, UN police state/ New World Order/ conspiracy ideas.

Exitus clearly stated that "sometimes the group is a little loopy," and then provided examples.  I think the basic idea he was intending by providing that link was that we might still find a few good apples on even a generally loopy tree.  After all, there are people out there who may be confused about various issues and looking for some viable answers.  Sometimes when people are highly upset about something (such as creeping socialism), they'll display some extreme reactions and ideas concerning what to do about it.  We could help some of those kinds of people sort things out a bit.

What I objected to in your original post was this:

Quote
"I have to say that the Western FSPers still seem to cling to romantic or survivalist fantasies, while ignoring the enormous federal dependance of the western states."

This language seems to be an attempt to paint the entire western FSP contingent with one broad, extremist brush-stroke.  If what you say were true, then you'd see this forum filled with threads on militarism, how to build your own bombs, etc (evidence of the extremism you claim is so prevalent).  Instead, you've pointed to a few threads on secession and how to deal with the feds.  Sure, there've been a few pro secession NOW types who have come here, but you'll notice that they've been rather quickly disappointed with us and don't bother to come around much anymore.  You'll also notice that various prominent pro-westerners were involved in arguing against their ideas.  

The same thing applies to the feds.  Concerns have been voiced over what part they could potentially play, but this is hardly a number one topic of discussion, nor has it been all that militant in general.  Again, the militants have mostly been run off; often by pro-westerners.  And they usually preferred to push Alaska, not one of the more popular western choices.

I'd also remind you that secession has been mentioned more than once with regard to New England as well, including Vermont.  In fact, there have been suggestions that they are actually superior for the purposes of secession because no western candidate state (other than Alaska) has a coastline.

And as it stands, the FSP itself is viewed an extremist organization even in the eyes of some libertarians and conservatives who seem to think we're trying to start a cult.  We're going to have to deal with that stigma as best we can until we have an opportunity to prove otherwise by our actions.

Quote
As far as your comment about "forced philanthropy", does that mean you would not support my bare minimum example?  If so, I would love to hear how you would sell that to mainstream voters, in any state.  I still think most people here think we're moving to an empty state.

I would support it as a stepping stone to working for a state where no one was forced to pay for social programs, which I believe government has no business being involved in managing.  But I would not support it as an end in and of itself.  Incrementalism is another thing, and your thoughts might possibly be a useful idea for getting where we eventually want to go.

Are you libertarian, Racer?  Or even conservative?  I ask because of your comments about appealing to "mainstream" voters and turning America into a "third-world country."  These are usually phrases used by leftist-"progressive" types.  You may be a left libertarian, and that's fine; I was just curious.  Overall though, I don't think you'll find many here who are in favor of such things; nor do I think it is hopeless to pursue a long-term Jeffersonian agenda aimed at eliminating welfare and other forms of good-intentioned redistribution.  Jeffersonian ideals have not been given much of a fair airing-out since the founding of this country, and I believe that we will eventually be able to appeal to many voters, if for no other reason than because we will offer them the chance to protect themselves from the whims of others.

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2003, 10:47:43 am »

RoberH--
I resist being labeled Jeffersonian even though I cherish most of  T.J.'s writings.  Mostly because too many people do not have an understanding of historical context.  Also, revisionist and skewed- viewpoint history combined with just plain ignorance might paint me as racist or even pro-slavery and isolationist or pro-public education (Jefferson was a man of some contradictions, he actually did support many public school initiatives in Virginia that were contrary to his core philosophies).        
 Saying this was not meant to be off-topic, no, rather to illustrate the many problems we have with labels:

I am personally aware of many successful California business-persons moving to Idaho, Utah and Nevada to escape the failed socialism of California, but I also observe that many people like this tend to demand the same socialist tendencies in a smaller degree after relocating.  
(I know this general topic has been discussed around here already, but one more point to show where I'm going with this, if you please . . .)
I know of many people on the religious- right who instantly go into authoritarian, non-thinking lock-down at the prospect of voting for a pro-life candidate, even though they may be pro- homeschool, pro- gun, anti- socialism, and pro-freedom on so many issues.  I also understand many people vote for Democrats only because of the abortion issue too.

 What the pro-freedom movement needs to do is shed labels in general and re-frame the issues and let people understand what kind of MONSTERS they are voting for when they vote single-issue.

Not as a plug for Idaho, but to demonstrate my point, I fully believe that Idaho could readily become a free state with enough properly- focused activism on everything libertarians in general wish,  well. . . some sticking-points there might be  abortion, possibly some public-land issues and maybe certain worker- protection laws.  ---But I say this because of the way that Idaho people tend to think in general, both the native population and the recent 'strategic re-locators' but then the way they tend to not think in general when they get near a ballot-box and see that Republican label.

I think we are going to have to resist being labeled pro-drug, pro- gun or pro- anything, but instead repeat the mantra of pro- freedom for individuals in an effort to garner support and understanding on our other issues, particularly those issues that are 'sticking-points' on issues particular to the state we chose.
Something like instead of being for 'gun-rights' being 'pro-freedom, meaning pro- self defense' focusing on the right of people and not the thing intended, but this topic I bring here needs to go up somewhere else, so I'll quit now.  And by the way, maybe I did intend to put-in a plug for Idaho after all, I really do like that state :)

     
« Last Edit: January 16, 2003, 10:48:32 am by exitus »
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

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #25 on: January 17, 2003, 03:56:34 am »

RoberH--
I resist being labeled Jeffersonian even though I cherish most of  T.J.'s writings.  Mostly because too many people do not have an understanding of historical context.  Also, revisionist and skewed- viewpoint history combined with just plain ignorance might paint me as racist or even pro-slavery and isolationist or pro-public education (Jefferson was a man of some contradictions, he actually did support many public school initiatives in Virginia that were contrary to his core philosophies).        
  What the pro-freedom movement needs to do is shed labels in general and re-frame the issues and let people understand what kind of MONSTERS they are voting for when they vote single-issue.

Yes, Jefferson was a man of some contradictions at times.  I suppose that in our reverence of the Founding Fathers, we sometimes forget that they were all too human.  After having drafted a document that explicitly limited government to various enumerated powers, some of them almost immediately took up trying to get around its various provisions to advance their own agendas.  Hamilton did this for one, and has been praised for it in various circles.  Joseph Ellis, in his book Founding Brothers takes up the familiar, statist view that men like Jefferson who insisted upon strict construction were actually obstructionists who stood in the way of the federal government's natural rise to power and America's natural rise to greatness in the world.  He doesn't put it quite like that, but that's still not very far off at all, and I believe it is actually quite a fair representation of what he intends to convey in his book.

I do prefer the "Jeffersonian" label to "libertarian" though because most Americans do not readily believe the ideas that revisionists have been trying to champion in regard to Jefferson and the other Founders (as much as most of them have probably thought about it, that is).  Most still see Jefferson as just being the author of the Declaration of Independence and a man who believed in limited government.  He owned slaves, that is true, but most understand that this was a common contradiction of the Revolutionary generation that had raised its banner on the right of all men to be free and equal.  They may not understand it, but most of them don't appear all that worked up over it either.

Ultimately, I feel that we must stand firmly behind some given set of principles in spite of how they are labeled by our opposition, and one tactic that we can use in doing so is a very strong, very public refusal to be labeled by anyone else in the first place.  We ought not to play word games with our enemy's dictionary.  Otherwise, they'll label our plans to privatize education as being "anti-poor" or "leaving some children behind," and we'll be forced to choose a new label for our plans, one that they will promptly brand with the very same epithets, causing us to retreat once again in search of a new identity.

"Libertarian" currently comes with so much familiar, modern baggage that I would discourage its use outside of libertarian circles for fear that it simply causes the average mind to slam shut with a "no soliciting" sign on the door.  "Jeffersonian," on the other hand, although familiar to the American lexicon already, is not currently in wide use in any meaningful way, but still conveys the power of the Jefferson name in relation to all things fundamentally American.  We could pick up this label and defend it as being the essence of the vast majority of Jefferson's political philosophy while still acknowledging the imperfections of the man himself.

And Jefferson's name, while occasionally the center of controversy, is otherwise so commonly tied to the defense of state's rights and limited government that using it amounts to waving a crucifix in the face of the statist Dracula.  It gets about the same reaction too.   ;D  No other Founder's name gets quite that much of a rise out of the Left, and I think that this may be a good bit of the reason why so many are now so quick to try and re-write the life and legacy of Jefferson.  It's their way of trying to come to terms with their own personal boogeyman.

That's why I refer to myself as a "Jeffersonian."  It amounts to being a libertarian to a great degree, but it doesn't immediately alienate so many who might otherwise be sympathetic.  It also references the listener/reader back to the time of America's founding, and thus, to her founding ideals.  As for those who are not sympathetic anyway, his name might as well be Mr. Cold Shower.  Using his name with a statist is much like sneaking up behind someone and yelling "Boo!"  It's good for a grin at the very least, especially when they so richly deserve it.   ;D

Anyway, I didn't mean to write a book here.  The "Jeffersonian" label is just a personal preference.   ;)

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #26 on: January 17, 2003, 06:03:36 am »

I wonder sometimes if the Intermountain West isn't experiencing a surge of Jeffersonian- minded individuals already making a migration ahead of the FSP, trying to escape the dens of failed socialism, (albeit they still carry the baggage of a certain amount of 'mini-statist' contradictions and expectations with them).  I have observed it personally and now I read this article by Joel Kotkin, entitled,  "A Valhalla unwilling to face the future?" on Colorado Central Magazine, dated June 1996.
http://www.cozine.com/archive/cc1996/00280137.htm

Some excerpts:

This rural population shift is also having an impact on the political arena. Traditionally, political scientists have thought the migration of Easterners to the South or Californians to the Intermountain West would bring a more centrist or even left-wing political flavor to those conservative strongholds. With their urban sensibilities, the thinking went, they would help "tame" the traditional conservatism of these regions.

"In the past, even right-leaning Utah would back moderate Democrat Scott Matheson. But today's flood of in-migrants, notes the Wayne Brown Institute's Bertoch, have tipped the scales distinctly toward the right. Utah's politics, like that in North Carolina, Idaho, and other Valhallan states, reflect a more conservative monoculture than at any time in recent history."

"You think you're getting liberals going out here but for every one liberal you're getting 20 conservatives," Bertoch says.



I detect a certain amount of cynicism in the author (being a cynic myself at times) and a certain bent on equating the 'flight to rural' with racism.  I also note that someone I once used to follow in the news, --I do not support him-- and that person is colonel Bo Gritz, (he helped negotitate the remaining Randy Weaver family out for the FBI because he was their hero) was mentioned in the same race paragraph which would make you assume he was racist.  I wish to point out that Bo Gritz, while certainly a survivalist- militia- type leader, is not a racist.  His whole family was adopted from southeast asia and he speaks out against racism.  (He also ran on a presidential campaign of abolishing the federal reserve and restoring liberty and gained tens of thousands of votes in Utah and Idaho).[/i]


One more plug for Idaho, if you please, from the article:
As Larry Echohawk, a Democrat who lost his 1994 bid for the governor's job in Idaho, puts it: "Idaho is what America once was, and what the rest of the nation now wants to be."
   
« Last Edit: January 17, 2003, 06:05:50 am by exitus »
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

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:Potential for informal immigration... and best state
« Reply #27 on: January 17, 2003, 08:15:58 am »

I agree that Idaho and NH are probably two of the best choices - of course, having grown up in ID and now living in NH, I can't say that I'm completely unbiased!

One point you made about which I would raise concerns - while the FSP is focused on shifting the balance in one state, in order to allow that one state the freedom required (without excessive federal intervention) to demonstrate the principles of a free society, there still has to be enough presence/force of the movement in other states to elect relatively benign candidates at the federal level.

In other words, it would be most important (and, given the relative level of frustration likely) to draw FSP supporters from states where they already have the least influence, while not drawing too many from states where they have the most influence. It may be counterproductive to strengthen the movement in one state while weakening it nationally in any significant way, making it more difficult for that one state to implement changes consistent with a free society.

If Idaho is selected, I suspect that many in MT and WY would feel that they are close enough (and not too dissatisfied with their lot) - but FSP supporters in WA, OR, CA, NV, CO and other Western states who are more frustrated (and less effective due to relative numbers) would be more likely to jump at the opportunity.

Similarly, if NH is selected, FSP supporters from all over the Northeast and into the Mid-atlantic states and even the midwest (remember that distances out here seem different - in the 9 hours it took us to drive from the Boise area to visit my brother in Portland OR, out here I could start in ME and drive through parts of NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, and into MD) would be most likely to jump at the move, and because ME and VT are more evenly split between conservatives and socialists (with VT having been tipped to the left by the socialist influx of the last 20 years or so) there would either be migration from these states or an 'overflow' effect which might tip them more toward freedom, strengthening the movement in the region.

This is one of my arguments in favor of NH - the movement (notice, I'm not talking about the Libertarian movement - while the FSP is largely dominated at this point by 'capital L Libertarians', if it's going to succeed it has to attract many more 'small l libertarians') is already stronger in the West, and therefore people may be less likely to want to move from those Intermountain states. If one of the Western states is selected and many people move from the East - particularly Northern New England, which is the 'freest' region left out here - in essence it's as if we're abandoning the East and retreating into the mountains to consolidate our forces.

As far as I'm concerned, if we can draw enough people (20,000) to NH as the first choice, then the best thing that could happen would be for those remaining who indicate that they will only move to a Western state to move the the runner-up state, which I think should be ID, MT or WY (probably in that order).

I know that we're not advocating a 2-state approach, but practically speaking I suspect that's what will end up happening. Therefore, the best thing for the movement nationally is to have NH win the vote as 'the free state' with one of those three Western states coming in second.
Logged

ida dawn

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 29
  • Paleolibertarian
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #28 on: January 19, 2003, 12:29:49 am »

Exitus  --

Thanks for the reference to the Colorado Central Magazine article. It't very informative, and one certainly does get a feel for the author's bias. I wonder whether anyone has done a more complete and more recent survey on the cultural (philosophical) migrations.


If it is true that such people already have been migrating in large numbers to the mountain states, and if it is true, as he surmises, that the intellectual, commercial, and technological capital will stay mainly on the urban coasts, then it may be more important than I at first thought to have access to a border.  Still, that assumes an eventual total breakdown in relations with those other areas of the country, or the Feds.

Thanks to all of you for your intelligent thoughts.  
Logged

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Potential for informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration
« Reply #29 on: February 20, 2003, 06:14:04 pm »

In regards to informal in-migration, there seems to be another aspect that may be even more powerful than actually moving people into a free state, and that is moving money into the free state.

Look at all of the examples in Delaware, Oregon, New Hampshire, The Internet, and other places of where people come and shop in tax-free zones.  Look at how entrepreneurs set up their businesses along the borders of states to take advantage of the tremendous arbitrage of laws between states.  Border cities in the desert built just for gambling in Nevada is one example.  Wyoming has fireworks stands at every border town.  The huge shopping malls in Wilmington are strategically located along the borders.

Now look at all of the off-shore countries like Bermuda with strong and growing banking businesses.  Consider Switzerland and Luxembourg and Australia with more bars of gold in their vaults than there are people in the country.  Then consider all of the ships owned by U.S. companies but registered in Liberia.  

Then consider that the single largest aircraft registration state is Nevada, and all of the tremendous number of businesses registered in Nevada and Delaware.  Wyoming has recently become one of the most strongest contenders for corporate registrations, as several online incorporation sites reveal.  Then there used to be a tremendous amount of people in the West who registered their cars in Idaho and Oregon because of the low registration taxes, most especially in Idaho, where they do not require an inspection; that was until other states started raising the fines for improperly doing so.  And the lawmakers in California are not entirely stupid , recently passing laws to promote stem-cell research.

With all of the above ideas in mind, consider a very important consideration more important than actual libertarian migration :

Every campaign season, there are many high-profile state political races that bring in lots of out-of state money.  One was the one that senator Clinton won, but then there are many that are not so high profile:  I remember sending about $5 to a campaign in Vermont between a Libertarian and a gun-grabbing Republican back in 1996, --I don't remember any other details, anyways some gun-rights group recommended sending the money and that was it.  Then my dear old New Deal Democrat grandmother sends a $10 check to any group out there that asks for it, provided that they put the words "Social Security" on the request.

The fact of the matter is that money moves faster than people.  This may be especially true in our case, where we will be less than 20,000 members strong for the first five years after organizing, and just getting started for all of that time and for several years beyond.  We will need to be raising campaign funds for years before all 20,000 members and other informal participants move with us, because our enemies surely will be raising that money, especially with something so high-profile as the Free State Project.  It will undoubtedly catch nationwide attention when we attain 20,000 members all ready to move.  All of these factors will surely raise the bar of campaign spending in our state.

For these reasons dealing with 'money in-migration' and especially that of campaign finance, I am starting to re-think states that are highly polarized politically, even low-voting population states like Vermont and Delaware.  The idea that we need to find the state with the most favorable political climate seems even more highly critical than ever.      
« Last Edit: February 20, 2003, 06:22:17 pm by exitus »
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
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up