Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Simple - Pick the Smallest...  (Read 18042 times)

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2002, 02:44:29 pm »

Blayne: I disagree; it is logically consistent. The yeast has to be active to leaven the bread. Likewise the FSP has to be active and innovative to change the political climate of the state.

For the purpose of demonstrating activism, it is logically consistent, for the purpose of demonstrating that a smaller amount is adequate - as was the case in the original post - it is not.

Blayne: Many of the Founders were already wealthy men.  We’re not moving someplace where you can just stake out some land and start building a homestead. If that were the case I would be there in a heartbeat because that sort of self-sufficient lifestyle appeals to me. Were moving where people will need to be productive members of society and there needs to be sufficient opportunity to make a living to support the primary goal of political activism.

Again, the 'wealthy men' stereotype is a liberal and inaccurate mischaracterization, if thoroughly examined.  I don't think it is so unreasonable as you imply to 'statke out some land and...'.  A poorer economy means less expensive land.  It is highly reasonable to think that groups of FSPers could band together to buy large portions of land - perhaps the more wealthy would be more helpful - in Wyoming or Montana and settle them.

Blayne: If you think all we need to do is vote then you’re not what FSP is looking for.  FSP is looking for activist to leaven the whole. But in the mean time their families need to live and be able to eat etc… It’s nice to appeal to the founders of this nation etc for inspiration but reality has to be faced, if those moving to the state cannot find work or opportunity within 3 months chances are high they will leave much less become politically active. Those are the harsh realities. This is not some hippie commune where we can all just move and not worry about it and hey man peace love dope we’ll all just live off the land… ;)

I wouldn't say all that is needed is to vote, but that's why we have a republican form of government.  We elect a few good, liberty-minded individuals who oversee those things.  Those with adequate resources to free themselves up to do the more time-consuming things do, those with less resources vote and influence their culture in more close-to-home, personal ways (which incidentally should not be under-rated).  I do think the vote is the most effective means of freeing a state, and I also think that mentality is precisely what the FSP is looking for.  The whole idea of the Free State Project implies this approach.    

Appealing to pioneers of the U.S. government, U.S. military, and U.S. land, is very much reality.  I propose that the hardships involved in settling the Free State pale in comparison to the truly harsh realities faced by those individuals.
Logged

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2002, 03:45:46 pm »

Quote
author=libertyVSlibertine
1)  None of the states under consideration is poor enough that persons cannot move there and reside comfortably,

Precisely. Some states will of course be easier than others, but as I am not afraid to work, even if it may not immediately be in my favorite field, I have no doubts that it won't present that big a problem.

There is another aspect too which has given me some pause when reading some of the arguments in favor of particular states. Its quite obvious that, for business owners already located within a state, were it to be selected by FSP, that their business would stand to profit nicely.

That is to be expected, and perfectly reasonable. As was already discussed a while back, most of us would wish to support each others businesses (while at the same time contributing to the local economy, which will help us be accepted there.)

However, the possibly questionable part would be for those in such position to heavily lobby for their own local area were this profit aspect to be of central importance to them, perhaps clouding their judgement in more important aspects of state selection. This is similar to how our government currently operates, with the defense industry being a prime example.

Not a major issue here of course, but it does deserve mention and consideration, as it could constitute, to some degree, a slight conflict of interest. Though individual profits are quite important, the actual long term success of FSP must have a higher priority.

An important point is that libertarians and/or Libertarians aren't immune, as sometimes they seem to think, from self-centered motives.

I think, and you may not agree, the drug legalization effort is a prime example (sorry to digress a bit here).  It may be true that drug legalization is consistent with freedom (I leave that for another discussion somewhere), but it isn't important to most Americans, is a distraction from more significant freedom issues, and marginalizes the cause (i.e., Libertarians look to the public like a bunch of hippies and druggies who want to be able to do their own personal thing).

It really is important to examine our own, and be wary of others, motives.
Logged

Steve

  • FSP Board Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • La Vero vin liberigos
    • Elegant Solutions
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2002, 06:08:36 pm »

Quote
[drug legalization] isn't important to most Americans, is a distraction from more significant freedom issues, and marginalizes the cause (i.e., Libertarians look to the public like a bunch of hippies and druggies who want to be able to do their own personal thing).
Sorry for continuing the digression....The same goes for the right to bear arms: it makes us look like a bunch of "gun-nuts".  Also those who want low taxes must surely be greedy rich people who want to avoid paying their fair share.  

The FSP exists because some of us libertarians have given up hope on ever convincing the sheeple, at least not in our lifetimes.  What the sheeple think might be important to the LP, but it is not important to the FSP.  We will fight for all freedoms, though we will prioritize that according to some criteria.  The loss of any freedom is a tragedy, and an erosion that will lead to further losses that might matter more to you.

About drug legalization in particular, it is the LP's #1 issue, and for good reason.  Drug prohibition is an underlying factor in much of the state's increase in power, and our loss of rights.  The narcotics black market feeds the violent crime that gives the gun-grabbers the ammunition they need....
Logged

Steve

  • FSP Board Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • La Vero vin liberigos
    • Elegant Solutions
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2002, 06:24:34 pm »

Quote
MouseBorg wrote:
However, the possibly questionable part would be for those in such position to heavily lobby for their own local area were this profit aspect to be of central importance to them, perhaps clouding their judgement in more important aspects of state selection....
Not a major issue here of course...
Since the target states are necessarily small ones, only a tiny percentage of our membership would be a business owner in one of them. But you are right in that the opinion of anyone advocating their own state has to be taken with a bit of skepticism, though they are of course the ones who would know their state best.
Logged

Blayne

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2002, 08:38:03 pm »

Where is the data to support the premise that the smaller population economies such as WY etc. can support the influx of 20,000? Like wise where is the data the larger population states will be too hard to change? Since some here seem so certain?

Blayne
Logged

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #50 on: December 08, 2002, 06:20:17 pm »

Quote
[drug legalization] isn't important to most Americans, is a distraction from more significant freedom issues, and marginalizes the cause (i.e., Libertarians look to the public like a bunch of hippies and druggies who want to be able to do their own personal thing).
Sorry for continuing the digression....The same goes for the right to bear arms: it makes us look like a bunch of "gun-nuts".  Also those who want low taxes must surely be greedy rich people who want to avoid paying their fair share.  

The FSP exists because some of us libertarians have given up hope on ever convincing the sheeple, at least not in our lifetimes.  What the sheeple think might be important to the LP, but it is not important to the FSP.  We will fight for all freedoms, though we will prioritize that according to some criteria.  The loss of any freedom is a tragedy, and an erosion that will lead to further losses that might matter more to you.

About drug legalization in particular, it is the LP's #1 issue, and for good reason.  Drug prohibition is an underlying factor in much of the state's increase in power, and our loss of rights.  The narcotics black market feeds the violent crime that gives the gun-grabbers the ammunition they need....

Most of those things about drug legalization are speculation.  Personally, and supportably, I think taxes have exponentially more impact on freedoms than do illegal drugs.  Likewise, keeping firearms is an ultimate defense against tyranny (as included by the founders and as recently supported by the U.S. attorney general.  The fact that the citizens, while they were still thinkers, counted those things sufficiently important to protect in the Constitution and Bill of Rights lends some evidence to the idea that they are demonstrably higher priorities.  

Agreed, however, any taking of rights is a shame.  
« Last Edit: December 08, 2002, 06:40:01 pm by libertyVSlibertine »
Logged

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #51 on: December 08, 2002, 06:37:27 pm »

Where is the data to support the premise that the smaller population economies such as WY etc. can support the influx of 20,000? Like wise where is the data the larger population states will be too hard to change? Since some here seem so certain?

Blayne

How do you define an economy that can support the influx of 20,000?  Isn't that non-liberty, economic-engineering-speak?  

Nonetheless, the answer is by empirical evidence.

It has been demonstrated for centuries in this country that there are abundant and certainly adequate natural resources to support a large influx of people into any state.  Now, we have even more resources, primarily by way of wealth, communication, and travel, which are all much greater than they were at the time tens of thousands were routinely moving into (new) states.

If the puritans could survive Massachusetts winters in the 1600s on almost nothing (using only a few square miles worth of resources), after weeks of sea travel, it most certainly can be done in today's luxurious environment.

Data isn't needed to support the population numbers, beyond ordinary statistical analysis and common sense.  

First of all, in WY, 20,000 votes would be enough to determine the outcome of all national elections in that state (but would require the assistance of partisans).

20,000 votes, in a 200,000 electorate state, will have more impact - simple math - than 20,000 in a 500,000 electorate state.

If FSP can change the elected officials, there is then more ability to change the attitudes of citizens, at least that is the premise behind choosing a number.  Otherwise, the FSP would just be 'all liberty-lovers come' - no structure or numerics needed.  The premise would be that a taste of liberty, given by electing liberty-minded officials, is likely to be a quick and effective means by which to change citizens' attitudes about it.
Logged

Blayne

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #52 on: December 08, 2002, 07:39:35 pm »

LVS: How do you define an economy that can support the influx of 20,000?  Isn't that non-liberty, economic-engineering-speak?  

Blayne:  Thank you for the response.

Defining an economy that can support an influx is simple, enough demand for new business and new workers… Why is looking at the amount of available opportunity somehow associated with non-liberty? That simply makes no sense to me.

LVS: Nonetheless, the answer is by empirical evidence.

I have been asking for it since I came on the list. Where is this evidence?

LVS: It has been demonstrated for centuries in this country that there are abundant and certainly adequate natural resources to support a large influx of people into any state.  Now, we have even more resources, primarily by way of wealth, communication, and travel, which are all much greater than they were at the time tens of thousands were routinely moving into (new) states.

Blayne: Just how does natural resources translate into businesses and jobs for 200,000 new folks? Natural resources have to be developed which takes lots of cash, time, equipment and know-how etc. before there is any return on all those invested. Which its obvious FSPers will not have at least the cash nor the time…

The other resources such as comms. travel etc… are much more easy to gauge whether there is enough opportunity to support a large influx. This is the data I am asking for.

I keep hearing things like with business that comes with FSPers there will be enough, but no one has given any evidence that will be the case, and how do you gauge how much business will come?  

With all the analyzing going on in  the FSP I would think this would be a no brainier that it needs to be done. This is my point in picking a state with an already thriving economy.

I think a larger population diluting the FSP political influence would be easier to overcome with some innovative marketing then a small economy unable to support the basic needs of the influx.

Influencing larger populations with the right marketing campaign has a track record of success, and large influxes into weak economies is known to make them worse.

LVS: If the puritans could survive Massachusetts winters in the 1600s on almost nothing (using only a few square miles worth of resources), after weeks of sea travel, it most certainly can be done in today's luxurious environment.

Blayne: What in the world has this got to do with anything?  Quite living in the past and address the realities of today. Which is those moving to the target state will need enough opportunity to survive economically. Yes they can bring some with them but will it be enough?

LVS: Data isn't needed to support the population numbers, beyond ordinary statistical analysis and common sense.  

First of all, in WY, 20,000 votes would be enough to determine the outcome of all national elections in that state (but would require the assistance of partisans).

20,000 votes, in a 200,000-electorate state, will have more impact - simple math - than 20,000 in a 500,000 electorate state.


Blayne: I am not asking about the voting numbers, I have agreed numerous times with the voting numbers being easier in small population state. But it doesn’t mean a thing if people cannot support themselves for lack of opportunity

Until this is addressed with some hard data folks are basing their choices on speculation in my view
Logged

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #53 on: December 09, 2002, 12:27:26 am »

Blayne: What in the world has this got to do with anything?  Quite living in the past and address the realities of today. Which is those moving to the target state will need enough opportunity to survive economically. Yes they can bring some with them but will it be enough?

What you call 'realities' today are merely preferences.  The standard of living most U.S. citizens are used to is not necessary.  They can live on much less.  Why is it that how humans settled areas in the U.S. in the 1600s doesn't apply today?  Are we inferior to them, unable to survive when they were?  They went to a new land with no resources, but a very few resources they could bring along and minimal capability to get additional help in any short order.  Are we not in thousands of times better shape than that.  Economic survival isn't an issue, not if we truly desire liberty.  If so, we'll get it or die trying.

OK, its your turn.  Why is it that it must be proven there is adequate economic support for a great influx?

All of U.S. history demonstrates that not much is really needed to survive given a desire for true freedom.  Now not only the motivation of freedom exists, but nearby prosperity, technology, communication, and relatively easy travel.

Prove that it there isn't adequate support.  Show the 'hard facts' to demonstrate that survival is a serious issue.
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #54 on: December 09, 2002, 03:48:16 am »

liberty... I agree with your statement about people being able to live on very little. I have known people to live enjoyable lives on almost nothing as long as they had land and a few animals and gardens and simple housing.

Also keep in mind a place like Wyoming has very low housing prices and land prices. Gardening is an issue in any of these northern states, we will have to get creative with that. Hunting is possible for folks who are not completely citified. Anyway there are lots of things that can be done.

Finally remember that there will be a lot of help in the form of other Free Staters.

In fact, to be honest, the economies in the little rural towns are pretty slow. You could say the entire town is working on this semi-subsistence, no-known-source-of-income type of living. So we will have lots of examples to follow in the small towns!

I go back and forth on this issue; I understand Blayne's concerns.

I suspect the first Free Staters who will move will be the retirees; they have no jobs needs. They can scout out opportunities for the next wave, maybe put up a couple of RV pads in the back yard, that sort of thing.

You know, the more I think of it, the more it looks like we need retirees, lots of them. They have a lot going for them, and would be a big help with the initial immigration. Maybe we should direct some recruiting effort in that age group, even if we don't actually make activists of them. Friends would be just about as good, for getting over this initial hump...
« Last Edit: December 09, 2002, 03:50:36 am by Zxcv »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #55 on: December 09, 2002, 07:38:07 am »

I suspect the first Free Staters who will move will be the retirees; they have no jobs needs. They can scout out opportunities for the next wave, maybe put up a couple of RV pads in the back yard, that sort of thing.

Singles, retirees, people who work from home, those with businesses that can be transplanted or expanded, RVer's:  all of these types will likely be the first people to move because they're not so firmly rooted as others.

Their independence will not only allow them to make the move first, but it will also quite likely allow them to prepare the way for others to follow.

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #56 on: December 09, 2002, 08:56:48 pm »

Zxcv,

   Very well said.  You are nicer to Blayne than am I.  I do also understand the concerns, but this is the time for boldness.

   In Wyoming, with only 454,000 (and a host of other good factors, though some are a little down), the Free State Project would immediately, get this, be 5% of the population.

   Now that would be a decent forum for liberty!!!!!

Logged

Hank

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 334
  • "The Men That Don't Fit In"
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #57 on: July 28, 2003, 09:33:46 pm »

Quote
I acknowledge that if all things are equal, financial concerns should be given consideration, but they are not equal. 
Resolved:
1)  None of the states under consideration is poor enough that persons cannot move there and reside comfortably,
2)  The fastest way to gain the desired liberty is by winning elections,
Therefore, gains in economic status from choosing a more financially prosperous state (pretty subjective anyway), do not outweigh the benefits of a larger voting percentage.
If we truly believe in the liberty we promote, we will have confidence that the ability to implement that freedom most quickly (voting percentage) will cause the desired financial prosperity.
I also propose that adversity brings strength.  The camaraderie developed in improving a less-developed state by means of liberty might be just the added edge necessary to make the free planet project work.

TRUER WORDS WERE NEVER SPOKEN HERE.
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

Dalamar49

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 509
  • I smoked out the sheriff and his deputy! : )
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #58 on: July 28, 2003, 09:41:47 pm »

What the Hell are you doing, Hank?  ???

"Must not get annoyed," Speaks my mantra.
Logged
Get up, stand up, stand up for your right. Don't give up the fight.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up