Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: No states in the south  (Read 2550 times)

brsett

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • I'm a llama!
No states in the south
« on: October 03, 2003, 10:39:47 pm »

Hello,

  I just heard about this a few days ago, and think its a great idea (I've actually been trying to find a country to move to once I complete my graduate degree and hopefully have some international flexibility in my job prospects).  However, I think its interesting that no states in the south were considered as finalists -- for that matter a search of the forums seems to indicate that no southern states were considered at all.  

That is especially surprising considering that the south is a bastion of anti-federalist sentiment (there was even a secession once, as you may have read in history books), distrust of government, and less urban, all factors that would improve the chances of 20,000 ppl making an impact.  Don't get me wrong, the last thing the south needs is another visit from carpetbaggers, but at least in this case the application would be fair, as 20,000 ppl would actually have to migrate to the state.

I suspect the reason is simple bigotry, which is fine, anti-southern sentiment in America is similar to anti-Americanism abroad  Once a viewpoint has become so ingrained, and then reinforced by popular culture and the media, I understand that it is difficult reevaluate that viewpoint, for that matter maybe you truly do believe that southerners are stupid and less evolved (tho really a small amount of research would quickly set you straight on that notion).

  However if there are other reasons that the south was not considered, I would be interested to learn why.  Certainly in the US, I couldn't imagine living in many states not in the south -- Idaho perhaps would be okay, though climate would be a problem.

Cheers,
Brad
Logged

underwater

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 257
  • A Normal Geolibertarian
Re:No states in the south
« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2003, 11:33:22 pm »

Brad,

Hi! No anti-southern bias here (in fact, many of us read lewrockwell.com). From the FAQ:

Q. What states are you considering, and on what criteria?

A. Obviously population is the critical factor. Our research so far indicates that 20,000 activists could heavily influence only states with under about 1.5 million population, or which spend less than $10 million on political campaigns in any given two-year election cycle. The following states are under consideration: Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, Idaho, and Maine. Other important criteria include: 1) coastal access (to make ourselves less dependent on the American market and by extension American policies); 2) a native culture that's already pro-liberty; 3) lack of dependence on federal funds (states that lose out on the Union will be more willing to stand up to the federal government and will hurt less from rejecting federal highway funds and other mechanisms of control); 4) a decent job market. By these criteria, some states appear to float to the top. See the state data page for detailed information.
Logged
- I will only vote for people that live in my local community and that are willing to meet with me to discuss the issues.
- I will only pay a tax (preferably a LVT) that is levied by my local community and spent on local infrastructure improvements and security.
- To me, FedGov does not exist.

brsett

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • I'm a llama!
Re:No states in the south
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2003, 11:55:53 pm »

Ah, I didn't realize there was a hard cap on the population.  Of course even with the hard cap, west virginia would be preferable to say delaware, based on my experience in the 2 states, but that's splitting hairs.

Its too bad you've put the hard cap on population as states like tennesee and kentucky (which have very low voter turnouts historicallly anyway), I think are more likely to be open to anti-federalist movements, than say Maine or Alaska.  I wasn't surprised that New Hampshire was the eventual choice, as it is famous for its license plates.  Whether that means anything in practice, I don't know, as I haven't been there since I was 4 years old.

Good luck with the winters.
Logged

Jeff from the "Free" State

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • There's never been a good government. – E Goldman
Re:No states in the south
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2003, 10:08:52 am »

It turns out that in the early days of the Free State Project they did consider some southern states.  Here's a page from the Internet Archive Wayback Machine from February 2002. http://web.archive.org/web/20020221122012/www.freestateproject.org/state.htm

If you scroll down a bit, you'll see that West Virginia was on the list as were New Mexico and Hawaii (perhaps not really southern!)

Still, I think there's another reason not to choose a southern state.  I agree that many southerners have libertarian leanings but I think they prefer to simply live their beliefs while ignoring government.  The FSP, on the other hand, plans to use politics to change things.  I believe that they would have a much harder time convincing freedom loving southerners to join the government.

Jeff
Logged
"The lover of liberty will find ways to be free." - F.A. Harper

j_freeman

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 154
  • Disagreeably Disagreeable
Re:No states in the south
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2003, 04:55:52 am »

> I agree that many southerners have libertarian leanings but I think they prefer to simply live their beliefs while ignoring government.<

I wish I would bump into these southerners you speak of. ;) Maybe it's just this region but all I meet around here are Bible-thumping intolerants. (Not to say Bible-thumpers are bad, mind you, just that I have an ingrained association between them and anti-Liberty people [ie. opposite of people like us; can't think of a good word].)

>(besides the funny Yankee voices)<

Hehe, I'd much rather listen to some nice Northern accents than the common hick accents found 'round these parts. Don't get me wrong; you can't beat a good Southern accent but -- probably a surprise to most people -- these are few and far in between down here. :(


BTW, sorry for bumping an old thread. It's my first post so I'm allowed to, right? ;)
Logged
Prohibition worked in the '20s, too.
Pages: [1]   Go Up