Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ZuG]

NH and WY "appear" to be the frontrunners for FSP voting (I say appear because the forums probably are not a representative cross-section of the FSP, and this may change things).

As such, one needs to carefully evaluate these two states for likelihood of sucess, and not necessarily things you personally desire. Markers of success can be broken up into three categories: short-term, medium-term, and long-term

Short term characteristics of a state depict what it will be doing in the next 5 years, as the 20k is gathered and the moving begins.

Medium term characteristics of a state include those things that will be affected in the next 5-15 years, as the FSP is gearing up and we begin to win elections and make changes.

Long term characteristics include those things that are going on for 15+ years, things that will affect the long-term success of the project.

The FSP is a long-term project. Thus, we must consider the effects of each of these categories. Short-term characteristics will affect the attainment of the 20k and how many actually move. Medium-term will affect encouragement/discouragement as our plans begin to work/show themselves to be not working. And long-term will be the lasting effects of our reforms.

There are two major things that FSP members are concerned with at this time: population, and economics.

Population includes such things as: total population, voting population, % people native born, etc. These numbers indicate how effective our 20k members will be in the given state.

Economics include such things as: job prospects (rural vs. urban comes in heavily here), % unemployment, business taxes, etc. These numbers indicate how easy or difficult the relocation will be.



Now, let's look at these things in context of time-frame of effect:


Population: This clearly affects the medium and long-term, as well as the short term in a round about way (finding housing, etc).

In the medium term, moving to a fast growing state such as NH will mean that we have to find and mobilize our 20k people very quickly, in order to make our plans take effect before our numbers are overwhelmed. We may be bolstered by other libertarians moving into the state, but that will only happen if those people start to see results and are confident that we will be able to produce them. WY, with it's projected slow population growth will mean that we have much more time to organize and put our reforms into effect, as we will be a good segment of the population for some time to come. Although population will be a problem for NH in the medium-term, it's not insurmountable. Thus, although it puts WY in a much more positive light in the medium-term, it does not rule out NH altogether.

In the long term, we will see our changes in law blossom into a libertarian haven, or see our short and medium term efforts be overturned by an increasing population, and thus a decreasing ratio of FSPers to statists. This is where WY really shines over NH. The increasing numbers of NH residents over the long term will mean that any reforms we do make in the medium term have a strong possibility of being overrun as soon as we are not a large enough segment of the population anymore to really even matter. Increasing migration from the bigger cities on the eastern seaboard will ensure that NH has a quickly growing population, just as migration from California and Washington will ensure that ID does.



Now, a look at economics:

Economics has it's main effects in the short and medium terms. It will affect the ability of FSPers to find jobs for several years after the move, and will effect their economic productivity into the medium term. In the long-term, however, the influx of so many entreprenuers and activists, coupled with our increasing economic freedoms and lowered tax on business should turn a sluggish economy around.

In the short and medium term for economics, WY is clearly the loser. Many FSPers will likely end up living in the SE of WY so they can commute to Ft. Collins, CO or other nearby cities, due to the lack of good high-tech jobs to be found. NH, on the other hand, has a good job outlook and will make moving there easier for potential FSPers.

In the long-term, economics are hard to predict. A booming NH economy caused by our economic freedoms may draw in job-seeking statists from the rest of New England, or it may not. This is a possible downside to NH, but it is too far in the future to possibly predict. Long-term, economic prospects for NH and WY are probably equal.


Now, here's the vital question:

Is short and medium term success more important, allowing us to draw in more people more quickly, or is long-term success more important, allowing the reforms we do impliment to last through our generation and onto the next, and possibly longer?


For me, the answer is clear. Whatever the virtures of NH, and there are many, it's probable population increase makes it unviable as a FSP choice. WY, although it will likely draw less overall people at first, and will create some hardships for FSPers moving there, really shines when you consider long-term effects, and our ability to make a difference for generations to come.

[freedomroad]

There are two major things that FSP members are concerned with at this time: population, and economics.

In the early days, there were three main factors.  These factors are still the most important factors, at least in my mind.

1. Population or voter population

2. liberty-friendly voters

3. expense of elections

How do your two states stand up to the most important factors?

1. Population (2002)
Wyoming = 498,703
New H. = 1,275,056

2. liberty-friendly voters
a. read this report, http://www.freestateproject.com/analysis.htm
b. or this http://www.freestateproject.com/wyoming2.htm#guns
c. I wrote two additional reports on this subject, look for them in the next week or two.

3. expense of elections
Wyoming = $4,700,000
New H. = $19,600,000


Actually, Robert Hawes has already produced a very long report on the subject of this thread.  Although, he compared ID, WY, and NH.  Check it out,
"Best for Liberty? An Analysis of Three Leading States" by Robert Hawes
http://www.freestateproject.com/StateComparisons_25mar03.htm

Keep in mind that it is 24 pages long!
Short summary: Wyoming is the best state for the FSP.

[Robert H.]

Zug, you've done some very good thinking here.

In terms of short and medium range success, consider one other factor related to population: when you're comparing the smaller states to the larger states, less actually becomes more.  What I mean by that is that fewer activists in the smaller states may equal or even exceed the saturation levels achieved by more activists in higher population states.  Here's a quote from some info I posted earlier in this discussion:

The figure 20,000 means nothing aside from the criteria that generated it in the first place, which is the idea of having 1 FSP activist for every 62 state residents.  At that ratio, based on the Census Bureau's 2005 population projections, we get the following number of activists per state:

State Total Pop. # of Activists required for 1 to 62 ratio

Wyoming - 568,000 (9,161)
Vermont - 638,000 (10,290)
North Dakota - 677,000 (10,919)
Alaska - 700,000 (11,290)
Delaware - 800,000 (12,903)
South Dakota - 810,000 (13,065)
Montana - 1,006,000 (16,226)
New Hampshire - 1,281,000 (20,661)
Maine - 1,285,000 (20,726)
Idaho - 1,480,000 (23,871)

These numbers satisfy the 1 to 62 ratio, and, if you equate the number 20,000 with success, then you need only get 20,000 for an equivalent degree of saturation in three out of ten states.

Compare Wyoming with Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire as they are all projected to be by 2005:

Wyoming - 568,000
New Hampshire - 1,281,000
Maine - 1,285,000
Idaho - 1,480,000

20,000 in each of these states works out as follows:

Wyoming - 1 FSP'er to every 28.4 residents
New Hampshire - 1 to 64.05
Maine - 1 to 64.25
Idaho - 1 to 74

To saturate Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire to the same level as 20,000 would saturate Wyoming would take this many activists:

New Hampshire - 45,106
Maine - 45,247
Idaho - 52,113

In other words, it would take more than two FSP's to saturate Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire to the same level as Wyoming.

So, even if Wyoming attracts fewer activists earlier on, this does not necessarily mean that the FSP's short term impact would be endangered.  At 9000 activists, we would have saturated Wyoming to the same degree as 20,000 in Maine, Idaho, or New Hamphshire.  And if you have doubts about whether the FSP will attract 20,000 actual Jeffersonian activists, then the smaller states like Wyoming are even more attractive because fewer numbers (or fewer effective activists) count for so much more there before anything else is even considered.

Then add in things like Wyoming's native sentiment, initiative and referendum, small House and Senate districts, relatively inexpensive elections, term limits, slow growth rate, and balanced budget and you begin to see just how superior Wyoming becomes in terms of short range impact.  All of these (and more that I've left out) are advantages that offer us an immediate benefit in addition to our own numbers.

Thus I wouldn't assume that Wyoming would be outperformed by higher population states in the short run just because those other states might be able to attract more activists right off the bat.  Just think about how much more an activist counts for when he or she crosses the state line into Wyoming, and then combine that with all of Wyoming's other natural advantages, which would be immediately at the disposal of those activists.

[BobW]

Hi ZuG,

You've got a solid grasp of what must be dealt with.  Here's some commentary;

Intro; population;

I'd not worry too much on the exacting categories such as "native born".  It is philosophical positions determining our concerns, not status as an original "local".

Economics;

I'd say it's not "job prospects" but rather actually getting employment.  That's why I gave my full endorsement to a participant here (do not remember if a declared FSPer) regarding a "Porcupine Employment Service", staffed by and for FSPers.

I'd never recommend someone to make a long distance move without first visiting the place.  If and when someone visits, they can stop at the FSP employment service and get a job search started. (I envision a better and more comprehensive program than what the  current employment services offer.  I've seen it done where the benevolent societies also have a driver service to run people around town to go to interviews,etc)  For someone to relocate funded off of savings is not the most feasible route.  Failures to relocate do not enhance morale nor further FSP.

From a financial and social perspective, job prospects won't count.  An FSPer needs a revenue stream as soon as possible.  Other groups establish the employment service along with a "welcome committee" as part of an "advance party".

I've read several posts regarding business taxes.  In the context of FSP, business taxes are not relevant. If account receivables are pouring in, pay the damn taxes.  Our country's concern and complaints on the entire arena of taxes are up for review.  We'll rehabilitate tax programs - - -when the collective pronoun "we" is a viable FSP group.  In the interim, the objective is to get established.  Fortunately, the tax castrophe is such a national issue that FSP can let the US Chamber of Commerce, and all the others continue working the tax issue.

I am not nor could relocate my business to Wyoming. The "constant" is the relocation.  The "variable" is the business.  One is an option; one is a necessity.

You answered the vital question.

If the short term success is a relocated group, meshing in with a new home and getting established; which is the inference I got from above, no medium or long term success can evolve without the initial nucleus.



To amplify on the "vital question";

NB: I might be out of order  and am prepared to accept constructive criticism.  

Does FSP seek threshholds to establish a short term success in eg Wyoming, by tapping the resources of eg already established FSPers in eg New Hampshire?

In year 15, I'd suspect more than SE Wyoming will have FSP enclaves.  Is it socially, economically and politically wise to disestablish a beachhead in New Hampshire to accelerate growth in the Wyoming FSP enclave - or vice versa - from Wyoming to New Hampshire?

A relocation is expensive.  I'm doing the R&D right now.  Getting employment is also a big project.

I read a lot of statistics here but believe a lot is being missed.  If someone's working, even if in a transition job, housing is available.  Even Manhattan has available housing when the price is agreed upon.

I'm glad to see your post here.  I was waiting for someone to open the file cabinet and start the work. Only the leisure class has the time to discuss the other  stuff.

Zug, are you writing from Switzerland?   Just joking......


BobW  

[JasonPSorens]

ZuG, I think you've identified two important categories of variables: population (called SIZE in the spreadsheet) and economics (called QUALITY in the spreadsheet).  The assumption is that NH and WY represent extremes on both of these factors, with other states being combinations thereof.  But there are also two more factors: long-term autonomy possibilities (VIABILITY in the spreadsheet) and favorability of local residents (CULTURE in the spreadsheet).  Since SIZE and QUALITY are generally inversely correlated (even if it is assumed that smaller states will necessarily have fewer jobs, and that isn't intrinsically a bad thing, our smaller states still have fewer new jobs as a proportion of population than our larger states, except Maine), the VIABILITY and CULTURE factors may be the ones ultimately determining the decision.

[jgmaynard]

Freedom, freedom, freedom....

1st) Where did you get those expense reports? Benson spent $9M for Gov in '02, and that was far and away the most expensive campaign in NH history.
Trouble here is, we are NOT going for Governor right away! A primary goal is to get people in the state house! Those elections only cost a couple hundred dollars in NH, and the districts are only about 3k people, so a candidate can meet all the constituents over a few weekends.... OUR elections are darn cheap, darn small, and VERY winnable!

2nd) Liberty friendly - The reports you quote list votes for Bush/Cheney as being "liberty friendly" -  two words - John Ashcroft.
I says it before, I'll says it again.... New Hampshire HATES the Bushes! In an election between a true fiscal conservative (Benson) and a tax and spend liberal (Fernald), Benson won 2:1. Oh, and our Libertarian candidate had one of the best showings out of all the states, and then he got picked by the Governor to show him how to make Government smaller...
How about the fact that the people of NH have elected more LIBERTARIAN candidates (a TRUE measure of freedom) that any other state in the country? WY has ONE Libertarian elected. We have 28... We also have solid plans to get at least 50 in office by the end of next year, including restoring a powerful Libertarian caucus in the state house. And here's the nifty bit - The Republicans WANT us there!

3) Guns - You don't need a permit to carry a gun in NH, and concealed is only a 1 page, $10 (as opposed to $75 in WY) form on a "must issue" basis; You get turned down, the courts will MAKE the police issue you a CC permit...
Only 1/2 of NH households have guns, but it is because our crime rate is so low (lowest in the nation according to the FBI - http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/01cius.htm), we don't need them, except for hunting (which is very popular)... PLUS we have two gun factories in NH, including a Ruger plant!
And we don't fingerprint our gun owners like WY (http://www.lpnh.org/poptips/gunlaws.htm)

It's not hard to get more people to vote pro-liberty, when they are already doing so!

While the western states all tell us to go somewhere else, our Governor is welcoming us with open arms to the statehouse.

Largest percentage of FSP members in the country, most elected Libertarians in the country, highest percentage of LP members in the country, the lowest taxed state after Alaska (Money Magazine, 1st without Alaska's oil dividend http://www.lpnh.org/poptips/taxes-gr.htm), the lowest state spending in the country...

Sounds pretty darn pro-liberty to me

Learn more about NH at:
http://www.lpnh.org/why-nh.htm

JM

[vermass]

   $20 for an out of state permit. The form IS very easy. It was easier for me to obtain my NH non-resident permit than a permit for my "home state" (I hate saying this:) MA. WY does not have non-resident permits (Someone else did mention our NH permits have reciprocity in WY). MA permits have reciprocity nowhere because MA will not give anyone other state reciprocity.
   NH, WY, one thing for sure: either of them is 1000000 times freer than MA.
   Talk about a powerfull teachers union. In MA they have several different prime-time commercials running right now. They are using scare tactics and want us to "raise the revenue". Their logic is that we'll educate more people who will get better paying jobs and therefore be able to pay more taxes or should I say "raise more revenue" so that the cycle can continue! Then they say "Duh". I'm serious they actually have a commercial like this. I wish there was a way to post a link to it or something. You all would laugh so hard you'd be crying or wait maybe you'd cry so hard you'd start laughing.

[Robert H.]

In year 15, I'd suspect more than SE Wyoming will have FSP enclaves.  Is it socially, economically and politically wise to disestablish a beachhead in New Hampshire to accelerate growth in the Wyoming FSP enclave - or vice versa - from Wyoming to New Hampshire?

I believe it would be politically wisest to establish a beachhead where you can make it most secure, and from there, move on to new ground.

Wyoming is the most secure beachhead available.  Twenty thousand in Wyoming would saturate it to a degree that would take over forty-five thousand in New Hamsphire.  There's much more "bang for the buck" there, if you will.

And as far as moving on to new ground from our beachhead, well, Wyoming is bordered by South Dakota (a consistently high performer in our measurements, and low population to boot), Montana (with perhaps the most libertarian culture in the country, and certainly one of the most adamant state's rights cultures), and Idaho (which consistently performs well in spite of its high population).

Starting off in Wyoming gives us the greatest chance for short term impact and long-term influence.

[di540]

And as far as moving on to new ground from our beachhead, well, Wyoming is bordered by South Dakota (a consistently high performer in our measurements, and low population to boot), Montana (with perhaps the most libertarian culture in the country, and certainly one of the most adamant state's rights cultures), and Idaho (which consistently performs well in spite of its high population).

Starting off in Wyoming gives us the greatest chance for short term impact and long-term influence.

If population is the overriding criterion, then you ought to
be comparing Wyoming to Vermont, and Idaho to NH or Maine, etc.
when making east v. west comparisons.

So, Vermont ought to be the leading state in the east. It does
better than NH on many other criteria too. The reason for its
being more socialistic is that a bunch of east coast elitists
decided to move in and take over, similar to the Rockefellers
moving into WV. Many of their politicians probably aren't from
Vermont.

The elitists may not have taken over in NH or Maine, but they
are still powerful. That translates into the general population
as well: you'll find fewer lawyers sympathetic to FSP causes.
If you want to reform a state, you're going to need lawyers, eh?  
It's no coincidence that the leading "country" lawyer in
the U.S. lives in Wyoming:
http://www.triallawyerscollege.com/gerry/bio.html

If Spence were part of the elite establishment, the way Nader is,
he'd get much better press than he does now, and be much better
known.

[Dave Mincin]

"A different way of looking at things?"  Really...come on sounds like spin to me.  It's really the same old same old!

The case against New Hampshire, what ever thread I go to it is always the same!

1.  NH has too many people, our best chance is to go were no people live!

2. If we go to NH our numbers will mean nothing, 20,000 freedom lovers will be swamped by all the statist moving into NH, the statistics tell us that!

3.  Even if we move to NH win control institute change become a Free State, those devils around us will surely come in and take over, within moments!

This is the same old story over and over again just with a different spin. So lets look at the real world!

1.  New Hampshire has a history 200+ years of "Live free or die."  Has a history of individual freedom.  Even today has one of the lowest overall tax rates, and least dependence on Federal government hand outs.  Look at the numbers!  People in NH already vote for freedom when give the choice!  And oh my oh my people are actually getting elected that love freedom!  Hmm best to shy away from NH because people live there!

2.  Funny all those statist, those people that will surely move to NH when we get there haven't come yet!   Two hundred years means nothing says the people with all the statistics.  What about the people of NH who have shown through the years that they believe in freedom, by their actions and their vote?

3.  Ha...surely 200 years of history means nothing!  Surely once we come to NH,   a place were we are welcome!  Begin to institute change, eliminate victimless crimes, state schools, needless government regulations, lower taxes, those dastardly statists will come by the 10's of thousand to retake control!  My question my statistical friend is why haven't  they come already?  "Oh ye of so little faith."                                                                                                                                  
 Got new reasons to throw out there, please do but don't spin the old ones in new clothing.

New Hampshire is our last best hope for freedom in our life time!

David Mincin

                                                                                                             

[Robert H.]

Speaking of same old, same old...

You're not responding to any of the arguments against New Hamphsire (old or otherwise); you're creating distortions of those arguments and then responding to your new creations.  If you're going to attack an opposition argument, it's usually advisable to quote the opposition verbatim and then refute what they've actually said.

I know by now that it's basically useless to discuss any of this, but this one really irks me:

Surely once we come to NH,  a place were we are welcome!

You're confusing the NHLP with the people of New Hamphshire, probably not a wise thing to do considering that only 3% of the population voted for the NHLP candidate in 2002.  I have yet to see any evidence that the people of New Hamphshire themselves are welcoming us there.  For that matter, I have yet to see any evidence that the people of any state are welcoming us there.

So, please stop saying that "New Hampshire" wants the FSP until you have some proof that this is actually the case.  Right now you have only the NHLP's endorsement, and we have such endorsements from four other states as well, for what they're worth.

I believe what you're really upset with is the fact that New Hampshire is being questioned at all, which is unfortunate.

[jgmaynard]

"You're confusing the NHLP with the people of New Hamphshire, probably not a wise thing to do considering that only 3% of the population voted for the NHLP candidate in 2002."

Normally, that would be a good point. However the reality of the 2002 Gubernatorial election here in NH was that the Democrat was running on a pro-income tax platform, and the Republican (Craig Benson) stated (and has held to). "No new taxes, no higher taxes. No way. No how". The people of NH came out to elect Benson 2:1. People were so afraid of an income tax, very few people were willing to vote for any third party candidate. We had to make SURE Fernald (D) was defeated. And he was. Soundly.
BUT John Babiarz' vote total was still the 2nd or 3rd highest in the country. How many other states can state that they even got that much? Wisconsin and.....

"I have yet to see any evidence that the people of New Hamphshire themselves are welcoming us there."

Well, I live in the most liberal city in New Hampshire (Keene - site of the Jumanji movie), and our town paper has written up the FSP several times, and only had good things to say. If ANY media was going to attack us in NH, it would be them.
I have done a bunch of recruiting and publicity for the FSP, and I have heard ZERO people object to it... The reason I hear 9 out of 10 people here say they don't want to join is because they say they don't think it could work anywhere but NH (though I think it might work in a couple of the other states being considered, but I still think NH will be the easiest)...
AND I am giving away FSP materials in free newsletter stands, and there's a bunch being taken....
Plus, unlike the Montana Governor's office who told us to go to Idaho, the Idaho Government who told us to go anywhere else, and the Mayor of Burlington (?) VT, who told us we'd be better off in NH, the Governor of New Hampshire (who chose the LPNH chair to advise him on making Government more efficent) is welcoming the FSP to meet with him in June, and I happen to know that people from his office will be coming to our "Escape to NH" week.
Sounds like a nice sample to me!

"For that matter, I have yet to see any evidence that the people of any state are welcoming us there."

I can only speak for New Hampshire. But I too, would like to see more positive press from outside New Hampshire.

"So, please stop saying that "New Hampshire" wants the FSP until you have some proof that this is actually the case."

Not proof, but those are some pretty good signs.

"Right now you have only the NHLP's endorsement, and we have such endorsements from four other states as well, for what they're worth."

And far and away the greatest FSP membership % of any state in the country. We have a great number of people joining us, and if NH is chosen, all those many NH activists who don't wanna sign up for the FSP are gonna be on our side. Our numbers will be multiplied several times.

"I believe what you're really upset with is the fact that New Hampshire is being questioned at all, which is unfortunate. "

Nope. Just trying to buck the mistaken notion that the "Life Free or Die" state is ANYTHING like eastern Mass. they ain't us, we ain't them, and we both wanna keep it that way.

Take care,

JM

[di540]

"A different way of looking at things?"  Really...come on sounds like spin to me.  It's really the same old same old!

.
That's why advocacy for/against states is inferior to criteria.
.

1.  New Hampshire has a history 200+ years of "Live free or die."  
Ha...surely 200 years of history means nothing!  

It only had a few years as a "Free & Independent State" before it
threw that all away and joined the Union, as if it were nothing.
.

2.  Funny all those statist, those people that will surely move to NH when we get there haven't come yet!   Two hundred years means nothing says the people with all the statistics.  
My question my statistical friend is why haven't  they come already?

.
The statists are already there in the gov't of NH & let central
gov't get away with violating the laws, so it's irrelevant how
many more statists move in. You're still going to have to undo
the status quo of the current statists.
.

3.  Surely once we come to NH, a place were we are welcome!  Begin to institute change, eliminate victimless crimes, state schools, needless government regulations, lower taxes, those dastardly statists will come by the 10's of thousand to retake control!  

.
NH needs the reforms you've listed because the statists have
already beaten you to the punch by about 200 years.

[jgmaynard]

"NH needs the reforms you've listed because the statists have
already beaten you to the punch by about 200 years."

You don't know us very well, do you?

JM

[di540]

"NH needs the reforms you've listed because the statists have
already beaten you to the punch by about 200 years."

You don't know us very well

.
You don't know how much freedom you don't have. What is the
% of employees in NH who don't have a SSNo?  That will tell
you how much freedom you still have.