Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 18   Go Down

Author Topic: urbanization, city and country attitudes, pop density issues  (Read 70953 times)

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #45 on: November 14, 2002, 05:27:42 pm »

Quote
And then there's the convenience you can only find in a major metropolitan area: major sports teams, symphonies, large art museums, etc.  None of the states we are considering contain a major metropolitan area, but three are close enough to easily commute: Delaware, Vermont, and New Hampshire.  If I live in Cheyenne, and want to take my kid to a baseball game, how far do I have to drive?  

Salt Lake City is closer to WY than Montreal is to VT.  Denver is just a little bit further and a large sports town.  So, if you only include the top the states for that you have to say DE, NH, and WY.  WY has two very distant parts of the state that are both close to large cities.  The northern part of WY is close to the largest city in MT.  Jackson, WY is fast become a very rich area and is getting some entertainment for the wealth.  The mid-west part of WY is close to Pocatello which is the 2nd largest city in ID.
Salt Lake City didn't even cross my mind, because like Cheyenne it has grown but still lacks the assets of a major metropolitan area that I hope to live near: world-class museums, football/baseball, etc.  Denver has these things, but as I explained to Zion it is almost two hours from the Wyoming border.  I probably shouldn't have said Vermont, because it, like WY and MT, is too far from those same assets.  You were right to point that out.  I just had VT on the brain bacause I was using it to make the point about population.
Quote
WY is much closer to the top of the line in two sports than any of the Eastern states.  Think about Rodeo, it was created there.  Most of the best ski slopes in the country are in CO, which would make an excellent weekend ski trip from WY.  WY also has good skiing, snowmobiling, snowboarding, water skiing, ski diving, fishing, and hunting.  Cleanly, the West has many sports.  
Yes, the West has many sports, skiing being the one I partake in most regularly.  I can't claim that I'm a big rodeo fan.  I spend two weeks a year skiing, and have been to Sun Valley and Jackson Hole.  It's beautiful country, with lots to do.  It's just not convenient to the things I like to do on a regular basis.
Quote
If you look at the growth stats 20,000+ people are already moving to NH every year.  No one would care if the FSP went there.  The state would not even notice us.  

What happens when some people do not move and then some of the people that do move do not like it and leave.  Both of these things will happen no matter which state we pick.  Would you rather have 16,000 FSP activists in NH or WY in 35 years when WY's population is 1/3 of the NH population?

In 35 years!  If this project is successful we'll have transformed the state into a libertarian refuge, with at least two million liberty-loving people.  It will be won or lost well before then.  

I guess my answer is I'd rather be living in a libertarian NH, with many more people and companies, than be in WY or MT, with 1/3 the people, and have the FSP dismissed as just another crackpot lunatic fringe group.  Can we take WY?  I'm sure of it.  Will the rest of the nation see our success as the breakthrough of libertarianism?  I don't think so -- they'll just shake their heads and say, "That will never work here."  We need an America in Miniature to experiment with, and NH is that state.  
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #46 on: November 14, 2002, 05:34:37 pm »

Quote
No, Zion, I'm very much in touch with reality.  We're not looking at Colorado, are we?  I would rather not have to drive two hours to take my kid to a baseball game.  Maybe out there two hours qualifies as just around the corner, but here that's considered a serious trip.  Now, compare that with this: 46 minutes from Nashua to Boston!  20 minutes from Manchester to the beach!  That's the convenience I was referring to, and that's convenience Wyoming and Montana can't touch.  To reiterate, I will go out to those empty square states if the project requires it, but I'm pushing hard for an eastern state.  




I hope this isint really an issue. ???

If you had read the entire thread leading up to this, you would have seen the two parts where I said that this is merely a preference, and one that I will waive if necessary.  I said that I will go to Wyoming or Montana if need be, but I'd really rather we pick a state that is winnable yet is convenient to a metropolis.  

Preferences do matter somewhat; just ask Joe or Zion if they would like to move to low population but high density DE.  
Logged
Government can do only one thing: It can break your legs, hand you a crutch, and say, "See?  If not for the government you couldn't walk."

catsRus

  • Guest
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #47 on: November 14, 2002, 07:35:29 pm »

Quote
If you had read the entire thread leading up to this, you would have seen the two parts where I said that this is merely a preference, and one that I will waive if necessary.  I said that I will go to Wyoming or Montana if need be, but I'd really rather we pick a state that is winnable yet is convenient to a metropolis.  

Preferences do matter somewhat; just ask Joe or Zion if they would like to move to low population but high density DE.  

I read the thread and this was not directed at you specificaly i just dont see how this can really make a lot of difference we want a low population for obvious reasons, so needless to say I wont be here in San Jose, CA which is much like your neck of the woods.
My worry is that there will be enough others who feel the same way you do with out being as flexable. I  see a lot of folks have favorites here and the state chosen I hope is for reason of success not access to baseball or whatever big city thing one likes. We have given up a lot of freedom inderectly to have these activities, having lived in both situations i really dont care if i ever saw a baseball game again. I want freedom not convience or a flashy lifestyle.

I understand some folks reservations about jobs, but i am sure even these poor little cities out west can support them, albeit not as they are accoustomed to.


Quote
There is also a real downside to going outsided the chosen state for shopping, etc. because it takes trade from the businesses inside the chosen state and gives it to the surrounding states. That is a present concern in Vermont where a lot of people shop across the border in Lebanon, NH. Conversely, if the Free State has lower sales taxes and a better business environment, it can lure a lot of business away from the cities just across the border - especially for alcohol, tobacco, etc. which is/was an age-old "tradition" between many states.


I understand this too i moved to San Jose from a village of 20,000 in rural New Mexico and i did a lot of shopping on line whereas i can get what ever i want here and now. (computer hardware for instance was just not available locally) Other than the migration of needed local capitol for the FSP to the statists, i really dont care which way i shop it is all the same in the long run. But i can see the oppsite being good work in the other state bring the $$ home for the cause.

Sorry I am rambeling today. ::)
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:urbanisation
« Reply #48 on: November 15, 2002, 04:28:40 am »

I guess my answer is I'd rather be living in a libertarian NH, with many more people and companies, than be in WY or MT, with 1/3 the people, and have the FSP dismissed as just another crackpot lunatic fringe group.  Can we take WY?  I'm sure of it.  Will the rest of the nation see our success as the breakthrough of libertarianism?  I don't think so -- they'll just shake their heads and say, "That will never work here."  We need an America in Miniature to experiment with, and NH is that state.  

The FSP will be denounced as a crackpot lunatic fringe group wherever it goes, and your more socially-conscious urbanites will distance themselves from it simply not to be associated with that label (if for no other reason, of which there will be plenty).

And New Hampshire is hardly an "America in Miniature," which criteria, I believe, would be arbitrary at best as you will never get anyone to agree on exactly what America "looks like," nor should they be required to.  This sort of criteria also smacks heavily of Leftist ideology.  We need ethnic, racial, gender, and sexual-orientation preferences in society, they say.  Why?  Because we need to have a government, judiciary, fire department, K-4 class, etc., that "looks like America."

Do you really think that people in Chicago, New York, Seattle, Miami, or Los Angeles are going to be impressed with libertarian reforms in Manchester?  No matter what you do or where you do it, people are going to find reasons to say, "That will never work here because Chicago isn't at all like <insert your favorite city here>."  You can say:  "Well, they'd be darn well more impressed with reforms in New Hampshire than in Wyoming," but you then assume that your opposition is going to listen to reason or view you objectively.  Politics in this country is anything but reasonable or objective, and that fact stretches from the lofty party bosses themselves, in their smoke-filled conference rooms, all the way down to the soccer moms chatting at the local beauty parlor.  If they don't like you to start with, your success will be seen more as a threat than as a call for change.

Reagan showed that taxes prohibit economic growth instead of facilitating it, and his reforms created a time of prosperity in this country that was unparalled since the second world war.  And what did the American people do?  A few short years after Reagan left office, they voted in a man who denounced Reagan's prosperity as a "decade of greed" and actually promised to tax them more!  Reagan's simple, limited demonstration of supply-side economics, country-wide no less, did not impress enough of the population sufficiently to carry on that legacy.  What then is to say that we can impress that very same country by the goings-on in one small state?

The point here is that we should first be concerned with success!  Then, once we have succeeded, we can showcase that success.  You obviously know something of the urban mentality, and having lived in the greater Washington area most of my life, I do as well.  Are they easily impressed with anything new or untried?  To take these "Americas in miniature," you will first have to convince people that your system is worth trying in the first place, and to do that you're going to have to provide them with more than idealistic notions.  The larger the city, the more entrenched the infrastructure, the more dependent or co-dependent the people will be, and the harder it will be to sell this agenda or buy the air time in order to try selling it.  Then you have to contend with the increased cost of elections, more powerful, financially-backed political opposition, trying to get contributions out of activists who are already being milked by a high cost-of-living, high tax area, etc.

We shouldn't be out to impress anyone.  We should be working to create a place where we can be free to live our lives without the interference of others.  Some of those others will undoubtedly be impressed, and the movement can, and probably will, spread to other areas including larger cities.  If that happens, great!  If not, then we'll still have at least one place left where we can be free.  But this entire conversation is all just so much wishful thinking if we do not locate someplace where it is easier for us to access and reform the system from the start.  Then we can worry about impressing others when we have something to impress them with.

Rocket science did not begin with the creation of the Saturn-V.  It started out small and worked its way up over time as man learned more about the basics of rocket flight.  We too are starting out new here in terms of launching a free state, something that has never really been tried before, and if we are to succeed then we must emulate the same pattern that has repeated itself so successfully throughout human history:  start slowly, humbly, basically, and progress from there as you learn and achieve.  This pattern has held constant from the invention of the wheel to the building of the space shuttle, from simple addition to quantum physics.  Should we abandon it now, after all that history has taught us, and risk a quantum leap from the nanny state to the free state because it might impress someone if we could do it?  And how will it impress them if we fail so very publicly?

Some of the greatest disasters in history have been the result of man trying to leap too far on legs that were too weak.

TedApelt

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 117
  • Free 50 states - one at a time.
Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
« Reply #49 on: December 26, 2002, 12:04:25 am »

Actually, I was thinking of moving to Dover, because not only is it the state capital (in addition to being a city small enough to elect somebody in right away), but also from there you can get to just about anywhere in the state in less than an hour.  I don't know of any other state on our list that has such a location.
Logged
How much political experience do you have?  Probably not enough.  Get some!  DO THIS NOW!!!

glen

  • Guest
Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
« Reply #50 on: December 26, 2002, 12:55:25 am »

Hi Joe

Here is a link to a web site that does demographic analysis of the election campaigns of the members of congress.

I am not quite sure what constitutes the ‘home page’ so I have left the link at the Idaho first congressional district which is what I was interested in.

Hope this helps with your research!

http://www.polisci.com/almanac/legis/district/ID01.htm

Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
« Reply #51 on: December 26, 2002, 01:10:39 am »

That's an excellent link, Glen!

One factor in that listing (that I don't think we've covered much in these discussions) is the following:

Quote
Housing: Own 73%, Rent 27%, Homeless <.1%

This is an additional factor that may give us insight into our target audience.  If 73% of the people in a given area own their own home, this could potentially be representative of what % may also be interested in supporting property tax reductions, etc.

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
« Reply #52 on: December 26, 2002, 03:39:49 pm »

Joe, we have to make some kind if distinction here between the person running for office, and the campaign helpers. The candidate will indeed have more of a problem covering the miles, but we can guess the helpers will be spread somewhat so they won't have quite that problem to deal with.

Also, this is more a problem for those few statewide races. Maybe in a place like Wyoming we'd need some folks with small aircraft around to cart candidates around, help save some time.

There is also a flip side to this picture you are presenting. Concentration ain't all good. Maybe many small towns fairly close together is the ideal; but if concentration comes in the form of large cities, then another ugly factor pops up. Large cities are almost invariably more statist than small towns and rural areas.
Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
« Reply #53 on: December 26, 2002, 04:25:03 pm »

I'm no pro here (I'll defer to Joe anyday), but I just ran for Congress in a district that went about 100 miles south of my home.  Granted, I wasn't running a campaing with the expectation of winning, nor did I have the time to devote that would have been necessary to do so.  However, my experience still holds some value, I think.

I did essentially all of my campaigning in the 1/2 of my district that was closest to home.  It takes two hours to get from Fresno to Bakersfield, v.s. 20 minutes for me to get pretty much anywhere in Fresno and 45 minutes to get to Hanford and Lemmore (the significant towns in the next county south).  Number of times I went to Bakersfield: 1.  

I realize the details of campaigning in the Free State will be different, but time is time.  If it takes 2 or 3 or 4 hours to get to someplace in your district, that's time wasted from a campaign standpoint.  DE definately has the advantage there.  The western states are all very large.  Idaho has a small advantage in that there is a significant population concentration around Boise (MSA about 1/2 Mil IIRC), but the rest of the state is pretty big.  

I'm not saying we should simply choose the smallest *geographical* state (much like I don't advocate choosing the smallest population state).  But these factors should at least be considered...

V-

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
« Reply #54 on: December 26, 2002, 05:51:27 pm »

Varrin,
You're the pro for campaigning on a large scale. I'm a small town, small county guy. Of the California counties, Del Norte would be out of my class. Alpine county would be more like my size and population except that it's out of my income class. My present county is four hundred sq. miles and seven thousand or so people - and running for county commissioner is long job of lots of door knocking. Thus running for Congress or a big state seat is so far out of my league that I'll leave it to you big population folks.

Idaho is indeed huge. Though one could concentrate on Boise, Pocatello, Idaho Falls and, on the way between them, drop by to say hi to the folks in Twin Falls. Unfortunately may leave the folks in Lewiston and points north feeling like they don't belong to the same state. Yet I bet the folks in Berlin or Gorham, New Hampshire feel the same. I know that was the case in Pennsylvania and now in Colorado. The statewide campaigners concentrated on Pittsburgh and the Phily/Allentown area -- the rest of us were ignored. Same here where they concentrate on Denver/Boulder and Colorado Springs and leave the West Slope and Plains for their "spokespeople" to make appearances at -- which makes it even more obvious that we don't rate more than direct mail up here. It would be neat to be in New Hampshire and have Presidential candidates walking up the sidewalk to say hello. Shucks, it would be neat just to have our state rep drop by to sincerely ask how things are going and then to take the time to listen (and it's not like I live in the boonies, I'm in my store six days a week on main street).
Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Easiest states for personal campaigning.
« Reply #55 on: December 28, 2002, 04:59:24 pm »

Varrin,
You're the pro for campaigning on a large scale.

Thanks Joe.  Ya just made my whole holiday season ;-)  (even if it is the overstatement of the year)

What you say is true, though.  Rural people do tend to feel left out.  I had a much warmer reception in Lemoore than I did here in Fresno, partly because of population.  It's just nicer to make contacts in rural areas than it is in big cities.

Nevertheless, big cities offer the oppotunity of more productive work.  When petitioning, I was able to get lots of sigs in a small are in town.  My success rate per hour was dramitically higher than in the rural areas I went to.

If we're going to be successful, we'll need people in the urban areas and in the rural areas.  For local and/or nicely districted races, geographic state size won't have so much of an impact.  If the districts are all messed up (like they are here in California) or for statewide races, the smaller the state, the better (geographically speaking)....  Just makes sense I suppose ;-)

V-

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

MLiq

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
  • Delaware!
Air travel-land area considerations
« Reply #56 on: December 30, 2002, 09:50:39 am »

I have seen posts about how Idaho has the best air service and Delaware has no air service but does this really matter?  I don't think so.  Personally I hate flying, since 9-11 especially, so I think the fact that one can get on a train in Delaware and go to an airport or a number of major cities including dc easily is a huge plus.  

But the more important issue here is, if we are going to be campaigning door-to-door, or putting up/handing out flyers and such, we will have a much easier time in a more dense urbanized area.  With only 20,000 people, we can be really effective in a state the size of DE, NH, VT, whereas in Wyoming or MOntana or some such place we would have a really hard time.  I would be afraid that some of the residents there would pull a gun on me for trying to campaign at their door for one thing, but gas isn't cheap either and people are just so spread out in the Western states.  
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Air travel-land area considerations
« Reply #57 on: December 30, 2002, 04:19:56 pm »

Yeah, you can get to people easier in urban areas, but they are far more statist in the first place so the added ease of access hardly pays off.

Probably the best state for campaigning is Vermont, with lots of relatively small towns, not that far apart.
Logged

varrin

  • Former FSP President
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 999
  • THE air male
    • Varrin's FSP Info Page
Re:Air travel-land area considerations
« Reply #58 on: December 30, 2002, 06:05:52 pm »

Air travel is important to some people (even critical to others).  Philly and Baltimore should be satisfactory solutions for DE.

V-

P.S. - I, too, hate going through all the hoops required to fly these days.  I think that's what you meant, right?  Flying itself, of course, is still fun ;-)

Logged
Departed Fresno, PRC (Peoples Republic of California): October 18, 2004
Arrived Keene, FS (Free State!): October 25, 2004!
To contact me, please use email, not PM here.

thewaka

  • FSP Member
  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 263
Re:Misconceptions by eastern city people about the West
« Reply #59 on: December 31, 2002, 02:58:17 pm »

Joe, hope you don't mind me adding to your list, but I just found this:

If Wyoming is the state, only outdoorsmen gun-rights people will move there and it will turn into a strange militia type organization the government will want to shut down.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=1094

Several of these are downright offensive. I hope that if a Western state is chosen, the current residents don't read any of this stuff. We might find it much harder to be accepted.

Diana
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 18   Go Up