Print

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

[jgmaynard]

From Joe (message #59):

"The NHLP brags about how many libertarians they have in office.
Compared to the enormity of the task, those couple dozen are only several more drops in a bucket."

But it is a first step. and a second, and a 28th. People talk of how the west is more Libertarian, yet they are not voting that way. New Hampshire VOTERS have ELECTED (currently) over 3 times as many Libertarians as ALL the western states combined.

In NH, we hit the ground running, with people in office, at least one FSP member ALREADY in the state house, with two libertarian ex-gubernatorial candidates working in the state house, and with the media-saavy LPNH already plugged in to the media, and selling our candidates to the masses.

And it's LPNH

JM

[Zack Bass]

John B, ran for governor in 2000, then again in 2002.  He doubled his vote count in 2002.  Sure name recognition and message may have had something to do with it, but I also learned that in 2002, he had 4, just 4 hard working dedicated people working there butts off for him.  Think they made the difference.

Consider the principle of "Elasticity of Supply".

Suppose you have 20,000 libertarians in a State.  You run and get 10,000 votes.  Since you are a libertarian, no one but a libertarian will vote for you.
Next time, you hire 4 Activists, and you get 20,000 votes - an increase of 10,000, or 2,500 per Activist.
Any sixth-grader will assure you that, if you hire eight Activists next time, you will get 30,000 votes: the unworked-for 10,000, plus 8X2,500 = 20,000 more from the efforts of the Activists.  And if you hire 40 Activists, you will get 110,000 votes.
In reality, in your second run you had already tapped into all the votes you're ever gonna get, and no amount of "increase of price or demand" will get you any more.

[Robert H.]

  .... The 1 to 62 ratio that Jason used in coming up with the 20,000 activist number could be satisfied with less than 9,000 in Wyoming.
Our success in creating a free state, not just in recruiting 20,000, is what matters most.  For this reason, jobs for 20,000 is actually a must-have requirement only for those states where 20,000 are actually needed to reach that 1 to 62 ratio.

Jason's original idea was seriously flawed.  He said that one Activist could influence 62 others.  This may be true in the case of Quebecois who already more or less like the idea of secession, but it does not apply to our reforms, which are unalterably opposed by the vast majority of Americans in every State.

Yes, basing one movement's chances on that of another is a risk to be sure, but given the FSP's premise, it's the theoretical basis we're currently laboring under.  As for our reforms being unalterably opposed by the vast majority of Americans, I absolutely agree with you on that.  That was one of the things that I argued on my population thread: most Americans seem to support more of a conservative approach to liberty, not a libertarian one.

Enough will come that we can outvote the Statists currently infesting the State  Two or three hundred thousand ought to do it... far fewer will be needed in Wyoming, but there could be bloodshed there.

Well, I don't believe that there will be bloodshed in Wyoming, but I do agree that we will need as many as possible.  We only need so many to satisfy Jason's 1 to 62 basis, but, as Joe has said countless times, we'll need many, many more to implement most of what we desire.

There are some here that think that folks like myself are just naysayers who have no faith in the FSP or what it proposes to do because we emphasize population, but that is not the case.  I simply agree with what you've stated above: most people are not of a libertarian mindset, and further, they're afraid of what libertarians have in mind.  They like the idea of freedom for themselves, but they wouldn't dare trust anyone else with that same degree of freedom.  And beyond that, many of them just like statism, to one degree or another.  They like being able to have the government withhold their pay and take care of all the little things for them.  Income tax withholding was one of the worst things to ever come along in American history because it keeps people from having to actively pay their taxes.  They never have the money in their hands to start with, so they get used to just not having it.  I believe it would be far different if they had to cut a check to Uncle Sam every pay period.  Then, Mr. Dole, we'd see the outrage!  

Sorry for the little sermon there, but all of that to say that I agree that we need as many people as possible, and I think we should start off where we have more of an immediate advantage.  It would be different if Wyoming was a low population state full of statists, but that's not the case.

So when I say that we don't need as many in Wyoming, I say that in regard to reaching the required saturation assumed by Jason's 20,000 in a state of 1.2 million.  I just think that we give ourselves much more of an advantage starting off in Wyoming where we can build upon the 9,000 than in a state where 20,000 would be required to get us to that same starting point.

[ZionCurtain]

From Joe (message #59):

"The NHLP brags about how many libertarians they have in office.
Compared to the enormity of the task, those couple dozen are only several more drops in a bucket."

But it is a first step. and a second, and a 28th. People talk of how the west is more Libertarian, yet they are not voting that way. New Hampshire VOTERS have ELECTED (currently) over 3 times as many Libertarians as ALL the western states combined.

In NH, we hit the ground running, with people in office, at least one FSP member ALREADY in the state house, with two libertarian ex-gubernatorial candidates working in the state house, and with the media-saavy LPNH already plugged in to the media, and selling our candidates to the masses.

And it's LPNH

JM

Out of those LP elected officials how many are in the state Congress or US Congress? 0, none
Now I am not knocking them but let's be real about it they very little power to put forth the changes we want.

[RhythmStar]

In a state like Wyoming, you will face vast areas of territory with  thinly-dispersed populations.  Most of these folks will spend the majority of their time on private property where you will not be welcome.  Their brief visits to town will be business-oriented and maybe a little jawboning with friends.  Since they won't know you, you won't be in that circle.  It may be hard for newcomers to press the flesh.
In contrast,  a state like New Hampshire has a more concentrated population.

Error!
What you stated above is incorrect!

I admit that I did not peruse your data and I apologize.  

HOWEVER, I stand by my statement, because it is not really in error, at least quite to the degree you seem to think.   Wyoming is 10 times the land area of New Hampshire, a statistic you did not include.   That means to cover the non-urban percentage of the population, you have to cover a lot more physical ground.  

Wyoming area:  97,818 square miles

New Hampshire area: 9,351 square miles

Over twice the population in an area less than 1/10th the size means "more concentrated" by any rational measurement I can think of, regardless of your statistics-by-arbitrary-classification.

So there.  

RS

[ZionCurtain]

In a state like Wyoming, you will face vast areas of territory with  thinly-dispersed populations.  Most of these folks will spend the majority of their time on private property where you will not be welcome.  Their brief visits to town will be business-oriented and maybe a little jawboning with friends.  Since they won't know you, you won't be in that circle.  It may be hard for newcomers to press the flesh.
In contrast,  a state like New Hampshire has a more concentrated population.

Error!
What you stated above is incorrect!

I admit that I did not peruse your data and I apologize.  

HOWEVER, I stand by my statement, because it is not really in error, at least quite to the degree you seem to think.   Wyoming is 10 times the land area of New Hampshire, a statistic you did not include.   That means to cover the non-urban percentage of the population, you have to cover a lot more physical ground.  

Wyoming area:  97,818 square miles

New Hampshire area: 9,351 square miles

Over twice the population in an area less than 1/10th the size means "more concentrated" by any rational measurement I can think of, regardless of your statistics-by-arbitrary-classification.

So there.  

RS

Are you saying every activist has to go to every corner of the state? I was more in the thinking we would do mostly in the district we live in and then some in the state capitol.

[RhythmStar]

Are you saying every activist has to go to every corner of the state? I was more in the thinking we would do mostly in the district we live in and then some in the state capitol.

What I am saying is that in a physically-big, low-population state like Wyoming, there is a big chunk of the population you are simply not going to be able to politick with in an effective manner.  Think of it in terms of humans per square mile, and combine that with the question "Why would someone want to live where there were no other humans within a 2 days' horseback ride?"  Those folks are out there, and they don't particularly want to be disturbed.

In contrast, the people in New Hampshire, erroneously falling under the same statistical category as our atavistic friends in Wyoming, are of a very different sort indeed.  They are never far from their neighbors, at least by Wyoming standards (one can imagine a Wyomingite suffering fits of claustrophobia in New Hampshire's most 'remote' regions).   In fact, they are near enough to be personally involved in local and state politics.  Both culturally and physically, they will be easier to approach.  This factor may outweigh the testament of statistics that lump people into categories, as if 'rural' in Wyoming means the same thing as 'rural' in New Hampshire.

Hell, Wyoming has counties bigger than New Hampshire -- Fremont county alone is over 12,000 square miles!

Anyway, if the FSP is going to concentrate in a single location, then statewide population and disbursal may not matter, but then you run the risk of being seen as an enemy of the rest of the state. Particularly the rural folks in Wyoming.  We'll be those 'crazy cityfolk' trying to invade the State and take over the Capital.  There will be no easy cure for that, as it will be (from their perspective) quite true.  You really can't disabuse irate ranchers of their view of the truth, at least without establishing  some communication (see my original premise).

Also, there is the jobs issue.  My experience with places like Wyoming (I used to live in Dillon, CO), is that you really have to bring your own money -- they have few jobs and they are not all that great.  Locals are highly preferred.   Career changes for many may be in order (unless we have a big contingent of oil & gas workers or ranch hands).  And sparse jobs means geographic dispersal -- only LARGE urban centers can absorb thousands of new job-seekers.   A 5000-worker influx to Casper, WY would be a greater than 10% increase in population!

Anyway, I don't want to sound negative on Wyoming, it's just that I think that all those wide-open spaces have a built-in downside along with their obvious appeals.  Living in Wyoming somewhere might be a feasible thing, even desireable, but concentrating thousands of new folks into a single region and expecting to have a big effect on state politics might be a little harder than the low population numbers alone may suggest.

RS

[Zack Bass]

Anyway, if the FSP is going to concentrate in a single location, then statewide population and disbursal may not matter, but then you run the risk of being seen as an enemy of the rest of the state. Particularly the rural folks in Wyoming.  We'll be those 'crazy cityfolk' trying to invade the State and take over the Capital.  There will be no easy cure for that, as it will be (from their perspective) quite true.  You really can't disabuse irate ranchers of their view of the truth

Of course it's true.  So what?  What are they gonna do about it?  Shoot at us?  I've just been rebuked ten times for thinking maybe they will.  Okay, y'all win, the Wyomingites will not use Violence against us.  Therefore nothing can stop us.

Our job is to attract more Porcupines by demonstrating that they can have a lot of Freedom right away in a Western County where they are a Majority.  As we attract more, we take over more Counties.
Trying to sweet-talk Statists into enacting our reforms is a recipe for hearbreak.  We can attract enough Lovers of Liberty to take over.  We can never persuade a bunch of Statists or "Already Free Enough" Wyomingites.

[RhythmStar]

Anyway, if the FSP is going to concentrate in a single location, then statewide population and disbursal may not matter, but then you run the risk of being seen as an enemy of the rest of the state. Particularly the rural folks in Wyoming.  We'll be those 'crazy cityfolk' trying to invade the State and take over the Capital.  There will be no easy cure for that, as it will be (from their perspective) quite true.  You really can't disabuse irate ranchers of their view of the truth

Of course it's true.  So what?  What are they gonna do about it?  Shoot at us?  I've just been rebuked ten times for thinking maybe they will.  Okay, y'all win, the Wyomingites will not use Violence against us.  Therefore nothing can stop us.

Our job is to attract more Porcupines by demonstrating that they can have a lot of Freedom right away in a Western County where they are a Majority.  As we attract more, we take over more Counties.
Trying to sweet-talk Statists into enacting our reforms is a recipe for hearbreak.  We can attract enough Lovers of Liberty to take over.  We can never persuade a bunch of Statists or "Already Free Enough" Wyomingites.

Allow me to cut  through to the heart of the matter:

Are there enough jobs available in the target region to constitute a political majority?   If not, do economic opportunities exist such that employment for that many newcomers might be created within 5-10 years?   It would be ironic if thousands of FSP folks moved to Capser to repeal the nanny state, only to end up on the unemployment roles.  

Your 'to Hell with the locals' approach is unworkable unless the FSP can bring its own employers in sufficient quantity.

There are good economic and geographic reasons that low population states are having low populations.  Think about it.

RS

[Zack Bass]

Are there enough jobs available in the target region to constitute a political majority?   If not, do economic opportunities exist such that employment for that many newcomers might be created within 5-10 years?

Of course!
Whenever you have a certain number of Consumers, in a short while you will have a corresponding number of Producers (People With Jobs).  If that were not so there would be 200,000,000 people out of work in the U.S. today.

We sell our houses here, we build houses there, who builds the houses, some of us do, we eat, who sells the food, some of us do, some of us realize ahead of time that there will be a captive population of highly skilled underemployed Porcupines, they build factories and sweatshops to exploit us.  We'll take a pay cut at first, but we'll survive, happier than anywhere else.  Of course, some of us won't need jobs there at all; we will constitute a large enough subgroup to keep the whole thing going as we become a Majority.  In a year or so, we'll have total control of one County, and every single Public Office including the Sheriff's Office, and we can write our own ticket from then on.  You can't BUY joy like that anywhere in the U.S. today!
Several of us will simply buy up property in the targeted County knowing that it will be worth many times its current price in two or three years.  Don't need to have a real job to create wealth for yourself under such conditions, just live on your savings and wait for the windfall.

We're not gonna just go there and wonder what will happen.  We'll have projections ahead of time, and it won't be much of a gamble to figure out what will happen when.  There won't be 2,000 people sitting there idle wondering what will happen to them.  We won't have to wait years for Jobs to magically appear (which they will eventually, even without Foresight).

We can even set up group land-purchase agreements with money held in escrow on condition that the requisite number of people agree to put in the needed amount of cash.  Stuff like that.  It's gonna fly!

[RhythmStar]

Zack,

Here is an online Wyoming job search:

http://wyjobs.state.wy.us/

For comparison, here is a New Hampshire job search site:

http://www.jobsinnh.com/

Also, we might find that our LPNH supporters might be helpful in hooking some of us up with jobs.

There are mitigating factors in the Wyoming situation:

1) Nearness of out-of-state employment may help.

2) Migration from Nevada of tax-haven companies to Wyoming

3) Some FSP folk might be able to leverage out-of-state connections into in-state jobs for some folks.  

Anyway, I'm not saying Wyoming can't be done, I'm just saying that vast empty spaces and small populations do not, in and of themselves, guarantee political and economic viability.  

RS

[Zack Bass]

Anyway, I'm not saying Wyoming can't be done, I'm just saying that vast empty spaces and small populations do not, in and of themselves, guarantee political and economic viability.  

Of course; they work against it.  But we can create our own jobs.  That's what has always happened in the U.S., and in fact everywhere in the World.  People live someplace, soon there are just enough jobs for them!  In our case it will be very soon since we won't simply be showing up hoping something will come along.

First ones in will be people like me who have portable skills and businesses, and people who are retired or otherwise independently wealthy or just don't mind living in a box as long as they are Free.  As soon as we take over one tiny County, we can write our own ticket from then on.

[Dave Mincin]

"To hell with the locals?"  Do we really want to move to a state, all settle in one little corner of the state, gain a little political power there, then circle the wagons?  Perhaps some do, but not I!  Is this political activism?  Do we truly want to create a Free State?  Is this the way?

A while back George was asked about the invasion of porcupines to NH, he said, we do not want to invade NH, but rather make "NH more like NH!"

I want to move to the Free State, settle in, become a good citizen, a good neighbor, and a member of the community, and yes become politically active.  I would say that whatever state wins the election and becomes our new home, we would all do well to join with the locals, sure tell our story of freedom and gain converts to our cause, but  if our belief's in freedom are correct, and I am certain they are, then if we continue to tell our story to all that will listen, we will win converts, gain political power and create a Free State.

We must join with the locals, become one of them, if we truly want to create a Free State!

[Penfist]

I have to agree with Dave on this argument. I like the locals in New Hampshire, at least enough to exist peacefully side by side with them.

[jenlee]

I completely agree with you. We must become citizens of what ever state we go to. Because if we don't, we fail. And we don't want to fail, do we? I surely don't.

Imagine if you can/will, that we move to ok say NH. And once there we (or enough of us) starts acting like asses. Like we are better than them. Now, put the shoe on the other foot. Now tell me that attitude would not piss you off? Tell me that you would not start to active fight us? Tell me that you would not do all in your power to ensure our failure. And if you say no then you are lieing. Because people are people no matter how they vote. No matter where they live. No matter who they love. People are people and if we go in with the attitudes some are spouting well then I wont need to pack up and move because failure will occur.

"To hell with the locals?"  Do we really want to move to a state, all settle in one little corner of the state, gain a little political power there, then circle the wagons?  Perhaps some do, but not I!  Is this political activism?  Do we truly want to create a Free State?  Is this the way?

A while back George was asked about the invasion of porcupines to NH, he said, we do not want to invade NH, but rather make "NH more like NH!"

I want to move to the Free State, settle in, become a good citizen, a good neighbor, and a member of the community, and yes become politically active.  I would say that whatever state wins the election and becomes our new home, we would all do well to join with the locals, sure tell our story of freedom and gain converts to our cause, but  if our belief's in freedom are correct, and I am certain they are, then if we continue to tell our story to all that will listen, we will win converts, gain political power and create a Free State.

We must join with the locals, become one of them, if we truly want to create a Free State!