Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 132   Go Down

Author Topic: New Hampshire  (Read 295492 times)

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
NH should not be picked...
« Reply #60 on: October 28, 2002, 11:35:03 pm »

I realize many people are gung ho about NH, but it is simply too small.  It has many pros, but the size of the state should immediately strike it from the list.  We don't just want 20k people, we want much more than that to show up.  I would feel much too crowded in that state.  I realize there is lots of rural land, but there won't be for long once people start buying up 40-60 acre parcels.  IMO the only Eastern state that should be considered is ME because of its size and isolation.  Personally, I think we should be leaning toward MT or ND.  I know there are many (sub)urbanites in the FSP, but I think there will be more people who want at least moderate isolation and I honestly don't think NH would provide that.  What criteria are we going to use to start the narrowing down process?  For me, SIZE matters!  ;)

Ok, fire away...
« Last Edit: October 28, 2002, 11:35:48 pm by JT »
Logged

Mark Alexander

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 31
  • Professional geek, amateur pianist
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #61 on: October 29, 2002, 10:39:26 am »


I realize many people are gung ho about NH, but it is simply too small.

I share your concern. But in another thread, the argument was made that small size has some advantages for political candidates, since it's easier for them to travel around their districts and schmooze with voters.  This is especially important for candidates not in the two major parties.

My impression of NH is that there is still enough space for those who want it.  Also, not all FSPers are going to want or need or even be able to afford 40-60 acres.  Some might be happy in (gasp!) towns or cities.  I 'm somewhat of a hermit, but  I would be happy with a modest amount of land, as little as five acres perhaps.  I hope someone from NH will enlighten us about the practicality of these matters.


Logged

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #62 on: October 29, 2002, 10:50:28 am »

I feel just as strongly in the opposite direction.  We should choose either NH, VT, or Delaware for their proximity to large cities.  DE even has Wilmington, which has a quarter-million in its MSA.  The reason we should go with a state close to large cities, besides the fact that many classical liberals also happen to like urban life, is that it seems to me that a core component of our strategy to prove that liberty works as an economic policy should be to lure major manufacturers/employers away from existing urban centers, which without exception are overtaxed.  If we chose DE, for instance, it would be easy to convince insurance companies, banks, etc. to move there from Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York (all within three hours).  It will be exceptionally difficult to accomplish this in the isolated states of the west.  

Another benefit of choosing an East Coast state is that finding jobs for 20,000 people will be exponentially easier.  The housing/job infrastructure is in place.  Also. consider that DE only has (I think) five counties.  It will be exceptionally easy to dominate it's political scene.

For those in the FSP who like space, don't worry.  The southern half of DE, as well as the northern 2/3 of VT and NH, remain wide open spaces, with cheap land and low development pressures.  
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."

Michelle

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #63 on: October 29, 2002, 11:00:18 am »

What type of data would ease your concerns? I'll see what I can find.

As you mentioned, the fact that the state is small in area is a huge advantage for candidates and would also be a huge advantage to FSPers needing to meet for regular strategic planning meetings, activism and outreach opportunities, etc.

Honestly, NH is small, but it is anything but crowded. I'm not sure how to convey this without having people actually visit NH, though. Just this past weekend, we were driving around putting out candidate signs and I was wishing I had some way to show FSPers all of the open space, homes for sale, and land for sale in even the part of the state with the densest population. I truly don't believe that 20,000 FSPers (maybe 12,000 households) would make more than a dent.
Logged
Please join NHLA today! http://www.nhliberty.org With every new member we gain political weight to support liberty-friendly candidates and promote liberty throughout NH.
Support the Liberty Scholarship Fund. Please make a donation today! http://www.lsfund.org

Michelle

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
Re:Yes! Move to NH
« Reply #64 on: October 29, 2002, 11:07:21 am »

I thought this article may be interesting to those researching NH (it is also relevant to ME and VT):

http://www4.fosters.com/news2002/oct_02/oct29_02/news/reg_nh1029a.asp

New Hampshire ranks as safest state
CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — New Hampshire was the safest state in the country in 2001, according to FBI statistics.

The statistics released Monday showed New Hampshire had 29,233 crimes committed in 2001, a rate of 2.3 crimes per 100 residents. That is a drop from 30,068 from 2000, or 2.4 crimes per 100 residents.

Total crime includes violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault, and property crime of burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft.

Maine and Vermont also ranked among the safest states.

Maine ranked fifth with 34,588 crimes, a rate of 2.7, a_ slight increase from the preceding year when there were 33,400 crimes, a rate of 2.6.

Vermont had 16,978 crimes, a rate of 2.8, compared with 2000 when it had 18,185 crimes for a rate of 3.0. Massachusetts was 3.1, a slight increase from 2000.

Arizona had the highest rate, 6.1, among the states, while the District of Columbia had a rate of 7.7.

The number of U.S. crimes rose last year for the first time in a decade, an increase that coincided with an economic downturn that many experts say played a key role. Murder, armed robbery, rape and burglary all were higher in 2001, the report said.

There were 4,160 crimes per 100,000 people in the United States last year, up slightly from the 4,124 per 100,000 recorded the previous year.

Cities with populations between 250,000 and 500,000 had the largest increase in crimes at 4.1 percent, according to the FBI. The largest cities, those with more than 1 million inhabitants, saw crime rise only by a half percentage point, while suburban and rural counties saw crime increases of 2.4 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively.

"The economy has to be the prime suspect," said James Lynch, professor at American University’s Department of Justice, Law and Society.

The crime index increased 2.1 percent last year, the FBI said in its annual report drawn from 17,000 law enforcement agencies nationwide. That marked the first year-to-year increase since 1991.

Still, the number of crimes is 18 percent lower than a decade ago and 10 percent fewer than in 1997.
Logged
Please join NHLA today! http://www.nhliberty.org With every new member we gain political weight to support liberty-friendly candidates and promote liberty throughout NH.
Support the Liberty Scholarship Fund. Please make a donation today! http://www.lsfund.org

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #65 on: October 29, 2002, 12:20:17 pm »


If New Hampshire is "too small" then so are Delaware and Vermont.
Maine is the only viable east coast choice ;D
since it has more private land area than Alaska or Idaho.


Well, amount of private land surely can't outweigh those 630,000 voters can it? ;)  Maine continually ends up rock-bottom in the quantitative analyses I'm doing... It might do better if amount of private land were included, but not much, since it's far behind even the #9 state (usu. Montana, and Montana does best on that particular measure).
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Rich T.

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 713
  • Live Free in NH!
    • NH Liberty Alliance
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #66 on: October 29, 2002, 12:28:10 pm »



I realize many people are gung ho about NH, but it is simply too small.

small size has some advantages for political candidates, since it's easier for them to travel around their districts and schmooze with voters.

My impression of NH is that there is still enough space for those who want it.  Also, not all FSPers are going to want or need or even be able to afford 40-60 acres.  Some might be happy in (gasp!) towns or cities.  I 'm somewhat of a hermit, but  I would be happy with a modest amount of land, as little as five acres perhaps.  I hope someone from NH will enlighten us about the practicality of these matters.


I'll do my best. NH isn't crowded. Even the cities of Nashua, Manchester and Portsmouth feel sparse compared to the Boston metro area.

Once you get outside the main population centers there are towns that don't even have 1 state rep to themselves (and that's in a 400-seat legislature). Drive up 93 past Concord and you see nothing but trees and mountains.

If you want to be invisible to your nearest neighbors, stick to the western and northern parts of the state. If you want a multi-acre lot, there's plenty available, sometimes it's easier to find big lots than small ones, depending on the area.

The small size and number of seats makes running for office easier, than just about any other state. The redistricting made it less ideal than it was, but you can still run a real campaign for state rep for less than $1000.
Logged

Rich T.

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 713
  • Live Free in NH!
    • NH Liberty Alliance
Re:Yes! Move to NH
« Reply #67 on: October 29, 2002, 12:35:13 pm »


I don't understand the anti-development mentality.  What is so bad about having people move in near you?


The problem comes from having your nice "private" area with lots of undeveloped land get "suddenly" torn up by a condo complex or a new subdivision. People don't like having their view spoiled. And if the development is near your property, the construction noise can be a serious problem.

It's also a perpetual thing to complain about in NH, sort of like the Red Sox and school funding.
Logged

Rich T.

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 713
  • Live Free in NH!
    • NH Liberty Alliance
Re:Yes! Move to NH
« Reply #68 on: October 29, 2002, 12:43:03 pm »


I think there are many advantages to NH, or there used to be.  One of the biggest disadvantages I see is the large amount of refugees from the Peoples Republic of Massachussets that have already settled in Southern NH and brought their bad ideology with them.  I was back visiting family a couple of weeks ago and heard that a candidate for governor was talking about introducing an income tax.  Such a thing would have been unheard of even 5 years ago, but since a large part of people are already paying NR tax to Mass. it must be more acceptable these day's.  I fear NH may be too far down the road to bigger government than a lot of people may realize, at least it seems that way from my perspective.


Yeah, good old Mark Fernald is doing a wonderful job of destroying the Democrat Party in NH. To my knowledge, there are no state reps or state senators running on the income tax. Even if he wins (which I don't see happening unless John Babiarz and Craig Benson split enough conservative and independent support to make it a near-tie), he'll have no support in the legislature. Recent estimate I heard was that the Dems would lose up to 30% of their seats.

Yes, paying the non-resident tax to MA has softened the resistance (though few realize that an income tax in NH wouldn't bring any of that money back), and the state's lack of a solution to funding education has brought people to the conclusion that it's the only way left.

I really think the Left hit their high-water mark in this state and we are swinging back to more traditional NH ideology on many issues.
Logged

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #69 on: October 29, 2002, 12:50:00 pm »


If New Hampshire is "too small" then so are Delaware and Vermont.
Maine is the only viable east coast choice ;D
since it has more private land area than Alaska or Idaho.
If you don't believe the above, see the tabulation at this link.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=247;start=60

VT =  9,273 sq. miles and 608,827 people
DE = 1,933 sq. miles and 783,600 people
NH = 8,992 sq. miles and 1,235,786 people
MA = 7,826 sq. miles and 6,349,097 people



I do not believe that "private land area" is a very important factor -- as we begin to implement our classical liberal agenda, which will, regardless of the state chosen, certainly include transferring at least some publicly owned land to private hands, the amount of private land area will decrease as a matter of course.  Again, I reject the premise that NH, VT, or even DE is "too small."  Can we all have 3000 acre spreads?  Of course not, but we can all have as much land as we can afford in each state.  Land per acre is slightly more expensive in DE, as it is obviously the most dense, but not exponentially so.  The cost of land as a factor pales in importance next to economic viability, and in my opinion that ranking would be 1. Delaware 2. New Hampshire 3. Vermont 4. Maine, followed by the western states.  This ranking is admittedly subjective, but my overall point is, I think, undisputable:  It would be much easier to lure residents, and, more importantly, jobs, to an east coast state in close proximity to the existing major employment centers.  

For the sake of argument,  consider the following scenario:  there are two free states, Delaware and Wyoming.  Both enact similar reforms, lowering taxes and expanding personal freedoms.  Now, which state is more likely to land a corporation looking to relocate, say, Bank of America?  Delaware is enviably located in the middle of the country; Wyoming, for all its beauty, is far from its customers and employees.  My point is that companies like to be close to their base, and, as the densest region, the Northeast has that advantage.  
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."

caseykhan

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8
  • semper fidelis
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #70 on: October 29, 2002, 01:48:38 pm »

I lived in New Jersey for many years.  It is one of the most densely populated states.  Yet even in New Jersey, they don't live on top of each other quite as badly as they do out here in Arizona.  I could never understand why Arizona, a state with so much wide open space, has such a shortage of land.  I later learned that the federal government owns a significant portion of land through the parks, national monuments, and the BIA.

I never thought I would consider an eastern state until I realized just how much land is controlled by the feds here in the west.    
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #71 on: October 29, 2002, 03:24:28 pm »


Jason,
When Maine ends up below Delaware, Vermont, and the Dakotas in your analyses then
1) you are ignoring some pretty important criteria and I wonder why I keep digging for more
2) you are turned off on Maine because of a personal image made by how some locals in a Maine Restaurant looked at you. You then have not been in conservative, redneck, ranching or mining areas of the west where elk and sheep are higher on the scale than tourists and newcomers (which are lower than tourists)


Not at all - this is purely quantitative, on the basis of the important variables on the website.  Try it out for yourself, either on the state comparison matrix, or on the Rank the States page:
http://www.freestateproject.org/ranking.htm
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #72 on: October 29, 2002, 03:26:27 pm »


Quote
For the sake of argument,  consider the following scenario:  there are two free states, Delaware and Wyoming.  Both enact similar reforms, lowering taxes and expanding personal freedoms. Now, which state is more likely to land a corporation looking to relocate, say, Bank of America?
CitiBank is in South Dakota. See this link why...
http://www.state.sd.us/governor/Press/Releases/1999/january/citibank.htm

But regarding large corporations, be very, very, very careful what you wish for.
They can, and have (and in some cases do) OWN a state.

Insurance companies? They love government that mandates auto insurance, worker's compensation insurance (provided by private companies). Health providers benefit from government and especially from government restricting a "free market" in doctors, prescription drugs, etc. Banks love government too - the regs enable them to maintain oligopolies and to literally print, in a cyber sense, money.

I'd venture to say  more conservative northern New England and western states would lure more conservative companies with liberty-minded employees (logging, mining, hi-tech thinkers, etc). Delaware would lure more companies with more socialist employees (insurance, health, banking)


Joe and Mouseborg, you have a strong argument -- I have to give you credit.  I'll attempt to refute:

Joe, you argue that Delaware would lure more companies with socialist leanings.  Delaware happens to be home to MBNA, the world's largest issuer of credit cards.  Why did MBNA choose to relocate from Baltimore to Wilmington?  Because MD has a maximum interest rate, while DE does not.  Freedom lured MBNA to DE, in this case the freedom to make contracts with customers that place them stupidly in ever more debt.  Maryland chose to believe that I, as a citizen, must be protected from myself; that I cannot be trusted to make my own decisions regarding my finances.  As a result my state lost a company that employs thousands in well-paying jobs.  A bank moved to a state with at least some libertarian leanings.

Conversely, do you really think that logging and mining companies will not attempt to use their wealth to influence our government?  Do you think that paper giant Weyerhauser does not employ lobbyists or donate to PACs?  I suggest that any company, either singly or in groups (such as a small business group) will attempt to have laws passed to benefit them, or defeat laws that go against them.  Government can be used to help or hurt any industry, any company.  It will be up to us as responsible citizens, as watchdogs of liberty, to elect and monitor leaders who will be immune to this influence.  This influence is found in every statehouse in America, whether in Maine or North Dakota or California.

I'll let you in on a little secret:  I work for the Maryland General Assembly.  It is the great irony of my life -- I am employed by the very entity I destest -- a socialist government.  I see this influence, from all corners, on a daily basis.  Just today my office, on the request of a group representing broadcast talent, began drafting a bill to ban non-compete clauses in contracts.  I fully expect a lengthy letter from the broadcasters imploring us to withdraw the bill.  It will be fought over in the halls of Annapolis, and 181 people will decide, after being lobbied and wooed and schmoozed.  

Joe and Mouseborg, this type of influence will come from every company, large and small, banking and mining, in the free state.  It is inevitable.  If a company "OWNS" a state, as you suggest, it is completely due to the failure of that state's citizens to monitor their lawmakers.  What we must do differently than socialist state governments is to watch our elected officials like hawks and question their every move.  
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."

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #73 on: October 29, 2002, 03:40:51 pm »

Sure - I'm just holding off on including them until their relevance and role can be adequately defined... Including a lot of really minor variables would probably just cause information overload without affecting the results.  If you can come up with a list of variables that you think are important but haven't been included yet, Matt and I will take a close look at them.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Rearden

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 748
  • We're supposed to be activists, remember?
    • Free State Project
Re:NH should not be picked...
« Reply #74 on: October 29, 2002, 03:50:31 pm »


If you can come up with a list of variables that you think are important but haven't been included yet, Matt and I will take a close look at them.


Please consider including job proximity.  Define the variable as all jobs within the given state's borders and within a reasonable commute outside them (50 miles).  This would take into account both job availability for incoming FSP members and a rough measure of the number of jobs that may easily relocate to take advantage of the FSP's business-friendly nature.
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."
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 ... 132   Go Up