Print

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

[thewaka]

Another thing - Of all the states on our list, only NH has a smaller percentage of people receiving welfare.

Ted, where do you get your information? I once read in a post of yours (perhaps to the email list?) that most of your research had been done using a road atlas. Have you spent any time reading the older threads and posts in these forums? Even done a search? The idea that DE has the 2nd lowest # of welfare recipients of our 10 states didn't sound right to me, so I did a search. See reply #76 here:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=35;start=75

There is a link to the source of the data.

Also more recent data (for June 2002):
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/percent_2002_rev.htm

DE with a smaller population than ID has more welfare recipients than ID, therefore a larger percentage of its population.

And # of counties or # square miles is not going to determine how easily we can accomplish our goals. A big part is going to be how much work we have to do to get a state we consider free. So how many of the current laws will have to change or be done away with. How much of the population will have to do a complete turn-around in their thinking to vote with us. As has been pointed out before, campaigning does happen in the large area states, so we can do it there too. I simply believe DE is the worst choice of the 10 we can make and would like to read some real facts backing up that it isn't, not just how the climate is the best (very subjective) or will require less driving than any other state.

Diana

[glen]

Delaware is sometimes downwind of Washington DC.

Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire are sometimes downwind of New York City.

Both cities are still considered to be prime targets of suicide bomber - religious fanatics who are trying to get or may have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

In addition there is the possibility that Washington DC and New York City will need to be evacuated. Those tens of millions of terrorized, cold, hungry, leaderless, lawless, homeless, moneyless, sick and dying people will very quickly flood the surrounding countryside for hundreds of miles in all possible directions.

However remote the possibility of such events occurring, if Delaware, Maine, Vermont or New Hampshire are chosen as the free state, decisions must be made by everyone – on the individual level to the state policy level - concerning how much or how little help will be given to the refugees.

The following is a link to CNN weather for the northeast US and southeast Canada:

http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/NAmerica/us.reg/sat.ne.anim.html

The following is a link to the Harvard School of Public Health. There are two short and to the point articles here concerning:

1) The evidence that smallpox can be released in aerosol form which up until now was not considered possible.

2) A dirty bomb would require the evacuation of Manhattan.

http://www.biosecuritysummit.com/news_research/index.php?issue=7

[Robert H.]

Delaware is sometimes downwind of Washington DC.

Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire are sometimes downwind of New York City.

You raise good points, Glen.  However remote the possibility of such things actually taking place, it is arguably much less remote than before 9/11, and particularly since our government seems determined to stick its nose into every hornet's nest across the globe.  Rumsfeld is now off telling the North Koreans that we can fight two wars at the same time if we need to, so its anybody's guess as to where all of this is going to end.

If such events as you describe were actually to take place, we would be guaranteed to see martial law (or a euphemism with equivalent meaning)immediately instituted from North Carolina to Maine, if not throughout the entire country to at least some extent.  A free state government located anywhere near such a disaster would not be able to protect itself or its citizens from the inevitable results of such a catastrophe.

In addition to the terror threats, New York and DC are the media and political capitals of the statist machine itself, and we would do well to avoid proximity to such areas in any case.  In all fairness though, I suppose that Maine would be potentially less affected by such factors, and Vermont would be the safest bet of all the eastern states.  

[TedApelt]

Another thing - Of all the states on our list, only NH has a smaller percentage of people receiving welfare.

Ted, where do you get your information? I once read in a post of yours (perhaps to the email list?) that most of your research had been done using a road atlas. Have you spent any time reading the older threads and posts in these forums? Even done a search? The idea that DE has the 2nd lowest # of welfare recipients of our 10 states didn't sound right to me, so I did a search. See reply #76 here:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=35;start=75

There is a link to the source of the data.

Also more recent data (for June 2002):
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/percent_2002_rev.htm

DE with a smaller population than ID has more welfare recipients than ID, therefore a larger percentage of its population.

And # of counties or # square miles is not going to determine how easily we can accomplish our goals. A big part is going to be how much work we have to do to get a state we consider free. So how many of the current laws will have to change or be done away with. How much of the population will have to do a complete turn-around in their thinking to vote with us. As has been pointed out before, campaigning does happen in the large area states, so we can do it there too. I simply believe DE is the worst choice of the 10 we can make and would like to read some real facts backing up that it isn't, not just how the climate is the best (very subjective) or will require less driving than any other state.

Diana

Whoops!  I goofed.  I went back to my data sheets (fromu) and the actual statistic was "Persons below poverty, percent".  NH had the lowest with 6.5%, DE came in second with 9.2%.  Worst was MT, with 14.6%.

The spending figures came from the "Gov1" and "Gov2" columns of the FSP State Data Charts.

[Kelton]

 . . .  in other words skipping out on the hard questions. Solving a high caseload with libertarian solutions would be a great way to defuse some of the media criticism.

The statement above opens the case for a certain question on theory about which state.

It becomes more and more obvious that Idaho and Wyoming enjoy a certain culture of liberty among a larger percentage of its population. So, do we chose one of these states in the intermountain West for that reason, or do we chose a state that has other factors, such as Delaware with its small campaign circuit, low voter turn-out and low level of federal land?

The thought of claiming Delaware as the crown jewel of libertarian-oriented freedoms makes me giddy with excitement at even the prospect.  Its location is no less strategic today in the heart of places of power and statism than it was when General Washington at Delaware saw a military turning point or when Jefferson called Delaware a 'diamond' for its desirability as a Dutch colony also contended for by the Swedes.

As Joe as pointed out so many times already, even with 20,000 activists we will have more than enough work cut out for ourselves, which brings us to this very subjective and emotional, yet legitimate question on theory for which state:  if we should succeed in Delaware, the cause for not only rejoicing, but for a prideful sense of vindication will be great; on the other hand, how humiliating will our defeat be if 20,000 activists do not succeed in Wyoming!
 

[TedApelt]

Another important point:

It would require less money and resources to broadcast the libertarian message in a state with a small land area like DE, NH, or VT than a big one with people scattered over hundreds of miles.

Then why is it that according to the State Data page, 3 of the 5 western states plus Alaska have lower election expenditures? DE is #6, MT #7, but NH (another "small" state) is #10, most expensive. Cost is not going to be determined by how much area there is to cover, but by how much the Rep/Dem candidates typically spend.

In high budget campaigns, most of your money is going to media advertising.  In high density areas this would be radio and TV, in low density areas this would be newspaper and direct mail.

In low budget campaigns, most of your money is going to yard signs, flyers, brochures, door hangers, and other lit pieces that volunteers will be distributing door to door.  In high density areas this can be done more quickly than in low density areas.

In low budget campaigns, the candidate's physical presence is critical, since people are not seeing him on TV.  The candidate needs to make up for this by traveling all over his district.

I am assumming that we will be running low budget campaigns.  If we are not, we could give Western states a harder look.

As far as the climate goes, DE is the least attractive to me precisely because of the humidity and heat. I grew up in MS, not one of the cold northern states. I loved living in Chicagoland and love north central PA, at least for the climate. All of the other states have climates that I find better than DE, although they present a greater challenge for growing the heirloom tomatoes I want.

You don't know what  humidity and heat are all about until you have lived in south Florida.  I was in D.C. this August (to attend Leadership Institute classes), and they were complaining about what they called a "heat wave".  Ha!  Broward didn't get that cool until late September.

Anyway, I am not concerned with the climate because I will be living there, I am concerned with the climate because I will be CAMPAIGNING there.  I am going to be driving all across the state to help out the various candidates and referendum.  I am going to be walking door to door knocking on doors, and doing lit drops.

How long are the distances between cities?  Will there be mountainous terrain in my way?  How much snow will I be driving and walking through?  How many days will our efforts be shut down because of extreme weather?  (This won't hurt our wealthier opponents as much as it will hurt us!)  These are the questions that we all need to be asking.

And DE is the one state I opted out of. Although I have several personal reasons for not wanting to move there, that is not why DE is off my list (or AK would have been, too). The current gun laws ("may issue") are an indication to me that it is the wrong state to go to. We can't take our guns and my husband is training to be a gunsmith. So another state would be better since we wouldn't immediately need to change the concealed carry law and my husband would have a better opportunity to support his family.

Diana

That is an issue I won't argue with you about.  You will need an income.  Is there a place where you could live and take your guns that would be right across the state line?

[TedApelt]

Ted, what's this thing you have about 3 counties?  

Actually I think more is better in this respect. Gets us lots of different venues to get up to speed in government, and with only 3 counties it means they are high-stakes counties with large governments themselves - i.e., open only to professionals. I've seen big-county government, and small-county government, and the latter is much more accessible.

About buying ads on TV stations, I think it would be wasteful in Delaware because the broadcast area would include a lot of out-of-state viewers. We'd be paying for something of no use to us.

Do we really know how many FSPers would go to Delaware, compared to Wyoming or Idaho? I wouldn't necessarily assume it's going to be a strong draw, as you seem to.

How many counties you want depends on your goal.  If your goal is to win just one county, more is better.  If you want to win in all of them, fewer is better.

NH is a good example of what I am talking about.  With 400 state house seats, it is not to hard to find at least one where you can concentrate your forces and win.  However, to get a majority, you would need to win over 200 races.  This is more difficult logistically than if there were fewer seats.

With three counties, you would only need three voter lists, and know only three sets of rules.  You would have only three races for supervisor of elections and other one-to-a-county posts.

Forget TV.  We won't have the money for it.  We will be doing most of our work door to door.  If our opponents want to waste their money broadcasting to a lot of out-of-state viewers, let them.

[Zxcv]

Well, Ted, you ignored my point about the problem with 3 counties - that they will be all high-stakes counties. It won't be a disaster if we mess up with one county in a 15-county state. It would be if we did that in a 3-county state.

However I think the number of counties is pretty far down on the list of important criteria!  

I've lived in both Florida and Delaware. You are right, there is no comparison on the humidity. Still, a Wyoming summer is better than a Delaware one. As to driving around, I guess it depends on where you want to spend your time: driving long distances down empty roads in beautiful scenery, or stuck in suburban traffic.  

I'm not sure where you are coming from on campaign spending. According to the state data page, campaign spending is all over the map, but Delaware does not look so great. There are western states with higher spending, and those with lower spending. I think that criterion needs to be fixed to reflect a per-House seat and per-Senate seat cost, but still Delaware doesn't look so great.

if we should succeed in Delaware, the cause for not only rejoicing, but for a prideful sense of vindication will be great; on the other hand, how humiliating will our defeat be if 20,000 activists do not succeed in Wyoming!

Well, no matter where we are, success will be great and defeat humiliating. I guess I'm not as giddy as you, exitus   but I agree this point is subjective.

Welfare caseload? Here it is again. But too much emphasis on it in selecting a state could open the FSP to accusations that its libertarians want a state where they don't have to deal with poor people, in other words skipping out on the hard questions.

Yes, that's a point, which is why I'm reluctant to select a state which already has a strong economy. Most people are concerned about the state of the economy these days, and it may become even more so if things keep dragging along. For us to pick a weak-economy state and turn it around is what gets me giddy.  

But welfare is an important issue, and even more so, "farm welfare". We will have a serious problem pushing off federal "help" if there are too many people at the slop trough. Ordinary in-state welfare programs are not so bad; those people don't vote much and they won't be able to stop us; and since we will be helping the economy they will pick up jobs anyway.

Montana does poorly in the poverty measures, I think, because of its large Indian population. That shouldn't be a problem for us as I don't think residents of Indian reservations vote on off-reservation races, do they?

[Windcatcher]

I've been following this project for a while, and I applaud what you're all trying to accomplish

As much as it would make it REALLY easy for me were you to choose DE, I decided to register on the forum because I think there's something you all really need to know about DE.

Strictly IMHO, hell will freeze over before people in DE go along with the FSP.  I live in Delaware County, PA and work as a consultant in DE.  The state line is a whole three miles away, and I buy everything I can there. I'm somewhat familiar with northern DE.

Delaware is really two different states. North of the C&D, it's really crowded, and VERY leftist (If you don't believe me, go buy a street map showing northern New Castle County and southern Delaware County (it's in PA). The population density difference is striking).

Here's the scoop, from what I can see: it's true that there is NO sales tax, and very low property taxes (roughly 33% to 40% of those in PA and far less than half of those in NJ). This is also a problem, though: because of the low PROPERTY taxes and the huge number of low-paying retail jobs, it attracts a whole lot of people from PA and NJ who are of little means (i.e., they move there and take those retail jobs). Far more often than not, these people are die-hard Democratic voters. The income tax is progressive, and at the high scale, it hits pretty hard: every dollar you make over $60,000 is taxed at 5.95%. While there is no sales tax (as opposed to a 6% sales tax in PA), it means that, if you like to save your money instead of spend it all, it really hurts since you get hit with the tax before you can invest it or gain interest. By contrast, the income tax in PA is a flat 2.8%, so people with higher incomes (and likewise, the skills that earn them those incomes) tend to live in PA. This is one reason why neighboring counties in PA tend to be more conservative than New Castle County (DE).

Wilmington. Hmmm, how do I describe it in a flattering way? Well, it isn't Chester (I went to high school in Chester, PA, so if anyone on this forum lives there and is offended, well, what can I say...it's TRUE) .Wilmington is, however, a Democratic stronghold. I'm sorry, but I really think that nut is uncrackable. A hundred years from now the inner city neighborhoods will be just as Democratic as they are today, if not more so.

[Zxcv]

Thanks for your input, Windcatcher.

I know big cities can really put the kibosh on freedom; we've been fighting Portland the same way, here in Oregon.

Although 5.95% income tax doesn't sound so bad when you're used to 9%!  

[wes237]

I do not want to move to any state that already has a state income tax.

I live in Texas with no state income tax ... mostly sales and property taxes. Politicians, about yearly, will throw out hints of the need for a state income tax to test the potential for the people to accept one. The hints are always coated with "well we are going to experience a budget shortfall if we don't do something different. " Of course they always say that services will have to be reduced, and only mention basic services, and never considering the idiotic pork spending.

I have never figured out why government budgets are always coming up short ... except for the reason that our tax dollars are being spent to "grow" government and not for the services we are supposedly paying for. Why can't people who vote for the Bushs' and Gores' of the world ever see this?

Nope, I'll take a pass if the FSP moves to a state that already has a state income tax. And there is only one way I'd change my thinking on that and that is ... if the state collects a tax, and gives the feds a share (to protect our shores and deliver the mail) in lieu of the state's citizens filing or paying any federal taxes whatsoever.

[thewaka]

Okay, so percentage on welfare or below poverty, both point to problems we can fix. Many think the poor will suffer under libertarianism, the fact that things don't get worse but actually better, regardless the circumstances when we get there, should be proof enough of how good lib. is for the poor.

DE as crown jewel? If succeeding in DE is cause "for a prideful sense of vindication", but not succeeding in WY is cause for great humiliation, seems to me the idea that WY is much more likely to succeed than DE is obvious. Why choose the hard state just because of the sense of greater satisfaction at accomplishing a more difficult task? It will be difficult no matter which state we choose. I still am looking for receptive citizenry and shorter road to freedom. I don't believe DE fits either criterion.

Ted, if I remember correctly, we are hoping to run campaigns which have similar budgets to those who currently run as Dems or Reps. For instance, in WY, I got the figures for money raised for the 2002 elections (found a link somewhere on this forum, sorry I don't have it available). Divide by 20,000 = $97. DE was more than 3 times this. So the lower-election-cost states mean we will be able to compete with the other candidates on even ground. And this is also one reason I support the idea of running as a Dem or Rep (whichever party is better for that county/district), we aren't counting on just FSPers for campaign dollars. So the cost of elections is an issue. The less money typically spent, the better for us. The more fair the campaign.

And Zxcv (?) pointed out in another thread that only the statewide races require statewide campaigning. How many are there? And we aren't planning to go for those for at least a couple of election cycles. By the time we get to the statewide races, I would expect that we would have more support for our ideas (they should be working by then, right? <G>), therefore more money, therefore easier travel, even in the largest state. Or am I really clueless about this stuff and not understanding anything I read here? (And I readily admit I don't understand everything, especially some of Joe's stuff.)

Climate: MS has an auful lot of heat and humidity and, no, DE does not compare to MS or FL. But, Ted, when do you plan on campaigning? Only the winter months? Doesn't most campaigning take place Mar-early Nov? Admittedly there are surprise late and early snowstorms, but for the most part you aren't going to have to wade through several feet of snow to get to people's front doors. I don't consider it a nonissue, but certainly not a major factor in choosing a state.

Will continue in another post since I am having computer trouble now.

[thewaka]

DE has so very little land. Even looking at lists comparing how much land is left in each state after taking out Fed and State owned, VT (with 2nd smallest area left) has more than DE *started* with. I do believe this is an issue for freedom, not just personal comfort/feelings. Those in more crowded conditions are generally going to want more done to protect them from their neighbors. I also believe the small amount of land available is going to deter many FSPers who really want more space. They might be able to stand the idea of NH, but DE? And then no real hunting, no concealed carry (though this can be changed, why choose a state where we have to?). Just not going to appeal to enough people.

I believe the large concentration of people in Wilmington, right next to Philly, is a problem. I think it will make our job harder, not easier. I believe a more rural population is in our favor. Those people will more likely not care what their neighbors are doing as they are less affected by them, can't see into their backyards and such. People stacked on top of each other are far more concerned about how other people's decisions affect them. They will be more concerned with city services like garbage removal, street upkeep. I live in very rural NCentral PA. We pay per bag for garbage pickup by a private company. My "housing development" has a committee that makes decisions about our private road upkeep. We have our own water. Electricity is provided by a co-op. The highways are still maintained by the county/state, but much around here isn't. And even those in the "big city" (pop 2400) in the county are annoyed by what the city council is charging them for water. It is a ridiculous amount. Around here (not that I am suggesting PA as a candidate state!), even the "city" people would welcome at least some of our ideas. I really don't think we'll have much luck in a state where half or more of the population is as heavily concentrated as DE (or NH, for that matter). We would have to win that heavy concentration of people to succeed. More spread out seems more feasible to me.

And I have read in a few posts a hint of what I have thought myself. The harder living in the state will be (whether climate or job finding), perhaps the more active the activists will be b/c they really meant it to move there despite knowing hardship was coming and can't let this fail, for them or their families. I don't recommend we all move to Fairbanks, AK, but making living too easy, giving up on freedom too easy, might be our downfall.

If I am missing something here, I would welcome correction. I am trying to understand everything that we are trying to do, all the factors involved, make lists, rank the states, and still run my household (which has a husband, nearly 4yo, 2 yo, and one on the way, plus looking for a puppy (I must be a masochist), and looking for the "perfect" family business that will transfer anywhere *and* we can afford to start up). I really enjoy reading and have tried to post when I had the time and I hope something to contribute. Thanks for reading and I do appreciate responses.

Diana

[TedApelt]

Ted, if I remember correctly, we are hoping to run campaigns which have similar budgets to those who currently run as Dems or Reps. For instance, in WY, I got the figures for money raised for the 2002 elections (found a link somewhere on this forum, sorry I don't have it available). Divide by 20,000 = $97. DE was more than 3 times this. So the lower-election-cost states mean we will be able to compete with the other candidates on even ground. And this is also one reason I support the idea of running as a Dem or Rep (whichever party is better for that county/district), we aren't counting on just FSPers for campaign dollars. So the cost of elections is an issue. The less money typically spent, the better for us. The more fair the campaign.

1.  There are two types of campaign costs - official costs that are recorded, and unofficial costs (mostly transportation) borne by volunteers  that do not show up on the expense reports.  (They only count as "in kind contributions" if you are actually driving the candidate or are directly producing materials that the campaign uses.)

I know of an activist in Florida whose transmission gave out after he drove and drove and drove all over Florida.  The cost of his car repairs are not going to appear on any official campaign expense report.

The campaigns we will be running will depend on volunteers much more than the campaigns of our opposition.

2.  In addition to state wide candidates, we will also be doing a lot of issue stuff, both for refrendums, and also for voter education.  This will take place across the state.

3.  We will probably not be running candidates for all available seats, because we will want to run winnable candidates, not just anybody we can get.  This means that there will be people living in a district with no local candidates who will be driving to those districts who have some.  My experience is that anything over 20-30 miles will be enough to keep at least some of them home.

[Zxcv]

I do not want to move to any state that already has a state income tax.

I live in Texas with no state income tax ... mostly sales and property taxes.

Well, I certainly wouldn't downgrade any state because it has an income tax.

Most states I think have 2 out of 3 of the following: income tax, property tax and sales tax. Some have all 3! (Those are the ones to avoid.) I think only NH has just one of the three, right?

All three types of taxes have problems, but if I were trying to knock down taxes, I'd rather knock down an income or property tax than a sales tax. I think they would be easier to reduce than a sales tax. So a state without a sales tax would be the best in my opinion, although I don't think it's a huge advantage for us.

Many states have tried to bring in additional taxes - Oregon tried maybe 8 times in the last century to become a 3-tax state, but every time they try it they've been slapped down bad. They are trying to add a "temporary" couple of percent surcharge on top of their 9% income tax this January   , and they are going to be slapped down again. I'd be surprised if any state were capable any more of selling a 3rd tax to people, everyone feels burdened enough as it is.