Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Montana  (Read 34694 times)

telomerase

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 255
  • Live Free Or Die
Re:Montana's war on marijuana
« Reply #60 on: September 07, 2003, 08:30:48 pm »

>You can get a life sentence for selling a single joint in Montana

Well, that's certainly a good illustration that state laws do matter. I'm probably the only person in my generation that DIDN'T use marijuana, but liberal and conservative alike all go along with Prohibition II.

Oh well, what can you expect from a bunch of dopers?

 ;) ;) ;) Kidding, guys, just kidding!! ;) ;) ;)
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Why Montana?
« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2003, 12:14:09 am »

I found it strange that FreedomRoad had arrived at a low tax edge for WY over NH and all the other FSP states...

Repost this message on a tax thread and I'll gladly reply to it with already widely know information about how Wyoming has low taxes, and for many, the lowest in the nation.

I look forward to your reposting of this information.  I do not want to takeover a MT thread with a WY/NH tax debate.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Montana's war on marijuana
« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2003, 12:45:36 am »

I know this is already in the spreadsheet, but this really hit me: You can get a life sentence for selling a single joint in Montana, or growing 30 lbs. or more!

http://www.montananorml.org/legal/laws.php3

No other candidate state is nearly so bad on sentencing.

This is stange because MT is one of the two candidate states where industrial hemp is legal.  Also, there is strong support for medical marijuana in MT.  I guess this is more of the government being out of step with the people that we find in all of the states, but this is WAY out of step.
Logged

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Possible Montana Plan
« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2003, 12:59:01 am »


However, I think it will only work in some states.  DE, NH, and ID are not set-up for this plan.  A plan like this could not work in any of those states.  The plan could be changed, though.  Maybe if we went from town to town in one of those three states it might work.  However, that would not let us live outside of the city limits, we would have less working levels of government, and would attract less new people to a free town than to a free Western county.


Why would Montana's neighbor, Idaho "not be set-up" for such a plan compared to Montana?  Idaho has some of the smallest population counties in the entire West, and they are near Montana.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2003, 01:01:00 am by Kelton, a.k.a. exitus »
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Possible Montana Plan
« Reply #64 on: September 08, 2003, 01:20:35 am »


However, I think it will only work in some states.  DE, NH, and ID are not set-up for this plan.  A plan like this could not work in any of those states.  The plan could be changed, though.  Maybe if we went from town to town in one of those three states it might work.  However, that would not let us live outside of the city limits, we would have less working levels of government, and would attract less new people to a free town than to a free Western county.


Why would Montana's neighbor, Idaho "not be set-up" for such a plan compared to Montana?  Idaho has some of the smallest population counties in the entire West, and they are near Montana.

Here are a few thoughts about how ID does not measure up to MT for such a plan:

MT has a very, very good setup with its Billings area.
You can live in two different counties that only have around 10,000 people and work in Billings.

ID's main population center is Boise.  However, it would be much harder to live in a low populated county near Boise and work in Boise.

The lowest populated county near Boise has around 7,000 people, whereas the lowest populated county Billings has around 800 people. (these are counties where it would be hard to live in and work in Boise (or Billings).)

The nicer counties near Billings are low-growth counties while the nicer counties near Boise are high-growth counties.

The population of ID is larger than the population of MT and it is growing at a FAR faster rate.

I will not even talk with you about ID's southeast corner (solidly Mormon area) and what might happen in that area.
Logged

Kelton

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 604
  • el resplandor de las llamas de la libertad
Re:Possible Montana Plan
« Reply #65 on: September 08, 2003, 03:02:31 am »


Here are a few thoughts about how ID does not measure up to MT for such a plan:

MT has a very, very good setup with its Billings area.
You can live in two different counties that only have around 10,000 people and work in Billings.
Hmm. . . interesting.  Yet I think this 'single county' plan has never been so ambitious to look at a county of ~10,000.  All I have heard is plans to form a majority of "honest libertarians" in one county through migration.  

Quote
ID's main population center is Boise.  However, it would be much harder to live in a low populated county near Boise and work in Boise.


Yea, you are probably right, Idaho's smallest county, Camas with about 400 voters is almost 100 miles from downtown Boise, and still 50 miles through a rugged mountain pass to the nearest significant town.
 
Some of those counties to the east in Montana look most promising, a little over one hundred self-supporting in-migrants could rock the vote in one election in Petroleum County, Montana.


Quote
I will not even talk with you about ID's southeast corner (solidly Mormon area) and what might happen in that area.

Those counties are too populated to even consider for a 'take-over' plan anyways, in or out of any state, Mormon or otherwise.  You must have brought that up just so you could say that ;) .   Golden Valley County, just north of Billings, Montana with a population of just over 1,000 has about 150 of us Mormons,  but Treasure County, to the east is far less in numbers and percentages: go with Treasure County, too many Mormons holding protests and vigils in the street might discourage too many would -be customers with some kinds of businesses, you know.  
Logged
. . .the foundations of our national policy should be laid in private morality. If individuals be not influenced by moral principles, it is in vain to look for public virtue --The U.S. Senate's reply to George Washington's first inaugural address

Summerlin

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
  • Student.
Re:Montana's war on marijuana
« Reply #66 on: September 08, 2003, 07:59:50 am »

It's ok if you own Machineguns and Silencers, but if you smoke Marijuana, YOU'RE AN EVILDOER WHO SUPPORTS TERROR.   ::)

Welcome to The Amerikkkan Homeland.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2003, 08:02:16 am by Summerlin »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Why Montana?
« Reply #67 on: September 08, 2003, 08:07:06 am »

The county strategy has great merit because of its ability to more quickly create an environment of freedom that would embolden current activists and attract even more, potentially enough to turn the entire state.  To attract those people though, and to make the task of turning the state simpler in the future, I would favor states that not only feature low population counties, but also states that lack state income and/or sales taxes.  

Under those circumstances, if a county project did succeed, those who were involved a greater net increase in overall freedom.  Thus there would be increased potential to interest and attract more participants because they would immediately have something to gain by moving.

Among Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, I see Wyoming as potentially the most successful for a free county "beachhead" strategy.  Its lack of a state income tax means that one is only taxed according to one's spending habits.  Not perfect, no, but it is the same for everyone across the board and is more libertarian-friendly than an income tax (which also tends to feed the statist beast to a greater degree).  Sales taxes would also be easier to combat than income taxes.  I can buy larger items out-of-state, either by traveling or via the internet, and beat the sales tax.

Montana and Idaho both have state income taxes.  For that reason, I believe it would be more difficult to scale back the size and scope of government there.

After Wyoming, I would say Montana might be next best.  It lacks a state sales tax, so it does at least offer that much, and, as FreedomRoad points out, Montana offers low population counties closer to job markets.  Montana also seems to have a more socially tolerant atmosphere about it.

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Why Montana?
« Reply #68 on: September 08, 2003, 03:09:15 pm »

Among Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, I see Wyoming as potentially the most successful for a free county "beachhead" strategy.  Its lack of a state income tax means that one is only taxed according to one's spending habits.  Not perfect, no, but it is the same for everyone across the board and is more libertarian-friendly than an income tax (which also tends to feed the statist beast to a greater degree).  Sales taxes would also be easier to combat than income taxes.  I can buy larger items out-of-state, either by traveling or via the internet, and beat the sales tax.

The easiest people to recruit might be the retired people.  Why?
1. Millions of them move EVERY YEAR already.
2. Lots of them move for low tax/ low cost of living reasons.

WY has very low taxes and has a low cost of living.  Many retired people are moving to FL, TN, NV, and Mexico so as to pay lower taxes and for a lower cost of living (and likely warmer weather).

If we can find towns where we could  created retirement communities, that would be very attractive to retired Americans.  The West, since the taxes are generally low, and the cost of living is radically low, would be best for this.  WY beats other Western states, though, because it has very low property taxes.

Also, no corporate taxes really help WY and SD stand out as states that can attract companies run by people that support small government.

Wyoming allows us to recruit those that want:

1. no imcome tax

2. no corporate income tax

3. very low property taxes

4. very low overall taxes

5. low regulation

6. low cost of living

7. the 3rd warmest winters of the candidate states.

MT is a good state but for tax reasons, WY is much better.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]   Go Up