Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Proximity and related issues  (Read 33910 times)

rambler42

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Jeffersonian porcupine
Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2003, 03:46:58 pm »

Not to mention, North Dakota is listed as "Moderate regulation"....this is ALSO erroneous. North Dakota has one of the most difficult homeschool laws I have seen (you need to either have a teaching certificate, or have your homeschool monitored by a "professional teacher" for at LEAST two years (more if your children score too low on standardized tests).
Logged
free stater in exile

rambler42

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
  • Jeffersonian porcupine
Re:Why being close the DC & NY media/government machine is a good thing
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2003, 03:51:33 pm »

aaaahhh, I see the issue. HSLDA is the "source" for this. HSLDA has a vested interest in getting membership using fear tactics, and a great deal of their information is misleading. As a homeschooling parent and an activist within our homeschool group, I can tell you that our laws are NOT very restrictive. Using HSLDA's OWN site, neither are those of Wyoming, Montana, or Alaska, and yet those are listed as "high regulation" states. So the issue comes down to: who do you trust: a bunch of LAYWERS, or those who know the system from the inside and have worked with it even to the point of lobbying state legislators on the issues? Point to note: HSLDA is also an enemy of unschooling; they require their members to list their curriculum choice to be accepted as members.
Logged
free stater in exile

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #17 on: August 21, 2003, 09:31:25 pm »

The East/West and Urban/Rural wars have created some clearly defined lines in our ranks when it comes to the issue of proximity to major population centers.  Some of us believe that this can be a good thing, others believe that it may not be such a good thing.  We've verbally battered one another repeatedly on this issue, and yet, after all of that, the only agreement we've managed to reach on the matter is that we vehemently disgree with one another.

So, fully anticipating the universal groan that will undoubtedly greet the title of this thread, I'd like you to briefly consider a couple of points about how proximity to major population centers could potentially affect us.

This will come as no surprise to those who have been around here awhile, but I happen to be an advocate of states that are farther removed from major media outlets and population centers due to a number of factors, including the recent example of how Gephardt supporters were able to easily bus in their comrades from all over New England for a pow-wow in New Hampshire.  That's more of a small land area issue (demonstrating that it will work for the opposition just as well as for us), but proximity was also a factor at work there.

For this thread though, I'd like to take a somewhat different approach to the issue, and in doing so, let's use a libertarian hot-button issue that is particularly controversial: marijuana.

Let's say for a moment that the FSP does choose a state where there is greater proximity to major population centers.  And further, let's say that the FSP succeeds in getting things like marijuana decriminalized.  What effects are such reforms likely to have?

If you answer with "greater freedom for us, of course," you would be partially correct.  However, we are not the only people involved here.  What is the effect of such reforms likely to be with regard to those who surround us in neighboring states and localities?  Again, I'm assuming here that there are major population centers either within the state or else within a very short, convenient distance from us.

If marijuana is decriminalized within our borders, marijuana "enthusiasts" will be drawn to that state like moths to a flame, and we will have to enact near draconian penalties for taking the stuff out of state lest we run into issues with the feds.  And run into problems with the feds we undoubtedly would because of the effect our actions would have on the illegal markets in surrounding states.  

Think about it this way:  if we decriminalize marijuana within our borders, people will probably begin to raise bumper crops of the stuff. This greatly enhanced availability would be a strong incentive for those who want to sell it out-of-state to smuggle to their hearts' content because they would be able to purchase it relatively cheaply within our state, and then turn around and sell it for normal 'underground market' prices in states where it's still illegal.  If they could get away with it, they could potentially make more of a killing than ever.

We're kidding ourselves if we think that the feds and surrounding states are not going to go ape over this.

The above situation involving marijuana is only one example of how we must understand that we are not going to be operating in a vacuum.  Other issues will also come into play, and we're going to have to deal with the aftermath of our reform efforts.  People will take advantage of what we do for their own purposes, as people always do, and this will, in turn, have other consequences, particuarly on the federal side of the coin.

How does this relate to the proximity issue though?

One potential advantage of being located in a state that is more remote or isolated is that this will effectively reduce the degree to which others can take negative advantage of our reforms, and, consequently, the degree to which we can be built into a threat that will cause others to demand some sort of sanction or action.

Think of how much action the federal government takes on 'what if?' scenarios.  The recent invasion of a small middle eastern country comes to mind here, as does the Patriot Act and all of its police state style provisions.  Other examples could be provided, like the Brady Bill, which we are told is designed to prevent gun violence.  These things sell very well to the soccer moms and the chicken-little's out there.  And we've seen how medical marijuana legislation in California has not stopped the feds from breaking down doors there and basically doing as they please regardless of state law.

And even if the feds themselves take no direct action, there is still a strong potential for the matter to end up in federal court due to interstate lawsuits being filed by disgruntled parents when Junior starts road-tripping from the Philly suburbs over to Delaware for pot, or by other state governments when their medical welfare programs start covering abuse problems related to "the ease of accessing marijuana in New Hampshire."

One way or another, we're likely going to have to play ball with the feds on such issues, but it seems to me that the likelihood of clashes and controversy decreases with states that are more removed from major population centers where the risk of having our reforms exploited by opportunitsts would, arguably, be greater.

Thoughts?

Sean Coven

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 239
  • I Hate Maryland!
Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #18 on: August 21, 2003, 09:35:17 pm »

This is a very valid issue that you highlight here, but there is one pooge factor:

The federal government, over and over again, has overriden any state's action to decriminalize marijuana. I think that it won't happen in one state until it happens nationwide.

California decriminalized marijuana via initiative, and I believe Oregon did the same (not sure on that last count). In both instances the federal government continued to enforce the ban.

Dennis Wilson

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
  • Objectivist & Jeffersonian
    • Dennis Lee Wilson
Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #19 on: August 21, 2003, 09:44:51 pm »

Arizona voters also approved medical use, but I haven't heard of any doctor brave enough to defy the Feds.
Logged
Existence exists and Man's mind is capable of knowing it.    Ayn Rand

Wyoming Success: photos of cities, mountains, rivers, and the beach http://members.aol.com/wyomingliberty
Free Wyoming: reports, lists, photos, links, and more http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming

JonM

  • First 1000
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1971
Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #20 on: August 21, 2003, 09:46:22 pm »

Alaska is about the only state this isn't a factor in.  Every other state would have some degree of exposure to this issue.
Logged

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #21 on: August 21, 2003, 09:52:12 pm »

Interesting thought - is this idea more likely to draw the pro-pot contingent away from voting NH, or is it such a 'pipe dream' ( ;)) as to be largely irrelevant?

Eric
Logged

Dennis Wilson

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 37
  • Objectivist & Jeffersonian
    • Dennis Lee Wilson
Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #22 on: August 21, 2003, 09:56:20 pm »

That proximity issue is one of the major reasons I opted out of the New England states.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2222;start=msg40891#msg40891

Living in NH is living in a deep hole with 14 million (population of New England living is a space smaller than Wyoming) welfare receivers and their tax cows throwing dirt on your head (for example: busing people in for a rally as RobertH pointed out).  

Sure, porcupines could do a counter rally, but that takes time away from productive, positive activities. It makes just one more time waster if it has to be done. Lost time here, lost time there, pretty soon it adds up to a lifetime of lost time!

If you live in New England and you don't end up becoming another Carl Drega, consider yourself fortunate.
Logged
Existence exists and Man's mind is capable of knowing it.    Ayn Rand

Wyoming Success: photos of cities, mountains, rivers, and the beach http://members.aol.com/wyomingliberty
Free Wyoming: reports, lists, photos, links, and more http://www.geocities.com/freewyoming

DadELK68

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #23 on: August 21, 2003, 10:06:26 pm »

As a NH resident, I can reassure you that we laugh at things like this - okay, so they bused some people in, bought our gas, ate some food (for which they paid, unless they're part of the Kennedy clan - in which case they probably stiffed the caterer), contributed to the local economy and then were bused home. Who comes out ahead?

Obviously, Gephardt doesn't have enough support in NH to draw an adequate crowd of locals.

On the flip side, it's been fascinating every four years to be inundated with invitations to picnics, home meetings, fund raisers and other activities in which there might be anywhere from ten to a hundred or so people with serious (and/or spurious) presidential candidates. Even without trying, I've bumped into candidates in our local park and town library.

Eric
Logged

jgmaynard

  • FSP Shadow Advertising
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2288
    • The Light of Alexandria
Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #24 on: August 21, 2003, 10:10:39 pm »

I don't see migration after a decrim of marijuana to be much of an issue.

1) It's essentially been done already in New Mexico, and there aren't great problems with people trucking it out to Nevada, or vice versa for other adult behaviors we would be likely to de-crim. :)

2) If other states don't like people leaving their state for NH (let's say) for de-crimed pot, then trying to bring it back, that's Massachusetts' (oops! ;)) problem.  ;D

3) If NH de-crimed, Vermont would probably be close behind.

4) Mass has threatened NH recently that they would open up gambling casinos on the NH border if NH did not PAY Mass (IIRC) $200M a year because we don't have a sales tax, and their people are shopping over the border. Craig Benson called their bluff 8), and it hasn't happened yet.  

And think of being able to ask ALL the candidates for President when they were going to catch up to New Hampshire WHILE they are in the state. :D

I ain't afraid of Mass. :D

JM

Logged
The Light of Alexandria By James Maynard

A history of the first 1,000 years of science, and how it changed the ancient world, and our world today.



http://www.lightofalexandria.com

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #25 on: August 22, 2003, 12:15:22 am »

Obviously, Gephardt doesn't have enough support in NH to draw an adequate crowd of locals.

The problem there is that this is a day in which there is a strong movement to try and turn every issue into a national issue - subject to a national dialogue - regardless of the wishes of state and local residents.  South Carolina can certainly testify to this, as can Alaska, and, I would now imagine, Alabama (among others).  

The ability of such groups to cause mischief and damage is not necessarily based in whether they can activate a large number of locals, but whether they can focus enough attention on their issue to start a national dialogue and thus intimidate state and local residents into following their wishes.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #26 on: August 22, 2003, 12:56:38 am »

I don't see migration after a decrim of marijuana to be much of an issue.

1) It's essentially been done already in New Mexico, and there aren't great problems with people trucking it out to Nevada, or vice versa for other adult behaviors we would be likely to de-crim. :)

They're also fairly remote areas.   ;)

Quote
2) If other states don't like people leaving their state for NH (let's say) for de-crimed pot, then trying to bring it back, that's Massachusetts' (oops! ;)) problem.  ;D

Well, I think I gave some examples of how they could make it our problem.   ;)

Quote
3) If NH de-crimed, Vermont would probably be close behind.

That might actually be true, knowing Vermont.   :)

Quote
4) Mass has threatened NH recently that they would open up gambling casinos on the NH border if NH did not PAY Mass (IIRC) $200M a year because we don't have a sales tax, and their people are shopping over the border. Craig Benson called their bluff 8), and it hasn't happened yet.  

An economic issue is a bit different.  The feds don't really care about casinos.

I can't believe Massachusetts was stupid enough to threaten such a thing.  Good grief.   ::)

johnadams

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 630
  • Friend of the FSP, Libertarian
Another Benefit from Proximity to Borders
« Reply #27 on: August 22, 2003, 01:13:09 am »

That proximity issue is one of the major reasons I opted out of the New England states.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2222;start=msg40891#msg40891

Living in NH is living in a deep hole with 14 million (population of New England living is a space smaller than Wyoming) welfare receivers and their tax cows throwing dirt on your head ....

If you live in New England and you don't end up becoming another Carl Drega, consider yourself fortunate.
Oh great, another bash--New England thread. Yeah, like that's really going to want to make New Englanders move to a place where YOU are, where we could apparently be expected to be lambasted further with insults. What is the purpose of this stuff other than to vent your frustrations on New Englanders?


Quote
RobertH wrote: For this thread though, I'd like to take a somewhat different approach to the issue, and in doing so, let's use a libertarian hot-button issue that is particularly controversial: marijuana.

As regards marijuana decriminalization BEYOND medical use. If the feds some day allow states to do it, those that will benefit the most are the marijuana crop states on the borders and the shorelines, for export-import trade. The Canadian border will likely be a very profitable one as Canada is likely to fully legalize it before the U.S. Canada has already legalized marijuana for medical use--so it's just a matter of time. So those states bordering Canada (AK, ID, MT, VT, NH, ME) would likely be the first to benefit, especially those states with a more tolerant attitude regarding victimless crimes (VT, NH, ME, and AK?).

Marijuana is already Vermont's #1 crop and the tobacco states like Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee have seen many tobacco farmers convert partially or wholly to marijuana, given the long-term gradual decrease in domestic tobacco smoking and the increases in taxes. The downside is legalization would give the governments something more they could try to tax. That's another reason it's important to liberate these border states before legalization occurs, so that we can fight attempts to tax the stuff.

Arid or isolated states like Wyoming and South Dakota likely wouldn't benefit much from a legal interstate and international marijuana trade.

Also, the people who are already growing, selling and transporting marijuana would no longer have to face criminal penalties and fines, which would be a great relief for them. The old-time Vermont, NH, ME, etc. farmers who are just trying to make a living and supplement their incomes by growing the marijuana crop would no longer have to fear being hauled off and fined or imprisoned like criminals.

Legalization in the states would mean that the Feds had legalized it or were leaving it up to the states--in either case that would mean that marijuana farmers in states would no longer have to worry about prosecution by statist feds and the feds and states would save quite a bit of money on interdiction, prosecution and incarceration. All in all, everyone would benefit, and the northern border states would probably benefit most.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2003, 01:35:58 am by johnadams »
Logged
"men are born equally free and independent" - John Adams
World's Smallest Political Quiz

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Another Benefit from Proximity to Borders
« Reply #28 on: August 22, 2003, 03:48:46 am »

Oh great, another bash--New England thread. Yeah, like that's really going to want to make New Englanders move to a place where YOU are,

I am not going to get into the issues of this thread but I do have a couple of comments that should help info johnadams and maybe others.

Dennis is from AZ and AZ cannot be selected as the Free State.  He could care less about you moving to AZ and that has nothing to do with the other states.

Quote
Arid or isolated states like Wyoming and South Dakota likely wouldn't benefit much from a legal interstate and international marijuana trade.

I am unable to follow you here.  Did you know that I-80 and I-90, major East-West interstates pass right though Wyoming?  Did you know that parts of Wyoming are not isolated and that it actually has a humid part of the state?  Did you know that eastern SD is not only humid but gets a noticable amount of rain?
Logged

matt621

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 141
  • WY=SD>ID>MT>AK>...
Re:Potential Issues Related to Proximity - A Different Take
« Reply #29 on: August 22, 2003, 03:58:13 am »

This is totally a valid situation and one why I'm really hanging on to the western states. I look at the Idaho, Wyoming, SD, ND, MT, Nevada complex as being very possible. (Yes, I know on NV, hold on a second.)

Its' just like "speeders" on the freeways. One stands out and is pummeled. But if you run in a pack, it's very hard to get anyone. The "school of fish" theory of defense. (study your marine biology if they gets by you. ;) ). In the east, this is clearly impossible. But out west, and with a "friendly" Canadian border above.. this could be a very good thing. Imagine what would happen to the ND/SD farmer subsidies if they converted to "the other cash crop?" Now ND/SD (especially SD) look really good.

As for Nevada.... if ID, Wy or any of our candidates do as you suggest, with the proximity to Nevada, how long to you think they will jump on the wagon?  

As for "bash NE thread...." comment. I don't know how to say this, but none of these threads are meant to be a "bash anyone" thread. It's just discussions. All the states on the list have their positive attributes and should be proud they made the list. NE has a very fine freedom heritage, but lets face it, if heritage got the job done, we wouldn't be here. So we have to discuss all aspects of each state/region. And just like after a party convention, I hope all the members will come together to support the "winning" candidate, whoever that might be.
Logged
But every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle. If there be any among us who [disagree], let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. - Thomas Jefferson 1801
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6   Go Up