Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Simple - Pick the Smallest...  (Read 19224 times)

milas59

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2002, 08:30:52 pm »

Ten states ranked from largest to smallest projected population in 2025 .  Population in thousands

State       2000                 Increase                          2025
                               number         percent

ID            1,296        1,128            87 %                 2,424

NH           1,236           383            31 %                 1,619

ME           1,250           125            10 %                 1,375

MT              914           320             35 %                1,236

DE              784           392             50 %                1,176

SD              740           170             23 %                   910

AK              627            243             35 %                   870

VT              608            132              22 %                  740

ND              640                9                1 %                  649

WY              594            117              24 %                  611

Numbers extracted from study referred to in Tim Condons paper  that suggests population and growth rates are major
factors for our success

Peter Baker
FSP living in Florida ready to go anywhere we can succeed

Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2002, 09:07:13 pm »

I knew Idaho was growing rapidly, but...wow.
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

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #32 on: November 14, 2002, 01:39:40 am »

Looks like we need to get rid of Idaho, NH, Maine, and Montana.
Logged

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #33 on: November 14, 2002, 04:31:08 am »

What we have lost in freedoms is so much, so bloody damn much, at a local, state, and federal level that Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc. would be shocked even at the best which the Free State could do. After decades of work in the best libertarian environment the FSP is now considering, please envision a meeting with the above founders' ghosts and the Free Staters. The proud Free Staters would be pointing to what they've accomplished and the above founders would say --
"Good God! Is that all you've been able to salvage of the Free Nation we left to you to take care of ?!!? "
The only hope for a Free State achieving even the above is by moving 20,000 serious, experienced activists AND two hundred thousand of the most liberty-minded supporting voting "Friends of the FSP" you can recruit to the least populous state. ONLY by outnumbering the 90+% non or anti-liberty-minded people in the chosen state may the Free State be able to return to even a small fraction of the liberty our founders gave us. Only by numerical superiority does Free State have a chance at getting to the liberty which our "liberty-minded" founders would regard as just a shadow of what they would regard as "free". Where would the FSP find that many people?
The only people whom Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc. would likely regard as "liberty-minded"  now may be less than one percent of the population. These freedom-starved people are an endangered species. The best hope for them and the Free State is the gathering together of these one in a thousand who are 1) truly liberty-minded in the above sense, 2) willing to pack up and move to a new state to seriously work for liberty in the above sense. This one in a thousand in the US, Canada, UK, and a few other countries amounts to four hundred thousand people! See this link for more of that dream of freedom.
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=518
Out of any community, town, county, or neighborhood of 10,000 there are hopefully at least 10 who would meet the above qualifications. THAT’s where the FSP can find that many people!
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=593
To reiterate what Robert said:
"I think that we're going to get one shot at doing this thing right, folks, and that leaves us a very slim margin for error.  My question is then how can we justify risking so much based on so little?"  Do you all realize what is at stake here and just what the costs will be to all of us nationwide if the Free State fails?  You are going to meet massive resistance to your most "libertarian" agendas. Even your own supporters you bring with you will fight you on some of those agenda items. You will have a fight that will tax the very best ability of every "libertarian activist" you can muster. Please do not go into this with what you "think" or "hope" will be enough based on your academic estimates. Go into this with ten times the activists, support, and training you now think you may at most need. If it does prove to be an easy success - great. But if you run into a buzz saw, a call for reinforcements will result in too little, too late. Even your own people will be heading for home. Once they have you down and running, they will make sure you never, never have a second chance - at least not in your grandkids lifetime!
« Last Edit: December 15, 2002, 07:59:03 am by Joe »
Logged

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2002, 02:25:32 pm »

Ten states ranked from largest to smallest projected population in 2025 .  Population in thousands

State       2000                 Increase                          2025
                               number         percent

ID            1,296        1,128            87 %                 2,424

NH           1,236           383            31 %                 1,619

ME           1,250           125            10 %                 1,375

MT              914           320             35 %                1,236

DE              784           392             50 %                1,176

SD              740           170             23 %                   910

AK              627            243             35 %                   870

VT              608            132              22 %                  740

ND              640                9                1 %                  649

WY              594            117              24 %                  611

Numbers extracted from study referred to in Tim Condons paper  that suggests population and growth rates are major
factors for our success

Peter Baker
FSP living in Florida ready to go anywhere we can succeed



Thanks for posting the good stats!
Logged

milas59

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 43
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2002, 10:08:42 pm »

Joe

So now its apples and oranges? (<:   Do you know why DELAWARE shows so much smaller growth in your survey?  Otherwise the results are very similar.

The Pick The Smallest creator should be given a medal as he/she may result  in our quick success.  

When you look at all the factors many of us are arguing the finer points over, hey,  the bottom line is, isnt it,  that we really have no way of knowing whether a heretofore REP and considered liberty leaning state will go for our message or whether a small government state wont grow.

My home state VT a good example, eh? Socialists have taken over in spite of its solid liberty leaning origins(REP) . It did have small population and low growth, so they are succeeding and do register consistent 10+% in state races.

Dont you think because we have no way of knowing how the other factors will affect our success, we have to give greatest weight to the factors that will be relevant - small population and low growth?

Peter



Logged

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #36 on: November 17, 2002, 12:28:51 am »

I'm glad this has been a fruitful discussion.

One thing that sticks out in my mind (even did when I first saw the FSP idea) is that 20,000 isn't enough.

In Wyoming, for example, 20,000 would clearly be adequate votes to sway a current national race (about 95K were cast for the 2 senatorial candidates last election).  However,  that sway can only be achieved in alliance with some other voting block.  A third party or independent candidate, with the full support of FSP, would only result in 95K to 95K to 20K:  a loss.

Am I missing something here?

I know it's ambitious, but perhaps we should shoot for 100,000 (which would win WY).

How was 20,000 arrived at?
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #37 on: November 17, 2002, 01:21:11 am »

I'm glad this has been a fruitful discussion.

One thing that sticks out in my mind (even did when I first saw the FSP idea) is that 20,000 isn't enough.

In Wyoming, for example, 20,000 would clearly be adequate votes to sway a current national race (about 95K were cast for the 2 senatorial candidates last election).  However,  that sway can only be achieved in alliance with some other voting block.  A third party or independent candidate, with the full support of FSP, would only result in 95K to 95K to 20K:  a loss.

Am I missing something here?

I know it's ambitious, but perhaps we should shoot for 100,000 (which would win WY).

How was 20,000 arrived at?

I have no clue how Jason thinks (but I am sure he does) 20,000 activists could win a state like NH with well over 1,000,000 people.  I do know a few ways 20,000 voters could win WY.  WY voters put out around 215,000 votes in the 2000 election.  More people would come out when the FSP is push new issues.  More people will be in WY in 10 years when the election wheels will start to turn.  Plus there will be 20,000 FSP supporters.  Lets just say that is around 260,000 voters in total.  About 63% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote R or about 151,000.  About 33% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote D or about 79,000.  The other 4% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote LP, Con., Reform P, or the like (10000).  Plus you have 20,000 FSP votes which equals about 30,000 total freedom votes to start with.

If each of the FSP voters gets 2 R and 1/2 a D to vote for a freedom friendly politian then the totals are: 111,000 R, 80,000 FSP, 69,000 D
In a few years if we are good, friendly people and show positive results with local political changes that is doable.  That makes us number 2.  If the R run a very weak can. and we run a real good one and we out spend them and get some D support we might win a state wide office.  

Let's say we all got 2.5 R and 1.5 D which somepeople think is doable (we are activists).
That means: 110,000 FSP, 101,000 R,  49,000 D
The key here is that we are not taking over a state.  We are simply convincing the population of a state (or 1/3+ of it in a 3 way race) that greater economic and personal freedom will make their lives better.

However, initally, the FSP will mostly focus on local politics.  We will run for state House and Senate positions and some lower positions.  In a house district you might need 3000 or so votes to win.  Maybe even less in a 3 way race.  If 700 activists moved into that one district and did earlier voting drills, made speeches, spent on the radio and TV, went to public meeting, were interviewed by the press, helped out the other people in the district, and the like they should be able to win the set.  Lots of state house seats can and will be won like this.  Many other local seats can and will be won like this.

We must start out small and then move up.  This will take many years of winning small elections and showing that libertarianism works.  Only then will we be able to get a couple Senators and a Gov.
Logged

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #38 on: November 17, 2002, 05:55:56 pm »

I'm glad this has been a fruitful discussion.

One thing that sticks out in my mind (even did when I first saw the FSP idea) is that 20,000 isn't enough.

In Wyoming, for example, 20,000 would clearly be adequate votes to sway a current national race (about 95K were cast for the 2 senatorial candidates last election).  However,  that sway can only be achieved in alliance with some other voting block.  A third party or independent candidate, with the full support of FSP, would only result in 95K to 95K to 20K:  a loss.

Am I missing something here?

I know it's ambitious, but perhaps we should shoot for 100,000 (which would win WY).

How was 20,000 arrived at?

I have no clue how Jason thinks (but I am sure he does) 20,000 activists could win a state like NH with well over 1,000,000 people.  I do know a few ways 20,000 voters could win WY.  WY voters put out around 215,000 votes in the 2000 election.  More people would come out when the FSP is push new issues.  More people will be in WY in 10 years when the election wheels will start to turn.  Plus there will be 20,000 FSP supporters.  Lets just say that is around 260,000 voters in total.  About 63% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote R or about 151,000.  About 33% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote D or about 79,000.  The other 4% or so of the non-FSP voters tend to vote LP, Con., Reform P, or the like (10000).  Plus you have 20,000 FSP votes which equals about 30,000 total freedom votes to start with.

If each of the FSP voters gets 2 R and 1/2 a D to vote for a freedom friendly politian then the totals are: 111,000 R, 80,000 FSP, 69,000 D
In a few years if we are good, friendly people and show positive results with local political changes that is doable.  That makes us number 2.  If the R run a very weak can. and we run a real good one and we out spend them and get some D support we might win a state wide office.  

Let's say we all got 2.5 R and 1.5 D which somepeople think is doable (we are activists).
That means: 110,000 FSP, 101,000 R,  49,000 D
The key here is that we are not taking over a state.  We are simply convincing the population of a state (or 1/3+ of it in a 3 way race) that greater economic and personal freedom will make their lives better.

However, initally, the FSP will mostly focus on local politics.  We will run for state House and Senate positions and some lower positions.  In a house district you might need 3000 or so votes to win.  Maybe even less in a 3 way race.  If 700 activists moved into that one district and did earlier voting drills, made speeches, spent on the radio and TV, went to public meeting, were interviewed by the press, helped out the other people in the district, and the like they should be able to win the set.  Lots of state house seats can and will be won like this.  Many other local seats can and will be won like this.

We must start out small and then move up.  This will take many years of winning small elections and showing that libertarianism works.  Only then will we be able to get a couple Senators and a Gov.

For statistical purposes, I'd have to say that getting any democrats is a long shot.  Maybe .5, but certainly no more.

I agree that the state offices will be winnable right away.  Once the state government is influenced substantially by the FSP presence, winning national elections and gaining larger percentages of those now registered as Rs and Ds, is reasonable.

I think 20,000 will take too long though.  There is some element of 'taking over' a state involved in this project, regardless.  The issue is not to overdo that aspect.  Perhaps just enough to determine the outcome to Ds and Rs - (i.e., a Republican who really is pretty pro-freedom will have to fielded in order to court the FSP vote).

I suppose though, that a 20,000 movement is a decent enough indicator to make the move and continue to bring others who love freedom along.

It is really awesome that our founders set things up in such a way as to have this opportunity, rather than the open revolution they had to accomplish!

Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #39 on: November 28, 2002, 04:34:55 am »

Very well said, Joe.  

The Founders would be more than a little astonished at the degree to which things have deteriorated in this country in such a relatively short span of time.

We have largely fulfilled Benjamin Franklin's prophecy:


"In these sentiments, sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults; if they are such; because I think a general government necessary for us...and I believe, further, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other."


In a Republic, freedom is not taken away so much as it is given away, and we would do well to remember this in our efforts.  With regard to liberty, each American generation has been born in a box somewhat smaller than the previous generation was, largely not missing what liberties they never had.  Some of us look back in time and see what should have been ours, or chafe under what is being taken from us now, but we are, as Joe has pointed out, very much in the minority when it comes to doing anything about it.

Many people think of us liberty-minded types as being "ungrateful" or "unpatriotic," and wonder why we would criticize the government or the course of the country when "we have it so much better than any other country on earth."  Such people generally speak of freedom in glowing terms and do little else.  But if all you're willing to do in the name of freedom is pay homage to it, then you might as well be eulogizing it.  Some of the most beautiful tributes I've ever heard have been delivered at funerals, but beautiful words cannot raise dead men anymore than they can restore lost liberties.  That takes work, and those who choose to walk that road had best be prepared to keep small company.

As a result, we are best served by choosing a place where our small numbers will count for more rather than locating in a more populous state and hoping that those who currently only pay homage to liberty will suddenly feel like putting on their walking shoes.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2002, 04:39:08 am by RobertH »
Logged

Blayne

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #40 on: December 05, 2002, 08:37:08 pm »

It's simple it's not 20,000 agains the rest of the state. Success depends on the 20,000 winning enough already in the state to the cause period. The whole thing is a gamble in any state.

Joe keeps saying the numbers have to be low, but that creates a whole nother perhaps more serious problem and that is economical survivial in such a state. We can't divide our energies on survival and loose the goal of political change....

Thats why the premise is flawed looking at it in just terms of numbers.

The principle is; it takes a small amount of yeast to leaven the whole loaf of bread!

While it might be easier with a smaller population just looking at the numbers there is no garuntee that is the case. Being able to make a living is crucial to success!

Blayne

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams

« Last Edit: December 06, 2002, 02:56:56 am by Blayne »
Logged

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #41 on: December 06, 2002, 08:07:33 am »

It's simple it's not 20,000 agains the rest of the state. Success depends on the 20,000 winning enough already in the state to the cause period. The whole thing is a gamble in any state.

Joe keeps saying the numbers have to be low, but that creates a whole nother perhaps more serious problem and that is economical survivial in such a state. We can't divide our energies on survival and loose the goal of political change....

Thats why the premise is flawed looking at it in just terms of numbers.

The principle is; it takes a small amount of yeast to leaven the whole loaf of bread!

While it might be easier with a smaller population just looking at the numbers there is no garuntee that is the case. Being able to make a living is crucial to success!

Blayne

"It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." --Samuel Adams



Joe is absolutely correct.

Leaven in bread is a nice sounding analogy, but this application of it isn't logically consistent.  One could use that to say that a small amount of, name anything, put into a larger amount of, name anything, will always change the second thing into the first.  This simply isn't the case.  Yes, a little yeast does leaven the loaf, but a little liberty doesn't necessary liberate the whole population.

Survival?  May I ask you a question?

Are you a hearty soul?  Are those who will move to the Free State hearty souls?

This move is an action of near revolutionary proportions.  Can anyone out there actually imagine the founders of this nation or the settlers of the west thinking they would be too distracted by the difficulty earning a living TODAY?  I wonder what those who settled Wyoming in the 1800s would think of that statement?

I would also add that even if it really were so difficult to earn a living, which as you can see I contend it is not (e.g., today one can just drive to another state - or hitch a ride with a FSP friend, either every day for a job or once in awhile), that would hardly be a terrible distraction to keep one from going to the polling place once in awhile and voting for liberty (states provide the ballots and pencils).  It's also pretty easy to identify which candidates and issues are libertarian in this often liberty-free-zone we call the United States (i.e., it doesn't take alot of costly or time-consuming research).

Please forgive me if this sounds harsh.

Be of good cheer.  This can be done, but it needs the most significant percentage of population possible!

Success is sure if there are enough truly hearty souls, such as those who originally settled this nation.
Logged

Steve

  • FSP Board Member
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 666
  • La Vero vin liberigos
    • Elegant Solutions
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #42 on: December 06, 2002, 09:54:56 am »

Quote
LibertyVsLibertine wrote:
Are you a hearty soul?  Are those who will move to the Free State hearty souls?

This move is an action of near revolutionary proportions.  Can anyone out there actually imagine the founders of this nation or the settlers of the west thinking they would be too distracted by the difficulty earning a living TODAY?  I wonder what those who settled Wyoming in the 1800s would think of that statement?
The Founders of this nation were, I believe, wealthy landowners.  The pioneers were probably poor, with little to lose, and much to gain.  They were searching for prosperity, not freedom.  In any event, we are living in a different, non-agrarian world. To compete with an opponent you need comparable material and human resources, whether that opponent is a British army, the leftist media, the entrenched political parties, or the football team of the highschool on the wealthier side of town.  20K un- or under-employed libertarians might have the human resources for success, but they will lack the financial resources.

I suggest that you can divide the FSP membership into two groups: those who want to live in freedom (and let the rest of the human race go hang), and those who want to see freedom live and spread, even though they themselves might be living vicariously in a place that is less than free.  I am in the latter category: eventually, I want to see a Free Planet Project. Of course, we all value both goals; we just prioritize them differently.

For years I lived by choice in a bona-fide dictatorship, moving there of my own free will.  I now live in an unfree land called Deutschland, at the core of a coalescing dictatorship called the European Union.  In a few weeks I will move back to Russia, where my job skills are at maximum value, and where some measure of freedom is returning (in the form of a low 13% flat tax).

Am I a "hearty soul" or a wimp? I am moving to a Russian island called Sakhalin, north of Japan, where the winters are probably harsher than anything most readers here have ever experienced.  You can probably imagine the rest of the conditions.  The motivator is of course money, which I can use to support the liberty movement.  If the FSP selects a state where I cannot be sufficiently productive, I can be a better patriot by fighting from behind enemy lines.  Don't dismiss the patriotism of those of us who place some value on financial power.  Rather, I question the intelligence of those who dismiss economics, and I doubt their chances for eventual success.  Darwinism will snuff them out.

This does not mean that the FSP should move to New York or wherever salaries are highest, but the potential for economic prosperity should remain on our list of selection criteria.  A place where people in general are likely to succeed is a place where libertarians are likely to succeed.
Logged

Blayne

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 34
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #43 on: December 06, 2002, 06:20:13 pm »

LVS: Joe is absolutely correct.

Leaven in bread is a nice sounding analogy, but this application of it isn't logically consistent.  One could use that to say that a small amount of, name anything, put into a larger amount of, name anything, will always change the second thing into the first.  This simply isn't the case.  Yes, a little yeast does leaven the loaf, but a little liberty doesn't necessary liberate the whole population.


Blayne: I disagree; it is logically consistent. The yeast has to be active to leaven the bread. Likewise the FSP has to be active and innovative to change the political climate of the state.

LVS: Survival?  May I ask you a question?

Are you a hearty soul?  Are those who will move to the Free State hearty souls?

This move is an action of near revolutionary proportions.  Can anyone out there actually imagine the founders of this nation or the settlers of the west thinking they would be too distracted by the difficulty earning a living TODAY?  I wonder what those who settled Wyoming in the 1800s would think of that statement?


Blayne: Many of the Founders were already wealthy men.  We’re not moving someplace where you can just stake out some land and start building a homestead. If that were the case I would be there in a heartbeat because that sort of self-sufficient lifestyle appeals to me. Were moving where people will need to be productive members of society and there needs to be sufficient opportunity to make a living to support the primary goal of political activism.

LVS: I would also add that even if it really were so difficult to earn a living, which as you can see I contend it is not (e.g., today one can just drive to another state - or hitch a ride with a FSP friend, either every day for a job or once in awhile), that would hardly be a terrible distraction to keep one from going to the polling place once in awhile and voting for liberty (states provide the ballots and pencils).  It's also pretty easy to identify which candidates and issues are libertarian in this often liberty-free-zone we call the United States (i.e., it doesn't take alot of costly or time-consuming research).

Blayne: If you think all we need to do is vote then you’re not what FSP is looking for.  FSP is looking for activist to leaven the whole. But in the mean time their families need to live and be able to eat etc… It’s nice to appeal to the founders of this nation etc for inspiration but reality has to be faced, if those moving to the state cannot find work or opportunity within 3 months chances are high they will leave much less become politically active. Those are the harsh realities. This is not some hippie commune where we can all just move and not worry about it and hey man peace love dope we’ll all just live off the land… ;)

LVS: Be of good cheer.  This can be done, but it needs the most significant percentage of population possible!

Success is sure if there are enough truly hearty souls, such as those who originally settled this nation.


Blayne: Why then are some of the so-called “hearty souls” balking at the task of leavening a little larger loaf of bread? Seems to me it would be much easier then worrying about where the next meal is coming from and ending up on the street?
« Last Edit: December 06, 2002, 06:24:15 pm by Blayne »
Logged

libertyVSlibertine

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 90
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Simple - Pick the Smallest...
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2002, 02:23:41 pm »

Don't dismiss the patriotism of those of us who place some value on financial power.  
This statement takes my comments entirely out of context, as I specifically stated my apologies for these perhaps harsh, but motivational statements.

Likewise, the use of "am I a... or a wimp," implied negativity that was not stated nor intended.

My intent was and is to point out that there is no state in the union (Wyoming included) that does not have adequate resources for the liberty minded individuals to not only survive, but to do so in an excellent manner.  

The pioneers survived the move with not even an iota of the resources that are available to us.

As to wealthy landowners, some of the founders were, but foresook those resources or used them (some personally funded the revolutionary war and had to be buried as paupers when they died), to undertake the same sort of hardships as the western pioneers suffered, and worse (at least nobody was chasing the pioneers and trying to kill them and their families).  Others were quite middle class (John Adams, for example).  Many were preachers and farmers without great wealth.  The characterization of 'the founders' as 'wealthy landowners' is an inaccurate, liberal stereotype.

I acknowledge that if all things are equal, financial concerns should be given consideration, but they are not equal.  

Resolved:

1)  None of the states under consideration is poor enough that persons cannot move there and reside comfortably,

2)  The fastest way to gain the desired liberty is by winning elections,

Therefore, gains in economic status from choosing a more financially prosperous state (pretty subjective anyway), do not outweigh the benefits of a larger voting percentage.

If we truly believe in the liberty we promote, we will have confidence that the ability to implement that freedom most quickly (voting percentage) will cause the desired financial prosperity.

I also propose that adversity brings strength.  The camaraderie developed in improving a less-developed state by means of liberty might be just the added edge necessary to make the free planet project work.
 
« Last Edit: December 07, 2002, 02:25:46 pm by libertyVSlibertine »
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up