Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Interesting Note about Delaware  (Read 11230 times)

gilshafir

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • Vote early and often.
Interesting Note about Delaware
« on: November 03, 2002, 02:56:29 pm »

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned already but a large percentage of businesses are incorporated in Delware due to it's advanced and business friendly laws. In addition all merger and acquisition law is based on Delaware law. If we took control of this state we could have a hand in making these laws even more appealing to businesses and have an effect on the business world (especially taxes for small businesses) nationwide.
Logged

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2002, 04:31:08 pm »

Delaware bad.
North Dakota and Wyoming good.
Logged

Penfist

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 814
  • Work together to build something that lasts.
    • Penfist
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2002, 07:57:43 pm »

Delaware bad.
North Dakota and Wyoming good.

Based on what? If you want to be taken seriously, don't make blanket statements. State a point and back it up.

I would really appreciate it, and I'm sure others would as well.
Logged
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2002, 10:05:13 pm »

Delaware bad.
North Dakota and Wyoming good.

Based on what? If you want to be taken seriously, don't make blanket statements. State a point and back it up.

I would really appreciate it, and I'm sure others would as well.
So are you saying my opinion is not worth squat?

Do you actually logically think that with the US capitol within a few hundred miles is actually going to allow a free state to come about? Not likely at all. I am not trying to hurt peoples feelings but come on. If people want to be taken serious then maybe they should think more logically. A movement like this needs to be nurtured over a period of time maybe even a generations. If we were to go into Delaware we would be squashed before we started.

I think what needs to happen is we need to see how this thing is going to work and not just in theory but in real life. In order to do that we need to go to a easier state to "conquer" and then go from there.

That is just my opinion.
Logged

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2002, 10:56:15 pm »

LOL Zion!

Quote
If people want to be taken serious then maybe they should think more logically.

But somehow your blanket statement should be taken as law?  Also your "logic" is far superior to others I'm sure.  Especially since you base it on distance from some other place where we won't be living instead of anything that matters like job prospects, low voting population, and native voting sentiment.  I think California is more socialistic than DC and I don't see people getting mad about Idaho's relative proximity to CA when compared to NH.  Maybe we should move to the moon is that far enough away?  Shesh go call up Art Bell and tell him you invented cold fusion from your 'logic' you got from the ghost the haunts your short wave radio.
Logged

Penfist

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 814
  • Work together to build something that lasts.
    • Penfist
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2002, 11:04:38 pm »

Delaware bad.
North Dakota and Wyoming good.

Based on what? If you want to be taken seriously, don't make blanket statements. State a point and back it up.

I would really appreciate it, and I'm sure others would as well.
So are you saying my opinion is not worth squat?

Do you actually logically think that with the US capitol within a few hundred miles is actually going to allow a free state to come about? Not likely at all. I am not trying to hurt peoples feelings but come on.

I'm saying you should know why you think something.

If you believe that a political agenda which differs from Washington's is going to be ignored because it is 3,000 miles away, instead of 300, then you should study Iraq, Pakistan, Russia, Libya, Iran, Bosnia and other countries. The idea of a free state represents a much greater threat to Washington than any of the nations I mentioned, so what makes you think the geographic location of the state we choose will make any difference?

If the free state succeeds, it will be have everything to do with the dedication of the participants and very little to do with geography. Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Colorado are nowhere near Washington, but those folks and their ideas about freedom didn't escape the notice of El Reno and Comrade Clinton.

What makes you think that there is any difference between a few hundred miles and a few thousand? Freedom is wherever you decide to live free. If the U.S. power structure decides to annihalate us, they can reach out and touch us on the other side of the world.

I agree that this might take generations. I don't think it really matters where we start. All that matters is that we stand up and assert our freedom. Success will not be determined by where we happen to be when we do so.
Logged
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

ZionCurtain

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 404
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #6 on: November 04, 2002, 09:21:29 am »

Wow and you guys call me wacko. Are we planning an Waco showdown here? I thought this was a political movement. When I say they wont allow it I mean they will spend all there freaking money to stop it. They being the Democrats and Republicans.

Eddie, we were discussing Delaware so how you brought up NH is beyond me. Maybe your blind love of NH is all you care about. I am not saying my opinion is more valuable than yours just equal.

Answer me this one question honestly Eddie if you can. Would you rather lose in NH than win in say Wyoming? Just curious as to how you would answer.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #7 on: November 04, 2002, 12:41:26 pm »

I agree that this might take generations. I don't think it really matters where we start. All that matters is that we stand up and assert our freedom. Success will not be determined by where we happen to be when we do so.

Palindrome,

I respect your opinion and the logical analysis that you consistently bring to this forum, but I must respectfully disagree here.  I think that location is vital to our chances of success.

I've posted a lot of comments on other threads here ("NH Should Not Be Picked," "Montana and Wyoming," etc..., so I don't want to badger people with the same old thing out of the old jello mold.    :)  I'll summarize my objections to the eastern states (particularly to NH and DE):

These states are far too close to Washington, NY and the whole socialistic east coast megalopolis.  Politicians view this area as their own little world, and the media empire that ever so consistently sustains them is also based here.  They care very little about what lies between the east and the west coasts, so long as it does not immediately impact them in Washington, NY, etc...

Also, see the articles that I posted in "Maybe we *should* pick an inland state."  These articles demonstate the clear consistency with which the government views the large population centers with regard to terrorism, etc.  They are tightening security and increasing scrutiny of the population in these areas.  If we come along trying to create a state built upon ideas that are diametrically opposed to this philosophy, we risk a greater possibility of interference from the feds, backed by the fear-inspired populations of those areas.

We also cannot afford to discount the fact that most of these high population areas are some of the most government-dependent areas in the country.  Liberals are very good fear mongers, and we would have our work more than cut out for us in one of these locations.  If we come along suggesting that schools be privatized, welfare roles be capped and decreased, etc..., we are doing so in an area where people depend more upon those things and will fight us tooth and nail, backed by their leftist political representatives and their friends in the media.  A state like Wyoming, on the other hand, has approximately .2% of the population on the welfare roles.

I would much rather start out in an area that is easier to handle for several reasons, but most noteably this one:  we are loose-knit and inexperienced.  We have yet to put even so much as a tentative strategy into place for tackling reform, nor can we realistically do so until the state is chosen.  For this reason, we have yet to build a strategy for functioning effectively as a team, or handling the execution of a basic political gameplan.  I'd much rather see us win a few games against smaller teams, and thereby gain experience and wisdom, before we set out to challenge the SuperBowl champs of statism on their own home field.

The issues of security and scrutiny also reach beyond the major cities.  In fact, border crossings and ports are under the highest scrutiny of all.  That's why I'm beginning to wonder if they can really be considered practical assets to a fledgling liberty movement like ours.

And there's very little realistic chance of us getting the Waco treatment, IMO.  For one thing, we're not going to be living in a compound somewhere, we'll be scattered all over the state, so there's really no way we could be surrounded like the Branch Davidians were.  The people at Waco and Ruby Ridge were separatists.  We'll be blending into our communities, and I hope, making ourselves indispensible to the well-being of our state, not separating from the public.
 
Also, another factor that worked against Koresh and friends was the fact that their isolation prevented them from talking to the media.  They never got their side of the story out.  If the government comes down on us for some reason, I think they'll be likely to go for the leadership.  That would leave thousands of screaming-mad porcupines to vent to the press, which, despite their statist leanings, will cover the story in-depth because they like a good story even more than they like statism.

Now, it could be said that the press would be of better assistance if we were closer to their home bases in the big cities.  But this is where Waco, as well as the Freemen, teaches us another valuable lesson.  Lay siege to it, and they will come.  The media would show up wherever we were and set up a tent city if they had to.  In such an instance, they would be valuable exposure for us.  At other times, the exposure they would provide by being so close  would probably be harmful to us.  Media exposure, like the sun, can either give you a nice, light tan, or it can burn you to a crisp...all depending on how much you are exposed to it.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2002, 12:45:08 pm by Robert Hawes »
Logged

archy

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
  • I'm a porcupine!
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #8 on: November 04, 2002, 03:04:34 pm »

Quote
[quote ]

If the free state succeeds, it will be have everything to do with the dedication of the participants and very little to do with geography. Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Colorado are nowhere near Washington, but those folks and their ideas about freedom didn't escape the notice of El Reno and Comrade Clinton.


Um, Ruby Ridge and Boundary County are in Idaho. Perhaps more to the point, the problems for Randy Weaver and his now-deceased son Sammy and wife Vicky began when he ran for sheriff against an entrenched local *good ol' boy* there. That might be something worth considering for those
FSPers considering Idaho as a place to move to and start changing things around.

It's also worth noting, though, that after the Marshals shot Sammy Weaver in the back and the FBI took over, local residents began spontaneous demonstrations against the federal murderers. The feds had to bring their snipers in from resident agencies. field offices and SWAT teams from all over the country.

-archy-/-
Logged
Tesro bisra Yudha Nepalbata suru hunchha! Ayo Ghorkhali!

Eddie_Bradford

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 567
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2003, 02:37:13 pm »

Answer me this one question honestly Eddie if you can. Would you rather lose in NH than win in say Wyoming? Just curious as to how you would answer.

Of course not!  And if Wyoming is chosen I will do all I can to find a job there and make the project work.  And so 3 years after Wyoming is chosen I will still be looking for a job there and so will 19,000 other people.  I have found that most pro-eastern types will gladly do all they can to move to a western state they just don't think the project is very feasable there.  Whereas I've found that most pro-western types catagorically refuse to move to an eastern state no matter what.  So therefore I ask you the same question would you rather move to Wyoming and have the project fail or move the DE or NH and have it suceed?
-Eddie
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2003, 06:25:49 pm »

Answer me this one question honestly Eddie if you can. Would you rather lose in NH than win in say Wyoming? Just curious as to how you would answer.

Of course not!  And if Wyoming is chosen I will do all I can to find a job there and make the project work.  And so 3 years after Wyoming is chosen I will still be looking for a job there and so will 19,000 other people.  I have found that most pro-eastern types will gladly do all they can to move to a western state they just don't think the project is very feasable there.  Whereas I've found that most pro-western types catagorically refuse to move to an eastern state no matter what.  So therefore I ask you the same question would you rather move to Wyoming and have the project fail or move the DE or NH and have it suceed?
-Eddie

This is a fair question.  The truth is WY is the most pro-freedom state in the nation and DE is not even close to being very free.  How far would DE have to suceed in order to make any improvement of present day WY?  If DE was freed 25% after 15 years of hard work, would that make it as free as WY is today?  I doubt it.  But, may DE even be freed 25%?  These are important questions.  Clearly, WY wins overall.  However, it has much lower paying jobs than NH or DE would have.  Could 10,000 people move to WY and make it more free in 15 years than 20,000 moving to DE?  I feel the answer is yes.  If DE takes more than twice as many people than is it worth it?  Salt Lake City used to be a small area but its population is growing extremely fast.  The same is true for Las Vegas.  As long as WY has enough water for big cities and enough freedom it will be able to handle a population of several million.  Won't more freedom creat more jobs?  Yes, it will.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2003, 06:31:04 am »

I have found that most pro-eastern types will gladly do all they can to move to a western state they just don't think the project is very feasable there.  Whereas I've found that most pro-western types catagorically refuse to move to an eastern state no matter what.

The basic difference between the two factions has hardly anything at all to do with geography (although I like green growing things, open space, mountains and trees - but then I very seriously considered flat, arid North Dakota after Tim Condon's report).  Ellesmere Island on the other hand? No.  That's more along the lines of the moon colony idea you've referred to in the past.

The basic differences underlying the east-west question are the urban, suburban, and rural aspects.  These are lifestyle and conceptual differences, which as I've said elsewhere are almost as hard to change as trying to convert someone to a new religion.  It's why I support the two-state approach so strongly.  Birds of a feather should flock together - right now, the birds assembled here can't even decide where to build a nest or how to do it.  Why?  Because they don't think alike to start with!

But look how the dialogue and tone almost totally changed once we started seriously talking about splitting the effort.  Sometimes the greatest strength that people can find in dealing with other people is agreeing to disagree.  Isn't that what libertarianism really boils down to: live and let live?  Establishing that one concept allows to function together more readily and efficiently in so many other ways.

I don't believe that a majority of either side is categorically refusing to consider a state on the opposite side of the Mississippi, although you may think so.  I just haven't seen that evidenced in this forum so much as I've seen two groups of people who proceed from differing presuppositions and concepts regarding what it will take for this project to succeed.

As for myself, I've seriously considered Vermont and Maine in the east, and yet, I've also argued vehemently against Idaho in the west, as did other western state advocates.  In fact, I'd probably argue against Montana now as well as anything other than a compromise state.

So, no, I just don't see this as a stubborn, "I shall not be moved; go jump in a lake" stubborn-for-the-heck-of-it attitude by either side really.  I just see two sides that will not compromise or yield because they sincerely believe it would probably be disastrous to do so.  There are exceptions of course (some of your comments have seemed rather like categorical refusals to me), but I don't believe they're the norm.

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #12 on: January 13, 2003, 09:16:34 am »

The two sides pretend they won't compromise, but they will.  It is quite easy to use game theory to explain what is going on here in the forums: People want to make it sound as if the favorite states of others are not viable because people will not move there, causing them to vote for states that the first group supports.  Both sides do this.  Wyoming fans say, "Delaware and NH are totally non-viable" to make Delaware and NH fans think they can't vote for these states because if they won, few people would move there.  Delaware & NH fans say, "Wyoming & Montana are totally non-viable," to make Wyoming and Montana fans think they can't vote for these states because if they won, few people would move there.  And everyone beats up on Alaska - and Alaska fans respond, "Alaska is the ONLY choice that makes any sense at all."

It's all perfectly rational one-upmanship, but it's also not credible, because opt-out statistics show that the large majority of people are willing to move across country.  Now, after the Participation Guidelines change, some of the people deeply involved in these debates changed their opt-outs - but they told me secretly that they probably would move to these states, they just wanted to make them seem less viable.  But these were just a few people - remember that about 90% of the FSP membership does not participate in these debates.  That is both a good and bad thing.  It prevents polarization but also may mean they are less informed.  OTOH, the state data page gets over 2000 hits a month, so I think people are getting the information off the website.
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

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2003, 01:21:44 pm »

Jason, I agree with what you say here. Most of us are "broken glass eaters" as someone put it on another thread, will move anywhere.

I don't know how people handle the spouse problem; I sure haven't handled it yet! She probably won't be moving to DE or ND, I can tell you! But let's take it as a given the opt-out information is reliable.

That still leaves the issue of the "friends" of FSP. We have no opt-out information from them (maybe we should get some). It further leaves the issue of informal libertarian (and constitutionalist, etc.) immigration. As I understand it, this project depends also on them although they are not a formal part of it. I'd be willing to bet we don't have so many "broken glass eaters" in these groups. We can't assume they will move anywhere.

I don't know what this tells us, except perhaps that ND shouldn't be our choice!  ::)
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Interesting Note about Delaware
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2003, 04:27:07 pm »

Yes, you're right, all else equal a more desirable place to live is a better state for us.

I posted a message on the "freestateproject" email list a while ago about spousal consent strategies. ;)  It was a forward of someone else's experience.  Did you get that?  It was a pretty interesting piece of logic.  I can repeat it here if demand exists.
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
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up