Print

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

[Robert H.]

For these reasons dealing with 'money in-migration' and especially that of campaign finance, I am starting to re-think states that are highly polarized politically, even low-voting population states like Vermont and Delaware.  The idea that we need to find the state with the most favorable political climate seems even more highly critical than ever.      

A more static, mellow political environment could serve us well by allowing us to set our own direction and momentum as opposed to trying to catch a ride on someone else's train.  This would also give us the luxury of defining ourselves and actually standing out as something distinct instead of just another movement vying for attention in an already crowded, noisy arena.

It's easier to be heard when you don't have so many other loud voices to try talking over.

Of course, this would apply to our non-partisan league that we would create with the help of local Jeffersonians, and not to the FSP itself.  I think it's good to be different in a way where you demonstrate that you have something to offer as opposed to coming off as another special interest group out to take what it can run off with.

[craft_6]

A more static, mellow political environment could serve us well by allowing us to set our own direction and momentum as opposed to trying to catch a ride on someone else's train.  This would also give us the luxury of defining ourselves and actually standing out as something distinct instead of just another movement vying for attention in an already crowded, noisy arena.

It's easier to be heard when you don't have so many other loud voices to try talking over.

I think that the opposite might be true.  If a state is solidly Republican (say 70%-30%), the FSP will have significantly less influence than it would in a state that is more evenly balanced (say 50%-50%, or better yet, 45%-45%-10% with some third party.)  

Conservative Republicans will not need to change their platform to appeal to a libertarian movement if they already have every election locked up.  If they are in danger of losing control to Democrats, Greens, Socialists, or other Progressives, they will listen carefully to what the FSP has to say.

[Robert H.]

You have a good point there, and political disaffection could serve us well in some ways, but I think a polarized environment would make it more difficult for politicians and voters to move toward our agenda because they would have so much less of a solid support base to start with.  The more threatened they already feel, the more dug-in they will probably be.  I'm sure they'd love our support; but in that case, we would probably have to move more toward them or else stay on the outside.  

Who knows though?  Depending on the nature of the threat, they might actually be willing to at least compromise with us.  Although I believe the likelihood of such a compromise would probably depend on how large a percentage the FSP itself made up in terms of the voting population and likely voters.  The larger we are as compared to their overall constituency, the more likely they are to take us seriously.

On the other hand, a generally static political environment might offer us more in the way of voter complacency, and this could help make up for our lack of numbers somewhat by itself; possibly making us more relevant in terms of a force to be reckoned with.  Again, politicians and voters that enjoy a broader, more secure basis of support may be willing to take chances that others might not because the risks would not be as dire in terms of opposition forces taking the opportunity to undermine their support and move in on them.

Perhaps a state that is generally in safer hands but still has some potential upset counties might be in order - that way we don't have both local and state level party machinery regimented along one hard, fast agenda.  It might keep us from shooting ourselves in the foot by risking too large of loss to statists while working to bolster our support.

[exitus]

Here is my stab at a "report" of the positive and negative aspects of informal (non-FSP) libertarian immigration. Please critique it with substantive arguments and, if you can dig them up, experience and facts.

DELAWARE
The best potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from neighboring states without tilting nearby liberty-leaning states into the liberal statist camp by draining vital support -- because Delaware’s neighboring states are already lost cause. Pennsylvania is not quite there yet and losing it would be a big hurt (I admit to bias here since I grew up in PA and my remaining family still lives there and someday I could find it necessary to move back there if my dad needs home care).

Pulling too many northern New Englanders down to Delaware seems unlikely given the New England attitude toward people south of Massachusetts or west of Vermont or maybe the Adirondacks if they stretch it. Thus, perhaps, northern New England would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

Pulling too many westerners to Delaware also seems very unlikely given the western attitude regarding the humid, densely populated east coast. Thus the western northern plains states would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

VERMONT, NEW HAMPSHIRE, MAINE
A large potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from New York and Massachusetts and, unfortunately, also from New Hampshire, Vermont or Maine. Loss of libertarians from New York is not a loss since New York is a lost cause anyway. But New Hampshire is just on the edge and Vermont and Maine are just over the edge but rescueable. In time a Free State success in any of these three could help pull more libertarians to the region, but in the short term we could lose the other two and allow the opposition to consolidate their positions. Also, eventually, Massachusetts seems possibly redeemable. Even Rhode Island was a FSP candidate for a short time. Connecticut could possibly be rescued but it may be too close to NYC for anything but perhaps a Free Massachusetts to pull it back from the brink.

Pulling too many libertarians from Delaware seems unlikely simply due to climate. The few who would move would likely not change Delaware’s chances for holding the tide against statism since that tide there seems likely to swamp Delaware soon anyway.

Pulling too many westerners to northern New England also seems very unlikely given the western attitude regarding the humid, densely populated east coast. Thus the western northern plains states would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

ALASKA
Very little potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from Delaware. Some potential for draining some vital support from both northern New England and the western states.

Negligible chance for success in Alaska overflowing into other states except through simply distant example. All the candidate states, except Delaware could try to emulate an Alaskan success.

IDAHO
Idaho may be most likely of all the western states to draw vital libertarian support from northern New England and possibly even Delaware. Could it be too much of a draw and thus tilt those eastern states over the edge? Possibly, though New Englanders moving west is almost as hard to fathom as westerners moving east.

Great potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from the Pacific coast states and especially California. Unfortunately also good potential for pulling libertarians out of Montana and Wyoming and thus pushing these states over the edge -- especially Montana which is the most precarious both due to present liberal in-migration and its poor economy. Some potential for loss from the Dakota’s since they, like Montana, have economies that are badly hurting. They are already seeing an out-migration. We could gain Idaho but lose several others.

Potential for beneficial influence on neighboring states? Could Idaho influence Jackson Hole? I doubt it. Could Idaho turn Washington and Oregon? Possibly but it would be a stretch. Idaho could definitely influence Utah for the better.

MONTANA
Pulling too many northern New Englanders out west (except to Idaho) seems unlikely given the New England attitude toward people south of Massachusetts or west of Vermont or maybe the Adirondacks if they stretch it. Thus, perhaps, northern New England would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

Good potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from the Pacific coast states and especially California because they already have been moving there. Unfortunately also great potential for pulling libertarians out of Idaho, Wyoming and the Dakotas and thus pushing these states over the edge -- especially Idaho which is the most precarious. The Dakota’s especially have economies that are badly hurting. They are already seeing an out-migration. We could gain Montana but lose several others.

Potential for beneficial influence on neighboring states? Could Montana influence Jackson Hole? I doubt it. Could a Free State Montana help its neighbors by example or overflow? Unlikely since it may drain more than it helps unless those states get very desperate.

WYOMING
Pulling too many northern New Englanders out west (except to Idaho) seems unlikely given the New England attitude toward people south of Massachusetts or west of Vermont or maybe the Adirondacks if they stretch it. Thus, perhaps, northern New England would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

Unfortunately also great potential for pulling libertarians out of Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas and thus pushing these states over the edge into liberal statism. North Dakota especially has a badly hurting economy and is more susceptible to such a move than stronger South Dakota. The Dakotas are already seeing an out-migration. We could gain Wyoming but lose several others.

Great potential for pulling liberty-hungry people from Colorado’s front range metro areas and from Salt Lake City /Provo/Ogden metro region. Unfortunately that could hurt the teetering cause for liberty in Utah and Colorado  (I admit to bias here since I live in CO and we are just barely holding on to even a “Libertarian Lite” version of liberty).

Some potential for beneficial influence on Utah. Idaho and Colorado likely won’t be hurt much by free market Wyoming and thus likely won’t have much incentive to change their present drift toward liberal statism.

NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA
Pulling too many northern New Englanders out west (except to Idaho) seems unlikely given the New England attitude toward people south of Massachusetts or west of Vermont or maybe the Adirondacks if they stretch it. Thus, perhaps, northern New England would not lose a vital number of libertarians.

Unfortunately also great potential for pulling libertarians out of Wyoming, Montana and the other Dakota and thus pushing these states over the edge. Montana and both Dakota’s especially have economies that are badly hurting. South Dakota could hurt North Dakota more than vice versa with such a drain of libertarian support. We could gain a Dakota but lose several others.

On the other hand, either Dakota, could pull a lot of liberty-hungry people from Minnesota, Iowa and Nebraska. Minnesota may not miss the loss but Nebraska and Iowa may be harmed (Nebraska was an FSP candidate for a short while).

Joe, after thinkinng about the theme of this post for several weeks now, I think that all of your analysis lacks one important point.  That is that bad states *must* fail, to some degree, if liberty-loving people are going to migrate elsewhere.
The FSP has focused so much on finding and building that one free state, we have kind of lost focus on the fact that we must take some good talent out of states on the decline.  Of course, that point has not been lost on the New Hampshire contingent.
Now I realize that you speak mostly of adjoining states, and I do realize that it would be better to have freedom be more of a regional thing than just one-state-specific.
What I am saying, maybe not addressing your points completely, is essentially hurray! if California goes into receivorship with its creditors for flirting too hard with socialism!  (Just today in the news, California legislators are working to introduce a new gourmet vegetarian cuisine to complement the fresh organic produce salad bars in public school cafeterias, offered below cost or free, despite the fact that the state can barely pay its bills)  . . .

In the book, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand envisioned not only creating a place where property rights are respected in the utmost, the main theme seemed more to me to be that the "workers of the mind"  must go on strike for freedom and leave the looters and the moochers to their own devices.

I like what was recently said on another thread:

Sometimes I think the real value of FSP is not so much choosing a specific state, but of getting people to think about moving specifically to increase their freedom.

I think if we can get informal FSP attitudes going everywhere, that alone could increase the return to constitutional federalism in this country.  
 
Maybe it will be the FSP that will inspire more people to just let some states that deserve to fail, to actually fail. . .

[Zxcv]

I certainly agree with letting some states go down the tubes. California deserves that in spades!  

Joe mentioned that Wyoming might draw off libertarians from Idaho. Actually I think this possibility is remote. Libertarians are most likely to abandon their current state if it is a statist hellhole. They are somewhat likely if it is teetering. They are not likely if it is already quite free; it makes more sense to stay in a state like that and work to keep it free.

I think the most danger is drawing down states on the edge, that are salvagable.

But on the whole, we really need a few shining examples out there, no matter what. If that sends a few teetering states over the edge, it can't be helped. Bad examples can sometimes be as useful as good ones.

[Hank]

Zxcv said:

I think the most danger is drawing down states on the edge, that are salvagable.

Delaware won't do that. The states on its edge are already lost. Those states won't miss tens of thousands of liberty-starved people fleeing to Delaware.  With that much help Delaware could be turned around.

On the other hand, picking any of the other states except Alaska would only push other FSP candidate states over the edge, as other posters stated above.