Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East  (Read 19685 times)

mlilback

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
  • I'm nobody's llama!
    • home page
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2002, 09:14:46 pm »

I used to live in Connecticut, Groton to be exact and my brother lives in Wallingford currently. So from experience I have to say driving from NH to NYC would most definitely take more than 2 hours try 5 hours with traffic if you are lucky maybe 4. Please be honest in your dealings here because I know it takes 2 hours just from Groton to NYC.

The problem is your considering driving through CT, which is the bane of East Coast driving. We drive through NY state up until MA or VT and then drive east. I don't remember the actual roads, 'cause I don't normally do the driving. But I remember one time we left manhattan around 4 and went via CT. The other group left at 7 and went via NY state instead of taking I-90. We got to the cabin in Killington around 10 and they'd already been grocery shopping and started a fire and the whirlpool.

I've never driven through CT since, unless I'm going to Boston.

Mark
Logged

mlilback

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 38
  • I'm nobody's llama!
    • home page
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2002, 09:39:03 pm »

I figured I (and many other people) would be willing to travel 35min to 70min to get to work everyday.  I figured most people would not be willing to travel longer than that and some people would not even be willing to travel that long.  

I forget things like that living in a big city. Back home in Texas it was a big deal to get my parents to drive me to Beaumont, which was only 30 minutes away. Yet here in NYC, I've got co-workers who commute for up to two hours each way, and friends have talked about people they know who commute from PA and DE. When you're taking the train, the long distance isn't such a big deal because you can get a lot done while riding.
It takes me 30 minutes to get to work and I'm not even 5 miles away and don't cross a bridge or tunnel. (And I actually miss the time I used to  have on the train when I lived in New Jersey.)

Quote
Right.  That lists instate job growth.  WY does have the least amount of people so this can be somewhat expected.  The FSP state page does not include expected job growth within a 1 hour drive of the 10 states, though.  I think this figure would be much more useful for those of us that like working.

Good point. Though there do seem to be a few posts saying the commute to Denver isn't very reasonable in the winter.

Quote
>The FSP state page shows that VT has a smaller percentage of land owned by >the government than WY.

This is not related to amount of private land.

What would you consider private land? I assumed anything not owned by the government. I will search for that post you mentioned.

Quote
I was unable to find the data you speak of on that page (though it might be there).  I did find the opposite data on the page, though.

The page I linked to was 1998 data, which was the first useful page google gave me. Clicking on the link to the 2001 data (which I somehow missed) shows that apparently there was a tax hike in VT in 2000, as the numbers went up about 2.5% then.

Though looking at that data makes me lust for NH. I'm loosing over 45% of my paycheck to taxes, and boy do I want to see that cut. And that's not counting the fact that cigarettes are $8 a pack in NYC because of taxes. I've been considering re-incorporating my business offshore for tax purposes.

I also want to apologize if my post seemed personal. I'd just finished reading the NH thread and thos messages left me feeling a little bitter at the pro-WY crowd.

Quote
I hope you do sign up.  I am of the opinion that you could do many great things to help the FSP.

Thanks. I plan to, but I just want to limit the opt-out states as much as possible. Freedom means a lot to me, but growing up in an insular, rural community left me very cautious about being outside a major metropolitan area.

Mark
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #17 on: November 13, 2002, 01:32:59 am »

I figured I (and many other people) would be willing to travel 35min to 70min to get to work everyday.  I figured most people would not be willing to travel longer than that and some people would not even be willing to travel that long.  

I forget things like that living in a big city. Back home in Texas it was a big deal to get my parents to drive me to Beaumont, which was only 30 minutes away. Yet here in NYC, I've got co-workers who commute for up to two hours each way, and friends have talked about people they know who commute from PA and DE. When you're taking the train, the long distance isn't such a big deal because you can get a lot done while riding.
It takes me 30 minutes to get to work and I'm not even 5 miles away and don't cross a bridge or tunnel. (And I actually miss the time I used to  have on the train when I lived in New Jersey.)

OK, I'll use map quest and figure out the possible commute times for a few states up to 2 hours each way.  This will take some time and I'll start a new thread.

Quote
Right.  That lists instate job growth.  WY does have the least amount of people so this can be somewhat expected.  The FSP state page does not include expected job growth within a 1 hour drive of the 10 states, though.  I think this figure would be much more useful for those of us that like working.

Good point. Though there do seem to be a few posts saying the commute to Denver isn't very reasonable in the winter.

I've traveled in the Denver, Boulder, and Vail areas during the winter and the commute is almost always possible (from my experince) but it may get so bad the commute times double.  However, I really was not considering going all the way to Denver for jobs.  Salt Lake City, on the other hand is closer and possible in the winter.

Quote
>The FSP state page shows that VT has a smaller percentage of land owned by >the government than WY.

This is not related to amount of private land.

What would you consider private land? I assumed anything not owned by the government. I will search for that post you mentioned.

I only consider the amount of miles or acres that are private.  I do not think percent of private land is related to what was being discussed in this thread.  So, WY is number 4 with 42,782 square miles when it comes to amount of land for use.  VT is near the bottom with only 7,791 square miles.

Quote
I was unable to find the data you speak of on that page (though it might be there).  I did find the opposite data on the page, though.

The page I linked to was 1998 data, which was the first useful page google gave me. Clicking on the link to the 2001 data (which I somehow missed) shows that apparently there was a tax hike in VT in 2000, as the numbers went up about 2.5% then.

Though looking at that data makes me lust for NH. I'm loosing over 45% of my paycheck to taxes, and boy do I want to see that cut. And that's not counting the fact that cigarettes are $8 a pack in NYC because of taxes. I've been considering re-incorporating my business offshore for tax purposes.

WY, of course has the cheapest cigarette tax by far.  WY 12¢, MT 18¢, DE 24¢, and all of the New England states are around 2-3 quarters.

I also want to apologize if my post seemed personal. I'd just finished reading the NH thread and thos messages left me feeling a little bitter at the pro-WY crowd.

All is well in FSP Land

Quote
I hope you do sign up.  I am of the opinion that you could do many great things to help the FSP.

Thanks. I plan to, but I just want to limit the opt-out states as much as possible. Freedom means a lot to me, but growing up in an insular, rural community left me very cautious about being outside a major metropolitan area.

I am really not sure what a rural community is to you.  From what I have seen only one of the states (ID) has any cities that come close to the size of the largest cities in my home state of TN.  I grow up in a town of 45,000 and had a great life.  Now, over 56,000 people live in that city (10 years later) and I've moved to a city with 18th largest city population in the country.

From what I have seen cities are centers of gun control, welfare, giveme groups, political dyeNASTIES, and gangs.  I think a town of 50,000 is fine for me.  I know WY has 2 and MT has a couple.  VT has Burlington which is able to act as one and really is a great town even though the anarchists are always traveling the streets and trying to preach.  Really, all of the states meet the 50,000 mark (except VT) so you can at least have that.


Mark

« Last Edit: November 15, 2002, 02:32:27 pm by FreedomRoad »
Logged

neiby

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2002, 11:54:43 pm »

While I don't have too much of substance to contribute to this particular thread, I would like to mention that if WY were picked, the only people who would consider a commute to Denver would be those who chose to live in Cheyenne, and even that would be a stretch.  Ft. Collins and Greeley are much closer.

Salt Lake City is only close if you're in the far southwestern corner of Wyoming, and while that would be close to my old hometown in Colorado I still wouldn't want to live there.   :)

While it certainly is feasible, I don't think it's practical to expect people to commute two hours each way to get to work.  I'm a little worried about available jobs in my line of work (data communications), but that's a post for another thread.
Logged

Solitar

  • Guest
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #19 on: November 23, 2002, 12:42:34 am »

By weighing several factors, including population, voting patterns, and number of potential FSP recruits for specific states, I believe the following:
The chances of success for Idaho or New Hampshire  or Maine
are very similar to the chances of success for Vermont and Wyoming.

If Vermont is not a good choice, then neither are the more populous three.

They each have socialist/liberal or potentially libertarian-resistant areas and populations of about the same population as Vermont.
They also have conservative or at least potentially libertarian-supportive areas and populations of about the same population as Wyoming.

One of the reasons is that with both an east and west state the FSP may get 10,000 to move to each whereas with only an east or a west state the FSP may get only 15,000 to move (10,000 from the same side of the Mississippi and 5,000 from the opposite side. With either Idaho on one side or New Hampshire or Maine on the other, that 15,000 is hobbled by population that is twice that of the least populous candidate states (Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming) and by other factors that Robert and others have documented elsewhere on this forum.

Thus again,
choosing Idaho or New Hampshire or Maine
would be like getting Wyoming and Vermont in the same package.

The population in 2015 is projected by the US Census to be:
    641,000   Wyoming
    662,000   Vermont
    704,000   North Dakota

    791,000   Alaska
    832,000   Delaware
    840,000   South Dakota

1,069,000   Montana

1,372,000   New Hampshire
1,362,000   Maine
1,622,000   Idaho

If an East-West split between VT & WY won't work because it splits FSP activists between two states with a combined population of 1.3 million in 2015, THEN none of the more populous three states with over 1.3 million in 2015 will be successful for the FSP either!   This reasoning against VT & WY means New Hampshire, Maine, Idaho should not be considered either!

P.S. the "geographic" centre of population for the US is in eastern Missouri.
(though there is a difference between the "mean center" and the "median center".
The former is in eastern Missouri, the latter is in southwesstern Indiana.
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/cenpop/cntpop2k.html
« Last Edit: November 24, 2002, 04:24:17 am by Joe »
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #20 on: November 23, 2002, 06:07:42 am »

Quote
Quote
While it certainly is feasible, I don't think it's practical to expect people to commute two hours each way to get to work.

When I lived in So Cal, daily I spent at least an hour in each direction from home to work. Some days it was considerably more. Wasn't the distance... it was the traffic. Where I live now, I can ride a bike to most anywhere. More fun that way too... can enjoy the scenery along the way (especially this time of year.) ;)

Living and working in the Northern Virginia area, I knew quite a number of folks who spent anywhere from 30 minutes to well over an hour traveling to and from work each day.  I knew some people that came to work in the DC area everyday from as far away as the Shenandoah Valley and even West Virginia.  And anyone who had to travel the beltway to work in the morning either left very, very early or counted on spending at least half an hour in traffic depending on where they were headed.

I know from personal experience that Atlanta traffic is a nightmare even worse than DC, and have often wondered how anyone gets to work on time down there at all.  I've also heard similar comments from those living in the New York and Boston areas.

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #21 on: November 23, 2002, 06:28:57 am »

One of the reasons is that with both an east and west state the FSP may get 10,000 to move to each whereas with only an east or a west state the FSP may get only 15,000 to move (10,000 from the same side of the Mississippi and 5,000 from the opposite side. With either Idaho on one side or New Hampshire or Maine on the other, that 15,000 is hobbled by population that is twice that of the least populous candidate states (Vermont, North Dakota, Wyoming) and by other factors that Robert and others have documented elsewhere on this forum.

This is true in addition to the possibility that there are those who have not yet signed up because they don't want to end up in a state they don't believe is workable.  They could always opt out of states they didn't like, but then this would still leave the possibility of them expending time, effort, and hope in a program that might not turn out to be feasible to their way of thinking.  If there were an east/west choice, we might have more signing up because they would at least have the knowledge that they were going to end up somewhere they found more feasible, and thus might be persuaded to get involved now as opposed to waiting it out (and maybe still not joining up even then).

Either way, whether the FSP goes east or west, we're going to lose prospective members.  Wyoming and Vermont (since they're the ones that have been suggested here) could probably work with 10,000 to 15,000 initial activists.  While this would divide the effort, it would probably not do so fataly as these states in particular have small enough populations to still be workable with those numbers, and those choosing to locate to them might be more successful by virtue of being more like-minded from the very beginning.

Having a large army is certainly an advantage, but only if the troops can work well together.  Having a large army where the troops work badly with one another can simply lead to a greater chance for disaster as opposed to a greater chance for victory.  The 70,000 Romans that Hannibal dispatched at Cannae with his 40,000 could testify to that.

Just something to consider...

wolf_tracker

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 122
  • Live Free or Die
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #22 on: November 23, 2002, 08:22:29 am »

This is true in addition to the possibility that there are those who have not yet signed up because they don't want to end up in a state they don't believe is workable.  They could always opt out of states they didn't like, but then this would still leave the possibility of them expending time, effort, and hope in a program that might not turn out to be feasible to their way of thinking.  If there were an east/west choice, we might have more signing up because they would at least have the knowledge that they were going to end up somewhere they found more feasible, and thus might be persuaded to get involved now as opposed to waiting it out (and maybe still not joining up even then).

Something else to consider is that there are ppl out there that do not
want their names on the web that would be willing to move.

There is no way to measure this number, but my gut feeling is that
when the Free State is picked, that certain ppl will move there that are
on no list.

So there could be more then 20K ppl

« Last Edit: November 23, 2002, 08:24:32 am by wolf_tracker »
Logged

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #23 on: November 23, 2002, 07:17:34 pm »

This east-west split is an interesting thing to think about - it's occurred to me as well. But we have this inconvenient fact:

Quote
so far over 50% of FSP members haven't opted out of any states, and probably about 75% have opted out of 3 or fewer.

Setting up a second project state would necessarily siphon off a huge number from the first. If there were a distinct and near-unanimous east-west split in the opt-out, then it would make a lot more sense.

A better procedure would be to go ahead as planned. If things look good and we are getting what we are hoping for in the first state (which means, that state is getting a reputation for freedom and drawing freedom lovers generally), then a second state on the other side of the country would be an obvious next step - and not such a dangerous one. If it is not going well, then people would know not to waste their time on a second one.

It might take 5 years to know how well things are going, know what kind of population influx we can count on. Surely we can wait that long for a second state?

The first state has to work for us, it has to. That mandates against spitting our forces. "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush."
« Last Edit: November 23, 2002, 07:46:57 pm by Zxcv »
Logged

redbeard

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 150
  • Damn, it feels good to be a gangster.
    • henerd
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2002, 07:52:35 pm »

I'll go wherever but man would I like to live in WY.
Logged
I understand, and not knowing how to express myself without pagan words, I'd rather remain silent.
Arthur Rimbaud - A Season in Hell

mtPete

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 98
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #25 on: December 10, 2002, 01:45:58 am »

IF THE LAST PLACE ON EARTH TO BE FREE WAS FAR AWAY IN A FOREIGN LAND AMONG A FOREIGN PEOPLE, THEN I WOULD GLADLY LEAVE ALL, TRAVELING ANY WAY I COULD, EVEN RISKING LIFE AND LIMB TO GET THERE, AND, ONCE ARRIVING, I WOULD BE GLAD TO TAKE ON A FOREIGN NAME AND LANGUAGE, AND HAPPILY EKE OUT A LIVING, EVEN IN POVERTY. TEACHING MY CHILDREN THAT THIS IS THEIR MOTHER COUNTRY.  IF I SHOULD EVER THINK THIS COST TOO GREAT A PRICE TO PAY, THEN I WOULD NO LONGER KNOW MYSELF, A DESCENDANT OF THOSE WHO DID ALL THESE THINGS AND MORE FOR FREEDOM.
  -Kelton Baker


Here Here!!

My grandfather left Germany for America to escape Hitler, leaving all his culture and family behind and adopting our American culture. I too will do the same if necessary. I owe it to myself and my family to do everything possible, even completely uprooting us and moving to a place (climate, culture, language, etc) in order to secure for ourselves liberty. To do anything else is to choose slavery. Even if it means hardships, poverty, and hunger to move, no price is too great for liberty.

Liberty or Death! That is the cry the started the revolution, and only with that much resolve will we gain back our liberty!
Logged

Franklin

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 52
  • Wyoming or Dakotas
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #26 on: December 10, 2002, 09:52:52 am »

There are a million fighting to legelize pot.  There are a million upon a million fighting for the unborn.

BUT ONLY the FSP is fighting for liberty.  Let the differences fade and realise that if we don't fight for liberty together no one will.
Logged

SandyPrice

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 247
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #27 on: December 10, 2002, 05:26:22 pm »

Thank you Taylor!  that is exactly how I feel.  We all have agenda items on our list but without a team we are nothing!  I don't smoke or take drugs but I have no problem with anyone who does as long as they are not a hazard to me.  Same with abortions.  I never had one and actually never needed one (I was very quick on my feet and could out run the husband) but I would never try to tell anyone else not to have one.  The keyword is FREEDOM! To be able to make our own choices is everything.  Of course the Conservatives will interpret this to mean I have the freedom to rob a bank or kill one of them.  Actually I do have that freedom but I would pay dearly for it by going to jail.  

Years ago I accepted an invitation to a BBQ in the Hollywood Hills.  I arrived with a platter of deviled eggs and wandered out by the pool only to discover everyone was naked.  The nudity didn't bother me by I had been through a nasty car accident and my body scars were not pretty so I kept my clothes on and nobody said a thing.  After 5 minutes I didn't even notice the nudity, of course, I was a costumer for years.  This is FREEDOM to do what we want where we want to do it.  No laws were broken as we all stayed in the large yard.  

I honestly feel my association with these new Conservatives has annoyed me so thoroughly that I probably would do anything for freedom, even if I didn't take advantage of it.  Hell, I'm too old to running around nekkid.
Logged

Robert H.

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1361
  • Jeffersonian
    • Devolution USA
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #28 on: December 11, 2002, 03:55:55 am »

The main thing that concerns me right now is the fact that the issues we are polarizing over in our debates concerning "which state?" betray a fundamental conceptual breach in our midst.

There are those who insist upon more urbanized and rapidly growing states because of the amenities they offer, and also because they feel that we must demonstrate that our ideas can succeed in dense urban areas (an "America in miniature" as one put it) in order to vindicate those ideas to the rest of the country.  Then there are others who feel that we must start off in less densely populated areas so that we can gain access to the system faster, and also gain experience by taking on smaller challenges first and then working our way up to larger tasks.

The problem this breach presents to us is two-fold:  1) Both sides believe that their approach is absolutely critical to success, therefore, they are mostly unwilling to compromise to any great degree on it.  2) We face a possible debilitating split in priorities once we are actually in the chosen state.

With regard to number two, consider a scenario in which we choose a state that is more dependent upon dense population areas.  To succeed in such a state, most of our membership would have to be located in those urban areas (or very close depending on how the districts are drawn up).  After all, that's where most of the people are, and if you're going to influence state government, you're going to have to influence a majority of the voting population (or else be the majority yourself).

Those who voted for the state because it has such urban areas are naturally going to locate in them or close to them, and they'll want to focus on influencing those areas, which will again require more participation.  Others who don't want that sort of lifestyle will not be locating where they could be of assistance in influencing these areas though.  So, for those who are calculating that 20,000 activists could easily sway Wilmington, Boise, or the Manchester area, I would simply remind you that not all of your activists will be locating near such places.

The point is that these divisions will not dissipate in the future.  If anything, they'll grow stronger because we will have moved past the theoretical stage and will actually be getting down to where people choose to live and work.  And most people are not very flexible when it comes to choices they have to live with on a daily basis.

So, we can either proceed and expect these differences will resolve themselves when it comes to choosing where to live and prioritizing political action, or we can facilitate this conceptual divide by creating an actual divide.  The FSP could divide its efforts among two states, possibly picking up more recruits due to the expanded choice of location and lifestyle (as speculated above), and also enjoy the advantage of each group being a more cohesive (and possibly effective) unit as a result of being more like-minded in lifestyle and approach.

Wyoming and Vermont, since they're the subjects of this thread, could serve both sides nicely.  Not only would they appeal to the aspects of "left" and "right" libertarianism, but they would also facilitate the urban/suburban/rural and east/west issues.  Vermont should do nicely for those looking for access to a "major" population center because of its proximity to east coast cities and Montreal, Canada, but primarily because of Burlington.  The Burlington, VT MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) is populated by roughly 169,391 souls.  The Cheyenne, WY MSA, in comparison, has 81,607.  Burlington is also larger than the Fargo (123,138) and Billings (129,352) MSA's.  Thus, the Burlington MSA is twice the size of Cheyenne, is considerably larger than Fargo and Billings, and should qualify in just about anyone's book as a major population center.

Therefore, those who wanted the amenities of a large population center could also retain the advantages of one of the smallest overall population states in Vermont.  Or you could try Alaska, which has the Anchorage MSA at 260,283 inhabitants, and is still one of the overall lowest populated states.  More people are apt to move to Vermont than Alaska however. Or you could throw a real "Hail Mary" and go for Delaware, which could attract more people desiring a warmer climate, although you'd have to contend with a somewhat more formidable task:  The Wilmington MSA, which is populated by 500,265 on the Delaware side alone.  Still, it's a low population state and it's close to just about anything you could probably want.  In fact, you might get more than 20,000 to move to Delaware alone besides another 10,000 going to Wyoming.

Wyoming by itself of course could work with 10,000, thereby reducing the housing and employment needs that have raised concerns with regard to that state's viability.

All of that to say that a multi-state approach would not be the end of the world.  It might actually result in greater membership due to the greater chances that those who sign-up to move will end up somewhere they find more acceptable and workable.  It could also reduce the overall time, expense and scope of moving for a larger number of participants if there were two destinations at opposite ends of the country.  This factor could then garner more signatures because it would make the move less expensive and involving, and thus more "do-able" for a larger number of people.  And again, those who did move to one or the other would likely be more compatible and effective when surrounded by more like-minded folks.  Unity by itself (in terms of having everyone in the same place) is no guarantee for success if it impacts your effectiveness with internal operational divisions.

And in case of a crisis, either movement could fall back on the other without having to start all over again.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2002, 02:13:00 am by RobertH »
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5725
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Breaking up FSP - WY for the West - VT for the East
« Reply #29 on: December 11, 2002, 09:34:16 am »

It's not going to happen.
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] 3   Go Up