PDA

View Full Version : Free State: For those still trying to figure out "which state"




pinkmandy
02-28-2008, 12:46 PM
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=1247.0

As you can see, all states have been discussed in that thread. Back in 2003. And you can also see how they finally came to the conclusion that NH would be the best option for the goals of the free state project.

Libertarian Ideals
04-27-2008, 05:53 PM
I am quite new to the Free State Project.

I knew in the past when the first members were deciding on a state they debating quite a lot, but I never realized how much and how in-depth they got.

Thanks for the link to the links. Hopefully some more people on this board will find them useful.

Cheers. :)

GunnyFreedom
04-27-2008, 06:06 PM
Meh. The more I see people on RPF posting on and on and on about how "New Hampshire is the only Free State Project" the more I am inclined to reject NH as an option. Call it kneejerk, call it reactionary, or just call it annoyed. :shrug: But FWIW, I tend to get the impression that the FS NH people are trying to co-opt RPF for the agenda of propagandizing against (IMO better alternatives like) Wyoming, and for every such post, the chances of me moving to NH drop lower, and lower, and lower every time. Before RP08 I was probably 60/40 WY/NH and now the chances of me moving to NH are about nil.

Take it for what it's worth, but that's my honest feelings on the matter.

Libertarian Ideals
04-27-2008, 07:16 PM
I bumped this up in response to reading through these forums reading the discussions people have had over which state is the best.

This debate has already been had. The link in the opening post of this thread leads to a page which lists many more links to threads which are full of posts debating the pro's and con's of each state. These debates can only save you time in helping you make a more informed decision on whatever state you choose to move to, whether it be Wyoming, Alaska, New Hampshire, Montana or wherever.

When NH was voted on as 'the state', 1,000 members left the FSP. Some of them created http://www.freestatewyoming.org (FSW), others moved to Montana (http://www.montana-alliance-for-liberty.org/). Both these movements, including Idaho, have some members associated with the Free West Alliance (FWA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_West_Alliance).

Kludge
04-27-2008, 07:23 PM
Jesus! Who put that thread together? That's insane...

Southron
04-27-2008, 09:27 PM
I think population and population density should have been the top priorities. Also, more consideration should have been taken to the political leanings of the surrounding states. I can't imagine that the Northeast is generally more free than the west. Wyoming looks like the perfect place to me...

Kalifornia
04-27-2008, 10:31 PM
Yeah, I investigated all that. I still think that there are two diffferent belts that are better.

For cost of living, farming, and water, the belt from Rolla, MO through Springfield, Tulsa, OKC, Dallas and Austin is best.

For population density and climate, the Area From the coast btw Seattle to portland, out to the Stretch Between SLC and Billings is best (that includes WA, OR, ID, MT, WY)

I decided on the NW, I land in Seattle in August, and will start working on getting rural (or at least buy some land to vacation upon) as soon as it is economically feasible.

There were alot of assumptions in the FSP calculations that I simply dont agree with

pinkmandy
04-27-2008, 10:57 PM
I went up a few weeks ago set on moving right away but have had to put those plans on hold for now due to some family obligations that were sprung on me. I'm still young (relatively) so I'm still staying in the loop and will have to see what the future holds I guess.

I'm still an advocate for the FSP, they really do have their ducks in a row. More so than you can imagine without really looking into all they have done, all their projects, etc.

Now I have to stay in VA for a bit but it has caused me to rededicate myself to working in VA to fight for liberty. Knowing I'm not moving soon spurred me back into VA politics.

porcupine
05-16-2008, 12:28 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW9SrctLMYY

GunnyFreedom
05-16-2008, 09:02 AM
Meh. The more I see people on RPF posting on and on and on about how "New Hampshire is the only Free State Project" the more I am inclined to reject NH as an option. Call it kneejerk, call it reactionary, or just call it annoyed. :shrug: But FWIW, I tend to get the impression that the FS NH people are trying to co-opt RPF for the agenda of propagandizing against (IMO better alternatives like) Wyoming, and for every such post, the chances of me moving to NH drop lower, and lower, and lower every time. Before RP08 I was probably 60/40 WY/NH and now the chances of me moving to NH are about nil.

Take it for what it's worth, but that's my honest feelings on the matter.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW9SrctLMYY

Yup. That's the attitude I'm talking about.

amy31416
05-16-2008, 09:27 AM
For the people who say "the debate is already done," the majority of us were not in on that debate and have opinions of our own.

Alex Libman
05-16-2008, 10:36 AM
I'm still a huge fan of the Free State Project, even though I've decided to revoke my "First 1000" pledge after Ron Paul did so poorly there in January (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_Republican_primary%2C_2008). It's not even that fact, but the fact that so many free-staters didn't campaign or even vote for him because they're "apolitical". And, like Ron Paul himself had said (http://digg.com/politics/Paulville_Count_Ron_Paul_out), a lot more Massholes are moving there than Free Staters.

So I'm taking a "wait and see" approach, but I do still believe it is "the best hope for liberty in our lifetimes". Unless somebody starts a "Free Island Project (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=20756)" or a "Free Space Station Project" or something...

Southron
05-18-2008, 08:21 PM
I do respect what you are trying to do in New Hampshire. I do think this method is the best way to take back a piece of freedom. I'm under no illusion (unlike a lot of new libertarians) that we can turn a majority of the country into Ron Paul Republicans.

The sad truth is that our numbers are too few and spread out over the entire U.S. This makes us politically ineffective. Why do we think that enough people can be "converted" to our side to make a difference? What if they like things just the way they are now? The ONLY solution is for us to relocate to the same area-preferably to the same county. Anything else just isn't gonna happen in our lifetime. Things didn't get this bad overnight and it is gonna take decades to improve-if that's even possible.

I don't want freedom for my great great grandchildren. I want freedom now. That said, I don't think NH was the wisest choice. It has 2.7 times the voters as WY and 23 times the population density. The purpose was to get enough people to relocate to change the politics of the area. FSP would have been so much more effective in WY.

I look at Niobrara County in WY with a total population of 2407. Just 1000 people organized could control the politics of the entire county. Heck, if you opened a trailer park or something like that, then you could just have people register to vote and use that the trailer park as their address. They wouldn't even have to live in WY. I know there are more than 1000 people registered on this forum. We could take one county for freedom at a time using this method.

I'm sure once the word got out that this was actually working, freedom minded people would flock to the areas.

porcupine
05-22-2008, 03:38 PM
I do respect what you are trying to do in New Hampshire. I do think this method is the best way to take back a piece of freedom. I'm under no illusion (unlike a lot of new libertarians) that we can turn a majority of the country into Ron Paul Republicans.

The sad truth is that our numbers are too few and spread out over the entire U.S. This makes us politically ineffective. Why do we think that enough people can be "converted" to our side to make a difference? What if they like things just the way they are now? The ONLY solution is for us to relocate to the same area-preferably to the same county. Anything else just isn't gonna happen in our lifetime. Things didn't get this bad overnight and it is gonna take decades to improve-if that's even possible.

I don't want freedom for my great great grandchildren. I want freedom now. That said, I don't think NH was the wisest choice. It has 2.7 times the voters as WY and 23 times the population density. The purpose was to get enough people to relocate to change the politics of the area. FSP would have been so much more effective in WY.

I look at Niobrara County in WY with a total population of 2407. Just 1000 people organized could control the politics of the entire county. Heck, if you opened a trailer park or something like that, then you could just have people register to vote and use that the trailer park as their address. They wouldn't even have to live in WY. I know there are more than 1000 people registered on this forum. We could take one county for freedom at a time using this method.

I'm sure once the word got out that this was actually working, freedom minded people would flock to the areas.


I agree that WY is a good choice for some. I encourage people to check out the forum there at http://www.freestatewyoming.org/. They're alive and well and doing good work. WY versus NH is a trade off. You need fewer people in WY because there are fewere natives, but it's HARDER to get people to move because there are fewer jobs. It balances out. In addition, it can be harder to organize collective action over a large state like Wyoming or Montana (that's what I've heard from people who have moved from large Western states to New Hampshire).

Here's how I see it. The best states are New Hampshire, Wyoming, Montana and Alaska. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, but the main trade off is that all states except NH have few jobs, while NH has just a tiny bit more people than the other three. That's basically it in a nut shell. The other thing to consider is NH and WY both have active and successful organizations on the ground already, whereas Alaska and Montana do not. The third thing to consider is whether the activists on the ground are too spread out to work together (which would leave you just as alone as you are now).

@GunnyFreedom. I do talk about the FSP everywhere I go. It's not because I think the NH FSP is the only way but, in my mind, it's the best one. I agree with the post I quoted above that we need to unite somewhere. If that place isn't NH, fine, but we still need to unite SOMEWHERE. So far, the NH FSP is the most effective and successful, but I would LOVE to see other projects spring up and succeed. WY, MT, NH, AK all are good choices, but the question is whether, once you move, other people will greet and follow you. In NH, the answer is a resounding YES!

Pick a state (hopefully NH or WY where there are already organizations present...or start a Montana organization) and then MOVE!

Tell you what, first person to start a Montana FSP gets $10 from me. I'll send you a check from my New Hampshire bank ;)

porcupine
05-22-2008, 04:04 PM
Here's part 17 of the "moving to NH" series and they talk a bit about Ron Paul supporters in it as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxetZx3KyTQ

Aratus
05-23-2008, 08:09 AM
all our inner city new deal "dems" now are going to florida or santa fe in droves, if not san diego...
all our older true blue democrats are indeed older. call this the mike gravel demographic... they is HIS age!
the people who go north with a deep debt and their lifestyle... are not urban democrats most FDR worshipping
nor are they traditional small town small business republicans...

"mass*wholes"...? :D dems who move because the taxes here impact their incomes as they try for
the type of jobs here whereby husband and wife get on the motrgage treadmill for a very
spacious mcMansion on this acre and a half lot, and if they START to fall behind because one
of the two went part-time or into an unemployment check as they all have 15 credit cards
at a 23 percent interest a clip... well, they move and then because they may have semi-owned
their house or something if the bank doesn't, they try for a tigher budgeted lifestyle
akin to what they once had. this means they start to want the same infra~structure in that there
border town they is at, and i don't mean the canadian border. so you have a reagan democrat and/or neo-con
political mix
decrying taxes and taxachusetts as they UP the taxes for all ancient robert frost quotin' yankees
who still cling to things if not a family farm... this is a cycle that is between 128 and 495.
there are still farms near quabbin, or elsewhere in new england.

Libertarian Ideals
06-07-2008, 10:51 PM
Six Myths of the Perceived Lower Population Advantage
Karl Beisel
Washington, DC

Introduction

Some FSP members have stated that population is the single most important factor in state choice. Indeed it is ‚€“ this is why states like California, Texas or Florida, all with very high populations, have been eliminated from consideration at the FSP‚€™s inception. However, population becomes less and less important as it drops. The difference between a state with 500,000 people and one with 1.5 million people, in terms our ability to exert political influence, is not significant once we consider mitigating factors and debunk the myths surrounding this population‚€™s importance, as I now argue.

The Six Myths

Myth #1
In a lower-population state, we can outvote native residents.

Truth: Assuming that all porcupines register to vote, the lowest population state, Wyoming, will have approximately 223,000 registered voters. In order to outvote them in state-wide elections, we would need at least 111,500 of us.


Myth #2
We can make up for the needed votes because the native populations of the most "libertarian" states will embrace our agenda.

Truth: The population at large in all free state candidates are openly hostile to many key portions of our agenda. In order to counter this hostility in the lowest population state, Wyoming, we'll need 91,500 natives to vote with us.

For our most important reforms, these additional votes probably do not exist. For example, in 1994, Wyoming voters rejected 137,397 to 61,980 a ballot initiative to decriminalize gambling. Even with 20,000 additional ‚€œYES‚€Ě votes, the measure would have still failed by a wide margin. (Source: http://soswy.state.wy.us/election/initref.htm)

I expect at least similar levels of opposition to other victimless crime laws, such as narcotics use and prostitution, in all of the candidate states.


Myth #3
In lower-population states, we'll be able to influence others more effectively.

Truth: This myth is often expressed in terms of activist-to-voter ratios. In Wyoming (213,000 voters), that ratio is 1:11. In New Hampshire (567,000 voters), that ratio is 1:28. So, as the theory goes, each person would in effect be ‚€œassigned‚€Ě to sway at least 6 voters in Wyoming, or 14 in New Hampshire.

This theory is in error for two reasons. First, it assumes that all other mitigating factors, such as electoral accessibility, are equal between states. Second, it suggests that 6 people are easier to sway than 14. If political activism were purely a door-to-door affair, this would be true. Yet, most political influence occurs through mass campaigning: letters-to-the-editor, newspaper articles, television and radio ads, flyers, political rallies, or simple party affiliation, or through network campaigning by voters talking with friends and family. Indeed, political influence with the vast majority of voters is only rarely a direct face-to-face affair.

For evidence of this fact, simply ask yourself this question: How many political candidates have you voted for that you have actually talked to prior to the election?


Myth #4
Porcupines will almost always agree and vote as a bloc; we can at least rely on 20,000 favorable votes.

Truth: There are three reasons why we might not rely on all 20,000 porcupine voter bloc 100% of the time:
Porcupines are a diverse group, and do not always agree on every issue.
Some porcupines may vote for someone other than the designated "pro-liberty" candidate for other reasons, such as a perceived ethical/moral lapse, ineffectiveness, or just plain kookiness.
Some porcupines do not vote as a matter of principle.


Myth #5
A lower-population is always more desirable.

Truth: Lower populations typically mean smaller economies. With smaller economies, there are fewer jobs, fewer locally-based business opportunities, and fewer opportunities for highly specialized professions and niche businesses. While a strong economic base is not directly relevant to our goals, it is very important in ensuring that porcupines can become and remain prosperous during our efforts, which are likely to be ongoing for many years or decades.


Myth #6
By moving strategically into the state, we can gain a significant minority in the state house and majorities in the selected local municipal governments.

Truth: This theory holds that a centrally-planned moving strategy will designate certain voting districts as porcupine settlements, directing a certain number of porcupines to those districts, thus guaranteeing State House seats with porcupine votes alone.

Strategic migration is an iffy proposition at best. Already, 20,000+ people have committed to uprooting their lives and moving to a single state. It seems doubtful that even a majority of movers will allow their settlement choices be further limited, thereby limiting employment, housing and lifestyle options.

Also, by failing to integrate with the population at large, we are unlikely to shed our image as outsiders, with untold political, legal, social and economic impacts.

Conclusion
If population alone is a poor predictor of our success, what strategy can we use?

Get libertarians elected ‚€“ and re-elected!

To do this, we must choose a state that:
Gives us the best opportunities for gaining political experience.
Gives us the best opportunities to gain seats in local and state-wide elected offices.
Has a strong culture of political tolerance for controversial ideas.
Gives us the best opportunities to prosper economically during the years or decades of our effort.


Also see:
http://www.freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/20000nh.php

"In addition, a multitude of institutional advantages seem to outweigh the population problem. First, New Hampshire has a large state house, the third largest legislature in the English-speaking world. Low district size (http://www.freestateproject.org/archives/state_reports/statelegs.php) means that outsiders and independents can win elections by running a good campaign. For example, several Libertarian Party legislators won election to the NH House in the 1990's. The $100 per year salary for NH House representatives ($200 for state senators) ensures that career politicians do not dominate the legislature. The practice of fusion voting, rare in the U.S., allows politicians to run for election with multiple party endorsements, making it easier for third parties to win votes. Biennial elections for all state elective offices ensures strict popular control of government. Despite the fact that New Hampshire has no initiative and referendum process, the ease of getting on the ballot combined with biennial elections for every state office means that virtually every statewide election is a referendum on the policies of the incumbent government. Another institutional advantage is the aforementioned strength of town government. Schooling is an important policy area that activists can change at the local level in New Hampshire. The state constitution forbids unfunded state mandates on local government."


And: (contrary to popular opinion)
Massachusetts Immigrants Keeping New Hampshire Conservative (http://freenewhampshire.blogspot.com/2008/05/massachusetts-immigrants-keeping-new.html)

Southron
06-14-2008, 05:38 PM
I think this thread needs a well deserved bump.

Now that Ron Paul has suspended his campaign its time to look at what is realistically possible. And I think everyone needs to realize that there are enough people in this country who love socialism that we will NEVER achieve a majority. Even if we could begin to convince people towards our way of thinking, I don't think there's any way we could see a big difference in any of our lifetimes.

In my opinion, the ONLY way we are ever going to see libertarians as a force is if we band together in a certain area of the country. Like it or not, in this country, the majority rules. And right now libertarian minded people have no majority anywhere. And with the coming Obama presidency, things are just going to get worse. Obama talks like a damn commie and I'm afraid he's going to be our modern day FDR.

We can accomplish so much more if we unite. Even if we could just control a county somewhere we could elect our own sheriff and judges for the area. We could have a little piece of freedom somewhere. Liberty in our lifetime....

DSouthChi
06-20-2008, 08:28 AM
Has Idaho come up again in the conversation since its impressive showing in the primaries?

I'm not an expert on the western states, but I would think getting 30,000 people in Idaho to vote for Ron Paul after the nomination was wrapped up shows there is potential for a large movement to have an effect there.

An important factor that Wyoming advocates don't seem to worry about is economic potential - there needs to be good jobs available to get anyone to move anywhere. Too a large extent I think rich free-staters who own their own business will have to bring the jobs, but I don't know if this can ever be achieved in the magnitude needed in Wyoming.

The northern tip of Idaho - somewhere in the Sandpoint area - sticks out to me as a prime place to concentrate our efforts.
- The population density is very low so we could easily establish liberty-oriented towns
- It's a tourist attraction because of skiing, etc..., which means money is flowing into it from outside.
- It's about an hour away to Spokane, Washington - a metro area with a half million people which could give it an economic backbone.
- It's an easier, shorter move for any of the young tech-oriented people who live in Washington or Oregon, which represents a big chunk of the enthusiastic Ron Paul base.
- As a long-term bonus, it has a border with Canada and isn't land-locked

Just some thoughts, but I do think we should be looking for a place with lots of people close by, but not actually in the area. This has caused problem for NH with crazy liberals moving in, but in the west this shouldn't be as severe.

revolutionman
06-21-2008, 07:08 AM
i think Puerto Rico is the perfect "Free State". Its technically part of the US, and about half the population harbors anti government sentiment. Two towns over there is a mural of an FBI firing squad killing a local hero. It would not at all be difficult to garner major support from all sides with Ron Pauls policy. the only major road block is the language barrier.

The Pro Statehood Party, already coincides with the mainland Republican Party

The Anti Statehood Faction, by default coincides with the Democratic party, but is actually very opposed to socialist nanny state policy

The Independance Party, is really just terrified that if Puerto Rico becomes a state the US government will ruin the Island.

Its pretty easy to see how libertarian ideals from a republican mouth piece will thrive here. All that is required is activism and a bit of money. Municipal governments are so wasteful and corrupt, and many of the people are so uneducated, that will will be a breeze to win over a small town that thrives on tourism first, and then creep our way from one municipality to another before taking the Governors Mansion.

DSouthChi
06-21-2008, 07:53 AM
For Puerto Rico, I just don't think anyone would move there. The cultural change would be so steep I couldn't imagine fitting in or being able to have an influence. Unless there are a large amount of Puerto Rican/Hispanic free-staters out there, Puerto Ricans probably wouldn't listen to us or care about us. It's too far away. Plus, it has 4 million people.

Alex Libman
06-21-2008, 08:12 AM
One word: Massholes. The only thing that has kept most of NH from becoming suburbs of Boston is high oil prices. In a few decades, with better rail and electric cars, NH will go the way of NJ. I used to be a huge supporter of the FSP, but lost hope in it gradually over the past couple of years. It mostly attracts spoiled pothead kids, not true capitalists.

Three words: Free Island Project (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=20756). Only a sovereign nation can ever truly be free, and there are existing island nations that have a lot fewer non-libertarians than NH's 1,000,000+, and their non-libertarians are a lot easier to bribe. This is an idea whose time hasn't come yet (and, looking even further, there'll be Free Space Station Project ideas as well). The best thing you can do for your own liberty for now is work hard, obey the powers that be, save as much money as you can, and build your wealth for the future.

On a long-enough time-line, the rich will always be able to buy their freedom, in this country or elsewhere. The lazy pothead hippies won't, no matter what state they're in.

Kalifornia
06-21-2008, 11:53 AM
I picked. I dont need a place with a small population. I need a place with no state income tax, (being in driving distance of a place with no sales tax would be a plus as well) an awesome climate, plenty of job opportunities, a committment to the various civil liberties (incl the 2d amendment), and at least the possiblity of being able to buy some land some day.

Washington is a great place to start for the NW. They consistently deter from supreme court rulings on how far LEOs can go. They are a shall issue state. RP racked up 25% in the caucus, and 8% in the primary (in some counties near spokane, RP racked up close to 40%). Seattle in the west offers awesome economic opportunity, Spokane, imho, will be the focal point of the RP revolution, since it is the biggest city for E. WA, N. Id and W. MT (the band with by far more RP support, as a percentage of the population than anywhere in the country.

With the exception of the Seattle commie-libs (who are put in balance by a huge military presence near Seattle), there is hard to find anything wrong with the state. And honestly, while I would like to see a greater respect for property rights, I think WA has found an ideal solution in keeping the peace between the Seattle hippies and the rest of the state. They break many of their environmental regulations down by COUNTY. So if you live in a high population density area, you gotta put up with the hippy regulations, but ifyou live in Yakima or Walla Walla, you dont. Hell, if California had such innovative approaches, I would have probably stayed here (I love the central coast with a passion), but alas, they have not.

And of course, if the commie-libs ever take over there, I can just cross the border to ID, MT, or WY without too much fuss, or god forbid... NH.

revolutionman
06-21-2008, 04:25 PM
For Puerto Rico, I just don't think anyone would move there. The cultural change would be so steep I couldn't imagine fitting in or being able to have an influence. Unless there are a large amount of Puerto Rican/Hispanic free-staters out there, Puerto Ricans probably wouldn't listen to us or care about us. It's too far away. Plus, it has 4 million people.

Those are some good points. As far as moving to Puerto Rico, there is culture shock to contend with. I'll give you that, but in exchange for dealing with culture shock, you dont have to pay a penny in federal income tax.

The worst part about living in PR is that you dont get to vote for president of the US.

Again, half the population harbors resentment toward the US government, they don't want statehood because they detest the nanny state. They want it to remain a territory with Commonwealth Stauts. Others want complete independance for Puerto Rico.

if you move to a tourist heavy town, like Rincon, its small and its out of the way and filled with Puerto Ricans who have lived in the US and speak English. restuarants, bars, beaches, good surfing, all stylized for American tourists. the municipal government would love an influx of American citizens into their town. they would probably welcome us into the political arena, because a lot of them want to Americanize the islands legal and political system, those are the people who are pro statehood.

Our stance on the issues appeals to both major political parties, and the people who just want the government to leave them alone.

Already, personal responsibility is plentiful, at many public events and social gatherings there is no regard for law and order. Drinking alcohol in state and municipal beaches and parks, people swim in the water only feet away from dangerous boat propellers, and no one gives a hoot. if you get mangled by a boat, you die and the owner goes to prison. The local additude is, oh well you both should have been paying attention.

All we would have to do is convert some local college kids, that already have angst for government local and federal to our cause, and the locals would not be able to distinguish us from themselves.

realistically, no one will probably move anywhere just for this cause. people say this and that, but they are inbedded in their lives with family and friends and are not gonna just uproot themselves in order to elect yet another official that will be blacked out and ridiculed by congress and the media.

At least in Puerto Rico there is always the option of Independance.

brianewart
06-21-2008, 08:42 PM
Meh. The more I see people on RPF posting on and on and on about how "New Hampshire is the only Free State Project" the more I am inclined to reject NH as an option. Call it kneejerk, call it reactionary, or just call it annoyed. :shrug: But FWIW, I tend to get the impression that the FS NH people are trying to co-opt RPF for the agenda of propagandizing against (IMO better alternatives like) Wyoming, and for every such post, the chances of me moving to NH drop lower, and lower, and lower every time. Before RP08 I was probably 60/40 WY/NH and now the chances of me moving to NH are about nil.

Take it for what it's worth, but that's my honest feelings on the matter.


Don't forget Montana... that's my favorite free-state.

DSouthChi
06-21-2008, 09:24 PM
Washington is a great place to start for the NW. They consistently deter from supreme court rulings on how far LEOs can go. They are a shall issue state. RP racked up 25% in the caucus, and 8% in the primary (in some counties near spokane, RP racked up close to 40%). Seattle in the west offers awesome economic opportunity, Spokane, imho, will be the focal point of the RP revolution, since it is the biggest city for E. WA, N. Id and W. MT (the band with by far more RP support, as a percentage of the population than anywhere in the country.


Kalifornia - I think it's interesting that you pick Spokane as the inevitable focal point. I'm from Chicago, and really know nothing about the northwest states, but came up with north-Idaho and the Spokane suburbs as the best place just from looking at population and donor maps (check this site out - http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/ and you can get all of the raw data straight from the FEC). I think that concentrating on a small town and then commuting to Spokane would help create a liberty community which would be encouraging for everyone. It would be nice if we had a place other than the internet. Also, I think if we focused on Idaho there would be the chance we could affect the state politics in the long term. But this is obviously much more daunting and requires a group effort - I think a successful movement will have to be spearheaded by a few rich people who bring jobs, infrastructure, etc.

In the short term just moving to WA does sound like a good choice. Good luck with the move.

Roxi
06-21-2008, 09:49 PM
Yeah, I investigated all that. I still think that there are two diffferent belts that are better.

For cost of living, farming, and water, the belt from Rolla, MO through Springfield, Tulsa, OKC, Dallas and Austin is best.

For population density and climate, the Area From the coast btw Seattle to portland, out to the Stretch Between SLC and Billings is best (that includes WA, OR, ID, MT, WY)

I decided on the NW, I land in Seattle in August, and will start working on getting rural (or at least buy some land to vacation upon) as soon as it is economically feasible.

There were alot of assumptions in the FSP calculations that I simply dont agree with


in the words of ole george: "not gonna happen"... i live and was raised here... this is the bible belt son.... :D even though we did well in the caucuses, the general public in this area believes EXACTLY the way huckabee does..

I have also been to NH and met a LOT of free staters... NH would have been my last choice of places to live before i went there.... the FSPers there are so so so awesome, the state is beautiful, and we had many many encounters with cops there.... most of them were awesome and liberty minded

that being said i would personally prefer somewhere like oregon, wyoming, montana, arizona (N), washington state.....

LibertiORDeth
06-21-2008, 09:53 PM
Jesus! Who put that thread together? That's insane...

+1 Without disrespect meant to FSP, there are to many flaws in the idea and location. How about Liberty Island?
www.islandofliberty.com
In the first two months, we had over 50 members, just on my advertising of the forum on here. Imagine how far we could go if other people actually recruited others...

Kalifornia
06-21-2008, 09:55 PM
in the words of ole george: "not gonna happen"... i live and was raised here... this is the bible belt son.... :D even though we did well in the caucuses, the general public in this area believes EXACTLY the way huckabee does..

I have also been to NH and met a LOT of free staters... NH would have been my last choice of places to live before i went there.... the FSPers there are so so so awesome, the state is beautiful, and we had many many encounters with cops there.... most of them were awesome and liberty minded

that being said i would personally prefer somewhere like oregon, wyoming, montana, arizona (N), washington state.....


I know. I lived in Springfield, MO for 3 years. I keep telling myself that the fundies have the right instincts, but are just really badly misinformed. Honestly, the fundie issue (and climate) made me settle on the NW despite its relative economic disadvantages. The NW has a great libertarian streak, and since no single religion predominates, it cant be manipulated by the blue blooders.

Kalifornia
06-21-2008, 09:57 PM
+1 Without disrespect meant to FSP, there are to many flaws in the idea and location. How about Liberty Island?
www.islandofliberty.com
In the first two months, we had over 50 members, just on my advertising of the forum on here. Imagine how far we could go if other people actually recruited others...


get a billionaire on board and Ill consider it. Till then, my family needs to eat.

Libertarian Ideals
06-28-2008, 05:55 PM
There is a town in New Hampshire called Grafton.

Grafton has one police officer (who is very nice and he won't bring charges against you if you don't own a drivers license, and will talk to you like a good friend would), they also have a voluntary fire department which is run by John Babiarz, a former president of the NH Libertarian Party and a two time LP gubernatorial candidate (who actually was included in the debates!)

Grafton is home of the Free Town Project
http://freetownproject.com/Finding_the_Free_Town.html



I doubt many who have lived in Massachusetts and who have visited or moved to New Hampshire would want New Hampshire to become like Massachusetts. Many "massholes" who actually move to New Hampshire support/ vote for liberty not for more statist policies. They are usually trying to escape Massachusetts' government. The "massholes" who support statist government don't see a reason to move, and merely go to New Hampshire for tax-free goods and for skiing, fishing & camping vacations.

-
If you haven't visited New Hampshire yet, don't be so quick to down play it. I went to PorcFest this year and I wish I never had to leave NH.

Also, wether New Hampshire is your first choice state or not, having 8,400 + committed freedom activists who are planning on moving to New Hampshire is an amazing feat and you shouldn't let this opportunity pass you by to achieve liberty in your lifetime.

Sure, I like the idea of Free State Wyoming, but getting 8,400 + people to commit to do the same would take years.


The Free State Project has worked hard and I hope you take the time to realize this and take hold of this rare opportunity.

american.swan
06-28-2008, 06:30 PM
I believe the beliefs of Ron Paul are truly American and as such put forth in a proper manner will have success where ever you are.

Also, moving to an area and immediately trying to stop the drug war and legalize prostitution is like trying to run a race with no legs and no arms. Think people.

I live in South Korea and it is by far the most collectivist place you could ever imagine. But I am working here to educate as many South Koreans as I can before I move back to the US.

Be active where you are. And if you have to tie yourself to anyone say your a "Taft" republican. So many are again shooting themselves in the foot mouthing off about Ron Paul this or Ron Paul that. It's the message not the person.

Anyways, good luck.

Libertarian Ideals
07-11-2008, 03:19 AM
I will try to keep this respone short. I don't particulary enjoy debating. Also, most internet forum debates seems to stem either from mutual confusion or fighting over what personal preferance is "better" - both a waste of energy, especially among individualist liberty lovers who will never widely agree on the means on how to attain freedom.



I believe the beliefs of Ron Paul are truly American and as such put forth in a proper manner will have success where ever you are.

Have you heard of the squaring effect cooperation can have? (2 people working together equal 4 people seperately, with the same energy committed among both groups, and it goes on: 4 together equal 16 apart, etc)
That's the main idea behind the Free State Project, with the added purpose of influencing local & state govenment, which Jason argues most power goes to in advanced democracies. (http://freestateproject.org/about/essay_archive/marketplace.php) (First two paragraphs.)

Also, moving to an area and immediately trying to stop the drug war and legalize prostitution is like trying to run a race with no legs and no arms. Think people.

Are you referring to Larry Pendarvis? I had the honor to visit NH recently and talk to Free Staters living in Grafton. I was told that Larry has not moved and that his website freetownproject is unused and outdated. I was then told about their accomplishments, and failures (http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20080316.htm), and how they go about doing things. Believe me, they aren't delusioned into believing they will get government off their backs overnight. (Most have been their for a minumum of 6 months, too.)

Anyways, good luck.

Thanks, I could always use some of that.


More info on the FSP can be found here (http://freestateproject.org/community/essays).

DSouthChi
09-02-2008, 09:03 AM
Knowing that Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party stirs the imagination on what a free state project could do there.

porcupine
09-02-2008, 09:35 AM
Knowing that Palin was a member of the Alaska Independence Party stirs the imagination on what a free state project could do there.

Around the time of the Free State Wyoming break-off, there was a small group that broke off from the Free State Project and started a group called "North to the Future" focused on Alaska. I believe they never got any movers, and have long since disappeared.

Alaska is a good state, but it has the same problem as Montana (size). Also, considering that many of the more fair-weather friends won't move to NH because of cold weather, Alaska has that too.

I still think Alaska would have been an excellent choice for the FSP, but I wonder if it would have been as successful, mainly because of it being so far away from the mainland (being close to family is a common concern for movers).

toowm
10-01-2008, 02:44 PM
RidleyReports has a new video on the 5 year anniversary of the FSP vote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paE3XtR0_XE

Leroy_Jenkems
10-01-2008, 07:00 PM
Meh. The more I see people on RPF posting on and on and on about how "New Hampshire is the only Free State Project" the more I am inclined to reject NH as an option. Call it kneejerk, call it reactionary, or just call it annoyed. :shrug: But FWIW, I tend to get the impression that the FS NH people are trying to co-opt RPF for the agenda of propagandizing against (IMO better alternatives like) Wyoming, and for every such post, the chances of me moving to NH drop lower, and lower, and lower every time. Before RP08 I was probably 60/40 WY/NH and now the chances of me moving to NH are about nil.

Take it for what it's worth, but that's my honest feelings on the matter.

I agree with you and Rifleman (and others) 100% on taking the Free State frontier to the northwest - Wyoming, Montana, and/or Idaho are much more suitable in terms of geography, population density, and regional culture. Not to take anything away from those folks who have made the move to NH, I respect all of you 100%, just different strokes for different folks. I've got my eyes set on the NW.

We've got to diversify our Free State portfolio...;)