Free State Wyoming vs. Free State Project (New Hampshire)

[John F Kennedy III]

If you dont fix national politics it will invade your local politics. We are damn near a dictatorship. We are slip sliding into a totalitarian police state. If Ron isnt elected, odds are by 2016 your states rights wont mean shit.

 

[Keith and stuff]

If you dont fix national politics it will invade your local politics. We are damn near a dictatorship. We are slip sliding into a totalitarian police state. If Ron isnt elected, odds are by 2016 your states rights wont mean shit.

Personally, I don't think it is know if it is even possible to fix national politics. I think the US has been a totalitarian police state for many years. It continues to get noticeably worse every single year. This has been true for at least the last several decades.

As for local liberty, it has clearly been shown that it is possible to increase liberty in NH (though, this hasn't been shown anywhere else in the US, yet.)

I totally understand that there is only so much you can role back local government. If local government was 1/4 as large as it currently is in NH, perhaps there would be a stopping point for sometime. At that point, the easiest way to increase liberty would be to reduce federal influence. Thankfully, the federal government already doesn't give a dime to NH. In fact, NH is partially funding the federal government so we already have that on our side. We just need a popular governor to stand up to the federal government.

If I thought it was possible to bring about much greater freedom by spending 50 hours a week doing national liberty activism I wouldn't have joined the FSP and moved to NH where I know for a fact that I can make a positive different and actually influence policy. My believe is that even if Ron Paul or Gary Johnson got elected, they couldn't do as much to free the folks of NH as a libertarian governor could. Additionally, as soon as Ron Paul is no longer president, the federal government will continue to rapidly grow. Electing Ron Paul is a 4-8 year stop gap. It isn't a plan to greatly increase liberty over the long term. I have to consider the future of humanity, not just the next 8 years.

 

[Sovereign Curtis]

To your original question: New Hampshire, hands down.

But if you think you could come here and dictate what others should be doing based upon your own beliefs, you're going to get a chilly reception...

 

[raystone]

Someone mentioned Montana...there's been some recent Safe Haven moves to Montana by libertarian leadership...

http://alt-market.com/safehaven/235-getting-off-the-globalist-chess-board-safe-haven-relocation

From the blog....I (Stewart Rhodes) was also in the Free State Project but likewise opted out of the East Coast states and moved to Montana in 2005. And now Alt-Market’s Brandon Smith is moving to Montana. In the past year Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the 2008 Constitution Party presidential candidate, along with his son Timothy Baldwin and their families, have moved to Montana, with the same goals in mind. In response to Pastor Baldwin’s effective championing of Montana, many others have followed him by moving there. Most recently, influential survivalist author James Wesley, Rawles has promoted the concept of the Northern Rocky Mountain U.S. (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, and eastern Washington) as being the “American Redoubt” – a refuge in time of coming trouble, and likewise has renewed interest in relocation to that region.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

To your original question: New Hampshire, hands down.

But if you think you could come here and dictate what others should be doing based upon your own beliefs, you're going to get a chilly reception...

Its not about enforcing my beliefs on anyone. Its about spreading the message of liberty and getting people on board. That will lead to winning elections. At which point you can begin to stir the state back toward the Constitution. But you also have to be involved in national politics. For the citizens of what is supposedly the freest state to vote for Romney over the only candidate who cares about them being free it is a complete and utter failure of their system.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Someone mentioned Montana...there's been some recent Safe Haven moves to Montana by libertarian leadership...

http://alt-market.com/safehaven/235-getting-off-the-globalist-chess-board-safe-haven-relocation

From the blog....I (Stewart Rhodes) was also in the Free State Project but likewise opted out of the East Coast states and moved to Montana in 2005. And now Alt-Market’s Brandon Smith is moving to Montana. In the past year Pastor Chuck Baldwin, the 2008 Constitution Party presidential candidate, along with his son Timothy Baldwin and their families, have moved to Montana, with the same goals in mind. In response to Pastor Baldwin’s effective championing of Montana, many others have followed him by moving there. Most recently, influential survivalist author James Wesley, Rawles has promoted the concept of the Northern Rocky Mountain U.S. (Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, eastern Oregon, and eastern Washington) as being the “American Redoubt” – a refuge in time of coming trouble, and likewise has renewed interest in relocation to that region.

Last night my friend suggested Oregon is the freest state. Im doing a write-up comparing several states, I will post it on here to get your opinions/critiques.

 

[Shane Harris]

Having recently been to Wyoming, I can say that I'm afraid that the biggest obstacle is the fact that the land is probably the least productive land in the USA. Homesteading Wyoming is a good way to starve to death slowly, and their economy is dismal. It's sparsely populated for a reason.

depends where in Wyoming. Don't we believe in trade and commerce? are these meant to transform states into liberty models or are they isolated communes. Unless it is the latter then what you said doesn't matter. I vote Wyoming because its a gorgeous state and more my ideal. New Hampshire is awesome but is more hippie northeast libertarian than rugged leave me alone cowboy libertarian haha. Wyoming is more wide open and the west side of the state (Jackson Hole, the Grand Tetons, Yellowstone) beats anywhere else in this country for majestic scenery and landscape. IMO

 

[TonySutton]

Here is the latest freedom index

http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011/

 

[TruckinMike]

Having recently been to Wyoming, I can say that I'm afraid that the biggest obstacle is the fact that the land is probably the least productive land in the USA. Homesteading Wyoming is a good way to starve to death slowly, and their economy is dismal. It's sparsely populated for a reason.

All Ron Paul supporters should get a class A drivers license and free themselves of geographically connected financial chains.

TMike

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Personally, I don't think it is known if it is even possible to fix national politics. I think the US has been a totalitarian police state for many years. It continues to get noticeably worse every single year. This has been true for at least the last several decades.

As for local liberty, it has clearly been shown that it is possible to increase liberty in NH (though, this hasn't been shown anywhere else in the US, yet.)

I totally understand that there is only so much you can role back local government. If local government was 1/4 as large as it currently is in NH, perhaps there would be a stopping point for sometime. At that point, the easiest way to increase liberty would be to reduce federal influence. Thankfully, the federal government already doesn't give a dime to NH. In fact, NH is partially funding the federal government so we already have that on our side. We just need a popular governor to stand up to the federal government.

If I thought it was possible to bring about much greater freedom by spending 50 hours a week doing national liberty activism I wouldn't have joined the FSP and moved to NH where I know for a fact that I can make a positive different and actually influence policy. My believe is that even if Ron Paul or Gary Johnson got elected, they couldn't do as much to free the folks of NH as a libertarian governor could. Additionally, as soon as Ron Paul is no longer president, the federal government will continue to rapidly grow. Electing Ron Paul is a 4-8 year stop gap. It isn't a plan to greatly increase liberty over the long term. I have to consider the future of humanity, not just the next 8 years.

It is possible to fix nation politics. Fixing it in time is the real concern. It has been a totalitarian police state for awhile, but even as bad as it is now, it's nothing compared to what is in the future if we don't stop it. Completely ignoring national politics is the wrong way to go. And Paul getting elected isn't a stop gap provided we actually educate people. I believe he can educate a great deal of the population on his own by how their lives will change under his presidency. And pretending national politics doesn't exist will doom the future of humanity and the liberty of the citizens of your state. You are a state, you are not free from what is coming just because you are supposedly have the most liberty of any state.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Here is the latest freedom index

http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011/

+ rep

Thank you. I will definitely check this out.

 

[hazek]

Ron Paul has a good following up here. He got around 25% of the vote last time and won 5 delegates...the most from any one state.

What? That can't be right, can it?

 

[John F Kennedy III]

What? That can't be right, can it?

21.37% (3rd place) and 5 delegates

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Dakota_Republican_caucuses,_2008

 

[klamath]

What? That can't be right, can it?

21% is the right number. Montana was 25%.

 

[klamath]

Not impressed with NH at all Any state that can vote overwhelmingly for McCain and Romney is NOT the wonderful free state it is being sold as. RP did better in bible thumping Iowa. ND sounds like the better state to me. I have a good friend that was born in ND worked all his life in CA and then bought his uncles farm in ND. The property value on his farm has gone up. It is scandanavia without the socialism.
RP already gets 21 percent there and the population is way smaller.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Here is the latest freedom index

http://mercatus.org/freedom-50-states-2011/

I'm noticing that the states ranked as most free are not ranked at the top for personal freedom. From what I have seen so far NH ranks #11 and SD ranks #34.

Edit: Oregon ranks #1 in personal freedom

 

[John F Kennedy III]

Not impressed with NH at all Any state that can vote overwhelmingly for McCain and Romney is NOT the wonderful free state it is being sold as. RP did better in bible thumping Iowa. ND sounds like the better state to me. I have a good friend that was born in ND worked all his life in CA and then bought his uncles farm in ND. The property value on his farm has gone up. It is scandanavia without the socialism.
RP already gets 21 percent there and the population is way smaller.

This.

 

[Keith and stuff]

It is possible to fix nation politics. Fixing it in time is the real concern. It has been a totalitarian police state for awhile, but even as bad as it is now, it's nothing compared to what is in the future if we don't stop it.

That is an interesting theory you have but as far as I can tell, history and all of the facts don't show what you say to be true.

Honestly, my guess is that you are new to serious effective activism. How many Leadership Institute training events have you been to? How many candidates have you campaigned for that got elected? How many bills have you helped pass? Being relatively new to effective political activism doesn't make you a bad person, but if does mean you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously, if you didn't already know that NH was the freest state, there is likely a lot of information you don't know about. Please stick with politics. You can likely be an excellent activist if you keep it up

Completely ignoring national politics is the wrong way to go.

I completely agree and I've never met a single political activist in NH than does anything like that. Of course, NH is the most effective place for a national political activist to be outside of the DC area. If someone is really interested in national politics, I recommend they live in one of those (NH or DC / VA suburbs) areas.

And pretending national politics doesn't exist will doom the future of humanity and the liberty of the citizens of your state.

Absolutely agree. That's why people need to work hard to counteract the statist on a national level and within states by influencing state government.

You are a state, you are not free from what is coming just because you are supposedly have the most liberty of any state.

Oh for sure. The idea of the free state isn't that liberty activists moving to NH will instantly save the world. We need lots and lots of well training, experienced liberty activists to gather in one state, and this is only happening in NH. It is going to take 100,000s of hours of hard work to bring about any type of serious protection from the national government IMO. I'll already working hard on this by recruiting other liberty activists to move to NH and helping training liberty activists in NH in connection with the top liberty activist training organizations in the world.

 

[nbhadja]

New Hampshire is where it's at. Over 10,000 have pledged to move and almost 1000 have already moved. If you have any serious interest at all, you owe it to yourself to come visit - most people who do, decide to move. Two great times to come visit are the NH Liberty Forum (Feb 23-26, 2012) and Porcupine Freedom Festival aka "Porcfest" (summer 2012)

If you haven't already, check out this page on why Ron Paul supporters should join the Free State Project, and [url="http://freestateproject.org/101Reasons]101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire[/url].

No disrespect to Wyoming or any other liberty efforts, but I don't think they can hold a candle to what is happening in NH.

NH is overrated and was a bad state to pick. RP did poorly there in 2007 while he finished 2nd in Montana (or Wyoming I forgot) in 2007 and they did not even have FSP help. SD, ND, Montana, NM, Wyoming all would have been much better picks.

Had the 1000 people moved to Wyoming, Montana or a state like that it would have been so much better. For one thing Wyoming is the smallest state with 560,000 people while NH has 1.4 million people so in sheer numbers the 10,000 would have had 2.5 times more impact per activist in Wyoming than NH.......plus the average Wyoming is much more open to libertarianism than the average NH citizen, who is more socialist.

Now I understand you all wanted NH because it is more fun to live there than a empty state like ND, which is fine I can't fault you......but don't act like NH was the best state to pick. It was and is nowhere as good of a state to pick for liberty as many other states, many of which are in the Mountain West region.

The goal is to take over ANY state- so it should have been the smallest state. Once you can take over a state and get a liberty candidate as governor, the governor and the other liberty politicians can make huge moves like making a gold standard, threatening to secede or actually doing it etc.

 

[Southron]

NH is overrated and was a bad state to pick. RP did poorly there in 2007 while he finished 2nd in Montana (or Wyoming I forgot) in 2007 and they did not even have FSP help. SD, ND, Montana, NM, Wyoming all would have been much better picks.

Had the 1000 people moved to Wyoming, Montana or a state like that it would have been so much better. For one thing Wyoming is the smallest state with 560,000 people while NH has 1.4 million people so in sheer numbers the 10,000 would have had 2.5 times more impact per activist in Wyoming than NH.......plus the average Wyoming is much more open to libertarianism than the average NH citizen, who is more socialist.

Now I understand you all wanted NH because it is more fun to live there than a empty state like ND, which is fine I can't fault you......but don't act like NH was the best state to pick. It was and is nowhere as good of a state to pick for liberty as many other states, many of which are in the Mountain West region.

The goal is to take over ANY state- so it should have been the smallest state. Once you can take over a state and get a liberty candidate as governor, the governor and the other liberty politicians can make huge moves like making a gold standard, threatening to secede or actually doing it etc.

But you also run into pushback in rural and low populated areas. They may not take too kindly to political activists moving there to "take over". I think one of the main reasons New Hampshire was picked was because of employment opportunities compared to the Mountain West states. I think most people on these forums are urbanites and I'm sure finding the same paying jobs out west would be almost impossible to do.

Sure unemployment is low but so are wages. There is always a trade off. The truth is that most libertarians value wealth over freedom, just like the rest of the population.

I really like what I have researched on ND and may move there someday if it isn't invaded by then. But I wouldn't have any dreams of taking it over. I just want a place to live away from the hordes of Northeasterners that are invading my home state. I just would want to live as peaceful and quiet a life as possible with people I share moral and religious values with.

I still like New Hampshire if I was going to move for political activism. The group is well-established already and the groundwork is set to encourage people to come. At this point splinter groups probably just leech off potential movers to FSP-NH. IMO, if you are moving for political reasons NH would be the place to go but if you want to get away from the Horde then most western states are preferable.