Where would you move if...?
- Thread starter BSU kid
- Start date
Try living in Illinois, you will appreciate Indiana. There are essentially tiers of freedom and there is a bit of a drop between New Hampshire and every other state. As far as your earlier comment regarding New Hampshire, if you move to the northern part of the state, it is pretty open and more sparsely populated. The biggest city in northern New Hampshire is Concord at around 45,000 people, so it's not too big. There are plenty of small towns with far fewer people. It seems like you would want to avoid Manchester and Nashua, where there is much more Boston, MA influence considering how close they are. Manchester, though, for a "big" city, only has around 110,000 people.
Wyoming wasn't chosen for a couple of reasons. There was a research paper done back in 2003 when the voting was going on explaining why Wyoming wasn't the best choice but I'm having trouble finding it. Essentially, Wyoming began as less free and thus, would take a longer time to turn around. Even with 20,000 people, we would still only be 3.5% of the total population. More importantly, the vast majority of the jobs there are related to agriculture and their economy would have a hard time providing 20,000 new jobs to people whereas New Hampshire is much more diverse and people in technology can also thrive there.
pcosmar
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 54,940
Michigan is ranked 27,, but that depends on where in the state.
The UP is far from the political power,, and largely ignored.. Not so bad here. (but worse than it was )
I hate the cold,, but came back here. It is a place I can survive. (I hope)
Get away from Cities where ever you are,, or have a place to get away to.
The UP is far from the political power,, and largely ignored.. Not so bad here. (but worse than it was )
I hate the cold,, but came back here. It is a place I can survive. (I hope)
Get away from Cities where ever you are,, or have a place to get away to.
Keith and stuff
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 10,554
Great post!
A few things, if I may
Concord is physically located in southern NH. Feel free to call it central NH if you want. It isn't in northern NH. There is only 1 city in northern NH. Berlin has around 10,000 people. Around 1930 the population peaked at 20,000 and has been falling since then.
I agree with Manchester being the big city of NH. It is also the most populated city in Northern New England.
Northern New England is definitely not densely populated. Some of southeastern NH is, the Portland, ME area is and the Burlington, VT area might be considered so. The rest of it? Not a chance. It is very rural and sparsely populated. As are most of the parts of CA near NH and ME.
WY lost the vote for a bunch of reasons. For example, the governor of NH became a friend of the FSP. The governors of MT and ID recommended that the FSP select the opposite state
The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire was the most successful state LP in the county and some people involved with it created a 101 reasons to move to NH document. NH and DE were the obvious choices when it came it potentially available jobs but since DE was really anti-liberty many people thought the idea of moving their as part of a liberty project was laughable.We knew WY would have very few available jobs, especially tech related. However, there was a report that should the CO Front Range cities (a 45 minute to several hour drive from the WY/CO border) would gain 1000s and 1000s of new jobs (many of the tech related) over the next several years. It would have been a struggle, but for people willing to drive a couple hours or more a day for work, the jobs were predicted to be there. Unfortunately, the report predicted wrong and the majority of the predicted jobs were not created in that section of CO. Thankfully, the FSP and liberty movement dodged that bullet since NH won the vote.
Great post!
A few things, if I may
Concord is physically located in southern NH. Feel free to call it central NH if you want. It isn't in northern NH. There is only 1 city in northern NH. Berlin has around 10,000 people. Around 1930 the population peaked at 20,000 and has been falling since then.
That's my fault. I was using the 43rd degree to delineate south vs. north (http://www.geonames.org/US/NH/largest-cities-in-new-hampshire.html), but after looking on a map, I would definitely call it central NH.
I agree with Manchester being the big city of NH. It is also the most populated city in Northern New England.
Northern New England is definitely not densely populated. Some of southeastern NH is, the Portland, ME area is and the Burlington, VT area might be considered so. The rest of it? Not a chance. It is very rural and sparsely populated. As are most of the parts of CA near NH and ME.
WY lost the vote for a bunch of reasons. For example, the governor of NH became a friend of the FSP. The governors of MT and ID recommended that the FSP select the opposite state
We knew WY would have very few available jobs, especially tech related. However, there was a report that should the CO Front Range cities (a 45 minute to several hour drive from the WY/CO border) would gain 1000s and 1000s of new jobs (many of the tech related) over the next several years. It would have been a struggle, but for people willing to drive a couple hours or more a day for work, the jobs were predicted to be there. Unfortunately, the report predicted wrong and the majority of the predicted jobs were not created in that section of CO. Thankfully, the FSP and liberty movement dodged that bullet since NH won the vote.
Besides, Wyoming would not have solved the "it's cold there every single day" argument since it has its own problems. Especially this year, I can't imagine the agricultural sector is doing that well considering the droughts. Wyoming was listed on draught.gov http://www.drought.gov/imageserver/NIDIS/DEWS/UCRB/docs/WWA-NIDIS_July_2012_Drought_update.pdf.
Pauls' Revere
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 11,347
If I had the ways and means....I would get a yacht and register under a flag of conveinence. This, way you might be able to register as you deem fit if where you register becomes unsuitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_convenience
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 117,598
FoCs are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.
IMO regulations cover every square inch of sea surface now.
In fact, there is no more heavily regulated and monitored area of earth than the seven seas.
I lived 18 years in Illinois, although none as a tax paying citizen so that is one experience I never had. I will say Cook County is beyond evil, and I prefer rural Illinois especially the Driftless Area in NW area and the stark fields of Central Illinois. I might be young but I don't feel any need to move to an urban area like many in my age group, too little freedom and its honestly too cramped for me. I'm not 100% convinced about the NWO but if it does go down, I'd also rather not be in a city.
I also had an opportunity to visit NH before, but I was only in Middle School. Concord was nice, Manchester was meh and the rural areas were to my liking; I never made it N. of Concord but I just did a little background Geography of areas north of there and I like what I see. Perhaps I misjudged?
Last edited:
AnalyticPursuit
Member
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12
The next part of our journey as liberty activists has to be the Free State Project:
www.freestateproject.org
www.facebook.com/freestateproject.org
www.twitter.com/FreeStateNH
www.freestateproject.org
www.facebook.com/freestateproject.org
www.twitter.com/FreeStateNH
Pauls' Revere
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 11,347
Map of International waters:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_waters.svg
Granted you would fall under international maritime law.
http://unlawoftheseatreaty.org/
But as Regan said: President Ronald Reagan rejected the treaty in 1982. As Edwin Meese, U.S. Attorney General under President Reagan, explained recently, "...it was out of step with the concepts of economic liberty and free enterprise that Ronald Reagan was to inspire throughout the world."
Notwithstanding concerns raised about the Law of the Sea Treaty - and there have been many - the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee recommended U.S. accession to the treaty in a unanimous vote in March 2004.
A vote of the entire U.S. Senate has yet to be scheduled[/I].
So the USA has not ratified it?
Last edited:
Keith and stuff
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 10,554
My understanding is that the US doesn't follow it. The US government claims it can do whatever it wants in any ocean water and does exactly that.
Pauls' Revere
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 11,347
on what authority?
CBP told me their territorial waters extend 12 miles offshore. Is that not the Law of the Sea? If it is, then why are they quoting it as law if they don't follow it?
Keith and stuff
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2009
- Messages
- 10,554
If the US Customs and Border Protection wants to pretend to follow a treaty it doesn't have to, it can. The US Navy doesn't follow the treaty.
It was probably just for convenience then. I was walking on the beach and happened to cross the border while doing so. A CBP guy popped out of the bushes and asked me my citizenship. I said I'm walking
below the tiideline, so have I truly entered the USA? I guess It was convenient for the sea to be American at that time.
Last edited:
Pauls' Revere
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 11,347
most countries recognize a 25 mile territorial water boundary, some use 12 miles. The USA uses the 25 mile limit.
QuickZ06
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,820
I dont think we have a limit as our military has no bounds.
Pauls' Revere
Member
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 11,347
excellent point.
Similar threads
