FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
Jason Sorens, President
Free State Project, Inc.
Phone: (828) 225-1951
Email: info@freestateproject.org
Website: www.freestateproject.org
Free State Project President Speaking in Vermont
January 29, 2003 - Jason Sorens, President of the Free State Project, will
be delivering a keynote address to the Vermont Citizens for Property Rights
annual meeting on Saturday, February 1st. The Free State Project is a growing
movement with the aim of moving 20,000 advocates of strictly limited government
into a single state, where they could work to institute political reforms.
Currently, the Free State Project has approximately 2,500 signed-up members.
Vermont is among ten states being considered by the Free State Project.
Members will vote on which state to target once 5,000 commitments have been
received.
"On the one hand, Vermont has a longstanding tradition of local government
and individual freedom that fits in with our members' philosophy of individual
rights, free markets, decentralization, and peace," notes Sorens. "On the
other hand, Vermont is currently undergoing a trend toward hamstringing local
business with a myriad of unnecessary regulations." Sorens notes that if the
Free State Project were to choose Vermont, local property rights issues would
be among the first areas to see new ideas and solutions. His speech will focus
on developing new principles to govern reforms in three areas: eminent domain,
land-use planning, and asset forfeiture.
Vermont is among three New England states being considered by the Free State
Project: New Hampshire and Maine are the other two. The state Libertarian
Party organizations in both New Hampshire and Maine have endorsed the Free
State Project and are seeking to promote their states to FSP members.
Citizens for Property Rights, founded in 1989, is a non-partisan, grass
roots organization dedicated to defending the interests of property owners and
taxpayers. The 2003 annual meeting will be taking place at the Best Western
(formerly Holiday Inn) in Waterbury, Vt.
END
Keene's the hook in Free State commercial
by Benjamin Yelle • 02/23/04
Keene's scenic beauty and vibrant downtown have been selling points for
city business owners and politicians for years.
Now, the city's Railroad Square will be featured in a television commercial
aimed at luring members of the Free State Project to the Granite State.
Keene resident James G. Maynard, the Free State Project's New Hampshire
contact person, has produced and is featured in the commercial, which will
begin airing Wednesday. He is joined in the ad by local Free Staters Patricia
L. LaPree and Justin Somma.
The Free State Project was formed in 2001 as a movement to bring 20,000
libertarians to one state in hopes of gaining political power. Their tenets
include small government, fiscal conservatism and individual freedom. On Oct.
1, the 5,000 members of the project voted to move to New Hampshire. Maynard
estimates the group now has about 5,500 members.
"With the lowest crime in the nation, the lowest taxes in the continental
U.S., and a part-time citizen legislature, the state of New Hampshire is the
ideal place for libertarians and other friends of local, responsible government
to relocate," the project's Web site states.
The Keene television commercial – which will air on WNNE Channel 31
throughout western New Hampshire and eastern Vermont, and WPTZ Channel 5 in
Western Vermont and eastern New York – is part of a campaign aimed at
convincing voters in Killington, Vt., to secede from that state and join New
Hampshire. It was filmed last week.
The project has also developed three half-page newspaper ads which have run
in the Mountain Times of Killington.
Killington selectmen are urging voters to secede from Vermont because they
claim the town is overtaxed by the state. They have discussed rejoining New
Hampshire – a move many claim is outrageous.
Vermont Secretary of State Deborah Markowitz said Killington has little
chance of secession "absent an armed-insurrection type of thing."
But supporters of the move say the town's restaurants, inns and other
businesses send $10 million a year to the state capital in sales, room and meal
taxes, but the state returns just $1 million in state aid to Killington.
The town is hit especially hard by a statewide property tax imposed in 1997
to fund schools. Killington, population 1,092, won a Superior Court order that
called the state's method of assessing local properties "arbitrary and
capricious," but the Vermont Supreme Court reversed that decision. New
Hampshire, 25 miles east, has no income tax or sales tax.
Maynard said the commercial attacks Vermont's tax system "in a
light-hearted, comical fashion."
He said the message the commercial tries to get across is that state
government waste and a burdensome tax system can turn any town into another
Killington. Maynard said the commercial serves a dual role in showing people
what a great place New Hampshire – and Keene specifically – is to
live.
"Keene is a beautiful, beautiful place," Maynard said. "I wouldn't want to
do (the commercial) anywhere else."
While the Free State Project has been out of the national media spotlight
lately, Maynard said the group has been busy with a "massive reorganization"
designed to ease the move to New Hampshire.
"We've been working hard every day," he said. "We're really looking forward
to making things better for ourselves, our parents and our children."
Associated Press contributed to this report.
More media articles about the FSP
These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by
The Free State Project,
a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship,
and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see
US Code Title 17,
Chapter 1, Section 107).
Free Staters pick N.H. over Vermont
by Cadence Mertz • Free Press Staff Writer • 10/02/03
An upstart political movement opted Wednesday to bypass Vermont in favor of
neighboring New Hampshire where its members plan to slowly infiltrate state
government.
The Free State Project, a group of libertarian-minded thinkers founded by a
Yale University graduate student, voted on which of 10 states to use as a
testing ground for its political experiment. New Hampshire won. Wyoming came in
second. Vermont finished seventh, ahead of Delaware, South Dakota and North
Dakota.
The outcome disappointed Vermont Free Staters who had hoped to avoid uprooting.
Still, some put New Hampshire second on their ballots and said when the time
comes they'll consider relocating.
"I'm going to move, but not right away," said Free Stater and Libertarian Party
member Hardy Macia.
Macia, who lives in Grand Isle and was born in Vermont, said he figures he'll
move in about three years.
Free Staters believe in individual liberty and less government regulation.
Members would work their way into New Hampshire's political structure, then
work within the system to make the state a model of the group's ideals,
according to the plan.
New Hampshire has some advantages over Vermont, Macia said Wednesday.
"No sales tax, no income tax, then personal freedom: They don't have helmet
laws, seat belt laws," he said. Vermont politicians were less than welcoming
when Free State president Jason Sorens visited earlier this year, Macia said.
New Hampshire's governor, on the other hand, invited them in.
The Free State Project has more than 5,400 members, but plans to have 20,000
before the full move to New Hampshire. Member Scott Berkey, who lives in
Randolph, said having a state selected could help build momentum. It is easier
to recruit new members with a solid destination, he said.
"They'll know exactly what they're getting into," Berkey said.
New Hampshire libertarians did a good job of marketing the state to Free
Staters, said member Sheldon Katz of South Burlington. A weeklong Free
State/Libertarian jamboree in the Granite State this summer attracted crowds. A
Free State meeting at the Vermont Pub & Brewery in Burlington this summer drew
three people.
Katz never committed to go to New Hampshire; members were allowed to opt out of
certain states. His family will make a joint decision about whether to move, he
said.
Berkey, too, was unsure when he would pack up for New Hampshire, because he and
his wife are building a home in Randolph. He said he is so focused on that
project it is difficult to think about moving.
Will he move when the time comes?
"I expect to," Berkey said.
Contact Cadence Mertz at 660-1847 or
cmertz@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com
More media articles about the FSP
These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by
The Free State Project,
a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship,
and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see
US Code Title 17,
Chapter 1, Section 107).
Free State Project vote set for August
by Nadia White • Star-Tribune staff writer • 07/08/03
Liberty-minded activists will choose which sparsely-populated state will be the
focus of their collective political might in a vote beginning in August.
Members of the Free State Project will have until Sept. 8 to vote on which of
10 states they would like to move to in order to advocate for limited
government. Wyoming and New Hampshire are top contenders in the effort.
The Free State Project is an effort to sign up 20,000 advocates of limited
government to move to a single state in which they can incrementally reduce the
reach of government. That effort passed the 4,000-member mark earlier in June,
prompting organizers to set a vote date.
The deadline to sign up to participate in the vote is Aug. 15, by which time
the FSP should have more than 5,000 members, according to the group's
projections. The deadline for members to return their ballots is Sept. 8, and
the selected state will be announced on Sept. 15, according to a press release
from Jason Sorens, the Yale University doctoral student who founded and leads
the effort.
Tom Parker, a Louisville, Colo., resident who serves as the group's liaison to
Wyoming, said the movement is a reaction to the current government climate.
"In terms of liberty, we see things drifting away with the latest moves like
the USA Patriot Act, and the various wars, now Liberia, we feel our government
is not playing by the rules of the Constitution so we're hoping to change
things," Parker said. "By concentrating our numbers in one state we're hoping
to have more influence and move things more toward liberty."
Eligible voters will be able to choose from among Alaska, Delaware, Idaho,
Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and
Wyoming. Once the group reaches 20,000 commitments, members have five years in
which to move to the chosen state. Some members have already indicated that
they will move as soon as the state is chosen, Parker said.
Dennis Brossman, a Wyoming Libertarian, said the project is very appealing.
" I am tempted by the project even if Alaska or Vermont were to try it. I
prefer Wyoming, the climate and terrain and being in the heart of the 48
states, but the freedom experiment is very alluring to me," Brossman said. "
I'd be willing to move to Alaska."
Brossman said the idea of newcomers changing the way things are done in Wyoming
is nothing new.
"I think it's done in other realms, but not so openly and honestly," he said.
"For example, in Lander and Jackson in the last 10, 15 years, we've had a large
number of environmentalists move in and they heavily affect the policy in these
areas."
He said he thinks the plan has a shot: "I think it's something that would be
workable and doable. I don't think it's a pipe dream."
The Free State Project posts additional information on its Web site, (http://www.freestateproject.org).
More media articles about the FSP
These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by
The Free State Project,
a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship,
and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see
US Code Title 17,
Chapter 1, Section 107).
Move over, hippies, the Libertarians are coming
By Sam Hemingway • 04/27/03
As swings of the political pendulum go, this one would be a lulu.
According to an Associated Press report, Vermont is one of 10 sparsely
populated states that a group of Libertarians is considering fertile territory
for its Free State Project.
If Vermont becomes the choice of the group when it picks its dream state this
year, some 20,000 Libertarian true believers are supposed to move here by 2008.
Their idea is to concentrate enough Libertarians in one state to take it over,
via the ballot box in selected races, and put in place a set of Libertarian
principles. Already, 3,100 have signed on to go to whatever state the group
chooses.
Imagine it: Vermont could suddenly switch from being perhaps the most liberal
state in the union to being the most Libertarian one.
Hello, prostitution, gambling and unregulated drug usage. Good-bye, government
regulation, public schools and smoke-free workplaces.
Will it happen? Probably not, but the interest in Vermont from the Free State
Project and its mastermind, Yale University doctoral candidate Jason Sorens, is
serious.
"I think Vermont has a solid chance of winning," Sorens wrote in an e-mail
interview last week. "New Hampshire is the favorite of many, but Vermont is
fairly high on people's lists."
Indeed, Vermont has made it to the "Final Four" of the 10 states under
consideration, according to an Internet treatise by Tim Condon, director of
member services for the Free State Project. Condon's other three finalists:
Wyoming, Alaska and North Dakota.
Vermont Libertarians said they like the plans of the Free State Project,
particularly if it ends up choosing Vermont as its destination.
"I've always felt the voting population of Vermont was more populist than
liberal," said Robert Maynard of Williston. "Vermont has a quasi-Libertarian
history to it."
As for Sorens, he's so taken with Vermont that he conducted a scouting mission
to Vermont in February.
While here, he met with everyone from Burlington Progressive Mayor Peter
Clavelle to members of the anti-Act 60 Citizens for Property Rights and
anti-civil unions Take Back Vermont organizations.
Afterward, Sorens wrote about his trip in an e-mail report to the faithful. He
said the journey was "fascinating," but he was uneasy about the anti-homosexual
remarks of the Take Back Vermont crowd and the "blunt, oppositional approach"
of the property rights group.
He also told of an exchange with Clavelle during which the mayor was asked to
draw a map to show what parts of the state would be most welcoming to
Libertarians.
"He drew Vermont and New Hampshire, indicated the Connecticut River as the
border between the two, and drew an arrow from Vermont to New Hampshire,"
Sorens recalled.
"'That's where you need to go, across the river,'" Sorens quoted Clavelle as
saying. "We had a good laugh about that."
Sorens' and the Free State Project's enthusiasm for Vermont is also based in
part on the results of their research into the so-called hippie invasion here
in the early 1970s.
At the time, news articles and an infamous piece from the April 1972 Playboy
Magazine titled "Taking Over Vermont" raised the question of whether a vast
influx of young people into Vermont could lead to its takeover.
A lot of Vermonters, including some aging ex-hippies, will tell you no such
thing was ever contemplated. Sorens thinks otherwise. He argues the state's
shift toward the left over the last 25 years is proof the takeover indeed
occurred.
"I think they were certainly less organized than we," Sorens wrote in his
e-mail.
Hippies not well organized?
You've got to be kidding.
Sam Hemingway is the Free Press state news columnist. His columns appear
Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. If you have a comment or tip, phone 660-1850, or
e-mail shemingway@bfp.burlingtonfreepress.com. For past columns, go to
www.burlingtonfreepress.com
More media articles about the FSP
These media articles are maintained on a non-commercial basis by
The Free State Project,
a non-profit organization, for historical, educational, scholarship,
and research purposes. (For information regarding "Fair Use", see
US Code Title 17,
Chapter 1, Section 107).
Local Groups
• To find your Local Group, click on your location in the map below!
• Want to learn how help your Local Group become better?
Vermont Report #2
by Jason P. Sorens
(This "report" is a series of reflections on a recent trip to Vermont. See
also Vermont Report #1.)
I arrived at the Burlington airport on Saturday around noon and met Robert
Maynard, the president of Citizens for Property Rights in Vermont. We had
lunch and chatted about the state of the libertarian movement in Vermont.
The Vermont Libertarian Party split in 2000. The leadership at the time was
strongly anti-conservative and expelled those who were opposed to the civil
unions law, including the lone Libertarian representative in the state house,
Neil Randall. (He was elected as a Libertarian/Republican.) The civil unions
issue was not the only reason for the split. There was a major disagreement in
strategy. The leadership wished to pursue a purist, intellectual course and
rejected making alliances with the Take Back Vermont movement and its
"populist" approach. Although Take Back Vermont has been most closely
associated with the civil unions issue, the movement actually started in 1998
with opposition to the school funding law, Act 60, which has resulted in a
significant increase in property taxes in many parts of the state.
Robert Maynard was one of those who favored making alliances with the
populist conservatives, and he left the Libertarian Party. Neil Randall won
re-election in 2000 as a Republican. Robert admits that there are pitfalls in
allying with the political right in Vermont, and my subsequent experiences
would bear this out. The Take Back Vermont movement is seen as "extremist" or
"reactionary" in much of Vermont, certainly the Burlington area. This has to
do with the rhetoric and strategy of the movement more than anything else, I
believe. At the CPR meeting I was a bit uncomfortable with the way people
talked about "the homosexuals", "out-of-state homosexual money," "the
homosexual agenda," and similar phrases, as if people who are homosexual are
politically or even culturally monolithic. There's also an infamous story
about the opponents of Act 60, who protested in front of the capitol and during
this protest brought out the old car of a particularly liberal state senator,
which they had purchased, and destroyed it with sledgehammers. The grassroots
conservatives in Vermont are not exactly slick political operatives, and it's
clear they rub many people the wrong way with their blunt, oppositional
approach.
The people at the CPR meeting were mostly very favorable to the FSP. I
handed out several Statements of Intent and shook hands with Neil Randall, who
gave a talk as well. He was defeated in the 2002 election, as were many other
quasi-libertarians in the Vermont House. I also met Hardy Macia, an early
joiner of the FSP and Vermont LP activist. He ran for the state house as a
Libertarian/Republican and came within 100 votes of victory. Neither Hardy nor
Neil had held elective political office prior to running for state house. The
large size of the house - and small size of districts - makes it relatively
easy for newcomers and political neophytes to win election, if they are good
campaigners.
After the meeting, I headed out with the NPR folks who are doing a segment
on the Free State Project for "This American Life," a national program that
runs weekly on NPR stations. We met with one of the leaders of the Progressive
Party in Vermont, Anthony Pollina. He ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 and
won 25% of the vote in a three-way race. Needless to say, he was basically
opposed to the Free State Project and insisted that Vermonters would reject our
ideas, because they favor "the active engagement of government." It was
difficult for me to reply to this, because he was a Vermont resident and I was
not, although I knew that many of my views were shared by Vermonters,
particularly those of the old stock. The reporters asked where he was from,
and it turns out he moved from New Jersey to Vermont in the early 1970s. "So
didn't you do exactly what Jason is planning to do?" they asked. He grinned at
that and backpedalled somewhat. "Well, if you're coming to Vermont for the
quality of life and will work toward strengthening our communities, you're
certainly welcome," he replied.
After the interview, I returned to Robert Maynard's home, where I was
spending the night. We stayed up and talked politics some more. I presented
the idea of a non-partisan voters' league to him, and he thought that was an
idea that could work particularly well in Vermont. "The problem in Vermont is
that you need the grassroots conservatives for your activists, but you also
need to be able to reach out to rank-and-file progressives and moderates and
not scare the bejeezus out of them," he said. "For that, you'll need an
effective leadership. But I think the Take Back Vermont folks are learning
very quickly how to play the political game." He said that, historically,
Vermont was the most libertarian state in the country, the only state to oppose
FDR and the New Deal, and the state that gave the country Calvin Coolidge, the
20th century's most libertarian president. However, it has changed a great
deal since the 1960s, and now New Hampshire is more libertarian than Vermont.
Robert, a fourth-generation Vermonter, said that he'd be unable to move from
Vermont, since he had recently bought a new business, but said that putting his
biases aside, he believed Vermont and New Hampshire were about equal in
potential for success. New Hampshire is about "ten years behind" Vermont in
the march to statism, and has a much better organized conservative-libertarian
movement than Vermont. But Vermont is smaller, the town meeting tradition is
stronger in Vermont, and Vermont's history is an asset. Robert believes that
land area is a crucial consideration: to form a grassroots movement you will
have to hold town meetings around the state, and short driving distances are
essential for these. A potentially workable alternative is a state that has a
few population centers, in each of which we would have significant
concentrations of activists. He lent me The Vermont Papers by Bryan and
McClaughry.
The next day, the NPR reporters and I met with the mayor of Burlington. He
is Bernie Sanders' successor to the post and runs as a Progressive.
Nevertheless, he is much more moderate than Sanders. He was also a bit more
welcoming than Pollina, though he said that we would be unable to "take over"
the state, due to Vermonters' liberal views and resistance to outsiders. He
believed that we would become a significant part of the general Vermont milieu,
merely one group among a diversity of ideological groups. He did mention
several times that he believed Progressives and Libertarians had quite a few
things in common. He even admitted that Vermont's regulatory process had
become unworkable, and that it needed to be streamlined in order to work for
small business, something that Pollina had refused to concede. However, he
said that he was committed to strengthening code enforcement in Burlington and
providing subsidies for people to buy homes. Government apparently has a
fairly significant role in funding home purchases in Vermont. This, when
combined with the congested permit process for new developments, probably is a
significant cause of the housing shortage in Vermont, which is something almost
everyone we talked to mentioned as a problem in getting 20,000 people to settle
in the state. When government subsidizes home-buying, it pushes up demand for
homes, and when the regulatory process prevents supply from adjusting, we have
a shortage. The reporters asked the mayor to draw a map of Vermont and show
which parts of the state would be most supportive of our movement. He drew
Vermont and New Hampshire, indicated the Connecticut River as the border
between the two, and drew an arrow from Vermont to New Hampshire. "That's
where you need to go, across the river." We had a good laugh about that.
After meeting with the mayor, we walked around the restaurant and spoke to
some "ordinary Vermonters." Since we were in downtown Burlington, most of them
were definitely progressive types. We did meet one fellow who described
himself as basically libertarian, and said that he voted for both Libertarians
and Progressives in local races. He said he did this because he wanted all
views to be heard. This seemed to be a common thread in responses to our idea.
Vermonters are natively anti-establishment. I can't remember exactly how, but
I got into a debate with one fellow over separation of school & state. I
wasn't completely well prepared for that discussion, and though I had arguments
for every point he made, I don't think I brought them down to a readily
understandable level. One good analogy to use to make the case for separation
(which I only thought of much later) is to compare education to other
industries. Kids have a right to be fed as much as educated, so does that mean
restaurants and grocery stores should be government owned and operated? Of
course not - and you can talk about why government ownership of groceries &
restaurants would fail: lack of choice & competition resulting in declines
in quality, the necessity of rationing to control demand for a "free" service,
etc. All these arguments apply equally well to schooling.
After this we met with the principal of Burlington High School. As could be
expected, she was pretty much a typical NEA type who rejected all significant
reform of government schooling out of hand. Bush-ian "quality control" was
about the most she was willing to consider. She said we "should probably move
out to Idaho or somewhere, where I hear a lot of people own guns and homeschool
and hate the government." This wasn't a particularly productive
conversation.
We then visited with Mary Alice McKenzie, a business owner and major figure
in the Republican Party in Vermont. Apparently her name has been mentioned in
the past as a potential gubernatorial candidate. She described her political
views as "very fiscally conservative and socially liberal." She's basically a
libertarian! She's also a pragmatist, though, and was very complimentary
toward the mayor of Burlington, crediting him with repealing some of the more
egregiously anti-business measures instituted by Bernie Sanders when he was
mayor. She thought the political model of the Free State Project was sound and
believed that we would have a major impact if we moved there. Her main caveat
was the economy. She said that regulations were stifling jobs growth, and that
lack of risk capital would make it very difficult to start new businesses. She
was very interested in and supportive of our efforts otherwise, however. It
was heartening to hear such a major figure in Vermont support our efforts.
The last interview was with a part-time lobbyist for the forestry industry,
an acknowledged libertarian who studied under Milton Friedman and Gary Becker
at Chicago, where he did graduate work in economics. The reporters asked him
if he would consider signing up for the Free State Project, and he said he
would, though he was committed to working in Vermont. So I gave him a form,
and he signed up on tape, opting out of all states except Vermont. I asked
him how much of the state legislature was already libertarian. He estimated
that matters were better now than they were a few years ago, and that a third
of the house (50 members) were friendly to our ideas. I have a feeling this
includes a lot of conservatives, and maybe some iconoclastic liberals. He said
there were 25-30 real socialists in the house, and of the 50 who support us, 15
were true libertarians through and through. So that's 10% of the state house
that we would "have" right away when we move in.
Some things I noticed from all the conversations I've had this weekend are:
1) A good way to introduce the Free State Project is to say that we are
researching states based on their favorability to ideas of smaller government
and more individual freedom, for the purpose of promoting one state as the best
place for Americans with such ideas to settle and live. This way it sounds
less like a hostile takeover, which it really isn't, in my view. 2) Vermonters
value independence and non-conformity, and evaluate candidates more on personal
characteristics than ideology. 3) You don't need a lot of political experience
to win state house seats. Nevertheless, political liberals seemed to have a
lot more experience than political conservatives. They are more willing to
serve on boards and commissions and make a career out of politics. 4) There
aren't many native Vermonters left, at least in Burlington! I think we met
only two native Vermonters out of all the people we spoke to. A couple people
mentioned that most of the state legislative seats are occupied by non-natives.
Whether you are a native or not doesn't have much relevance for political
success. 5) Ideological polarization lies beneath the surface in Vermont,
though people are quick to deny it. The mayor of Burlington claimed that it
was an "urban myth" to think that there was a coordinated attempt by leftists
to take over Vermont in the 1970s. Conservatives insist that there was, and
Robert Maynard mentioned a few stories and episodes that suggest to me that
there was such a coordinated attempt, though more loosely organized than the
FSP. Overall, this issue is a very touchy one in Vermont. 6) Vermonters are
proud of their heritage of town government, even though state government has
increasingly taken functions away from local government. Decentralization
could be a major winning issue for a libertarian movement in Vermont. 7) It's
cold! I like it, though. There was a good bit of snow on the ground, perhaps
a foot in some places, and it snowed gently most of the time I was there. The
winter could wear on some people, but complaining about the weather is looked
down upon in Vermont. There was one facetious suggestion that to keep out
riff-raff, the highways should not be plowed.
It was a productive and fascinating journey. I wish I could do a tour of
this kind in all the states we're considering.
February 5, 2003
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those
of the Free State Project, its Officers, or Directors.
Vermont Report
by Jason P. Sorens
(See also Vermont Report #2.)
Vermont remains one of the smallest states in the country, despite the famed
"hippie takeover" of the 1960s and 1970s. Wyoming is, in fact, the only state
with less population. Vermont's economy is centered mostly around tourism and
niche consumer goods, such as maple syrup, cheese, Ben and Jerry's Ice Cream,
Vermont Teddy Bears, and so on, with some manufacturing and high-tech industry
in Burlington.
The purpose of these state research papers is to take into account
"intangible factors" not taken into account by the quantitative state
comparison matrix. On that spreadsheet Vermont usually ends up between #4 and
#7 on the ranking. But are there factors affecting likelihood of success that
the spreadsheet cannot take into account? For the purposes of this paper,
factors are divided into three categories: openness of the political system to
libertarian ideas and influence, availability of jobs, and quality of life.
Vermont has one of the most vigorous third-party traditions in America. Its
sole representative in the U.S. House, Bernie Sanders, is a Socialist. (In most
elections the Democrats decide not to field a challenger, however.) The
socialist Liberty Union party had success in local elections in the 1970s.
Today Burlington, the largest city of Vermont, has been turned into a
"progressive" (socialist) experimenting ground. The Grassroots Party is
dedicated to the legalization of marijuana. However, the rural areas of Vermont
remain conservative, with a libertarian undercurrent, and the Libertarian Party
has succeeded in electing quite a few candidates to local offices and
occasionally even to the state house. The Ethan Allen Institute is a
free-market thinktank.
Today Vermont is wracked by polarized political conflict between the
dominant leftists and the conservative old stock. "Take Back Vermont" is the
conservative organization dedicated to restoring Vermont's traditional
political orientation. Its immediate impetus was the "civil unions" law giving
legal recognition to homosexual partnerships. However, TBV has simply not had
the numbers to effect political change. Vermont went solidly for Gore in 2000.
Vermont remains a strange hodgepodge of liberal and conservative elements.
Down the street from the "natural health foods" store (which looks as if it
used to be a farmers' market) is the guns �n' ammo shop. Vermont is renowned
not just for its more socialist tendencies but also for its concealed-carry law
- or rather, lack of one. You don't need permission from the government to
carry a concealed handgun - the only state in the Union for which this is true.
Vermont is known for having some rather tyrannical zoning and land-use
restrictions: one often hears stories about store owners fined for having signs
that are either too large or too small. On the other hand, some would claim
that Vermont's quality of life has benefitted from some of these regulations:
for example, billboards are banned on all Vermont highways. The alternative
explanation for Vermont's unique lifestyle is that the state largely bypassed
the industrial revolution, moving from an agricultural society into a high-tech
economy.
In general, Vermont has a decentralized, "smaller is better" approach that
could dovetail nicely with libertarian aims. Despite some of their more
draconian laws, they are promulgated and enforced by town councils, not some
Oregon-style "Metro" monstrosity. Vermont has a secessionist movement, inspired
perhaps by Vermont's history of secession and independent nationhood. (It
seceded from New York and remained independent until 1792.) Retired professor
Thomas Naylor, who has written a good deal on the future of secessionism in
America, is a member of the Vermont Independence Party (which as far as I know
has not begun contesting elections yet).
If the Free State Project were to choose Vermont, we would probably have to
abandon the idea of creating a "pure libertarian society." One Vermonter
estimates that the number of hippies who moved to Vermont in the 1960s and
1970s was about 20,000 - that means we would face an activist base the same
size as ours which would fight tooth and nail to prevent certain regulations
from being repealed. We could certainly tip the balance toward a more
free-market approach, but the areas where we could do the most would be: 1)
personal liberties, like marijuana freedom; 2) autonomy, even independence. If
we were to choose Vermont, creating a federation of autonomist forces (Vermont
Independence Party, Libertarian Party, other independentists of all ideological
orientations) would probably be our best course of action.
One comment one often hears about New England is that it is a bastion of
socialism. This observation is used to argue that if we chose a northern New
England state, our position would be precarious, because leftists could easily
move in and mess up our work. However, this threat is probably overblown. The
bastions of socialism are along the coast: New York city, New Haven,
Providence, Boston. Western Massachusetts, upstate New York, northern
Connecticut, most of New Hampshire, and most of Maine are conservative, in the
rock-ribbed, "old New England" way. We wouldn't have to deal with New Yorkers
except when they come for a long weekend to ski.
With regard to jobs, Vermont might be a difficult place. Most business is
small-scale, meaning that the ratio of employees to employers is low. Many of
us would have to start our own businesses. One source does mention that IBM,
IDX, and Husky, located in Chittenden County (Burlington area), are "always
looking for qualified workers." (Another source mentions that IBM has been
cutting back during the recession, however.) The same source mentions, however,
that Vermonters perceive "flatlanders" as coming in to take jobs from them. He
mentions that many independent software programmers, graphic artists, and court
reporters have successfully set up their own businesses, and that native
Vermonters aren't typically interested in high-tech jobs. The jobs forecast for
Vermont is quite bleak (36,000 new jobs forecast between 1998 and 2008, and
that was before the recession), so that it might turn out extremely difficult
to move in 20,000 people in even a five-year period. This fact just emphasizes
that we will have to create our own jobs for the most part.
As far as quality of life goes, I rate northern New England very highly. If
one values community and the small-town life, there is no better place in the
country. The winters are long and snowy, but even a Southerner like me can
handle it with enough clothes. The location of Vermont is quite attractive:
living in Vermont you are but an hour or two from Montreal, a melting pot of
English-Canadian and Qubecois culture, a truly European city in that it is
markedly cultured, clean, and safe compared to some American cities. Boston and
New York are close enough for weekend excursions, and if you like mountains
(though not very high ones), the Green Mountains of Vermont, the White
Mountains of New Hampshire, and the Adirondacks of northern New York are
gorgeous, especially in fall (with the blazing colors) and winter (with the
frozen streams).
On tangible factors Vermont comes out better than average, and I think
intangible factors make it clearly one of the six or so states that should be
considered seriously. The main problems, as mentioned, are the hardcore
leftists who will almost certainly prevent us from reaching some of our goals
and the lack of a good job market. If you do highly specialized work that
requires an employer with a lot of capital, you might do well voting for other
states, ones that have metropolitan centers.
July 27, 2002
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those
of the Free State Project, its Officers, or Directors.
Analysis of Presidential Elections
in the 10 Candidate States
In Tennyson's report Analyzing the Freedom
Orientation of Existing State Populations, he analysed the results of the
2000 presidential election and what it means to the FSP and its members. The
gist of that report is in this table:
Voter Predisposition to Vote for Small-government Candidates
(2000 Presidential Election)
| Rank |
State |
Percentage |
| 1 |
Wyoming |
151% |
| 2 |
Idaho |
141% |
| 3 |
North Dakota |
73% |
| 4 |
Alaska |
70% |
| 5 |
South Dakota |
66% |
| 6 |
Montana |
53% |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
-3% |
| 8 |
Delaware |
-35% |
| 9 |
Maine |
-21% |
| 10 |
Vermont |
-37% |
Source: Analyzing the Freedom Orientation of
Existing State Populations
By looking at the 2000 election, we see that Wyoming and
Idaho come out far above all of the other candidate states. However, one
election is just that – one election, and cannot be considered the whole
picture.
Nine most recent presidential elections
Here is the data from the nine most recent presidential elections: 2000 –
1968. This data presents a more complete picture of all recent Presidential
elections.
|
2000 |
1996 |
1992 |
1988 |
1984 |
1980 |
1976 |
1972 |
1968 |
| State |
Candidate |
% |
Candidate |
% |
Candidate |
% |
Cand. |
Cand. |
Cand. |
Candidate |
% |
Cand. |
Candidate |
% |
| AK |
Bush (R) |
58.6 |
Dole (R) |
50.8 |
Bush (R) |
39.5 |
Bush
(R) |
Reagan
(R) |
Reagan
(R) |
Ford (R) |
|
Nixon
(R) |
Nixon (R) |
|
| DE |
Gore (D) |
55.0 |
Clinton (D) |
51.8 |
Clinton (D) |
43.5 |
Carter (D) |
52.0 |
| ID |
Bush (R) |
61.2 |
Dole (R) |
52.2 |
Bush (R) |
42.0 |
Ford (R) |
|
| ND |
Bush (R) |
60.7 |
Dole (R) |
46.9 |
Bush (R) |
44.2 |
| NH |
Bush (R) |
48.1 |
Clinton (D) |
49.3 |
Clinton (D) |
38.9 |
| ME |
Gore (D) |
49.1 |
Clinton (D) |
51.6 |
Clinton (D) |
38.81 |
Humphrey (D) |
55.3 |
| MT |
Bush (R) |
58.4 |
Dole (R) |
44.1 |
Clinton (D) |
37.6 |
Nixon (R) |
|
| SD |
Bush (R) |
60.3 |
Dole (R) |
46.5 |
Bush (R) |
40.7 |
| VT |
Gore (D) |
50.6 |
Clinton (D) |
53.3 |
Clinton (D) |
46.1 |
| WY |
Bush (R) |
67.8 |
Dole (R) |
49.8 |
Bush (R) |
39.5 |
1 Ross Perot beat George Bush in Maine with 30.44% to 30.39% of the
popular vote.
Sources:
www.multied.com/elections and
www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html
(Note: I stopped doing research at the 1968 election because in the
1964, 1960, and 1956 elections, most of the candidate states voted for the same
candidate and because the farther back you go, the less representative the data
is to the reality of today. Even in the 1970s and 1980s most of the candidate
states voted for the same candidate. Before 1956, well, most current Americans
were not even alive or at the very least, not even voting back then.)
Republican Totals
The Republican presidential candidates from 1968 to 2000 generally sold
themselves as, or were perceived as, or pretended to be, more pro-small
government than the Democratic Party presidential candidates. Generally
this is the case and is clearly evident by the specific campaign literature and
ads of the above presidential candidates.
So we can rank the states by the
number of Republican presidential candidates that won their state elections:
Amount for Republicans from 1968 to 2000
| Rank |
State |
GOPs
Won |
| 1 |
Alaska |
9 |
| Wyoming |
9 |
| North Dakota |
9 |
| South Dakota |
9 |
| Idaho |
9 |
| 6 |
Montana |
8 |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
7 |
| 8 |
Vermont |
6 |
| 9 |
Delaware |
5 |
| Maine |
5 |
Reagan and Goldwater
What about races where a candidate from a major party ran on downsizing
the federal government?
This has occured twice in somewhat recent times. In 1980 Ronald Reagan (R) ran
for president and in 1964 Barry Goldwater (R) ran for president. Both times,
their major issue was Downsizing DC. Reagan communicated the message better and
won the 1980 election while Goldwater lost his election.
According to Harry Browne and many others, the media even tried to portray
Reagan as more libertarian than he was. Ronald Reagan did not act as a
libertarian once in office, but that is how he ran for his first
election.
(Note: Votes for the LP candidate, Ed Clark, are included with Reagan's,
because Reagan used many of Clark's ideas and this is the best election ever
for an LP candidate.)
1980 Election - Vote for Ronald Reagan
| Rank |
State |
Percentage |
| 1 |
Idaho |
68.4% |
| 2 |
Alaska |
66.0%2 |
| 3 |
North Dakota |
65.5% |
| 4 |
Wyoming |
65.2% |
| 5 |
South Dakota |
61.7% |
| 6 |
Montana |
59.5% |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
58.2% |
| Entire U.S. |
51.8% |
| 8 |
Delaware |
48.0% |
| 9 |
Maine |
46.6% |
| 10 |
Vermont |
45.3% |
2 Ed Clark got 11.7% of the 66.0% total.
(He got < 3% in all the other FSP candidate states)
Source:
www.presidentelect.org/e1980.html
Barry Goldwater only had the opportunity to run for office because the
paleo-conservative and the libertarian Republicans were able to take over the
Republican Party primary and hand the nomination to Barry Goldwater. The
national GOP did not even support his bid for president after he was nominated.
All records show that Barry Goldwater was set on dramatically reducing the size
of government and those in change of the GOP wanted nothing to do with him or
such ideas.
1964 Election - Vote for Barry Goldwater
| Rank |
State |
Percentage |
| 1 |
Idaho |
49.1% |
| 2 |
South Dakota |
44.4% |
| 3 |
Wyoming |
43.4% |
| 4 |
North Dakota |
41.9% |
| 5 |
Montana |
40.6% |
| 6 |
Delaware |
38.8% |
| Entire U.S. |
38.5% |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
36.1% |
| 8 |
Alaska |
34.1% |
| 9 |
Vermont |
33.7% |
| 10 |
Maine |
31.2% |
Source:
www.multied.com/elections/1964state.html
Average of Reagan and Goldwater elections
| Rank |
State |
Percentage |
| 1 |
Idaho |
58.7% |
| 2 |
Wyoming |
54.3% |
| 3 |
North Dakota |
53.6% |
| 4 |
South Dakota |
53.1% |
| 5 |
Alaska |
50.1% |
| 5 |
Montana |
50.1% |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
47.2% |
| Entire U.S. |
45.1% |
| 8 |
Delaware |
43.4% |
| 9 |
Vermont |
39.5% |
| 10 |
Maine |
38.9% |
Conclusions
I computed this table by averaging the "Amount of Republicans from 1968 to
2000" and "Average of Reagan and Goldwater elections" rankings:
Total Average Ranking According to this Report
| 1 |
Idaho |
| 2 |
Wyoming |
| 3 |
North Dakota |
| 4 |
South Dakota |
| 5 |
Alaska |
| 6 |
Montana |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
| 8 |
Delaware |
| Vermont |
| 10 |
Maine |
Now that we have the whole picture, let's compare it to just the 2000
presidential election:
State Rankings
| Rank |
Tennyson 2000
Report |
This Report |
| 1 |
Wyoming |
Idaho |
| 2 |
Idaho |
Wyoming |
| 3 |
North Dakota |
| 4 |
Alaska |
South Dakota |
| 5 |
South Dakota |
Alaska |
| 6 |
Montana |
| 7 |
New Hampshire |
| 8 |
Delaware |
| 9 |
Maine |
Vermont |
| 10 |
Vermont |
Maine |
Amazingly, they are very similar, almost eerily similar. Maybe I was wrong.
Maybe, just maybe, the 2000 presidential election really does provide us with a
very good look at the ideology of the candidate states. None of the candidate
states move more than ONE position in the state ranking.
Whatever the conclusion, one thing is for sure: Time and time again, both
Idaho and Wyoming stand out in the above rankings.
Participants
Facebook
YouTube
Twitter
MySpace
LinkedIn
Bureaucrash
Fr33 Agents