| 6507 Jester Blvd. Suite 511 Austin, Texas 78726 USA Voice: 512-219-0302 Fax: 512-219-0402 email: inquiry@ebenchmarks.com |
Free State Project Vote Count, Certification Process, and Results
Alan R. Weiss, Chairman and CEO of Synchromesh Computing and ECL, LLC
Synchromesh Computing
Free State Project Vote Count , Certification Process, and Results
Background
Its actually an interesting problem: how do you assure that a healthy, contentious, very public vote of a private organization dedicated to liberty and freedom goes smoothly? How do you make sure that all the votes are counted according to a publicly-available process, that the votes are counted fairly and honestly, and that the entire process can be certifiable (that is to say, repeatable and trustworthy)? Can you establish the creation of free-market solutions to what was previously the purview of Government (often-times poorly), counting votes?
When ECL volunteered to create a "certifiable process" for counting The Free State Project's votes, Free State President and Founder Jason Sorens asked the Author, innocently enough, if we'd also be willing to count the ballots. We agreed, and together we decided to make history.
ECL, the EEMBC Certification Laboratories, has had over 5 years of experience creating and executing benchmark certifications for microprocessors, digital signal processors, and micrcontrollers as well as a operating systems and software tools. As the certification company for an industry-standard consortium of almost 60 semiconductor and software companies, all ardent competitors to each other, we have the sort of background you need to be able to create certifiable processes. With a rigorous background in engineering, a charter and mission explicitly stating fairness and honesty, trustworthiness and equality of treatment, ECL has successfully certified hundreds of benchmark scores. In the semiconductor industry, the results of benchmarking can, at times, be worth literally hundreds of millions of dollars in sales, so a lack of guile is considered necessary, to say the least. Companies, and individuals, trust ECL, and for our part we have never had our fairness questioned or in dispute.
The first step, obviously, would be to establish a Certifiable Process. If you want to know who won, however, you can jump to Page 5 and find out.
Creating the Certifiable Process - and the Results of the Process
The key would be to write up a process that included the following attributes, and publish that on the Free State Project website. The membership would have to "buy in" and trust it.
Repeatable
The Vote Count and Tally must be repeatable to a level of only 2 defects in the entire vote count. Furthermore, the actual ballots will be preserved for the future so that a vote count can be done at any time.
During ECL's Quality Assurance procedures, we sampled over 600 ballots and found only one, very minor error (which was immediately corrected). We estimated that there might be as many as five errors in the vote count, which we knew would not affect the outcome (but each defect would, of course, have to be corrected immediately).
In fact, our defect count showed that, after completing voting, there were essentially no defects in the vote count. After posting the double-checked database to the FSP website (to allow individuals to verify their own vote count once they entered in their FSP member number and their last name), not a single person contact ECL or the FSP, and reported that their vote was counted incorrectly.
Safe
ECL will make copies of all votes, and also scan them, providing a permanent record. Copies will be stored both on-site and off-site. ECL's physical security system is very secure, and has passed scrutiny of companies that have billions of dollars at stake.
In practice, we tried very hard to quantify the amount of work required to:
a.) open the envelope or retrieve the fax, or email.
b.) input the vote itself
c.) input the demographic information
d.) calculate and process any money donated (in fact, ECL processed over $13,000 and turned every federal reserve note, check, money order, silver and gold warehouse receipt, and other form of currency to the Free State Project).
We found that we could process a ballot at a rate of 1 per 2 1/2 minutes, but that scanning each and every ballot would add at least 5 minutes to the process. We decided, in consultation with the FSP Board of Directors, to instead do the following:
a.) Make a physical photocopy of each ballot, and store them off-site.
b.) Commit the spreadsheet database where votes were recorded to a Concurrent Version System (CVS) often used in software engineering, so that versions of the spreadsheet could be retrieved at any time.
c.) Back up the data every day to a second machine (a server), and burn a CD-ROM as well every two days.
If anyone questioned their vote, we'd have at least five copies (two paper, three electronic) and could always scan and send via email their ballot at the time of challenge. In practice, this was never required.
Checkpoints of the vote count showed a complete absence of defects as well, and we could retrieve any arbitrary set of ballots, double-check them, and calculate any defects. There were none, which we attribute both to good processes as well as the diligence of our ECL Free State Project Coordinator Erin Decatur Silkenson, a dedicated worker with a Bachelors Degree in Economics from Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas. Erin was used to dealing with large amounts of data. Background checks on Erin showed she was reliable, dedicated, and amazingly tolerant of people's curious penchant for wanting to convey their opinions to the Free State Project itself by somehow forwarding it, along with their votes and occasionally money, to ECL.
Auditable.
At any time, the FSP Directors (or invited guests) can statistically sample the vote count themselves, and at any time the FSP can request a list of who has voted. A statistical sample should yield at most 1 error in 2500 votes. In addition, we will send all of the ballots to the FSP. ECL will do a cross-check after they have audited and compare our results. The results must match 100%. ECL will employ technology to make sure the ballots we have sent to the FSP are the same as the ones we counted.
ECL only received one request to come audit the vote count, and that person (also located in Central Texas) decided that she was too busy to actually come watch us open envelopes and enter text into the spreadsheet. The best way to audit is to have each member be able to double-check their own votes online after voting was completed, and FSP Information Services expert Matt Cheselka put the database online with alacrity after ECL finished the final vote tally and quality assurance procedure, certifying the vote.
Fair and Honest
Each ECL staff member having access to the votes (and it will only be two people) will sign affidavits and have them notarized of our vote count, honesty, and that we followed this CP.
Only two people actually had access to the votes, the spreadsheets, and the money that came in: Erin, and ECL / Synchromesh Computing Chairman and CEO Alan R. Weiss. Neither Erin, who is not a member of the FSP, nor myself (who joined rather late in the Project's history) had any axes to grind, and by profession both of us were intensely interested in what could only be described as "the truth." Economics is a profession that rests on hard data, and Benchmarking Certification by definition is designed to ward off corruption and report "the real results." Erin's family was from Ohio and New York, and Alan, born in NYC but raised in California, moved to Austin Texas 11 years ago. None of those states were on the selection list, and as Alan put it in a message to the Free State Project membership, "all y'all look alike - all cold weather states!"
Certification Granted
ECL/Synchromesh Computing hereby certifies the results of the Free State Project balloting and voting process as fairly conducted, results honestly polled, providing fair access to FSP members, and repeatable under all circumstances.
By This Seal, ECL Certifies the Vote Count as Accurate
Balloting Process, Timetables, and Turnout
If there was a flaw in the process, it was that ballots were mailed late to many members (being sent via US Postal Service Third Class instead of First Class from Henderson, Nevada). Combined with other delays, it truncated the voting time period by a couple of weeks, which in theory should not have mattered a great deal since the voting interval was still over a month. In practice, it caused some confusion, and furthermore the announcement schedule was fixed as a hard and fast end-date for Press relations reasons.
ECL was concerned that if a lot of members waited till the very last minute, the incoming flood would have proved to be uncertifiable given a "hard stop" date. In actuality, this was avoided because about half the members voted (reducing the incoming flow considerably) and members reacted with (mostly) timely responses.
Ballots were mailed out, and could be returned via US Mail Postal Express, Federal Express, Airborne Express, UPS, or other common carrier. The number of ballots returned by these means, costing each member a few dollars each, was staggering - well over 200 came in that way, almost 1/10th of the received vote. This showed, clearly, that of those that voted, they really cared about making sure their vote came in on time, and was counted. Because of the initial ballot dissemination snafu's, ECL decided to accept a fax of the ballot, or an Adobe Acrobat (tm) .PDF file. Later, ECL agreed to accept a JPEG file as well. In practice, about 1/10th of the ballots came in using these electronic methods (and towards the end, a higher percentage.
5000 ballots were ultimately mailed to FSP members, and ECL's final count of 2388 constitutes a return of 47.7%. While its tempting to be depressed about that, we believe the following factors are important to keep in mind, observationally:
· A government-sponsored vote (for example, an election or propositions) that saw almost a 50% turnout would be considered extremely newsworthy and be deemed a "very successful election."
· The Free State Project has been in existence for awhile, and doubtlessly a number of people had moved, didn't leave a forwarding address, or otherwise lost contact with the FSP.
· A certain percentage of people, realizing that signing up is fairly easy (although they had to make a Pledge), voting was quite another matter and might constitute even more of "a contract." This fear of really committing is to be expected in any movement that asks its members to sell their home, quit their jobs, pick up their lives, and move them to a state that may be quite alien or foreign to them and then "get to work" setting their lives back up as well as working for liberty and freedom and democracy. Given the magnitude of the basic decision, it is utterly astonishing that almost 50% even returned their ballots at all.
· The average dollar figure donated to the FSP was over $5 per voter, and would have been much higher had the FSP not encouraged people to fax or email in their vote (of course, the primary purpose of the vote was not fundraising, but rather to vote. ECL fully concurred that was most important). Further, the number of people calling and sending email to ECL to verify that their votes were cast and recorded was impressive, as were the number of votes returned by expensive common carrier rather than simply the US Postal Service regular first class mail. Those that voted, were very serious about their voting and it can be said with clarity that no one took it lightly.
The answer to "which state is the Free State" is New Hampshire.
New Hampshire not only beat 2nd place Wyoming by over 250 votes using the Condorcet Method, it also won if you just weighed "the number of first place votes granted to a state."
As Jason Sorens commented, "One interesting factoid is that preferences are very stable and
"well-behaved": not only is there a Condorcet winner over the entire 10 candidates, but if you eliminate the Condorcet winner sequentially, there is a Condorcet winner at each iteration, yielding the final ranking:
- New Hampshire
- Wyoming
- Montana
- Idaho
- Alaska
- Maine
- Vermont
- Delaware
- South Dakota
- North Dakota
As the following table shows, New Hampshire received 251 more first place votes, and 15 more 2nd place votes, than runner-up Wyoming.
| State | AK | DE | ID | MT | ND | NH | ME | SD | VT | WY |
| # of 1st's | 253 | 284 | 238 | 242 | 24 | 749 | 118 | 32 | 97 | 498 |
| # of 2nd's | 250 | 231 | 247 | 391 | 38 | 341 | 257 | 79 | 241 | 326 |
Table 1: Total Number of First and Second Place Votes by State
The total number of first and second place votes is greater than the total vote count because the FSP allowed people to vote for more than one first or second (or any place) entry. Many people, for example, gave a particular state a "one" and gave two or more states a "two", and sometimes gave many states a "ten" (indicating no interest at all in selecting that state).
Interestingly, it appears that the so-called "western Libertarians" divided their votes between Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska, leaving the so-called "eastern Libertarians", who were much more unified in their first selection, clear access to win with their favorite, New Hampshire. If you combine, for example, the first place votes of Montana and Wyoming, you get 242 + 498 = 740, which would not have been enough to topple New Hampshire. But if you notice the spread between Idaho, Montana, and Alaska, it is much closer than the spread between New Hampshire and the next most popular eastern state, Maine. Montana seemed to be a very popular 2nd place choice, beating even New Hampshire as the second-favorite state. Clearly the industriousness, organization, and marketing of New Hampshire had some effect, though, because it won, and it was also a popular second place choice, even amongst so-called "western Libertarians."
The Members of the Free State Project have spoken, and rather clearly at that, in their selection of New Hampshire as The Free State. It may be the case that this particular project spawns a second effort to select a western state (or even a western province of Canada) as a relocation settlement.
If this occurs, it will not be due to any fraud or abuse of the process during voting, but rather because some liberty-minded individuals decide, quite simply, they prefer a western environment to establish a new libertarian society. If so, Synchromesh Analysts would be honored to again conduct the vote (if there is one) and certify the results.
Liberty expanding across the land ... who could argue against that? Those that would argue against it, would do themselves a favor in questioning why one would.
For more statistics, refer to the Statistical Analysis White Paper. We removed that from this Paper because some people were having difficulties downloading a very large file.
Wyoming Report # 2
(With additional research and editing by a half-dozen other
Free State Project members)
|
Disclaimer: This report covers many of the political aspects of Wyoming
in detail but, it does not cover all areas because it is intended as a
supplement to the 1st
and 3rd Wyoming Reports.
However, since it was written at the same time as the 3rd Report, there is some
overlap. The author of this report has put over 400 hours of research and
thought into the question of which candidate state is best for the Free State
Project. The author is from a large eastern metropolitan center (Memphis, TN)
and originally opted-out of every state west of the Mississippi, but has since
developed a bias towards Wyoming and opted-back-in every state except North
Dakota.
|
I. Ability to Succeed
There are currently 10 states under consideration by the FSP. These are
(alphabetically):
Alaska (AK), Delaware (DE), Idaho (ID), Maine (ME), Montana (MT), New Hampshire
(NH), North Dakota (ND), South Dakota (SD), Vermont (VT), and Wyoming (WY).
Several critical factors combine in Wyoming, to make it one of the most
likely states to succeed. These factors are:
- Overall population
- Number of voters
- Expense of elections
- Political climate
- Citizen ideology
- Cost of living
The first five factors are some of the most important factors for determining
which candidate state should prevail, while the last factor is the trump
card.
Wyoming is the only state where these six factors combine in such an
FSP-friendly way. Look at the data for yourself:
- Overall population for selected states
| WY |
498,703 |
Best of all 10 states |
| SD |
761,063 |
|
| MT |
909,453 |
|
| NH |
1,275,056 |
|
| ID |
1,341,131 |
Worst of all 10 states |
- Number of voters (in 2000 election) for selected states
| WY |
213,000 |
Best of all 10 states |
| SD |
316,000 |
|
| MT |
411,000 |
|
| ID |
488,000 |
|
| NH |
567,000 |
Worst of all 10 states |
- Expense of elections (highest recent election) for selected states
| ND |
$4,300,000 |
Best of all 10 states |
| WY |
$4,700,000 |
3rd of all 10 states |
| ID |
$7,700,000 |
|
| MT |
$10,900,000 |
|
| SD |
$18,800,000 |
|
| NH |
$19,600,000 |
Worst of all 10 states |
- Political climate (% small government vote for President in 2000) for
selected states
| WY |
70.0% |
Best of all 10 states |
| ID |
68.0% |
|
| SD |
61.0% |
|
| MT |
59.0% |
|
| NH |
48.5% |
|
| DE |
42.0% |
|
| VT |
41.5% |
Worst of all 10 states |
-
Citizen ideology towards small government principles
| ID |
73.7 |
Best of all 10 states |
| AK |
66.9 |
|
| WY |
66.1 |
3rd of all 10 states |
| NH |
63.7 |
|
| MT |
56.9 |
|
| SD |
53.2 |
|
| DE |
47.9 |
|
| ND |
45.3 |
|
| ME |
35.5 |
|
| VT |
25.8 |
Worst of all 10 states |
Interpretations: Out of the five factors most critical to the success of
the Free State Project, Wyoming is the best state three times and the third
state two times. Idaho is the worst state once, and both New Hampshire and
Vermont are each ranked the worst state two times. According to the five most
important factors, no other state is even in the same ballpark as
Wyoming. Wyoming has around one-half the population, voters, and
expense of elections as compared to the large states and is much more
small-government friendly than all of the small states (except Alaska). In
this regard, Wyoming has the best of both worlds.
Source: All of the statistics come from Jason's spreadsheet.
- Cost of living
What about the trump card – cost of living?
Having a high cost of living hurts a state. The reason? Not everyone
who wants to help the FSP will be able to move to the chosen state. Some
people will have to take care of their elderly parents; others might not be
able to move because the cold exacerbates the arthritis in their knees or they
are divorced and want to be near their children; some people might think that
they are making progress towards liberty in warm, dry, and sunny New Mexico.
There are many other possible reasons. However, these folks might still be
willing to help the FSP's chosen state out, financially. Should the FSP
just give up on these people? NO! We should encourage them to help us out
the only way they can, by financially supporting the various freedom projects
that will be going on in the chosen state.
Right about now, you maybe saying, "That does make sense, let them help us.
However, what does that have to do with cost of living?" Simply this: money
goes further in a state with a low mean household income than in a state with a
high mean household income. The people that choose to stay in New York City,
San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago, Las Vegas, Miami, or Atlanta and make
$100,000 per year, are likely to give the same amount of money to the freedom
movements of the chosen state no matter which state is picked. That money will
go much further in a state like Wyoming where the cost of living is low, than
it will in New Hampshire or Alaska where the cost of living is very high. It
is not a coincidence that Wyoming and North Dakota have lower costs of living
than New Hampshire and Vermont do. Wyoming's cost of living is around 93% of
the national average, which compares very favorably to 103% for Delaware, 108%
for New Hampshire, and 123% for Anchorage AK.
Housing costs must also be considered as part of this equation. If a family
owns 50% of a house that costs $300,000 in California and sells that house,
they will have around $150,000 to buy a new house in the chosen state. Now,
would that $150,000 buy a better house and more land in a state like Wyoming
with low housing and land costs, or in a state like New Hampshire with high
housing and land costs? The answer is clear: the family benefits more by moving
to Wyoming than it does by moving to New Hampshire.
What about the opposite? For example, if an average family from Alabama
or Oklahoma wants to move to the chosen state and owns 25% of their $100,000
house, this money goes further in the low housing cost environment of Wyoming
than in the high housing cost environment of New Hampshire. It might be so
hard for the family to get a house in New Hampshire they are forced to live in
a low-quality apartment. I know this is not the end of the world (I currently
live in an apartment) but it is still an issue for that family.
Wyoming does not have a low average household income, either. Wyoming's
average household income is only around $1,000 below the national average, or
$38,000. However, after Wyoming's average household income is adjusted for
cost of living, it is slightly higher than the national average. Four of the
other candidate states have higher mean household incomes than Wyoming while
five have lower ones. This puts Wyoming about in the middle. If you want to
take this strategy to the extreme, Montana is lowest with an average household
income of $33,000. However, in my opinion, that is too low. Wyoming, on the
other hand is just around the national average. This is good, because this
means the money coming to Wyoming will be worth more in the local economy than
the money would be in Alaska or New Hampshire, but at the same time the people
from Wyoming will be able to afford to buy out-of-state products and travel out
of state.
Alternative theory on ability to succeed – Robert Hawes, a fellow
Porcupine posted an
alternative list of major factors for success to the FSP Forum. He goes
about it a different way but still picks Wyoming as the top candidate state.
Population, again – Let me go back to the most important factor:
population. This is the most important factor because we have to assume
that none of the states are as liberty and small government oriented as the FSP
members are, otherwise the FSP would have never been created. The candidate
states have been chosen based on one main factor, population. Lots of Jason's
original research dealt with the Parti Quebecois of Quebec, Canada.
Jason, the founder and President of the Free State Project, described how the
PQ had 100,000 paying members in a Canadian province with around 6,200,000
residents when it gained a parliamentary majority in 1976. This makes one PQ
activist for every 62 Quebec residents. The FSP would need 20,000
activists in a state with fewer than 1,200,000 residents to attempt to
duplicate the PQ's success. If you never read Jason's article or want to read
it again, you can find it
here.
How do the candidate states measure up to this important barrier?
| State |
Population
(2002) |
Pop. Divided
by 20K Activists |
| WY |
498,703 |
24.9 |
| VT |
616,592 |
30.8 |
| ND |
634,110 |
31.7 |
| AK |
643,786 |
32.1 |
| SD |
761,063 |
38.0 |
| DE |
807,385 |
40.3 |
| MT |
909,453 |
45.4 |
| NH |
1,275,056 |
63.7* |
| ME |
1,294,464 |
64.7* |
| ID |
1,341,131 |
67.0* |
* Over the limit of 62
Jason has speculated that if the FSP does not get 20,000 members the project
will fold and a new, looser-organized project will take its place and probably
decide to move to a small state like Wyoming. If people move to the selected
state before the project has 20,000 members, this might be a disaster for the
FSP. These people will be unlikely to move again; after all, they just spent
thousands of dollars to move to the chosen state. This means the FSP members
will be split between the chosen state and Wyoming and neither group will
succeed. The other possibility is that most people will decide to move to the
chosen state anyway, and the project will fail because it will lack enough
members to make changes in the chosen state. If Wyoming is not picked, then
the project might not even get off the ground. However, if Wyoming is picked
and 20,000 members do not sign up, Wyoming will still be the back-up state when
Jason shuts down the project. This means that people can move early to Wyoming
and not have to worry about moving again, or inadvertently splitting the
project, unlike all of the other states.
I have studied the data and talked with people that have lived or currently
live in the states. There is nothing that makes the more populous states such
as New Hampshire and Idaho two and one-half to three times as good as Wyoming.
Given these numbers, the real question seems to be, why should we not
pick Wyoming, as opposed to why should we pick a more populous state?
What if a large amount of people drop out of the project in a few years?
The project will be doomed in a large-population state like Idaho, but it will
likely still succeed in Wyoming. A quote on the FSP Forum, by a fellow
Porcupine, says, "After we finally make the vote, chances are a good chunk of
us will bow out; estimates on the initial loss of membership range from 10% to
25%. This will happen regardless of which state is chosen." It just makes
sense to err on the safe side. Remember, this is our future and the future of
our dream – freedom. If we bite off more than we can chew, this unique
opportunity for "freedom in our lifetime" might be forever lost. We must start
small and work from there. We should not fool around with freedom and pick a
state because it has a beach, a casino resort, or a Chinese restaurant in every
town! Sure, these are factors that deserve a small amount of consideration, but
they are not as important as freedom.
II. Government and Taxes
- General
The Republican, Democratic, and Libertarian Party are the only major political
parties in Wyoming. Wyoming, unlike six other candidate states (including
Alaska, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Idaho) actually has term limits for its
legislature. Wyoming has a ballot initiative process, unlike New Hampshire,
but it is regulated more than it should be.
- District Sizes
Wyoming's House has 60 members: 45 Republicans and 15 Democrats, each
representing around 8,200 residents. This compares favorably to most states,
including Montana, South Dakota, Alaska, and especially Idaho, which has huge
districts consisting of over 36,500 residents per district. New Hampshire has
some districts with over 21,000 residents but also has some very small
districts. This means the 400 members of the New Hampshire House have much
less influence than the 60 members of the Wyoming House.
House District Sizes
(2000 figures)
| State |
House
District Size |
Reps |
| VT |
4,059
to 8,118 |
150 |
| WY |
8,230 |
60 |
| ME |
8,443 |
151 |
| MT |
9,022 |
100 |
| SD |
10,783 |
70 |
| ND |
13,106 |
98 |
| AK |
15,673 |
40 |
| DE |
19,112 |
41 |
| NH |
3,089
to 21,559 |
400 |
| ID |
36,962 |
70 |
Source: Joe Swyers
The Wyoming Senate has 30 members with a party breakdown of 20
Republicans and 10 Democrats, each representing around 16,500 residents. This
compares very favorably to most states. For example, Montana has 18,189,
Alaska has 32,189, Maine has over 36,500, Idaho has over 38,300, Delaware has
over 38,400, and New Hampshire has over 53,000 residents per Senate district.
Senate District Sizes (rounded)
(2002 figures)
| State |
Senate
District Size |
|
| ND |
13,500 |
|
| WY |
16,500 |
|
| MT |
18,100 |
|
| VT |
20,500 |
|
| SD |
21,700 |
|
| AK |
32,100 |
Only 20 Senators |
| ME |
36,500 |
|
| ID |
38,300 |
|
| DE |
38,400 |
|
| NH |
53,000 |
Only 24 Senators |
When both House and Senate district sizes are considered, Wyoming is
about equal to Vermont for small district sizes. When you consider Wyoming has
term limits and a ballot initiative process, it moves even farther ahead of the
pack. Wyoming is clearly one of the easiest states to access as far as state
legislative assembly is considered. When all four factors are considered, New
Hampshire, Delaware, and Idaho stand out as being the hardest to access as far
as state legislative assembly is considered. These states are hindered by not
having term limits, and New Hampshire does not even have a ballot initiative
process.
- State Deficit
Wyoming is one of the few states in the country with no deficit.
Wyoming had a surplus in 2002 and has a reserve fund. On the other hand,
Alaska, Maine, New Hampshire, and South Dakota have growing debts. This has
caused some parts of Alaska to start collecting a general sales tax and a
growing fight in New Hampshire between groups that want to raise the income tax
and groups that want to raise the property tax. This issue is important
because the residents of a state will be much less likely to lower taxes (like
the FSP wants) if the state is experiencing a growing budget shortfall.
State Budget Deficits ($Millions)
| State |
2003 Deficit
(Projected) |
2002 Deficit |
| WY |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| ND |
7.6 |
7.4 |
| SD |
36.1 |
19.6 |
| VT |
38.0 |
67.1 |
| DE |
41.8 |
0.0 |
| NH |
54.6 |
19.7 |
| ID |
75.0 |
221.0 |
| MT |
118.0 |
0.0 |
| ME |
243.0 |
150.8 |
| AK |
842.7 |
777.4 |
[Source]
- Taxes
What about the overall tax issues? Wyoming is already one of the most
appealing states in the nation for tax purposes. Only three of the candidate
states have no personal income taxes, and Wyoming is one of them. Only one of
the candidate states has absolutely no corporate income tax, Wyoming is that
state. Wyoming's property tax rates are about half of the national average.
Even the sales taxes are low in Wyoming, but many Wyoming sales taxes can be
avoided by using planned purchasing strategies. Much of Wyoming is only
two to three hours away from Billings or Bozeman MT where there is no general
sales tax. In Wyoming, many people routinely barter for goods and services.
Usually these barter activities go unreported to the IRS. In addition, most
goods may be bought over the internet or second hand and are not subject to
sales taxes.
Here are rankings for the major tax rates:
Income Tax
| WY, AK, SD |
None |
| NH, ND |
Low |
| DE, MT, ID |
Average |
| VT, ME |
Very High |
Sales Tax
| MT, DE, NH, AK |
Very Low |
| ID, VT, ME, WY, SD |
Low |
| ND |
Average |
Corp. Income Tax
| WY |
None |
| SD, MT |
Low |
| AK, ID |
Average |
| ME, DE, ND, NH*, VT |
High |
* NH also has a Business Enterprise tax
Property Tax
| WY |
DE |
ID |
MT |
AK |
SD |
VT |
ME |
NH |
| Best |
| | | |
| | |
Worst |
(I am not sure if I am using the best
source for this table. However, I am certain that WY has the lowest and NH
the highest). No info for ND.
- Other tax issues
States typically get most of their revenue from personal income, corporate
income, sales, and property taxes. However, some states do not even tax one or
two of these categories. The states that limit the types of taxes they impose
on their citizens deserve extra recognition from FSP members. Tax cutting
strategists and theorists have long recognized certain principles that are
common to most state governments. One of the commonly recognized principles
notes that all tax rates generally increase over time. Because of this,
anti-tax groups tend to think that limiting the types of taxes is the best way
to control government growth.
Wyoming stands out as the only state that does not collect two different
types of taxes. The citizens of Wyoming have done a better job controlling
their state government's desire for more taxes than any of the other candidate
states, according to this train of thought. In addition, Wyoming has no
capital gains or death taxes, as some states do. Even Wyoming's gas and
electric utility taxes are low.
Absence of Taxes
| DE, MT, NH |
No state or local general sales tax |
| WY, AK, SD |
No personal income tax |
| WY, SD (only taxes financial companies) |
No corporate tax |
| NH |
No wage tax, but: interest, dividend, and
indirect income
taxes (also
see) |
| ID, VT, ME, ND |
Tax their citizens every which way they can! |
What is the difference between states with no income tax and states
with no sales tax? Which is better? According to economists from the
Austrian school (the best known libertarian economic school), not having an
income tax is better than not having a sales tax. In addition, a sales tax, or
consumption tax, is fairer than an income, or production tax. An income tax is
more likely to hurt production than a sales tax is likely to hurt consumption.
In fact, the Cato Institute, a leading libertarian policy organization,
authored a policy
report that explains why the federal government should end the national
income tax and replace it with a national sales tax. Constitutional Republican
Alan Keyes
believes that a sales tax is more in line with Constitutional principles
than an income tax. The Republican Liberty Caucus, a libertarian organization
founded by Ron Paul (former Libertarian Party presidential candidate and the
only libertarian U.S. Rep. in Congress),
believes that a sales tax is more inline with freedom principles than an
income tax. Also, the National Taxpayers Union is against
both progressive and income taxes. This same principle holds true on a
state level. In addition, sales taxes tend to be more in line with libertarian
thought, because they are usually flat. On the other hand, state income taxes
tend to be anti-libertarian because they usually have progressive rates.
Again, the Cato Institute agrees with this train of thought.
Not only that, but all of the candidate states except for North Dakota and
Delaware are
tourist hotspots. The tourists that visit these states are subject to
state sales taxes but are not subject to state income taxes. This means that a
state, which relies more on sales taxes receipts, places less of a tax burden
on its citizens. For these reasons, states that do not have income taxes (like
Wyoming) have an advantage over states that do have income taxes (like Idaho,
New Hampshire, and Montana.)
- Low-tax strategies for individuals
Low-tax strategies are important to some FSP members. These FSP members do not
like to pay many taxes, and adjust their lives so that they may avoid as many
taxes as possible. Wyoming is one of three candidate states without an income
tax on wages, interest, or dividends and the only state that has no corporate
tax. Wyoming, like many states with large rural populations, has a great deal
of trade and barter activity. This activity usually goes unreported and is not
counted as income. Wyoming has very low property taxes and borders
sales-tax-free Montana. In fact, the metropolitan and shopping center of
Montana (Billings) is less than two hours away from Sheridan, Cody, Lovell, and
Powell WY. Wyoming residents from Gillette, Buffalo, Worland, and Jackson
often shop in sales-tax-free Montana. These towns offer the unique opportunity
(found no where else in the country) of no inventory, corporate, wage,
interest, dividend, or sales tax, and very low franchise and property taxes.
All of this, in addition to the barter trade, makes Wyoming the best state for
low-tax strategies.
III. Guns, Laws, and Resistance to the Federal Government
- Guns
Wyoming is a pro-gun state and has one of the most active gun cultures in the
country. Wyoming passed a law that allows the state government to prevent
lawsuits against the gun industry. Wyoming is tied with Vermont for having the
least restrictive hunting laws. Joe Swyers, an individualist and elected city
council member, ranked the 10 states hunting laws as:
Hunting Laws (10 = best, 0 = worst)
| WY |
VT |
MT |
AK |
ID |
ME |
ND |
NH |
SD |
DE |
| 10 |
10 |
9 |
8 |
7 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
Many different animals are hunted in Wyoming, including black bear, cougar,
coyote, turkey, jackrabbit, elk, antelope, deer, bighorn sheep, geese, duck,
gray wolf (soon to be, if Wyoming gets its way), etc.
Wyoming has "peaceable journey" laws. Even though there is no exact way to
determine gun ownership rates, the best research estimates that 88% of
households in Wyoming own a firearm. This is the highest percentage in the
country and much higher than most of the eastern FSP states. The three lowest
FSP state levels are Maine (48%), New Hampshire (36%), and Delaware (29%).
[Source]
A Wyoming resident does not need a permit to carry a handgun unless he
or she wants to carry concealed. Many states legally allow open carry of
handguns but in most of these states, open carry is not practical like it is in
Wyoming. In Wyoming, even the tourists do not get scared when they see guns
carried openly. The tourists just think it is part of one of the Old West
shows, which are performed in many of Wyoming's towns during tourist season.
Many people in large cities (especially east coast cities where handgun
ownership rates are low, e.g. Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Providence) are
afraid of guns. These people tend to react poorly when they see guns being
carried openly. This is true of the Boston MSA (which includes much of
southern New Hampshire) and of Delaware. This is also a problem in eastern
South Dakota, which is one of the reasons so many people have concealed carry
permits in South Dakota. I know open carry is also frowned upon in very
liberal Burlington VT. My uncle, an NRA member from Burlington, even frowns
upon concealed carry. Most likely, this is also a problem in Boise ID,
Anchorage AK, and Portland ME.
Wyoming has the third-highest rate of gun retailers in the nation, with 147 gun
retailers per 100,000 residents. In fact, Wyoming actually has more gun
retailers than the much higher population states of Maine and New Hampshire.
Out of all 10 states, Wyoming has the second-highest rate of machine gun
ownership, only behind New Hampshire. Wyoming has more machine guns in the
hands of its citizens than Montana, South Dakota, or Alaska.
Gun Retailers per 100k Residents
| AK |
MT |
WY |
ND |
VT |
ID |
SD |
ME |
NH |
DE |
| 186 |
154 |
147 |
93 |
81 |
79 |
78 |
50 |
44 |
18 |
[Source]
Wyoming has the highest rate of gun shows, per-capita, in the U.S. Wyoming's
rate is over twice as high as Idaho's and around seven times New Hampshire's.
By absolute numbers, Wyoming has 50 gun shows per year compared to New
Hampshire's 17 in 2000, Alaska's 4 in 2000, and California's 188 in 1999.
Gun Shows per Year
| State |
Population
(2000) |
Shows |
Shows per
100K people |
| WY |
493,782 |
50 |
10.00 |
| MT |
902,195 |
54 |
6.00 |
| ID |
1,293,653 |
49 |
3.75 |
| SD |
754,844 |
27 |
3.50 |
| DE |
783,600 |
16 |
2.00 |
| NH |
1,235,786 |
17 |
1.50 |
| ME |
1,274,923 |
14 |
1.00 |
| ND |
642,200 |
7 |
1.00 |
| AK |
626,932 |
4 |
0.75 |
| VT |
608,827 |
3 |
0.50 |
[Source]
- Laws
The people of Wyoming value their freedom; it is part of their culture. For
the most part, the people of Wyoming tend to be some of the most
individualistic people in the country.
Wyoming has less of a need for the federal government than most states. It has
no metropolises, no cesspools of crime, and no welfare ghettos that think of
the government as the answer to every problem.
Wyoming does not have a huge problem with farmers demanding aid from the
federal government (unlike North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Idaho).
Even Wyoming's animals are free from the confines of a zoo. The entire state
is a zoo! With wolves, cougars, bears, bison, bald eagles, and wild
horses.
Wyoming is already one of the most free, least restrictive states in the
country. If we move to Wyoming, we will already be a few years ahead of where
we would be in most of the other candidate states, as far as freedom is
concerned.
Other laws:
- Wyoming is a right-to-work state (unlike Montana, New Hampshire,
Delaware, Alaska, Maine, and Vermont).
- Wyoming is one of the 15 states in the U.S. (five of them are FSP states)
that allow most class C fireworks. New Hampshire and Idaho are more
restrictive, while Vermont and Delaware outright ban fireworks.
- Wyoming requires motorcycle helmets for children, but it does not
require bicycle helmets like Delaware and parts of Montana.
- Wyoming has some of the least restrictive window tinting laws in
the country, whereas New Hampshire, Delaware, and Alaska are more restrictive.
- Wyoming has the least restrictive smoking laws in the country,
while all of the other FSP states are much more restrictive. Delaware has the
most restrictive smoking laws in the country.
- Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, and Montana have the least restrictive
speed limit laws out of the candidate states. The interstate speed
limits are generally 75 mph in the above states, but only 65 mph in New
Hampshire, Alaska, and Delaware.
[Source].
One former resident of Evanston WY, said that many of the cars traveling
between Salt Lake City UT, and Evanston WY go 80-85 mph without fear of being
ticketed.
- Wyoming has no laws regarding extra-high minimum wages or living
wages, unlike Vermont, Maine, and Montana.
- Wyoming has no statewide land-use planning laws, unlike Idaho, New
Hampshire, Maine, and Vermont.
Report
I did some research on both economic and social freedoms in all 50 states and
produced a
report based on the research. I used a total of 15 different
easy-to-compare factors for the report. The report listed Wyoming, South
Dakota, and Alaska, three of the least-populated states in the country, as the
freest states in the country. The conclusion to the report stated, "The most
free states in the country tend to be the western states with very low
population density rates." Wyoming and Alaska are the farthest west, low
population density states in the country.
Resistance to Federal Government
Wyoming openly and actively resists federal laws. Many of Wyoming's citizens
believe that Wyoming law trumps federal law. Sometimes the state tries to
resist or ignore federal laws, while other times, the state takes the federal
government to court:
- Wolf case – The U.S. Department of Interior reintroduced wolves into
northwest Wyoming in 1995. The wolves have caused so much damage and have
grown in such numbers that they are no longer an endangered species. Wyoming
passed two bills that guarantee that farmers and ranchers will be allowed to
shoot wolves on sight, hunting of wolves will be encouraged, and the federal
government will have to reimburse Wyoming for all damages caused by the wolves.
The Wyoming legislature is sick of the federal government and resents the lack
of foresight it demonstrated prior to reintroducing the wolves into Wyoming.
See here and
here
- Wyoming was the last state in the country to raise the minimum drinking
age to 21 years of age and did not pass zero tolerance laws until 1998.
Wyoming did not pass a law preventing drivers from drinking while they drive
until 2001. However, this bill did not prevent passengers from
drinking. This law is not in accordance with federal law, which states that
the passengers cannot have open containers. Because Wyoming chose not to
follow the federal mandate, it lost some of its federal highway funds. Here's
how the states stack up:
Minimum Drinking Age Set to 21
| WY |
SD |
MT |
ID |
VT |
NH |
ME |
AK |
DE |
ND |
| 1988 |
1988 |
1987 |
1987 |
1986 |
1985 |
1985 |
1984 |
1984 |
1936 |
Year of Zero Tolerance for Under 21
| WY |
SD |
VT |
ND |
AK |
MT |
DE |
ID |
NH |
ME |
| 1998 |
1998 |
1997 |
1997 |
1996 |
1995 |
1995 |
1994 |
1993 |
1983 |
[Source]
For more information on the issue of drinking and driving in Wyoming read, why the
West has resisted drunken-driving crackdown.
- County sheriff in charge - County sheriffs in Wyoming demanded that all
federal law enforcement officers and personnel from federal regulatory agencies
clear all their activities in a Wyoming county with the Sheriff's Office. In
addition, Wyoming sheriffs demanded to see all of the BATF's and IRS' records
relating to Wyoming. Wyoming took the federal government to court and won
because it argued that the state was in charge based on the 10th Amendment to
the United States Constitution. Sheriff Mattis, the main sheriff representing
the Wyoming Sheriffs' Association, said, "I hope that more sheriffs all across
America will join us in protecting their citizens from the illegal activities
of the IRS, EPA, BATF, FBI, or any other federal agency that is operating
outside the confines of constitutional law." The courts ruled," Wyoming is a
sovereign state and the duly elected sheriff of a county is the highest law
enforcement official within a county and has law enforcement powers exceeding
that of any other state or federal official."
See
here, here, and
here.
- Wyoming sued the federal government over control of its forests and won
the case. The federal government wanted permanent and complete control over
the federal forests in Wyoming. Wyoming knew that the federal government
refused to actively manage forests and that this would hurt tourism, traveling,
and lead to more and larger forest fires. See
here.
- Even Wyoming's citizens sue the federal government. Wyoming's citizens
have the right to sue the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. It was previously
thought that the BLM was somewhat immune from lawsuits, just like the IRS used
to be, but that is now changed because of
one brave Wyoming man.
- Wyoming reads the federal fine print and is able to lead other
states in fights against the federal government. Wyoming started a water
rebellion when it read the fine print in a federal government water rights
scheme. Wyoming noticed that the scheme would give the federal government
final control over all government and private water in Wyoming, and the state
knew that was unconstitutional. Wyoming was able to influence other state
governments to join the water rebellion. In fact, both government and private
organizations from various Western states joined together, to fight the federal
government. See here and here.
- The federal government's National Park Service tried to prevent people
from climbing Wyoming's famous Devils Tower during June. June is supposedly a
sacred month to some of the Native American tribes from South Dakota. The
Native American tribes and the National Park Service worked together to stop
the climbing. The Nation Park Service called for a voluntary ban on all
climbing during June. The Wyoming Friends of Devils Tower and the Mountain
States Legal Foundation fought the action. The federal courts agreed, they
ruled that the National Parks Service violated the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution and Devils Tower National Monument's own management
policies. The United States still means something in Wyoming because its
people care about freedom. See here.
- Wyoming's State Supreme Court keeps state and local governments, and the
press in check. Laramie tried to restrict newspapers, but the Wyoming State
Supreme Court said that violated the First
Amendment. The Wyoming Department of Health thought that it would help
children by making it mandatory for them to get vaccinations. The Wyoming
State Supreme Court found
mandatory vaccinations unconstitutional. The Gillette News-Record wanted
to release the names of concealed carry permit holders. The Wyoming State
Supreme Court said that would
violate the privacy of the permit holders. After all, open carry of
firearms has always been legal in Wyoming. The only reason Wyoming passed
concealed carry laws in the 1990s was so people could carry a firearm without
other people knowing about it. In Wyoming, you are innocent until proven
guilty and
must be treated as such. See also here and here.
IV. Groups That Could Work Against Freedom
These groups include: the Green Party, labor unions, teacher unions, religious
groups, and Native Americans.
- The Green Party
Ralph Nader, the Green Party
presidential candidate for 2000, was not able to even get on the ballot in
Wyoming. He could not get enough signatures to be on the ballot, even though
the standards were not very strict. The Libertarian, Constitutional, Reform,
and Natural Law parties were all able to get their presidential candidate on
the ballot in Wyoming. This compares very favorably to many other of the FSP
candidate states where Ralph Nader not only got on the ballot, but also won a
substantial number of votes.
Green Party voters in the 2000 presidential
election
| WY |
0 |
0% |
|
| SD |
0 |
0% |
|
| ID |
0 |
0% |
|
| DE |
8,288 |
3% |
Almost half as much as the expected FSP membership |
| ND |
9,530 |
3% |
Almost half as much as the expected FSP membership |
| VT |
19,810 |
7% |
Almost as much as the expected FSP membership |
| NH |
22,156 |
4% |
More than the expected FSP membership |
| AK |
22,789 |
10% |
More than the expected FSP membership; 1 in 10 voters |
| MT |
24,487 |
6% |
More than the expected FSP membership |
| ME |
37,842 |
6% |
Almost double the expected FSP membership |
[Source]
- Labor unions
Labor union members form another group that might oppose increased freedom in
the chosen state. A significant percentage of the budgets of labor unions are
spent on contributions to the
campaigns of statist
politicians. According to the Labor Research organization, only New
Hampshire and Wyoming resisted voting for a "big-labor"-supported candidate in
the whole nation during the last election cycle. Of all 10 states, only
Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Idaho have right-to-work laws.
Union membership rates tend to be less in right-to-work states, but the rates
are also influenced by the presence of certain jobs which unions prefer to
organize, as well as other factors:
Labor Union Membership (in thousands)
| SD |
WY |
ND |
VT |
ID |
DE |
MT |
AK |
NH |
ME |
| 19 |
20 |
21 |
30 |
42 |
45 |
48 |
59 |
60 |
72 |
[Source]
Would you rather have 20,000 union members oppose the FSP (like Wyoming), over
twice as many (like Idaho and Montana), or over thrice as many (like New
Hampshire and Maine)? If New Hampshire is picked, union membership will be
three times as large as the FSP membership.
Of course, this is not to say that all union members would oppose us. Some
states' own set of circumstances could play into our hands, even with union
members opposing us. It's just that given the track record of labor unions in
this country (and how very few members opt-out of seeing their contributions
going to support statist politicians), it might be desirable to have fewer
union members in the chosen state. Even if the union members wanted to help
the freedom movement, in the six states that are union controlled, including
New Hampshire, union members would still be forced to fight against the freedom
movement, with at least their union dues
- Teacher unions
On the FSP Forum, Joe Swyers said, "Total teacher numbers is a crucial factor
for the FSP – just like total voter numbers. In Idaho, Maine, New
Hampshire, and Montana, the teachers would outnumber the 20,000 Free State
activists … Teachers, especially union teachers, are activists – if
for no other reason than they daily reach a large number of students and their
parents." Joe makes a compelling argument. Teacher unions routinely fight
against: tax cuts, the liberalization of home school laws, any changes in
school curricula, and any type of cutback in funding for government schools.
Wyoming stands out as the only state the does not give teacher unions
monopoly power or forced dues. Wyoming has the third-lowest
percentage of NEA teachers, behind only South Dakota and Idaho. In addition,
Wyoming has the smallest number of teachers and the smallest number of
unionized teachers.
Joe also categorized the 10 candidate states based on how much their laws
restrict teacher unions. Restricting teacher unions is a good thing, and so
the states listed first should be considered best, and the states listed last
should be considered worst, for this criterion.
% of K-12 employees in the NEA (2000)
| State |
% in NEA |
Teacher
Monopoly
Bargaining |
Forced
Dues |
| WY |
38 |
no |
no |
| SD |
36 |
yes |
no |
| ID |
38 |
| VT |
51 |
| ME |
53 |
| ND |
64 |
| NH |
41 |
yes |
yes |
| DE |
60 |
| MT |
66 |
| AK |
74 |
Sources:
here and here.
(States with less than 1,000 AFT "votes" were omitted from the source for AFT
numbers).
- Religious Groups
Wyoming is the fifth least-religious state in America, and is likely the
second least-religious candidate state, according to this
report. In
addition, Wyoming has much more religious diversity than most states.
WY Religious Preferences
| No religion |
20% |
| Catholic |
18% |
| Christian |
17% |
| Baptist |
9% |
| Lutheran |
9% |
| Other |
7% |
| Latter-Day Saints |
7% |
| Methodist |
5% |
| Presbyterian |
4% |
| Episcopalian |
4% |
Wyoming has better religious diversity than the nine other candidate states.
If the major religions of one of the other candidate states stood united
against freedom, we would have a very difficult time trying to help the state
break free. That's why religious diversity is important. In a state
like Wyoming, all of the religions would have to stand against us to
have a substantial impact against the FSP, but in states like New Hampshire,
Vermont, North Dakota, South Dakota, Maine, and Montana, just one or two major
religions might be able to break the FSP.
Religious Monopoly Control
(% of state residents in the 3 major religions for that state)
(Lower % is better)
| WY |
36% |
(18% Catholic, 9% Lutheran, 9% Baptist) |
| ID |
38% |
(15% Catholic, 14% Latter-Day Saints*, 9% Baptist) |
| MT |
43% |
(22% Catholic, 14% Lutheran, 7% Methodist) |
| NH |
47% |
(35% Catholic, 6% Baptist, 6% Congregational) |
| DE |
48% |
(20% Methodist, 19% Baptist, 9% Catholic) |
| ME |
48% |
(24% Catholic, 15% Baptist, 9% Methodist) |
| VT |
50% |
(38% Catholic, 6% Methodist, 6% Congregational) |
| SD |
65% |
(27% Lutheran, 25% Catholic, 13% Methodist) |
| ND |
72% |
(35% Lutheran, 30% Catholic, 7% Methodist) |
* The Mormon Church claims that 26% of those living in Idaho are LDS.
[Source]. No
data for AK.
However, the Christian members of the FSP should not be afraid of moving to
Wyoming. For example, K-Love, a national group of Christian radio stations
from California, has five stations in Wyoming. Wyoming's religious groups can
be broken down to different regions of the state, to some extent. The
southwestern portion of Wyoming has the bulk of the state's Latter-Day Saints
population. The least religious parts of Wyoming tend to be the mining towns,
and the college town of Laramie.
- Native Americans
Wyoming has one Indian reservation – the Wind River Indian Reservation.
Most of the reservation is in Fremont County (whose largest city is Riverton).
However, most of the people in Riverton are not Native Americans. Native
Americans, both on and off the reservation, make up 2.3% of Wyoming's
population and represent the second-largest minority group in Wyoming. (The
largest minority group in Wyoming is Hispanics at 3.2% to 6.4% of the
population, depending on how you define Hispanic).
Native American population %
| NH |
VT |
DE |
ME |
ID |
WY |
ND |
MT |
SD |
AK |
| < 1 |
< 1 |
< 1 |
< 1 |
1.4 |
2.3 |
4.9 |
6.2 |
8.3 |
15.6 |
[Source]
When compared to Wyoming, the other western and mid-western states have both
more Indian Reservations and a larger Native American population. Native
Americans might work for, against, or indifferent to the principles of the FSP.
Many Native Americans are unemployed and rely on government subsidies.
However, because they are unemployed they have plenty of free time to be
activists. If the FSP members are able to convince the Native American
population of Wyoming, or any other states, that we are on their side, there
could be thousands of new freedom activists!
V. Miscellaneous Factors
Miscellaneous factors include such things as: pro-business environment, climate
and weather, livability, friendliness, gambling, private schools, jobs,
"firsts", and location.
- Pro-Business Environment
According to the 1999
Economic Freedom
Index which ranks all 50 states, Wyoming has more economic freedom
than eight of the other candidate states. The Index ranks Wyoming better than
New Hampshire, Delaware, Montana, and Alaska:
Economic Freedom Index (1-50)
| ID |
WY |
SD |
NH |
DE |
ND |
MT |
VT |
AK |
ME |
| 1 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
21 |
26 |
34 |
38 |
42 |
The 2002 Small Business Survival Index
ranks Wyoming as the third-best state for small businesses in the entire
country. Wyoming bests such states as Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and
Delaware. The candidate states of Idaho, North Dakota, Montana, Vermont, and
Maine are all ranked as part of the worst 25 states in the country for
small businesses.
Expansion Management Magazine ranked Cheyenne as a
Five Star Community
for quality of life. (These rankings were done so that small to
mid-sized companies would have a basis to compare different cities for
relocation purposes).
Many people have companies that are financial, electronic, or mail order
related. No matter which state is picked, the profits of these companies will
not change much. However, the dollars made from the company will mean less in
Alaska or New Hampshire than they will mean in Wyoming, because of its low
cost of living. Likewise, if one of these companies moves from New
Hampshire or Delaware to Wyoming, the dollars will be worth more and the
company owner will be able to help the FSP out to a greater degree. Most
business owners prefer a general sales tax, like Wyoming has, to personal and
corporate income taxes, like New Hampshire, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and Vermont
have. Businesses find that sales taxes are easier to comply with than personal
and corporate income taxes. This is because sales taxes are straightforward
and easy to understand, unlike corporate tax laws.
According to the Fiduciary Group, Delaware and Wyoming are the only two
candidate states that have a worldwide reputation for being
business-friendly. (See the Fiduciary Group's
report on Wyoming). According to a
report by CRA of
America, Wyoming might be a better state for LLCs than either Nevada or
Delaware. In 1977, Wyoming became the first state to authorize Limited
Liability Corporations. Wyoming has some of the most liberal LLC laws in
the country, and continues to attract both national and international
companies.
Wyoming is much less regulated than most states. Wyoming has many
advantages for companies (in addition to being personal and corporate income
tax free). You do not even have to get a business license in many parts of
Wyoming. For example, Johnson County (with its towns of Buffalo and Kaycee)
has no business license requirements. Although the state of Wyoming just
created a standard set of building codes (the Universal Building Codes
standard), many of Wyoming's counties do not have any laws relating to the UBC
standard and do not enforce the state law. The northeastern states, especially
New Hampshire and Maine, have many 19th century farmhouses. Many people want
to see these houses preserved even if it means that property owners cannot
renovate the houses, as they see fit. Environmental regulations are hurting
the mining business in Montana, the fishery and logging businesses in Maine,
and even the housing market in Vermont.
- Livability and Crime
Out of the 10 candidate states, Wyoming has the second-highest livability
ranking. In fact, according to a
2002
report by Morgan Quitno Press, Wyoming is the eighth-most livable state in
the country. The report also claims that Wyoming has the sixth-lowest crime
rate in the country. Wyoming helps prove the libertarian point the private prisons do not automatically mean high crime because Wyoming is a very low crime state.
Percent of prison population in private prisons:
Alaska, 33.5%
Idaho, 23.9%
Wyoming, 21.3%
North Dakota, 5.1%
Montana, 3.4%
South Dakota, 1.7%
Maine, 0.6%
Delaware, New Hampshire, and Vermont, 0%
Livability Ranking
| State: |
NH |
WY |
SD |
ME |
ND |
VT |
DE |
ID |
AK |
MT |
|---|
| Rank: |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
|---|
[Source]
- Friendliness
Wyoming is a friendly and welcoming place to outsiders. Several million people
travel to Wyoming on a yearly basis. These tourists spend money in Wyoming and
help support Wyoming's economy. Wyoming's tourists come from all walks of life
and have made Wyoming's residents accustomed to interacting with all types of
people. Most people that live in Wyoming are not even from Wyoming. In
fact, only 42.5% of Wyoming's population is native, making it the second-best
candidate state for that factor. Wyoming is far enough west that people do not
care about the North-South division that is more prevalent in the East.
Wyoming welcomes both Northerners and Southerners.
- Private Schools
Wyoming has the third-highest percentage of children enrolled in private
schools. According to the following report, the percent of children in
Wyoming's private schools is around 250% higher than New Hampshire's.
% of School-Age Pop. in Private Schools
(Elementary and Secondary)
| ME |
ID |
WY |
DE |
MT |
AK |
SD |
ND |
NH |
VT |
| 16.2 |
14.6 |
14.3 |
12.6 |
11.8 |
9.4 |
7.7 |
5.5 |
4.1 |
2.0 |
[Source] 1994 (sorry, latest figures I
have)
After looking at the above report, a Porcupine gave the following insightful
observations on the FSP Forum: "States like Wyoming have a political
disadvantage over states like Delaware. In Delaware, everyone in Wilmington
who can afford to do so sends their kids to private school because of the
center for drugs and violence that some of those big city public schools have
become (or at least are perceived to be). Whereas, Wyoming schools seem clean
and safe, and even some of the richest families send their children to public
schools."
- Jobs
Wyoming is expected to produce fewer jobs in the next 10 years than any of the
other candidate states. This topic bears extended discussion.
- Wyoming's past and future growth
According to the 2000 Census, Wyoming's population grew from 453,588 residents
in 1990 to 493,782 in 2000. This means that Wyoming was able to handle 40,194
new residents in 10 years. Currently, Wyoming has a lower than average
unemployment rate, which means that all of the people who moved to Wyoming in
the 1990s were able to find jobs. Wyoming's per-capita income is
growing much faster than the nation as a whole, and has progressed from
36th in the nation (1996) to 28th in the nation (2000) and is currently 20th in
the nation (2001).
Cheyenne WY is the northernmost city in the Rocky Mountain's Front Range
region. This region has around 2.5 million people, many high-tech companies,
and good transportation lines. Over time, more and more Colorado companies are
moving to Wyoming. They choose Wyoming because of its low crime and very low
taxes. If the FSP is able to prove to these companies that we are a
pro-business organization and have a skilled workforce, then we will be able to
attract even more companies to Wyoming.
- Out-of-state jobs
Wyoming is better positioned than most states, including all of the western
states, for out-of-state jobs. Wyoming should have enough jobs for the FSP, by
itself. However, some members may want very specialized jobs that are not
available in relatively small MSAs, like Cheyenne WY. Ft. Collins CO, for
example, is larger than Billings MT, and is only 40 miles from Wyoming.
Wyoming is close to both the Salt Lake City/Park City/Ogden and the Ft.
Collins/Longmont/Denver areas. Wyoming is even closer to Montana's largest
population area, Billings, than almost all of Montana itself is. Wyoming is
less than one and a half hours from Billings, MT. Parts of western Wyoming are
much closer to two of Idaho's four largest cities than almost all of Idaho is.
Even the Black Hills region of Wyoming is not isolated. In fact it is closer to
the second-largest MSA, and entertainment center, of South Dakota than almost
all of South Dakota is. Also, Wyoming is only 30 minutes away from the largest
city in western Nebraska – Scottsbluff.
All of these cities and metro centers offer some jobs that may require only a
few days per week of actual in-office work. Pilots, marketers, advertisers,
investors, writers, healthcare professionals, truck drivers, telecommuters, and
franchise expanders will have no trouble finding work in these out-of-state
cities. It should be noted, that all of these jobs are available in Wyoming,
as well.
Front-range MSAs near Wyoming:
- Ft Collins/Loveland - distance 40 miles, population 260,000+
- Greeley - distance 63 miles, population 200,000+
- Longmont/Boulder - distance 71 miles, population 300,000+
- Denver - distance 94 miles, population 2,200,000+
- All of the above - population 3,000,000+
- All of the above - 2025 projected population 5,000,000+
More statistics on Ft. Collins MSA from the Northern Colorado Economic Development Council:
- The Ft. Collins MSA is one of the 10 fastest growing MSAs in the country
- The Ft. Collins MSA expects 215,000 new jobs between 1997 and 2010
- ? Median Income is $58,200
- ? Major Employers: Colorado State University, ConAgra Beef,
Hewlett-Packard, Agilent Technologies, Poudre Valley Health Systems, Eastman
Kodak, Wal-Mart, State Farm Insurance, StarTek, Inc., Woodward, Advanced
Energy, Teledyne WaterPik, McKee Medical Center, Anheuser-Busch, and Celestica
- Job growth
Let us consider the notion of "more jobs is better" (the assumption made in the
spreadsheet concerning the Jobs variable). We can make a list of advantages
and disadvantages of a high-growth state and a low-growth state:
High job-growth state:
- More jobs might mean the state is probably already experiencing heavy
immigration, which may lead to hostility towards newcomers. Add to that a
political agenda, and we may have a difficult time in the area of acceptance.
- More jobs might mean the economy in the state is already healthy. This
means FSP influence will be harder to prove in "turning things around", thus
making the Free State model less attractive to other states. FSP may thus be a
"one-state wonder."
- More jobs, above the needs of FSP and Friends-of-FSP, will draw economic
refugees from other states. These will dilute FSP efforts to free the states,
particularly if the refugees are from nearby statist states that are exporting
jobs due to poor economic policies.
- More jobs means a fast-increasing population, so FSP may have difficulty
staying on top of things, and may find itself more in a defensive role, rather
than making progress in increasing freedom.
- More jobs might mean the choice in places to live would be wider, although
jobs do tend to be concentrated in larger cities.
- More jobs might mean easier access to occupations for FSP members who are
not retirees.
Low job-growth state:
- Fewer jobs, especially at the lowest levels, will effectively shut off all
statist immigration for the period that FSP members are immigrating to the
state. This will give us time to get up-to-speed politically, and start
influencing things – particularly in the area of providing other
disincentives for statists to move to the state, which will be needed as FSP
policies gradually improve the economic picture.
- Fewer jobs might mean the economy is flat. Thus, we should be able to
subsequently make a convincing demonstration of the benefits of freedom to the
economy. This demonstration will help spread freedom to neighboring states,
particularly those that are languishing.
- Fewer jobs might mean more difficult access to occupations for FSP members
who are not retirees (the retirees should have no problem). It will take more
years for all our member-population to move to the state. However, uniquely in
Wyoming's case, its status as the default backup state (in case FSP fails to
reach 20,000) means members can start moving there immediately after the vote
is taken, so members will have more years to immigrate to Wyoming.
- Fewer jobs might mean that more FSP members will have to go to tech or
vocation school to learn a new skill.
- Fewer jobs might mean that more FSP members might want to travel out of state for a job. (Wyoming is one of the best candidate states for this. The Ft. Collins MSA starts only forty minutes from Cheyenne and expects 215,000 new jobs between 1997 and 2010.)
A further factor to this equation is that it will become generally known that a
large block of business-friendly people will be moving to the chosen state. In
addition, this block of people will have diverse skills. These facts might make
corporations reconsider Wyoming in a new and positive light, for location of
new facilities.
The above shows that, far from being an unalloyed good, a high jobs number
serves to ease initial FSP entry into the state, while likely making
things more difficult for us, later on. For that reason, in the large FSP
comparison spreadsheet, Paul Bonneau pegged an intermediate number of jobs
(60,000) as ideal for the FSP, rather than just using it as a simple "more is
better" measure, as Jason did on the regular spreadsheet.
Wyoming Firsts
Wyoming is a trend setting state and the first state in the nation in several
different categories. I am not sure how important this factor is; certainly,
it is not as important as the first five factors I discussed in this report.
However, this factor was brought up on the FSP Forum, when it was mentioned
that New Hampshire has the earliest, or first, primary in the nation. This is
true, although any state, at any time, can change when it has its election
primary. Wyoming has an impressive list of firsts, itself. Some of these may
be good while others might be looked at as bad, but one thing is for sure,
these trends did catch on in the rest of the country. Many people think that
the FSP might spread to other states, in much the same way that Wyoming's
firsts have.
Wyoming's Firsts:
- First state to allow women to vote
- First woman Justice of the Peace
- First all woman jury
- First woman bailiff
- First woman elected to a statewide office (Superintendent)
- First woman governor
- First town to be governed entirely by women
- First national park
- First ranger station
- First national monument (Devil's Tower)
- First national forest
- First American rodeo
- First state to allow limited liability corporations
[Source]
Location
Wyoming is
centrally located between the northwestern, southwestern, and mid-western
states. Because of this, Wyoming's interstate roads travel from Canada to
Mexico and through New York City, Chicago, Omaha, Salt Lake City, and San
Francisco. Wyoming is located less than two hours from large airline hubs in
Salt Lake City and Denver. Wyoming is surrounded by the low-population,
liberty-friendly states of South Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. When the FSP is
successful in Wyoming, any of these candidate states would make a good second
state to liberate.
Wyoming is one of only two FSP candidate states which does not share a border
with Canada. Some people have tried to claim this is a strike against Wyoming.
However, I feel that this factor is a plus for Wyoming. Having a border with
Canada gives the federal government more Constitutional power in a state.
Especially now, with the Homeland Security Department, a growing international
terrorist threat, US Patriot Acts I and II, and increased border controls,
having a Canadian border could be a hindrance to a candidate state.
Kelton, a fellow Porcupine, published a series of
very interesting articles dealing with land-locked states, border security,
and economic freedom of neighboring states. After the articles, he summed up
the articles with the conclusion: "The Myth has been debunked! 1) A border
with Canada is a potential liability. 2) A long coastline is not
necessary or even desirable for a free state to exist."
Even if all of the problems the U.S. government might bring on a
Canadian-bordered Free State are ignored, it should be noted, that the Canadian
government would likely be against the Free State. The Canadian central
government is anti-freedom, in general. It is against many of the things the
FSP member love, like guns. Even the provincial governments are against
freedom. According to
Economic Freedom in North America, all of the Canadian providences, except
for one, have less economic freedom than even the least-free American state.
Canada might try to blame all of its future crime, gun, drug, and moral
problems on the Free State. These issues were discussed in detail on the FSP
Forum thread titled,
Border with Canada? Bad Idea. Canadian Government is not a friend.
VI. Conclusion
- Comparison Spreadsheets
Both Jason and Paul Bonneau made spreadsheets that compare the FSP candidate
states on various factors. Jason tried to limit
his
spreadsheet to the factors that he thought were most important for the FSP
members to consider. Paul's spreadsheet includes many of the same factors.
Additionally, he added a large number of useful but less important factors to
the spreadsheet. Both spreadsheets place Wyoming well ahead of the rest of the
states.
- State-by-state Comparisons
- Wyoming vs. Alaska
Some of the FSP members feel Alaska is the best state. However, in my opinion,
Wyoming surpasses Alaska. Wyoming is located near the center of the country,
whereas Alaska is almost a week's drive from the lower 48. The groups that
would oppose the FSP are more powerful in Alaska. It has a larger percentage
and amount of government, labor union, teacher union, Native American, and
Green Party members than Wyoming. Alaska is the coldest and most isolated of
the candidate states, whereas Wyoming is the third-warmest and is very close to
two major metropolitan centers. Alaska has more opt-outs than any other state
and is likely to lose many more people after the first winter, than Wyoming is.
Alaska has a much higher percentage of people receiving government assistance
than Wyoming. Alaska has a reputation for attracting criminals and is the
ninth-highest violent crime rate in the country, whereas Wyoming is one of the
safest states in the country.
Campaigning would be very hard during Alaska's cold season because: the
daylight hours are very short, much of Alaska is to cold to go outside (for
many people), and it literally takes four to five days to drive from Alaska's
largest city to its capitol city. Out of all the low population states, Alaska
has the largest state legislative districts. This is because Alaska only has
40 members in its state house and 20 members in its state senate. This
compares very poorly to Wyoming, which has the second-smallest state
legislative districts in the county. In addition, Alaska has a large budget
deficit problem, whereas Wyoming is the only candidate state that does not have
a budget problem.
- Wyoming vs. South Dakota
Some of the FSP members have suggested that South Dakota is the best compromise
state for the FSP project. While this is an interesting point, I believe that
Wyoming actually is the best compromise state. South Dakota is very dependent
on farming and the federal subsidies that come with it. Wyoming is near two
major metropolitan centers but South Dakota is not near any. Wyoming has
better religious diversity than any of the candidate states, but in South
Dakota the combined numbers of Lutherans, Catholics, and Methodists make up 65%
of the population. Wyoming has a very low native-born population while South
Dakota has the second-highest native-born population. Wyoming has warm areas
spread all across the state, but the only remotely warm part of South Dakota is
in one section of the Black Hills. Wyoming has both windy and non-windy areas
while all of South Dakota is quite windy. Wyoming has mountains, hills, and
valleys, but almost all of South Dakota is very flat.
- Wyoming vs. Montana
In many ways, the same group of FSP members is attracted to both Montana and
Wyoming. However, Wyoming has many advantages over Montana. Wyoming's
population is much more likely to vote for small-government candidates for
President, and its citizen's ideology is more pro-freedom. Montana has much
stronger opposition groups in the way of stronger labor union (because of no
right-to-work laws), teacher union, Green Party, and Native American groups.
Montana has a big problem with liberals from California moving to the entire
western part of the state; as opposed to Wyoming, where California liberals are
only moving to Jackson Hole. Montana's farmers are very dependent on the
federal government; and many of the people are on welfare. Montana has a large
border with Canada, which opens it up to all types of homeland security, border
control, and terrorist prevention laws and federal regulations. Montana has
the lowest mean household income in the country, whereas Wyoming's is more in
line with the national average. Montana is heavily regulated with parts of it
having bicycle helmet and living wage laws, unlike Wyoming, which does not have
such laws. One Porcupine even said that they think of Montana as, "the Maine
of the West." In fact, in Wyoming, many places do not even have business
licenses or building code laws. Wyoming has lower property taxes than Montana
and also has no income or corporate taxes.
- Wyoming vs. New Hampshire
Although New Hampshire is better for the FSP than some states, it does not seem
to compare favorably to Wyoming. For starters, Wyoming's population is only
39% as large as New Hampshire's. Wyoming has inexpensive elections at
$4,700,000, whereas New Hampshire has the most expensive elections, at a
whopping $19,600,000. If these numbers hold, the FSP members will have to come
up with well over four times as much money to run campaigns as successfully in
New Hampshire than in Wyoming. New Hampshire has a very low estimated rate of
gun ownership, at only 36%. Wyoming, on the other hand, has the highest
estimated rate of gun ownership in the country at 88%. In addition, Wyoming
has 10 gun shows for every 100,000 people, whereas New Hampshire has only 1.5.
New Hampshire has large state legislative districts (especially senate) and no
term limits or ballot imitative processes, while Wyoming is just the opposite.
New Hampshire is not a right-to-work state, and because of this, it has both a
large number of members in both labor and teacher unions.
New Hampshire is surrounded by very statists states (Maine, Vermont,
Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Providence Plantation,
and Canada), while Wyoming is surrounded by many liberty-friendly states
(Montana, South Dakota, Idaho, Colorado, and Nevada). This means that if New
Hampshire was picked it would likely attract the few freedom activists that are
left in its surrounding states. This would leave the freedom movements of the
surrounding states in even worse shape and prevent the FSP from expanding into
New Hampshire's neighboring states. However, something even worse is already
happening in New Hampshire: statists from Boston are moving to New Hampshire at
an alarming rate. This growth is expected to increase, and even more so if the
FSP selects New Hampshire and de-regulates business laws.
- Wyoming vs. Idaho
Even though some people consider Idaho a superior candidate state over New
Hampshire, this does not necessarily mean that Idaho is superior to Wyoming.
Wyoming has several very important, distinct advantages over Idaho. Idaho's
current population is over 2.68 times the size of Wyoming's, and is expected to
grow so fast that it will soon be three times. This is a major concern,
because it could indicate that Idaho needs three times as many committed and
dedicated freedom activists as Wyoming, in order for the entire project to be a
success. Wyoming's state house and senate districts are much smaller than
Idaho's. Wyoming's districts are 8,230 and 16,000 people, while Idaho's are
36,962 and over 38,300, respectively. Wyoming does not tax personal or
corporate income, and it has low property tax rates. On the other hand, Idaho
taxes its citizens every which way it can, including personal income, corporate
income, sales, and property taxes. Idaho has a very large and powerful
Latter-Day Saints contingent that is whole-heartedly against such trivial
activities as smoking, drinking, and using products that contain caffeine. The
Mormon population of Idaho is estimated at being anywhere from 14% to 26% of
the state's entire religious population. In Wyoming, on the other hand, as one
Porcupine said, people just want to be left alone.
- Wyoming vs. other low population states
Wyoming stands out as the best low population state. Wyoming is in a class of
its own, as far as population is concerned. Many people consider South Dakota
and Delaware to be low population states, but their respective populations are
over 50% larger than Wyoming's. Even though Alaska and Delaware are low
population states, their state legislative districts are very large, whereas
Wyoming has the second-smallest district sizes in the country. Wyoming voters
were more likely to vote for a small government candidate during the 2000
presidential election than voters from any other state, including all of the
low population states. In addition, the ideology of Wyoming's citizens is more
pro-freedom than every low population state except for Alaska. In fact, the
ideology of Wyoming's citizens is, figuratively, light years ahead of Vermont,
Delaware, and North Dakota. Wyoming is not very dependent on federal
subsidies, unlike North Dakota, South Dakota, and Alaska. Out of all low
population states, Wyoming has the second best weather. In fact, the weather
is so bad in Alaska, North Dakota, and many parts of South Dakota, that many of
the FSP members might abandon one of those states after their first winter
there.
- Wyoming vs. other western states
There are many reasons to believe that Wyoming is the best western state for
the FSP. Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Alaska are the four western states the
FSP is considering. Wyoming's population is anywhere from 140,000 to 842,428
less than any of the other western states. Wyoming has fewer labor union and
teacher union members than any of the other western states, which means less
opposition to the principles of freedom. Wyoming does not have a Green Party
movement, unlike Alaska and Montana, which have both a strong, growing Green
Party, and other pro-regulation, environmental groups. Wyoming receives less
federal aid than any other western state. Wyoming has a higher mean household
income than any of the other western states, except for Alaska (which has a
very high cost of living). The state house and senate districts are smaller in
Wyoming than in any of the other western states, and they are much smaller than
in all of the western states, except for Montana. The city governments in
Wyoming are smaller and impose fewer regulations than the city governments of
all other western FSP candidate states. Wyoming is the least isolated western
state; it is closer to major metropolitan centers than any of the other western
states.
Key Wyoming Benefits
- Best
- Smallest number of people, registered voters, and actual voters
- Smallest number of teachers and unionized teachers
- Highest vote for small government candidates
- Highest percentage of gun ownership and gun shows
- Only FSP candidate state without a budget deficit
- Most libertarian members of Congress
- 2nd Best
- 2nd lowest percentage of native residents
- 2nd highest livability ranking
- 2nd most economic freedom
- 2nd lowest number of labor union members
- 2nd smallest state legislative district size
- 2nd most centrally located state
- 3rd Best
- 3rd least expensive elections
- 3rd most freedom-friendly citizen ideology
- 3rd best gun laws (and 1st in hunting laws)
- 3rd warmest winters
- Other
- Near two major metropolitan centers (Denver, Salt Lake City)
- Western individualist culture
- State government actively resists the federal government
- Very low taxes (no income, capital gains, or death taxes; lowest property taxes)
- No US/Canadian border federal regulation/homeland security issues
- Internationally recognized for very liberal limited liability corporation laws
- No Green Party or socialist presence
- High speed limits and few police
- Excellent outdoor recreational opportunities
- Two wonders of the world:
Yellowstone
and the Grand Tetons
More information
Mea Culpa, It's No Longer North Dakota!
By Tim Condon
It looks like I have to tender apologies to everyone for my article
Our Most Important
Decision. In it I went through a personal analysis process, and concluded
that the "best state" to choose as the Freestate would be North Dakota. But
then later came the article by our founder Jason Sorens,
A Re-Examination of
the State Comparison Matrix, where he asserted "Condon got it wrong," at
least in part.
Well harrruummmphhh!
In his article, Jason recommends the use of the State
Comparison Matrix, a downloadable spreadsheet that every Porcupine can
access and/or download. The spreadsheet is a small (7 KB) file that anyone
can use. Basically what it does (and it should be called the "state comparison
spreadsheet") is let us quantify the internal workings of our own mental
processes instead of letting them jumble around in our heads.
Blast you, Jason! As a result of reading his article, using the State
Comparison Spreadsheet (Matrix), and reviewing other newly-available state
data, I must admit … I must confess … (cough, cough) … that I
have … changed my mind.
I can no longer argue in favor of choosing North Dakota as the Free State, for
a variety of reasons. It wasn't just the state comparison spreadsheet. There
are a number of other reasons for my change of heart. For one thing, there are
several sets of data now available that weren't around when I penned my
article. Consider:
- The article by Tennyson, "Analyzing the Freedom Orientation of
Existing State Populations," was not yet written.
- New variables were discovered and added to comparisons of the states,
including membership by teachers in the state in the National Education
Association teachers union, seat belt laws, percentage of state population that
is "native-born," presence of anti-smoking laws, "ideology" of the state
populations, etc. None of these were available when I penned my article.
- A new "measuring device" with regard to libertarianism or
"freedom-orientation" was brought to my attention, the online "Liberty Index"
put out by the Republican Liberty Caucus and edited by Prof. Clifford Thies.
That handy reference shows us what kind of politicians are being elected right
now by the populations of our candidate states.
In short … "things have changed" since I wrote my article recommending
North Dakota. And now I have to say "mea culpa" to everyone (especially my
Porcupine-friend, Kim Watson, known online as "Dakotabound," who loves and
favors North Dakota).
So let's talk about it. How could I have felt so right … but been so
wrong?
Part I: Assessing new information
First of all, with all the arguing and discussing and experiences and inside
knowledge and wisdom being bandied about on the various email lists manned by
Porcupines, it has become clear that we're going to face a
helluva lot
more resistance than I had originally thought. We must steel our hearts to it,
right now. Let's face it: Many, many people – perhaps most people, even in
America! – are afraid of freedom. Afraid of liberty. They don't really
want it, at least not if its beneficial effects haven't been directly
demonstrated to them. They're afraid of what their neighbors and friends and
co-workers and compatriots might do if they're allowed to have – gasp!
– liberty in their lifetime.
All of which can add up to a form of hysteria. One example: I have several
times posted on various FSP email lists the experience had by one FSP member, a
Libertarian who was elected a year or two ago to the city council of a small
town in Colorado. The town of Leadville was blessed with having an elected
majority of libertarians on its city council. (A majority!) Yet here is some of
what he experienced as he tried to do the right thing for the people of
Leadville:
We were accused by our mayor, police chief, fire chief,
newspapers, and more people in the audience than I had thought possible that we
"were imposing a national libertarian agenda" on the people of Leadville. Our
effort to discontinue a full time code enforcement position and to roll those
duties into those of our eight remaining police officers (thereby reducing the
force by one by not filling a vacancy) was met with accusations that we were
going to lay off officers one by one until we had no police force.
The opposition extrapolated our lay off of a recently-hired administrative
assistant into our eventually wanting to get rid of city hall. They
extrapolated our efforts to get rid of business license taxes to our eventually
wanting to get rid of all taxes and to let just anyone set up a business. They
extrapolated our effort to get rid of the sign code and the P&Z [planning and
zoning] code to getting rid of all codes which would result in anybody building
anything they wanted to anywhere they wanted to. We became enemy number one of
even people who, prior to our taking office, wanted us to repeal these things.
When the fear-mongering got to them they accused us of trying to take over and
shove our libertarian agenda down people's throats.
Yet these very same people were, and still are, at risk of being cited by these
codes and one would have expected their support. We were accused of "going
backwards" and undoing years and decades of hard work building those codes.
When I cited Jefferson in a rebutting letter to the editor, other letter
writers used that as evidence of our hypocrisy because Jefferson was a "big
government" President. Sheesh!
When I read about the above, it made me realize that no matter what state we
choose, ultimately we are going to be greeted, at least in part, by …
hysteria! Where do such reactions come from? It doesn't seem "normal,"
to a libertarian at least, for people to react in that way when confronted with
the option of living in liberty. But think about it: Of course such
people are going to be upset! If you challenge the "way we've always done
things around here," and threaten the very basis of political, social, and
economic power bestowed upon "some" (them) to the detriment of everyone else
(us) … well, yes, they're going to be scared and angry.
But that's exactly what the Free State Project proposes to do in the lucky
state that will be chosen to become our Free State.
All of which got me to thinking: I really didn't fully factor into my past
ruminations exactly how to figure out what kind of … welcome, and
resistance, we're likely to generate in the Free State. How could we do that?
Consider the extra variables, what Jason calls the "culture" measures, in the
state comparison spreadsheet. Clearly, I think this is an area that needs to be
much more carefully highlighted, in addition to my ultimate variable of
state voting population.
Consider the
article by "Tennyson", who tried to pin down the notion of how
"libertarian-oriented" each of the FSP candidate states is. He chose to do it
by looking at who voted for "perceived small government" parties and
candidates, as opposed to the alternative candidates and parties of "big
government." He concluded that Wyoming, in addition to having the smallest
population of any state in the U.S., is also the most
"small-government-oriented" of all our candidate states.
Yet Tennyson's article didn't totally nail it down either. Other
measures are needed. One, for instance, has appeared in the form of the new
teacher-union membership variable (see economic and
political data). Another is the measure of what percentage of a state's
population is native-born (and thus how we may or may not be welcomed as
migrating "outsiders").
Still another factor that I didn't originally consider is what kind of
political representatives are the voters in our candidate states
currently electing? In particular, what about U.S. Senators and members
of the House of Representatives in Washington, DC? That question, I
found, can be handily explored by reviewing the Liberty
Index at the web site of the Republican Liberty Caucus (RLC). (A useful,
in-depth explanation of the index can also be found here).
(Let's have a digression here: I know that some of you are recoiling in horror
with a reflexive hostility toward the Republicans. Stop it. There are good
ones, and there are bad ones; the members of the Republican Liberty Caucus are
for the most part libertarians. If you go look at the web site of Republican
representative Ron Paul, that ought to help. The fact is, there are "better"
members of Congress, and there are simply "awful" members of Congress. We need
to distinguish among the good, the bad, and the ugly. The RLC's Liberty Index
helps us to do just that.)
Then there was an existing variable that I passed over rather lightly in my
previous article, and that's the question of how much federal money flows into
each state, as opposed to being paid out in federal taxes. North Dakota has the
worst measure of all the 10 candidate states in that area, yet at the time I
wrote the article I thought it to be of little importance. Jason's article
– where he said "I strongly disagree with the de-emphasis of federal
dependence, and I think that Tim's analysis would have been more rigorous had
he used the quantitative tools available" – made me revisit the matter. I
now conclude (dang-it!) that Jason's right, this variable should have
been given much more weight than I originally allowed.
Why? Consider this: We know that we'll be widely attacked and regarded with
fear and loathing from a non-insubstantial sector of the population in any
state (let's call it "the political class" or "parasite class"). That group
will be throwing everything at us but the proverbial kitchen sink to convince
people to oppose us and our reforms. (One FSP member who ran for office as a
Libertarian Party candidate experienced the spectacle of at least one woman who
actually went door-to-door in his district for the sole purpose of urging
people not to vote for him! We should expect no less.)
Consider what ammunition such people will have if they can say, "Right now
we're getting all this free money from the federal government! And those
Porcupines are trying to take it away from us! It's crazy to refuse all that
free money!"
Maybe most people won't go for such arguments. But don't bet on it. Looking
back to Jason, his particular area of scholarly study is "political secession
movements" throughout the world. He has found that wherever people are
benefiting from the rape of taxpayers elsewhere, secession movements are either
stillborn or stymied in their efforts. Even though the Free State Project isn't
a secession movement, those types of arguments can still be used against us as
we try to re-assert proper Constitutional state autonomy from the federal
government (as envisioned by the Founding Fathers). In sum, I am convinced by
Jason's arguments in this area, and now believe that much more weight should be
given to the "dependence on federal money" variable.
It's clear also that there are other variables in the state data tables that
have a bearing on similar issues, and which I didn't give the consideration
they deserve. The Economic Freedom Index, gun laws, levels of taxation as well
as state and local taxation, the presidential vote (which is similar, by the
way, to the measures examined in Tennyson's article), "ideology," anti-smoking
laws, mandatory seatbelt laws, etc. All are indicative of the "cultural
landscape" that we're trying to get at. But with all those additional variables
kicking around, how the heck are we supposed to make sense of them to make a
reasonable decision? That's where the State Comparison Matrix (Spreadsheet)
comes in. Once you fiddle with it a little, you'll see how you can place and
weight the values that you feel are the most important.
And that's just what I'm going to do right now. First a caveat though: I have
not changed my mind about the first and most crucial variable: State voting
population must be the most heavily weighted variable of all. And that means
that we still end up with my original "final four" candidates.
Remember them, the final four? In descending voting population numbers, they
are Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska, and Wyoming (in descending actual
population, the list would be Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming). My
original arguments still hold with regard to why Alaska and Vermont must be
discarded, which still leaves … North Dakota and Wyoming. In my article I
said:
In the end, choosing between the final two states is a difficult
proposition. However, in two important factors one stands out clearly above
the other. First, a very large part of Wyoming, 45.9%, is owned by the federal
government, while only 3.9% of North Dakota is (thus making North Dakota a
"larger state" than Wyoming in terms of the land mass available for private
ownership). And second, Wyoming is totally landlocked within the 48 contiguous
states, while North Dakota has a long border with Canada. On two other less
important measures, North Dakota also has an edge over Wyoming, the percentage
of the population employed by government (18.5% vs. 22%), and in the projected
new jobs outlook, 34,350 vs. 27,450.
Well. During the ensuing time, not only have I reviewed and accepted new
variables and new views on existing variables … I have also come to
question my previous emphasis on (1) federal land ownership and (2) whether a
state is "landlocked" or not. First of all, there are arguments in favor
of higher-percentage land ownership by the federal government; this can be seen
as a good thing (for instance, more land will be left as wilderness for
enjoyment, and the state population may be kept lower than otherwise, which
would benefit Porcupines). Secondly, given the importance of the Project, the
historical significance of it, and the utterly crucial fact that we must
be successful in our endeavor … I don't see whether the Free State has a
coastline coast, has an international border, or is landlocked as very crucial
at all. Those considerations pale in the face of the two "giant" variables,
voting population and amount of resistance and hostility we're like to meet,
i.e. "current freedom-orientation" of the existing state population.
So let's now compare North Dakota and Wyoming again. In the most crucial
variable of voting population, Wyoming demolishes all comers. It has the lowest
overall population in the United States today; in 25 years it will still have
the lowest population. It has well over 100,000 fewer residents than the next
closest state, Vermont. And it had fully 75,000 fewer votes cast in the
last presidential election than the next closest competitor, Alaska (Wyoming's
entire "voting age population," found in Tennyson's article, is 72,000 less
than the next closest state, Alaska). Wyoming wins.
Then there's the cultural arena, the "freedom-orientation" or
"libertarian-ness" of the two states. In Tennyson's article he found that
Wyoming clearly comes out the winner, indicating a voting preference for
"small-government" political candidates over "big-government" candidates by
151% (followed by Idaho at 141% and then North Dakota at 73%). Wyoming wins.
Next, teacher union membership as a percentage of the state population: Wyoming
comes in fourth in the state data table, tied with Delaware at 1.16%. North
Dakota loses, coming in fifth place at 1.41%. Wyoming wins.
What about the percentage of native-born population in the state, indicating
how willing people may be to accept a large influx of freedom-loving
Porcupines. Wyoming comes in second, at 42.5% (just after Alaska, with 38.1%).
North Dakota, on the other hand, comes in dead last, with a huge native-born
population of 72.5%. Wyoming wins.
Now on to the Republican Liberty Caucus' "Liberty Index." The ratings are made
according to a two-dimensional "Liber-Plot" that tracks Libertarian Party
founder David Nolan's breakthrough insight from the 1970's: It measures
freedom-orientation by tracking Congressional votes that relate to personal
liberty and economic liberty. The result breaks the findings into four
quadrants: Those who are against both economic and personal freedoms; those who
are in favor of both; those who are in favor of personal freedoms but against
economic freedom; and those who support economic freedom but not personal
freedoms.
The resulting
graph is very interesting, and merits close examination. The ratings break
politicians into nine subsets: There are the "Left-wingers" and "Liberals" who
tend to be stronger on personal liberties but weak on economic liberties. They
are opposed by "Conservatives" and "Right Wingers," politicians who are strong
on economic liberties but weak on personal liberties. Then there's the other
axis the "Authoritarians" and the "Statists" who tend to favor neither
economic nor personal liberty. And they are opposed by the "Enterprisers" and
"Libertarians" who tend to favor both economic and personal freedoms.
Now on to North Dakota and Wyoming. Comparison is made easy because each has
only one U.S. Representative and two U.S. Senators. North Dakota? The year 2000
ratings show that North Dakota had two Democratic senators, Byron Dorgan and
Kent Conrad. Its sole U.S. Representative was also a Democrat, Earl Pomeroy.
All three are rated as solid Authoritarians, the worst possible place for a
politician to be, anti-libertarian to the core. Very bad news for North Dakota.
Wyoming? In the year 2000 its sole Representative and both Senators were all
Republicans. The two senators are Craig Thomas and Michael Enzi. The single
U.S. Representative for Wyoming is Barbara Cubin (who is on the board of
directors of the National Rifle Association, and as a member of the Wyoming
Legislature in 1994 voted in favor of the state's new concealed carry law). In
their ratings on the RLC Liberty Index, all three score as Libertarians (you
don't have to believe me and you don't have to take the RLC's word for it; you
can go to the site and look over the ratings, check the votes that the ratings
were based upon, and see if you agree; I did). Wyoming wins big-time.
(As an interesting digression, how do Alaska and Vermont score on the same
Liberty Index? Alaska's two senators, Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski, both
scored out as libertarians, while the single Representative, Donald Young,
scored as an "Enterpriser" (in the right direction, but not enough to be
labeled libertarian); all three are Republicans. Vermont? Sen. Patrick Leahy, a
Democrat scored out as a "statist" (in the direction of "authoritarian," but
not all the way there); the other senator, Jim Jeffords, a former Republican
who bolted the party to give control of the Senate to the Democrats in 2001,
scored as a "centrist." Vermont's only Representative, socialist Bernie Sanders
who got elected as an "Independent," scores out also as a statist.)
Finally, there is the measure that I tended to dismiss in my last article, the
question of dependence on federal money. In that category, Wyoming comes
in fourth (after New Hampshire, Vermont, and Delaware) with $1.14 coming into
the state for every $1.00 that goes out in federal taxes. North Dakota, on the
other hand, comes in dead last among all ten candidate states, with a whopping
$1.95 coming into the state from the federal coffers for every $1.00 which
flows out of the state. Wyoming wins.
I think we can begin to discern a pattern here, at least among the variables I
feel are most important. Between my two final states, Wyoming totally destroys
North Dakota as a favorable place to choose as our Free State. There just
doesn't seem to be any real comparison. In remembering that I chose North
Dakota before, this underscores the crucial importance of making decisions on
which variables are really important and which aren't, and then assigning them
relative weights.
It is clear, then, that with the variables I explored above, and given the
importance I assign to them, Wyoming wins "going away."
Part II: Using the State Comparison Spreadsheet (matrix)
Want to throw in the other "cultural" variables? Gun control laws? Voting for
libertarian, conservative and Republican presidential candidates? Taxing
levels? Spending levels? Land control laws? The economic freedom index? Seat
belt laws? Citizen "ideology"? Homeschooling laws? Mandatory seat belt laws?
Sheesh! I can go on! As you can see, any serious consideration of the majority
of the cultural factors, not to mention the other factors, quickly turns into a
quagmire …
unless, that is, we use the State Data Comparison
Spreadsheet (what Jason calls the Matrix). So let's have at it. What follows
is a detailed explanation of how to use the spreadsheet,
and how
I "weight the variables" in order to come up with the winning state (and
as I write this, I haven't yet
done it, so even I don't know the answer;
I'm doing it right now).
First of all, let's start with what I think are the most important variables.
As I continue to argue, population is the most important variable by far
(that's why the state data tables are set up with the lowest population state
at the top – Wyoming – and move down through the larger population
states as you go down).
Now go ahead and open up the state comparison matrix (spreadsheet), and follow
along with me. (To open it, and download and save it, use your web browser to
go
here. You have to have a copy of the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet or some
other compatible spreadsheet that can open Excel files on your computer; if you
don't know about this, or need help, ask a computer-nerd friend; they'll be
able to help you. In a pinch, send an email directly to me and I'll help too.)
Now click on each of the three tabs at the bottom, "How to Use This
Spreadsheet," "Compare," and "Raw Data," and see what comes up on your screen
for each one so you'll get comfortable with it. Then click on the "Compare"
tab. In the upper left of your screen you see the columns labeled "Category"
for Column A and "Variable" for Column B (notice that the categories in Column
A are, from top to bottom: Size, Viability, Culture, and Quality). Then move
one more step to the right, to Column C which is labeled "WEIGHT" at the top.
This is the column where we're going to put numbers for all our variable
"weights"; each row, from #2 through #31, is a separate variable.
(Incidentally, if you can't see all the Rows on the left, #2 through #31, you
may need to use the vertical "movement bar" over on the right side of your
screen. Similarly, if you can't see Column C on your screen, you may need to
shift the columns over by using the horizontal "movement bar" at the bottom
right of your screen.)
So now we're ready to start typing in "variable weight numbers" in Column C,
from top to bottom. But wait! I want to deal with "population" first, since I
believe it's the single most important variable. "Voters" (number of votes cast
in the 2000 Presidential election) is in row #2 up at the top, but there's
also a "total population" row, #4. Although I say population is the
most important single variable, and I want to give it the largest number of
points, I don't want to end up giving it an unfair advantage by giving huge
points to both voting population (row #2) and total population (row #24). That
ain't fair, so I won't do it. Instead, I'll say that I want to give a total of
15 points to "all kinds of" population. I'll give 7.5 points to Voters and 7.5
points to Population. You do that by clicking on the Column C box in row #2 so
that the box is highlighted, and then you type in your value. (Remember,
"columns" run vertically, from top to bottom; "rows" run horizontally, from
left to right.)
Voila! You've got it! You type in a 7.5 in the #2 row and a 7.5 in the #4 row,
both in the "WEIGHT" column, which is "C" up at the top. Be aware also that you
can move the "highlight" around by using your arrow keys.
(At this point you may want to consider taking all of the "default" values out
of all the other rows so you start with a "clean slate"; you can accomplish
this by highlighting the WEIGHT column in each row, hitting the space bar,
hitting return, hitting the space bar, hitting return, etc. Try it, it's easier
than it sounds, and you end up with all the rest of the boxes empty, which is a
good place to start. This is also a good time to do a little experiment: Put
your mouse pointer over one of the variables in the "B" column and hold it
there; in a second you'll see an explanation of exactly what that particular
variable entails, so you don't have to look around to see what the "meaning" of
each row is.)
Now, let's dispose of the other two "Size" variables, including "Finance" and
"Area." My thinking is that they're not really important in the overall
Porcupine scheme of things, so I decline to give them any points at all. Zero
for both of 'em.
Next in the vertical "Category" column on the left side of your screen come the
"Viability" variables, rows #6 through #8. They are "Geography" (coastal vs.
international border vs. landlocked), "Dependence" (ratio of federal spending
in the state vs. tax outflow), and "FedLand" (percentage of federal-owned land
in the state). Jason feels that geography is important; that's why if you put
your mouse pointer over "geography" on the state comparison spreadsheet, you'll
see that Jason has awarded higher points to states with larger coastlines and
international borders (that's why he has "JS" there, to indicate that that's
his point-evaluation). Well fie on Jason! I used to think that having a
coastal zone or an international border was important. I don't now. Who cares
if we have a seaport or seashore if we can't win elections? Who cares whether
we have an international border if we can't implement our political reforms and
shrink state government by 75% or more? Population must come before everything
else. And existing freedom-orientation (i.e. the amount of resistance and
hostility we're likely to encounter) must come just after that.
I give zero points to geography.
What about percentage of federal-owned land in the state? As mentioned above,
there's an argument to be made in favor of a higher percentage of
federal land in a state. Be that as it may, I don't really care. We'll be
negotiating with the federals after the Free State is well-established. The
question of state land under federal control will be one of the issues to
discuss. In the meantime, it's not going anywhere. Zero points to FedLand.
And then there's Dependence. This is the Viability variable that I unwisely
dismissed in my original article. As I said, I've reconsidered, due in no small
part to Jason's information. His Ph.D. dissertation research has shown that
"autonomist parties are consistently more powerful in regions that 'lose out'
economically from centralization." And he's right. Reflecting on it, it only
makes sense. And as I mention above, if we pick a highly federal-dependent
state, think about the storm of hatred, hostility, and hysteria that will
descend on us when we start telling people that "the Free State can do without
federal subsidies and the strings that come with them; we want to re-establish
Constitutional federalism and maintain our freedom." Hooooo boy. This variable
is important; nowhere near population and existing freedom-orientation, but
it's still in the ball park. I give it 3 points.
That takes care of the Viability category.
Next there is the large list of Culture variables, rows #9 through #25. I feel
"Culture" is very important, but the variables vary widely in how important
they should be to us (and thus how they should be weighted with points). The
important ones should have a real bearing on what we call "freedom-orientation"
or "libertarian-ness." Since there are so many of them, and I don't want to
write a thick novel here, let's go through these relatively quickly. Here's how
I score the culture variables:
- Spending (relatively important): 3 points.
- Taxes (less important, but still there; state bureaucrats can deficit
spend without raising taxes sometimes) – 2 points
- Prez (way important because it indicates the propensity of the voting
population to vote for perceived "lesser-government" candidates) – 5
points.
- Gun control – 3 points.
- Homeschooling – 2 points.
- Natives (very important, as explained above) – 5 points.
- UrbanAreas (state population which lives in urbanized areas; Jason argues
a lower percentage is better; not important) – 0 points.
- UrbanClus (percentage of total population that lives in relatively densely
populated small towns; not an issue, in my opinion – 0 points.
- NEA – 1 point.
- Ideology (kind of subjective, in my opinion) – 1 point.
- GovEmp (percentage of the population that works for some level of
government; I don't think it's necessarily a terrible thing if a certain
percentage of the population works for government, but it does indicate a cadre
of people more likely to resist radical government downsizing, so it does have
importance) – 3 points.
- EFI (wellll … I dunno; the Economic Freedom Index was whipped up by
two economists from Clemson University and one from the University of Chicago;
they appear to know their Hayek and Friedman … but it still seems a little
arbitrary to me) – 2 points.
- LandPlanning (fairly important; a measure of just how powerful the petty
bureaucrats have managed to become in a state) – 3 points.
- SBSI ("small business survival index"; too arbitrary, and affected by
variables not of importance to us) – 0 points.
- CPS ("child protective services"; again, somewhat arbitrary and affected
by extraneous facts, but still a measure of how brazen the state bureaucrats
may be in kidnapping children) – 2 points.
- Smoking (just how much arbitrary, anti-freedom, anti-property,
anti-individual, unconstitutional power are the people giving the politicians
in a state) – 2 points.
- SeatBelts (and how brazen are the politicians in restricting individual
choice in order to kowtow to the insurance industry) – 2 points.
And that takes care of the large "Culture" category.
Up to now we've dealt with three out of the four categories. That leaves the
last remaining category of "Quality," which includes the variables like
livability, crime levels, average income, the jobs outlook, and amount of land
privately owned as opposed to government-owned. In my previous article I argued
that the Quality variables are pretty unimportant, except for the amount
of land in a state not controlled by some level of government. I now believe
that none of the quality measures are important. We will make our own
quality; we will create our own jobs; we will stamp out "real crime" and
protect real rights while abolishing victimless crime laws. And we will
make our own "livability." The Free State is going to be the most
exciting, fast-growing, entrepreneurial, enjoyable place to live in the entire
world, not just the United States. Zero points for all the "Quality"
variables.
Now, as I said, I'm doing this from scratch as I write it, so give me a minute
here to finish filling in the variables as above. And … we … have
… a list of how the states come out in my subjective weightings.
Take a look at the "TOTAL" row at the bottom of the spreadsheet, and follow
along with me (with the numbers rounded off); here's how the states shake out,
with the higher numbers being the "best choices":
| Rank |
Points |
State |
| 1 |
422 |
Wyoming |
| 2 |
345 |
Alaska |
| 3 |
314 |
South Dakota |
| 4 |
311 |
Idaho |
| 5 |
300 |
North Dakota |
| 6 |
297 |
New Hampshire |
| 7 |
288 |
Delaware |
| 8 |
281 |
Vermont |
| 9 |
275 |
Montana |
| 10 |
125 |
Maine |
Notice something? It doesn't turn out the way you'd expect; there are
surprises. For one thing, Vermont comes out ahead of Montana?
And Montana is next to last? What is going on? I can explain: The State
Comparison Matrix (spreadsheet) compares states according to how much weight
you subjectively choose to give each variable. My weights go extremely heavy on
population variable numbers, and very heavy on Presidential vote as well as
percentage of native-born citizens in the state. You'll want to assign your own
weights and preferences. Either way, it makes for surprises.
Keep this in mind also: There are some variables that simply aren't covered,
such as the remoteness of Alaska. I believe it would be impossible to get the
requisite number of Porcupines to commit to leave their family members and
other loved ones so very far behind if Alaska were chosen.
Still another consideration is what might be called "personal intangibles."
They're not really intangibles, but each person has a "personal sense" of the
value of them. For instance, some of us strongly favor the austere majesty of
mountains. That tends to downgrade great plains states like North and South
Dakota as well as a coastal state like Delaware, no matter how variables
are arranged.
Thus, in the end, your voting preferences should be informed by both the
undeniable utility of the State Comparison Spreadsheet (matrix) as well as what
your personal feels are about "where you want to be." The state comparison
spreadsheet will help you in this quest.
Bottom line? Each of us has to make our own personal decisions based upon our
own internal radar. I now repeat what I have said in the past: Every one
of the FSP candidate states is acceptable to me. I will go to any state
that is chosen (including Alaska, a state I originally opted out of but do not
now). The fact is that wherever the Free State turns out to be, we're going to
have a heck of an adventure moving there and transforming it into a
limited-government, freedom-oriented state, just as the Founding Fathers
originally intended.
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.
Participants
Facebook
YouTube
Twitter
MySpace
LinkedIn
Bureaucrash
Fr33 Agents