Best for Liberty? An Analysis of Three Leading States

Best for Liberty?  An Analysis of Three Leading States

by Robert Hawes

With the Free State Project (FSP) closing in on the 5,000-member mark, the time for the state vote is close at hand. After rigorous research and debate, a few states have slowly migrated their way to the top of our list of candidates, and it is time that we took a good, hard look at these states to see which might make the best candidate for a future free state: Idaho, New Hampshire, and Wyoming (in no particular order).

Many feel that all three of these states possess various virtues that rank them as the most liberty-friendly states in the country, but the question remains: which is best for liberty along the lines of what the FSP has in mind?

A few thoughts for your consideration

1. Population

In terms of total population (from the 2000 Census):

Wyoming	493,782
New Hampshire	1,235,786
Idaho	1,293,953

In his essay What Can 20,000 Liberty Activists Accomplish? Jason Sorens revealed that the FSP's target participation level of 20,000 activists (as well as the slate of candidate states) was chosen based on the example of Quebec's Parti Quebecois, which achieved a parliamentary majority in 1976 as follows:

"At the time, the PQ had a paid membership of roughly 100,000, while the population of Quebec at that time was 6.2 million. In other words, having a paid member for every 62 citizens of the province gave the PQ a parliamentary majority. Applying the same ratio to the FSP's membership goal, we get 1.2 million population for a state in which 20,000 party members could win majorities at the state level. The following states have less than 1.2 million population: Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Rhode Island (Hawaii, Idaho, New Hampshire, and Maine are close)."

If you are trying to influence and reform government in a given region, it only makes sense that your chances for doing so improve if the number of those who support you is as large as possible in proportion to the total population of that region. That is the logic of the FSP's plan: a higher number of activists concentrated in a lower population region. Population was thus the first criteria by which candidate states were selected.

That said, those that qualify based on their populations are not necessarily equally workable. Those states that are further beneath that cut-off level are logically better candidates (as long as there are not significant intervening factors) due to the fact that they allow for progressively higher saturation levels of activists with regard to the total and voting populations of a state.

Here is a ratio comparing the above three states (considering 1 FSP activist, out of 20,000 total, for every state resident):

Wyoming	1 to 24.5
New Hampshire	1 to 61.8
Idaho	1 to 64.7

Rounding up, New Hampshire maxes out at the upper acceptable limit of the activist-to-resident ratio (1 to 62), and Idaho clearly exceeds it. Wyoming, on the other hand, is far below the threshold and thus represents more than twice the saturation levels that the FSP could have in either New Hampshire or Idaho.

But now let's say that the FSP does not attract 20,000 activists. Instead, it only attracts 15,000. How do the numbers look then?

Wyoming	1 to 33.0
New Hampshire	1 to 82.4
Idaho	1 to 86.3

New Hampshire and Idaho are now far above the upper acceptable limit of the activist-to-resident ratio, while Wyoming is still far beneath it. In fact, Wyoming could drop to less than 8,000 activists and still equal the activist-to-resident ratio in New Hampshire and Idaho. This means that at full-strength, half-strength, or even less, Wyoming allows the FSP activists to saturate the state's population more heavily than either Idaho or New Hampshire, which grow dangerously out of reach as the number of activists is reduced. This is a serious consideration for us. If we choose a state that will take a full 20,000 hard-working participants, and we get any fewer than that, or if they are not as activist as we need them to be, there is a great likelihood that we could fail in our attempt to create a free state due to our effective activists simply being vastly outnumbered.

Also, if we vote for a higher population state at 5,000, and then do not get all 20,000, we could end up with a split in the FSP's ranks. According to the FSP's FAQ, the assumption is that the FSP will disband if it fails to reach 20,000 within five years of its start-up date (September, 2001). If we have, say, only 12,000 in the FSP by 2006, and 3,000 have already moved, the remaining 9,000 will have to decide whether to join the others in a place where we would likely not be able to create a free state, give up and go their separate ways, or fall back to another state where 9,000 would have more of a realistic chance at attaining the goal. Choosing a smaller state eliminates this issue as the need to fall back in the event that we fail to reach 20,000 would be less likely to occur (particularly in Wyoming – there is no smaller state than this one).

2. Voting-Age Population

Voting-age population numbers reflect the number of state residents that we will be actively working with (or against) since they are the ones who are eligible to vote and participate in the political process alongside us. The more of them that there are, the more potential they have to either help us or hinder us.

In terms of voting-age population (from the 2000 Census):

Wyoming	364.909
Idaho	924,923
New Hampshire	926,224

Idaho and New Hampshire are virtually the same here, at nearly one million voting-age inhabitants each. However, notice again that Wyoming presents far less of an obstacle.

20,000 FSPer's would represent:

Wyoming	5.5% of voters
Idaho	2.2% of voters
New Hampshire	2.2% of voters

Once again, we see that our saturation is much higher in Wyoming where we would represent more than twice the total percentage of voting-age residents as in either Idaho or New Hampshire. At 15,000 activists FSPer's would represent:

Wyoming	4.1% of voters
Idaho	1.6% of voters
New Hampshire	1.6% of voters

So if the FSP is only able to attract 15,000 or so activists to its chosen state, we see that this would give us nearly three times the saturation among voting-age residents in Wyoming as in either Idaho or New Hampshire. Which figure are the politicians likely to take more seriously? Which figure is likely to make more of a difference in a close election? The answer here may very well be tied to our degree of influence and success in implementing our agenda.

3. Urbanization – Largest MSA's

These are the largest metropolitan areas (MSA's – Metropolitan Statistical Areas) that are fully within each candidate state (some may overlap with other states, but these numbers do not incorporate the overlapping portion):

Wyoming	81,607	Cheyenne
Idaho	432,345	Boise City and Nampa
New Hampshire	739,699	Boston-Worcester-Nashua

Why list only the largest MSA's? Because it shows what is likely to be the single most difficult area to access, influence, and reform. Conducting campaigns in more heavily populated areas is generally much more difficult because they tend to be havens of statist thought, government dependency, and entrenched opposition. Welfare recipients and those who are more dependent upon other forms of government assistance (such as public education and housing) are more heavily concentrated in these areas. These folks are the least likely to listen to our political reform message due to the fact that the removal of such programs and services (as we would likely target) would impact them first and foremost.

Densely populated areas are also home to big business interests, which are often directly tied to political offices via campaign contributions and union activism. Our intent to introduce greater competition in the market place, and to remove preferences, would likely cut into the profit margins of such big business entities, earning us their wrath as well as that of their political partners. Political party machines are also generally more entrenched in such areas due to the statist-driven infrastructure that they have put into place and now maintain for a willing constituency.

The media is also a crucial element to larger population areas, and one that we must not underestimate. Most of us realize that the media in this country is overwhelmingly statist-oriented, particularly those media outlets owned and operated by such industry giants as Gannett. Their message is very clearly a Leftist one, and their power to do harm to budding movements such as ours is enormous. They can focus both local and national attention on us, and while this may not necessarily phase us, consider what impact it might have upon the residents of our chosen state should they find themselves being ridiculed before the nation because of something that we are driving. Embarrassment and a desire to avoid controversy could create a backlash against us.

So, for those reasons, I decided to go with the sheer size of the largest MSA's we'd be dealing with. As such, they represent places where campaigns might be cheaper and less time-consuming, but they also represent ascending levels of difficulty with regard to the other factors that I mentioned (which could negate any advantages).

Which of these areas would presumably be easier for 15,000 or 20,000 activists to influence?

4. Political History and Trends

This element reflects the degree to which a state has historically supported lesser-statist or non-statist candidates (over a lengthy period of time). In places where there is a more established history of support for liberty-friendly candidates, we will find an electorate more willing to listen to our message, and perhaps sooner than elsewhere.

Changing a state to be what we would like it to be, will be an uphill battle in many ways, not the least of which is going to be persuading the electorate to deviate from the current statist mentality that pervades this country. But the further an electorate is from our ideological foundation, the longer it will take us to educate them, hence the longer it will likely take for them to support our reform efforts. We will have a large group of activists working together, but we cannot do this by ourselves! We will have to convince a relatively large portion of the present electorate to support us. How tough we make that on ourselves, and thus how long it takes, is up to us.

With this idea, I present two measurements for your consideration:

1. "High Votes for Conservative and Libertarian Presidential Candidates" (from the FSP's State Data Page). This is a ranking of how often our candidates states have supported more liberty-oriented candidates.

   Wyoming	No. 1 of 10
   Idaho	No. 2 of 10
   New Hampshire	No. 7 of 10

2. Analyzing the Freedom Orientation of Existing State Populations by "Tennyson". In this analysis, Tennyson compares how the states voted in the 2000 presidential election and ranks them by what percentages they voted in favor of "Big Government" candidates and "Small Government" candidates.

   Wyoming	71.5% for "Small Gov't" candidates	60,908 to 152,851 votes with 59.7% voter turn-out
   Idaho	70.1% for "Small Gov't" candidates	144,869 to 349,601 votes with 53.7% voter turn-out
   New Hampshire	51% for "Big Gov't" candidates	288,504 to 279,211 votes with 62.3% voter turn-out

The above two measurements show Wyoming and Idaho with a commanding lead over New Hampshire. Note once again the size of voter turn-outs in these states and judge yourself where the FSP's few thousand would have their largest impact on the state vote.
5. Expense of Elections

When the FSPer's first start out, we're going to be low on both cash and experience. We could always team up with the local GOP or libertarians, as has been suggested, and this could have some advantages in saving us time, effort, and expense. However, at the same time, any assistance they render us will basically equate to a level of dependency that we will have on them. They could assist us … at a price. A price that could slow our agenda or end up compromising it completely depending upon the circumstances.

To succeed, we may have to join up with the local GOP (LP, Constitution Party, or what-have-you) but we should also have an environment where we can run our own candidates or at least support worthy candidates outside of main parties, if necessary. Even if we do work within, say the GOP, there will still be: primaries and run-offs; mailings; get-out-the-vote drives; television, radio and newspaper ads to purchase (among a host of other things), and all of this costs money. Our chances to successfully access the system in our candidate states will thus be largely dependent upon how much it costs to get a chance at access.

The three states we are examining rank as follows (from "Low Campaign Expenditures" ("Fin" variable) on the FSP's State Data Page):

Wyoming	No. 3 out of 10
Idaho	No. 5 out of 10
New Hampshire	No. 10 out of 10

6. % Native Population = to FSP Acceptance?

The attitude of our new state's current inhabitants toward new-comers may realistically impact our effectiveness there. Thus, the FSP may be more acceptable to the residents of states in which a higher percentage of persons are not native to that state. For instance, Maine seems to have quite a reputation of being suspicious of those who are "from away." This is not really surprising when you consider that, as of 1990, 70.6% of Maine's population was native-born.

The three states we are examining rank as follows in terms of what percentage of their population is actually native (from a forum thread and thanks to Joe Swyers for compiling):

Wyoming	42.5%	(43.4% in 1990)	No. 2 out of 10
New Hampshire	43.3%	(45.8% in 1990)	No. 3 out of 10
Idaho	47.2%	(52.1% in 1990)	No. 4 out of 10

7. Term limits

Term limits can assist by preventing opposition forces from using the power of incumbency and name-recognition in order to permanently entrench themselves in the legislature. In other words, term limits open up the field to greater competition from those who might not otherwise be able to compete with powerful, well-financed, political elite. This could be a powerful tool for us to gain access to the system in whatever state we choose.

Of these three states, only Wyoming has term limits (which go into effect in 2004).

A voter initiative approved term limits in Idaho; however, the state legislature repealed the measure. Idaho's governor vetoed the repeal, and the legislature then voted to override his veto (50-20 in the House, 26-8 in the Senate). A new effort is currently underway to secure term limits in Idaho.

New Hampshire does not, and has not had, term limits.

8. Initiatives and Referendums

Initiatives allow state voters to bypass the legislature and governor and propose a law or constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot. Referendums allow voters to vote on a law passed by the legislature in order to keep it from taking effect. Both of these measures can be used to defeat partisan political forces that might otherwise prove unassailable by means of the normal legislative process, and could thus prove invaluable for our purposes.

• Idaho – has both the initiative and referendum, and requires:

  "All petitions for initiative and referendum must contain signatures of registered voters equal to 6% (40,772 signatures) of the qualified electors at the November 5, 2002 general election before being considered for final filing." [Source]

• Wyoming – has both the initiative and referendum, and requires:

  "28,204 (signatures) – 15% of the total votes cast in the 2002 election" [Source]

  Idaho and Wyoming also require that those signing the initiative proposal reside in a specified number of counties. Idaho's process is somewhat simpler although it requires more signatures due to its larger population. (*Note … In Wyoming, the FSP's projected 20,000 would nearly muster enough signatures just by themselves to put an initiative item on the ballot. In Idaho, it would take a little over twice our own number).

• New Hampshire – does not have either the initiative or referendum

9. Unions and Right-to-work Laws

In states without right-to-work laws, you could be required to join a union and pay dues in order to hold a job. Unions are infamous for their political activism, and you could very well find your dues going to support political causes you do not agree with. States with powerful, forced-membership unions would present a difficult obstacle for us, and in many cases, we would be partially financing our own opposition.

Wyoming and Idaho both have right-to-work laws. New Hampshire is not a right-to-work state; however, right-to-work legislation has been introduced there.

One particularly powerful union organization is the teacher's union. They have considerable political clout because of their proximity to "the children," and could give us a real battle when it comes to education reform issues.

Of the three states that we are considering here …

• Wyoming – does not allow for either teacher monopoly bargaining or forced dues (the only one of our ten candidate states that meets this description – putting unions at their least powerful).

• Idaho – allows for teacher monopoly bargaining, but not for forced dues.

• New Hampshire – allows both teacher monopoly bargaining and forced dues.

Some Concluding Thoughts on These Three States

The main thrust of the FSP is an attempt on the part of, we hope, 20,000 activists to transform one state of the Union into a bastion of liberty. Candidate states have been narrowed down based on two criteria to date: 1) population and 2) liberty-orientation.

As explained previously, the FSP's 20,000 activists are targeted at states of no more than 1.2 million inhabitants, based on the Quebec example. This is in order to achieve the maximum possible saturation of FSP activists in relation to the native population of that state. The higher the saturation of FSPer's, the better our chances for success. Two states (Rhode Island and Hawaii) were also eliminated; not due to their populations, but because they are infamous statist strongholds. So population is not even the deciding element by itself. Population and liberty-orientation must both prove to be reasonably favorable.

Of all of our candidate states, and particularly among what appear to be the top three most-considered states, Wyoming stands out strongly due to the fact that it is one of the most liberty-friendly states in the country, and allows us the maximum possible saturation of FSP activists among the general inhabitants due to its low population. Even among the lower population states, Wyoming still maintains a commanding lead.

Here are some other things to consider about these states …

• New Hampshire

New Hampshire boasts some impressive personal liberty provisions and incentives. For instance, seatbelt and helmet usage are not required there, nor is auto liability insurance. New Hampshire ranks 2nd in the FSP's "gun freedom" measurement, and is 2nd in expected job outlook (behind Idaho). New Hampshire has no personal income tax or state sales tax (ranking 2nd of all ten states for overall low taxes), and has elected a number of libertarians to lower offices. (The one libertarian serving in New Hampshire's legislature recently switched to the GOP).

New Hampshire is undoubtedly the freest state in New England; however, it also has some issues that detract from it as being the best state for liberty, as per the FSP's designs.

New Hampshire does not tax goods and services or wages. However, it does have four types of income taxes. New Hampshire taxes dividends, interest, general business revenue, and has a unique tax called the "business enterprise tax." New Hampshire's comparatively high property taxes are also tied to funding for public education, a fact that will make them difficult to reduce as it will bring us into direct conflict with the teacher's unions, which are at their most powerful in this state since New Hampshire allows for both monopoly bargaining and forced dues. This may make both education reform and property tax reductions an almost insurmountable problem in New Hampshire. The short distances between cities in New England, and the region's overall proximity to major statist enclaves such as New York City, Boston, and Burlington also make it likely that Leftist media elements could more easily draw national scrutiny on us, and Leftist sympathizers could easily bus in supporters for rallies and demonstrations. The NAACP is one example of a special interest group that has mastered this tactic. The unions have as well, and such groups are capable of exerting enormous pressure on local businesses and politicians. In New Hampshire, their propaganda masters and other reinforcements would be within easy hailing distance.

New Hampshire has nearly one million voting-age inhabitants and lacks term limits and the initiative and referendum, meaning that state-wide level reforms must be routed through the legislature; and ballot issues must be backed and approved by a larger number of voters. This puts the FSP's potential 20,000 or so activists at a decided disadvantage. Without the initiative and referendum, we will be unable to work around the legislature, meaning that our attempts at reform will lie at the mercy of the major political parties that control state politics. And without term limits, those major political parties will be able to continue fronting the same candidates year after year, making it difficult for us to have a chance at introducing better candidates into the system and have them actually prove viable. Incumbent politicians would be able to use their name-recognition and experience to draw greater funding and essentially eclipse competitors in a number of ways as a result. Thus, New Hampshire's comparatively large population will weigh against us most heavily here.

New Hampshire has a 400-member legislature and very small districts (the smallest having 3,089 people), which can be an advantage in that it may offer more of a chance for more people to participate in the system. However, New Hampshire's districts are growing with its population. Its largest House district is currently at 21,559 inhabitants, which is larger than in any other state, with the exception of Idaho. Legislation has recently been introduced to reduce district size even further, but its passage is not yet certain. Also, on the other side of the legislative coin, New Hampshire has the largest Senate districts of any of our candidate states: 53,000 people, which is far ahead of the closest runners-up, Delaware and Idaho, both of which have Senate districts of more than 38,000.

New Hampshire is the fastest growing state in New England, a factor that is causing problems with regard to providing for education and transportation funding in addition to expanding its electoral districts. These issues are likely to begin driving up taxes in the state and renewing the call for a state income or sales tax. New Hampshire defeated a state income tax attempt in 2002, but the opposition is not likely to vanish into the woodwork. Witness the example of Tennessee where vehement tax protests virtually besieged the state capital on several occasions. However, the legislature still adopted tax increases and more may be on the way. In a related example, Oregon recently defeated an income tax increase measure. The Portland School district is now pushing to implement an income tax on Portland residents strictly to fund education within the Portland MSA. And the powers-that-be in Oregon politics are already working on another sales tax proposal – just a few weeks after their previous attempt was defeated!

New Hampshire is especially vulnerable to new tax proposals due to the fact that the state is nursing a rising budget deficit. It was at $19.7 million in 2002 and is projected to rise to $54.6 million in 2003. This will put additional pressure on the legislature to increase existing taxes or implement new ones. In politics, there is rarely any sort of true "defeat." There is only "next time."

Finance also comes to bear in terms of activism when you consider that New Hampshire ranks at the bottom of our ten states when it comes to expense of elections. The 2002 tax battle in New Hampshire was a costly one. It is evident from this that there are strong political forces at work here, and that they are locked in a determined contest for control of the state's political system. We are at great risk of being out-spent by the opposition in this state.

Also, consider the fact that New Hampshire's neighboring states have little reputation for being liberty-friendly despite the fact that they are FSP candidate states (with the exception of Massachusetts, of course). Vermont might have been dismissed by the FSP for statist tendencies (like Rhode Island) were it not for its "Vermont Carry" provision, which allows anyone to carry a gun without a concealed carry permit. Maine consistently scores at the bottom of our measurements, and Massachusetts is infamous for its statist tendencies.

If the FSP moves into New Hampshire, it will most likely draw freedom-lovers desiring to escape from the oppressive taxes and statist systems in Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts (if not New York as well). This may bolster the FSP's numbers in New Hampshire, but I believe it would also isolate the state. If what freedom-loving element there is in those states leave them for New Hampshire, it seems that they would become even more statist. This could then have the effect of raising a perimeter around New Hampshire, preventing us from being able to expand this movement in the future as the neighboring states would likely be more hostile than ever. It might then be said that New Hampshire could serve as a magnificent contrast to the statist governments of Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts, but the fact of the matter is that it already does! And these states are not changing to conform to it. Why should we expect them to do so in the future, particularly if there are fewer liberty-loving people lobbying for change in them?

Some also fear that statists will flee from the increasing cost of living in nearby locations like Boston due to New Hampshire's growing economy and job market. After all, the population pools that employers will have available to draw new hires from in New Hampshire's region of the country are mostly statist strongholds. If such people do move in, they could effectively dilute the FSP's activists. Thus, either way you look at it, New Hampshire is situated very badly in terms of potential allies and enemies.

• Idaho

Personally, I believe that Idaho is the best choice among the three most populous candidate states: Idaho, Maine, and New Hampshire.

Idaho is at a disadvantage in that it has the largest population of any of our ten candidate states, the largest House districts, and very large Senate districts; however, as you can see below, it has various advantages that place it above New Hampshire in my analysis.

Idaho:

• Has the strongest predicted job growth of all ten states (New Hampshire is 2nd) and is not located as close to major statist enclaves, thus making it less likely to attract statist immigrants seeking better jobs

• Has the lowest number of voting-age inhabitants of our three largest states: 924,923 out of 1,293,653 total inhabitants (as compared to 926,224 out of 1,235,786 total in New Hampshire and 973,685 out of 1,274,923 total in Maine)

• Has the 2nd lowest degree of federal dependence in the West (after Wyoming)

• Has an international border and even port access for those who believe this is a positive (but small and remote enough not to worry others too badly)

• Has the lowest campaign expenditures of the three largest states (ranks 5th overall as compared to 10th for New Hampshire)

• Has the 2nd highest number of votes for conservative and libertarian presidential candidates (after Wyoming, and as compared to 7th for New Hampshire)

• Ties with Wyoming for 3rd place in terms of gun freedom

• Ranks 4th (under New Hampshire) in terms of low number of native residents – 47.2%

• Ties with New Hampshire for 1st in low number of NEA/AFT members

• 1st in economic freedom (as compared to 4th for New Hampshire)

• Has more privately and locally held land than New Hampshire (in fact, Idaho's private and locally held land totals an area greater in size than the entire State of New Hampshire)

• Has some of the most varied terrain and mild temperatures of any of our candidate states – certainly milder than New England (more suitable to a larger number of folks)

• Has the initiative and referendum (for working around a stubborn legislature)

• Has the term limits issue in hot contention as a possible threat to the GOP-dominated legislature (may be a good issue for us)

• Is a right-to-work state

• Empowers teacher's unions less than New Hampshire (allows monopoly bargaining but not forced dues)

• Borders lower population, liberty-friendly states where we could easily expand the movement in the future and build a regional solidarity

• Has a budget deficit but has reduced it substantially from the last fiscal year: $221 million in 2002 to $75 million (projected) in 2003

Idaho is likely to be acceptable to a larger number of both westerners and easterners, and together with its mild climate and vibrant economy, is the most likely (in my opinion) to attract 20,000 or more activists. Adding to this, and in addition to the initiative and referendum, Idaho also gives us a native population that, despite its large size, votes heavily in favor of small government candidates (refer back to the above criteria for details). I also believe that the low population, liberty-friendly neighboring states are a significant factor here. Idaho gives us a more realistic chance of building regional solidarity to oppose the statist power of the growing "mega states" in Washington DC (CA, IL, NY, etc. …)

If we need to pick a higher population state, it seems that Idaho gives us more advantages for dealing with that population, attracting 20,000 activists, and expanding this movement in the future.

• Wyoming
• Has the lowest total and voting-age populations in the country (again, giving us maximum saturation of activists among the inhabitants)

• Has the initiative and referendum

• Has term limits (which go into effect in 2004)

• Has no individual income tax or business tax at all

• Has some of the lowest property taxes in the country

• 2nd lowest gas tax of our candidate states (0.13 – only Alaska is lower with 0.8)

• Has the lowest federal dependence of all the western states (4th out of all 10 states)

• Has the 3rd lowest number of government employees (behind North Dakota and Vermont)

• Has the 3rd smallest House districts of all ten states (no more than 8,230 people), and the 2nd lowest Senate districts (no more than 16,500 people)

• Has the 3rd lowest campaign expenditures of all ten states (after North Dakota and Vermont) – Idaho is 5th, New Hampshire is 10th

• Ranks 1st in high votes for conservative and libertarian presidential candidates (Idaho is 2nd, New Hampshire is 7th)

• Leads all western states (except for Alaska) in highest per capita income (ranks 5th of all 10 states) New Hampshire is 2nd, Idaho is 6th of all ten

• Ranks 1st for lack of state-wide land-use planning (Idaho is 6th, New Hampshire is 7th)

• Ties for 3rd with Idaho for favorable gun laws (New Hampshire is 2nd)

• Ranks 1st for gun ownership rates and gun shows (88% est. gun-ownership rate – Idaho had an est. 76% and New Hampshire had an estimated 36%) (Wyoming had 50 gun shows in 2000 – Idaho had 49, New Hampshire had 17)

• 2nd lowest number of unionized laborers – 20,000 (North Dakota is 1st with 19,000 – Idaho has 42,000 to New Hampshire's 60,000)

• Ranks 1st for low numbers of unionized teachers (5,713 to Idaho's 11,132 and New Hampshire's 11,834)

• Ranks 3rd for "low level of city urbanization" on the state data page (1st of all western states) – New Hampshire is 8th, Idaho is 9th

• Ranks 2nd under "livability" on the state data page (New Hampshire is 1st, Idaho is 8th)

• Ranks 2nd for lowest number of native-born inhabitants (42.5%) – New Hampshire is 3rd, Idaho is 4th

• Ranks 2nd under "economic freedom" (Idaho is 1st, New Hampshire is 4th)

• Ranks 4th in "more private and locally owned land" (Idaho is 5th, New Hampshire is 9th)

• Has no state budget deficit – has a $1.8 billion surplus (very unlikely there will be any call for new taxes here, in fact, Wyoming is considering lowering its 4% sales tax)

• Has a large royalty income from mining activities (the source of its $1.8 billion surplus), which helps fund education and various aspects of government, giving the FSP an opportunity to lower or eliminate other types of taxes (it also shows fiscal prudence on the part of Wyoming – this fund has existed and grown steadily since 1974)

• Borders several other FSP candidate states where this movement could spread (Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota)

• Wyoming's population is concentrated in several pockets throughout the state (such as Cheyenne and Casper), but the population in these areas is not as high as that in other larger areas like Boise City or Anchorage, or the Wilmington and Boston MSA's. This means that more of our activists will be voting and otherwise supporting one another in the same elections, enhancing their group strength without spreading it too thin or presenting it with too large and powerful of a target. Our combined numbers would thus be more manifest on the town, county, and state levels here.

Wyoming is also closer to large population centers than any other western candidate state. Denver is within 90 minutes of Cheyenne, the state capitol, and Boulder is even closer. Fort Collins, Colorado is only 45 minutes from Cheyenne. Salt Lake City is one and a half hours from Wyoming (Park City, Utah, part of the Salt Lake MSA, is only one hour and 10 minutes from Wyoming). So Wyoming, while it does not have many inhabitants or "big city" amenities itself, is closer to both than any other western candidate. The Denver area is also growing and expanding toward Wyoming, and we will be close enough to reap the benefits of that economic progress; however, we will also have the state line between ourselves and Colorado – keeping that state's more statist politics at bay. And despite this growth trend, the immigration rate into Wyoming is yet low enough that it is not affecting Wyoming politics and infrastructure to any great degree.

Additionally, we have a chance to help Wyoming diversify its economy, something that it needs and wants to do. By moving in people and jobs from all over the country, we can help diversify the state economy and raise the standard of living to a degree that would be impossible for us to duplicate in Idaho or New Hampshire where the economies are more robust and the people more affluent. Not only would this be a very positive thing for the people of Wyoming, but it would also be an opportunity for us to diminish our "outsider" image and prove that we are coming to contribute to Wyoming, not just "using" it.

In terms of more "livability" elements, Wyoming's climate and terrain are greatly varied (it has the third warmest winters of our ten candidate states), a fact that would make it easier for FSPer's to find someplace to live that is more in line with their expectations and desires. States like New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Alaska, and North Dakota are well-known for their harsh winter conditions. New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine are definitely located well within the snow-belt as well (for those of you who don't enjoy shoveling the stuff). Parts of Wyoming can have harsh wintertime conditions as well, but there are also other areas with milder conditions, a choice that we won't have to the same degree with small states like VT and NH. And again, there are also urban areas and open countryside, making it possible for a larger number of FSPer's to find more acceptable and desirable places to live than states where most of the population is concentrated in one certain part of the state.

Wyoming – the Best State for Liberty?

All of these elements working together, and combined with the fact that Wyoming allows the FSP a chance at the maximum possible saturation of activists to residents, places Wyoming head-and-shoulders above the other nine candidate states. Nowhere else do we have this number of benefits and liberty-friendly elements along with so low of a burden for each FSP activist. Nowhere else could we have so great an impact so very quickly – simply by being there and voting. And nowhere else will our natural opposition be as weak (the NEA, and other unions and special interests – both in sheer numbers and political machinery). Wyoming is also located farther away from the statist media and political elements (including special interest groups) that could damage us so badly if we were located closer to statist enclaves like Boston and New York.

Again, consider the notion that the FSP could fall short of 20,000 participants; or even if it gets all 20,000 that they might not be as activist as necessary for one of the larger states. Even 20,000 libertarians who confined their activism to voting could make an impact of some sort in any of these states, or gather together and hold influence over a few towns or counties, but could they achieve a free state? And when you consider that 8,000 to 10,000 in Wyoming could accomplish as much if not more than 20,000 in Idaho or New Hampshire, consider what 20,000 in Wyoming could do!

As has been pointed out in our discussions already, a few libertarians forming a township or gaining a majority influence in a county might be able to enact a number of reforms; however, the extent of what they could accomplish could be severely curtailed by the state government. States simply have much more political power than town and county governments. They also have representation in the United States Congress. Thus, if it is at all possible, we should try our best to go somewhere that would allow us a greater voice in the state government.

Wyoming presents us with a very real chance at achieving a majority representation in a state legislature and thus a very real chance at "liberty in our lifetime." Overall, it makes us less reliant upon the various unknown elements that we face in other states such as: "will we have enough?" or "will they really move?" or "will they do the work that's necessary to succeed?" Any of these elements could be fatal to our efforts in the higher population states. In Wyoming, they hurt us the least because our numbers count for so much more even before anything else is considered.

Thank you for considering this perspective on what may be the most important decision that we ever make.

In particular, my thanks go out to Joe Swyers, Keith Carlsen, and Paul Bonneau for the time and effort they have expended in gathering and posting much of this data.

See the thread on the FSP forum for a compilation of various threads relating to the state decision.

State Report ID 1: Idaho Report

Idaho Report

by Phyllis Schatz

With an area of 83,557 square miles, Idaho is in many ways three states. Northern Idaho, extending to the Canadian border, is heavily forested and heavily dependent on the lumber industry. The residents are fiercely independent and view even Southwestern Idaho residents with suspicion. For big city amenities, residents look to Spokane, Washington. Southwestern Idaho contains the state capitol, agriculture and electronics. Southeastern Idaho is largely agricultural, with a growing electronics industry.

It may well be, as some have suggested, that Idaho would be a good compromise between wide open spaces and city life. As an 18-yr. resident of Idaho, I hesitate to recommend for or against it as the free state. I did not know the term libertarian until 1996, but I would say it adequately describes the majority of people in Idaho (although most of them either do not know the term or equate it with anarchy and lawlessness). Idahoans are friendly, and enjoy a casual life style. The general mood of the people in Idaho - as I see it - is divided between "Just leave me alone and let me run my life and raise my children as I see fit"(the majority) and "We have to pass laws to get Idaho back to good Christian morals" (a very noisy minority).

In my part of the state (Boise), it seems that cops are everywhere, but I have found them to be friendly and helpful (although my friends in the 18-25 age bracket have a different impression). When I was in an accident with no personal injury but total destruction of my car, the investigating officer drove me home. It is their policy that you are not stopped for speeding unless going at least 10 miles over the speed limit (yes, even where the limit is 20mph). The police also seem reluctant to enforce the seat belt law. Official policy is to not stop for seat belt violation unless there is another traffic violation. In my personal experience, they don't even ticket then. Recently, the officer investigating a minor accident for which he gave me a ticket, when asking me if I was wearing my seat belt, was nodding his head, to indicate that I should say yes.

I know that each of us is primarily interested in the prognosis for success of the FSP. Unfortunately, statistical analysis cannot answer this complex question for us. One very important element in the project is - what will it take to inspire 20,000 freedom-loving people not only to move to one state, but also to persevere when the going gets tough. This can often depend on things like climate and entertainment opportunities.

For those of you who are interested in the weather, I would describe the climate as moderate, although it varies from one part of the state to another and from year to year. Here in the Treasure Valley (the largest population center - Boise, Nampa, Caldwell, Meridian, Eagle, Star & Kuna) we enjoy summertime temperatures in the 80s and 90s during the day, cooling off to the 40s - 60s at night. Winter temperatures are normally above freezing in the daytime, although subzero is not unknown. If you like snow, you will have to go to the higher elevations. When we do get snow in the valley (which doesn't happen every year), it usually disappears by noon. If you are looking for more rugged weather, there is plenty of that at the higher elevations of the north, central and southeast parts of the state.

Idaho is not subject to hurricanes or tornadoes. Earthquakes are rare and mild. Our major natural disasters are thunderstorms and forest fires (sometimes related).

For summer recreation in the Boise area, there is the Greenbelt - a path along the Boise River, maintained by the park department heavily used by walkers, bicyclists and roller skaters. In July it is traditional to float the Boise River on inner tubes (a good way to have fun without spending money). For the more daring, there are white-water commercial raft trips on the Snake River. In the winter, you can ski at nearby Bogus Basin, or drive a little further to the famous Sun Valley ski resort. Did I mention we also have some of the finest hunting and fishing in the country?

There are many gun enthusiasts in the state, and their rights are guaranteed by the State Constitution: "No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony." [ID state constitution, Article I, sec. 11]

For the less athletically inclined, summer brings "Alive after Five" every Wednesday evening, and "First Thursday", both featuring (free) live musical entertainment and a variety of food, in downtown Boise. First Thursday is, of course, the first Thursday evening of each month during agreeable weather, and features a stroll through the art galleries. The last week of June, we have the "Boise River Festival" sponsored by local merchants and free to the public - with several features especially for children. There is also Jazz at the winery and Shakespeare under the Stars, as the usual array of performances found in any metropolitan area of any size.

I hesitate to describe the political climate because it is currently in a state of turmoil. The state legislature, composed of a Senate and House of Representatives is dominated by Republicans. This is somewhat deceptive, however, since politicians have learned that if they want to win an election, they need to call themselves Republican regardless of their political philosophy. A candidate does not need the endorsement of the party in order to file under that banner. Voters do not state a party affiliation upon registering. Primary elections are open to all registered voters, who then vote in whichever single primary they choose for that election. Under present circumstances, most voters vote the Republican Primary, regardless of party affiliation. In May 2002, for the first time in Idaho history, there were three parties in the primary: Republican, Democrat, and Libertarian. Many Libertarians voted Republican, since most Libertarian candidates ran unopposed in the primary.

Anything can happen in this fall's elections, including Libertarian victories. The Libertarian Party of Idaho has shown a 29% increase in membership since May of this year (from 117 to 151). The bad news is - there is serious dissension within the party at this point. The good news is - there is also serious dissension within the state Republican Party. Voters are fuming at the action of the Republican majority in repealing a term limits law that was passed by initiative and was approved by the voters on three occasions. A minority of the Republicans are with the voters on the issue of arrogance of the legislators.

A Party can gain ballot status by obtaining signatures equal to 2% of the votes cast for presidential electors at the last general election. Thereafter status can be maintained by one of two methods: 1) having three or more candidates for state or national office listed on the ballot at the last general election; 2) polling for one of it's candidates at least 3% of the aggregate vote for governor or presidential electors. The Libertarian Party has been on the ballot since 1976.

One very real disadvantage of Idaho as the free state is that the state constitution speaks against secession: "SECTION 3. STATE INSEPARABLE PART OF UNION. The state of Idaho is an inseparable part of the American Union, and the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land." This is not a fatal flaw, since Constitutions can be amended.

In summary: I believe the prognosis for Idaho as the free state cannot be clearly seen at this time. The present political climate is turbulent and can see dramatic changes for better or for worse in the elections of 2002. I will issue updates on the health of the IDLP as they become available.

August 5, 2002

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent those of the Free State Project, its Officers, or Directors.

Jason's Talk at the Grand Western Conference, 25 May 2003

NOTE: The opinions and commentary expressed in this essay are those of the author and are an exercise of free speech. They do not necessarily represent the views of Free State Project Inc., its Directors, its Officers, or its Participants.

Jason's Talk at the Grand Western Conference, 5/25/03

Free State Project and the West

The title I was given for my talk is "The Free State Project and the West." It's an intentionally vague title, and my remarks are actually going to be very wide-ranging.

Yesterday we heard some lions of the libertarian movement give their perspectives on a future "Free State," what it might look like and how we could get there. Today we heard able and persuasive presentations from representatives from Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming, presenting the reasons why they think their states are the best choices for the Free State Project. As I speak today, we stand at over 3,700 members and are probably about three to four months away from voting on a state. Therefore, both of these questions are critically important: Where should we go? What do we do once we get there?

The Free State Project is intentionally a decentralized, bare-bones affair. Some of the folks I've talked to in some of the states we're considering had gotten the wrong idea of the Project. They had this vision of a tightly-knit, highly disciplined cadre of activists "invading" their state and subjecting it to their will. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. Any effort of that kind would be doomed to fail, as it would rightly arouse massive opposition.

We hope to get 20,000 freedom lovers to move. We may not end up getting this many, or we may get many more, but this is our goal. In none of the states we're considering will we be close to a majority. Therefore, a "takeover" will never be in the cards. What we libertarians *can* do is to finally get the ideas of limited government and robust individual liberty into the forefront of public debate. In the marketplace of ideas, I think we will ultimately be victorious - all the more so since the ideas we present are ideas that were present in the founding of this country, and ideas that still retain some power in the states that we're considering.

And so this Project is designed to maximize the appeal of the ideas of freedom in that ideological marketplace. Free Staters are a diverse bunch, with divergent backgrounds. Our Statement of Intent simply requires every member to signal a willingness to work for a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property. In other words, the government should definitely not be involved in providing for people, or in punishing their private vices. This all Free Staters believe. But there is plenty of disagreement too. What else can you expect from a movement that contains both a radical English college student and a crusty Black Hills rancher, both a New York stockbroker and a traditional Amish family? Yes, these are all real people who are members of the Free State Project. We have many different values, but we all hold the core value of freedom, because without freedom, and the absolute obligation to tolerate and respect the autonomy of others that freedom requires, all our other values are meaningless.

So I would say that the Free State Project is nothing more and nothing less than an effort to identify the best state for freedom lovers to live in, and to encourage more freedom lovers to move there and become politically active. Now what's so controversial about that?

The premise behind the Free State Project is sound - concentrating our resources is necessary if we're going to have any chance at seeing true liberty in our lifetime - but the execution will be difficult. The majority of Americans now reject our moral geography: they no longer see freedom at the center. Instead, they see government as a tool they can use to try to control their neighbors, to punish those they don't like, to impose their ideal world with all their special preferences - by force. They lack the courage to live and let live.

But let's not blame them too much. After all, this is a system in which we've all grown up. The government is there to get things done that you couldn't otherwise do, through legitimate methods. So if you think you like traditional values, you vote Republican and want the government to subsidize farms and promote Christianity. If you think you hate rich people, you vote Democrat and want the government to subsidize poverty. If you don't like drugs you want the government to fight a war on nonviolent drug users. If you don't like guns you want the government to fight a war on nonviolent gun owners. Most people don't see anything wrong with that because they separate government from the rest of society. They assume government operates by its own rules. They think, "Of course it would be wrong for *me* to break into someone's home and kidnap him at gunpoint because I thought he was smoking a joint. But if a man with a badge does it, that's The Law." I thought this way once. (Then I turned 15.) But I'm sure most of us did think this way at one time or another.

So we've got a long road ahead of us. We have the right on our side, but we still need to use effective methods to get our message across, especially considering the factors weighing against us. Special interest groups all want their piece of the pie, and they will never go away. Government bureaucracies have an in-built drive to perpetuate themselves, whatever the cost. And to ordinary people, what we are proposing may seem radical and untested. The status quo, despite all its imperfections, is comfortable for most people. The tiny minority of Americans who suffer from the random outbreaks of government brutality or simple incompetence, those who get flung aside or beaten down by the system, are still a tiny, disorganized, powerless minority.

For all these reasons, and more, when it comes to electoral politics, I am a gradualist. I would never lie about my ultimate goals for politics. However, I think we need to stress the intermediate stages of reform. Some reforms simply work better when they're implemented gradually; people often need time to adjust. Gradual reform also creates a constituency for further reform. If as a politician or political party or pressure group you can implement a few policies that work, you build trust for the next reforms you want.

If you look at the most successful national libertarian organizations out there - the Cato Institute, the Reason Foundation, and the Institute for Humane Studies - they are all fully engaged in the issues of the day, whether in national politics or intellectual currents. They're not interested in building abstruse, utopian ideologies; they want to improve things now. And I hope most Free State Project members feel the same way.

Because being involved in the policy debates of the day is so important, we should look for allies wherever we can find them. Earlier in this talk I bashed Democrats and Republicans. Guess what? Many of us, perhaps most of us, will be involved with the Democrats and Republicans. At the state and local levels, the Democratic and Republican parties are open to newcomers and, to a large degree, to new ideas. You can't necessarily predict someone's viewpoint on state and local politics from their party affiliation. In Alaska recently, the Republicans tried to impose a sales tax, and the Democrats resisted. Some Republicans broke ranks and the measure was defeated. In Delaware it was Republicans who pushed through a statewide indoor smoking ban; many Democrats resisted. In New Hampshire, by contrast, Democrats proposed an income tax and were slaughtered at the polls. The new Republican governor there has appointed a card-carrying Libertarian to his Small Government Commission.

Now, we're not going to agree with mainstream Democratic and Republican politicos on everything; we'll have to work with them on an issue by issue basis. But ordinary, grassroots party members - we can really work with them. In Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas, Republicans are pretty much dominant in state government. In some of these states the Republican leadership has become complacent. Their constituents want them to cut taxes and to stand up to the federal government on issues like property rights, but the leadership pays them no heed, because they figure the Democrats are worse, and no one will vote for them. Of course, Wyoming just elected a Democratic governor. Perhaps this is a sign of grassroots frustration with nowhere else to go.

We need to inject real competition into this two-party oligarchy. That's the only way we'll ever restore a constitutional republic. Now, I'm a Libertarian Party member and have done a lot of activism for that party, but I don't think a Libertarian Party majority will be possible in the Free State. The barriers are simply too high at present. A lot of (small-l) libertarians are disillusioned with the Libertarian Party, just as many conservatives and liberals are disillusioned with the two old parties. There are many reasons for this, but I think I can sum it up as follows: If the Libertarian Party wants to make a philosophical statement, too many of its candidates are not principled enough - or are simply wacky and bizarre; but if the Libertarian Party wants to win elections, its goals and methods are not gradualist and realistic enough.

I don't want to abandon the Libertarian Party at all; I think it should always be there to make that philosophical statement, to keep everyone honest. Perhaps more so, we need people not involved in partisan politics at all, who work for fundamental cultural change. But to create serious political competition in America, history demonstrates that you have to *start* within the current party arrangement. The most successful third parties in history were the Republicans and the Socialists. The Republicans were basically anti-slavery activists who joined the Whigs, used the Whigs for a while, and then jumped ship when they had gotten enough power and recognition, thus destroying the Whigs and replacing them. The Socialists labored in obscurity for a long time, and most Socialists finally joined the Democrats in the 1930s. Thereafter, the Democrats (in national government) were socialistic.

But there's another example from history, that of the non-partisan league. Many of you already know of my interest in this idea. In the early 20th century, the Non-Partisan League was a powerful force in the Dakotas and Montana. They endorsed candidates from both parties - but mostly from the Republicans, who were dominant - on the basis of their support for agricultural subsidies. The NPL governed North Dakota for various periods in the first half of the 20th century and accomplished almost all of their major aims. In the late 20th century, the Christian Right took over a party known for its comfortable Main-Street, country-club centrism, the Republicans. The Republican Party platform is essentially a Christian Right manifesto. Of course, Republican candidates generally have to run to the center on issues like school prayer and abortion, lest they make themselves a permanent minority. Nevertheless, this is a clear case of successful activism within the oligarchic system.

Personally, I will work to establish something like a non-partisan voters' league in whatever state we choose. I want to get in touch with taxpayers' groups, gun-rights groups, civil-liberties groups, and everyone else sympathetic to us in our chosen state. I want to talk to them about what *they* need, where they see a need for additional activism and resources. I want to coordinate the efforts of the *entire* freedom community so that we can exert concentrated pressure on state government. I foresee that this will require some organization that develops a parsimonious set of attainable political goals, and then endorses candidates on the basis of their support for these goals. Candidates that are in more or less full agreement with the organization's goals would additionally qualify for campaign funding. Somewhere down the line, a totally new, local political party will probably be necessary, to press our unique demands for decentralization. This should happen when we have high-profile supporters in government who are willing to go the independent route and set up this new party. Possibly by that point, we would have changed some of the institutional barriers to a multi-party system.

Due in large part to the FSP, libertarians are now thinking about what state governments can do. So we all know that state and local governments have control over zoning, utilities, most transportation, education, and a great deal of criminal law. But what can we do at the state level to pry loose the clutches of the federal government? Gary Marbut got a resolution through the Montana legislature expressing their support for requiring federal agents to operate in the state only with the consent of county sheriffs. We can go further: end cooperation with the feds, end cross-deputization of federal agents, and if necessary, arresting federal officers if they violate the state constitution. What if California were doing this right now with medical marijuana? Another issue that at first blush we could do nothing about is the Federal Reserve System. The federal government has full control over the Federal Reserve System and the dollar. But here's one idea that's been floating around: If we chose a state with a sales tax, we could pass a law stating that if you paid for your transaction with a gold or silver backed currency, you would be exempt from sales tax. That's one way to start moving toward a fully private, competitive market in currency. Now, I don't know if it would work, but it's worth looking into.

Of course, elections are just one small piece of the puzzle. We can't expect to win elections unless we win the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. We'll need thinktanks, we'll need media, and most of all... We will need to create voluntary associations and programs that take care of social problems better than government does, thereby helping make our communities stronger and demonstrating that our ideas really do work. After all, freedom is not an excuse for laziness or indifference; quite the opposite. State co-optation of voluntary, ground-up solutions is what's responsible for community deterioration and rising indifference. We have to turn that around, and it will require a lot of sweat and a good bit of hard-earned cash too.

Now, my personal goals that I've just stated are my own opinions, not necessarily those of the Free State Project. The FSP, again, is a decentralized, bare-bones operation - it's not a political action group, just a framework for a very specific task, getting freedom lovers to move to a single state. So all the opinions I've just stated are fully up for discussion, and I know there are people in the FSP who will disagree with a point or two. There are those who will stay in the LP no matter what, some who will avoid partisan politics at all costs, and many I've spoken to like the idea of a Non-Partisan League and a new party somewhere down the road. We don't need a consensus, because all those people have niches to fill and jobs to perform.

But this is precisely the point of my talk - to get a discussion going. We are close to 5,000. Pretty soon we will know our new home. Every one of us needs to start thinking now about the practicalities of this thing, and getting prepared. Most importantly, every one of us needs to get our financial houses in order - pay off debt and build savings. If we can, we need to acquire new skills, because some of us will have to make career changes; I don't think there's any way around that. In order to cast a knowledgeable ballot, we need to take a good hard look at these states and see how they measure up against each other - both in terms of possibilities for political success and personal desirability. Study the State Data page on our website, play with the state comparison spreadsheets, join our discussion groups and chat about which state is best. Then we need to think about what, concretely, we are going to do to advance the cause of liberty in our lifetime in our neighborhoods, towns, and state.

Where should we go? What should we do once we get there? People will have different opinions, but when an historic opportunity is this close at hand, I think we'll all focus, and the best solutions will rise to the top. In the history of the Free State Project, that's the way things have always worked - I think the reason for that is that we're so close to our dream of freedom that we can almost taste it. And that's the reason I'm so proud of how far all of you have taken this little idea already.

Thank you.