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.

Choosing which State to Liberate

Choosing which State to Liberate

By George Cunningham

In Tim Condon's article Our Most Important Decision he identifies the Final Four States by utilizing the all-important criteria of a low state voting population. In his article, Tim correctly identifies the single most important factor to our success as the State voting population. With this in mind it is difficult to dispute the final four suggested, those being Vermont, Alaska, Wyoming & North Dakota. Moreover, the suggested final two Wyoming & North Dakota seem to be our best chance of success.

But with consideration to Wyoming, several important points need to be reconsidered.

1. Wyoming is considerably smaller than North Dakota by 77,000 voters or nearly 1/3.
   1. In Wyoming 20,000 activist voters would constitute about 9.3% of the 213,000 voting population.
   2. In North Dakota 20,000 activist voters would make up only 6.8% of the 290,000 voter population.
2. Wyoming already has a larger conservative voting population than North Dakota.
3. Wyoming may have a much better job outlook than North Dakota, if you take into consideration the commutable job market.

• From Wyoming
• Evanston in southwest Wyoming is local to...
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • Ogden, UT
  • West Valley City, UT
  • Sand City, UT
  • Orem & provo, UT (a stretch)
• Cheyenne in southeast Wyoming is local to...
  • Fort Collins, CO
  • Greeley, CO
  • Longmont, CO
  • Boulder, CO (a stretch)
  • Denver & suburbs (a stretch, but achievable for freedom)
• Beulah, in east Wyoming is local to...
  • Rapid City, SD (a stretch)
• Sheridan, in north Wyoming is local to...
  • Billings, MO (a stretch)


• From North Dakota
• No cities of appreciable size are commutable (unless you own a plane or tele-commute)

Concerning the other issues raised about Wyoming.

• Land owned by the federal government
  • This may make things difficult and costly if "parting company" becomes necessary, but should not hinder our initial bid for freedom
• Concerning geography
  • If the USA/UN decide to hinder our trade, Canada may assist in that hinderance. The border may not make much difference concerning restricted trade, commerce (i.e. smuggling) might be as easy in Wyoming as in North Dakota. In this "New World Order" we may find North Dakota just as land-locked as Wyoming.
  • The climate is about 20 degrees more hospitable in Wyoming and the landscape considerably more beautiful than North Dakota
  • Wyoming is more centrally located for travelers
  • "Flying under the radar" may be easier from North Dakota, but after wrestling control of the State legislature we will certainly appear on everyone's radar.

In the final analysis, it seems that Wyoming may be the best choice, if we are to prevail against the forces of darkness.

In the movie "The Patriot" as the French come to our aid Mel Gibson states "Viva le France" and the French soldier aptly replies...

• --"Viva le Liberty"--

Speech to the Wyoming LP

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.

Speech to the Wyoming Libertarian Party

Debra Ricketts • May 2003

Good morning and thank you for having me here. My name is Debra Ricketts, and I'm with the Free State Project

How many of you are familiar with us?

For those of you who are not, the Free State Project is an ambitious but practical plan to move 20,000 libertarian activists to a single state of the US. Once there, those activists will work together toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of civil government is the protection of citizens' rights to life, liberty, and property.

The Project is the brainchild of Jason Sorens, a Yale graduate student majoring in (not surprisingly) Political Science. He wrote an article for the Libertarian Enterprise in July of 2001, noting the lack of progress the Libertarian Party has made in politics on a national level. While there are a number of factors at play, it can be argued that it isn't working for a reason few of us like to admit: there just aren't that many people who really want to be free.

Although it is inimical to those of us in this room, most people in America, I'm sure you'll agree, like laws. They like regulations. They like order, and control, and telling other people what they can and can't do. As we've seen since 9-11, they like to be "safe", even at the cost of their own freedom.

Ask 10 random people what should be done about a particular cause or social problem – whether it's second-hand smoke, kids on skateboards, or rude drivers with cell phones – and at least 9 will respond, "There ought to be a law". We may not like that, but it's the truth.

But what about those of us who do want to be free? Who look at a prostitute and shrug, "It's a living"? Who bitch about the mess in their neighbor's yard, but never consider calling the cops over it? Who, upon noticing a gun strapped to their coworker's hip, say, "Hey, is that the new 50 caliber?"

At one time, that was the prevailing attitude in the US. A man – or a woman – minded his own business and took care of his own. Things have changed. And while there may not be enough of us to preserve that streak of independence throughout the country, maybe … just maybe … there are enough to preserve it in a single small state. And that's what Jason proposed in his article. Moving freedom-seekers to a single state where we can work to preserve the freedom that was the foundation of this country.

The idea hit home with a number of us. Jason received emails from people who were interested, formed a group on Yahoo, and the Free State Project was born.

In the year and a half since its inception, the FSP has grown to over 3,500 members, 1,000 of those just in the last few months. We've run ads in the LP News, Reason magazine, and Liberty magazine. We've also advertised in the online venues of Sierra Times, Doing Freedom, The Libertarian Enterprise, and the late, great Free-market.Net [now re-born as part of ISIL].

We've been mentioned in Newsweek, the Boston Globe, the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, the Billings Gazette, Reno News & Review, and the Associated Press. We've been interviewed on dozens of talk-radio shows, and spoken at numerous conferences. And just a few weeks ago, our vice-president was interviewed on MSNBC.

We've been endorsed by celebrities like economist Walter Williams, Sierra Times editor JJ Johnson, authors Claire Wolfe, Boston T. Party, and Vin Suprynowicz, who unexpectedly joined up during the New Hampshire Libertarian convention. The Maine, Delaware, Alaska, and New Hampshire Libertarian parties have endorsed us as well.

The interest and publicity that has been shown seems to indicate that this is an idea whose time has come. Not that it's original, by any stretch. There's been any number of freedom projects, including the Fort Collins project, the Sealand project, the Limon Real Project, the Freedom Ship, and Oceania, among others.

So how is the Free State any different? There are a number of ways:

From the beginning, our project has been based on pragmatism. First, we've chosen our candidate states based not on where we already live, or want to live, but on where we think we can actually pull this off. For example, a bloc of 20,000 people isn't a drop in the bucket in California. But it's 5% of the entire population of Wyoming. So we've limited our candidates to just ten states, none of which have a population over 1.5 million.

Next, we don't ask for money. Like any other movement, the freedom movement has been the target of scam artists who propose wonderful, magical plans, demand investment money, and then disappear, never to be heard from again. That's not the Free State Project. While donations are appreciated, there are no dues or other monetary investments required in order to join; in fact, that's in our bylaws. We have no offices and no paid staff. Our only expenses are for advertising the project, which can be increased or decreased based on our donations. For those interested, we post our finances quarterly on our website.

We have a definite timeline. The plan is to wait until we have 5,000 members before voting on which state; we had to have those 5,000 signatures no later than 3 years from the start of the project. That's September of 2004, and we currently anticipate reach 5,000 by September of 2003. Once the state has been chosen, we will wait until we have 20,000 members before initiating the move; if we don't have 20,000 signatures in 5 years (that's September of 2006), we close up shop. Finally, members have 5 years from the time the 20,000 mark is reached to move. The reason for these deadlines is so this won't turn into an unattainable pipedream endlessly sucking away the time and resources of our members.

We are purposely getting these commitments ahead of time in order to limit the risk to our members. I don't want to sign onto a project and move across the country, only to discover that I'm the only one who did. So we're ensuring that a large number of people – people whose word is their bond – commit prior to the move.

One of the really unique and gratifying attributes of our membership is that they are active, not passive. For example, in the next two months, two FSP conferences are taking place, one in New Hampshire and one in Missoula, Montana. These gatherings were created in order to promote their respective states to other members. A kind of "get to know us" event, to encourage other members to take a look at their locale as a possible Free State. These gatherings were organized entirely by members of the FSP, without input or direction from the FSP board.

In addition, our members are encouraged to form local groups, distribute handouts, participate in interviews, and otherwise get involved in publicizing the organization, which they do on a regular basis.

But even with 20,000 new activists, could much be accomplished? Many people are skeptical of the potential results, saying that it's just a single state. What impact could we have?

A considerable one, we think. Despite growing federalization, states still have a great deal of power in some areas.

Homeschooling regulations? Local
Gun registration? Local
Gambling? Local
Helmet laws? Child support laws? Marriage laws? All local.

To illustrate, the Nevada Revised Statutes are 51 volumes in length. And this in a state most people think of as laissez faire. So there is considerable internal latitude for states, without ever coming into the slightest conflict with the federal government.

But what about things like drug laws, speed limits, and driver's license requirements?

Well, this is where the fun comes in. Some of you may know that many of these laws are actually the results of federal blackmail. Take, for instance, the drinking age of 21. This is the law in all fifty states. But is it a federal law? No.

In 1984, under President Reagan, the federal government enacted the Uniform Drinking Age Act, which reduced federal transportation funding to those states that did not raise the minimum legal drinking age to 21. If a state refused, the state received no highway funds. Naturally state legislators – practitioners of the world's oldest profession who are far less honorable than their colleagues in Nevada's brothels – couldn't institute the laws fast enough. By 1988, every state in the union had implemented a minimum legal drinking age of 21. I should note for the record, however, that Wyoming was the last to do so, and didn't institute zero tolerance laws until 1998. Good job!

But what if there was a state that refused to comply? They'd lose the blood-money, sure. But that state – and its citizens – could determine for themselves the age at which its citizens could drink alcohol.

This same blackmail scheme has been used to implement many of the pseudo-federal laws currently in place. Refuse the money, keep your autonomy.

Well, then what about drug laws? Look at Ed Rosenthal, convicted under federal drug laws for something that was perfectly legal – authorized, even – in his state. How could the Free State combat that? The Federal government, as we know, has no constitutional authority to prohibit the use of any drugs. So in addition to state officials refusing to cooperate with federal agents, the state itself could file Tenth Amendment suits against the federal government. We may lose the first one, and the second, and the third. And the tenth. But we only need to win one to get a chink in the wall, and eventually bring it tumbling to the ground.

Can it work? As a precedent, look at the Amish, who enjoy unusual freedom from laws governing such things as child-labor, compulsory schooling, taxes, and social security. No Amish enclave has been firebombed for its lawlessness. Why not? Primarily because the freedoms the Amish enjoy were gained by going through the system, utilizing their First Amendment right to petition the government through the courts.

So what does this all mean to the state that is chosen? Quite a bit, and it's either good or bad depending on your point of view.

Probably the first reaction people have when they hear about us is, "I don't want you invading my state and taking over." Well, good. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't. 20,000 people is only about 13% of the voting population of Wyoming, if I recall correctly. That leaves 87% of the public who could easily send us packing if they don't like what we have to offer. So fears (or hopes) of creating an anarchy are unjustified at best.

But more importantly, our candidate states are those that already carry a history of independence and support for individual freedoms. Vermont doesn't require a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Alaska and Idaho don't require notification if you choose to homeschool your child. Delaware and Wyoming have some of the loosest incorporation laws in the country, and just recently Wyoming very publicly relieved the Feds of their "responsibility" for local wolves. In other words, the very things that make these states – your state – special and unique are the same things we want to help preserve against an ever-encroaching federal government, bureaucrats, and social nannies who believe that the average American citizen doesn't have the common sense God gave a gopher. Our goal is not to "take over" but to make politicians more accountable and put more decisions back in the hands of the citizens of our state.

Does Wyoming need our help? Perhaps not. But here's something to think about: Jackson Hole is getting to be a pretty popular vacation spot for the monied crowd. Yellowstone of course gets plenty of attention from the environmental lobby. The growing population and influence of these very small but wealthy groups can affect legislation for the entire state. This is what happened in Colorado – which became a liberal state only after it first turned into a yuppie playground.

20,000 libertarian-leaning activists could be a very valuable asset in fighting this sort of thing.

So what impact would 20,000 Free Staters have on Wyoming?

As I mentioned, the move would take place within 5 years of reaching our 20,000 mark. And some members have announced that they intend to move as soon as the vote takes place. So it's not going to be an abrupt influx; rather a slow trickle taking place over several years. All else being equal, this would approximately double Wyoming's projected rate of growth during that time.

Obviously the construction and real estate industries would feel the initial impact, as Free Staters would need homes. Services would also experience an increase in demand, stimulating the local economy.

One real concern is that the new residents would be competing with long-time residents for jobs. While this is a possibility, it should be noted that many of our members are self-employed entrepreneurs. So we would be bringing in jobs and not necessarily taking them away. Additionally, because many of our Free Staters are urbanites, they would tend to gravitate to larger towns, such as Cheyenne, or commute to nearby Colorado.

So once we move in, then what?

There are several strategies open to us, and we haven't chosen a particular one. This is due to a number of factors: first, the FSP's goal in and of itself is only to move 20,000 members to the chosen state. What happens then is up to the members. Secondly, we've been more concerned with gathering data about the candidate states so we can make an informed vote. Once the vote takes place, I'm sure post-move strategy will become the primary topic of discussion. Finally, the end result will in all likelihood be a combination of strategies.

The most immediate strategy would be forming an endorsement group to rate candidates and issues, and keep the membership informed. Jason is a vocal supporter of this particular strategy.

We could form an activist group along the lines of the ACLU, one that actually supports the entire Bill of Rights. This group could organize grassroots political activity, such as initiating referendums for elections, submitting petitions, and so forth.

Alternately, each of our members could join a cause or group that they favor, like NORML, GOA, FIJA, whatever, and then work for that cause within the state. The activists keep the FSP informed of their progress, and the FSP keeps the rest of the membership informed. As you can imagine, this might work better than attempting to centrally control the activism efforts of our members, which with Libertarians would be like herding cats.

The most popular idea is for individuals sponsored or otherwise promoted by the FSP to run for office – school board, county commission, state senate and such. This could be done under a newly created Free State Party or in conjunction with the state and local Libertarian party. One interesting and amusing suggestion has been to have Free Staters join both the Democratic and Republican parties and run against each other in the same race. While running candidates for office is probably the most effective long-term strategy, successful runs are unlikely until we as residents have integrated into the community.

In closing, I'd like to quote Jason Sorens, who said, "The federal government continues to usurp powers from the states; more and more decisions are being made by supranational entities like the UN, the OECD, and the EU [as well as non-government organizations like the Sierra Club and Green Peace International]. The window of opportunity for effecting real change through the political system is gradually closing. If we do not do something now, our children and grand-children may be locked into a system that they can do nothing to change. States still have significant legislative powers and are the fundamental units of our American polity; therefore, we should make use of the federal system to achieve [and maintain] liberty in at least one place."