Links to State-by-State Malum Prohibitum & Privacy Protection Laws

Links to State by State Malum Prohibitum & Privacy protection Laws

By Evan Nappen

1. Marijuana
   www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516

2. Switchblades
   www.amatecon.com/switchblade.html

3. Motorcycle Helmets
   usff.com/hldl/frames/50state.html

4. Wine shipping
   www.wineinstitute.org/shipwine/analysis/state_analysis.htm

5. Acupuncture
   www.acupuncture.com/StateLaws/StateLaws.htm

6. Fireworks
   www.fireworksafety.com/statelaws/

7. Seat Belts
   www.edgarsnyder.com/news/seat_belts.html

8. Privacy
   www.epic.org/privacy/consumer/states.html

9. Wealth Protection
   www.wealthdefense.com/homestea1.htm

10. Reiki
    www.sacredpath.org/html/reiki/legal/mtlstateleg.html

11. Dumb Laws
    www.dumblaws.com/states/

12. Adoption
    www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Adoption.htm

13. Guns
    www.nraila.org/GunLaws.asp?FormMode=state

14. Marriage
    www.upcj.org/marriagelaws.htm

15. Dissection Choice
    www.hsus.org/ace/11370

16. Auto Insurance
    info.insure.com/auto/teenstates.html

17. Hate Crimes
    www.msnbc.com/modules/HateCrimes_SBS/stateframe.asp

18. Alcohol
    www.epi.umn.edu/enacted/

Links compiled by Evan Nappen, esq. www.evannappen.com
No claim made as to the accuracy of the information provided.

State Report VT 2: Second Vermont Report

Vermont Report #2

by Jason P. Sorens

(This "report" is a series of reflections on a recent trip to Vermont. See also Vermont Report #1.)

I arrived at the Burlington airport on Saturday around noon and met Robert Maynard, the president of Citizens for Property Rights in Vermont. We had lunch and chatted about the state of the libertarian movement in Vermont.

The Vermont Libertarian Party split in 2000. The leadership at the time was strongly anti-conservative and expelled those who were opposed to the civil unions law, including the lone Libertarian representative in the state house, Neil Randall. (He was elected as a Libertarian/Republican.) The civil unions issue was not the only reason for the split. There was a major disagreement in strategy. The leadership wished to pursue a purist, intellectual course and rejected making alliances with the Take Back Vermont movement and its "populist" approach. Although Take Back Vermont has been most closely associated with the civil unions issue, the movement actually started in 1998 with opposition to the school funding law, Act 60, which has resulted in a significant increase in property taxes in many parts of the state.

Robert Maynard was one of those who favored making alliances with the populist conservatives, and he left the Libertarian Party. Neil Randall won re-election in 2000 as a Republican. Robert admits that there are pitfalls in allying with the political right in Vermont, and my subsequent experiences would bear this out. The Take Back Vermont movement is seen as "extremist" or "reactionary" in much of Vermont, certainly the Burlington area. This has to do with the rhetoric and strategy of the movement more than anything else, I believe. At the CPR meeting I was a bit uncomfortable with the way people talked about "the homosexuals", "out-of-state homosexual money," "the homosexual agenda," and similar phrases, as if people who are homosexual are politically or even culturally monolithic. There's also an infamous story about the opponents of Act 60, who protested in front of the capitol and during this protest brought out the old car of a particularly liberal state senator, which they had purchased, and destroyed it with sledgehammers. The grassroots conservatives in Vermont are not exactly slick political operatives, and it's clear they rub many people the wrong way with their blunt, oppositional approach.

The people at the CPR meeting were mostly very favorable to the FSP. I handed out several Statements of Intent and shook hands with Neil Randall, who gave a talk as well. He was defeated in the 2002 election, as were many other quasi-libertarians in the Vermont House. I also met Hardy Macia, an early joiner of the FSP and Vermont LP activist. He ran for the state house as a Libertarian/Republican and came within 100 votes of victory. Neither Hardy nor Neil had held elective political office prior to running for state house. The large size of the house - and small size of districts - makes it relatively easy for newcomers and political neophytes to win election, if they are good campaigners.

After the meeting, I headed out with the NPR folks who are doing a segment on the Free State Project for "This American Life," a national program that runs weekly on NPR stations. We met with one of the leaders of the Progressive Party in Vermont, Anthony Pollina. He ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 and won 25% of the vote in a three-way race. Needless to say, he was basically opposed to the Free State Project and insisted that Vermonters would reject our ideas, because they favor "the active engagement of government." It was difficult for me to reply to this, because he was a Vermont resident and I was not, although I knew that many of my views were shared by Vermonters, particularly those of the old stock. The reporters asked where he was from, and it turns out he moved from New Jersey to Vermont in the early 1970s. "So didn't you do exactly what Jason is planning to do?" they asked. He grinned at that and backpedalled somewhat. "Well, if you're coming to Vermont for the quality of life and will work toward strengthening our communities, you're certainly welcome," he replied.

After the interview, I returned to Robert Maynard's home, where I was spending the night. We stayed up and talked politics some more. I presented the idea of a non-partisan voters' league to him, and he thought that was an idea that could work particularly well in Vermont. "The problem in Vermont is that you need the grassroots conservatives for your activists, but you also need to be able to reach out to rank-and-file progressives and moderates and not scare the bejeezus out of them," he said. "For that, you'll need an effective leadership. But I think the Take Back Vermont folks are learning very quickly how to play the political game." He said that, historically, Vermont was the most libertarian state in the country, the only state to oppose FDR and the New Deal, and the state that gave the country Calvin Coolidge, the 20th century's most libertarian president. However, it has changed a great deal since the 1960s, and now New Hampshire is more libertarian than Vermont. Robert, a fourth-generation Vermonter, said that he'd be unable to move from Vermont, since he had recently bought a new business, but said that putting his biases aside, he believed Vermont and New Hampshire were about equal in potential for success. New Hampshire is about "ten years behind" Vermont in the march to statism, and has a much better organized conservative-libertarian movement than Vermont. But Vermont is smaller, the town meeting tradition is stronger in Vermont, and Vermont's history is an asset. Robert believes that land area is a crucial consideration: to form a grassroots movement you will have to hold town meetings around the state, and short driving distances are essential for these. A potentially workable alternative is a state that has a few population centers, in each of which we would have significant concentrations of activists. He lent me The Vermont Papers by Bryan and McClaughry.

The next day, the NPR reporters and I met with the mayor of Burlington. He is Bernie Sanders' successor to the post and runs as a Progressive. Nevertheless, he is much more moderate than Sanders. He was also a bit more welcoming than Pollina, though he said that we would be unable to "take over" the state, due to Vermonters' liberal views and resistance to outsiders. He believed that we would become a significant part of the general Vermont milieu, merely one group among a diversity of ideological groups. He did mention several times that he believed Progressives and Libertarians had quite a few things in common. He even admitted that Vermont's regulatory process had become unworkable, and that it needed to be streamlined in order to work for small business, something that Pollina had refused to concede. However, he said that he was committed to strengthening code enforcement in Burlington and providing subsidies for people to buy homes. Government apparently has a fairly significant role in funding home purchases in Vermont. This, when combined with the congested permit process for new developments, probably is a significant cause of the housing shortage in Vermont, which is something almost everyone we talked to mentioned as a problem in getting 20,000 people to settle in the state. When government subsidizes home-buying, it pushes up demand for homes, and when the regulatory process prevents supply from adjusting, we have a shortage. The reporters asked the mayor to draw a map of Vermont and show which parts of the state would be most supportive of our movement. He drew Vermont and New Hampshire, indicated the Connecticut River as the border between the two, and drew an arrow from Vermont to New Hampshire. "That's where you need to go, across the river." We had a good laugh about that.

After meeting with the mayor, we walked around the restaurant and spoke to some "ordinary Vermonters." Since we were in downtown Burlington, most of them were definitely progressive types. We did meet one fellow who described himself as basically libertarian, and said that he voted for both Libertarians and Progressives in local races. He said he did this because he wanted all views to be heard. This seemed to be a common thread in responses to our idea. Vermonters are natively anti-establishment. I can't remember exactly how, but I got into a debate with one fellow over separation of school & state. I wasn't completely well prepared for that discussion, and though I had arguments for every point he made, I don't think I brought them down to a readily understandable level. One good analogy to use to make the case for separation (which I only thought of much later) is to compare education to other industries. Kids have a right to be fed as much as educated, so does that mean restaurants and grocery stores should be government owned and operated? Of course not - and you can talk about why government ownership of groceries & restaurants would fail: lack of choice & competition resulting in declines in quality, the necessity of rationing to control demand for a "free" service, etc. All these arguments apply equally well to schooling.

After this we met with the principal of Burlington High School. As could be expected, she was pretty much a typical NEA type who rejected all significant reform of government schooling out of hand. Bush-ian "quality control" was about the most she was willing to consider. She said we "should probably move out to Idaho or somewhere, where I hear a lot of people own guns and homeschool and hate the government." This wasn't a particularly productive conversation.

We then visited with Mary Alice McKenzie, a business owner and major figure in the Republican Party in Vermont. Apparently her name has been mentioned in the past as a potential gubernatorial candidate. She described her political views as "very fiscally conservative and socially liberal." She's basically a libertarian! She's also a pragmatist, though, and was very complimentary toward the mayor of Burlington, crediting him with repealing some of the more egregiously anti-business measures instituted by Bernie Sanders when he was mayor. She thought the political model of the Free State Project was sound and believed that we would have a major impact if we moved there. Her main caveat was the economy. She said that regulations were stifling jobs growth, and that lack of risk capital would make it very difficult to start new businesses. She was very interested in and supportive of our efforts otherwise, however. It was heartening to hear such a major figure in Vermont support our efforts.

The last interview was with a part-time lobbyist for the forestry industry, an acknowledged libertarian who studied under Milton Friedman and Gary Becker at Chicago, where he did graduate work in economics. The reporters asked him if he would consider signing up for the Free State Project, and he said he would, though he was committed to working in Vermont. So I gave him a form, and he signed up on tape, opting out of all states except Vermont. I asked him how much of the state legislature was already libertarian. He estimated that matters were better now than they were a few years ago, and that a third of the house (50 members) were friendly to our ideas. I have a feeling this includes a lot of conservatives, and maybe some iconoclastic liberals. He said there were 25-30 real socialists in the house, and of the 50 who support us, 15 were true libertarians through and through. So that's 10% of the state house that we would "have" right away when we move in.

Some things I noticed from all the conversations I've had this weekend are: 1) A good way to introduce the Free State Project is to say that we are researching states based on their favorability to ideas of smaller government and more individual freedom, for the purpose of promoting one state as the best place for Americans with such ideas to settle and live. This way it sounds less like a hostile takeover, which it really isn't, in my view. 2) Vermonters value independence and non-conformity, and evaluate candidates more on personal characteristics than ideology. 3) You don't need a lot of political experience to win state house seats. Nevertheless, political liberals seemed to have a lot more experience than political conservatives. They are more willing to serve on boards and commissions and make a career out of politics. 4) There aren't many native Vermonters left, at least in Burlington! I think we met only two native Vermonters out of all the people we spoke to. A couple people mentioned that most of the state legislative seats are occupied by non-natives. Whether you are a native or not doesn't have much relevance for political success. 5) Ideological polarization lies beneath the surface in Vermont, though people are quick to deny it. The mayor of Burlington claimed that it was an "urban myth" to think that there was a coordinated attempt by leftists to take over Vermont in the 1970s. Conservatives insist that there was, and Robert Maynard mentioned a few stories and episodes that suggest to me that there was such a coordinated attempt, though more loosely organized than the FSP. Overall, this issue is a very touchy one in Vermont. 6) Vermonters are proud of their heritage of town government, even though state government has increasingly taken functions away from local government. Decentralization could be a major winning issue for a libertarian movement in Vermont. 7) It's cold! I like it, though. There was a good bit of snow on the ground, perhaps a foot in some places, and it snowed gently most of the time I was there. The winter could wear on some people, but complaining about the weather is looked down upon in Vermont. There was one facetious suggestion that to keep out riff-raff, the highways should not be plowed.

It was a productive and fascinating journey. I wish I could do a tour of this kind in all the states we're considering.

February 5, 2003

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

What the Spreadsheets Tell Us

What the Spreadsheets Tell Us

by Paul Bonneau ("Zxcv")

In this article I will examine different inferences that can be drawn from manipulations of the spreadsheets.

Some, who are not familiar with spreadsheets, may find this exposition a little slow-going. For them I'd just suggest skimming, and noting how the state rankings worked out in each section, along with the tentative conclusions following the rankings. The rankings are always presented with the most desirable states at the left.

I refer to two spreadsheets. The "standard" one is available on the state data page. The "big" spreadsheet is my modification of the standard spreadsheet, which I will make available to anyone who emails me. It is different in the following ways:

1. It has many more rows, 80 at the time of writing. I add new rows whenever quantifiable measures are discovered, as time permits.

2. The normalization used is less unfriendly to low performers than the one used in the standard sheet, for any given variable. For example, if one variable had a 500 in the best state and 400 in the worst, the big spreadsheet normalizes this to be 10 for the best state and 8 for the worst (in other words, it is proportional). The standard spreadsheet would normalize to 10 for the best and 0 for the worst.

3. The normalization allows for intermediate values to be "best", rather than a simple "more is better" or "less is better" rating. A few variables seem better with intermediate values as optimum.

4. There is much more potential for inadvertent "overlap" of the variables in the big spreadsheet, due to the large number of variables there. For example, I have a variable called "Population" and another, "Population2025". These two are so highly correlated that they are almost the same thing. Assigning large weights to both of them would be like assigning all that weight to one of them. So, users must be careful when assigning weights, to avoid overloading the highly correlated variables.

So, what sorts of things can you discover with spreadsheets?

You can get a good approximation for the "freedom culture" in the state. You can find out which states are good for personal freedom, which for economic freedom. You can get an idea which states have a government that loves to spend. You can find out how many activist opponents we will face. You can see how certain variables changed over time. You can even take a stab at predicting the FSP population that's predicted to move to the different states.

Let's try these out on the big spreadsheet, which is ideal for this purpose because of its numerous variables.

1. Freedom Culture

   To discover what states have a general climate of freedom, we concentrate mainly on what Jason calls the CULTURE variables. We eliminate anything having to do with population, or FSP viability. We also ignore most items in the QUALITY area.

   I used 3 possible weights: 1 for variables if lower importance, 2 for variables of middling importance, and 4 for variables of high importance. Variables get a 4 when they are better, more direct measures of a freedom culture. They get a 1 if they are either are indirect or less sure measures, or those that are not very important.

   These variables were assigned weights of 4:

   Ideology, RLCFreedomPers, RLCFreedomEc

   These variables were assigned weights of 2:

   Dependence, Spending, Taxes, DeathTaxes, Revenue, Debt, Prez, GunControl, Homeschooling, NEATeachers, NEAMonopoly, EdSpendingGSP, EdSpendingPupil, NTU, GovEmp%, GovEmp, RightToWork, EFI, SBSI, EFNA, LandPlanning, SmokingRegs, SeatBelts, BikeHelmets, MCHelmets, AutoInsRegs, HealthMandates, PublicHealthCare, LiquorLaws, MarijuanaLaws, MarijuanaArrests, PeoplePerCop

   These variables were assigned a weight of 1:

   GunOwners1, GunOwners2, AllTeachers, UnionMembers%, UnionMembers, UnionRep%, CPS, CPSAdoptedOut, HuntingRegs, HunterOrange, HunterTraining, DRCPerfRank, DRCBusVitRank, DRCDevCapRank

   The definitions for these variables are found in the Appendix, and discussions about them are found via links in the spreadsheet itself. This particular weighing is stored for your use in the "Weight Vectors" page of the big spreadsheet, with the name "Culture"; if you have the big spreadsheet you may modify it as you like, of course.

   I do not claim these weight assignments make perfect sense. One could obviously make many different choices than I have.

   Let's see what the spreadsheet yielded:

   WY	ID	NH	SD	AK	ND	MT	VT	DE	ME
   681	660	601	594	566	554	534	495	472	442

   So, the conclusion, at least from my weighing, is that Wyoming, Idaho, New Hampshire and South Dakota are the 4 states in our list with the strongest culture of freedom in the people. This is, of course, an indirect measure, as we are assuming that the culture of the people is reflected in the laws and regulations they tolerate living under.

2. Personal Freedom

   I created another weight vector (stored in the spreadsheet weight vectors page under the name "Personal Freedom"). It is similar in concept to the culture exercise above except that the variables associated only with economic freedom were eliminated. And some others, such as the variable PrivateLand, were added, when they seemed to have something to do with personal freedom. The details of this vector may be examined by opening the spreadsheet.

   Here are the results:

   ID	WY	NH	AK	ND	MT	SD	VT	ME	DE
   1,941	1,860	1,747	1,744	1,529	1,518	1,506	1,393	1,192	1,097

   With my weigh vector, Idaho rises to the top in personal freedom; South Dakota looks less friendly (it has dropped substantially from its overall freedom culture measurement). So we can see that we'd have work to do in the personal freedom area, if we picked South Dakota.

3. Economic Freedom

   I created another weight vector (strangely enough called "Economic Freedom", in the weight vectors page). Again it is like the above, except this time we are now considering only the economic side of freedom. Here is the result I get with my weight choice:

   WY	SD	ID	ND	AK	NH	MT	VT	ME	DE
   1,609	1,448	1,446	1,307	1,294	1,233	1,136	959	956	953

   While Wyoming is again in top spot for economic freedom, this is clearly South Dakota's strong suit, essentially tying in second place with Idaho. Somewhat of a disappointment, New Hampshire drops to 6th in this list. And the big surprise is Delaware, with its reputation of being a business haven, only making a poor 10th place showing. I suspect Delaware's reputation is based on its use by large corporations for registering there, not for small business and entrepreneurial advantages; and anyway, other statist trends have been noted recently, in that state.

   In the above weighing I did not give QUALITY variables any weight, being concerned more with freedom per se rather than economic vitality and opportunity (which may be quite good even in very statist states, e.g. California). But I tried another one, like the above but this time factoring in a heavy weighing of QUALITY variables (called EcFreedomAndQuality in the weight vectors page):

   SD	WY	ID	ND	NH	AK	DE	MT	ME	VT
   2,231	2,214	2,013	1,945	1,921	1,875	1,732	1,717	1,598	1,588

4. Government spending tendencies

   I created a weight vector with only these weights: Spending=20, Debt=10, Revenue=Gov2PerCapita=5 (all but Spending are per capita measures; Spending is a per-Gross State Product measure). This was not stored anywhere. The results:

   NH	ID	SD	ND	DE	ME	MT	VT	WY	AK
   330	325	305	284	283	260	257	256	242	176

   Populous states with large Gross State Products and low spending, like New Hampshire and Idaho, do well on this measure of government spending tendencies. It does downgrade states like Wyoming and Alaska that benefit from having mineral resources and investment portfolios; such will tend to spend more than otherwise. Normally we might not downgrade states for spending this money, although the question has to be asked, what are they going to do when the minerals run out? (That's more a problem with Alaska, which has a small supply of oil.) Will they then be hooked on government spending?

   I have to add that Wyoming is unique in this country in having a "no-frills" state-level government. As shown by the 2001 State Expenditure Report of the National Association of State Budget Officers (p. 19 of the .pdf file), outside of the basic spending categories of "education", Medicare, public assistance, corrections and transportation, Wyoming alone in the country spends 0% of its budget in the category "Other". The national average is 32.1% in that category, and my own state of Oregon tops the list with 48.4%!

5. Government taxing tendencies

   I created a weight vector having only these weights: Taxes=20, DeathTaxes=NTU=5. This was not stored anywhere. The results:

   AK	NH	WY	ID	SD	MT	ND	VT	ME	DE
   312	273	261	247	241	218	226	224	218	207

   Interestingly, back in the '70's Alaska had the highest state and local taxes in the nation. For many years now, it has had the lowest in the nation. New Hampshire has also had consistently low taxes over a very long period of time.

   There has been some justifiable concern on the FSP web forum that taxes are not a very reliable measure for us. Not only that, but federal taxes (not part of this measure) dominate state and local taxes. Personally I think focusing on just a few variables, as in the above tax and spending examples, is not a very good way to base one's decision on a state. It does indicate special issues or problems, however.

6. Our activist opposition

   I created a weight vector having only these weights:

   NEATeachers=GovEmp=20
   Dependence=UrbArea%=NEAMonopoly=10
   AllTeachers=GovEmp%=UnionMembers=UnionMembers%=PeoplePerCop=5

   I should explain this choice. First, I have some pairs of variables like UnionMembers and UnionMembers%, that differ only in the "%". The first is the number of union members in the state, the second is the percentage of union members in the state population. The number is more important because it represents how many activists will be directly opposing us. The percentage is less important, but still matters some, because this percentage of the voting public can be assumed will vote against us.

   I chose Dependence because those feeding at the trough will not want to see that trough emptied. I chose UrbArea% because large urban agglomerations are reliable sources of statist opposition. I chose PeoplePerCop because that indicates a bit about the strength of the corrections establishment in the state, which will resist cutting down the War on Drugs and the like. I chose NEAMonopoly because it places powerful tools in the hands of our opponents. The others should be self-explanatory. The results:

   WY	SD	VT	ND	DE	MT	ID	NH	AK	ME
   814	760	731	711	572	522	521	511	490	482

   The large states, Idaho, New Hampshire and Maine predictably fall to the bottom; since they are large, our opponents will be numerous there. Surprisingly, despite its socialist reputation, Vermont climbs pretty high. This is no doubt due to its small state status and lack of big cities. It probably shouldn't be that high because we will face strong opposition in dismantling all the statist measures they have enacted. I suppose that demonstrates the fallibility of spreadsheets.

7. Charting long range trends

   I have a long term trend of some data. An example below shows one of our three comprehensive economic indices, the Economic Freedom of North America index (note the horizontal axis is not linear; Frasier Institute first started taking data for this index every 4 years, and now is doing it every year). Charting data this way, while time consuming and difficult, reveals that substantial changes happen over not very long periods of time. With FSP presence in one of these small states, our influence in these sorts of indices should be quite large.

   The charts also suggest other lines of inquiry. For example, what happened in the '89-'93 time frame to harm New Hampshire's position in this index? What did they do later to fix things?

   I include this only as an example of the kind of information long-term data may provide to us. It remains to chart and exploit this for numerous other variables.

8. Predicting FSP population in the different states

   Here we get into the far out limits of what you can do with the spreadsheet. Making such a prediction is extremely problematical, in my opinion; only slightly better than pulling it out of... the air.

   I have added an extra weighing column to the big spreadsheet, called FSPDrawWeight. The intention here was to weigh the spreadsheet variables not with any sense of FSP success, but simply to consider those variables that would influence people to move. For example, the QUALITY variables are weighed much higher here, and the SIZE variables not at all. The Jobs variable got far and away the highest weight (5 times higher than anything else), and this was used as a simple "more is better" variable, not an "intermediate value is better" as on the regular weighing. Then I assumed the state with the lowest draw would get 20,000 FSPers, and predicted the draw in the other states using that assumption and the result of the FSP Draw weighing, and from that the number of voters in the state per FSP activist. Here are the results of my weight choice:

   State	WY	SD	AK	ND	VT	ID	DE	MT	NH	ME
   Predicted FSP Pop (1000s)	24.6	25.0	22.3	20.8	20.0	30.5	20.4	24.2	26.2	20.3
   Voters Per FSPer	8.7	12.7	13.1	14.0	14.6	16.0	16.1	17.0	21.6	31.9

   I don't know what you can do with this, other than to say that in Maine, we'd be in serious trouble. And that Idaho is the state likely to draw the largest FSP population, a result that seems intuitively correct. This exercise was meant more as a fun spreadsheet exercise, than as something one could hang one's hat on. Actually, it is probably a better indicator of the draw we'd have with "friends", than with the members some have taken to calling our "broken glass eaters" (those who would go anywhere to be free). To estimate the draw of the latter you'd want to recalculate after having flattened or almost eliminated the QUALITY variables.

9. Using the full spreadsheet

   Up to this point we have been looking at the big spreadsheet which is useful for making inferences about different subjects, but we were not considering so much the needs of the project as a whole. Now we turn to the regular spreadsheet, available here, to consider the project itself.

   Here are the weights that I came up with, along with Jason's, which are the default in the sheet:

   Variable Paul's Jason's Voters 12 18.1 Finance 6 8.5 Population 6 2.0 Area 2 2.0 Coast 1 4.6 Border 1 1.0 Dependence 9 13.5 FedLand 2 5.1 Spending 7 3.9 Taxes 7 1.6 Prez 2 0.7 Gun Control 3 1.8 Homeschooling 3 1.1 Natives 1 1.5 UrbanAreas 4 1.6 UrbanClus 0 0.4

   Variable Paul's Jason's NEA 1 1.9 Ideology 5 2.1 GovEmp 1 2.1 EFI 4 1.2 LandPlanning 2 1.0 SBSI 4 0.9 CPS 2 1.0 Smoking 1 1.2 SeatBelts 1 1.2 Marijuana 3 2.0 Livability 1 1.4 Crime 1 2.9 Income 1 1.0 Jobs 4 6.5 PrivLand 2 4.2 JanTemp 1 2.0

   First, a comment on spreadsheet differences. In the standard spreadsheet, unlike the big one, variables NEA and GovEmp are a percentage of the total population, rather than a straight number. I think I know why Jason did it this way; they are thus not "dependent" on the total population (i.e., they are not connected to population). But there is still a problem with this. If we had two states "A" and "B" with the same percentage of NEA members, but state "A" has twice the population of state "B", then state "A" will have twice the number of NEA members as will "B". Yet it will be ranked the same in this spreadsheet. This is not a desirable situation; and the same situation exists for GovEmp. NEA members and government employees will be our primary opposition as activists.

   I believe the answer in the standard spreadsheet, as it currently stands, is to weigh these two variables rather low, and increase the weight of the population variables (because you will understand that larger populations will naturally give rise to larger numbers of NEA members and government employees, an undesirable outcome).

   There is another difference in the Jobs variable. In the standard spreadsheet it is a simple "more is better" variable, while in the big spreadsheet I put 60,000 as the optimal number (3 times the number of FSPers, not all of whom will need jobs as some will be spouses). My reasoning was that if the jobs get much higher you have the potential for a lot of them to be filled by economic refugees who might be statists; actually I'm thinking even 60,000 was perhaps too high for an optimal number of projected jobs.

   I have done a linear regression on the projected jobs vs. population, and it turns out (not surprisingly) that the more people you have in a state, the more job openings there will be in the future; so that, in effect, jobs and population are connected. The correlation is quite high. However in the standard spreadsheet Jobs is a simple "more is better" variable and Population/Voters are "less is better" variables. Some large state advocates have advised taking population variables (Population and Voters) to a weight of zero while weighing Jobs highly. This has the somewhat absurd effect, since Jobs and population are so closely connected, of penalizing Wyoming for having a small population!

   The bottom line here is, leave at least some weight in the population variables (Population and Voters) and don't weigh Jobs too high. If you want to take Jobs higher, you must (to avoid a bogus result) do the same with the population variables.

   My weighing generates the following results for the top 5 states:

   WY	AK	NH	DE	ID
   695	602	563	542	538

   Just to experiment, I used my preferred weights but zeroed out the population variables:

   NH	WY	ID	AK	DE
   536	515	494	453	416

   Again, this weighing makes no sense because it penalizes the states for having a small population. Even so it's interesting to see Wyoming is only barely bumped out of 1st place.

   The result Jason got with the default weighs he has loaded in the spreadsheet is:

   WY	DE	AK	ID	VT
   640	573	567	552	530

   Finally, getting back to the big spreadsheet, this is the top 5 result I get with my preferred weights:

   WY	SD	ND	VT	NH
   741	664	623	612	592

   This is a useful cross-check between the two spreadsheets. The big spreadsheet is not kind to DE (and to a lesser extent, NH) because these two do not do so well with the numerous small variables added to the big spreadsheet. On the other hand, SD does do well on them, and with the added comprehensive economic index there (EFNA).

10. To conclude…

    Spreadsheets are not the be-all or end-all. There are a fair number of factors that are not easily quantifiable, and thus are not found in the spreadsheets. But those factors ought not be the only thing you base your decision on. If you have a favorite state that, with a reasonable selection of weights, does poorly in the spreadsheets, you have a problem. At the very least, there is some justification that needs to be done, to keep this state as a favorite. I would say that we shouldn't rank states highly in the vote if they can't make it at least into the top 3 or 4 slots in the spreadsheets.

    Some people have gotten a lot of mileage out of creating lists of "firsts" for their favorite state. This is interesting, but it unfortunately does not lend itself well to comparison with other states, and of course all the bad factors are left out. Spreadsheets allow you to organize your thinking about what is important and what is not, and to consider most of the quantifiable factors.

    In the examination of such factors as economic freedom, personal freedom and others, Wyoming usually does quite well. With the weights I have chosen for running the entire spreadsheet for overall results (and these are done without regard to which state does better on what), I normally see Wyoming in first place with a commanding lead. I suspect most people will come out with a similar result.

11. Appendix: Variable Names

    AllTeachers	Number of government school teachers
    AutoInsRegs	Lack of mandatory automobile insurance regulations**
    BikeHelmets	10 = No bicycle helmet law; 9 = No law except in Billings; 0 = Helmets required
    CPS	Children removed from home by CPS
    CPSAdoptedOut	Children adopted out of foster care after removal from their families by CPS
    DeathTaxes	One point for not having each of the following: Inheritance Tax, Estate Tax, Generation Skipping Tax, Gift Tax
    Debt	Total state and local debt per capita
    Dependence	Federal expenditure to federal tax ratio
    DRCBusVitRank	Development Report Card ranking for business vitality*
    DRCDevCapRank	Development Report Card ranking for development capacity*
    DRCPerfRank	Development Report Card ranking for performance*
    EdSpendingGSP	Dollars spent per $1000 Gross State Product. A measure of teacher union influence.
    EdSpendingPupil	Per pupil spending in public schools, adjusted for regional costs differences. A measure of teacher union influence.
    EFI	Clemson University comprehensive economic freedom index*
    EFNA	Economic Freedom of North America, an economic freedom index by Frazier Institute*
    GovEmp%	% of population employed by state & local government at all levels
    GovEmp	Number, in thousands, employed by state & local government at all levels
    GunControl	State gun freedom**
    GunOwners1	Percentage of homes owning guns
    GunOwners2	Percentage of suicides that are gun suicides, a measure of firearms ownership
    HealthMandates	Unfunded state mandates on health care providers**
    Homeschooling	According to HSLDA, 10=no notification required; 7=minimal regulation; 3=moderate regulation; 0=high regulation
    HunterOrange	Amount of hunter orange required: 10 = none, 5 = 1 garment, 0 = 2 garments or 400 sq in.
    HuntingRegs	Lack of hunting regulations
    HunterTraining	Hunter training course required
    Ideology	Citizen ideologies in the states
    LandPlanning	Lack of statewide land planning schemes
    LiquorLaws	An index showing regulation of liquor, wine and beer**
    MarijuanaArrests	Arrest rate per 100,000, averaged over the years 95-97. Note, arrest rate may be as much affected by population propensity to smoke as by police enthusiasm.
    MarijuanaLaws	An index showing severity of marijuana possession laws**
    MCHelmets	10 = No MC helmet required; 8 = No MC helmet required for 18 or older; 0 = MC helmet required
    NEAMonopoly	NEA/AFT monopoly bargaining power for all teachers - deduct 5 points. NEA/AFT forced dues for all teachers - deduct 5 points.
    NEATeachers	Number of government school teachers in NEA
    NTU	Percentage of time congress persons voted in agreement with National Taxpayers Union, averaged over several years*
    PeoplePerCop	Ratio of the number of citizens to each LEO (Law Enforcement Officer) in the state
    Prez	Vote for conservative & libertarian presidential candidates in 2000
    PublicHealthCare	Support for publicly-funded health care - tax expenditures
    Revenue	Total state & local revenue per capita
    RightToWork	10=Right to work state (no forced union membership or dues), 0=not a Right to work state
    RLCFreedomEc	10-year index of congresspersons for economic freedom by Republican Liberty Caucus
    RLCFreedomPers	10-year index of congresspersons for personal freedom by Republican Liberty Caucus
    SBSI	Small Business Survival Index, grades states on a collection of factors for entrepreneurial friendliness*
    SeatBelts	10 = Seatbelt not required; 5 = Seatbelt required, fine <= $10; etc.
    SmokingRegs	Lack of smoking regulations.**
    Spending	State and local government spending as a percentage of Gross State Product
    Taxes	Total state and local taxes as a percentage of income - note, does not include "user fees"
    UnionMembers%	Percentage of union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by state, (union members only)
    UnionMembers	Number of union members, in thousands
    UnionRep%	Percentage of union affiliation of employed wage and salary workers by state, including all persons represented by collective bargaining contracts

    * These variables are "comprehensive indices", meaning they are a collection of numerous related factors to give a more reliable overall picture, compiled professionally.

    ** These variables are "comprehensive indices", or at least indices containing more than one related factor. They give a more reliable overall picture. They are compiled by FSP researchers.

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 SD 2: South Dakota Advantages

South Dakota Advantages

by Crystal Bogue

As a general rule, most people dedicated to the FSP think that states such as New Hampshire or Wyoming will win this race. Granted those two seem like the place to be for one reason or another and both rank considerably high on the scale of being more "libertarian" than the other eight. Depending on the poll and the reason for it, South Dakota always seems to fall in the middle. Never number one but never number ten either. Let's consider what South Dakota has to offer in relation to the other states and what makes it the best candidate for success in this "free state race."

South Dakota has taken it upon itself to prove that states don't need income tax from the people. It is interesting because there are VERY few states that believe this. This is not to say that SD doesn't have taxes. All the states of taxes in some form or another. When considering the sales tax of the states, SD only has a 4% tax on all items. This percentage is relatively low when considering other states.

Cost of living is another factor. South Dakota is among the bottom percentage of cost of living which contributes to the ability of the people to stay in business. This lower cost of living coupled with a growing economy only spells success for the state in more ways than one. Sioux Falls is home to many large corporation businesses because there is no corporate tax in this state. It is interesting to note that more and more companies are moving here from other states to take advantage of this tax break. With an increase in big business, little businesses can only benefit. Construction of new homes and new factories is driving the premium cost of land in Sioux Falls up very quickly. Even though Sioux Falls is a city of about 100,000, it has been noted that it is one of the top three cities of that size that are showing a high rate of growth while keeping unemployment at an all time low of only 2.9%. Rural living is a majority in South Dakota but Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and Aberdeen are all relatively large towns that offer the many things that individuals enjoy about big cities.

The right to keep and bear arms is a big issue for a considerable amount of people involved in this project. Even though Alaska ranks as number one for their gun laws, South Dakota hasn't ever had a law that made carrying a pistol a financial burden. It is VERY economical and convenient to apply and receive a concealed carry permit in South Dakota. If it were any more economical, it would be a mimic of Alaska and be no cost at all. It is important to note that South Dakota believes that the owner of a firearm is responsible for that firearm and NOT the manufacturers or sellers of such items.

This porridge is not too hot nor too cold, but just right. Because of this middle of the road outlook and position, South Dakota is best placed at the top of the FSP list simply because once South Dakota is picked and changes for the betterment of the living conditions and political outlook is made, North Dakota won't be far behind in making the same changes. This factor is very important in the choice of which state should be THE Free State. Within months, North Dakota would join the trend of South Dakota's success as it has done so many times before. Not too cold, not too hot, but just right.