Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Fwd: And now for the *rest* of the story....

Expand Messages
  • Tim Condon
    Message 1 of 1 , Sep 1, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      >To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
      >From: Tim Condon <tim@...>
      >Subject: And now for the *rest* of the story....
      >
      > Having argued yesterday in favor of Delaware because of its
      > proximity to major population centers, its mild climate, it's
      > business-friendly atmosphere, and its long coastline and coastal
      > access...now let me argue the other side, and, like Heinlein's two-headed
      > man, try to refute myself.
      > In continuing to think upon the matter, four things about
      > Delaware really stand forth for me: Its milder climate, it's coastline,
      > it's small size, and it's proximity to big population centers.
      > 1. Milder climate: That's nice, but to many people a more
      > rigorous climate is actually a *plus*, since serious climate variations
      > will tend to discourage what I call "the lazies and the crazies" (you
      > don't face *death* in Florida if you refuse to work and refuse to make
      > minimal, normal, human plans for climactic changes coming in the near
      > future). In addition, there ain't no mountains in Delaware (if you
      > consult your atlas, you'll see that the highest point in the state is up
      > near the northern state line, at about 650-feet elevation), and many
      > people love mountains, and even can't stand living at sea level (I hear
      > you, Phyllis). So the milder climate attraction of Delaware is...mixed.
      > 2. Coastline: Nic has argued strongly in favor of Delaware,
      > citing the long coastline as being a very important consideration (for
      > trade reasons, for international contact, for freedom, etc.). But in this
      > era of instantaneous broadband communication and supersonic jets, is
      > having a state with an area where the land meets the sea really so
      > important? When it comes to conducting business and trading, with the
      > advent of the broadband Internet, FedEx, and USP, anything can go from
      > just about anywhere to anywhere else with a minimum of time and expense.
      > A coastline might be seen as important by some as a possible "escape
      > hatch" or "opening to the world," but others may see it as superfluous,
      > especially if the alternate Freestate under consideration has an
      > international border with a foreign country, as do Vermont, New
      > Hampshire, Maine, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. In addition, hey,
      > we're not living in a real police state, however much some of us like to
      > exclaim over developing political realities. America IS still a democracy
      > of sorts, and if you think this country is repressive, try out Cuba,
      > North Korea, or any communist country when the commies were in control.
      > So while it may be bad and getting worse, most people don't think
      > Freestate citizens are going to have to flee for their lives or call in
      > foreign military assistance to resist the federal government. The
      > Freestate, as laid out by Jason and his helpers, will be a relatively
      > gradual "ameliorative" alternative to the present reality in the rest of
      > the United States, and we're just as likely to find that the rest of the
      > country is begging us to show them how it's done because they want to be
      > more like us, as opposed to being blockaded and overrun with outraged
      > federal SWAT teams. (In that sense, the Freestaters are the *most*
      > patriotic of American citizens, because we want the country and its
      > people to succeed in a far greater way than it is at present, by getting
      > back to its root beliefs and obeying its Constitution.) Looked at that
      > way, Wyoming and South Dakota are just as acceptable as Alaska and
      > Delaware with their long coastlines.
      > 3. Does size matter? Delaware is the smallest of the states
      > remaining on the "serious list" of the FSP. Small size isn't often used
      > as an argument *for* a state, other than the fact that it may facilitate
      > libertarian change because of a small voting population (although giant
      > Alaska and big Wyoming have smaller populations than Delaware). However,
      > some people argue against smaller states because they tend to have
      > heavier population densities, and many Freestaters are vociferously in
      > favor of plenty of "room to roam" and personal privacy (as in having the
      > closest neighbor several miles away; that was the genesis of the
      > "misanthrope/misogamy/misandry/misogyny line of discussion a month or two
      > ago). Since I plan to live in a town or city with plenty of people
      > around, this is not a big issue for me. However, it *does* occur to me
      > that the Freestate may be an extraordinary, historical occurrence, and
      > may succeed far in excess of some of our expectations. In short, it may
      > become, as I've said before, a "new Hong Kong," and involve an explosion
      > of creativity, invention, wealth-creation, and freedom such as the world
      > has never, *ever* seen in its history. If that happens, little states
      > like Delaware, New Hampshire, or Vermont could soon find themselves
      > swamped. I mean, do we *really* want to live in a place with a population
      > density comparable to that of Hong Kong? For many of us, *NAH!* is the
      > immediate reaction. In addition, if the Freestate is as spectacularly
      > successful as I think it may be, larger size with plenty of land will
      > become increasingly important, if not essential. All of a sudden,
      > Montana, the Dakotas, and Wyoming start to look better and better for the
      > long haul.
      > 4. Finally, what about the necessity of most of us having to
      > work. We've got to support our ourselves and our families, we've got to
      > "make a living." If we're in the middle of nowhere, that could get tough
      > (as I argued when speaking in favor of Delaware). During the time of the
      > "free nation" projects in the 1970's, I asked Edith Efron once what she
      > thought of them (she was an author and member of Ayn Rand's "inner
      > circle" in the 1950's and/or '60's). She didn't think much of them;
      > talking specifically about the Minerva Project, she said "What are you
      > going to do once you get there, trade coconuts?" But wait! When we talk
      > about comparatively "isolated" states such as Alaska (which I opted out
      > of, but now have decided to opt back *in* to) or Wyoming, we're still
      > talking about geographic entities situated in North America, still the
      > richest and fastest-growing continent in the world. So *what* if we end
      > up in Wyoming or North Dakota? If the Freestate starts spiraling upward
      > into becoming a "new Hong Kong," no one at *all* is going to have any
      > trouble making a living. In fact, the scores or hundreds or thousands of
      > businesses and corporations scrambling to relocate to the Freestate will
      > be *begging* for manpower and talent. Thus, the proximity of Delaware to
      > Philadelphia, DC and Baltimore (and other centers of socialism and
      > collectivism) begin to look like net negatives, rather than net positives
      > as I argued yesterday.
      > Bottom line? Beats the hell outta *me*! Keep on debating,
      > everyone. I'll avidly follow the partisans of every region, location, and
      > state closely before deciding how I'll vote when the 5,000 are aboard. In
      > the meantime...I'm totally undecided. Tim C.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.