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

[FSP] Re: Where We Can Best Succeed

Expand Messages
  • George R. Wilson
    Jason, I agree with you on this. Voters tend to vote with their pocketbooks, or for who they think will win, rather than how they actually feel about things. I
    Message 1 of 17 , Oct 31, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Jason,

      I agree with you on this. Voters tend to vote with their pocketbooks,
      or for who they think will win, rather than how they actually feel
      about things.

      I know a lot of "libertarians" who have never voted for a Libertarian
      candidate in their life...they feel they would be wasting their vote.

      In my own case I will be voting for the Republican Senate candidate
      from NJ on Tuesday instead of the candidate who best represents my
      beliefs, solely because I cannot imagine six more years of Senator
      Lautenberg.

      I think studying the actual voting patterns in the districts will
      yield much more useful information than trying to guess the hearts of
      the voters. One can be used as an objective measure, the other will
      always be subjective at best.

      George Wilson
      Boonton, NJ

      --- In freestateproject@y..., Jason P Sorens <jason.sorens@y...> wrote:
      > On Thu, 31 Oct 2002, Tennyson wrote:
      >
      > > My questions to the group: Does it behooves us to ascertain and
      > > factor- in (to whatever extent we deem reasonable/possible), this
      > > criterion? If yes, is anyone currently working on it?
      >
      > Absolutely, we have a lots of variables measuring political culture:
      > http://www.freestateproject.org/state.htm
      > In my view political culture is not nearly as important as voting
      > population, however, simply because all states are pretty bad from our
      > perspective, so that the slight differences among them are not very
      > important.
      >
      > ________________________________________________________________________
      >
      > Jason P Sorens---jason.sorens@y...://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35
      >
      > http://www.freestateproject.org - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
    • Tim Condon
      ... Well, it s at least partially factored in when we look at the immediate past voting patterns with respect to LP, Republican, and Independent vote
      Message 2 of 17 , Oct 31, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        >My questions to the group: Does it behooves us to ascertain and
        >factor- in (to whatever extent we deem reasonable/possible), this
        >criterion? If yes, is anyone currently working on it?

        Well, it's at least partially factored in when we look at the
        immediate past voting patterns with respect to LP, Republican, and
        Independent vote percentages. Also with respect to how many Libertarians
        have been elected, although that variable is less dependable because of the
        differing political situations "on the ground" (Vermont, for instance, with
        it's socialist majority, has more elected libertarians than any other state
        except for New Hampshire). ---Tim C.

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Robert Hawes
        Tennyson wrote:
        Message 3 of 17 , Nov 1, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Tennyson <Huntermoon@...> wrote:
          <<One dynamic that seems to me to have been given short thrift so far, has to do with the political predisposition/climate of 10 candidate states. I would go so far as to say that this `factor' (as yet officially unformulated and unnamed by us), is AS important, perhaps more so, than 'population'.>>

          You make good points. Voting-age population would seem to be the most important "population" consideration for us due to the fact that it allows us to see what *potential* opposition we might have if we start making waves and thus rouse statist dependents to the defense of the system.


          As far as the predisposition of the candidate states, this, I believe, is extremely important as well. Excluding Alaska here, none of our western block of candidate states has gone to a Democrat in a national election since 1964 (with the exception of Montana, which went for Clinton in 1992 with a majority of 38%...Montana then went back the other way in 1996, going for Dole by 44%).

          Now, I know that "Republican" does not equate to "non-statist," as we would see it, but I do think that we have to try and view this as the average voter does. The average person who votes Republican tends to think that they *are* casting an anti-statist vote, or at the very least a less energetic-statism vote. So, while a vote for Republicans does not necessarily equate to a blow for freedom, again, as we would see that, I do think that we can use it to measure the overall political intent of a state's population.

          Presidential elections are especially polarizing when you consider that each party's candidate is supposed to be the embodiment of that party's overall agenda and direction. So, rejecting a Democratic or Republican presidential candidate is usually also a vote against the party's general agenda. Local politics is a different animal altogether though. I voted for Dole in 1996, when I lived in Escambia County, Florida, but voted for a Democrat for sheriff because he had done his job well and I saw no reason to oust him from office just because he wasn't a Republican. The Party's general agenda just didn't seem to matter in that race.

          BTW, that's the *only* time I've ever voted Democrat.


          Robert Hawes
          rhawes21273@...
          "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring
          one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
          pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
          mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good
          government." - Thomas Jefferson


          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Gary Snyder
          ... yet officially unformulated and unnamed by us), is AS important, perhaps more so, than population . ... IMO, not really. Bottom-line, EVERY state in this
          Message 4 of 17 , Nov 1, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Tennyson <Huntermoon@...> wrote:
            >One dynamic that seems to me to have been given short thrift so far,
            >has to do with the political predisposition/climate of 10 candidate
            >states. I would go so far as to say that this `factor' (as
            yet officially unformulated and unnamed by us), is AS >important, perhaps more so, than 'population'.

            >My questions to the group: Does it behooves us to ascertain and
            >factor- in (to whatever extent we deem reasonable/possible), this
            >criterion?

            IMO, not really.

            Bottom-line, EVERY state in this country contains a large majority too disgusted/apathetic to vote. And an overwhelming majority of those that DO vote are too confused/ignorant to make a consistent expression of their political disposition.

            Hell, even New Hampshire has a DEMOCRAT governor. :)

            ANY state we choose will require us to assimilate, make friends and enlighten. And I don't believe that any state provides us with a significant "head-start" in that regard.

            Gary






            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Gary Snyder
            ... `Lockean ... and ... I d pay very little attention to this stuff because there s so many conflicting factors. For example, Vermont, containing an
            Message 5 of 17 , Nov 1, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Tennyson <Huntermoon@...> wrote:
              >For example, we could leverage those factors that are unquestionably
              >indicative of the voting populations attitudes towards
              `Lockean'
              >principles, weight them in a logical way, and create a criterion
              >(say, `Freedom Index`), which would be a composite of them
              and
              >others factors not yet considered.

              I'd pay very little attention to this stuff because there's so many conflicting factors.

              For example, Vermont, containing an abundance of socialists, would score the best on the gun "factor" ("Vermont carry").

              Gary






              ---------------------------------
              Do you Yahoo!?
              HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Heather James
              Other things that should be included are building codes/zoning laws-what are they and how strictly enforced, general attitude towards feds (a state whose
              Message 6 of 17 , Nov 1, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Other things that should be included are building codes/zoning laws-what are
                they and how strictly enforced, general attitude towards feds (a state whose
                people already resist federal intervention would, of course, auger well for
                us), laws governing getting a license and registering a vehicle, and what
                vice laws are in place and how strictly they are enforced (example-MT
                attitude towards porn, booze, and pot, as put forth in Ben's report on the
                FSP website). Any other laws that affect people's everyday freedom, should
                be checked out, as well. How much people allow the government to intrude on
                their everyday lives is, I think, an even better indicator of freedom than
                are tax levels.
              • Heather James
                ... I voted for Bush, although I would have liked to vote for Harry Browne. What I really did was vote against Gore, as the prospect of him as President
                Message 7 of 17 , Nov 2, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  > Now these numbers are telling, but before I go on here, let me say
                  > this: While I would definitely agree with those that warn against
                  > automatically assuming that voting for a Republican is better every
                  > time (they usually give an order of X degrees) than voting for a
                  > Democrat - the equivalent of say, picking between two lethal
                  > poisons - that was not actually the case I the 2000 elections.
                  > Indeed, I think it's safe to say that going into the
                  > elections,and
                  > regardless of what has happened since, few imagined the Bush/Cheney
                  > tandem to be greater `Statists' (Big S) than the
                  > Gore/Lieberman
                  > duet - and fewer still were prepared to argue that Gore would have
                  > somehow, going against his own horrid record during the Clinton
                  > years, been a better protector of Liberty than the politically
                  > untested and relatively unknown Bush. One man was the side kick of
                  > a president who grew the central government more than any other in
                  > the history of the Union - and the other, the son of a previous
                  > president who was being pitched as a Reaganesque figure who believed
                  > in smaller government. Reality has proved different to be sure, but
                  > that was the tale of the tape going into the 2000 elections. From a
                  > Libertarian point of view, there was little choice in 2000. Few of
                  > us voted Gore.
                  I voted for Bush, although I would have liked to vote for Harry Browne. What
                  I really did was vote against Gore, as the prospect of him as President
                  scared me stiff. Even with the atrocities committed by the Bush
                  administration, I still think Gore would have been MUCH worse (As example,
                  all the Feds have to do to suspend gun sales is to take the background check
                  computer offline. On 9/11 itself, the computers were up and going. It was
                  quite possible to buy a gun from a gun store. How much do you want to be
                  that the first thing Gore/Reno would have done would have been to issue
                  orders to shut down that computer system?). How many other Bush voters were
                  really anit-Gore voters?
                • Mary Lou Seymour
                  Robert, I hate to break it to you, but the average Democrat doesn t think they re voting for statism either. They often think THEY are voting for
                  Message 8 of 17 , Nov 2, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Robert, I hate to break it to you, but the "average Democrat" doesn't
                    think they're voting for statism either. They often think THEY are voting
                    for anti-statist things like more personal freedom, free speech, freedom
                    from search & seizure etc. (Democrats also often think they are voting
                    for "good things" like helping the elderly, too, of course.) The challenge
                    is to reach the "swing voters". Which you can NOT do through either of
                    the majors.

                    > Now, I know that "Republican" does not equate to "non-statist," as we
                    > would see it, but I do think that we have to try and view this as the
                    > average voter does. The average person who votes Republican tends to
                    > think that they *are* casting an anti-statist vote, or at the very
                    > least a less energetic-statism vote. So, while a vote for Republicans
                    > does not necessarily equate to a blow for freedom, again, as we would
                    > see that, I do think that we can use it to measure the overall
                    > political intent of a state's population.
                    >
                  • Zack Bass
                    ... Browne. What ... Didn t any of you see that Simpsons Halloween thing where the Aliens took over BOTH candidates? It was probably re-run this week,
                    Message 9 of 17 , Nov 2, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In freestateproject@y..., Heather James <hsj1015@e...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I voted for Bush, although I would have liked to vote for Harry
                      Browne. What
                      > I really did was vote against Gore
                      >

                      Didn't any of you see that Simpsons Halloween thing where the Aliens
                      took over BOTH candidates? It was probably re-run this week, although
                      I didn't see it this time.

                      Both candidates wre now Space Aliens, so no matter which one you voted
                      for, you were gonna get screwed. Well, someone (I don't remember
                      details of this one well) exposed them as Space Aliens and told The
                      People to vote for ... someone else, I don't remember.
                      But here's the good part: One of the Aliens said "Sure, go ahead!
                      Waste your vote!"

                      Please try to Think Simpsons the next time you are tempted to vote for
                      Part of the Problem as the lesser of two evils. The only REAL result
                      is that the Libertarian Party gets less attention and is less likely
                      to be taken seriously.
                    • Tim Condon
                      ... Me...and a few hundred other libertarians in Florida who opted to vote for Bush instead of Harry Browne were who put Bush into the White House, for better
                      Message 10 of 17 , Nov 2, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >How many other Bush voters were really anit-Gore voters?

                        Me...and a few hundred other libertarians in Florida who opted to vote for Bush instead of Harry Browne were who put Bush into the White House, for better or for worse. ---Tim C.

                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • Robert Hawes
                        Mary Lou Seymour wrote:
                        Message 11 of 17 , Nov 2, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Mary Lou Seymour <libertymls@...> wrote:
                          <<Robert, I hate to break it to you, but the "average Democrat" doesn't think they're voting for statism either. They often think THEY are voting
                          for anti-statist things like more personal freedom, free speech, freedom from search & seizure etc. (Democrats also often think they are voting
                          for "good things" like helping the elderly, too, of course.)>>

                          That is true, a lot of them do think that they're voting for increased freedoms, but a lot of Democratic voters are also unquestionably voting for programs and protections that they understand as coming from the government via tax dollars. The Democratic Party is not bashful about an enhanced government role being at the heart of their agenda, and many of its supporters do have an entitlement attitude.

                          <<The challenge is to reach the "swing voters". Which you can NOT do through either of
                          the majors.>>


                          Actually, I think that Reagan showed that you *can* reach them from the major parties, but I would agree that it is not easily accomplished. And we're not likely to see another Reagan (read "Great Communicator" here) anytime soon. There are some interesting splinter possibilities out there though...especially if Nader should continue to do well in the next election.


                          Robert Hawes
                          rhawes21273@...
                          "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring
                          one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
                          pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
                          mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good
                          government." - Thomas Jefferson


                          ---------------------------------
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Invent Yourself
                          I couldn t agree more! Analyses based on the assumption that Republicans can be rounded up into Libertarians, and Democrats can be rounded down into Statists,
                          Message 12 of 17 , Nov 3, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I couldn't agree more! Analyses based on the assumption that Republicans
                            can be rounded up into Libertarians, and Democrats can be rounded down
                            into Statists, is dangerously blurry. People hold their noses and reel in
                            to the booth, afraid to vote for a 3rd party, guided by one or two salient
                            visions, such as back-alley coat-hanger abortions, a blue dress with
                            stains, or a few extra dollars on tax day. Who can claim which of these
                            people is a closet libertarian based on that single bit of data? Who can
                            predict how they will react to an influx of porcupines from all over the
                            nation, bringing libertarian ideas? I like hard numbers as much as the
                            next geek, but we aren't doing ourselves any service by basing any
                            decisions on these treacherously inaccurate assumptions.



                            On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Mary Lou Seymour wrote:

                            > Robert, I hate to break it to you, but the "average Democrat" doesn't
                            > think they're voting for statism either. They often think THEY are voting
                            > for anti-statist things like more personal freedom, free speech, freedom
                            > from search & seizure etc. (Democrats also often think they are voting
                            > for "good things" like helping the elderly, too, of course.) The challenge
                            > is to reach the "swing voters". Which you can NOT do through either of
                            > the majors.
                            >
                            > > Now, I know that "Republican" does not equate to "non-statist," as we
                            > > would see it, but I do think that we have to try and view this as the
                            > > average voter does. The average person who votes Republican tends to
                            > > think that they *are* casting an anti-statist vote, or at the very
                            > > least a less energetic-statism vote. So, while a vote for Republicans
                            > > does not necessarily equate to a blow for freedom, again, as we would
                            > > see that, I do think that we can use it to measure the overall
                            > > political intent of a state's population.
                            > >



                            --
                            Henry McCullers, an affable Plano, TX-area anti-Semite, praised the
                            Jewish people Monday for doing "a bang-up job" running the media.
                            "This has been such a great year for movies, and the new crop of fall
                            TV shows looks to be one of the best in years," McCullers said.
                            "And the cable news channels are doing a terrific job, too. Admittedly,
                            they're not reporting on the Jewish stranglehold on world finance,
                            but, hey, that's understandable."
                          • Invent Yourself
                            ... To measure the aggregate Statistness of a candidate is a uniquely Libertarian approach. If we seek the fraction of actual, self-aware libertarians, who
                            Message 13 of 17 , Nov 3, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Tennyson wrote:


                              > One connotation that can fairly be made, is that Gore DID represent
                              > a more significant `Statist' position over Bush, and another
                              > connotation that can fairly be made, is that the state that voted
                              > for Gore over Bush, DID in fact feel more comfortable with a Statist
                              > running the country than the state that didn't vote for Gore.
                              >
                              > Logical and fair.



                              To measure the aggregate Statistness of a candidate is a uniquely
                              Libertarian approach. If we seek the fraction of actual, self-aware
                              libertarians, who would perform such a computation, let's assume that
                              number is proportional to the LP membership, or the Browne voters. If
                              we're talking about the closet libertarians, the little-l libertarians who
                              could just as easily vote for Gore as the lesser of 2 evils because Bush
                              was notoriously spotty on pollution, we're running past some risky
                              assumptions.



                              --
                              Henry McCullers, an affable Plano, TX-area anti-Semite, praised the
                              Jewish people Monday for doing "a bang-up job" running the media.
                              "This has been such a great year for movies, and the new crop of fall
                              TV shows looks to be one of the best in years," McCullers said.
                              "And the cable news channels are doing a terrific job, too. Admittedly,
                              they're not reporting on the Jewish stranglehold on world finance,
                              but, hey, that's understandable."
                            • Robert Hawes
                              For any who have doubts that the federal government does not view all things as being equal in regard to homeland security, I would check out the following: 1.
                              Message 14 of 17 , Nov 3, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                For any who have doubts that the federal government does not view all things as being equal in regard to homeland security, I would check out the following:

                                1. A Story from MSNBC: "Report: US Still Vulnerable," begins: "A prestigious task force led by two former U.S. senators has concluded that the American transportation, water, food, power, communications and banking systems remain easy targets for terrorists despite the government's efforts at tightening the nation's domestic security in the past year."

                                This article then goes into detail on which areas are affected most by this situation, and leads off with the following: "Only a minuscule fraction of the containers, trains, trucks and ships entering the country are searched, which means the chances of detecting a weapon of mass destruction are almost nil."

                                And further: "Port officials estimate the cost of securing U.S. ports at $2 billion. Only $92 million in federal grants has been authorized.
                                "This screams at us as a top national priority," said Stephen Flynn, the task force's director and a former Coast Guard officer. "So few resources are being expended on this."
                                http://www.msnbc.com/news/825779.asp?cp1=1

                                So, here we have a report spearheaded by two US senators calling port security "a top national priority."

                                2. The following article was found at CNN.com with regard to the Canadian border:

                                "The border with Canada became the focus of scrutiny after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, leaders in both countries have spoken of the need to tighten security and pay more attention to those people who cross it..."
                                http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/03/inv.ashcroft.canada/index.html

                                This is an older article, but it prominently mentions John Ashcroft's involvement, and fits nicely with another article that I referred to on the border situation a few days ago:


                                http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021030/wl_nm/canada_usa_dc_3

                                3. From a speech given by George W. Bush, Friday, June 7, 2002:

                                "The Department of Homeland Security will be charged with four primary tasks. This new agency will control our borders and prevent terrorists and explosives from entering our country."

                                The first thing that Bush mentioned in his speech with regard to homeland security tasks was heavier scrutiny on the means of entering this country, ie: borders and ports.

                                4. An article on CNN.com (from a couple of months back) details another point of emphasis in the homeland security agenda:

                                "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military will step up random air patrols over major U.S. cities on the Fourth of July as a precaution, Pentagon officials told CNN Thursday. "This is not in response to any specific threat," said a senior defense official. "It's more a recognition that it is a day of symbolic significance."

                                http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/27/airpatrols.july

                                Search news articles on "homeland security" and you'll find such references over and over again. Seaports, the Canadian border, and major cities are the most heavily emphasized aspects of the homeland security agenda. The federal government clearly does not view all things as being equal here, and maybe we shouldn't either. After all, if the government is busily tightening controls on our ports and borders, what reception are we likely to receive if we come along wanting to reduce controls? If we run into difficulty with the federal government in these areas, we will have less to take them to task on because the Constitution gives them legitimate authority in these areas. Few people are likely to side with us in a dispute with the feds when the areas in dispute involve legitimate federal authority and the safety of "the children."

                                This is not a definitive argument, I realize, but it does seem to strongly suggest that we should take another look at our in-land options instead of emphasizing coastal and border states as well as large metropolitan areas. At the very least, we minimize our chances of inviting federal interference on legitimate, constitutional grounds, and we also reduce our risk of inciting the American people against us as being "the ones who don't seem to care if terrorists get into the country."

                                Also consider that, after ports, the Canadian border, and major cities, the feds are targeting major infrastructure such as water treatment, nuclear power plants, oil pipelines, and major transportation hubs including railyards and especially airports. The most important of all of these items being targeted are located in the major cities of the U.S., and this is where you can expect the heaviest scrutiny to be found on all levels, not just federal. The City of Baltimore is even tracking student absenteeism now to see if there any unusual patterns involved that might require further investigation.

                                Worth considering...


                                Robert Hawes
                                rhawes21273@...
                                "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring
                                one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own
                                pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the
                                mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good
                                government." - Thomas Jefferson


                                ---------------------------------
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now

                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                              • Gary Snyder
                                ... ... I completely disagree with this (and what amounts to the premise for your ENTIRE analysis). And I find it disappointing (and weird) that
                                Message 15 of 17 , Nov 4, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Tennyson <Huntermoon@...> wrote:
                                  >Specifically, Gore was portrayed as a big government,

                                  <snip>

                                  >Conversely, Bush was portrayed as big tax cuts,

                                  <snip>

                                  I completely disagree with this (and what amounts to the premise for your ENTIRE analysis).

                                  And I find it disappointing (and weird) that a libertarian (Tim, among others) would vote for Bush (or Gore) instead of Browne because of "what this country would look like under [the other guy]".

                                  Do you really believe things would be appreciably (if at all) different under Bush or Gore?

                                  Any libertarian voting for Bush (or Gore) TRULY wasted their vote, IMO.

                                  Gary




                                  ---------------------------------
                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now

                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.