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

Re: [FSP] The cost of making the move

Expand Messages
  • Logic
    ... From: Kevin To: Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:30 PM Subject: [FSP] The cost of making
    Message 1 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Kevin" <kevin@...>
      To: <freestateproject@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 2:30 PM
      Subject: [FSP] The cost of making the move


      > Good Morning everyone,
      >
      > I've been reading the recent posts on how to reduce the potential for
      > voter fraud in the selection process, and yet at the same time, make
      > the cost of the selection process as low as possible by utilizing
      > technology. I may be in the minority here, but it would seem to me
      > that in the overall scheme of things, the "cost" of sending in your
      > vote should be the least of the concerns.

      I agree on this point. Introducing arbitrary barriers to participation, such
      as cost and effort, will weed out those who are not serious about
      relocating. This is a fine way to screen slackers from the processes of the
      FSP.

      The proposal to leverage technology was really just a suggestion to address
      potential fraud, and to make it easier for people to participate in the
      process. Clearly making participation easier presents its own problems, such
      as allowing half-hearted, self-proclaimed porcupines to influence the
      outcome on the vote for which state to move to.

      I wonder, though, how effective this barrier to participation will be as
      more and more official FSP issues present themselves. Will these issues
      never see an opportunity for a vote by participating members, simply because
      the process is to costly and cumbersome?

      > For those few that live
      > their lives "anonymously"? I have no sympathy for then since they
      > are no help to the project anyway, and should be excluded. The
      > project MUST have people that are willing to operate WITHIN the laws
      > of this Country to affect permanent change. To encourage the
      > activities of fringe organizations and individuals within this group
      > jeaopardizes the project as a whole.

      Whether there is no sympathy for those few that live their lives anonymously
      or not has no bearing on an anonymous vote. I believe that an anonymous vote
      is the vanguard of any democratic process.

      *Who* votes is not important. Their *past* is not important. What's
      important is that a group of living, thinking human beings have agreed to
      acheive political ends through a peaceful, democratic process.

      Any process that divulges how a particular individual votes (esp. in the
      context of a government inspecting the vote) may pollute the process. The
      FSP is the very last place I would expect oppressive policies from the
      leadership. Just because we trust the leadership does not mean they should
      be burdened (empowered) with the ability to inspect how members voted on a
      particular issue --much less exposing an individual's voting decisions to
      ALL COMERS. Good people should be protected from bad people through
      anonymity.

      If, thirty years from now, things don't turn out the way we want, who will
      have access to our individual voting records? How might those decisions be
      held against us?

      We MUST have anonymity in the process!
    • Brian Murray
      On Tuesday 03 December 2002 12:30 pm, Kevin wrote: ... It can be made painful and cheap. ... ... ... ... ...
      Message 2 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
        On Tuesday 03 December 2002 12:30 pm, Kevin wrote:
        <snip>
        >
        > My personal feeling is that the best way to reduce voter fraud is to
        > make it just a little painful. Make certain that those who are
        <snip>

        It can be made 'painful' and cheap.

        > 1. Paper ballots. No electronic media, no faxes.
        > 2. In order to offset the cost of preparing the ballots and postage
        <snip>
        > 3. Once the ballot is received, you will make your vote, then sign
        <snip>
        > 4. The Ballot counting committee will open, count, and certify the
        <snip>
        > 5. Since only one ballot, and one envelope, will be sent out to each
        <snip>
        > 6. After the initial round of voting, the top three states should be
        <snip>
        > The total "cost" of this process should be no more than $25 or $30
        <snip>
        > more to reduce the potential for fraud than to make it costly to
        <snip>
        > make it expensive for him/her to do so. For those few that live
        > their lives "anonymously"? I have no sympathy for then since they
        > are no help to the project anyway, and should be excluded. The
        <snip>
        > activities of fringe organizations and individuals within this group
        > jeaopardizes the project as a whole.

        Are you serious are are you trolling? Make it lengthy, expensive, complex,
        layered with paperwork and with no allowances for anyone not keen on
        submitting three forms of identification and a blood sample? Fringe
        organizations? Individuals? Evils, those, eh? Better to stick with the
        mainstream and the status quo? Make it all better by doing it all the same?
        We wouldn't want to get radical or revolutionary, right? Play it safe?
        Middle of the road?

        The FSP is of interest to me because I want to live someplace where
        government isn't intrusive, invasive or obstructive and life, liberty and the
        pursuit of happiness do not require wading through red tape or bearing its
        cost. If what the FSP does it does no better than the government where I
        already live, what reason is there to believe that it's anything more than a
        waste of time and money? And even in just stating its goals it's already a
        'fringe organization' very much about 'individuals.'

        <snip>
        >
        > Ante up people, and quit trying to nickle and dime this project.
        > Freedom, both personal and political, is worth the cost, and the
        > effort involved.

        When the cost is freedom, the effort is irrelevant. Increasing cost,
        complexity and invasiveness in the pursuit of freedom is akin to increasing
        caloric intake in the pursuit of weight loss.

        --
        The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free.
        -- Henry David Thoreau
      • voodootyke
        ... that ... costs might ... become ... There isn t much reason to vote in the first place? Jason please explain how you come up with that. While I respect
        Message 3 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
          --- In freestateproject@y..., Jason P Sorens <jason.sorens@y...>
          wrote:
          >
          > The only problem I see with making voting intentionally costly is
          that
          > there isn't much reason to vote in the first place, so adding
          costs might
          > discourage people from voting even if they plan to participate and
          become
          > activists.


          There isn't much reason to vote in the first place? Jason please
          explain how you come up with that.

          While I respect your opinion, it seems to me that anybody worth the
          ink they took up on the FSP membership list would feel the exact
          opposite. That their vote for the free state is very important and
          necessary.


          I can imagine a few hundred people (out of 5000) thinking
          > along the following lines: "Out of 5000 voters, my vote is not
          going to
          > make a difference anyway. And they want me to go down to the bank
          and
          > get this notarized and then mail it? Harumph! It's not worth my
          time!"


          So what? Let's say there are a few people who think that way. Do you
          honestly expect a person who thinks that way to pack up there life,
          their children, change jobs, pay the cost of moving, and move to
          another state and become an activist? Without voting?

          It seems to me that sacrificing the integrity of our collective vote
          for an unknown few people who don't believe voting is important
          anyway, is anathema to me.


          > It's not that these people aren't dedicated activists; they just
          don't see
          > this as worthwhile if their costly participation isn't going to
          affect
          > anything.

          I think of what the FSP is attempting to do and wonder what somebody
          who wouldn't take the time to vote for a free state would take the
          time to do for the FSP cause. I'm drawing a blank.

          Then I think about all the dedicated activist that I have met or
          heard aout and I can't recall one who considered voting for their
          cause as not worth their effort.


          Sure, we could lay a guilt trip on them: "you're not a real
          > activist unless you vote!" But that approach might just backfire
          & come
          > off as too controlling.
          >


          Why would you put it that way in the first place? Why even talk in
          terms of guilt trips? Or take any accusatory approaches?

          We would be asking each other to put in a little effort to ensure
          the integrity of the most important vote of our lives. Period.

          No guilt trips. No accusations. No insinuations.



          > Note also that we can't require a fee paid to the FSP for voters.
          That
          > would be a required contribution for membership in contravention
          of the
          > Participation Guidelines.
          >


          Personally I would not ask for a fee. it's unnecessary and gets into
          questions about fleecing when the real issue is vote integrity.



          > Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is
          easy for
          > us to combat.


          Do you have statistics on totally open internet voting to back that
          up or is it your impression that it is a limited problem?



          If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
          > ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to
          verify their
          > identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.


          Not only is that totally contravene-able but it is based on a high
          amount of subjectivity and invades privacy. The approach that a few
          like Mr./Miss. Logic outlined is far more secure, far less
          subjectively based and far less invasive.
        • RavenBlack
          ... Though this method holds only if all blank ballot sheets are mailed - no collecting your ballot sheet by internet, as that would remove what security
          Message 4 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
            >Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is easy for
            >us to combat. If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
            >ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to verify their
            >identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.

            Though this method holds only if all blank ballot sheets are mailed -
            no collecting your ballot sheet by internet, as that would remove what
            security unique addresses provides. You could still accept the incoming
            votes by fax/scanned email, but the voters' addresses would only be known
            valid if the ballots were sent - with some sort of unique confirmation
            code upon the ballot - to each address. (Unique confirmation codes
            could be easily generated as a hash of the address, or just assign
            a code to each signed-up participant in your database before you
            send out the ballots.)

            --RavenBlack
          • Eric C Williams
            ... Insanity . . . Continuing to do the same things and expecting different results. --Albert Einstein ... This exactly what interests me as well. I don t
            Message 5 of 28 , Dec 3, 2002
              Brian Murray wrote:

              >On Tuesday 03 December 2002 12:30 pm, Kevin wrote:
              ><snip>
              >
              >
              >>My personal feeling is that the best way to reduce voter fraud is to
              >>make it just a little painful. Make certain that those who are
              >>
              >>
              ><snip>
              >
              >It can be made 'painful' and cheap.
              >
              >
              >
              >>1. Paper ballots. No electronic media, no faxes.
              >>2. In order to offset the cost of preparing the ballots and postage
              >>
              >>
              ><snip>
              >
              >
              >>3. Once the ballot is received, you will make your vote, then sign
              >>
              >>
              ><snip>
              >
              >
              >>4. The Ballot counting committee will open, count, and certify the
              >>
              >>
              ><snip>
              >
              >
              >>5. Since only one ballot, and one envelope, will be sent out to each
              >>
              >>
              ><snip>
              >
              >
              >>6. After the initial round of voting, the top three states should be
              >>
              >>
              ><snip>
              >
              >
              >>The total "cost" of this process should be no more than $25 or $30
              >>
              >>
              ><snip>
              >
              >
              >>more to reduce the potential for fraud than to make it costly to
              >>
              >>
              ><snip>
              >
              >
              >>make it expensive for him/her to do so. For those few that live
              >>their lives "anonymously"? I have no sympathy for then since they
              >>are no help to the project anyway, and should be excluded. The
              >>
              >>
              ><snip>
              >
              >
              >>activities of fringe organizations and individuals within this group
              >>jeaopardizes the project as a whole.
              >>
              >>
              >
              >Are you serious are are you trolling? Make it lengthy, expensive, complex,
              >layered with paperwork and with no allowances for anyone not keen on
              >submitting three forms of identification and a blood sample? Fringe
              >organizations? Individuals? Evils, those, eh? Better to stick with the
              >mainstream and the status quo? Make it all better by doing it all the same?
              >We wouldn't want to get radical or revolutionary, right? Play it safe?
              >Middle of the road?
              >
              >

              "Insanity . . . Continuing to do the same things and expecting different
              results."

              --Albert Einstein



              >The FSP is of interest to me because I want to live someplace where
              >government isn't intrusive, invasive or obstructive and life, liberty and the
              >pursuit of happiness do not require wading through red tape or bearing its
              >cost. If what the FSP does it does no better than the government where I
              >already live, what reason is there to believe that it's anything more than a
              >waste of time and money? And even in just stating its goals it's already a
              >'fringe organization' very much about 'individuals.'
              >
              This exactly what interests me as well. I don't care to be a member of
              a club, or build a new
              political party. I want to live somewhere free and I want my vote to
              effect real change.
              The bill of rights and the spirit of our constitution is near perfect.
              Let's strip away the garbage
              that has been cast upon it over the years by bureaucrats and live free
              again. You don't do that by
              creating your own personal layers of red tape.

              >
              ><snip>
              >
              >
              >>Ante up people, and quit trying to nickle and dime this project.
              >>Freedom, both personal and political, is worth the cost, and the
              >>effort involved.
              >>
              >>
              >
              >When the cost is freedom, the effort is irrelevant. Increasing cost,
              >complexity and invasiveness in the pursuit of freedom is akin to increasing
              >caloric intake in the pursuit of weight loss.
              >
              Agreed! So the first thing to do when in search for liberty is impose
              regulations ? ;-)
              Bureaucracy is what I am trying to leave behind.

              Jason also makes a good point, in that an election that is not anonymous
              and frankly rather small, will be be fairly easy to validate.

              Freedom for all (that can pay the $25 fee) . Sure freedom is valuable, but
              let's not leave bureaucracy only to create our own brand and charge for it.

              >
              >
              >
            • motie_d
              ... Can I make a guess? He means non-Democrats, I think. LOL No one who can t prove that they are politically correct need apply? Gosh, you just crack me up.
              Message 6 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                --- In freestateproject@y..., No Free Lunch <tanstaafl_bh@n...> wrote:
                > Kevin wrote:
                >
                > > For those few that live their lives "anonymously"? I have no
                > > sympathy for then since they are no help to the project
                > > anyway, and should be excluded. The project MUST have people
                > > that are willing to operate WITHIN the laws of this Country to
                > > affect permanent change. To encourage the activities of
                > > fringe organizations and individuals within this group
                > > jeaopardizes the project as a whole.
                >
                > Just curious - to what organizations and or individuals are you
                > referring?
                >
                > Charles

                Can I make a guess? He means non-Democrats, I think. LOL No one who
                can't prove that they are politically correct need apply?

                Gosh, you just crack me up. What a sense of humor!
                Motie
              • RavenBlack
                ... I would second Jason s suggestion there. It s the usual democracy thing - with 5000 people voting, one vote for Alaska isn t going to make a jot of
                Message 7 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                  >There isn't much reason to vote in the first place? Jason please
                  >explain how you come up with that.

                  I would second Jason's suggestion there. It's the usual democracy
                  thing - with 5000 people voting, one vote for Alaska isn't going
                  to make a jot of difference - I quite believe that a majority of
                  the voters will have Alaska as their least favourite. Thus it
                  wouldn't be worth making an effort to vote for it. Aside from
                  which, I'm not really that bothered which state I'm moving to,
                  so again, hardly seems worth voting.

                  >While I respect your opinion, it seems to me that anybody worth the
                  >ink they took up on the FSP membership list would feel the exact
                  >opposite. That their vote for the free state is very important and
                  >necessary.

                  I hope your opinion there is changed by the two examples I embody
                  - not really minding which state wins, and slightly favouring one
                  that has no chance of winning. There's not even the "making a
                  statement" point to voting that the Libertarian party generally
                  relies upon.

                  >So what? Let's say there are a few people who think that way. Do you
                  >honestly expect a person who thinks that way to pack up there life,
                  >their children, change jobs, pay the cost of moving, and move to
                  >another state and become an activist? Without voting?

                  Given that I've just stated my lackadaisical attitude towards the
                  vote, are you suggesting that I wouldn't pack up and move? I've
                  done it for love, I've done it for a job, but I wouldn't do it to
                  escape the growing governmental oppression? Gee, thanks.

                  >It seems to me that sacrificing the integrity of our collective
                  >vote for an unknown few people who don't believe voting is
                  >important anyway, is anathema to me.

                  I don't think anyone has suggested sacrificing the vote's integrity.
                  The suggestions are generally more along the lines of "let's not go
                  completely overboard with requiring insane technology". It's been
                  suggested that I was pushing technology for its own sake, earlier;
                  these recent suggestions are far more crazily technophilic than I
                  ever was.

                  >I think of what the FSP is attempting to do and wonder what somebody
                  >who wouldn't take the time to vote for a free state would take the
                  >time to do for the FSP cause. I'm drawing a blank.

                  It's not about voting for a free state, though, is it? It's about
                  voting for *which* free state. There'll be one, all going well,
                  whether the vote is cast or not.

                  To answer your hypothetical question, a couple of hours trawling
                  for information (for the fsp-publicity group), some advertising,
                  and changing abode are amongst the things that somebody who wouldn't
                  take the time to vote would take the time to do.

                  >Then I think about all the dedicated activist that I have met or
                  >heard aout and I can't recall one who considered voting for their
                  >cause as not worth their effort.

                  Again, it's not "voting for the cause", it's "voting for a minor
                  directional choice within the cause". A rather different beast.

                  >>If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                  >> ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to
                  >>verify their identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.
                  >
                  >Not only is that totally contravene-able

                  Contravene-able by registering a whole bunch of PO-Boxes, perhaps,
                  but that would be fairly obvious. Using friends' addresses, maybe,
                  but getting a whole bunch of key-floppies from a distribution point
                  would be just as easy, and more difficult to detect.

                  I think validation by phone for those with phones and by mail for
                  those without would provide adequate security. Much as I would
                  like to see a technology-based solution, I'm pretty sure that's
                  not going to happen, and for quite sound reasons.

                  >but it is based on a high
                  >amount of subjectivity and invades privacy. The approach that a few
                  >like Mr./Miss. Logic outlined is far more secure, far less
                  >subjectively based and far less invasive.

                  In my position, it would be easier to work around the key-floppies
                  than the address/phone verification. "Less subjectively based"
                  isn't necessarily a good thing - a little subjectivity allows for
                  finding fraud where it's not entirely obvious. And less invasive?
                  The FSP already knows my address, and signatures are required all
                  over the place. Making me leave my home to go to an arbitrary
                  location that I'm not familiar with to pick something up from
                  someone I don't know, using public transport since I don't drive
                  - now *that* is invasive.

                  --RavenBlack
                • motie_d
                  ... any fringe ... way jeaopardizes ... LOL again. Some people may think that this Project is a Fringe organization . It certainly isn t up to Mainstream
                  Message 8 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                    --- In freestateproject@y..., "Bob Compton" <bobc@v...> wrote:

                    <<<<<<BIG SNIP>>>>>>

                    > FSP does not in any way
                    > "encourage the activities" I persue and I am NOT a member of
                    any "fringe
                    > organizations". My participation, by whatever means in no
                    way "jeaopardizes
                    > (sp) the project as a whole".
                    >

                    LOL again. Some people may think that this Project is a 'Fringe
                    organization'. It certainly isn't up to 'Mainstream' is it?
                    Does this mean that anyone who has signed up is going to be
                    discouraged from participation by our Democratic friend?

                    Sometimes that subtle humor can be tricky to catch! I bet some people
                    even thought he was serious.

                    Motie
                  • voodootyke
                    ... You re not bothered to which state you re moving to? There s no difference between the states? Am I to understand that because you deduced by some unseen
                    Message 9 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                      --- In freestateproject@y..., RavenBlack <raven@r...> wrote:
                      > >There isn't much reason to vote in the first place? Jason please
                      > >explain how you come up with that.
                      >
                      > I would second Jason's suggestion there. It's the usual democracy
                      > thing - with 5000 people voting, one vote for Alaska isn't going
                      > to make a jot of difference - I quite believe that a majority of
                      > the voters will have Alaska as their least favourite. Thus it
                      > wouldn't be worth making an effort to vote for it. Aside from
                      > which, I'm not really that bothered which state I'm moving to,
                      > so again, hardly seems worth voting.



                      You're not bothered to which state you're moving to? There's no
                      difference between the states? Am I to understand that because you
                      deduced by some unseen means that your state (AK?) is not going to
                      win, you won't bother voting altogether? No second choice raven?
                      Let me ask you, do you think there is any validity or worth in the
                      raging debates about the differences between the state and how each
                      one can affect the Free state project overall and our lives
                      specifically? Do you think it's all much ado about nothing?

                      I can't disagree more. The state debate is the most crucial issue
                      facing us all today. The state decision will make the difference
                      between success for the FSP in 5 years, success in 20 years or
                      complete and utter failure. I commend you on your ability to not
                      care about which state is chosen but I, my wife, and my kids do
                      care. We care immensely. And I suspect I'm not the only one here who
                      feels this way.


                      >
                      > >While I respect your opinion, it seems to me that anybody worth
                      the
                      > >ink they took up on the FSP membership list would feel the exact
                      > >opposite. That their vote for the free state is very important
                      and
                      > >necessary.
                      >
                      > I hope your opinion there is changed by the two examples I embody
                      > - not really minding which state wins, and slightly favouring one
                      > that has no chance of winning. There's not even the "making a
                      > statement" point to voting that the Libertarian party generally
                      > relies upon.
                      >


                      No your example has done nothing of the sort. If anything, it
                      reminds me how cavalierly some people are inclined to take things
                      and this endeavor is no different it seems. It makes me wonder what
                      the rammifications of that are. I don't have an answer but it is a
                      disturbing.



                      > >So what? Let's say there are a few people who think that way. Do
                      you
                      > >honestly expect a person who thinks that way to pack up there
                      life,
                      > >their children, change jobs, pay the cost of moving, and move to
                      > >another state and become an activist? Without voting?
                      >
                      > Given that I've just stated my lackadaisical attitude towards the
                      > vote, are you suggesting that I wouldn't pack up and move? I've
                      > done it for love, I've done it for a job, but I wouldn't do it to
                      > escape the growing governmental oppression? Gee, thanks.
                      >
                      >


                      No, I'm suggesting that lackadaisical attitudes comes with real
                      dangers when it comes to building a new life for oneself and his or
                      her families. I'm saying that this effort demands careful thought
                      and hard decisions and that no great effort that I can recall was
                      ever executed with lackadaisical attitudes.



                      >It seems to me that sacrificing the integrity of our collective
                      > >vote for an unknown few people who don't believe voting is
                      > >important anyway, is anathema to me.
                      >
                      > I don't think anyone has suggested sacrificing the vote's
                      integrity.
                      > The suggestions are generally more along the lines of "let's not go
                      > completely overboard with requiring insane technology".


                      Just putting this into perspective here, going overboard for you
                      seems to be bothering to vote if you suspect your state won't win. I
                      repeat, this is about ensuring a modicum vote integrity. We don't
                      need insane technology and we don't need to invade privacy. What we
                      do need though is a little willingness to take an extra step or two
                      in order to get that. Assuming of course, that you believe that your
                      vote is worth casting in the first place.



                      It's been
                      > suggested that I was pushing technology for its own sake, earlier;
                      > these recent suggestions are far more crazily technophilic than I
                      > ever was.
                      >

                      I missed what you were pushing and you never did say if you were
                      pushing it for technology's sake. So no comment.



                      > >I think of what the FSP is attempting to do and wonder what
                      somebody
                      > >who wouldn't take the time to vote for a free state would take
                      the
                      > >time to do for the FSP cause. I'm drawing a blank.
                      >
                      > It's not about voting for a free state, though, is it? It's about
                      > voting for *which* free state. There'll be one, all going well,
                      > whether the vote is cast or not.


                      You make it sound like it's simply a choice of apples in a fruit
                      stand. If only that were true, we wouldn't need the FSP to begin
                      with.

                      Do you think there is no difference between universities and the
                      education they offer?
                      Do you think there is no difference between hospitals and the health
                      care they offer?
                      Do you think there is no difference between retirement homes and the
                      caring they offer to your parents?
                      Do you think there is no difference between financial institutions
                      and the investing services they offer?
                      Do you think there is no difference between law firms and the
                      services they offer?

                      Fathom states and governments and al they comprise. Lets' just say
                      we see things different.



                      >
                      > To answer your hypothetical question, a couple of hours trawling
                      > for information (for the fsp-publicity group), some advertising,
                      > and changing abode are amongst the things that somebody who
                      wouldn't
                      > take the time to vote would take the time to do.
                      >


                      Anybody can trawl a couple of hours sure. It's not as if it's high
                      demand low supply work. All of us can advertise in different ways,
                      and in different capacities. You don't even have to be a member to
                      do that for the FSP. All of us who are voting for a free state are
                      at the very least, expected to change abodes at some point after the
                      vote so nothing profound there either.
                      The question you seem to be trying to answer is how many off those
                      who don't think voting for a free state is important, or who would
                      find voting for a free state to much of a hassle if it required a
                      little extra step or two, would pack up and go to the chosen free
                      state anyway. Beside trawling and doing some publicity, I'm not
                      convinced from what you've offered as an argument, that there are
                      many who would personally choose not to have any say in where they
                      will be living in the future.



                      > >Then I think about all the dedicated activist that I have met or
                      > >heard aout and I can't recall one who considered voting for their
                      > >cause as not worth their effort.
                      >
                      > Again, it's not "voting for the cause", it's "voting for a minor
                      > directional choice within the cause". A rather different beast.
                      >


                      A minor choice - yup I got that. :)



                      > >>If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                      > >> ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to
                      > >>verify their identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.
                      > >
                      > >Not only is that totally contravene-able
                      >
                      > Contravene-able by registering a whole bunch of PO-Boxes, perhaps,
                      > but that would be fairly obvious. Using friends' addresses, maybe,
                      > but getting a whole bunch of key-floppies from a distribution
                      point
                      > would be just as easy, and more difficult to detect.
                      >


                      Don't follow. Please explain how.



                      > I think validation by phone for those with phones and by mail for
                      > those without would provide adequate security. Much as I would
                      > like to see a technology-based solution, I'm pretty sure that's
                      > not going to happen, and for quite sound reasons.
                      >


                      Oh I am almost certain it won't happen and for reasons that have
                      nothing to do with validity.
                    • motie_d
                      ... and ... Likely the same way I did. I m sick of the bickering about HOW to vote. I ll tell you how I intend to vote, and leave it to you whether or not it s
                      Message 10 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                        --- In freestateproject@y..., voodootyke <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                        > --- In freestateproject@y..., Jason P Sorens <jason.sorens@y...>
                        > wrote:
                        > >
                        > > The only problem I see with making voting intentionally costly is
                        > that
                        > > there isn't much reason to vote in the first place, so adding
                        > costs might
                        > > discourage people from voting even if they plan to participate
                        and
                        > become
                        > > activists.
                        >
                        >
                        > There isn't much reason to vote in the first place? Jason please
                        > explain how you come up with that.

                        Likely the same way I did. I'm sick of the bickering about HOW to
                        vote. I'll tell you how I intend to vote, and leave it to you whether
                        or not it's acceptable. Are you ready for it? Do you want it
                        anonymous for safety? Then scoll down and delete my name before
                        reading any further. I intend to move to whichever of the western
                        States is chosen. If an eastern State is chosen, I will likely move
                        to either Montana or So Dak.
                        There you have my vote. Do with it what you will. It is the only vote
                        I intend to submit. Don't bother to call my house to confirm it. If
                        you want a paper ballot, print it out.
                        >
                        > While I respect your opinion, it seems to me that anybody worth the
                        > ink they took up on the FSP membership list would feel the exact
                        > opposite. That their vote for the free state is very important and
                        > necessary.

                        The vote isn't about whether or not we support Freedom. It is simply
                        to decide in which State the first effort will be made. That decision
                        is irrelevant to me.
                        >
                        >
                        > I can imagine a few hundred people (out of 5000) thinking
                        > > along the following lines: "Out of 5000 voters, my vote is not
                        > going to
                        > > make a difference anyway. And they want me to go down to the
                        bank
                        > and
                        > > get this notarized and then mail it? Harumph! It's not worth my
                        > time!"
                        >
                        Exactly my point. I won't participate in a vote on what color you
                        should paint your house when you get there either. It doesn't amtter
                        to me, and I won't spend any time or effort complying with any voting
                        scheme you come up with, or worrying about whether the voting was
                        rigged.
                        >
                        > So what? Let's say there are a few people who think that way. Do
                        you
                        > honestly expect a person who thinks that way to pack up there life,
                        > their children, change jobs, pay the cost of moving, and move to
                        > another state and become an activist? Without voting?

                        I'm not waiting to become an activist. Are you? I intend to move to
                        another State where my efforts have a better chance of success. If
                        the members here choose a State that is acceptale to me, that's even
                        better and I'll use that info to affect my personal choice.
                        >
                        > It seems to me that sacrificing the integrity of our collective
                        vote
                        > for an unknown few people who don't believe voting is important
                        > anyway, is anathema to me.

                        Your worrying about the integrity of the vote is a bogus argument.
                        Look over the info provided, and make some personal decisions on how
                        you personally rank the States. Opt out of any you don't like. Then
                        either vote or don't. Once the State is chosen, either move to it or
                        don't. If someone were to waste a bunch of their time to 'rig' the
                        vote, does it really matter? If you only have one favorite State, opt
                        out of all the rest of them and quit whining. No one is going to
                        force you to move to someplace you don't want to go. If we have to
                        kidnap people against their Will, I predict the Group will fail.
                        Voluntary participants are what we need, not a bunch of crybabies who
                        think they may be forced into something against their Will because of
                        a 'rigged' vote.
                        >
                        >
                        > > It's not that these people aren't dedicated activists; they just
                        > don't see
                        > > this as worthwhile if their costly participation isn't going to
                        > affect
                        > > anything.
                        >
                        > I think of what the FSP is attempting to do and wonder what
                        somebody
                        > who wouldn't take the time to vote for a free state would take the
                        > time to do for the FSP cause. I'm drawing a blank.

                        I think I explained myself above. If it needs repeating, scroll up!
                        >
                        > Then I think about all the dedicated activist that I have met or
                        > heard aout and I can't recall one who considered voting for their
                        > cause as not worth their effort.

                        We aren't voting for our cause, or against it. We are simply trying
                        to determine where people's preferences are.
                        >
                        >
                        > Sure, we could lay a guilt trip on them: "you're not a real
                        > > activist unless you vote!" But that approach might just backfire
                        > & come
                        > > off as too controlling.

                        Or as a totally irrelevant point, and a distraction from our goal.
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > Why would you put it that way in the first place? Why even talk in
                        > terms of guilt trips? Or take any accusatory approaches?
                        >
                        > We would be asking each other to put in a little effort to ensure
                        > the integrity of the most important vote of our lives. Period.
                        >
                        > No guilt trips. No accusations. No insinuations.

                        Thank God for that last part. I was beginning to think you were
                        insinuating that 'the vote' was the most important part of your life.
                        > >
                        >
                        > If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                        > > ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to
                        > verify their
                        > > identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.
                        >
                        >
                        > Not only is that totally contravene-able but it is based on a high
                        > amount of subjectivity and invades privacy. The approach that a few
                        > like Mr./Miss. Logic outlined is far more secure, far less
                        > subjectively based and far less invasive.

                        I still think you're chasing a Strawman. Those too timid to trust the
                        voting procedures are likely to be too timid to move without a
                        government Permit anyway.
                        "Oh my Gosh! What if the government finds out I moved out of State?"

                        Motie
                      • No Free Lunch
                        ... And I believe just the opposite. Please spare me the arguments, as I have heard them all before. Anyone who is afraid for everyone else to know where
                        Message 11 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                          Logic wrote:

                          > Whether there is no sympathy for those few that live their lives anonymously
                          > or not has no bearing on an anonymous vote. I believe that an anonymous vote
                          > is the vanguard of any democratic process.

                          And I believe just the opposite.

                          Please spare me the arguments, as I have heard them all before.

                          Anyone who is 'afraid' for everyone else to know where they stand
                          is a coward, imnsho.

                          > *Who* votes is not important. Their *past* is not important. What's
                          > important is that a group of living, thinking human beings have agreed to
                          > acheive political ends through a peaceful, democratic process.

                          Dumbocracy is the very worst form of government there is,
                          although I agree that *some* democratic *principles* (using votes
                          to determine certain issues) is the only viable method available
                          to us - as long as everyone knows and agrees with the principle
                          that my Rights are not subject to the fickle whim of 'the majority'.

                          > Any process that divulges how a particular individual votes (esp. in the
                          > context of a government inspecting the vote) may pollute the process. The
                          > FSP is the very last place I would expect oppressive policies from the
                          > leadership. Just because we trust the leadership does not mean they should
                          > be burdened (empowered) with the ability to inspect how members voted on a
                          > particular issue --much less exposing an individual's voting decisions to
                          > ALL COMERS. Good people should be protected from bad people through
                          > anonymity.

                          Lol! good people should be proteced from bad people by Smith &
                          Wesson, or Glock, Inc, or H&K, or some other protective agency,
                          and as a last resort, by their local Sherrif and/or court system.

                          > If, thirty years from now, things don't turn out the way we want, who will
                          > have access to our individual voting records? How might those decisions be
                          > held against us?
                          >
                          > We MUST have anonymity in the process!

                          What we must *not* do is succomb to fear-mongering and wimpy
                          attitudes.

                          Charles
                        • Jason P Sorens
                          ... No, it s not going to be anonymous - the Guidelines require that all ballots be made public, to counter any accusations of vote-fixing. After a reasonable
                          Message 12 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                            On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Logic wrote:

                            > If, thirty years from now, things don't turn out the way we want, who will
                            > have access to our individual voting records? How might those decisions be
                            > held against us?
                            >
                            > We MUST have anonymity in the process!

                            No, it's not going to be anonymous - the Guidelines require that all
                            ballots be made public, to counter any accusations of vote-fixing. After
                            a reasonable period of time, the list of votes cast will be deleted.

                            ___________________________________________________________________________

                            Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

                            <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
                          • Jason P Sorens
                            ... Yes - I think there will be people out there who think the same way as Brian. If we make the process intentionally cumbersome, they re not going to vote,
                            Message 13 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                              On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, voodootyke wrote:

                              > I can imagine a few hundred people (out of 5000) thinking
                              > > along the following lines: "Out of 5000 voters, my vote is not
                              > going to
                              > > make a difference anyway. And they want me to go down to the bank
                              > and
                              > > get this notarized and then mail it? Harumph! It's not worth my
                              > time!"
                              >
                              >
                              > So what? Let's say there are a few people who think that way. Do you
                              > honestly expect a person who thinks that way to pack up there life,
                              > their children, change jobs, pay the cost of moving, and move to
                              > another state and become an activist? Without voting?

                              Yes - I think there will be people out there who think the same way as
                              Brian. If we make the process intentionally cumbersome, they're not going to vote, not because they're lazy or noncommittal, but because they're offended by the red tape and don't think they should have to do it.

                              > > Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is
                              > easy for
                              > > us to combat.
                              >
                              > Do you have statistics on totally open internet voting to back that
                              > up or is it your impression that it is a limited problem?

                              It's simple logic: to engage in vote fraud you'll need to get multiple
                              ballots mailed to the same address (snail or e-mail - actually, you could
                              get multiple e-mail accounts set up, but then you'd have to make up
                              different snailmail addresses, and we'll be checking all of them for
                              authenticity - this may be a reason for going back to snailmailing out all
                              the ballots though...). We can check that.

                              > If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                              > > ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to
                              > verify their
                              > > identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.
                              >
                              >
                              > Not only is that totally contravene-able but it is based on a high
                              > amount of subjectivity and invades privacy. The approach that a few
                              > like Mr./Miss. Logic outlined is far more secure, far less
                              > subjectively based and far less invasive.

                              No, it's just not possible. Renting out convention rooms, setting up
                              computers, distributing keys? The whole thing costs thousands of dollars
                              and requires people to drive long distances. All because we're worried
                              about a few potential fraudsters whom it is easy to root out. It's an
                              ingenious proposal, but it doesn't make sense.

                              ___________________________________________________________________________

                              Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

                              <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
                            • Jason P Sorens
                              ... Yes, that s a good point; maybe we should go back to snail-mailing all ballots. If we were to e-mail some ballots, we d have to check the authenticity of
                              Message 14 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, RavenBlack wrote:

                                > >Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is easy for
                                > >us to combat. If 3 or more signers have the same address and all cast
                                > >ballots, we can examine the signatures and then call them to verify their
                                > >identity. At most this will be a few dozen people.
                                >
                                > Though this method holds only if all blank ballot sheets are mailed -
                                > no collecting your ballot sheet by internet, as that would remove what
                                > security unique addresses provides. You could still accept the incoming
                                > votes by fax/scanned email, but the voters' addresses would only be known
                                > valid if the ballots were sent - with some sort of unique confirmation
                                > code upon the ballot - to each address. (Unique confirmation codes
                                > could be easily generated as a hash of the address, or just assign
                                > a code to each signed-up participant in your database before you
                                > send out the ballots.)

                                Yes, that's a good point; maybe we should go back to snail-mailing all
                                ballots. If we were to e-mail some ballots, we'd have to check the
                                authenticity of the snail-mail addresses for all those who requested an
                                e-mail ballot.

                                ___________________________________________________________________________

                                Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

                                <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?
                              • Kelly Setzer
                                ... At some point, the voting process will need some detailed documentation that includes the following information. Since the vote is projected to occur next
                                Message 15 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                  On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 09:59:08AM -0500, Jason P Sorens wrote:
                                  > On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Logic wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > If, thirty years from now, things don't turn out the way we want, who will
                                  > > have access to our individual voting records? How might those decisions be
                                  > > held against us?
                                  > >
                                  > > We MUST have anonymity in the process!
                                  >
                                  > No, it's not going to be anonymous - the Guidelines require that all
                                  > ballots be made public, to counter any accusations of vote-fixing. After
                                  > a reasonable period of time, the list of votes cast will be deleted.

                                  At some point, the voting process will need some detailed
                                  documentation that includes the following information. Since the vote
                                  is projected to occur next summer, it might be a good idea to start.

                                  1) Handling of questionable ballots: phone calls?
                                  2) Ballot retention period/Ballot destruction: shred at 2 years?
                                  3) Contact person/process for voter help
                                  4) Contact person/process for voting irregularities

                                  etcetera

                                  What can I do to help? I can write; I could draft a voting procedures
                                  document.

                                  Kelly
                                • Gold Standard Press
                                  why does picking a state require any sort of anonymity? The danger one might perceive comes from joining the project in the first place. You have already
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                    why does picking a state require any sort of anonymity? The "danger" one might perceive comes from joining the project in the first place. You have already consigned to making your name public, plus move to a "target" (some paranoid folks would claim it will be). What is left to hide? Your choice of state is harmless and virtually meaningless, contextually, and in relative terms.

                                    Folks, this is such a moot point (especially since the bylaws have been etched). Can we get back to marketing so we might actually reach that 5,000 plateau, and VOTE IN OUR LIFETIME!!!


                                    c.

                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Jason P Sorens
                                    To: freestateproject@yahoogroups.com
                                    Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 8:59 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [FSP] The cost of making the move


                                    On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Logic wrote:

                                    > If, thirty years from now, things don't turn out the way we want, who will
                                    > have access to our individual voting records? How might those decisions be
                                    > held against us?
                                    >
                                    > We MUST have anonymity in the process!

                                    No, it's not going to be anonymous - the Guidelines require that all
                                    ballots be made public, to counter any accusations of vote-fixing. After
                                    a reasonable period of time, the list of votes cast will be deleted.

                                    ___________________________________________________________________________

                                    Jason P Sorens - jason.sorensATyale.edu - <http://pantheon.yale.edu/~jps35>

                                    <http://www.freestateproject.org> - Do you want liberty in your lifetime?



                                    Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                    ADVERTISEMENT




                                    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    freestateproject-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                                    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • voodootyke
                                    ... simply ... decision ... Yeah right, it s irrelevant but you won t move to any place except th two states you mentioned. LOL ... to ... even ... Well I
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                      > The vote isn't about whether or not we support Freedom. It is
                                      simply
                                      > to decide in which State the first effort will be made. That
                                      decision
                                      > is irrelevant to me.
                                      > >


                                      Yeah right, it's irrelevant but you won't move to any place except
                                      th two states you mentioned. LOL



                                      > I'm not waiting to become an activist. Are you? I intend to move
                                      to
                                      > another State where my efforts have a better chance of success. If
                                      > the members here choose a State that is acceptale to me, that's
                                      even
                                      > better and I'll use that info to affect my personal choice.
                                      > >


                                      Well I intended to do a little work for the FSP once in the free
                                      state. You know, like voting if I can.



                                      > Your worrying about the integrity of the vote is a bogus argument.
                                      > Look over the info provided, and make some personal decisions on
                                      how
                                      > you personally rank the States. Opt out of any you don't like.


                                      So because I have free will and I can opt out of certain states that
                                      I don't like, I shouldn't be concerned about vote integrity. OK.


                                      If someone were to waste a bunch of their time to 'rig' the
                                      > vote, does it really matter?


                                      Errr. YEAH IT DOES!


                                      If you only have one favorite State, opt
                                      > out of all the rest of them and quit whining.



                                      Check this guy out. Hey sport, some people may have 1 acceptable
                                      state, some 2, some 6 and some all 10. What's that got to do with
                                      anything. It's rhetorical, don't bother answering.


                                      No one is going to
                                      > force you to move to someplace you don't want to go. If we have to
                                      > kidnap people against their Will, I predict the Group will fail.


                                      ?????


                                      > Voluntary participants are what we need, not a bunch of crybabies
                                      who
                                      > think they may be forced into something against their Will because
                                      of
                                      > a 'rigged' vote.



                                      ?????


                                      I'm done reading this.
                                    • Oliver Dyer
                                      [moderator s note: the non-anonymity issue is settled by the bylaws - however, other topics relating to the mechanics of the state vote remain fair game] I m
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                        [moderator's note: the non-anonymity issue is settled by the bylaws - however, other topics relating to the mechanics of the state vote remain fair game]

                                        I'm with Chuck on this one. If any man or woman won't stand up and be
                                        counted in on a simple matter such as this, where will they be when it's
                                        time to stand by our sides when we need them. If everyone takes this
                                        attitude, nothing will ever get done and we deserve exactly what we get.
                                        Everyone should check the home page at texasrepublic.org for the quote
                                        from Sam Adams about this matter. Oliver

                                        On 4 Dec 02, at 9:55, Gold Standard Press wrote:

                                        > why does picking a state require any sort of anonymity? The "danger"
                                        > one might perceive comes from joining the project in the first place.
                                        > You have already consigned to making your name public, plus move to a
                                        > "target" (some paranoid folks would claim it will be). What is left
                                        > to hide? Your choice of state is harmless and virtually meaningless,
                                        > contextually, and in relative terms.
                                        >
                                        > Folks, this is such a moot point (especially since the bylaws have
                                        > been etched). Can we get back to marketing so we might actually reach
                                        > that 5,000 plateau, and VOTE IN OUR LIFETIME!!!
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > c.
                                        >
                                      • archy
                                        ... easy for ... Just so. But the appearance of any vote fraud would certainly discourage further participation from the 15,000 others who are depending on the
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                          --- In freestateproject@y..., Jason P Sorens <jason.sorens@y...>
                                          wrote:

                                          > Remember again that vote fraud is a very limited problem and is
                                          easy for
                                          > us to combat.

                                          Just so. But the appearance of any vote fraud would certainly
                                          discourage further participation from the 15,000 others who are
                                          depending on the decision of the first 5000 to pick the very best
                                          location where our ideas have a chance of success, or at least
                                          survival. It's the modern reflection of the old adage that *Ceaser's
                                          wife must be above reproach*.

                                          Neither is a *fee* of five or twenty-five bucks much of a
                                          discouragement to those who could hope to wrongfully influence such a
                                          decision with funds that don't come from their own pocket in any
                                          event. That's not our answer either.<p>

                                          And I'm not yet rock-solid certain as to which state is indeed our
                                          best bet, though I have a couple of personal preferences, and a
                                          serious belief that in a couple of the states mentioned, we'd be
                                          doomed to failure in any event. So if the voting between two or three
                                          of the possibilities I see as more likely was a little skewed, that
                                          wouldn't bother me nearly as much as the idea that the whole
                                          organization remained vulnerable to further tampering.

                                          The good news: we're about halfway to the point at which that
                                          election has to be held, so something equitable and reasonable can
                                          certainly be arranged in that time. But the way in which the problem
                                          is resolved is going to be a precedent and example of how later
                                          choices or directions might be chosen, so it had better be a good one.

                                          -archy-/-
                                        • chez@midhae.pair.com
                                          ... I don t want to add more confusion to this debate, but there is one idea that I d like to throw out here. Between now and the time of the vote there are
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                            > > Though this method holds only if all blank ballot sheets are mailed -
                                            > > no collecting your ballot sheet by internet, as that would remove what
                                            > > security unique addresses provides. You could still accept the incoming
                                            > > votes by fax/scanned email, but the voters' addresses would only be known
                                            > > valid if the ballots were sent - with some sort of unique confirmation
                                            > > code upon the ballot - to each address. (Unique confirmation codes
                                            > > could be easily generated as a hash of the address, or just assign
                                            > > a code to each signed-up participant in your database before you
                                            > > send out the ballots.)
                                            >
                                            > Yes, that's a good point; maybe we should go back to snail-mailing all
                                            > ballots. If we were to e-mail some ballots, we'd have to check the
                                            > authenticity of the snail-mail addresses for all those who requested an
                                            > e-mail ballot.

                                            I don't want to add more confusion to this debate, but there is one idea
                                            that I'd like to throw out here.

                                            Between now and the time of the vote there are going to be numerous local
                                            FSP meetings, many of them with Jason or one of the FSP board members
                                            present.

                                            Well, is there any reason that those who have already pledged cannot vote
                                            as soon as the election method is determined? It would seem that filling
                                            out a ballot in person, in the witness of one of the FSP's board members to
                                            certify it, would be the most secure method possible.

                                            There are a few drawbacks: this couldn't be the only method, just one,
                                            since not everyone will be able to make it to these. We'd also have to come
                                            up with the ballots soon, which means determining the voting method soon.
                                            And it would probably have to be ruled that once you submitted a ballot you
                                            couldn't change it, so you better be sure about it; else the poor vote
                                            counters will get flooded with "Switch North Dakota with Idaho on my ballot
                                            please!" messages every time someone forwards out a news item.

                                            Oh, and needless to say, the votes themselves shouldn't actually be
                                            tabulated until everyone has voted. But their existence can be catalouged,
                                            which could help spread ther work out for the ballot receivers.

                                            All of those problems notwithstanding, I like the idea of doing this in
                                            person if possible. It's the most secure method, doesn't add unnecessary
                                            postal costs (I like the idea of giving the Postal Service as little money
                                            as possible for this :-) ), and perhaps encourages people to go to these
                                            meetings.

                                            -Robert Chesnavich
                                            robert@...
                                          • motie_d
                                            ... Pretty much. The choice has already been made between leaving the beer in the sun, or putting it in the refrigerator. The choice now is which shelf in the
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Dec 4, 2002
                                              --- In freestateproject@y..., voodootyke <no_reply@y...> wrote:
                                              > >

                                              > Do you think it's all much ado about nothing?

                                              Pretty much. The choice has already been made between leaving the
                                              beer in the sun, or putting it in the refrigerator. The choice now is
                                              which shelf in the refriferator to put it. Some people really and
                                              honestly don't care.
                                              While you are going through this personally stressful process of
                                              deciding, the beer is sitting in the sun. Hopefully you can decide on
                                              a valid method to use to vote, so you can then try to decide which
                                              shelf the beer should go on. Also hopefully, you will decide on how
                                              the decision should be made before the beer explodes. I hope you
                                              don't mind if I just put my beer in my own cooler, and move on
                                              without you?
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > No your example has done nothing of the sort. If anything, it
                                              > reminds me how cavalierly some people are inclined to take things
                                              > and this endeavor is no different it seems. It makes me wonder what
                                              > the rammifications of that are. I don't have an answer but it is a
                                              > disturbing.

                                              Do you have this much trouble choosing between 2 parking spaces? How
                                              many times does the store close for the night while you are deciding
                                              on a legitimate method to determine which space is better.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > No, I'm suggesting that lackadaisical attitudes comes with real
                                              > dangers when it comes to building a new life for oneself and his or
                                              > her families. I'm saying that this effort demands careful thought
                                              > and hard decisions and that no great effort that I can recall was
                                              > ever executed with lackadaisical attitudes.

                                              You may be better off just staying where you are, and letting Uncle
                                              Sugar make your choices for you. This seems to be a very traumatic
                                              experience for you.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > You make it sound like it's simply a choice of apples in a fruit
                                              > stand. If only that were true, we wouldn't need the FSP to begin
                                              > with.

                                              It's no more difficult than that. The choice has been made between
                                              apples and oranges. Apples were chosen. There are 10 apples. The
                                              choice now is which of the 10 apples to choose. Some people don't
                                              care which apple. Some do. You are holding up the choice of apples by
                                              backstepping to determine how the choice should be made.
                                              >
                                              > Do you think there is no difference between universities and the
                                              > education they offer?

                                              There may be right now. There won't be when we replace every member
                                              of the staff.

                                              > Do you think there is no difference between hospitals and the
                                              health
                                              > care they offer?

                                              Same as above.

                                              > Do you think there is no difference between retirement homes and
                                              the
                                              > caring they offer to your parents?

                                              Same as above.

                                              > Do you think there is no difference between financial institutions
                                              > and the investing services they offer?

                                              Same as above.

                                              > Do you think there is no difference between law firms and the
                                              > services they offer?

                                              Same as above.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > I'm not
                                              > convinced from what you've offered as an argument, that there are
                                              > many who would personally choose not to have any say in where they
                                              > will be living in the future.
                                              >
                                              They have already made their choice, which you seem unwilling to
                                              accept. They have chosen to move to whichever State those who have a
                                              preference decide on.

                                              Motie
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.