NO Outrage -- Why not move?

Status
Not open for further replies.
X

XMP

Member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
63
Location
Minnesota
NOLA Outrage -- Why not move?

In the last few weeks there has been a lot of outrage expressed on this board and similar ones over the activity of authorities in and around New Orleans (and rightly so). In recent months, there have also been other less traumatic, but still dangerous events, like the eminent domain decision.

In the heat of the moment alot of people are willing to drive to NO and fight back, but I'm curious if anyone is considering taking the more long range, practical step of moving somewhere where their civil rights, including gun-related rights are most likely to be protected. Specifically, I'm curious if anyone is going to participate in Free State Wyoming or the Free State Project. These seem like practical ways to enhance our political leverage and insure our rights, starting at the logical place -- the state level.
 
Last edited:
freestateproject.org is about New Hampshire and freestatewyoming.org is obviously about Wyoming. The Wyoming option sounds more appealing, because New Hampshire is just too close to Toddy Kennedy for me :)
 
Okayfine - yet another fringe group.

The vibe I'm getting from CNN, et al, is that a lot of the folks do not want to go back... Really interesting thing, and I think it was at the Houston dome, was some of the people were saying that the food was so good that they wanted to just stay right there... Okay... Methinx they better go back to MREs, or they're gonna have the worlds biggest housing project...

I'm also getting the feeling that the mayor, governor, would like to _force_ the evacuated folks to return - and here I'm speaking about the dome crew... the welfare folks from the projects, etc... That's their political base, and it just evaporated.

I think it'd be _really_ interesting to rebuild a vibrant gulf port as a shipping, industry and entertainment facility WITHOUT the giant welfare class. These folks are expecting to be "taken care of." Fine. Do it, but don't do it in New Orleans - they need people there who will work.
 
I was one of the first 5000 members of the FSP, and thus eligible to vote. I fully intend to honor my pledge to move, if we get the interest. Unfortunately, there was a brief spike right around the time we got 5000--2500 people signed up in about six months, just in time for the vote, and it's fallen off since. That was two years ago, and we've only picked up another 1750.

Unfortunately, I don't see interest picking up any time soon. I can't find mention of it now, but at the time I signed up, I seem to recall the general consensus was that if we failed to reach 20,000 signatories within five or seven years of the vote, the project would be considered abandoned. Right now, that's looking like the most likely outcome.

I think it's a neat idea, but we need a whole lot more people to get it done. By all means, sign up, and tell your friends!
 
The actions of the authorities in N.O. are very minor compared to the actions of the people in the aftermath of Katrina. While I had problems with the government down there, I moved my family to Wyoming to lessen the chances that they would be crime victims or caught up in the aftermath of a major incident such as a hurricane. Better government in Wyoming was the lagniappe, as they say. I am not a free stater and never heard of FSW.
 
Even just a few hundred committed activists can have a big impact in a small state. Others will move just to be freer, and will impact the overall culture.

The main states involved are New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Montana. If New Hampshire fails to attract 20,000, that will free those who really prefer the West to move to Montana or Wyoming without violating their promise. I never signed up because I did not want to leave Montana, but am willing to encourage the freedom migration to Montana.

http://www.freewest.org has a lot of archived articles and information of
interest to people considering migrating to Montana, Wyoming (and Idaho). Unfortunately, it has been hacked and is currently down.

Other groups / lists concerning the Western "Triad" freedom migration:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreeMontanaProject/?yguid=126065389

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/W-A-L/

Boston T. Party's group ? http://www.freestatewyoming.org/
 
NO Outrage -- Why not move?
Click to expand...
At least from here, it appears that the door-to-door confiscations and whatnot were done at the request of City of New Orleans authorities, not the state of Louisiana (and Governor Blanco is said to be quite pro-gun). I suspect a number of people who do return are going to rebuild outside the city of N.O. in order to remain free of the city government.
 
I suspect a number of people who do return are going to rebuild outside the city of N.O. in order to remain free of the city government.
Click to expand...

While they're at it, maybe they could rebuild somewhere where they're not expecting ME to pay for their flood insurance? Floating platforms would be good...

FSP is a good idea (I joined early); let those who want fewer gun laws and lower taxes live our way (other people can live in N.O....). Of course it doesn't address the problem of Federal taxes, but at least it means our votes would actually count (and we would get a couple of Senators to keep our views on the national scene).
 
In the heat of the moment alot of people are willing to drive to NO and fight back, but I'm curious if anyone is considering taking the more long range, practical step of moving somewhere where their civil rights, including gun-related rights are most likely to be protected.
Click to expand...
You mean, in the heat of the moment (and even afterward the heat had cooled a bit) a lot of people were willing to go to New Orleans to assist with hurricane relief efforts, don't you. As of yet I don't think that even in the heat of the moment any of these virtual commandos have seriously considered heading to New Orleans to fight back or even in protest. I have not heard of one loud mouthed braggart (or in the case of an online forum - one swift penned braggart) who actually has gone to New Orleans to fight anyone in any other fashion than by way of online virtual reality.

If you are pissed off about conditions in New Orleans, then why are you not moving there to change things or try to change things on the fedral level instead of wanting to hide in Wyoming? Are you that afraid of standing up toe to toe, face to face, with those who have ideals and opinions other than your own? This would be the more practical way to do it in our republic - move there and vote there - to change there - not run from here and there to form a utopia somewhere else. Better yet vote from where you already live and keep up the pressure on your state's politicians. It would be better in my opinion than running to Wyoming to bury your head in the sand while at the same time making yourself look like an anti government whacko - and if you succeed in a group moving to Wyoming that is about all you will accomplish in the long run. Moving to a certain area in the west, or in the northeast will only isoloate your votes and remove them from the states in which we already reside thereby making those states so much stronger for our opposition. While your hadful of freestate people may change one state to what you want it to become, the exodus of those same people from another state or states will make the other state(s) less desirable relative to your standards and thereby stronger for your opposition. You will have accomplished isolating yourself and your group in a state or handful of lightly populated states and will, quite possibly, become a fringe group in the eyes of the rest of the country.

Quite possibly honorable ideas but bound to fail when there are much more appropriate ways to get the same job done.
 
Better yet vote from where you already live and keep up the pressure on your state's politicians.
Click to expand...

You make a lot of good points, and I have no objection to people sticking it out. But in several places I have lived, pro-gun or anti-tax votes don't count (In TX, they don't count the vote in the first place if they don't like it, and that was BEFORE Diebold :uhoh: )

If there were proportional representation (as in most developed nations), you would be right. But in most of the US, 49% of the vote = 0.

Voting isn't everything, and if you can do more educating where you are, then great. But "voting" in gerrymandered districts with no election oversight (have me tell you about the time we forced a TX elections bureaucrat to come out and "observe" the local elections... they refused to go in the vote-counting room!) isn't going to achieve anything.
 
Glenn does make good points, and thoughtful people will come down on different sides of this, which is fine. Far be it from me to desire that we drain the rest of the country of all libertarians/ constitutionalists, etc., and concentrate them in three or four states. But some people are unhappy enough with their current surroundings that the sacrifices involved in making this commitment, are worth it.

Let me try to suggest some of the practical benefits we might see from these migrations. I think if influence can be exerted at the level of state government against federal userpations, that may be our best hope of retaining some semblance of liberty. In these smaller states, the very real potential exists to bring state government around to the cause of the defense of liberty. Montana has already made strides in this direction, and so have NH and Wyoming.

New Hampshire, Wyoming, and Montana all lack large urban centers which dominate state politics.

This puts the federal government in an interesting position. And controversies generated by the collision of federal mandates and local preferences, serve to educate and energize compatriots across the nation. Perceptions of constitutional and natural rights in conflict with federal userpations, could come into the spotlight under these conditions. I for one really would like to see that our rights are preserved, all of them.

The states involved: New Hampshire. Winner of the Free State Project vote and far in the lead on recruitment and organization, at least a hundred activists already moved, several thousand committed to move. In a small state not dominated by one or more large urban centers, a few activists can really make a difference.

Wyoming. In second place in the Free State Project voting, home to Boston T. Party's Free State Wyoming Project. Some advantages over Montana.

Montana. Has captured the imaginations and dreams of many people, and has a migration underway. The Montana legislature has many compatriots already in office. Some advantages over Wyoming.

Some urban areas are probably hopeless, and people living in states dominated by those urban areas are out of luck, as far as political influence in the preservation of their rights. These few states could be the seedbed of something much bigger, doing things which are not possible in places like New York, because its legislature and state government are dominated by NYC and other urban areas.
 
Manufactured utopias make me nervous.
Click to expand...

You mean like leaving England and settling in America?

Seriously, I don't think it is about creating a utopia. The USA is still a republic; it is simply about concentrating political influence in certain places. Since the 10th amendment guarentees (at least theoretically) a limitation on federal power, concentrating constitutionalists in certain states is a wise way to make sure that their political voice is heard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top