Re: Singularity: Can't happen here

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Mon Sep 10 2001 - 16:50:07 MDT

Brian Phillips wrote:
> From: Mike Lorrey <>
> Subject: Re: Singularity: can't happen here
> Samantha Atkins wrote:
> >
> > This is nearly a declaration of war. Any one got any suggested
> > new homes for ex-US citizens? If this passes there will be
> > little reason to be here.
> Mike Lorrey wrote
> <I think that the best option is secession of some small population US
> state. Look at the Free State Project (,
> which seeks to get 20,000 libertarian minded people to move to one state
> to tip its political balance toward libertarian policies if not outright
> secession. Current top candidates are New Hampshire and Alaska, among
> others like Wyoming, etc. Note that the secessionist party in Alaska
> allegedly got 25% of the vote in the last election, and New Hampshire
> has elected more libertarian state legistlators (25) in the last ten
> years than any other.>
> I have to say Alaska would be the best bet. 620,000 population.
> Not sure whether that includes military personnell. You'd have to be
> prepared for some shenigans involving absentee voting by all the
> military personnel who spent a tour in Alaska and declared it their
> home of record to get the resident stipend :)

Residency laws, thankfully, are not written in stone. Many a state has
jimmied with its residency requirements for political opportunity.

> It's arguably the best state to go it alone, geographically isolated,
> plentiful rescources, not sharing a common border with the states is
> helpful. But maybe the most important part is only Hawaii has a
> better legitimate legal justification for seccession.

Actually, a good chunk of NH was once an independent country as well.
See Daniel Doan's book "Indian Stream Republic".

> Bringing about a statewide referendum on the "4 choices" wouldn't
> be nearly as difficult to pull off as trying to get a plurality in Wyoming.
> To say nothing of trying to run an independant country out of New
> Hampshire.

NH has the advantage that it not only has a border with Canada, but also
controls some coastline. On a tactical basis, NH is difficult country to
occupy: heavily forested with dense cover and hilly terrain. With 1/3 of
its borders with other states being river, it would do well defending
itself. It's long term problem is of course natural resources of a
strategic nature, though it is home to the largest firearms manufacturer
in the US and is home to other defense industries... It could easily
become a gambling/banking haven, it is already decribed by Fodor's as
"The Switzerland of North America". Imagine the trillions of dollars
that greedy little northeast bankers and capital venture people would
love to sock away in someplace so near.

On a long term basis, I agree that Alaska is the top candidate IF the
goal is outright secession. It is very rich in resources, has a lower
population than NH, and is becoming stealthily a very critical strategic
location as the Northwest Passage is now open to commercial shipping on
an annual basis between europe and asia. Another advantage is that only
people who are interested in living lives of rugged individualism tend
to move to Alaska. You don't see many people interested in the easy life
going there.

This is the problem with Hawaii: there isn't a snowball chance in hell
of it acting at all libertarian any time in the future. The dominant
group there is generally collectivist/fedualist minded asians.

Secession, though, is not the primary goal of the Free State Project.
The FSP's goal is simply to tip the political balance in a state toward
a far more libertarian one, with secession only a backup if the US feds
get too fascist in the future.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:27 MDT