Reasons to consider living in Wyoming.
http://www.freestateproject.com/StateComparisons_25mar03.htm [ Link is no longer active ]
The article is quite long and contains a lot of analysis. I have copied the summary for Wyoming below. Although the analysis was done in 2003 for the Free State Project, it is still applicable and I thought you might find it addresses your original question. *I* certainly enjoyed re-reading it.
I added a few additional comment since 2003. They are within [ square brackets ].
Dennis
Wyoming
Has the lowest total and voting-age populations in the country (again, giving us maximum saturation of activists among the inhabitants)
Has the initiative and referendum
Has term limits (which go into effect in 2004)
Has no individual income tax or business tax at all
Has some of the lowest property taxes in the country [+ most counties have NO zoning &/or building codes ]
2nd lowest gas tax of our candidate states (0.13 - only Alaska is lower with 0.8 )
Has the lowest federal dependence of all the western states (4th out of all 10 states)
Has the 3rd lowest number of government employees (behind North Dakota and Vermont)
Has the 3rd smallest House districts of all ten states (no more than 8,230 people), and the 2nd lowest Senate districts (no more than 16,500 people)
Has the 3rd lowest campaign expenditures of all ten states (after North Dakota and Vermont) - Idaho is 5th, New Hampshire is 10th
Ranks 1st in high votes for conservative and libertarian presidential candidates (Idaho is 2nd, New Hampshire is 7th)
Leads all western states (except for Alaska) in highest per capita income (ranks 5th of all 10 states) New Hampshire is 2nd, Idaho is 6th of all ten
Ranks 1st for lack of state-wide land-use planning (Idaho is 6th, New Hampshire is 7th)
Ties for 3rd with Idaho for favorable gun laws (New Hampshire is 2nd)
Ranks 1st for gun ownership rates and gun shows (88% est. gun-ownership rate - Idaho had an est. 76% and New Hampshire had an estimated 36%) (Wyoming had 50 gun shows in 2000 - Idaho had 49, New Hampshire had 17)
2nd lowest number of unionized laborers - 20,000 (North Dakota is 1st with 19,000 - Idaho has 42,000 to New Hampshire's 60,000)
Ranks 1st for low numbers of unionized teachers (5,713 to Idaho's 11,132 and New Hampshire's 11,834)
Ranks 3rd for "low level of city urbanization" on the state data page (1st of all western states) - New Hampshire is 8th, Idaho is 9th
Ranks 2nd under "livability" on the state data page (New Hampshire is 1st, Idaho is 8th)
Ranks 2nd for lowest number of native-born inhabitants (42.5%) - New Hampshire is 3rd, Idaho is 4th
Ranks 2nd under "economic freedom" (Idaho is 1st, New Hampshire is 4th)
Ranks 4th in "more private and locally owned land" (Idaho is 5th, New Hampshire is 9th)
Has no state budget deficit - has a $1.8 billion surplus (very unlikely there will be any call for new taxes here, in fact, Wyoming is considering lowering its 4% sales tax)
Has a large royalty income from mining activities (the source of its $1.8 billion surplus), which helps fund education and various aspects of government, giving the FSP an opportunity to lower or eliminate other types of taxes (it also shows fiscal prudence on the part of Wyoming - this fund has existed and grown steadily since 1974)
Borders several other FSP candidate states where this movement could spread (Idaho, Montana, and South Dakota)
[New Hampshire is completely surrounded by "liberal" states and all of the New England states together have less land mass and much, much more population than Wyoming.]
Wyoming's population is concentrated in several pockets throughout the state (such as Cheyenne and Casper), but the population in these areas is not as high as that in other larger areas like Boise City or Anchorage, or the Wilmington and Boston MSA's. This means that more of our activists will be voting and otherwise supporting one another in the same elections, enhancing their group strength without spreading it too thin or presenting it with too large and powerful of a target. Our combined numbers would thus be more manifest on the town, county, and state levels here.
Wyoming is also closer to large population centers than any other western candidate state. Denver is within 90 minutes of Cheyenne, the state capitol, and Boulder is even closer. Fort Collins, Colorado is only 45 minutes from Cheyenne. Salt Lake City is one and a half hours from Wyoming (Park City, Utah, part of the Salt Lake MSA, is only one hour and 10 minutes from Wyoming). So Wyoming, while it does not have many inhabitants or "big city" amenities itself, is closer to both than any other western candidate. The Denver area is also growing and expanding toward Wyoming, and we will be close enough to reap the benefits of that economic progress; however, we will also have the state line between ourselves and Colorado - keeping that state's more statist politics at bay. And despite this growth trend, the immigration rate into Wyoming is yet low enough that it is not affecting Wyoming politics and infrastructure to any great degree.
Additionally, we have a chance to help Wyoming diversify its economy, something that it needs and wants to do. By moving in people and jobs from all over the country, we can help diversify the state economy and raise the standard of living to a degree that would be impossible for us to duplicate in Idaho or New Hampshire where the economies are more robust and the people more affluent. Not only would this be a very positive thing for the people of Wyoming, but it would also be an opportunity for us to diminish our "outsider" image and prove that we are coming to contribute to Wyoming, not just "using" it.
In terms of more "livability" elements, Wyoming's climate and terrain are greatly varied (it has the third warmest winters of our ten candidate states), a fact that would make it easier for FSPer's to find someplace to live that is more in line with their expectations and desires. States like New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Alaska, and North Dakota are well-known for their harsh winter conditions. New Hampshire, Vermont, and Maine are definitely located well within the snow-belt as well (for those of you who don't enjoy shoveling the stuff). Parts of Wyoming can have harsh wintertime conditions as well, but there are also other areas with milder conditions, a choice that we won't have to the same degree with small states like VT and NH. And again, there are also urban areas and open countryside, making it possible for a larger number of FSPer's to find more acceptable and desirable places to live than states where most of the population is concentrated in one certain part of the state.
Wyoming - the Best State for Liberty?
All of these elements working together, and combined with the fact that Wyoming allows the FSP a chance at the maximum possible saturation of activists to residents, places Wyoming head-and-shoulders above the other nine candidate states. Nowhere else do we have this number of benefits and liberty-friendly elements along with so low of a burden for each FSP activist. Nowhere else could we have so great an impact so very quickly - simply by being there and voting. And nowhere else will our natural opposition be as weak (the NEA, and other unions and special interests - both in sheer numbers and political machinery). Wyoming is also located farther away from the statist media and political elements (including special interest groups) that could damage us so badly if we were located closer to statist enclaves like Boston and New York.
Again, consider the notion that the FSP could fall short of 20,000 participants; or even if it gets all 20,000 that they might not be as activist as necessary for one of the larger states. Even 20,000 libertarians who confined their activism to voting could make an impact of some sort in any of these states, or gather together and hold influence over a few towns or counties, but could they achieve a free state? And when you consider that 8,000 to 10,000 in Wyoming could accomplish as much if not more than 20,000 in Idaho or New Hampshire, consider what 20,000 in Wyoming could do!
As has been pointed out in our discussions already, a few libertarians forming a township or gaining a majority influence in a county might be able to enact a number of reforms; however, the extent of what they could accomplish could be severely curtailed by the state government. States simply have much more political power than town and county governments. They also have representation in the United States Congress. Thus, if it is at all possible, we should try our best to go somewhere that would allow us a greater voice in the state government.
Wyoming presents us with a very real chance at achieving a majority representation in a state legislature and thus a very real chance at "liberty in our lifetime." Overall, it makes us less reliant upon the various unknown elements that we face in other states such as: "will we have enough?" or "will they really move?" or "will they do the work that's necessary to succeed?" Any of these elements could be fatal to our efforts in the higher population states. In Wyoming, they hurt us the least because our numbers count for so much more even before anything else is considered.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for considering this perspective on what may be the most important decision that we ever make.
In particular, my thanks go out to Joe Swyers, Keith Carlsen, and Paul Bonneau for the time and effort they have expended in gathering and posting much of this data.
See the thread on the FSP forum for a compilation of various threads relating to the state decision.
