New Hampshire vs Alaska

Stick with New Hampshire

5 (20%)

Move to Alaska

15 (60%)

Give up and enjoy the welfare state

5 (20%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[Alex Libman]

Imagine this scenario...

The year is 2015.

After seven years of a popular Democratic president, the federal government is inching ever closer to the European Union style welfare state.  The large majority of the plebs are happy to receive free medical care and free college education, and that there is no war.  (Iraq has been split into 3+ separate nations, and the sectarian violence declines.  Iran is allowed to keep nukes, and diplomatic relations are restored with each side proclaiming moral victory.  Setting up independent buffer states between regional powers becomes a popular idea in the United Nations, and it is applied to resole long-standing border disputes involving Pakistan, India, China, Japan, and others.)  After the horrors of the Bush administration, the American people behave much like the Russian people did after a government-engineered famine: they kiss the government's ass for whatever crumbs of liberty it provides them.  The Libertarian movement has been decimated many times over after marijuana and prostitution have been decriminalized (but highly taxed and regulated) by the Democrats in some states.

EU becomes slightly more conservative (a trend that has begun already), and the Bush-hating Europeans are glad to see his party soundly defeated - thus the two continents are reconciled and move closer together.  Pretty much everyone in Europe speaks at least some English by now, and as transcontinental travel quadruples a New Yorker may find Denmark more homely than West Virginia.  Russia and parts of Latin America finally begin to get their act together, and it no longer looks like East Asia will soon rule the world.  Putin retires and writes a gut-wrenching book on the tightrope he had to walk inside the Kremlin to keep the radicals from buying their way into power, and the American intellectuals praise him as the savior of Russia.  His appointed successor continues to expand export of natural resources, investing the profits into an EU-like welfare state but more so into huge public works projects like that infamous Bering Strait bridge idea.

OK, getting to a point...

The Free State Project has gone very badly.  Of the 40,000 sign-ups, only a couple thousand end up being serious about moving, and only a hundred or so are really active.  After some initial successes, the few dozen core activists in New Hampshire find themselves either burned out or in prison.  Some "special interest" fractions within the movement (like the pedophiles, white supremacists, or the "nuke D.C." fiends) get disproportionate press coverage, and media spin paints all Free Staters as domestic terrorists.  Perhaps most significantly, high-speed trains extend Boston suburbs well past Manchester.  General population from socialist MA (as well as NY, ME, VT, and Quebec) move into New Hampshire at the rate of 20,000+ per year.

At the same time, the Alaskan Independence Party is doing remarkably well.  Natural selection results in pink tutu socialists moving out of the state while more rugged individualists move in.  With the recent "bridge to nowhere" fiasco aligning most of the Democrats against government investment in Alaskan infrastructure (which doesn't buy them as many votes as welfare programs), the private sector picks up the slack.  Since most people in Alaska work for large corporations that want federal taxes and wacko environmentalists off their backs, the corporate support for Alaskan Independence is huge.  The movements is also supported by the Russian government, the United Nations, and much of the "international community" because it would create a neutral "free trade" buffer zone between EU+Russia (which might soon merge) and the American Union - the Pacific keystone of the future World Government.  They would support the idea of Alaska becoming the most libertarian place on Earth, as long as it remains a member of the UN, the American Union, and other international organizations.

[Bill Brasky]

The only problem is US interests will never allow a state to become a nation.  Or even some sort of self-governed territory. 

It would look like a big loss of face, in asian terms.  On a global scale, the USA would instantly lose tons of cred.  We cant allow a situation where other countries would be able to witness a flow of population like that, the rapid influx would be viewed as dissent. 

Won't happen, cant happen.  And don't laugh, but I'll bet my last dollar the FSP is infiltrated with government agents. 

CT?  Nope.  Reality, baby.

[Porcupine_in_MA]

Send Snake Plisken in...

[mikehz]

The only problem is US interests will never allow a state to become a nation.  Or even some sort of self-governed territory. 

The old Soviet government didn't want to their empire broken up, either. But, it happened.

If enough people want something to happen, it WILL happen.

[bonerjoe]

And don't laugh, but I'll bet my last dollar the FSP is infiltrated with government agents. 

You don't have to bet. One of the FSP presidents was a "former" Air Force intelligence officer.

[money dollars]

I think that is my que.....

[bonerjoe]

I <3 MD.

[One two three]

And she is a member of the 1st 1000.  Oh, and the FSP founder is Skull and Bones and dozens of us are still in the military.  And this proves?  It does not matter how many government workers are in the FSP.  As long as no one in the FSP plans to use force to control the government or something the biggest things the government can nail the FSP with is nothing.

[One two three]

I'll likely stick with NH.  Alaska has too much welfare for my tastes.  Almost everyone put there either A. already works for the government and plans for those massive pensions B. is a poor person that will be on welfare for life C. works for a massive company that gets lots of government handouts and has special deals or D. works in a very dangerous line of work

[Ed]

Colorado.

[Elitist Bitch]

Hong Kong for now, then my own private Caribbean island after I get insanely wealthy.

But based on the scenario given, I'd say move to Alaska, even though I'd hate the climate.

[Puke]

Suicide.

[Zhwazi]

I'd choose Alaska over New Hampshire under those circumstances. But I'd choose LA first. California sounds like a great place to live if not for the government, and if you're not planning on obeying the government, the biggest reason not to move there isn't an issue anymore.

[money dollars]

I am going to Mt. Zion, cus I am religious and shit.

But not the jew one, the jamaican one.
http://www.maplandia.com/jamaica/clarendon/mount-zion/

[Elitist Bitch]

I hope all that white stuff on the map is sand and not snow.  Of course, it snows even in Hawaii...