Libertarians, Vote with Your Feet!

I will be moving to a place where a) people in office may actually represent me instead of actively working against me b) many or most people probably won't assume I'm a selfish jerk if I say I'm a libertarian and c) the economy is doing exceptionally well because it is a very libertarian place with low unemployment and low poverty. I noticed help wanted signs everywhere in the towns I visit.

With the people you want to vote with and participate in Democracy with, the vast majority of them seem to think you are a selfish jerk if you are a libertarian. They believe you are against schools and roads, and that you don't have a grasp on reality. So, my advice to you is to MOVE. I am definitely moving and do realize that the only real way to vote in today's system is with your feet. Libertarian places are much better for both rich and poor people despite popular opinion to the contrary. Poverty rates are very low in libertarian places. Unemployment is low in libertarian places (as opposed to Democrat zones where it is extremely high). That shows libertariansm means a successful place in the real world, unlike pie in the sky progressive Democrats system of Detroit and Venezuela. So, if you are willing to move for your job, then why are you not willing to move for general success in life?

Growing up, I liked the idea of being able to vote for someone that represents me. Sadly people outside New Hampshire, Montana, and Alaska rarely hold any of my views at all, and I've discovered I've never had a real representative in office. Furthermore, one person so far as I know does not have the power to convert their location to a bunch of people with their belief set. In fact, that takes at least one generation if not two. So, why bother doing anything in politics where I am now? I want success now with my life now as much as success for my future great grandchildren.

Your vote won't make substantial difference unless you are voting with your feet. There are places in New Hampshire with a libertarian majority. Look at this chart:
pileusblog.files.wordpress.com...

I notice numerous places on that chart in Grafton County, New Hampshire containing towns (some of which with no zoning at all like the town of Grafton) where a near majority of people have voted for a libertarian. I want 1,000 other ATS members, which is only a tiny fraction of us, to reply to this post saying they will consider moving to New Hampshire so I can feel like I have a good chance at living in a place that isn't going to be taking away my freedoms over time. I'm confident that this number of people would keep the statists who may move in from other places (and contaminate the state with their cancerous philosophies) in check for at least a few years. I do believe in safety in numbers.

a reply to: wayforward

Free State Project.

The Free State Project is an agreement among 20,000 participants to move to NH for "Liberty in Our Lifetime."

When are YOU moving?

a reply to: wayforward

Nationwide, there are 143 Libertarians holding elected offices: 43 partisan offices, and 100 nonpartisan offices.

Link from Libertarian Party website

New Hampshire had 4 names on the list, and three of them are little more than county board members. Not sure where these libertarian zones are?

Max Abramson is a State level Representative for District 20. So yah might want to look there?

Anyway, your graph and a personal anecdote about visiting New Hampshire seem unfounded at best, so no I wont be moving there anytime soon. Also, I think this has a better chance in California where there are lots of them, but California is doing kinda bad, so it might be a counter-example to the things you say work with libertarianism.

Don't get me wrong, I do like libertarianism and I do feel a lot of what the government does would be better left to private business, but I feel education and health care should be a public good.

Also, the TPP is terrible, and as long as Johnson supports that, then he will never get my vote.

originally posted by: hubrisinxs
a reply to: wayforward

Nationwide, there are 143 Libertarians holding elected offices: 43 partisan offices, and 100 nonpartisan offices.

Link from Libertarian Party website

Anyway, your graph and a personal anecdote about visiting New Hampshire seem unfounded at best, so no I wont be moving there anytime soon. Also, I think this has a better chance in California where there are lots of them, but California is doing kinda bad, so it might be a counter-example to the things you say work with libertarianism.

Well your point of confusion is that I'm talking about small L libertarians, not Libertarians(capital L). New Hampshire has many more libertarian Republicans and libertarian Democrats in office (small L) on a per capita basis. Furthermore, New Hampshire, Montana, and Alaska are the most libertarian places by a wide margin from many different studies that I've seen over the years of libertarianism.

I'm not sure why you think the study showing votes for Ron Paul over more than 30% is flawed, but I doubt there were any towns in California voting 40% Ron Paul whereas the chart I link to does show that. Here is another study confirming that New Hampshire, Montana, and Alaska are indeed the most libertarian places:
reason.com...

a reply to: wayforward

You call yourself a libertarian, but you never explained you meant that you were just leaning libertarian. Little L libertarianism is subjective. Some people agree with one or two tenants of liberalism, while others, like me, might agree with all but a few of the ideas and policies of libertarianism.

Here are the 2012 results for California:

Link of voter breakdown for California

You will see that Gary Johnson pulled 1.1%, which with California's large population that is about 116,000 or so people.

Now for New Hampshire:

Link of voter breakdown for New Hampshire

You will see that Gary Johnson got a whopping 1.2%, which with New Hampshire's small population that is only about 8000 people.

Per capita, 1.1% is approximately equal to 1.2% so, I would say they are close to equal in that respect. But it's hard to deny 116,000 is way larger than 8000.

While your newest map seems to imply that New Hampshire is #2 while California is #13, so they are still close, in in little l terms. Also, from your map's website:

The measure is per capita, but Sorens specifies "it's all ordinal, not cardinal. I couldn't give you a precise count (MT has X many libertarians per capita), just a relative ranking of the states."

and instead of actually taking polls of people and see what their views are he is using this to make the chart you linked:

to see which states have the most libertarians, I use six measures: Libertarian Party presidential vote share in 2008 and 2012, Ron Paul contributions as a share of personal income in 2007-8, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson contributions as a share of income in 2011-12, and “adjusted” Ron Paul primary vote share in 2008 and 2012. Ron Paul vote shares are adjusted for primary vs. caucus, calendar, number of other candidates, and the like.

Ron Paul and Gary Johnson ran in two different elections, the libertarian vote changed for each election, something his data is not taking into account. A graph that shows some county voting that does not match other records(here we see Ron Paul only got 7.7 percent of the total vote, so while there might have been 30% pockets, he did not have 30% of the vote) and a subjective map that runs on 6 very stacked qualifications does not prove anything about the libertarian-leaning people in any state.

So, in conclusion, still not moving.

a reply to: hubrisinxs

Small L does not mean only leaning libertarian, it means you are not an official party member. Ron Paul is more libertarian than Gary Johnson. Yet, Ron Paul is a Republican who ran as a Republican. Ron Paul is not merely leaning libertarian, he is a libertarian. If I am only leaning libertarian, it would be because I'm a libertarian leaning voluntaryist. More than ten Free State Project members in New Hampshire have been elected as local state representatives, but none of them ran under the Libertarian party even though they are libertarian.

New Hampshire is among the most free places overall in the United States. I suppose Alaska and Montana would be the other two. Colorado is a bit too globalist though has its crowd of libertarians too. California is among the least free places and is continuing to be less free as socialism is much more popular than capitalism there. I think the focus in California should be on escaping. I'll be living in a town without zoning for example in New Hampshire and hardly any properties with restrictions of any kind (covenants, etc). Not much needs to be done with New Hampshire to say it is a libertarian state. After they drop license requirements, capital gains tax, and privatize the fire departments I would consider it to be something I can stand living in for a long time. I've always thought of California as the least libertarian place because it has the most regulations and is on track to have ever-more regulations over time.

I do believe the best evidence of libertarianism is the actual government structure. In California, the government is stifling and strangling. In New Hampshire, the income tax is 0% and there is only a capital gains tax. Montana and Alaska also have less regulations for personal and business purposes.

ya