For those moving inside the US, how important is access to ports?

submitted by Ponderer from self.ConservativeExodus

It occurred to me that it might be wiser to move to Texas than South Dakota due to its proximity to water. How risky do you think it would be to move to a landlocked state?

Alternatively, if you had to flee a state by water, where might you go?

all 13 comments
sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun

[–]IkeConn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

We have so much water in Tennessee that Atlanta wants it.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

do you mean water for drinking water, cuz you don't need the ocean for that. Are you looking to trade at ports, that probably won't be happening when shit hits the fan anyway. I'd stay inland if there is drinkable water.

[–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I meant more as a way to get out in case SHTF even in that state. If you're in a landlocked area, you might need to drive (or fly) through areas that won't let you through.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

like take a boat somewhere? I guess that makes sense. But yeah a lot of people will have the same idea so ports will be on lockdown

[–]thefirststone 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

This was a major factor in the Free State Project's official choice of NH over WY, though the discussion resulted in some moving to WY, anyway. The project's old discussions and lists of destination criteria should be archived somewhere, where they discuss these types of practical matters.

Now, part of the FSP's goal was to influence the government by sheer numbers. NH's larger population worked against this goal, but its supposed friendliness to libertarian ideas made it acceptable. That's the same reason conservatives look to the Dakotas and "the redoubt", because it's less risky to find those already like us.

But where's the profit in giving up territory?

There are tiny states with good water access, like Rhode Island and Delaware, that would be easier to demographically subdue. It's just that their existing population is especially hostile to both FSP and CE participants. I'd say that would have made it easier to take over, because their feelings don't matter. But that was before the last few years of government interference, so my reasoning might be out of date.

[–]Ponderer[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

This is excellent information, thanks.

The project's old discussions and lists of destination criteria should be archived somewhere, where they discuss these types of practical matters.

I would really like to see this if you know where to find it. I imagine the FSP has done some of the best research out there on this subject.

But where's the profit in giving up territory?

I agree with this too. I'm more interested in getting conservatives to move out of California, New York, and Illinois. iirc the rest of the US would be solid red if conservatives just moved out of those states and went anywhere else.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What if the opposite had some advantages?

[–]thefirststone 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

NH was decided in 2003 by mail-in ballot after some in-person meetups, though there was an official forum until earlier this year when it was retired (and the thread announcing the reasons didn't get archived). That would have the most concentrated discussion, since it all predated the subreddit (and reddit itself), though I haven't looked at it in a while so I'm not sure which threads would be relevant.

Here are some other links that might be interesting:

[–]Ponderer[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Thank you for the links! It's too bad about that thread not getting archived, but the other stuff is great.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I'm more interested in getting conservatives to move out of California,

My preference is to live behind enemy lines, rather than moving to some hellhole where it freezes in the winter and bakes in the summer. Have lived in the north, the south, and the east before finally enjoying 22 days straight of 10F highs, and moving to the edge of the west coast.

If anything, conservatives should retake the best state out of 50, which is California, and make the leftists live in the shit conditions.

I'm exaggerating a bit, as only a 1 to 5 mile strip along the coast has tolerable weather. The "but muh hardships!" crew has plenty of weather extremes to choose from in the rest of California. Furnace Creek has the hottest weather of the entire US. There are glaciers here you could live on. (Aug 24, 2011 — There are more than 1700 snow or ice bodies located in California - 70 of these are larger than 0.1 km2) Into hunting? Berkeley, and the entire bay area, have plenty of 'game'.

Giving up territory is usually a losing proposition, but that's particularly true when the territory in question is where your countries culture originates. I don't know if California culture would still spread across the US if controlled by conservatives again, but it certainly does now.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I'd prefer if anything the culture was controlled by more moderate socially left or middle and fiscal conservative, to be honest.

[–]Ponderer[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Giving up territory is usually a losing proposition, but that's particularly true when the territory in question is where your countries culture originates. I don't know if California culture would still spread across the US if controlled by conservatives again, but it certainly does now.

This is what I wonder about. What makes California such a center of American culture?

Is it just that it's such a population center? I think that's a big contributing factor, but the explanation may be more mundane: leftists are just better-organized and happen to have their largest institutions located in California.

[–]Node 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What makes California such a center of American culture?

People have probably answered this far better than I can. I suspect it has something to do with so many having to intentionally move to California, as opposed to staying in the BFE where one was born. That "Are you coming... To San Francisco..." song attracted a massive leftist/hippy response too.

The gold rush. The amazing productivity of the land. Nearby county grows $5 billion in strawberries. Marijuana was a $14 billion crop prior to legalization. Silicon Valley. The geography and weather. "The West" is where all the free thinkers came, for good and for bad. It's a remarkable place, and so unfortunate to currently be in the hands of the scoundrels and scumbags.

That question is a great search term, btw.