Let's break this one down:
A) No one cares about what happens in Wyoming.
Untrue. Major news outlets such as the Washington Post have recently taken note of the fact that Wyoming is one of only a few states in the country that is not running a budget deficit, and, on top of this, they have noted that Wyoming lacks both individual and business income tax laws. This is an excellent example of what low taxes and lessened regulation can do for prosperity, and serves the libertarian model well. Financial gurus such as Forbes and Bloomberg have also noted the benefits of Wyoming's low-tax low-regulation environment.
Compare Wyoming's advantage here to a state like New Hampshire, which, although it has low taxes and a small government, has been struggling with budget short-falls. New Hampshire has come under criticism for not raising taxes to cover its short-falls, and thus serves more to bolster the Left, which reacts to every government crisis with a call for tax increases or greater regulation of some type. Wyoming is already a working model of a place where there is no financial crisis, and yet, taxes are low and regulation is lenient.
Yet, in spite of the fact that various elements have taken notice of Wyoming's low-tax, low-regulation environment, it is true that this country's political and media elite have mostly written the state off as hopelessly "conservative" or "behind the times."
And this is to our advantage!
Wyoming is not a national battleground state. Because it is already considered a lost cause for the Left, they are not likely to go to any great efforts to oppose what we do there. As a result, they will not likely bring damaging pressure or negative publicity against us or other state residents that we are trying to reach with our ideas.
This will be important because it could impact our success, and our own success must be primary. If we do not succeed, we cannot showcase our success to anyone. Those who desire to crow must first have something to crow about.
B) Most of the country's population lies east of the Mississippi - we must locate there as well.
Most of the country's population is also statist and is likely to fear or resent what we are trying to accomplish.
C) No one will care about what we accomplish in Wyoming, but they will have to care about what we accomplish in places like Delaware or New Hampshire because they can't ignore us there.
Leftists in this country have made a practice of dealing with any developments they don't like as not being "representative" of the majority of people in the country itself. If they want to dismiss it, they'll invent a reason. They always do, and they're very good at it. Our location will make no difference to them.
We have politicians preaching liberty to one degree or another right in Washington DC itself, in the very core of the statist camp, and they are routinely dismissed as being "backward," "non-forward-thinking," "heartless," "anti-child," "anti-senior," etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. And their message resonates. Many of those who voted for Reagan and his libertarianish message turned around a few years later and voted for Clinton and his statist message. Reagan's era of prosperity became a "decade of greed." Even the success of free market ideas was perverted and used to incite the jealousies of liberal constituencies to the point where they wanted to "soak the rich."
We should not pin our hopes on the idea that we're going to make the statists sit up and salute. I believe that we are much better off trying to find a place where we can make freedom work for ourselves primarily. Then, if the country sits up and takes notice, great! If not, at least we will have some greater degree of freedom for the few who really want it instead of wasting our time trying to sell a product to customers who are not interested.
There are states that are relatively free in this country right now, some, like New Hampshire, even border states that are decidedly non liberty-friendly (such as Massachusetts, Maine and Vermont). Yet, in spite of the example that New Hampshire sets in the middle of statist New England, its neighboring states have failed to follow its example. Why should we believe that they will suddenly do so in the future? Should we risk a chance to secure freedom for ourselves and our children on the unsubstantiated idea that the rest of the country will emulate our example only if we locate in a higher population area?
Given the information provided above, we have seen that there are those who are taking notice of Wyoming and its low-tax, low-regulation environment in spite of the fact that it is west of the Mississippi. So, let's work for our own freedom first, and then showcase the results once we have them. In the meantime, those who are genuinely interested will take notice, and those who might otherwise oppose us will not have as much occasion to do so.