Additionally, the issue of government land ownership can serve to unite a people. It has done so in Wyoming, as well as in other western states. See the following link for examples of how Wyoming has successfully resisted federal domination of its territory (you'll need to scroll down a bit).
5. Wyoming is land-locked; it has no international border or coastline.
Contrary to popular belief, international border and/or coastlines could be detrimental to the free state effort because of Homeland Security concerns. This not because the FSP poses some sort of threat, but because our agenda would involve lessening scrutiny of those who come and go. A federal government that is busily battening down the hatches at ports and border crossings is not likely to view free state efforts favorably. Consider the following:
1. A Story from MSNBC: "Report: US Still Vulnerable," begins: "A prestigious task force led by two former U.S. senators has concluded that the American transportation, water, food, power, communications and banking systems remain easy targets for terrorists despite the government's efforts at tightening the nation's domestic security in the past year."
This article then goes into detail on which areas are affected most by this situation, and leads off with the following: "Only a minuscule fraction of the containers, trains, trucks and ships entering the country are searched, which means the chances of detecting a weapon of mass destruction are almost nil."
And further: "Port officials estimate the cost of securing U.S. ports at $2 billion. Only $92 million in federal grants has been authorized. "This screams at us as a top national priority," said Stephen Flynn, the task force's director and a former Coast Guard officer. "So few resources are being expended on this."
http://www.msnbc.com/news/825779.asp?cp1=1
2. The following article was found at CNN.com with regard to the Canadian border:
"The border with Canada became the focus of scrutiny after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, leaders in both countries have spoken of the need to tighten security and pay more attention to those people who cross it..."
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/12/03/inv.ashcroft.canada/index.html
3. From a speech given by George W. Bush, Friday, June 7, 2002:
"The Department of Homeland Security will be charged with four primary tasks. This new agency will control our borders and prevent terrorists and explosives from entering our country."
Search news articles on "homeland security" and you'll find such references over and over again. Seaports and the Canadian border are the some of the most heavily emphasized aspects of the homeland security agenda. The federal government clearly does not view all things as being equal here, and maybe we shouldn't either. After all, if the government is busily tightening controls on our ports and borders, what reception are we likely to receive if we come along wanting to reduce controls? If we run into difficulty with the federal government in these areas, we will have less to take them to task on because the Constitution gives them legitimate authority in these areas. Few people are likely to side with us in a dispute with the feds when the areas in dispute involve legitimate federal authority and the safety of "the children."
This is not a definitive argument, I realize, but it does seem to strongly suggest that we should take another look at our in-land options instead of emphasizing coastal and border states. At the very least, we minimize our chances of inviting federal interference on legitimate, constitutional grounds, and we also reduce our risk of inciting the American people against us as being "the ones who don't seem to care if terrorists get into the country."
These considerations would especially impact our eastern candidate states because of their proximity to New York and Washington, and other population centers and potential terrorist targets. Western states would be less affected because of their distance from targets that would be worthwhile for terrorist organizations. Those who would prefer both an international border and coastline should look to Alaska because it's not near enough to anything that would make it worth terrorist infiltration concerns. Anyone entering there would have to cross thousands of miles and two international border checkpoints without detection, and even then, once they reached the lower 48 states, they'd still have to cross thousands of miles to reach any important targets.