Might be of Moving to Montana

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by N4t1ve

I love CO and it used to be my dream destination.

I'm with you.

Now it's more like Montana or some other widely unpopulated destination.

The advantage to more heavily populated areas is a better job market. Of course, that depends on what line of work you're in. And nowadays, a lot of the people moving to more sparsely populated areas, including small towns in CO, are bringing their jobs with them; they can work from home. This drives up RE prices and rents in places that used to have a low cost of living. Everything is in flux these days, and often--not for the better.

[Shuffler]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

The advantage to more heavily populated areas is a better job market. Of course, that depends on what line of work you're in. And nowadays, a lot of the people moving to more sparsely populated areas, including small towns in CO, are bringing their jobs with them; they can work from home. This drives up RE prices and rents in places that used to have a low cost of living. Everything is in flux these days, and often--not for the better.

I know a handful of stories around here where 'remote' jobs are now gone ... RTO (return to office) or go find something else to do.

Companies are cutting back ... "out of sight, out of mind" is how some of my former colleagues in tech are putting it - if you're remote, better be on top of your game, or you're gone.

Remote workers approaching/over 50 are being let go as well. Talked to a buddy the other day - his company did a 're org' and he didn't factor into their plans.

Insurance benefits & 401k plans being re-swizzled, layoff packages being pretty much nothing, etc.

I'd be a fool to bank on remote work being 'secure' in this economic environment - especially in MT where it's pretty much an amenities economy.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by NW Crow

Under the modern republican form, the people choose their leaders, who then variously make / vote on policy, implement it and interpret it and select others as necessary to make, implement and interpret policy. The means of choosing leaders has evolved over long time and in modern time. There is no need to debate how leaders are chosen in this country, in this democratic republic, in these times anymore. It is by the VOTE of the registered voters for EVERY designated public office in every election forever, unless some level of disenfranchisement occurs.

To speak of THE PEOPLE as "non-citizens", as done above, is to speak in 18th century or before terms, only done by those caught up in past and perhaps with hostility to the people and to the modern republic where the natural born and naturalized are all citizens and all adults (unless disqualified for crime) can vote to elect leaders from the people / citizens. They are not segregated into a pre-modern hierachy and never will be again unless some hostile takeover happens by some or someone who refuses to accept basic political equality in this modern American democratic republic with majority rule by the people / citizens as the pillar of that republic by the founding Constitution.

If you want the "classic republic", ok that's you and that's from 1500-2500 years ago.

If one wants to look at all
historical variations of a republic, this article lays it out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism

But for Americans, these are the founding principles:

https://www.civiced.org/lessons/less...can-government

"The power of government is held by the people.

The people give power to leaders they elect to represent them and serve their interests.

The representatives are responsible for helping all the people in the country, not just a few people."


The Federalist No. 39 (James Madison); see also The Federalist No. 22 (Alexander Hamilton) “[T]he fundamental maxim of republican government . . . requires that the sense of the majority should prevail.” ); The Federalist No. 57 (James Madison) ( “The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government.” ).

Since 1933, as before, and as it should always be, the United States of America have been in business using consent legitimately obtained from the people. Attempts to overthrow the democratic republic in 2021 failed and will be resisted.


The self-given title of The Galactic Emperor of Wyoming belies belief in republic or at least the republic we have.

Much of what you post is relevant to the [socialist] democratic form of government, and has no bearing on the republican form.
I know this is hard to comprehend. If I went back in time, 35 years ago, and told myself, I wouldn't believe me, either.
The simple fact, available in the public record is this:
American PEOPLE have Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass.
BUT
American CITIZENS have surrendered / waived all endowed rights, in order to exercise political privileges (voting and holding office).
. . .
Only citizens have mandatory civic duties (which abrogate all endowed rights).

The SOURCE of this obligation is found in the end of the Declaration wherein the "founders" (and all subsequent citizens) pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

This may have been forgotten over the centuries, but was well know in the beginning.
. . .

“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
- - - George Washington; "Sentiments on a Peace Establishment" in a letter to Alexander Hamilton (2 May 1783); published in The Writings of George Washington (1938), edited by John C. Fitzpatrick, Vol. 26, p. 289.

IN SHORT, NO citizen has any endowed right to life, liberty or private property, since he OWES a duty to the STATE, to defend it and pay for it. Shut up, sit down, pay and obey.

FYI: A republic is not synonymous with a republican form. The Peoples Republic of China is a republic but NOT a republican form.


CONSENT OF THE CITIZENRY

“ Our theory of government and governmental powers is wholly at variance with that urged by appellant herein. The rights of the individual are not derived from governmental agencies, either municipal, state or federal, or even from the Constitution. They exist inherently in every man, by endowment of the Creator, and are merely reaffirmed in the Constitution, and restricted only to the extent that they have been VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED BY THE CITIZENSHIP to the agencies of government. The people's rights are not derived from the government, but the government's authority comes from the people. The Constitution but states again these rights already existing, and when legislative encroachment by the nation, state, or municipality invade these original and permanent rights, it is the duty of the courts to so declare, and to afford the necessary relief. The fewer restrictions that surround the individual liberties of the citizen, except those for the preservation of the public health, safety, and morals, the more contented the people and the more successful the democracy.”
- - - City of Dallas v Mitchell, 245 S.W. 944

https://casetext.com/case/city-of-dallas-v-mitchell-1
. . .
The rights of the individual / national / non-citizen / inhabitant / non-resident are not derived from government, but are Creator endowed... (i.e., republican form of government)
But once consent to be governed is granted, via citizenship, that endowment has been surrendered / waived by the citizenry.
Why?
Because mandatory civic duties abrogate endowed natural rights, natural and personal liberty, absolute ownership of private property, etc, etc. That’s the consequence of migrating to their [socialist] democratic form of government, where a majority can legally persecute a minority... or tax the snot out of them.
It’s been part of the law since day one. Did you miss the part in the Declaration where they pledged “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor”? All citizens are presumed to have made that same pledge. That’s how conscription / militia duty is 100% constitutional and not a violation of rights and liberties... “Volunteers” don’t have any.

Now you have to ask the government to explain exactly from whom did they get the delegated power to impose citizenship upon infants who cannot consent, and thus via mandatory civic duties, ABROGATE THE ENDOWED RIGHTS that governments were instituted to secure.


Moving to Montana, or any other State, has no effect on your status at law. If you're one of the sovereign people, your Creator endowed rights are intact. If you consented to be their citizen (subject), you have no endowed rights - only government privileges (aka "civil and political rights") that are inferior, regulated and taxed.