09:48 – Last night I mentioned to Barbara the idea of moving up to the Montana/Alberta border area when she’s ready to retire. I was a bit surprised that she not only didn’t reject the idea, but was actually enthusiastic about it. I guess that makes us both a bit weird. Although it’s starting to change, most people still retire southwards to warmer weather. We both want to retire northwards to colder weather. Well, not that I’ll ever actually retire. But the idea of severe winters doesn’t deter either of us in the least. That’s what snowblowers and 4WD and wood/coal stoves are for. In a few years, we’ll probably take a few weeks off and drive up to look around. Or more likely take the train and rent a car. It’s close to a 5,000 mile (8,000 km) round trip.
I mentioned some of the downsides: the area is very lightly populated, so there won’t be much in the way of cultural resources and other facilities common in more heavily-populated areas. It might well be a two hour or more drive to the nearest Costco. She pointed out that we’d seriously considered moving to New Hampshire back in 2000, but the showstopper was the lack of broadband Internet access anywhere we wanted to live. I suspect that won’t be a problem nowadays. Even many small, remote towns have broadband, often from a choice of two or three providers. Actually moving our stuff that far would be a major hassle, but it’s doable if we decide to do it.
You’d be surprised about Internet availability. My wife and I live in a small town of 10,000 people less than an hour away from downtown Indianapolis, Indiana. There are three high speed Internet options available, one from Comcast and two from AT&T. (AT&T offers both UVerse and DSL in our area.) One of my wife’s friends lives less than 5 miles away, and she has none of those options.
Yep. Broadband will definitely be a check-list item if we actually do this.
Thompson Falls in far western Montana. It figures to be nice and cold, and close to Bill’s rope farm… 🙂
I take this as proof that, deep down, Barbara is a believer in global warming.
I like being around people, which should be obvious, as I never noticed any significant increase in population density in Berlin—although it really is not that much more dense than Boston. I lived around lots of snow in Minnesota. Don’t want any more of that at my age. It was nothing when I was in my 20’s, but even mowing the lawn at Tiny House is a distraction and a drag, and not the kind of exercise I need or want.
Babysat the radio project for the weekend, and could not get on the UVerse there. Not sure what the problem is, but I did not want to fool with it, as I could easily take the stream to the transmitter down. My guess is that it happened when somebody used the wrong password and could not get onto the wireless, then went in and started changing access privileges and ended up locking everybody out. Problem for a day when we can originate from the transmitter.
Indiana has too much snow, but I would have to be taken kicking and screaming to live in any former Confederate state, seeing as how their legal systems are seriously wanting.
What’s to believe? It’s warmer than it used to be. Bodies of water that used to freeze solid every winter no longer do so. I have no doubt that the general trend is to increasing temperatures. What I see no evidence of is that global warming is anthropogenic. And what I take issue with is imaginary data such as stating mean world temperature (whatever that means) to literally 0.001 degrees. Not to mention making trillion-dollar decisions based solely on climate models that are less predictive than a Magic 8-Ball.
That’s ironic, considering what goes on in Indiana.
Obviously, you and Barbara value your independence — but does it make sense to move somewhere which needs even more independence as you age?
If you move then who will take care of the inlaws ?
Whether you move or not, you guys definitely should load up the scopes and head west for a bit.
Indiana does not execute hundreds of people per year, as does Texas. (You have probably heard George Carlin’s old joke: “You know the good part about all those executions in Texas? Fewer Texans.”) Indiana allows review of a judicial decision when new evidence or technology could change the weight of evidence, unlike former Confederate states like Georgia. About the worst Indiana has to offer is definite speed and parking traps to fill city coffers.
Still upholds non-compete agreements, though, which should be abolished entirely. No one should be kept from working either with or without being paid. Odd that the right to work people do not want anyone to be allowed to join a union, but have no problem with holding someone hostage via a non-compete. The most popular weather woman in Indy is sitting out a year-long non-compete. Former employer would not meet her demands; she found someone who would, but the former employer will not let her work the job. As I say, vote straight Libertarian and help put an end to this kind of nonsense.
I thought the high cost of living and the low New Hampshire taxes, which are only low in comparison to the other states in New England were also dealbreakers.
At that time, NH hadn’t yet started combining property taxes across jurisdictions, which I understand they’ve now done. We’d look at two houses a mile apart, which were very comparable in every way including price, and find that the property taxes on one were literally four or five times what they were on the other. I remember one pair was something like $2,200/year versus $12,000 per year. At that time, they’d just started forcing jurisdictions to join for property taxing purposes, and the writing was on the way that they’d soon be doing that across the board or even implement a state-level property tax.
Still upholds non-compete agreements, though, which should be abolished entirely.
Well, some forms are valid. For example, not taking your customer list with you to a new firm is reasonable. My non-compete only extends to doing work for a competitor that is related to proprietary R&D or proposals. Again, reasonable that I can’t go to another bidder and work on the same proposal.
In Texas a non-compete has to have explicit compensation spelled out in an employment contract. A local radio host got out of his – the boilerplate contract from a large radio chain had a non-compete, but didn’t specify how he was compensated for it. State court struck it down, he was on the air at a competitor the next day.
Well, customer lists are certainly assets of a business, so anyone who tries to take customers/clients with him when he leaves is guilty of theft. On the other hand, attempting to restrict a person’s employment options is not legitimate in any way. If a business depends on trade secrets rather than copyrights/patents, it deserves what it gets if someone leaves and uses those trade secrets in his subsequent employment.
[snip] As I say, vote straight Libertarian and help put an end to this kind of nonsense. [snip]
On the contrary, the Libertarian position is that when two parties voluntarily enter into a contract, they ought to honor that contract. If you don’t like the non-compete, don’t sign the contract.
Broadband should not be a problem. Where do they not have a Starbcks?
We have one a couple of blocks away in the shopping center with our grocery store. I went over with my Galaxy Tablet (Android) to see if I could connect in to their WiFi. About 30 seconds, no password, and I was surfing away. They have a nice, outdoor, covered patio area with chairs and table just for that purpose.
After all, what trade secrets go with a pole dancer when she leaves the employ of one Gentlemen’s Club for another?
[i]On the other hand, attempting to restrict a person’s employment options is not legitimate in any way. [/]
It most certainly is in some cases. Employment is granted by the employer as a contract, and if said contract includes specific conditions of conduct on leaving the employers employ, the employee is still bound to uphold them — or he can take a job elsewhere.
I got screwed by this when I had my computer shop in SF. Hired a smart guy, taught him the ins-and-outs, the tips and tricks, how to deal with customers, the whole service philosophy, etc. &etc and he promptly quit after six months or a year and opened an almost identical shop just down the street.
Future employees signed a non-compete agreement to the effect that they would not engage in computer building, sales, service or repair for a period of two years within a 5 mile radius (as the crow flies) from the shop’s location.
I suggest visiting and staying a month in February and the same in August and then decide.
pcb_duffer says:
[snip] As I say, vote straight Libertarian and help put an end to this kind of nonsense. [snip]
On the contrary, the Libertarian position is that when two parties voluntarily enter into a contract, they ought to honor that contract. If you don’t like the non-compete, don’t sign the contract.
That is not in anything I have encountered in Libertarian philosophy. The Libertarian view is that contracts can only be valid when they involve property. Employment is not property, and wages paid is property transferred completely to the employee which therefore does not figure as having a continuing legal hold after transfer. The Libertarian view is that there may be a moral obligation to abide by a contract not involving property, but that moral views may vary, and the legal system should not allow litigation in such matters. Further, free will in the Libertarian view is inalienable, and everyone has the right to decide whom to work for, when, and for how long, being free to change their mind at any time for any reason, regardless of contracts or promises. A person may voluntarily decide to work under conditions that do not conform to that Libertarian view, but if they change their mind at any time, the contract should not be enforceable against them just because they—at one time—voluntarily accepted those restrictions. In other words, voluntarily doing something should not give weight to make something enforceable which—in the Libertarian view—should not be enforceable.
You talk of “the Libertarian view” as though there were only one. My impression has been that libertarians do not always achieve such consistency.
Nor do Republicans or Democrats. The Von Mises Institute has tried to codify the most important underlying concepts; they have good primers on most of those. It is how one practically applies the concepts where differences occur. For example, I have not agreed with some other Libertarians’ view that our participation in the UN should be withdrawn and the UN ejected from US soil. But we all agree that, underlying it all, nations have an inalienable right to be free from subjugation to UN dictates. My view is that we should just tell the UN to go to hell a lot more than we do.
Chuck, you quote the “Libertarian View” as if it were holy writ, which is pretty strange given your anti-authoritarianism. I take the view that if a competent adult signs a contract they should stick to it unless fraud is involved. If you don’t like a contract with a non-compete clause then don’t sign it.
First of all, I am NOT anti-authority. I obey the laws, pay my taxes, and abide by contracts. That does not mean I have to agree with them or cannot vote to get them changed. As one can see by decades of no change except to transfer wealth from the middle-class to the super-rich and give big anything more and more power and authority, the Libertarian party is the only one that means business about change, and they have proved that wherever Libertarians have been elected.
While some Libertarians might be anarchists, anarchy in the political sense is not chaos. You can see that if you read some of Emma Goldman’s pieces for her Mother Earth magazine. I think I indicated in reply to Roy’s comment that there certainly ARE underlying Libertarian concepts. How one applies those to arrive at specific points of advocacy, is the individual’s responsibility.
For instance, both Republicans and Democrats claim fiscal responsibility as one of their underlying concepts. But neither has actually promised to balance the budget. I am tired of that, and will vote for neither of them.
Well, the Libertarian view (note the capital “L”) would be the Libertarian Party Platform. The libertarian view (note the lowercase “l”) could be whatever.
Personally, I never saw the point of living south of the 40th parallel. 🙂
54-40 or fight!
I’d rather live in Florida or southern California. I’ll bet not too many Canadian babes wear bikinis to the wonderful beeches of Hudson Bay. Too hot/humid? That’s what air conditioning is for.
Chuck, you want proof before you’ll believe the Bible. I want proof before I believe the Libertarian Party.
If you do move north, just remember a few rules of thumb for when the ice age starts. Keep three months of food in the house at all times, the same with water (don’t forget Colin so that he does not eat you) and get dark colored vehicles (so they can see your vehicle when you get stranded in the ice). Also keep blankets and a weeks food and water in the vehicles. You do have 4WD vehicles, right?
Yes to all, including the dark color.
Except that we have more than 3 months’ food in the house. Water’s not a problem around here any time of year. But we have about 500 liters stored anyway, not counting what’s in the hot water heater, which is another 200 liters or so. And water purification including filters and bleach.
Car kit includes two weeks’ food for two plus dog, sweat suits, lighter clothes, blankets, tarp, assault rifle and shotgun with basic loads, personal equipment and supplies, and a pretty serious medical kit. It also breaks down into individual packable kits of essentials.
Wow, you are very prepared already and you live in a moderate climate.
One of my partners lives in Colorado at 8500 feet. He is adamant about 4WD dark color vehicles and temperature maintenance. He sees -65 F at his place regularly and is very serious about being able to bug out. He lives 10 miles down a dirt road and has to snow plow it regularly in the winter as none of neighbors care about the depth. In the spring that dirt road turns into a swamp with 2 foot deep ruts.
Greg said:
I’ll bet not too many Canadian babes wear bikinis to the wonderful beeches of Hudson Bay.
Do they actually have beeches up there? I’d have thought it would be more like pine, fir, spruce, larch; and whatever evergreen conifers.
I knew when I typed that that some bozo would pick me up on that. I just wasn’t sure which one it would be.
Bob, I would most earnetly recommend that you think again – and again and again and again – on moving to a cold climate as your body and Barbara’s age. Particularly if there’s damage done by surgery. Peripheral circulation declines with age, and cold weather can make you darned uncomfortable at best. If you’re going to check it out, maybe you should wait until late winter to do so. Alternatively, if you make your fortune from selling boxes of booty on the web, maybe you could adopt the snowbird model – go up there for the warm half of the year, back South for the Winter.
Manitoba won’t let Yanks own agricultural land.
We were just forced to sell a quarter section my wife inherited from her parents.
Similar in Saskatchewan.
Also, there is the other drawback to retiring somewhere cold. Trying to walk on ice leads to falls. When that happens to me, I just get back up again. If it were to happen to someone older, like my mother, she’d get back up again too. But there would be surgery to fix the broken hip would happen before she got back up again.
Interesting. Among the classes of people the Canadian immigration website lists as getting priority consideration are farmers and ranchers who are willing to purchase or lease property in Canada.
As to ice, I don’t worry about that. If it weren’t for walking Colin, I could happily go literally months without ever stepping outside. Barbara is more outdoorsy, but I don’t think it’d be a problem for her, either.
The Farm Land Ownership Act of Manitoba requires foreign ownership to be restricted to 40 acres and under. This is to promote Canadian ownership of farmland, and to prevent large corporations (koff Monsanto koff) from buying up all the land for single use crops; and to insure that the lands are being used as farmland by actual owners, not just lying fallow. Not an unreasonable request to this native son.
Saskatchewan’s restriction on foreign AND non-resident ownership is 10 acres, but then I can’t own land there greater than 10 acres, either. I can’t seem to find Alberta’s cap, but I was born there and can’t own farmland over a certain size without moving back to the province. They want agricultural land to be used as agricultural land, not owned by absentee owners. Again, not an unreasonable request.
I think protecting our agricultural lands from being bought up by corporations and absentee owners is a good thing, frankly.
Immigrants, since they are becoming Canadian citizens, are NOT restricted to own farmlands of any size.
As for walking on ice: http://www.spiky.com/
I figured Barbara would just wear her golf spikes.
Miles_Teg says:
Chuck, you want proof before you’ll believe the Bible. I want proof before I believe the Libertarian Party.
Proof of what?
Chuck, you quote the Libertarian view as if it was gospel. This and that are right because the Libertarian Party says so, with no further discussion provided. It’s not enough to say that Richard Nixon or George McGovern said this or that and so it is true so I don’t need to provide any more support. If you want people to believe in libertarianism you need to do a bit more rather than provide nebulous statements that are alleged to agree with libertarianism.
Hey, you can do the same as me: read the Libertarian party platform; read what the Von Mises Institute has collected from libertarian writers and thinkers; and read the Harry Browne book available on Kindle.
Never did I quote anything as “gospel”—even the Communists of China no longer obey a hard line “gospel”. But certainly Libertarians in general are in agreement on many issues—enough to make a political party out of it that is growing year over year. Ten years ago, it was not possible to vote a straight Libertarian ticket in Indiana; today it is.
I merely state my view here, and that is quite frequently peppered with “in my opinion”. I am quoting nobody’s gospel; just shoving my views down your throat and indicating generally where they come from.
Chuck, I am under no obligation to read the Libertarian party platform, any more than you are obligated to study the Jehovah’s Witness creed in case they knock on your door. You’re doing exactly what you berate me for: quoting from something without proof and just expecting me to accept what you say at face value.
You question what I say and want proof of what Libertarians stand for; I point you to the places you can find out. More than that, I cannot do. If you refuse to explore them, you deny yourself the proof.
That’s not my job Chuck.
If you want to argue , for example, that the Department of Defense should be abolished I expect you to do more than say that that’s Libertarian Party policy, and expect me to read up on it, especially if you don’t provide a link.
I have given sources and so has Chad. If you are too stubborn to look at them, then that is entirely up to you. My contribution to this topic ends here.
Greg appears to be in a bad mood this week.
Huh, you haven’t even started persuading Miles. Here is a clip showing how tough it is to persuade someone:
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2012/07/but-you-did-not-persuade-me.html
I need to see “The Last King of Scotland” some day as I really like Forest Whitaker in every movie with him that I have seen to date.