Hello, burning dragon!
I think that a "multiple approach heirarchy" towards pursuing liberty is best. I think the FSP has things right in principle, but I think their choice of New Hampshire is regrettable. That said, I am not saying it cannot work, or that NH is not optimal in some regards (If successful, it will have a dramatically larger impact on the East Coast than a free Wyoming would). ...But it also is drastically sub-optimal in others (too numerous to name, in comparison to WY and AK).
Regardless, buying a farm (or even property) in either NH http://freekeene.com/2008/11/16/thank-you-mr-burke/ or WY would be smart, regardless of how near your nearest libertarian/anarchist neighbors are. The first state to offer defense against Federal tax authorities, and the protection of metal coin alternative currencies will be a rather large development.
For as much money as the national LP spends on ballot access every 4 years, I could have likely already made WY or AK a Free State (It would take about 10 years with that kind of funding, for one determined activist). It simply requires putting immensely popular initiatives on the ballot, and talking to everyone about them, from an informed perspective.
Six things that can simultaneously be used to bring about individual freedom:
1) Electoral - tier 1 - running articulate pro-freedom candidates
2) Electoral - tier 1 - running, promoting, and winning pro-freedom initiatives (keeping issue-by-issue concepts about individual freedom in front of the electorate)
3) Activism - tier 1-2 - performing FIJA ( http://www.fija.org ) outreach to incoming juries
4) Activism - tier 2-3 - Targeting cops, judges, politicians, and other statist law-breakers for public humiliation, when they violate others' rights, via video, or otherwise
5) Activism - tier 2-3 Socially ostracizing statists and not cooperating with them, or befriending them, if they reject the idea of individual freedom (after having been fully informed about it)
6) Action - tier 2-3 - Stop paying taxes, stop complying with the system,
7) Action - tier 2-3 File paperwork that occupies the systems time, and allows you to otherwise avoid the system (a plan for such is outlined in the google video "The Magnificent Deception" by Robert Arthur: Menard)
8) Action - tier 3 - physically damage the system, break the system
In the above list, the "tier" is a rating for how overt your actions should be, and how acceptable they are to the general public. If you're running for office, this is socially accepted (tier 1). If you're breaking into a Selective Service Administrative center, and destroying draft cards, this is not socially accepted (tier 3). This is true even though the Camden 28 jury found that those draft cards were property that had no right to exist (no legitimate purpose). http://www.camden28.org/ At the time though, throughout the trial, the jury became more well-informed than the general public.
Tier 2-3 actions are actions that require some level of deception to those who are not aware of the larger truth, but tier 2 may be publicly disclosed, because they are not necessarily illegal.
The general public doesn't yet want liberty. So when you encounter people who don't want liberty, as a candidate, or as the proponent of a medical marijuana initiative, etc... you can't tell them the whole truth if you want your interim goal to succeed, and they are not willing to change their philosophy on the spot. Doing so would simply defeat your purpose (ie: the purpose of preventing an innocent person from going to prison for a long time, thus ruining their life).
Compromise is to be done when there is no other choice, not as a primary goal, sure. Of course I agree with that.
That said, delusional short term goals are equally counterproductive. The untimate goal should be to win freedom, and interim successes should be pursued as vigorously as the long term goals, and simultaneously. If an approach rejects interim successes, it should be rejected (such as violently opposing fellow libertarians, or supporting "purges" from the movement, because people are "not libertarian enough").
With those assumptions in mind, I'd most prefer to be working in WY, AK, or NH towards my goals (in that order). Those are a few states where the possibility of freedom is likely. Jamaica is also a possibility, according to a recent post on IPR. http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/02/steve-kubby-medical-marijuana-in-jamaica/
One great thing about this forum, is that it makes possible good information about every state's willingness to embrace freedom.
907-250-5503 (please call before 10pm Central Time)