It's not an accident that nice places to live have high tax rates
In a comment on Agorist Opportunity, Micha writes:
Meh, I wish the FreeStaters all the best, but it's not realy something I can personally get all that passionate about...Apart from the obvious costs of picking up and moving to a new state (which could be significantly, albeit not entirely, reduced by Patri's Dynamic Geography), it's also important to take into account the greater importance culture plays for most people than mere cost of living with gov't bureacracy.
He then quotes Nick Gillespie:
Fewer tax and regulatory hassles and, most important, a tremendously lower cost of living are, in the end, probably not that important to people.
Rather, I suspect the number of opportunities, for businesses and consumers alike, and something we might dub as "action"—a rough metric of buzz, restaurants, cool shops, weirdness, culture of all sorts—are far more important to most people in deciding where to live and work.
I think many people would agree that Manhattan is one of the best places to live in the country, although it's a bummer that it has such high tax rates. Many people would also agree that California is a lovely state, although it's too bad that it has such high tax rates.
This correspondence between tax rates and good places to live is no accident. It is exactly what the model of government as a stationary bandit, or my theory of Dynamic Geography, predict. Government works partly by exploiting fixed populations. The more the population likes its fixed location, the higher the rent that government can expropriate from them without driving them away.
For those of us who like culture and "action", this sort of sucks - it means that part of the value of anyplace cool will be taken away by the government. On the other hand, as a confirmation of my theories it is to some degree a confirmation of my solution - if we can somehow make a vibrant, productive economy on the ocean, we can, finally, have "action" without bandits exploiting it. That, in my very biased opinion, is what the let-down Ron Paul supporters should be devoting their energy to. And what, in at most a couple years, I will be focusing on.
 Apparently by someone named Mancur Olson who thought it was a good thing. Which it was, compared to what came before. But we can do better.