PDA

View Full Version : Secession thread.




boethius27
11-04-2008, 07:43 PM
It's time.

Let's rally some ideas.

Go!

heavenlyboy34
11-04-2008, 07:44 PM
It's time.

Let's rally some ideas.

Go!

Find a lawyer who knows how this is done, and I'll do my best to help ya! :D

kathy88
11-04-2008, 07:45 PM
I live in rural PA and I have a big barn. All welcome.

hypnagogue
11-04-2008, 07:46 PM
laff...

Anti Federalist
11-04-2008, 07:47 PM
Yes, now is the time.

The malfunctioning entity that has become the USA is now a clear and present danger to life and liberty.

It is time to divorce ourselves.

IrateNation
11-04-2008, 07:48 PM
It isn't going to be pretty. We just cannot sit still and take this.

boethius27
11-04-2008, 07:48 PM
I live in rural PA and I have a big barn. All welcome.

Brilliant! haha.

Bryan
11-04-2008, 07:50 PM
Many have tried here in Texas:
http://www.texassecede.com

It seems we're very well suited not being land locked and having been our own sovereign republic before but it goes no where. It will take years of pain for people to support it. We'll see.

IrateNation
11-04-2008, 07:57 PM
American Secession Project
http://www.secessionist.us/

Brian
11-04-2008, 08:07 PM
What are the most likely states to begin serious secession discussions? My picks: Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Nevada

boethius27
11-04-2008, 08:16 PM
Many have tried here in Texas:
http://www.texassecede.com

It seems we're very well suited not being land locked and having been our own sovereign republic before but it goes no where. It will take years of pain for people to support it. We'll see.

I could do texas. Ocean is key. Texas, Alaska, Hawaii... even starting small with an island might be best. There are a number of small islands here in Mass, but you'd have to have a hardcore group of people to actually take a small island and declare it yours haha. Even an unpopulated one. Not very feasible, but it would be a start that our government is pushing us ever towards!

gls
11-04-2008, 08:22 PM
This is an interesting project. Patri Friedman (Milton's grandson) left his job as a Google engineer to work on it full-time.

http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/images/BasicPlatform04.med.jpg

http://www.seasteading.org/learn-more/intro

Elwar
11-04-2008, 08:23 PM
What are the most likely states to begin serious secession discussions? My picks: Montana, Idaho, Alaska, Nevada

New Hampshire, Vermont and South Carolina come to mind.

boethius27
11-04-2008, 08:24 PM
This is an interesting project. Patri Friedman (Milton's grandson) left his job as a Google engineer to work on it full-time.

http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/images/BasicPlatform04.med.jpg

http://www.seasteading.org/learn-more/intro



That's awesome!!!!!!!!

I already live on a sailboat and am converting it to be entirely self sufficient. A seastead would be a HUGE upgrade, hah.

mconder
11-04-2008, 08:27 PM
http://www.jeffersonstate.com/

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 08:30 PM
FUck yeah.

You see those red states all over. Those don't matter because the winner takes all. It's time we withdrawl.

hypnagogue
11-04-2008, 08:36 PM
I don't see how a buoy in the ocean could be sustainable, let alone prosperous. Sure, a (classical) liberally run buoy would make the most of the resources it has, but that would still be a mean existence.

Nathan Hale
11-04-2008, 08:38 PM
It's time.

Let's rally some ideas.

Go!

Join the Free State Project (www.freestateproject.org). Move to New Hampshire. Join the secessionists among them (I'm not saying they're all secessionists, but there are notable secessionists among them).

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 08:47 PM
Secession (http://www.freestateproject.org/) NOW

kathy88
11-04-2008, 09:07 PM
RP got 16% in PA in the primaries.......

jave27
11-04-2008, 09:09 PM
Meh, why not. Let's all buy boats. :-)

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 09:11 PM
Meh, why not. Let's all buy boats. :-)

The Sovereign Republic of Boatatia. I like it.

tpreitzel
11-04-2008, 09:13 PM
Personally, I'd suggest those of you west of the Mississippi river all move to Montana. Those of you east of the Mississippi river move to New Hampshire within the next TWO years. With the price of gas at current lows, I'd plan on moving within the next month! :)

Grimnir Wotansvolk
11-04-2008, 09:15 PM
I've already been planning on building a secession movement the second I plant my feet in Colorado.

Anyone who wants to join me or help me out with http://www.secessioncolorado.org or http://www.freestatecolorado.org is more than welcome (because frankly, I don't have a clue)

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 09:17 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/Jefferson_state_flag.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/jefferson.jpg

Bryan
11-04-2008, 09:22 PM
This is an interesting project. Patri Friedman (Milton's grandson) left his job as a Google engineer to work on it full-time.

http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/images/BasicPlatform04.med.jpg

http://www.seasteading.org/learn-more/intro

Nice, but of course the UN will claim "jurisdiction" over the seas...

jave27
11-04-2008, 09:25 PM
The Sovereign Republic of Boatatia. I like it.

Exactly. Where exactly should we establish our base?

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 09:29 PM
Nice, but of course the UN will claim "jurisdiction" over the seas...

false.

tpreitzel
11-04-2008, 09:35 PM
Some one has already mentioned it, but the ONLY way to turn this ship around is through education and educating the masses means gaining access to their minds. At the Obama rallies, did you notice the reactions of the crowd? These people are massively brainwashed. Other than reaching the minds of the indoctrinated, secession is the only viable answer. Personally, we should be continue working toward both ends, but put more emphasis on secession. We need to bring both options to birth. If one state managed to secede, would it be easier to use it as a platform for gaining access to the brainwashed masses in other states? I think so. If Montana seceded, think of Montana as an independent state with enough resources for reaching out and touching her neighbors. ;)

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 09:38 PM
Some one has already mentioned it, but the ONLY way to turn this ship around is through education and educating the masses means gaining access to their minds. At the Obama rallies, did you notice the reactions of the crowd? These people are massively brainwashed. Other than reaching the minds of the indoctrinated, secession is the only viable answer. Personally, we should be continue working toward both ends, but put more emphasis on secession. We need to bring both options to birth. If one state managed to secede, would it be easier to use it as a platform for gaining access to the brainwashed masses in other states? I think so. If Montana seceded, think of Montana as an independent state with enough resources for reaching out and touching her neighbors. ;)

Secession would educate others.

If others saw successful seceding states then others would soon follow suit. Or change their policies.

After US seceded from Britian in 1776 this happened.

tpreitzel
11-04-2008, 09:38 PM
Could we, the people, also start an offshore, independent broadcast network similar to the VoA which would lie outside the jurisdiction of the FCC?

The Machine
11-04-2008, 09:40 PM
Those of you east of the Mississippi river move to New Hampshire within the next TWO years. With the price of gas at current lows, I'd plan on moving within the next month! :)

What's up with all the New Hampshire talk? The "Live Free or Die" state went big time for a socialist president...last place I would want to be, especially if actions speak louder than words. Another thing, you better bring a boat load of money, because it isn't a cheap place to live.

I think secession should be more of a state of mind, rather than a geographic location. Read "I'm Not A Number" by Clair Wolfe to understand what I'm talking about.

tremendoustie
11-04-2008, 09:44 PM
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/Jefferson_state_flag.jpg

http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/jefferson.jpg

Holy crap, that's ambitious. By the way, I don't advocate any form of violence, but if you want to stand up and defend yourself, this is the only even remotely moral way to do it, IMO. Move somewhere remote (with a bunch of other people preferably), buy the land, make sure you're self sufficient, and declare independence (defending yourself from incursions if necessary).

Anyone advocating aggressive violence against anyone is way over the line, IMO.

tremendoustie
11-04-2008, 09:47 PM
I don't see how a buoy in the ocean could be sustainable, let alone prosperous. Sure, a (classical) liberally run buoy would make the most of the resources it has, but that would still be a mean existence.

Make it big, import lots of dirt and plants, and float it somewhere rainy!! It's have to be many square miles before I'd think of moving there of course ...

tremendoustie
11-04-2008, 09:50 PM
What's up with all the New Hampshire talk? The "Live Free or Die" state went big time for a socialist president...last place I would want to be, especially if actions speak louder than words. Another thing, you better bring a boat load of money, because it isn't a cheap place to live.

I think secession should be more of a state of mind, rather than a geographic location. Read "I'm Not A Number" by Clair Wolfe to understand what I'm talking about.

If I mentally secede, do I still have to pay taxes to support corporate fat cats and aggressive war, or keep using FRNs? Or am I supposed to mentally secede in the cage they put me in when I don't pay them?

tpreitzel
11-04-2008, 09:50 PM
Secession would educate others.

If others saw successful seceding states then others would soon follow suit. Or change their policies.

After US seceded from Britian in 1776 this happened.

Maybe. Today, the world is much more tightly integrated by technology. Secession doesn't automatically mean better lives. Secession does mean that the bonds of the federal government will be broken that would enable a people to more easily return to principles of limited government. No more FCC, FDA, etc. * so the people in the independent state could use their newly found freedom to reach out to her neighbors which will likely cause the establishment in D.C. to brand the independent state a terrorist state. Oh, well. It's time to put up.

* Pressure would surely exist within the newly created state to establishment similar functions, though.

tremendoustie
11-04-2008, 09:53 PM
Maybe. Today, the world is much more tightly integrated by technology. Secession doesn't automatically mean better lives. Secession does mean that the bonds of the federal government will be broken that would enable a people to more easily return to principles of limited government. No more FCC, FDA, etc. so the people in the independent state could use their newly found freedom to reach out to her neighbors which will likely cause the establishment in D.C. to brand the independent state a terrorist state. Oh, well. It's time to put up.

The definition of the better life I want is a free life. I'd rather have liberty and no $5 lattes or gym memberships. Hell, I'd rather have liberty and scratch out a living on a farm for just enough to eat.

DGambler
11-04-2008, 09:54 PM
I'm focusing on secession for the next 4 years.

Libertarian Ideals
11-04-2008, 09:54 PM
THE THIRD NORTH AMERICAN SECESSIONIST CONVENTION
November 14-16, 2008 in Manchester, New Hampshire

http://middleburyinstitute.org/secessionconvention2008.html

See you there! ;)

The Machine
11-04-2008, 10:06 PM
If I mentally secede, do I still have to pay taxes to support corporate fat cats and aggressive war, or keep using FRNs? Or am I supposed to mentally secede in the cage they put me in when I don't pay them?

Obviously you never read the book I referenced nor do you seem to know about Claire Wolfe's other writings.

Basically it depends on how much you are willing to restructure your lifestyle. Self-sufficiency, bartering, self-employment, etc...these are the tools of a lifestyle of freedom and liberty in our system at this time--and can be done in a lot of places other than New Hampshire, Colorado, Montana, or the ocean.

I'm not against the ideas mentioned in this thread; just offering another alternative for folks that might not have the interest or means to physically relocate to another state or area.

tpreitzel
11-04-2008, 10:10 PM
THE THIRD NORTH AMERICAN SECESSIONIST CONVENTION
November 14-16, 2008 in Manchester, New Hampshire

http://middleburyinstitute.org/secessionconvention2008.html

See you there! ;)

Hopefully, the FSP will have good representation at the meeting. Personally, I'd like to see these conventions continue to move annually among the various states with secessionist organizations.

Dianne
11-04-2008, 10:21 PM
I can't believe we don't have one of Obama's 57 :) states that is willing to secede.. I was hoping it would be Montana or New Hampshire, but I'll take anything. How about a small state like Vermont?

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 10:22 PM
http://freestateproject.org/images/porc_magnet.240.gif

tremendoustie
11-04-2008, 10:25 PM
Obviously you never read the book I referenced nor do you seem to know about Claire Wolfe's other writings.

Basically it depends on how much you are willing to restructure your lifestyle. Self-sufficiency, bartering, self-employment, etc...these are the tools of a lifestyle of freedom and liberty in our system at this time--and can be done in a lot of places other than New Hampshire, Colorado, Montana, or the ocean.

I'm not against the ideas mentioned in this thread; just offering another alternative for folks that might not have the interest or means to physically relocate to another state or area.

I'm sorry, you are right - I am just a little angry right now, as you may have noticed. The question wasn't entirely factitious, though, and I don't have time to read her books now. Does she advocate refusing to pay taxes, and a refusal to use government services?

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 10:26 PM
http://www.republicofnh.org/platform.html

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 10:27 PM
http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051204/NEWS/512040351/1002

The_Orlonater
11-04-2008, 10:31 PM
I'll be 18 in about 3 years, will I be able to move to NH?

I am pissed off, fuck the United States. I need a new flag.

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 10:35 PM
http://users.dma.ucla.edu/~estevancarlos/images/lakotanation.jpg

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 10:36 PM
http://www.flagsbay.com/flag/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/texas.JPG

The Machine
11-04-2008, 10:40 PM
I'm sorry, you are right - I am just a little angry right now, as you may have noticed. The question wasn't entirely factitious, though, and I don't have time to read her books now. Does she advocate refusing to pay taxes, and a refusal to use government services?

No problem...I think a lot of folks are on "edge" right now due to this historical BS. Yes to your questions. She believes that we should ignore and turn away from the government that has enslaved us. I think the book is out of print now--maybe a copy can be found at Amazon or the internet--but I consider it essential reading for liberty minded people.

I live in a remote part of Appalachia and I personally know people who have lived "under the radar" for years...the government doesn't even know they exist. There are a lot of remote areas in the country where this can be done. The problem is, most people don't or won't have the stomach for it. It requires a major paradigm shift from the way most folks live, but it can--and is--being done by more people than you would think.

Good luck on your journey wherever it takes you!

tremendoustie
11-04-2008, 10:43 PM
I can't believe we don't have one of Obama's 57 :) states that is willing to secede.. I was hoping it would be Montana or New Hampshire, but I'll take anything. How about a small state like Vermont?

If Vermont secedes it will to be even more socialist. I think NH is more libertarian than you might believe. There are a lot of people who fall for the "lesser of two evils" crap, but go for liberty when given the option. Western sparsely populated states are options, but as far as eastern states, I don't think you'll do better than NH.

mediahasyou
11-04-2008, 10:45 PM
If Vermont secedes it will to be even more socialist. I think NH is more libertarian than you might believe. There are a lot of people who fall for the "lesser of two evils" crap, but go for liberty when given the option. Western sparsely populated states are options, but as far as eastern states, I don't think you'll do better than NH.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killington,_Vermont_secession_movement

OddballAZ
11-04-2008, 10:46 PM
http://www.freestatewyoming.org/

I like the idea of the Free State Project but, as was pointed out by people in NH during the primaries, far too many people from The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts have moved there to escape the problems, but then they continue to vote the same way. The population of NH is just too many. We need a state with the lowest population. That way we have a bigger impact.

Read the book "Molon Labe".

Scribbler de Stebbing
11-04-2008, 10:53 PM
Secession in the middle of this crazy continent isn't what I'd see as success. Tom Palin had the right idea in Alaska. It would stand a decent chance of being its own nation, as Hawaii would. We at least need coastline for imports and defense.

SovereignMN
11-04-2008, 10:57 PM
Here are some ideas in no particular order:

1) Alaska: Sparsly populated, lots of natural resources, secessionist support already present. Big con is that the feds wouldn't let this state go without a fight. Too much $$.

2) Oregon/Northern California

3) Montana or Wyoming: Big problem is that they are landlocked and don't have very good agriculture.

4) North Dakota and/or South Dakota: Eastern part of the states have agriculture. THey are landlocked though. Big plus is you might have strong ally with the Indian tribes.

5) Texas: Good location but the large population would make this very difficult, if not impossible.

6) Mississippi: This state always seems to have the most rebel tendencies.

7) Vermont: Has a strong secession movement already...problem is they are a socialist secession movement.

8) New Hampshire: Get rid of the transplanted Beantowners and it would be more realistic.

9) Canadian territories: Northern Canada has little/no population. If you could get people there quickly, you could take it over before the government knows what's going on. Problem is you'd have to find ways to smuggle guns in the country.

tpreitzel
11-04-2008, 10:57 PM
Secession in the middle of this crazy continent isn't what I'd see as success. Tom Palin had the right idea in Alaska. It would stand a decent chance of being its own nation, as Hawaii would. We at least need coastline for imports and defense.

Personally, I'd include mountains as important as access to an ocean.

tpreitzel
11-04-2008, 11:01 PM
3) Montana or Wyoming: Big problem is that they are landlocked and don't have very good agriculture.



Although I'll have to research the subject more, Montana seems to have a good variety of agricultural products necessary to sustain human life.

Scribbler de Stebbing
11-04-2008, 11:03 PM
Personally, I'd include mountains as important as access to an ocean.

Only for defense. We'd need egress and import capabilities. Else we'll have to deal with other states and the Fed for rights of passage.

ghengis86
11-04-2008, 11:05 PM
Alaska is the place (however unlikely).

SovereignMN
11-04-2008, 11:06 PM
Only for defense. We'd need egress and import capabilities. Else we'll have to deal with other states and the Fed for rights of passage.

Not to mention that you need the ability to grow your own food or else you'll be begging for table scraps.

Scribbler de Stebbing
11-04-2008, 11:07 PM
Alaska is the place (however unlikely).

Best potential. A ways away for most of us. But best for so many other reasons.

tpreitzel
11-04-2008, 11:07 PM
Only for defense. We'd need egress and import capabilities. Else we'll have to deal with other states and the Fed for rights of passage.

To a degree, yes, which is one reason why I'd advocate a state with more area and capability of sustaining itself. Cargo aircraft * equipped with defensive and offensive systems should help. Access to the ocean is a benefit, but I don't see a coastline as an absolute requirement for a self sustaining state.

* Vehicles will soon be capable of entering orbit.

tremendoustie
11-04-2008, 11:10 PM
That's true, Alaska would be great. Isn't there a relatively strong secessionist movement there already? What are the facts on that?

We could sell oil. And the US would have to go through Canada if they decided to get violent. Plus, psychologically, being separate lends more credibility to succession in peoples' minds, methinks.

john_anderson_ii
11-04-2008, 11:13 PM
It's time.

Let's rally some ideas.

Go!

These things usually start off with something like:



When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


Then it usually concludes with a list of grievances followed by a brutal and bloody war. It seems governments, even 'free nation' governments don't like to lose subjects..er citizens....

Historically it is the several states that gave birth to the Federal government, not the other way around There is no authorization within the constitution that enables the federal government to prevent a state from leaving the union and no longer recognizing the Federal government as the law of the land. However, the civil war and reconstruction made it pretty obvious that the federal government is willing and capable of overstepping it's bounds in this matter.

tremendoustie
11-04-2008, 11:19 PM
These things usually start off with something like:



Then it usually concludes with a list of grievances followed by a brutal and bloody war. It seems governments, even 'free nation' governments don't like to lose subjects..er citizens....

Historically it is the several states that gave birth to the Federal government, not the other way around There is no authorization within the constitution that enables the federal government to prevent a state from leaving the union and no longer recognizing the Federal government as the law of the land. However, the civil war and reconstruction made it pretty obvious that the federal government is willing and capable of overstepping it's bounds in this matter.

If the people of Alaska freely voted to secede by a large margin, and the US government came in and brutally subjugated them, it would be a colossal PR disaster for them. I really think that would be enough to make people realize that the US is not what it used to be.

SovereignMN
11-04-2008, 11:21 PM
If the people of Alaska freely voted to secede by a large margin, and the US government came in and brutally subjugated them, it would be a colossal PR disaster for them. I really think that would be enough to make people realize that the US is not what it used to be.

That isn't how it would go down. If it even looked like a secession vote might pass there would be federal operatives enacting terrorist attacks that make it seem like the rebels are not being peaceful. This would allow them to put them under their heel with plenty of domestic and international support.

Secession isn't going to be clean and pretty.

john_anderson_ii
11-04-2008, 11:31 PM
That isn't how it would go down. If it even looked like a secession vote might pass there would be federal operatives enacting terrorist attacks that make it seem like the rebels are not being peaceful. This would allow them to put them under their heel with plenty of domestic and international support.

Secession isn't going to be clean and pretty.

I agree to an extent.

In January of 1861 South Carolina held a state convention and under their parliamentary process rules voted to succeed from the United States. By April of 1861 the Federal government still refused to abandon federal garrisons in South Carolina, in short the Federal Government refused to remove military forces from foreign soil when the host country, South Carolina, asked them to. When the Federal Government attempted to resupply and reinforce Ft. Sumter a base located on land no longer under the preview of the Federal Government, South Carolina, like any sovereign nation took that as an act of war.

If Alaska were to succeed I'm sure the media and the Federal Government would never recognize Alaska as a foreign nation and would instead refer to it as 'civil unrest' or a 'state in rebellion', with a healthy helping of 'domestic terrorism' thrown in for good measure. The Federal Government would secure Alaska with the U.S. Military and have the rest of the nation's and the world's blessing in doing so.

tremendoustie
11-04-2008, 11:37 PM
That isn't how it would go down. If it even looked like a secession vote might pass there would be federal operatives enacting terrorist attacks that make it seem like the rebels are not being peaceful. This would allow them to put them under their heel with plenty of domestic and international support.

Secession isn't going to be clean and pretty.

How about quiet, de facto secession, then. Those interested could move to alaska (or montana, or wyoming), form independent communities, and never report taxes or otherwise support or participate in the state. Imports/Exports could be screened through holding companies -- i.e. Front Company A which resides in a well populated area takes our exports, purchases needed imports, and sends them along. It could operate with little or no profits to avoid taxation.

Scribbler de Stebbing
11-04-2008, 11:43 PM
How about quiet, de facto secession, then. Those interested could move to alaska (or montana, or wyoming), form independent communities, and never report taxes or otherwise support or participate in the state. Imports/Exports could be screened through holding companies -- i.e. Front Company A which resides in a well populated area takes our exports, purchases needed imports, and sends them along. It could operate with little or no profits to avoid taxation.

Better yet, garner enough support to reclaim powers under the Tenth Amendment. Then branch into the next state over and go from there. But the effort needs to be geographically concentrated.

This was probably the general idea behind the Free State Project, but there's never been the sense of desperation there is now.

john_anderson_ii
11-04-2008, 11:50 PM
How about quiet, de facto secession, then. Those interested could move to alaska (or montana, or wyoming), form independent communities, and never report taxes or otherwise support or participate in the state. Imports/Exports could be screened through holding companies -- i.e. Front Company A which resides in a well populated area takes our exports, purchases needed imports, and sends them along. It could operate with little or no profits to avoid taxation.

That's probably the best way to do it.

Think of California and it's medical marijuana status. California law forbids the arrest and prosecution of users of medical marijuana. Federal officers still arrest and prosecute Californians under Federal law, but they get no help or cooperation from the State of California in doing so.

If that sort of movement could spread to other issues, like taxation, gun rights, land rights, welfarism etc, and then that sort of philosiphy were to spread to several states. The Federal government would be very, very busy and very understaffed when faced with the burden of attempting to enforce federal law without state cooperation.

I'm sure there's an actual word for that kind of behavior, but it escapes me at this moment.

kojirodensetsu
11-05-2008, 02:08 AM
I wish we could secede but it doesn't seem realistic atm.. We'd need a lot of people to move to one place, and we would have to have the arms to defend against the world.

I just.. I don't know what to do. We're up against a corrupt country that is the leader of the world. People that I talk to never change their minds.

ryanduff
11-05-2008, 04:02 AM
I live in rural PA and I have a big barn. All welcome.

I'll be right over as soon as I load up my food supplies, guns and ammo! ;)

gilliganscorner
11-05-2008, 05:45 AM
Hello Everyone,

I like the concept of this thread. I am not sure if we can ever find and agree on a place where we would like to physically relocate to, but I wanted to offer a concept I wrote about on a previous thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1652039#post1652039):


Hello Folks,

I posted this previously in a tax thread that is now defunct, but I would really like to see if folks like this idea. I originally posted the below in another thread (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=151529) supporting Social Engineer's www.freemarketforliberty.com (http://www.freemarketforliberty.com)

This could lead to the most significant value to members of this forum.

-------------


As most of you know, we are unwilling or unwitting participants in the "red market", that is to say, we are enslaved to a taxation/inflation system backed by State violence. The State siphons off a HUGE (it wouldn't be out there to say 80% if you factor in ALL direct and indirect taxes you pay, and the REAL inflation rate - some say between 12 and 15%) of your productivity by confiscating your money directly via taxation, and indirectly via inflation.

You cannot trade your productivity for anything other than Federal Reserve Points (FRPs) in the red market - as you are required to report your earnings to the State for taxation, regulation, and confiscation. Legal tender laws ensure that. The State demands taxes be paid in FRPs. This creates an artificial demand for those notes that have an arbitrary unit (the dollar) whose purchasing power is stolen from you by an arbitrary force (the State/Banking cartel - a.k.a The Federal Reserve). In other words, the State ensures that Gresham's Law works (http://gilliganscorner.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/greshams-law-only-works-because-of-state-violence/).

If you do not pay your taxes, the State will ultimately (after a great deal of harassment) deploy bad guys wearing clown suits and shiny badges to your house with guns to waterboard you and your family. It is raw terrorism. Who are you more afraid of? The State or some guy allegedly hiding in a cave with bad kidneys (who is more than likely dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zScYmvmANcA)) half-way around the world, or the IRS Terrorist Regime? I think we all know the answer to that question.

OK, Back on track.

We all know the US is bankrupt. It is only a matter of time before the economic system we are enslaved to implodes. The only reason that it has not collapsed like a third rate banana republic is that it's dollar is still viewed as the world's reserve currency (thanks to the Bretton Woods agreement that created the US dollar hegemony)...But that viewpoint is rapidly changing as Dr. Paul noted in this speech to Congress in February of 2006 (http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr021506.htm).

Prior to the implosion, you will feel the pain of your dollar losing value by seeing it in soaring prices. Average Americans, lobotomized of critical thinking skills and authoritarian brainwashing by government indoctrination camps we call "public education", will turn to the State pleading "something has to be done!" which of course the State will expand it's reach, size, and power like never before, similar to how the Fed is seeking greater expansion, essentially to nationalize the financially industry via the excuse of the recent $9/11 "credit crisis" hoax. The subverted MSM will do it's best to whip people into a frenzy by scaring the shit out of them via establishment deflections such as I.O.U.S.A. This is the same thing that happened in the 30's when the Fed CAUSED the Great Depression that allowed FDR to usher in the raw deal called the "New Deal" - arguably the greatest expansion of the State ever seen.

That all said, setting up a counter-economy network of trading partners prior to the coming crash is ABSOLUTELY crucial. Most of us lack the means to produce all the goods we need. This is why we need to identify trading partners and establish relationships now. This is how we take individual responsibility for ourselves into our hands and not wait for the State to violently fuck us over.

Social Engineer has provided the first step to identify potential trading partners. I would like to see this also grow into a site where people can identify potential employers/employees who are willing to trade their services using whatever money that is sound (i.e. probably gold or silver coins - but people are free to trade in whatever commodity they wish of course).

Initially, I foresee most people working part time in this counter economy (it actually has a name - "agorism (http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/2961/41106.aspx#41106)"), as we cannot work full time in it, due to the requirement of paying taxes in Federal Reserve Points, or we would need to purchase something in the red market that is not available from participants on SC's site...yet. You need gas? You would still have to get that from a red market participant...until an independent stepped into SC's website and was willing to trade sound money (i.e. not Federal Reserve Points). In the red market, if I hire you, I am required to report the transaction to the IRS. When you are paid, you are required to pay your taxes to the IRS. You literally need Federal Reserve permission points to work!

By participating in what SC has set up, we get to protect the fruits of our labor from theft via taxation and inflation - provided we make the transition to sound money. Even if the State doesn't collapse during our working lifetime, we still profit from our activity. I think this is the only mechanism that stands a non-zero chance of success. For those of you who have read "Atlas Shrugged", it is a virtual Galt's Gulch, but you get to hide in plain sight!

Even if the State catches on and writes up some arbitrary rules to shut SC's site down, by then we would have established the network of trading partners - on pen and paper. New sites would spring up. Perhaps a P2P application will be built that facilitates trade with each other instead of files. The nice thing about P2P is that it is not centralized and would be difficult for the State to violently shut it down. It would be a "killer app".

Perhaps this site could be used where actors in the market rank the participant's trustworthiness. A State mole might be able to set up shop, but would not get far in the network.

I don't want to speak for you SC or hijack your idea to somewhere you didn't intend the purpose to go, but I thought I would highlight some possibilities to participants or lurkers in this thread.

Thoughts?

Let me know what you think.

Dianne
11-05-2008, 06:15 AM
I think Alaska is a good thought. Most I've met from Alaska are pretty hard headed and independent... A shame the free state project didn't look at that state.

muzzled dogg
11-05-2008, 06:25 AM
http://www.vtcommons.org/files/images/Billout_0.jpg

Dianne
11-05-2008, 06:38 AM
Here is one solution:

http://www.akip.org/

Start by joining this group !!


Welcome to the home of
The Alaskan Independence Party
For ALL Media contact. Please contact Lynette Clark, Alaskan Independence Party Chair


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are the only Alaskan political party that is entirely composed of Alaskans, staffed by Alaskans and financed by Alaskans. We are not affiliated with any political party with a similiar sounding name in other parts of the United States.

The continual growth of membership of the Alaskan Independence Party has created one of the largest third parties in the United states. We used to be the largest, so we are trying harder to regain that position. Join us as we lead Alaska to the prosperity and freedom that Alaskans expect, deserve and should enjoy.

The AIP is Proud to support Bob Bird for the Senate of the United States. For more information on Mr. Bird, please visit his web site. We also Have Don Wright Running for U.S. House of Representatives. His contact information can be found on our links page. We have also endorsed the Presidential candidacy of the Constitution Party, Charles Baldwin.

The Alaskan Independence Party can be summed up in just two words:

ALASKA FIRST!

Until we as Alaskans receive our Ultimate Goal, the AIP will continue to strive to make Alaska a better place to live with less government interference in our everyday lives.
The Alaskan Independence Party's goal is the vote we were entitled to in 1958, one choice from among the following four alternatives:
1) Remain a Territory.
2) Become a separate and Independent Nation.
3) Accept Commonwealth status.
4) Become a State.The call for this vote is in furtherance of the dream of the Alaskan Independence Party's founding father, Joe Vogler, which was for Alaskans to achieve independence under a minimal government, fully responsive to the people, promoting a peaceful and lawful means of resolving differences.

Libertarian Ideals
11-05-2008, 08:02 AM
http://www.vtcommons.org/files/images/Billout_0.jpg

You have it backwards. :D

http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/joinordie2.jpg
http://freestateproject.org/images/porc_magnet.240.gif

mediahasyou
11-05-2008, 08:24 AM
http://www.dcpoliticalreport.com/PartySymbols/aip.gif

fedup100
11-05-2008, 08:54 AM
New Hampshire, Vermont and South Carolina come to mind.

After last night showing for O in Vermont and New Hampshire, they can forget their free state projects. No way anywhere up North, those folks are PC correct lovers of ddddiiivvvveeerrrssiiiitttty!

tremendoustie
11-05-2008, 09:30 AM
After last night showing for O in Vermont and New Hampshire, they can forget their free state projects. No way anywhere up North, those folks are PC correct lovers of ddddiiivvvveeerrrssiiiitttty!

Don't like the undertones of this either. What's with these borderline offensive statements all the sudden. Diversity is great, but people of all races and creeds can be statists who oppose liberty, and two of them were our top vote getters yesterday, with 97% of the populace were suckered into voting for them.

tremendoustie
11-05-2008, 09:33 AM
How about this for civil disobedience, for those who don't mind risking jail:

Go for the agorism now, just trade in silver or other goods. They'd have a hard time enforcing laws against this anyway.

ShowMeLiberty
11-05-2008, 09:58 AM
THE THIRD NORTH AMERICAN SECESSIONIST CONVENTION
November 14-16, 2008 in Manchester, New Hampshire

http://middleburyinstitute.org/secessionconvention2008.html

See you there! ;)

I can't be there but I'm very anxious to find out how it goes this year.

Here's another interesting idea: http://www.texas.freecountries.org/

"Note that, unlike the various militant RT factions, we are not trying to "take over" Texas, as we realize that most people are unaware of our true history and either support the statist quo or just don't care. So we're willing to share jurisdiction - let each Texan have the choice to decide individually whether to get their government services from the USA, or the CRA, or the URT, or the Common Law Institute, or their own tribe if applicable, or whatever combination they prefer. Our desire for peaceful coexistence is symbolized by our flag above, which subtly combines the Lone Star flag with the Bonnie Blue (Burnett) flag."

This United Republic of Texas group will be attending the secessionist convention, I believe.

fedup100
11-05-2008, 10:12 AM
Don't like the undertones of this either. What's with these borderline offensive statements all the sudden. Diversity is great, but people of all races and creeds can be statists who oppose liberty, and two of them were our top vote getters yesterday, with 97% of the populace were suckered into voting for them.

They were suckered by PC correctness and diversity. No undertones what so ever, your comment has undertones that if one does not buy into the new ussa of diversity then THEY are racists and bigots.

And we wonder how we woke up to a marxist President this morning?

Kruniac
11-05-2008, 10:20 AM
Unless a Secession is going to take place, there is no use talking about it on the Ron Paul forums, save for the fact that it may make yourselves feel better.

Someone who has a leader mentality needs to actually DO something, or we should just admit that we are simply passing words by each other, coming together in our malcontent, all to feel better about the sad situation going on.

ShowMeLiberty
11-05-2008, 10:28 AM
Unless a Secession is going to take place, there is no use talking about it on the Ron Paul forums, save for the fact that it may make yourselves feel better.

Someone who has a leader mentality needs to actually DO something, or we should just admit that we are simply passing words by each other, coming together in our malcontent, all to feel better about the sad situation going on.

There ARE leaders DOING things.
http://middleburyinstitute.org/secessionconvention2008.html

mediahasyou
11-05-2008, 03:19 PM
America seceded from England because they objected to paying ANY taxes.

Today we are yet to secede, but our taxes are all going through the roof. Stop sleeping. Start moving. Group up. Stand strong, together.

Gain power in numbers.

The_Orlonater
11-05-2008, 04:40 PM
Unless a Secession is going to take place, there is no use talking about it on the Ron Paul forums, save for the fact that it may make yourselves feel better.

Someone who has a leader mentality needs to actually DO something, or we should just admit that we are simply passing words by each other, coming together in our malcontent, all to feel better about the sad situation going on.

We've always kept trying. I'm tired of trying, we're seceding.

OddballAZ
11-05-2008, 08:01 PM
Here is the populations of the top 3 states I think that have the most potential:

Montana - 957,861
Alaska - 683,478
Wyoming - 522,830

The lowest population will of course help. Less people = less of a chance we have big government liberals or neo cons to deal with.

Here is why the Free State Project in New Hampshire was doomed to failure from the start:

New Hampshire 1,315,828 (and only God knows how many Libs from The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts are moving there every day).

Alaska would be good for trade but if they want war you're not going to trade from Alaska easily at all. You have a border with Canada, and other than that you would be blocked by the Navy. A land locked state could at least trade through front companies to several different states and be able to get guns/ammo from them as long as it's still legal in those states.

No matter what it would be hard to do. But it's possible if you get a good Freedom movement going in a state you could bring the nearby states into it. Then that could even spread to the rest of the country if we're lucky.

mediahasyou
11-05-2008, 10:19 PM
Secession must, at the least, be a threat to the national government.

The Feds need to be fear mongered by the states so the Feds don't overstep their rights.

There is no threat of secession. Therefore, our freewill and rights are in the process of destruction.

libertarian4321
11-06-2008, 04:51 AM
It's time.

Let's rally some ideas.

Go!

Some people say Ron Paul people are "kooks"- its threads like this that make them thing we are "kooks."

BTW, "secession" has been tried before. Resulted in something called the Civil War.

As I recall, it ended badly for the secessionists.

So I pose this question to you. Lets say, for the sake of argument, you get the entire state of Colorado (or whatever) to agree to secede.

How do you plan to defeat the most powerful military in the world which will arrive in less than 24 hours, armed to the teeth, and ready to quell the "secession."?

gilliganscorner
11-06-2008, 05:26 AM
Some people say Ron Paul people are "kooks"- its threads like this that make them thing we are "kooks."

BTW, "secession" has been tried before. Resulted in something called the Civil War.

As I recall, it ended badly for the secessionists.

So I pose this question to you. Lets say, for the sake of argument, you get the entire state of Colorado (or whatever) to agree to secede.

How do you plan to defeat the most powerful military in the world which will arrive in less than 24 hours, armed to the teeth, and ready to quell the "secession."?

Ding ding! We have a winner. This is why I think agorism is the only mechanism to beat the State, show a profit, and have our network of trading partners established when the State ultimately collapses.

Trying to reform the State through the political process will take years, if at all possible, as the flaw in that is that you are asking the State to help you with the implementation.

You can start agorism TODAY.

boethius27
11-06-2008, 07:55 AM
Some people say Ron Paul people are "kooks"- its threads like this that make them thing we are "kooks."

BTW, "secession" has been tried before. Resulted in something called the Civil War.

As I recall, it ended badly for the secessionists.

So I pose this question to you. Lets say, for the sake of argument, you get the entire state of Colorado (or whatever) to agree to secede.

How do you plan to defeat the most powerful military in the world which will arrive in less than 24 hours, armed to the teeth, and ready to quell the "secession."?

I don't think that getting an entire state to secede is a good idea or one that would work. Lots of people who don't want to secede would be stuck in a state that is seceding and that is no good.

I'm not sure how it would work, but a thread to talk about freedom ideals-such as secession-is just here to stimulate minds and grow ideas.

Personally, I think there are some small places such as national forests and national parks that could be essentially claimed. You'd end up in jail and it wouldn't be so easy as just trying to reverse imminent domain upon the government, but if you had a fair number of people and a plan to begin a new community, then perhaps under the right circumstances it could grow into a peaceful coup. NOT likely, but unless ideas are shared and communicated then it REALLY isn't likely.

I favor the idea of a small island so that borders are definable and so that you aren't literally surrounded by the US.

Small island, a few houses, enough solar panels to allow comfortable living, and it wouldn't really be that difficult until you all stopped paying your taxes and declared yourselves free. It is a move that could garner local support from the nearest communities and perhaps begin to spread.

Is any of this likely? No. But hey, it can't hurt to talk and people have called me kooky for years, but I still like to feel like I have some freedom and I enjoy the company of those who can discuss it with me.

The Machine
11-06-2008, 09:09 PM
What's up with all the New Hampshire talk? The "Live Free or Die" state went big time for a socialist president...last place I would want to be, especially if actions speak louder than words. Another thing, you better bring a boat load of money, because it isn't a cheap place to live.

I think secession should be more of a state of mind, rather than a geographic location. Read "I'm Not A Number" by Clair Wolfe to understand what I'm talking about.


Obviously you never read the book I referenced nor do you seem to know about Claire Wolfe's other writings.

Basically it depends on how much you are willing to restructure your lifestyle. Self-sufficiency, bartering, self-employment, etc...these are the tools of a lifestyle of freedom and liberty in our system at this time--and can be done in a lot of places other than New Hampshire, Colorado, Montana, or the ocean.

I'm not against the ideas mentioned in this thread; just offering another alternative for folks that might not have the interest or means to physically relocate to another state or area.


No problem...I think a lot of folks are on "edge" right now due to this historical BS. Yes to your questions. She believes that we should ignore and turn away from the government that has enslaved us. I think the book is out of print now--maybe a copy can be found at Amazon or the internet--but I consider it essential reading for liberty minded people.

I live in a remote part of Appalachia and I personally know people who have lived "under the radar" for years...the government doesn't even know they exist. There are a lot of remote areas in the country where this can be done. The problem is, most people don't or won't have the stomach for it. It requires a major paradigm shift from the way most folks live, but it can--and is--being done by more people than you would think.

Good luck on your journey wherever it takes you!

It's funny how things seem to go in a circle...I just didn't call it agorism ;)

tpreitzel
11-06-2008, 09:24 PM
I'll take secession from the oppressive state. A police state won't ask permission, and technology won't permit anyone to hide for very long. Regardless, everyone should be as self-sufficient as possible as a matter of lifestyle, but ...

The Machine
11-06-2008, 09:59 PM
No thanks! I'll take secession from the oppressive state. A police state won't ask permission, and technology won't permit anyone to hide for very long.

Are you referring to agorism? While I would totally support a grandiose secession scheme; I'm personally taking the immediate, practical approach of disassociation from the "system".

With all the technology at the military's disposal, why were Afghan rebels still able to move about undetected? I'll give you a hint...it has something to do with sheep.

justinc.1089
11-06-2008, 09:59 PM
Ok the thread here is 10 pages long, so forgive me for not reading it lol.

Do you ever wonder why we didn't get world government right after world war 1 or 2? The simple, ultimate answer is.... the South.

Take a look at electoral maps on wikipedia, and you will find for the entire history of the country, at least 3/4 of the time, the southern states have voted for the small government presidential candidate. We would have total world government by now if it was not for the South slowing the progresss consistently through history.

I don't get why talk about picking some state always ends up with seemingly random states like Montana, Alaska, or even Colorado or New Hampshire, both states that are going to liberal big government politicians now. Montana is completely pointless for a state to try to secede with because the Western states for the most part simply aren't that against the drift of American politics. Sometimes they side towards conservative government, sometimes they split like this election, and sometimes they side with big government, but the western states are not one way or the other. Alaska has potential to secede, and already has a movement going on, which Sarah Palin was a part of, who many of you mock because the media has convinced you she's stupid, (they do that because she's not corrupt), so Alaska could be a decent choice for secession but not a great one. Colorado is not a good choice because Colorado is not all that conservative or libertarian at all from the recent voting it has done. It is also smack inside America with tons of states surrounding it, so even if the people in it wanted to secede it would be hard to make it happen. And New Hampshire is a joke, the North-eastern states have been voting for big government politicians for like forever, believe in it, and are not discontented with whats happening enough to secede.

The South is the cradle of liberty for the world right now because it is the only thing that has slowed down the tide of big government, one-world government politicians in the history of our country.

The South seceded before already! Anyone remember the Confederate States of America? And guess what? People here keep mentioning secession again because of this election! So what place is ready to secede? The South! Look at an electoral map, and you will see the divide between the South and the rest of the country; the South believes in the kind of government we believe in.

If you want secession from the government, you must go to the area where people live that disagree with the government. The Southern people have disagreed with the government through our entire history, and do now more than they have in quite awhile. The South wants very little government unlike the rest of the country. The most conservative, anti-government presidential candidate can ALWAYS count on SOUTH CAROLINA to go to them. ALWAYS.

South Carolina is the ONLY state you could possibly pull off a successful secessionist movement in, and then it would result in a blood-bath too, and it would probably fail as well. But thats the only way it could possibly happen, maaaaaaayyybbee Alaska by a very, very small chance, but I'm doubtful about Alaska seceding.

heavenlyboy34
11-06-2008, 09:59 PM
I'll take secession from the oppressive state. A police state won't ask permission, and technology won't permit anyone to hide for very long. Regardless, everyone should be as self-sufficient as possible as a matter of lifestyle, but ...

Nobody does it, though! When I was a kid, I thought adults were all independent and intelligent. Then I learned about the welfare state, and that illusion was shattered forever. :p

tpreitzel
11-06-2008, 10:27 PM
Ok the thread here is 10 pages long, so forgive me for not reading it lol.

Do you ever wonder why we didn't get world government right after world war 1 or 2? The simple, ultimate answer is.... the South.

Take a look at electoral maps on wikipedia, and you will find for the entire history of the country, at least 3/4 of the time, the southern states have voted for the small government presidential candidate. We would have total world government by now if it was not for the South slowing the progresss consistently through history.

I don't get why talk about picking some state always ends up with seemingly random states like Montana, Alaska, or even Colorado or New Hampshire, both states that are going to liberal big government politicians now. Montana is completely pointless for a state to try to secede with because the Western states for the most part simply aren't that against the drift of American politics. Sometimes they side towards conservative government, sometimes they split like this election, and sometimes they side with big government, but the western states are not one way or the other. Alaska has potential to secede, and already has a movement going on, which Sarah Palin was a part of, who many of you mock because the media has convinced you she's stupid, (they do that because she's not corrupt), so Alaska could be a decent choice for secession but not a great one. Colorado is not a good choice because Colorado is not all that conservative or libertarian at all from the recent voting it has done. It is also smack inside America with tons of states surrounding it, so even if the people in it wanted to secede it would be hard to make it happen. And New Hampshire is a joke, the North-eastern states have been voting for big government politicians for like forever, believe in it, and are not discontented with whats happening enough to secede.

The South is the cradle of liberty for the world right now because it is the only thing that has slowed down the tide of big government, one-world government politicians in the history of our country.

The South seceded before already! Anyone remember the Confederate States of America? And guess what? People here keep mentioning secession again because of this election! So what place is ready to secede? The South! Look at an electoral map, and you will see the divide between the South and the rest of the country; the South believes in the kind of government we believe in.

If you want secession from the government, you must go to the area where people live that disagree with the government. The Southern people have disagreed with the government through our entire history, and do now more than they have in quite awhile. The South wants very little government unlike the rest of the country. The most conservative, anti-government presidential candidate can ALWAYS count on SOUTH CAROLINA to go to them. ALWAYS.

South Carolina is the ONLY state you could possibly pull off a successful secessionist movement in, and then it would result in a blood-bath too, and it would probably fail as well. But thats the only way it could possibly happen, maaaaaaayyybbee Alaska by a very, very small chance, but I'm doubtful about Alaska seceding.

Personally, I think you should read through this thread. :) Your heart is in the right place, however...just a tad late for a southern state to secede IMO. I'd love to be wrong, though.

The_Orlonater
11-06-2008, 11:06 PM
Some people say Ron Paul people are "kooks"- its threads like this that make them thing we are "kooks."

BTW, "secession" has been tried before. Resulted in something called the Civil War.

As I recall, it ended badly for the secessionists.

So I pose this question to you. Lets say, for the sake of argument, you get the entire state of Colorado (or whatever) to agree to secede.

How do you plan to defeat the most powerful military in the world which will arrive in less than 24 hours, armed to the teeth, and ready to quell the "secession."?


That was because of the disgusting federalists. A lot of southerners wanted to own slaves, and there was strong opposition towards these states, so they left. Slaves were a huge part of the South's economy, and the work was done by slaves. I understand there were more reasons(like protectionism) ,but it was a good reason. We are wanting to secede because of the way our government is heading. Besides, why would the rest of the United States want us? SO they can exploit our wealth so the bureaucrats can spend it wastefully? We keep trying to change the government, but our fascist media keeps brainwashing the people. A lot of the people were stupid to begin with, but still. If these deficits, trade deficits, nationalization of the financial markets(who knows what else can be nationalized even more, education?! :eek:). We will go out peacefully, most of our liberty candidates lost, badly. The LP only got .40% of the vote(Around that margin,I believe) So we have to work our ass off, again. The people distrust the GOP(who wouldn't?). I don't think they'll give us another chance. The only modern third party canidate the sheep know of is probably Nader.

I don't care if this is a defeatist attitude, I can't stand this. I'm leaving, and I encourage you all to join.

justinc.1089
11-07-2008, 11:08 AM
That was because of the disgusting federalists. A lot of southerners wanted to own slaves, and there was strong opposition towards these states, so they left. Slaves were a huge part of the South's economy, and the work was done by slaves. I understand there were more reasons(like protectionism) ,but it was a good reason. We are wanting to secede because of the way our government is heading. Besides, why would the rest of the United States want us? SO they can exploit our wealth so the bureaucrats can spend it wastefully? We keep trying to change the government, but our fascist media keeps brainwashing the people. A lot of the people were stupid to being with, but still. If these deficits, trade deficits, nationalization of the financial markets(who knows what else can be nationalized even more, education?! :eek:). We will go out peacefully, most of our liberty candidates lost, badly. The LP only got .40% of the vote(Around that margin,I believe) So we have to work our ass off, again. The people distrust the GOP(who wouldn't?). I don't think they'll give us another chance. The only modern third party canidate the sheep know of is probably Nader.

I don't care if this is a defeatist attitude, I can't stand this. I'm leaving, and I encourage you all to join.

Slavery was one of a few major reasons the South left. The idea of the civil war being fought over only slavery is a myth that comes from the North. Sorry if you're from the North but its true, it wasn't only over slavery.

Another thing too, the South was an extremely big portion of the taxes going into the federal government at the time, so do you think the politicians really, truly wanted an end to slavery in the North? They didn't, they were using it for political gain since there was an anti-slavery movement in the North.

justinc.1089
11-07-2008, 11:37 AM
I don't think that getting an entire state to secede is a good idea or one that would work. Lots of people who don't want to secede would be stuck in a state that is seceding and that is no good.

When the American revolution started, only 10% of the population was for a revolution. Later once it got going more of the population joined once they saw the British killing their fellow Americans.

I'm not sure how it would work, but a thread to talk about freedom ideals-such as secession-is just here to stimulate minds and grow ideas.

Personally, I think there are some small places such as national forests and national parks that could be essentially claimed. You'd end up in jail and it wouldn't be so easy as just trying to reverse imminent domain upon the government, but if you had a fair number of people and a plan to begin a new community, then perhaps under the right circumstances it could grow into a peaceful coup. NOT likely, but unless ideas are shared and communicated then it REALLY isn't likely.

Just like Native Americans keep trying? That worked out great for them so far.

I favor the idea of a small island so that borders are definable and so that you aren't literally surrounded by the US.

Borders would be easy to define, but having ocean around you really isn't too much better than land since we have such a powerful navy and all.

Small island, a few houses, enough solar panels to allow comfortable living, and it wouldn't really be that difficult until you all stopped paying your taxes and declared yourselves free. It is a move that could garner local support from the nearest communities and perhaps begin to spread.

Is any of this likely? No. But hey, it can't hurt to talk and people have called me kooky for years, but I still like to feel like I have some freedom and I enjoy the company of those who can discuss it with me.

Same here.

justinc.1089
11-07-2008, 11:53 AM
Hmm I wonder where in the United States would secede......

(look at the electoral maps through our entire history would be a good place to start looking at....)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_presidential_election

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1964

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1952


(LOOK A THIRD PARTY VICTORY!!!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1948

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1928

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1924

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1920

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1904

(LOOK SOMEONE HAD ALREADY SECEDED BEFORE!!!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1864

(LOOK A 4TH PARTY VICTORY!!!!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1836

(ANOTHER 4TH PARTY VICTORY!!!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1832

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1828

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1824

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1796

cthulhufan
11-07-2008, 12:12 PM
Slavery was one of a few major reasons the South left. The idea of the civil war being fought over only slavery is a myth that comes from the North. Sorry if you're from the North but its true, it wasn't only over slavery.

Another thing too, the South was an extremely big portion of the taxes going into the federal government at the time, so do you think the politicians really, truly wanted an end to slavery in the North? They didn't, they were using it for political gain since there was an anti-slavery movement in the North.

QFT but ,dear god, trying to get people to understand that without them writing you off as a racist pig is extremely hard. Believe me, I don't start the discussion with

"The south should have won!"

I try more for something along the lines of

"Well, you know, state rights were pretty effectively put to bed by the civil war. It was about expansion of Federal power and money..."

It's just hard to breach and get anything other than a wide eyed stare of disbelief.

justinc.1089
11-07-2008, 02:23 PM
QFT but ,dear god, trying to get people to understand that without them writing you off as a racist pig is extremely hard. Believe me, I don't start the discussion with

"The south should have won!"

I try more for something along the lines of

"Well, you know, state rights were pretty effectively put to bed by the civil war. It was about expansion of Federal power and money..."

It's just hard to breach and get anything other than a wide eyed stare of disbelief.

Yeah so true. It also sounds like you're a Southern redneck if you say the South should have won, or that you wish the South had its own country today too. I'm not sure if I wish the South would have won or not because of slavery, I probably do slightly lean that way, but probably because I think slavery would have come to an end if the South had won too. But it probably would have taken a good bit longer which I hate to admit. Its really saddening and embarrassing to me that my ancestors enslaved people.

Xenophage
11-07-2008, 03:23 PM
Secession won't work without a strong collective identity. Even though 10% of Americans were for the revolution, the other 90% still thought of themselves as American moreso than British, and this is why they came around.

justinc.1089
11-07-2008, 10:54 PM
Secession won't work without a strong collective identity. Even though 10% of Americans were for the revolution, the other 90% still thought of themselves as American moreso than British, and this is why they came around.

Ok change Americans to Southerners, and we have "Even though 10% of Southerners were for the revolution, the other 90% still thought of themselves as Southerners more than American, and this is why they came around."

That statement is true of the South today in my opinion. I would think about 5% to maybe even 15% would be for the South leaving the United States now. I mean I'm absolutely not hardcore southern or redneck, I feel like it saying this stuff but I have never said it until now lol, but I know there are plenty of hardcore southerners out there that have wanted to have their own country their entire lives.

The_Orlonater
11-07-2008, 11:15 PM
Slavery was one of a few major reasons the South left. The idea of the civil war being fought over only slavery is a myth that comes from the North. Sorry if you're from the North but its true, it wasn't only over slavery.

Another thing too, the South was an extremely big portion of the taxes going into the federal government at the time, so do you think the politicians really, truly wanted an end to slavery in the North? They didn't, they were using it for political gain since there was an anti-slavery movement in the North.

Quote me when I said "only." You didn't read carefully.

Andrew-Austin
11-07-2008, 11:43 PM
I'll move to New Hampshire if someone wants to set me up a job... :p

presence
08-07-2016, 02:05 PM
..