The Secessionist Campaign for the Republic of Vermont - Time

[purplechoe]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1957743,00.html



The Secessionist Campaign for the Republic of Vermont
By Christopher Ketcham / Montpelier Sunday, Jan. 31, 2010

The President on Wednesday may have reassured Americans that the state of the Union is "strong," but, just the week before, a group of Vermont secessionists declared their intention to seek political power in a quest to get their state to quit the Union altogether. On Jan. 15, in the state capital of Montpelier, nine candidates for statewide office gathered in a tiny room at the Capitol Plaza Hotel, to announce they wanted a divorce from the United States of America. "For the first time in over 150 years, secession and political independence from the U.S. will be front and center in a statewide New England political campaign," said Thomas Naylor, 73, one of the leaders of the campaign.

A former Duke University economics professor, Naylor heads up the Second Vermont Republic, which he describes as "left-libertarian, anti-big government, anti-empire, antiwar, with small is beautiful as our guiding philosophy." The group not only advocates the peaceful secession of Vermont but has minted its own silver "token" — valued at $25 — and, as part of a publishing venture with another secessionist group, runs a monthly newspaper called Vermont Commons, with a circulation of 10,000. According to a 2007 poll, they have support from at least 13% of state voters. The campaign slogan, Naylor told me, is "Imagine Free Vermont." In his fondest imaginings, Naylor said, Vermonters would not be "forced to participate in killing women and children in the Middle East."

Second Vermont Republic's gubernatorial candidate is Dennis Steele, 42, a hulking Carhartt-clad fifth generation Vermonter and entrepreneur. He owns Radio Free Vermont, an Internet radio station, and honchos an online venture called ChessManiac.com. Steele says that, if elected, his first act in office would be to bring home Vermont's National Guard from overseas deployments. "I see my kids going off to fight in wars for empire 10, 15, 20 years from now," said Steele, who served three years in the U.S. Army. "People in Vermont in general are very antiwar, and all their faith was in Obama to end the wars. I ask people, 'Did you get the change you wanted?' They can't even look you in the eyes. We live in a nation that is asleep at the wheel and where the hearts are growing cold like ice."

Steele and the secessionists have nothing but contempt for Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Patrick Leahy, who are otherwise considered among the most liberal members of Congress. "They've done nothing to stop the wars," says Steele flatly. Thomas Naylor was more pointed: "Every time a Vermonter serving in the National Guard gets deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, likely to be hurt or killed, Bernie and Patrick are there to commemorate the departure and have pictures taken."

...continued at the above link...

[PreDeadMan]

Wow imagine that!.... This is great news :) If Vermont really secedes that might sound like a plan for me :)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Wow imagine that!.... This is great news :) If Vermont really secedes that might sound like a plan for me :)

Eh, I don't think many of us will move to VT. They are very left-libertarian. If you like syndicalism I suppose it will be a good move for you. I would bet on NH seceeding if VT seceeded, so I would expect for us Market libertarians to move there where our ideas are championed. Keeniacs > VT :D

[LittleLightShining]

Eh, I don't think many of us will move to VT. They are very left-libertarian. If you like syndicalism I suppose it will be a good move for you. I would bet on NH seceeding if VT seceeded, so I would expect for us Market libertarians to move there where our ideas are championed. Keeniacs > VT :D

I agree with you except for the left-libertarian part. Most of these guys are pretty much disenfranchised Progressives.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I agree with you except for the left-libertarian part. Most of these guys are pretty much disenfranchised Progressives.

Hmmmm. The people of VT seem pretty libertarian to me when it comes to Aggression (War) and civil liberties (Gun rights, privacy, etc.). They absolutely blow when it comes to Economics though (which us Free-Market libertarians label as tyranny :p), which, again, accounts for their left position on the Nolan Scale. Am I wrong in this picture or what?

[Pennsylvania]

It's probably just that most Vermonters aren't actually familiar with prominent left-libertarians and their works. Left-libertarians have a clear vision, or set of visions, of how their brand of a stateless society would work. Disgruntled democrats don't have that. They just wish big scary businesses were more regulated.

[LittleLightShining]

Hmmmm. The people of VT seem pretty libertarian to me when it comes to Aggression (War) and civil liberties (Gun rights, privacy, etc.). They absolutely blow when it comes to Economics though (which us Free-Market libertarians label as tyranny :p), which, again, accounts for their left position on the Nolan Scale. Am I wrong in this picture or what?

The people of VT are largely anti-war. Privacy is a non-issue for a lot of people (the whole "if I'm not doing anything wrong why should I care" thing) and as far as gun rights the tide is turning toward regulation. We do have great laws here but there are a LOT of people who would like to see that change. They are the same people who put us in the economic toilet.

[ChaosControl]

Blah, wouldn't move there even if they did secede. The entire north east is like the anti-me.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Blah, wouldn't move there even if they did secede. The entire north east is like the anti-me.

No love for NH?

[RedStripe]

Eh, I don't think many of us will move to VT. They are very left-libertarian. If you like syndicalism I suppose it will be a good move for you. I would bet on NH seceeding if VT seceeded, so I would expect for us Market libertarians to move there where our ideas are championed. Keeniacs > VT :D

You do realize that Rothbard was often very much a left-libertarian, right?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You do realize that Rothbard was often very much a left-libertarian, right?

What is your definition? Mine includes Anarcho-Communists, Syndicalists, and other Anti-Capitalist ideologies.

[Stary Hickory]

You do realize that Rothbard was often very much a left-libertarian, right?

Seeing as free market capitalism is the direct opposite of the left I cant' see how he could be called anything of the sort. What exactly gives you the impression he leaned either way?

[UtahApocalypse]

Secession would be economic, and social suicide for any state. A much better course of action is to start using the 10th Amendment to retake the rights your state already has that the federal government has stolen away.

[RedStripe]

What is your definition? Mine includes Anarcho-Communists, Syndicalists, and other Anti-Capitalist ideologies.

http://www.agorism.info/left-rothbardians

Capitalism is a state-supported economic system which favors the class which, through state interventions, has been given nominal 'ownership' over the vast majority of all capital.

Capitalism != the free market. The term 'capitalism' was coined specifically to describe a system that was NOT, and is still NOT a free market. It is used everyday by the vast majority of people to refer to the a state-dominated economic system. That is its correct definition. It's what it originally meant, what it has always been used to mean, and what it is used to mean today by the vast majority of people.

Left-libertarians do feel as though the wage labor system is basically a form of exploitation. Right-libertarians are generally more socially conservative and tend to be apologists for big business, large disparities of wealth and income, and extremely reactionary. Left-libertarians don't stop at simply opposing outright violence; we oppose other forms of oppression: racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and power structures of many hierarchical organizations. We argue that cultural liberalism and libertarian political philosophy and ethics are, in fact, codependent and reinforcing.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

http://www.agorism.info/left-rothbardians

Capitalism is a state-supported economic system which favors the class which, through state interventions, has been given nominal 'ownership' over the vast majority of all capital.

Capitalism != the free market. The term 'capitalism' was coined specifically to describe a system that was NOT, and is still NOT a free market. It is used everyday by the vast majority of people to refer to the a state-dominated economic system. That is its correct definition. It's what it originally meant, what it has always been used to mean, and what it is used to mean today by the vast majority of people.

Left-libertarians do feel as though the wage labor system is basically a form of exploitation. Right-libertarians are generally more socially conservative and tend to be apologists for big business, large disparities of wealth and income, and extremely reactionary. Left-libertarians don't stop at simply opposing outright violence; we oppose other forms of oppression: racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and power structures of many hierarchical organizations. We argue that cultural liberalism and libertarian political philosophy and ethics are, in fact, codependent and reinforcing.

Agorism is merely counter-economics. I know Konkin argues for 100% entreprenuership, but that is the definition of utopian. I use it as a place holder for counter-economics. Secondly, could you please describe to me what rights are being violated by someone who is racist, xenophobe, homophobe, large businesses, etc. (Do not confuse the very act of being racist, with the actions of a racist)

Capitalism has been hi-jacked, just as liberal and conservative have been. When one speaks of Anti-Capitalistic, one means in the strictest of senses. Of the private holding of capital and of voluntary economic action. If you have read Mises The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality you will see what I mean. This is why I use Free-Market instead of Capitalism, but essentially the words mean the same thing in their origins.

Right-Libertarians are Free-Market Natural Law libertarians. We oppose egalitarianism. People in these realms include, Lysander Spooner, Gustave de Molinari, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat (He is very very close to An-Cap), and Robert LeFevre. The tradition continues today with Lew Rockwell, HH Hoppe, and Walter Block.

[LittleLightShining]

Secession would be economic, and social suicide for any state. A much better course of action is to start using the 10th Amendment to retake the rights your state already has that the federal government has stolen away.

Fear tactic. Just because a state secedes doesn't mean it can no longer engage in trade. VT borders another nation and an important waterway. Though I do 100% agree with your second statement and that is why I am not a secessionist.

[RedStripe]

Agorism is merely counter-economics. I know Konkin argues for 100% entreprenuership, but that is the definition of utopian. I use it as a place holder for counter-economics. Secondly, could you please describe to me what rights are being violated by someone who is racist, xenophobe, homophobe, large businesses, etc. (Do not confuse the very act of being racist, with the actions of a racist)

I don't oppose racism/sexism/etc on the basis that they are "wrong" is some absolutist moral sense or that they violate some magical "right." I oppose them, just as I oppose state violence, because I just don't like them because I have empathy for other people.


Capitalism has been hi-jacked, just as liberal and conservative have been. When one speaks of Anti-Capitalistic, one means in the strictest of senses. Of the private holding of capital and of voluntary economic action. If you have read Mises The Anti-Capitalistic Mentality you will see what I mean. This is why I use Free-Market instead of Capitalism, but essentially the words mean the same thing in their origins.

Yea but what exactly does it mean for there to be a private holding of capital and voluntary economic action? Right-libertarians just assume that these things actually exist in some pure form, when they never really do. If the government takes my property and then gives it to you and gives you title to it, is it privately owned by you? If you sell it to a third party is that a voluntary exchange?

All property has been stolen at one point. This is why the proper question is not "who has the absolute moral right of ownership of this property?" but rather "whose claim of ownership of this property would it be better to enforce", and the answer to the latter question will be based on what kind of a society you have and what the factual circumstances are.


Right-Libertarians are Free-Market Natural Law libertarians. We oppose egalitarianism. People in these realms include, Lysander Spooner, Gustave de Molinari, Murray Rothbard, Frederic Bastiat (He is very very close to An-Cap), and Robert LeFevre. The tradition continues today with Lew Rockwell, HH Hoppe, and Walter Block.

Yea, Right-Libertarians = facepalm, in my opinion. They want to keep their friends on the right so they play along with backwards cultural conservatives and attempt to cut back on the radical message of libertarianism by saying "oh but libertarianism doesnt say anything about sexism so just keep on being sexist if you like we dont have anything to say about it."

Spooner is an individualist anarchist, not a right-libertarian. He was friends with Tucker and was closely associated with a lot of the 19th century american socialists. He didn't like big corporations and wanted a monetary system not based on free banking (and was wrong on that last point, imo).

Opposition to egalitarianism is just silly reactionary rhetoric from right-libertarians. A freer society WOULD be a more egalitarian society, and there's nothing wrong with wanting the former in part due to that very result. It goes hand-in-hand.

Lew Rockwell is a racist in my opinion (he wrote the RP newsletters), Hoppe is a little off his rocker, and Block is sort of a douchebag. I own and have read books by all three and respect some of their work.

[Knightskye]

Left-libertarian?

On that political graph, I'm one square to the left of the bottom-right corner.

What would make someone "left-libertarian"?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Left-libertarian?

On that political graph, I'm one square to the left of the bottom-right corner.

What would make someone "left-libertarian"?

Someone who is a Georgist, Syndicalist, Communist, etc. Generally someone who shuns Free-Markets, Natural Law, and staunch Private Property rights.

As to Red Stripe. We do have an answer for the sexists. It is called Natural Law and NAP. As long as they have neither initiated force, or violated anothers rights then everything is perfectly acceptable. We do not seek to try and mold a persons behaviors or human interactions. It is our natural right of association.

Secondly, Anarcho-Capitalists are some of the most radical libertarians there are, so I find your comment a bit hilarious. As for egalitarianism, it goes against human nature (hence utopian). We are all naturally inequal. It is folly to assume otherwise. Our natural state is inequality and it is this inequality which gave rise to Civilization.

[RedStripe]

Someone who is a Georgist, Syndicalist, Communist, etc. Generally someone who shuns Free-Markets, Natural Law, and staunch Private Property rights.

*sigh* lol

Free Markets are the opposite of capitalism. Free markets lead to egalitarianism.


As to Red Stripe. We do have an answer for the sexists. It is called Natural Law and NAP. As long as they have neither initiated force, or violated anothers rights then everything is perfectly acceptable. We do not seek to try and mold a persons behaviors or human interactions. It is our natural right of association.

Uh yea, I know your system and it's retarded. Natural Law and NAP are just a bunch of made up nonsense. It may be a good rule of thumb but it actually has nothing to do with how people actually interact. If you want to think that whatever people do it acceptable so long as it doesn't involve violence, go for it. The rest of us will continue to view the world realistically and utilize the judgment function of our rational brains to decide whether or not conduct is acceptable to us regardless of some silly set of 'natural law'.

And yes, you do try to mold people behaviors by establishing your absolutist set of morality.


Secondly, Anarcho-Capitalists are some of the most radical libertarians there are, so I find your comment a bit hilarious. As for egalitarianism, it goes against human nature (hence utopian). We are all naturally inequal. It is folly to assume otherwise. Our natural state is inequality and it is this inequality which gave rise to Civilization.

As a former ancap, I can say that ancaps aren't as radical as they are very short-sighted and simplistic in their thinking.

And what is human nature? haha. If anything civilization arose alongside and with the support of centralized political units called chiefdoms which evolved into states. If history teaches us a lesson about human nature it is that our nature is to dominate and oppress each other violently and totally disregard your so-called "Natural Law."

[ChaosControl]

No love for NH?

I'm not particularly fond of it no. Too socially liberal for my blood, the whole north east is.

Edit: Hmm someone in this thread who is anti-cultural conservatives, wouldn't get along too well with me I suppose.

[Knightskye]

Secondly, Anarcho-Capitalists are some of the most radical libertarians there are, so I find your comment a bit hilarious.

I got a 'libertarian' score of 9.38 on that quiz. Does that make me a radical?

[torchbearer]

I got a 'libertarian' score of 9.38 on that quiz. Does that make me a radical?

to some people on this board it makes you a neocon traitor because you didn't get a perfect score.

[Mini-Me]

Uh yea, I know your system and it's retarded. Natural Law and NAP are just a bunch of made up nonsense. It may be a good rule of thumb but it actually has nothing to do with how people actually interact. If you want to think that whatever people do it acceptable so long as it doesn't involve violence, go for it. The rest of us will continue to view the world realistically and utilize the judgment function of our rational brains to decide whether or not conduct is acceptable to us regardless of some silly set of 'natural law'.
I just wanted to interject and mention something: Some people might think that anything is perfectly fine so long as it doesn't involve aggression/coercion, but it is not necessary to take this view to believe in the NAP. You can still oppose racism, sexism, hierarchy, etc. and remain completely faithful to the NAP, so long as you don't actually use aggression as your means of opposing them.

I agree with you that free markets would organically create a more egalitarian world than today's, but there would still be hierarchies in companies due to organizational and efficiency benefits. So long as efficient companies passed cost-savings onto consumers, consumers would naturally support them (except for some who have overriding moral concerns), and this would naturally perpetuate companies with lean hierarchies, while bureaucratic and otherwise inefficient companies would obviously fail. The point I want to make is that even people who despise hierarchies of all kinds must accept that others will voluntarily choose to organize in such a way in many cases. You can advocate against hierarchy, but the only way to forcibly prevent people from organizing into hierarchical structures is through violence. Paradoxically, any society that accepts the initiation of violence for the subjective "greater good" is a society that has lost its principled grounding in more easily defined individual rights*, and such a society could not long resist the impulse to create an "egalitarian" omnipotent state to dish out violence for the supposed greater good...and then it's all downhill from there.

*This raises another point: It's true that the moral ideal of self-ownership does not exclusively define all morality (i.e. some non-action can be immoral, and you can still actively do some pretty awful things without technically violating the NAP). However, it is pretty much the only standard of morality that can even come close to being objectively understood, because it delineates pretty clear boundaries between people. Acknowledging and respecting these boundaries is pretty much the only way for people to live in relative harmony with each other. Unless you reject aggression in whole, you're going to end up sliding down the slippery slope of when it's acceptable to promote other desirable aims...and in our experience, I don't think we've seen too many examples of societies voluntarily sliding back up this particular slope. ;) The definition of aggression can be subjective (differentiate assault vs. pushing someone away from a moving bus vs. brushing against someone), but it's pretty much the only value judgment that people need to mutually agree upon...and as far as grayscale spectrums go, it's probably much easier for people to come to a mutual understanding of fuzzy separations here than on most other spectrums. All other systems of morality require significantly more piecemeal subjective value judgments, and this opens an endless Pandora's Box of subjectivity, since there's no fundamental rhyme or reason for picking this positive right or that positive right over another. Aside from the fact that everyone has slightly different moral standards, even people supposedly following the same standard will not easily be able to live together in harmony if the standard itself calls for so much subjectivity. Occam's Razor favors self-ownership (and therefore the NAP), basically. ;) There's still wiggle room on the definition/understanding of the homestead principle for unclaimed resources though.

[Knightskye]

to some people on this board it makes you a neocon traitor because you didn't get a perfect score.

The quiz' site is down, but if/when it comes back up, I'd be happy to post all my answers.

[PreDeadMan]

I agree with you except for the left-libertarian part. Most of these guys are pretty much disenfranchised Progressives.

I agree if NH seceded we should move there, but what if only Vermont secedes and no other state... would you rather live with the current tyranny or live in vermont if they seceded ;)

[Southron]

The only problem with New Hampshire is you need to build a wall to keep the Massholes out.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The only problem with New Hampshire is you need to build a wall to keep the Massholes out.

Or....NH could be a Stateless society so it wouldn't matter who comes? I'm sure the Keeniacs won't take well to any Statist dictates. :p

[fj45lvr]

Vermont seceding would be AWESOME....no matter what path those people choose for themselves it will be "competition" which will have an effect on governance, especially if what they offer appears to be better and people either want it for themselves or they are allowed to move there.

[LittleLightShining]

I agree if NH seceded we should move there, but what if only Vermont secedes and no other state... would you rather live with the current tyranny or live in vermont if they seceded ;)

Oh, I'd totally live in VT and fight the socialist wing of secessionists for freedom :)

[Cowlesy]

Go Vermont - stick it to the man!

[FSP-Rebel]

I doubt NH will secede any time soon. But, if VT pulls it off, it will get a lot of people thinking about it up here.

[Southron]

I doubt NH will secede any time soon. But, if VT pulls it off, it will get a lot of people thinking about it up here.

Perhaps NH, VT, and ME could sign a mutual defense pact.

Of the northeastern states, I really like NH and ME. VT is the only state I haven't seen east of the Mississippi, but if its anything like those other two I'm sure I'd like it also.