All aboard 'The Secede Party'

[awake]

They can not hijack it - It can not be cooped ... no fake rallies and no excuses, one direction. To split with the Union by way of state, city, town or county. All shapes all sizes one goal: LEAVE the party!

[heavenlyboy34]

They can not hijack it - It can not be cooped ... no fake rallies and no excuses, one direction. To split with the Union by way of state, city, town or county. All shapes all sizes one goal: LEAVE the party!

As long as you don't ask me for donations all the friggin time, I'm there. :cool:

[YumYum]

Does that mean we vote for the worst possible candidate for the Federal government instead of the best? That would be fun!!:D

[awake]

"The central task ahead of those wanting to turn the tide and prevent an outright breakdown is the 'delegitimation' of the idea of democracy as the root cause of the present state of progressive 'decivilization'. To this purpose, one should first point out that it is difficult to find many proponents of democracy in the history of political theory. Almost all major thinkers had nothing but contempt for democracy. Even the Founding Fathers of the U.S., nowadays considered the model of a democracy, were strictly opposed to it. Without a single exception, they thought of democracy as nothing but mob-rule. They considered themselves to be members of a 'natural aristocracy', and rather than a democracy they advocated an aristocratic republic. Furthermore, even among the few theoretical defenders of democracy such as Rousseau, for instance, it is almost impossible to find anyone advocating democracy for anything but extremely small communities (villages or towns). Indeed, in small communities where everyone knows everyone else personally most people cannot but acknowledge that the position of the 'haves' is typically based on their superior personal achievement just as the position of the 'have-nots' finds its typical explanation in their personal deficiencies and inferiority. Under these circumstances, it is far more difficult to get away with trying to loot other people and their personal property to one's advantage. In distinct contrast, in large territories encompassing millions or even hundreds of millions of people, where the potential looters do not know their victims, and vice versa, the human desire to enrich oneself at another's expense is subject to little or no restraints.

More importantly, it must be made clear again that the idea of democracy is immoral as well as uneconomical. As for the moral status of majority rule, it must be pointed out that it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C, C and A in turn joining to rip off B, and then B and C conspiring against A, etc. This is not justice but a moral outrage, and rather than treating democracy and democrats with respect, they should be treated with open contempt and ridiculed as moral frauds. On the other hand, as for the economic quality of democracy, it must be stressed relentlessly that it is not democracy but private property, production, and voluntary exchange that are the ultimate sources of human civilization and prosperity. In particular, contrary to widespread myths, it needs to be emphasized that the lack of democracy had essentially nothing to do with the bankruptcy of Russian-style socialism. It was not the selection principle for politicians that constituted socialism's problem. It was politics and political decision-making as such. Instead of each private producer deciding independently what to do with particular resources, as under a regime of private property and contractualism, with fully or partially socialized factors of production each decision requires someone else's permission. It is irrelevant to the producer how those giving permission are chosen. What matters to him is that permission must be sought at all. As long as this is the case, the incentive of producers to produce is reduced and impoverishment will result. Private property is as incompatible with democracy, then, as with any other form of political rule. Rather than democracy, justice as well as economic efficiency require a pure and unrestricted private property society – an 'anarchy of production' – in which no one rules anybody, and all producers' relations are voluntary, and thus mutually beneficial.

Lastly, as for strategic considerations, in order to approach the goal of a non-exploitative social order, i.e., a private property anarchy, the idea of majoritarianism should be turned against democratic rule itself. Under any form of governmental rule, including a democracy, the 'ruling class' (politicians and civil servants) makes up only a small proportion of the total population. While it is possible that one hundred parasites may lead a comfortable life on the products of one thousand hosts, one thousand parasites cannot live off of one hundred hosts. Based on the recognition of this fact, it would appear possible to persuade a majority of the voters that it is adding insult to injury to let those living off of other peoples' taxes have a say in how high these taxes are, and to thus decide, democratically, to take the right to vote away from all government employees and everyone who receives government benefits, whether they are welfare recipients or government contractors. In addition, in conjunction with this strategy it is necessary to recognize the overwhelming importance of secession and secessionist movements. If majority decisions are 'right', then the largest of all possible majorities, a world majority and a democratic world government, must be considered ultimately 'right' with the consequences predicted at the outset of this article. In contrast, secession always involves the breaking away of smaller from larger populations. It is thus a vote against the principle of democracy and majoritarianism. The further the process of secession proceeds – to the level of small regions, cities, city districts, towns, villages, and ultimately individual households and voluntary associations of private households and firms – the more difficult it will become to maintain the current level of redistributive policies. At the same time, the smaller the territorial units, the more likely it will be that a few individuals, based on the popular recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, superior judgement, courage, and taste, will rise to the rank of natural, voluntarily acknowledged elites and lend legitimacy to the idea of a natural order of competing (non-monopolistic) and freely (voluntarily) financed peacekeepers, judges, and overlapping jurisdictions as exists even now in the arena of international trade and travel – a pure private law society – as the answer to democracy and any other form of political (coercive) rule." Hans Hoppe

[awake]

Revolution by Means of Secession


"Rather than by means of a top-down reform, under the current conditions, one's strategy must be one of a bottom-up revolution."

Essentially, the answer to this question is the same as that given by the American revolutionaries more than two hundred years ago: through the creation of free territories and by means of secession.

In fact, under today's democratic conditions, this answer is even truer than it was in the days of kings. For then, under monarchical conditions, the advocates of an antistatist liberal-libertarian social revolution still had an option that has since been lost. Liberal-libertarians in the old days could — and frequently did — believe in the possibility of simply converting the king to their view, thereby initiating a "revolution from the top." No mass support was necessary for this — just the insight of an enlightened prince.[28]

However realistic this might have been then, this top-down strategy of social revolution would be impossible today. Political leaders are selected nowadays according to their demagogic talents and proven records as habitual immoralists, as has been explained above; consequently, the chance of converting them to liberal-libertarian views must be considered even lower than that of converting a king who simply inherited his position.

Moreover, the state's protection monopoly is now considered public rather than private property, and government rule is no longer tied to a particular individual but to specified functions exercised by anonymous functionaries. Hence, the one-or-few-men-conversion strategy can no longer work. It does not matter if one converts a few top government officials — the president and some leading senators or judges, for instance — because within the rules of democratic government no single individual has the power to abdicate the government's monopoly of protection. Kings had this power, but presidents do not. The president can resign from his position, of course, only to have it taken over by someone else. He cannot dissolve the governmental protection monopoly because according to the rules of democracy, "the people," not their elected representatives, are considered the "owners" of government.

Thus, rather than by means of a top-down reform, under the current conditions, one's strategy must be one of a bottom-up revolution. At first, the realization of this insight would seem to make the task of a liberal-libertarian social revolution impossible, for does this not imply that one would have to persuade a majority of the public to vote for the abolition of democracy and an end to all taxes and legislation? And is this not sheer fantasy, given that the masses are always dull and indolent, and even more so given that democracy, as explained above, promotes moral and intellectual degeneration? How in the world can anyone expect that a majority of an increasingly degenerate people accustomed to the "right" to vote should ever voluntarily renounce the opportunity of looting other people's property? Put this way, one must admit that the prospect of a social revolution must indeed be regarded as virtually nil. Rather, it is only on second thought, upon regarding secession as an integral part of any bottom-up strategy, that the task of a liberal-libertarian revolution appears less than impossible, even if it still remains a daunting one.
"All revolutions, whether good or bad, are started by minorities; and the secessionist route toward social revolution takes explicit cognizance of this important fact."

How does secession fit into a bottom-up strategy of social revolution? More important, how can a secessionist movement escape the Southern Confederacy's fate of being crushed by a tyrannical and dangerously armed central government?

In response to these questions, it is first necessary to remember that neither the original American Revolution nor the American Constitution was the result of the will of the majority of the population. A third of the American colonists were actually Tories, and another third were occupied with daily routines and did not care either way. No more than a third of the colonists were actually committed to and supportive of the revolution, yet they carried the day. And as far as the Constitution is concerned, the overwhelming majority of the American public was opposed to its adoption, and its ratification represented more of a coup d'état by a tiny minority than the general will. All revolutions, whether good or bad, are started by minorities; and the secessionist route toward social revolution, which necessarily involves the breaking-away of a smaller number of people from a larger one, takes explicit cognizance of this important fact.

Second, it is necessary to recognize that the ultimate power of every government — whether of kings or caretakers — rests solely on opinion and not on physical force. The agents of government are never more than a small proportion of the total population under their control. This implies that no government can possibly enforce its will upon the entire population unless it finds widespread support and voluntary cooperation within the nongovernmental public. It implies likewise that every government can be brought down by a mere change in public opinion, i.e., by the withdrawal of the public's consent and cooperation.[29]

And while it is undeniably true that, after more than two centuries of democracy, the American public has become so degenerate, morally and intellectually, that any such withdrawal must be considered impossible on a nationwide scale, it would not seem insurmountably difficult to win a secessionist-minded majority in sufficiently small districts or regions of the country.

In fact, given an energetic minority of intellectual elites inspired by the vision of a free society in which law and order is provided by competitive insurers, and given furthermore that — certainly in the United States, which owes its very existence to a secessionist act — secession is still held to be legitimate and in accordance with the "original" democratic ideal of self-determination (rather than majority rule)[30] by a substantial number of people, there seems to be nothing unrealistic about assuming that such secessionist majorities exist or can be created at hundreds of locations all over the country.
"It is necessary to recognize that the ultimate power of every government — whether of kings or caretakers — rests solely on opinion and not on physical force."

In fact, under the rather realistic assumption that the US central government as well as the social-democratic states of the West in general are bound for economic bankruptcy (much like the socialist people's democracies of the East collapsed economically some years ago), present tendencies toward political disintegration will likely be strengthened in the future. Accordingly, the number of potential secessionist regions will continue to rise, even beyond its current level.

Finally, the insight into the widespread and growing secessionist potential also permits an answer to the last question regarding the dangers of a central government crackdown.

While it is important in this regard that the memory of the secessionist past of the United States be kept alive, it is even more important for the success of a liberal-libertarian revolution to avoid the mistakes of the second failed attempt at secession. Fortunately, the issue of slavery, which complicated and obscured the situation in 1861,[31] has been resolved. However, another important lesson must be learned by comparing the failed second American experiment with secession to the successful first one.

The first American secession was facilitated significantly by the fact that at the center of power in Britain, public opinion concerning the secessionists was hardly unified. In fact, many prominent British figures such as Edmund Burke and Adam Smith openly sympathized with the secessionists. Apart from purely ideological reasons, which rarely affect more than a handful of philosophical minds, this lack of a unified opposition to the American secessionists in British public opinion can be attributed to two complementary factors. On the one hand, a multitude of regional and cultural-religious affiliations as well as of personal and family ties between Britain and the American colonists existed. On the other hand, the American events were considered far from home and the potential loss of the colonies as economically insignificant.

In both regards, the situation in 1861 was distinctly different. To be sure, at the center of political power, which had shifted to the northern states by then, opposition to the secessionist Southern Confederacy was not unified, and the Confederate cause also had supporters in the North. However, fewer cultural bonds and kinship ties existed between the American North and South than had existed between Britain and the American colonists, and the secession of the Southern Confederacy involved about half the territory and a third of the entire population of the United States and thus struck Northerners as close to home and as a significant economic loss. Therefore, it was comparatively easier for the Northern power elite to mold a unified front of "progressive" Yankee culture versus a culturally backward and "reactionary" Dixieland.

In light of these considerations, then, it appears strategically advisable not to attempt again what in 1861 failed so painfully — for contiguous states or even the entire South trying to break away from the tyranny of Washington, D.C.

Rather, a modern liberal-libertarian strategy of secession should take its cues from the European Middle Ages when, from about the 12th until well into the 17th century (with the emergence of the modern central state), Europe was characterized by the existence of hundreds of free and independent cities, interspersed into a predominantly feudal social structure.[32]


"Political leaders are selected nowadays according to their demagogic talents and proven records as habitual immoralists."

By choosing this model and striving to create an America punctuated by a large and increasing number of territorially disconnected free cities — a multitude of Hong Kongs, Singapores, Monacos, and Liechtensteins strewn out over the entire continent — two otherwise unattainable but central objectives can be accomplished. First, besides recognizing the fact that the liberal-libertarian potential is distributed highly unevenly across the country, such a strategy of piecemeal withdrawal renders secession less threatening politically, socially, and economically. Second, by pursuing this strategy simultaneously at a great number of locations all over the country, it becomes exceedingly difficult for the central state to create the unified opposition in public opinion to the secessionists that would secure the level of popular support and voluntary cooperation necessary for a successful crackdown.[33]

If we succeed in this endeavor, if we then proceed to return all public property into appropriate private hands and adopt a new "constitution" that declares all taxation and legislation henceforth unlawful, and if we then finally allow insurance agencies to do what they are destined to do, we truly can be proud again and America will be justified in claiming to provide an example to the rest of the world.

Hans Hoppe

[FrankRep]

Texas Nationalist Movement!
http://www.TexasNationalist.com/

[BuddyRey]

I'm in!

[Sic Semper Tyrannis]

This is a great idea for a political party. I would join.

[AuH20]

The late J. Bracken Lee would be proud! He was far ahead of the pack when he was pushing for a constitutional amendment that would dissolve the federal government the moment a certain debt threshold was exceeded.

[awake]

bump

[SovereignMN]

They can not hijack it - It can not be cooped ... no fake rallies and no excuses, one direction. To split with the Union by way of state, city, town or county. All shapes all sizes one goal: LEAVE the party!

I like it...however you are kidding yourself if you think it couldn't be hijacked.

[nate895]

I volunteer to be the first candidate for President. My platform: I will order the states to secede by executive fiat.

[awake]

I like it...however you are kidding yourself if you think it couldn't be hijacked.


No demagogue would dare associate with it... and it would be easy to spot the hacks... they would be the ones pleading to stay.

I even have the chant --- Hell NO, its time to GO!

[constituent]

and it would be easy to spot the hacks...

Now what is it about recent experience that tells you enough people will "spot the hacks" to make a difference?

[kahless]

I am for it but there is one problem I do not see any way around. Succession does not stop the ability of progressives to educate the people with propaganda in favor of big government. How do you counter for example Foxnews and MSNBC from pushing support of big government candidates and policies? You could have a free state with people still voting in favor of Socialist candidates and policies due to a media constantly pushing that propaganda to the sheep.

The news media is a major road block to achieving freedom and real property ownership in this country. Debra Medina is a perfect example. She discusses elimination of property taxes and is automatically falsely smeared by the establishment as a 911 truther. That kind of crap is not going to change with a free state.

We need a broad reach media outlet in order for any free state project to succeed.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I am for it but there is one problem I do not see any way around. Succession does not stop the ability of progressives to educate the people with propaganda in favor of big government. How do you counter for example Foxnews and MSNBC from pushing support of big government candidates and policies? You could have a free state with people still voting in favor of Socialist candidates and policies due to a media constantly pushing that propaganda to the sheep.

The news media is a major road block to achieving freedom and real property ownership in this country. Debra Medina is a perfect example. She discusses elimination of property taxes and is automatically falsely smeared by the establishment as a 911 truther. That kind of crap is not going to change with a free state.

We need a broad reach media outlet in order for any free state project to succeed.


Wrong. We only need individual activists who cherish liberty to make the move to NH where lots of great things are happening and they are stemming and turning the tide of Statism there. Where else do you see Agorist panels and educational activities, and a network of Agorists? Srs.

[kahless]

Wrong. We only need individual activists who cherish liberty to make the move to NH where lots of great things are happening and they are stemming and turning the tide of Statism there. Where else do you see Agorist panels and educational activities, and a network of Agorists? Srs.

Come time to vote, your individual activists will be thrown out of office since the MSM just spent months labeling your candidates as Nazi's, racists or "truthers" to ensure a progessive candidate victory. The sheep are too busy working to know the facts and vote accordingly to what pop culture the MSM tells them to vote for.

The path to a free state is through a favorable media and the entertainment industry. History has proven this time and time again. The liberty movement needs to get thier act together and start buying media outlets or we are doomed to a future under fascism.

[puppetmaster]

sounds good

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Come time to vote, your individual activists will be thrown out of office since the MSM just spent months labeling your candidates as Nazi's, racists or "truthers" to ensure a progessive candidate victory. The sheep are too busy working to know the facts and vote accordingly to what pop culture the MSM tells them to vote for.

The path to a free state is through a favorable media and the entertainment industry. History has proven this time and time again. The liberty movement needs to get thier act together and start buying media outlets or we are doomed to a future under fascism.

What MSM covers local politics? Local TV is much different than MSM. Two. We don't need politicians to achieve our means. Of course it helps to have politicians in office who are seeking to repeal laws, but we have much greater effective means to effect change. Counter-Economics, Civil Disobedience, Jury Nullification, Individual secession, etc.

Besides there are a lot of alternate media in NH. WE DONT NEED MSM! Free Talk Live, Free Minds TV, Ridley Report, FreedomainRadio anyone?

[heavenlyboy34]

Wrong. We only need individual activists who cherish liberty to make the move to NH where lots of great things are happening and they are stemming and turning the tide of Statism there. Where else do you see Agorist panels and educational activities, and a network of Agorists? Srs.


Why did Free-Staters choose NH? :confused: It's friggin freezing in the winters there, plus it doesn't have a recent history of liberty like the Western states do (Especially places like Texas and Arizona).

[Meiun]

LOL.

Did you know that God is a woman, and his name is Eris? :eek:

All Hail Discordia!

[kahless]

What MSM covers local politics? Local TV is much different than MSM. Two. We don't need politicians to achieve our means. Of course it helps to have politicians in office who are seeking to repeal laws, but we have much greater effective means to effect change. Counter-Economics, Civil Disobedience, Jury Nullification, Individual secession, etc.

Besides there are a lot of alternate media in NH. WE DONT NEED MSM! Free Talk Live, Free Minds TV, Ridley Report, FreedomainRadio anyone?

FNC has some of the highest rated shows in all of cable. The other news networks may not come close to FNC but their program viewership beats that of other non-news cable networks. This is what the majority of people are watching. What you mention is not even a blip in numbers of viewers or listeners.

As far as local TV depending on where you live they can be far worse in parrotting MSM progressive rhetoric. This is why the liberty movement needs to get thier act together and start buying local and national media outlets.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Why did Free-Staters choose NH? :confused: It's friggin freezing in the winters there, plus it doesn't have a recent history of liberty like the Western states do (Especially places like Texas and Arizona).

NH is the freest state in the country. Anyways, they have posts about it on their boards dating back to the decision. Basically it had to have a population under like 1 million. A few other requirements also. Then it was voted on and beat out WY or MT. I forget which was second place.

I also think NH is setup much better to handle secession due to their location on the water.

[Flash]

NH is the freest state in the country. Anyways, they have posts about it on their boards dating back to the decision. Basically it had to have a population under like 1 million. A few other requirements also. Then it was voted on and beat out WY or MT. I forget which was second place.

I also think NH is setup much better to handle secession due to their location on the water.

I'm pretty sure Montana was second. And MT sucks when it comes to local activism so NH was the obvious choice.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

FNC has some of the highest rated shows in all of cable. The other news networks may not come close to FNC but their program viewership beats that of other non-news cable networks. This is what the majority of people are watching. What you mention is not even a blip in numbers of viewers or listeners.

As far as local TV depending on where you live they can be far worse in parrotting MSM progressive rhetoric. This is why the liberty movement needs to get thier act together and start buying local and national media outlets.

Do you have any idea on whats going on in NH and its effect? Do you?

[kahless]

Do you have any idea on whats going on in NH and its effect? Do you?

Like I said I am for it but I am afraid that when push comes to shove the media is going to try to kill it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Like I said I am for it but I am afraid that when push comes to shove the media is going to try to kill it.

Do not let the media dictate your actions. All it takes is a dedicated minority to light the brush fires of liberty. When people see people getting arrested and assaulted for smoking a plant, the public opinion goes against the tyrants. Same goes with taxes, and everything else. Buck up, this is a long haul and there are going to be sacrifices to be made. Do not let anyone discourage you. You have patriots here ready to be there with you if you take the plunge. We are all in this together.

Even something simple as Open Carrying everywhere you go goes a long way. People will come up and ask you questions. People will get used to seeing guns. The individual will achieve liberty, through his/her actions by living as a free person. We all need to become activists.

[Ricky201]

Do you have any idea on whats going on in NH and its effect? Do you?

<_<

>_>

I don't have too much of an idea of what's going on in NH...care to elaborate? Also why would you think NH is freer than WY? I'm itching with curiosity...

[awake]

Like I said I am for it but I am afraid that when push comes to shove the media is going to try to kill it.

Don't worry, the idea will soon sell itself. One needs only to see a massive sustained inflation to dissolve any power the MSM will have... And since when did any one care what the MSM has had to say anyway - does one need their permission?

[slothman]

I personally think that had the Confederacy won the Civil War then it would be better, the Union would be better and the current USA would be better.

[kahless]

since when did any one care what the MSM has had to say anyway - does one need their permission?

My point is the majority of people in this country are too busy going about their lives to know what the facts are and make decisions based on what they hear from the news and entertainment industry. If the MSM tries to destroy your movement or the people you are trying to get elected by smearing them they have a good chance of succeeding. That is unless we have media outlets to counter their propaganda.

History has proven this time and time again. This should be of no surprise to anyone here after seeing Ron Paul's unprecedented success in fund raising and straw polls which were ignored and he was rather subsequently smeared instead.

Throughout history the successes of Communism and the counter revoluton against it was largely fought through media outlets. Not much has changed other than more technological avenues of propaganda delivery.