Cut to the chase - secession

[Acala]

For the sake of discussion, let's assume we can change the Federal government through the totally f-ed up democratic process and steer the sinking ship back towards shore before it sinks, patch the hull and set it out on the course of freedom again. How long before it starts to go wrong again? Not long, I'm afraid. Indeed, probably as soon as the patriots turn around and go back to tending their own business.

The system is fundamentally flawed because it lacks any meaningful check on Federal power. So even if, by a herculean effort, you reign it in, what is to prevent it from breaking out of its restraints again? People will get weary of constantly fighting the attempt by special interest to pervert government for their own benefit. Or they will forget what they were fighting against. The Public Choice school of economics has pretty well demonstrated why the economic incentives favor the hijacking of government and why the deck is stacked against those who want to keep it restrained. The bottom line is that the behemoth USA is unstable and unsustainable as currently constituted. So what is the solution?

Secession. The only force that can keep the USA together is the power to tear it apart the moment it ceases to serve the needs of its members. And the only way to re-establish the right of secession at this point is to secede and make it stick.

Indeed, the right of secession is critical to stability from the Federal level all the way down to the individual property owner. Real liberty can only survive when each individual has the option to reject the jurisdiction of any government that exceeds its powers. Only then will government truly be the servant of the people rather than the master. Nothing else will ever contain the beast for long.

So, isn't it time to cut to the chase and begin working for the only long-term solution to the protection of liberty? Everything else is just Sisyphean torment.

The ultimate goal must be secession!

[Anti Federalist]

I'm Anti Federalist and I endorse this message.

[Krugerrand]

My first thought of secession is that you need your own monetary unit. Basically all the states take in more money than they pay in taxes because the FED prints it for them. If you secede and continue to use the dollar, you'll find that not only is your dollar losing value, but you're not getting any of the free printed dollars, to boot. That's a double whammy that will hurt big time.

That said ... I think your first step is to get your state to pass legislation nullifying Federal legal tender laws and taxes on capital gains on currency and precious metals (if one wishes to distinguish between those)

First off, I think such laws should be easier to pass than secession. Secondly, once passed, secession will either be moot or a foregone conclusion.

[Acala]

My first thought of secession is that you need your own monetary unit. Basically all the states take in more money than they pay in taxes because the FED prints it for them. If you secede and continue to use the dollar, you'll find that not only is your dollar losing value, but you're not getting any of the free printed dollars, to boot. That's a double whammy that will hurt big time.

That said ... I think your first step is to get your state to pass legislation nullifying Federal legal tender laws and taxes on capital gains on currency and precious metals (if one wishes to distinguish between those)

First off, I think such laws should be easier to pass than secession. Secondly, once passed, secession will either be moot or a foregone conclusion.

I agree you need to legalize alternatives to the dollar.

One thing a state could do is offer a discount on its own taxes and fees for anyone who pays in gold or silver. Then it can start paying state employees partially in gold and silver. This would draw gold and silver coinage into the state. As the supply of real money builds, the state could expand the program. Once enough hard currency was circulating in the state, it could nullify legal tender laws and mandate that all fees and taxes to the state and its subdivisions are to be paid in gold or silver.

One problem with doing that first is that you alert the banks to your likely intent to cut them out of their scam which will cause them to push for, and fund, Federal resistance to your secession.

But I don't see secession happening until the Federal government is on its knees from financial collapse anyway.

[Krugerrand]

I agree you need to legalize alternatives to the dollar.

One thing a state could do is offer a discount on its own taxes and fees for anyone who pays in gold or silver. Then it can start paying state employees partially in gold and silver. This would draw gold and silver coinage into the state. As the supply of real money builds, the state could expand the program. Once enough hard currency was circulating in the state, it could nullify legal tender laws and mandate that all fees and taxes to the state and its subdivisions are to be paid in gold or silver.

One problem with doing that first is that you alert the banks to your likely intent to cut them out of their scam which will cause them to push for, and fund, Federal resistance to your secession.

But I don't see secession happening until the Federal government is on its knees from financial collapse anyway.

Any state that can get PM coinage circulating in advance will be far ahead when that time comes.

[Acala]

Any state that can get PM coinage circulating in advance will be far ahead when that time comes.

I agree. And you don't need to nullify legal tender laws in order to give discounts for PM coinage.

[RPgrassrootsactivist]

Ideally, I'd like to see a secession of all 50 states and about ten (approximately) new regional unions (composed of sovereign states) formed on the basis of something like the Articles of Confederation.

[oyarde]

I agree you need to legalize alternatives to the dollar.

One thing a state could do is offer a discount on its own taxes and fees for anyone who pays in gold or silver. Then it can start paying state employees partially in gold and silver. This would draw gold and silver coinage into the state. As the supply of real money builds, the state could expand the program. Once enough hard currency was circulating in the state, it could nullify legal tender laws and mandate that all fees and taxes to the state and its subdivisions are to be paid in gold or silver.

One problem with doing that first is that you alert the banks to your likely intent to cut them out of their scam which will cause them to push for, and fund, Federal resistance to your secession.

But I don't see secession happening until the Federal government is on its knees from financial collapse anyway.

Once people start using coins , siver , gold the other currency becomes irrelevent , you do not even need to nullify it.Small business will be free to set payment terms.

[Acala]

Ideally, I'd like to see a secession of all 50 states and about ten (approximately) new regional unions (composed of sovereign states) formed on the basis of something like the Articles of Confederation.

Once you break out of the coercive Federal system, the states would be free to join back together into whatever unions made sense AND preserved as inviolate the right to secession by whatever procedure the state chose.

[Acala]

Ideally, I'd like to see a secession of all 50 states and about ten (approximately) new regional unions (composed of sovereign states) formed on the basis of something like the Articles of Confederation.

I see this as something like what happened in Europe after the fall of Rome - many smaller nations emerged from the corpse of the empire. Or after the fall of the USSR.

[Slutter McGee]

I am Slutter McGee and I think this message is idiotic.

Not the idea of sucession. The act of pushing for it right now in a climate that has the one of the dumbest voter blocs in histroy. In a climate where such ideas would gain absolutely no traction among the public.

Change the climate. And then push for such a thing if you desire.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Acala]

I am Slutter McGee and I think this message is idiotic.

Not the idea of sucession. The act of pushing for it right now in a climate that has the one of the dumbest voter blocs in histroy. In a climate where such ideas would gain absolutely no traction among the public.

Change the climate. And then push for such a thing if you desire.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

The climate is going to change when Uncle Sugar runs out of dough. And that is just around the corner. The warfare/welfare state is a failed system. It can only lasts as long as there is wealth left to pilfer and we have reached the point where the wealth has run out. Soon, the Federal paychecks will stop and the promises will be seen as false. Then the time will be ripe to act. But NOW is the time to start planting the seeds of State independence. Working to "fix" the Federal government is a doomed effort. I suggest using that effort instead to promote State independence and nullification.

[Acala]

I am Slutter McGee and I think this message is idiotic.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

I consider this to be the most helpful thing you could have said. :)

[BuddyRey]

I'm Anti Federalist and I endorse this message.

Seconded! :)

[jmdrake]

South Carolina nullification movement = complete success (protective tariffs were removed)
Southern "secession" movement later with more states involved = utter failure

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

[Slutter McGee]

The climate is going to change when Uncle Sugar runs out of dough. And that is just around the corner. The warfare/welfare state is a failed system. It can only lasts as long as there is wealth left to pilfer and we have reached the point where the wealth has run out. Soon, the Federal paychecks will stop and the promises will be seen as false. Then the time will be ripe to act. But NOW is the time to start planting the seeds of State independence. Working to "fix" the Federal government is a doomed effort. I suggest using that effort instead to promote State independence and nullification.

See this is where I disagree. I think we can keep our welfare state ponzy scheme going for maybe another twenty or thirty years before it comes down, which means now is not the time to push this idea of seperating from the Union.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[awake]

Yup, speed up the divorce from Leviathan.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

South Carolina nullification movement = complete success (protective tariffs were removed)
Southern "secession" movement later with more states involved = utter failure

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

American secession with more states involved = successful (the very act, not the outcome ultimately ;/)

This is a stupid argument, as if a moment that happened 160 years ago, predicts the outcome of events today.... (Given your logic, it would have been deemed irrefutably successful because the secession that happened 85 years earlier was successful)

[oyarde]

See this is where I disagree. I think we can keep our welfare state ponzy scheme going for maybe another twenty or thirty years before it comes down, which means now is not the time to push this idea of seperating from the Union.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

While that may be nice . I do not see how. Using the CBO numbers ( which are way to conservative due to the amount of growth they are predicting ) the dollar should be unacceptable currency outside the united states before 2019 and the debt is about 25 trillion and gdp is about 14 trillion.

[Acala]

South Carolina nullification movement = complete success (protective tariffs were removed)
Southern "secession" movement later with more states involved = utter failure

Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.

What lesson do you see?

I think the big mistake made by the South was firing on Fort Sumter. If cooler heads had prevailed in the South the Federal government would not have been able to inflame Northerners so easily. With patience and forebearance, and progress towards an end to slavery, the South might have avoided an armed invasion.

But hindsight is always 20/20.

[Acala]

See this is where I disagree. I think we can keep our welfare state ponzy scheme going for maybe another twenty or thirty years before it comes down, which means now is not the time to push this idea of seperating from the Union.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Yup. We disagree. I see the signs of unraveling already. The bond market is going to collapse shortly and then the goose is cooked.

[Anti Federalist]

I am Slutter McGee and I think this message is idiotic.

Not the idea of sucession. The act of pushing for it right now in a climate that has the one of the dumbest voter blocs in histroy. In a climate where such ideas would gain absolutely no traction among the public.

Change the climate. And then push for such a thing if you desire.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Your post would have more "gravitas" if you spelled it right. ;)

You don't want to appear to be a "looser".

Secession

[jmdrake]

American secession with more states involved = successful (the very act, not the outcome ultimately ;/)

This is a stupid argument, as if a moment that happened 160 years ago, predicts the outcome of events today.... (Given your logic, it would have been deemed irrefutably successful because the secession that happened 85 years earlier was successful)

:rolleyes: So you are judging "success" by what? Sorry but I'm an outcomes driven person. South Carolina wanted the protectionist tariff overturned and they won. The south wanted to protect slavery and prevent the Morill tariff and they lost. Had the south not seceded they could have beaten the Morill tariff in the senate! Yes that's right. The number of senators the south lost by seceding would have been enough to defeat the Morill tariff in a straight up or down vote. Heck, if the southern senators had just stayed in the senate instead of withdrawing themselves they could have won the vote. So no. My argument isn't "stupid". The south's political calculus was "stupid".

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

:rolleyes: So you are judging "success" by what? Sorry but I'm an outcomes driven person. South Carolina wanted the protectionist tariff overturned and they won. The south wanted to protect slavery and prevent the Morill tariff and they lost. Had the south not seceded they could have beaten the Morill tariff in the senate! Yes that's right. The number of senators the south lost by seceding would have been enough to defeat the Morill tariff in a straight up or down vote. Heck, if the southern senators had just stayed in the senate instead of withdrawing themselves they could have won the vote. So no. My argument isn't "stupid". The south's political calculus was "stupid".

Yes your premise is entirely stupid. I challenged your assertion that because many states seceeded in 1860 it meant that many states seceeding today would be a failure, but you conveniently left out the fact that many states seceeded in 1776 and they WON. Using your logic, it would have been a slam-dunk that the secession in 1861 would have been successful because the one in 1776 was. Ergo, I was trying to show you how stupid this is. I guess it flew over your head.

[libertybrewcity]

I think that a healthy dose of states rights and education can change the course of the federal government.

I don't support eliminating the federal government, but I do think that it can be shrunk and contained through constitutional amendments and hard work.

[jmdrake]

What lesson do you see?

I think the big mistake made by the South was firing on Fort Sumter. If cooler heads had prevailed in the South the Federal government would not have been able to inflame Northerners so easily. With patience and forebearance, and progress towards an end to slavery, the South might have avoided an armed invasion.

But hindsight is always 20/20.

The lesson I see? If you don't like a particular federal law don't follow it. And I agree with your "patience and forebearance" assessment. I don't think the south would have voluntarily made "progress towards an end of slavery". When they wrote their own constitution they denied the confederate states the right to end slavery within their own borders. So that was going in the opposite direction.

But anyway, forget slavery and just stick with the tariff issue. South Carolina got what it wanted acting through nullification. The rest of the south ultimately did not get what it wanted on the tariff issue by using secession.

Let's look at this through another lens. What unconstitutional federal laws do we want to get rid of? Pick one. Say a state wanted to use nullification with regards to medical marijuana? Say if California declared "As long as the federal government defies our rule on this issue, no state or local law enforcement officer is allowed to cooperate in any way with the DEA." Of course this would mean losing federal money. California would have to be prepared to deal with that consequence. But what could the federal government do?

Here's another nullification idea. State governments are now some of the biggest employers in the country. Say if state governments refused to turn over state income tax withholdings until the federal government met some demand?

I hope you get the idea. Instead of saying "We're an independent country" and daring federal troops to invade say "We're just not going to cooperate with this law". Don't give the feds any inch of a moral high ground.

[jmdrake]

Yes your premise is entirely stupid. I challenged your assertion that because many states seceeded in 1860 it meant that many states seceeding today would be a failure, but you conveniently left out the fact that many states seceeded in 1776 and they WON. Using your logic, it would have been a slam-dunk that the secession in 1861 would have been successful because the one in 1776 was. Ergo, I was trying to show you how stupid this is. I guess it flew over your head.

It wasn't "many" states that seceded in 1776 it was all of them. Nothing "flew over my head". You're argument is just ridiculous. Do you have 100% of the states ready to "secede" from the U.S.? Do you have 3/4s of the states? If you did then rather then "seceding" you could just have a constitutional convention and "fix" whatever it is that you want to secede over. But hey, ignore history and live out your neoconfederate fantasy.

In the nullification crises one state by itself was able to accomplish what eleven states later failed to do. In fact arguably it was the act of secession that paved the way for the very tariff that they hated so much. (Again, had the 7 initial southern states not seceded when they did they could have voted down the Morrill tariff.)

[libertybrewcity]

The lesson I see? If you don't like a particular federal law don't follow it. And I agree with your "patience and forebearance" assessment. I don't think the south would have voluntarily made "progress towards an end of slavery". When they wrote their own constitution they denied the confederate states the right to end slavery within their own borders. So that was going in the opposite direction.

But anyway, forget slavery and just stick with the tariff issue. South Carolina got what it wanted acting through nullification. The rest of the south ultimately did not get what it wanted on the tariff issue by using secession.

Let's look at this through another lens. What unconstitutional federal laws do we want to get rid of? Pick one. Say a state wanted to use nullification with regards to medical marijuana? Say if California declared "As long as the federal government defies our rule on this issue, no state or local law enforcement officer is allowed to cooperate in any way with the DEA." Of course this would mean losing federal money. California would have to be prepared to deal with that consequence. But what could the federal government do?

Here's another nullification idea. State governments are now some of the biggest employers in the country. Say if state governments refused to turn over state income tax withholdings until the federal government met some demand?

I hope you get the idea. Instead of saying "We're an independent country" and daring federal troops to invade say "We're just not going to cooperate with this law". Don't give the feds any inch of a moral high ground.

I really agree with this. Instead of egging on the federal government to arrest state officials, infiltrate a resisting state, and kill innocent citizens, there are much better ways to go about this.

A state could easily nullify almost every federal law if they had a good base of liberty elected officials in office. Secession is an absolute last resort.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

It wasn't "many" states that seceded in 1776 it was all of them. Nothing "flew over my head". You're argument is just ridiculous. Do you have 100% of the states ready to "secede" from the U.S.? Do you have 3/4s of the states? If you did then rather then "seceding" you could just have a constitutional convention and "fix" whatever it is that you want to secede over. But hey, ignore history and live out your neoconfederate fantasy.

How did you get I'm a neo-confederate from the support of secession? Considering I'm an oogedy-boogedy anarchist, how can I be a neo-confederate? :confused:

I suppose you missed that there were 13 colonies that seceeded and there were 11 CSA States. Is 2 more states the magical number for success? Mind you that not every colony/state seceeded against Britain, only the 13 in the America's.

[jmdrake]

How did you get I'm a neo-confederate from the support of secession? Considering I'm an oogedy-boogedy anarchist, how can I be a neo-confederate? :confused:

I suppose you missed that there were 13 colonies that seceeded and there were 11 CSA States. Is 2 more states the magical number for success? Mind you that not every colony/state seceeded against Britain, only the 13 in the America's.

:rolleyes: Are you saying that you don't understand the difference between raw numbers and percentages?

[Slutter McGee]

Your post would have more "gravitas" if you spelled it right. ;)

You don't want to appear to be a "looser".

Secession

Fair enough. But I am at work. Still doesn't take away from the merits of my opinion.

And I could find five or six old posts with it spelled correctly.

But touche. I will concede that I mispelled it. And I won't even edit it so that you can bask in your victory. :)

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Acala]

The lesson I see? If you don't like a particular federal law don't follow it.

I don't like ANY Federal law. The Federal government is all burden and no benefit now. The two things it was supposed to do - manage international relations and interstate commerce - it utterly ruined.





And I agree with your "patience and forebearance" assessment. I don't think the south would have voluntarily made "progress towards an end of slavery". When they wrote their own constitution they denied the confederate states the right to end slavery within their own borders. So that was going in the opposite direction.

Actually I believe it denied the Confederate government the right to ban slavery, not the states, - meaning it left it a State issue just as it should have been under the US Constitution. And many very prominent Southerners - including Robert E. Lee, were opposed to slavery. But they were more strongly in SUPPORT of maintaining the Constitutional balance of power intended by the Founders.


But anyway, forget slavery and just stick with the tariff issue. South Carolina got what it wanted acting through nullification. The rest of the south ultimately did not get what it wanted on the tariff issue by using secession.

Southerners understood very well what the election of Lincon meant. He campaigned on increasing the tariffs and the idea of government raising revenue and using it for internal improvements (translation:graft). It was clear the problem of an overbearing Federal government using tariffs to harm the South for the benefit of Northern interests was NOT going away. Furthermore, Southerners knew that their electoral advantage was doomed as well.


Let's look at this through another lens. What unconstitutional federal laws do we want to get rid of? Pick one. Say a state wanted to use nullification with regards to medical marijuana? Say if California declared "As long as the federal government defies our rule on this issue, no state or local law enforcement officer is allowed to cooperate in any way with the DEA." Of course this would mean losing federal money. California would have to be prepared to deal with that consequence. But what could the federal government do?.

Send in troops and occupy the capitol. Seize bank accounts. Seize assets. Close ports. Close airports. Arrest public officials for contempt of Federal court orders.


Here's another nullification idea. State governments are now some of the biggest employers in the country. Say if state governments refused to turn over state income tax withholdings until the federal government met some demand?

I hope you get the idea. Instead of saying "We're an independent country" and daring federal troops to invade say "We're just not going to cooperate with this law". Don't give the feds any inch of a moral high ground.

I don't disagree with a stepwise approach. I never said we should secede tomorrow. What I advocate is preparing by taking steps to encourage a sense of independence in the states and a sense of disdain for the Federal government. Rather than beseaching the Federal government to be nice, we start questioning their relevance. Because ultimately I don't believe nullification works without a credible threat of secession to back it up. It is a bluff. And the Federal government will call that bluff. In order to back up nullification you must prepare people mentally for secession.

[oyarde]

Fair enough. But I am at work. Still doesn't take away from the merits of my opinion.

And I could find five or six old posts with it spelled correctly.

But touche. I will concede that I mispelled it. And I won't even edit it so that you can bask in your victory. :)

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Something I have found interesting over the past few years. The word is often mispelled , but everyone always knows exactly what is meant regardless of how it is spelled.

[Acala]

If you did then rather then "seceding" you could just have a constitutional convention and "fix" whatever it is that you want to secede over.


I don't see a Con-Con fixing the problem. And suppose you are in one of the States that doesn't agree with what the Con-Con does? You just going to take the screwing?

Secession is not just a tool to get what we want by bluffing. Secession is a RIGHT that is itself essential for the function of the Federal government. If the union doesn't work for your state, your state should be able to leave without so much as a rattled saber. The only meaningful restraint on government is the right to leave it when it ceases to serve your interests.

[jmdrake]

I don't like ANY Federal law. The Federal government is all burden and no benefit now. The two things it was supposed to do - manage international relations and interstate commerce - it utterly ruined.


Fine. You're against all federal laws. Now how many Americans can you get to agree with you?



Actually I believe it denied the Confederate government the right to ban slavery, not the states, - meaning it left it a State issue just as it should have been under the US Constitution. And many very prominent Southerners - including Robert E. Lee, were opposed to slavery. But they were more strongly in SUPPORT of maintaining the Constitutional balance of power intended by the Founders.


You must not have read the confederate constitution. It prevents any confederate state from ending slavery within it's own territory as well as barring the confederacy itself from doing it.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
.
.
.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.


As far as Robert E. Lee is concerned, he had to be forced by court to free his father-in-law's slaves. Lee was executor of the will. The will specified the slaves were to be freed. Lee went to court to keep them enslaved as long as possible. He was against slavery on an economic basis, but not fundamentally "anti slavery".

http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Lee_Robert_Edward_ca_1806-1870
As Custis's executor, Lee found himself confronted with the political reality of slavery. He disliked the institution—more for its inefficiency than from moral repugnance—yet defended it throughout his life. Custis, however, had liberated his slaves in a messy will that stipulated that they be released within five years. Lee interpreted this to mean that the slaves could be held for the entire period. The slaves, believing they were already free, accosted Lee and escaped in large numbers. Lee responded by hiring out many Arlington slaves, breaking up families that had been together for decades. He then filed legal petitions to keep them enslaved indefinitely. Only when the courts ruled against him did Lee finally free the slaves.


That said he was a decent man and after the civil war helped integrate a church.




Southerners understood very well what the election of Lincon meant. He campaigned on increasing the tariffs and the idea of government raising revenue and using it for internal improvements (translation:graft). It was clear the problem of an overbearing Federal government using tariffs to harm the South for the benefit of Northern interests was NOT going away. Furthermore, Southerners knew that their electoral advantage was doomed as well.


I guess you think southerners couldn't count? Before secession they had enough votes in the senate to block the Morill tariff. The only way their electoral advantage was "doomed" was by their own secession, or by Lincoln's platform of restricting the expansion of...you can say it...slavery.



Send in troops and occupy the capitol. Seize bank accounts. Seize assets. Close ports. Close airports. Arrest public officials for contempt of Federal court orders.


Except NONE of that happened to South Carolina. And it wasn't because Andrew Jackson was yellow bellied. By not giving Jackson the moral high ground through any initiation of violence, South Carolina was able to undermine the will of the pro-tariff forces. Oh sure they gave "Old Hickory" authorization to invade, but then they quietly rescinded the tariff. Now if a state did something so radical as hold back its income tax the federal government might do what you suggest, but that's a big might. If a state merely instructed it's officers not to cooperate with the DEA current federal law would be on that state's side! If a state seceded and/or initiated the use of force by firing on the modern day equivalent of Ft. Sumter I guarantee you what that the nightmare scenario you have listed would happen.




I don't disagree with a stepwise approach. I never said we should secede tomorrow. What I advocate is preparing by taking steps to encourage a sense of independence in the states and a sense of disdain for the Federal government. Rather than beseaching the Federal government to be nice, we start questioning their relevance. Because ultimately I don't believe nullification works without a credible threat of secession to back it up. It is a bluff. And the Federal government will call that bluff. In order to back up nullification you must prepare people mentally for secession.

Fair enough. But if you're just talking about nullification you are more likely to get more support and reach "critical mass" sooner. Further some forms of nullification have already been upheld by the supreme court. The federal government is not allowed to "commandeer" state government to do its bidding. So how does it get around that? By offering federal grants. If states were simply willing to do without the money the federal government would have much less power.

[jmdrake]

I don't see a Con-Con fixing the problem. And suppose you are in one of the States that doesn't agree with what the Con-Con does? You just going to take the screwing?

I don't agree that a con-con is the solution either. But I'm suggesting that IF you had enough of a consensus across the country for secession to be successful THEN you'd also have enough consensus to do what you wanted to do via a con-con. Besides, say if you seceded and the new "confederacy" passed a constitution that you disagreed with? For instance say if one of the confederate states just wanted to end protective tariffs, but also wanted to end slavery? The confederate constitution forbade that.



Secession is not just a tool to get what we want by bluffing. Secession is a RIGHT that is itself essential for the function of the Federal government. If the union doesn't work for your state, your state should be able to leave without so much as a rattled saber. The only meaningful restraint on government is the right to leave it when it ceases to serve your interests.

Yeah...says you and every other secession advocate. I've never seen that written in the constitution. Surprisingly the confederate states didn't specify a "right of secession" in their constitution either. Anyway, when it comes to war it's not who's "right" it's who's "left".

[Mr.Magnanimous]

If any state seceded, I'd be there in an instant. Might even run for office if I could

[Acala]

Fine. You're against all federal laws. Now how many Americans can you get to agree with you? .

It doesn't matter. What matters is how many people in MY STATE can I get to agree with me. Thats the point and advantage of secession.


You must not have read the confederate constitution. It prevents any confederate state from ending slavery within it's own territory as well as barring the confederacy itself from doing it.



I concede your greater knowledge of the Civil War and the Confederate Constitution. But I don't concede the relevance. It is a different world today.



Except NONE of that happened to South Carolina. And it wasn't because Andrew Jackson was yellow bellied. By not giving Jackson the moral high ground through any initiation of violence, South Carolina was able to undermine the will of the pro-tariff forces. Oh sure they gave "Old Hickory" authorization to invade, but then they quietly rescinded the tariff. Now if a state did something so radical as hold back its income tax the federal government might do what you suggest, but that's a big might. If a state merely instructed it's officers not to cooperate with the DEA current federal law would be on that state's side! If a state seceded and/or initiated the use of force by firing on the modern day equivalent of Ft. Sumter I guarantee you what that the nightmare scenario you have listed would happen.].

Not sure why you are insisting on framing this in the context of the American Civil War. There are many other, more modern examples of what I envision. The break up of the USSR being one. There was also precedent for the threat of secession in the US long before the Civil War.

In any event, holding back the income tax would be essential in a serious campaign of nullification because that is the only way a State could afford to risk losing Federal money.




Fair enough. But if you're just talking about nullification you are more likely to get more support and reach "critical mass" sooner. Further some forms of nullification have already been upheld by the supreme court. The federal government is not allowed to "commandeer" state government to do its bidding. So how does it get around that? By offering federal grants. If states were simply willing to do without the money the federal government would have much less power.

I am talking about nullification for starters, bringing secession into public debate to start getting people to think about it, officially claiming the right of secession, and ultimately seceding if the Federal government does not abandon its unConstitutional activites.

Nullification ultimately needs secession to back it up. In fact, it logically leads to secession when a State nullifies a law that impacts other States.

[Acala]

Yeah...says you and every other secession advocate. I've never seen that written in the constitution. Surprisingly the confederate states didn't specify a "right of secession" in their constitution either. Anyway, when it comes to war it's not who's "right" it's who's "left".


It isn't written in the Constitution because it is implicit in a VOLUNTARY compact. It is bizarre to think that the Federal government, which was clearly intended to be an agent of the States with limited powers, and which the states chose to join or not, was some kind of suicide pact or Mafia blood oath from which there was no escape. There is nothing to suggest that was intended.

Also missing from the Constitutuion, by the way, is any authority for the Federal government to attack States that try to leave. And, as I am sure you are aware, the Federal government was one of enumerated powers and all rights not specifically granted it were reserved to the States. Including the right to leave without being attacked and destroyed.

And when it comes to war there IS right even if you lose. The North was wrong and the Federal government now is wrong. And if a State tries to secede now, it would be right even if it loses.

[osan]

The ultimate goal must be secession!

While I appreciate your position and whence I think from which it is you are coming, this is all very misguided, IMO.

I see advantages each to federalism and anti-federalism. Where I stand on that issue, I am still undecided and it isn't really relevant here.

The fundamental point, which you miss with your great starboard broadside (mainly because the target it to port), is that the ultimate goal is freedom. Given this, secession is not, in and of itself, a sufficient vehicle. There are at least three necessary elements any people must possess in order to become free and remain that way.

First, the greater population (critical mass) must be well enough educated and trained in the art and craft of liberty. Make no mistake about it, liberty most certainly requires art and craft by those who would live freely, which implies a minimal expertise required of a free nation's citizens in order that the state of freedom may be maintained on a long-term basis. This cannot be escaped under any circumstance because human beings are involved and in such endeavors nobody can be trusted. Ever.

Second, that same critical mass must actively maintain and exercise the will to maintain the state of liberty on an ongoing basis. This is where my loose notion of a universal secular religion came into play, where our freedoms are regarded and acted upon in much the same ways as one's religion often is. The point I probably failed to make in my earlier attempts at broaching this topic is that freedom becomes part of the individual such that it cannot be separated from him any more than his heart or other vital organs could be without destroying the creature. As long as people are willing to trust their liberties, their rights, their very lives to third parties for the convenience of being able to single-mindedly pursue more important issues such as spending time wringing one's hands over what color the new BMW should be, free nations shall remain in peril. Liberty must be the first and foremost concern in the everyday lives of free people.

Thus far we see that in order to maintain liberty in the long run, people need to understand it and the various ancillary issues that touch upon it and must be willing to act in a manner consistent with proper maintenance. This includes the possibility of actually killing other individuals, whether acting alone or in groups, who would dare trespass against their rightful claims. Such willingness is yet another element in this formula because it is often the case that those who would usurp are most often of a sort who understand and respect nothing but unvarnished force. Attempts to reason with such people universally lead to that most vile and unacceptable result: compromise. One never compromises on basic rights. One compromises when deciding whether the pizza will have anchovies.

Third, there must be formal constructs in place that support liberty and make clear the right of the individual to live according to the dictates of his conscience and to be free of the threat of force for his rightful action. Large populations must have such formalisms in place in order to keep usurpers at bay without having to resort to threats and violence as the first tier response.

A well educated population imbued with not only the ability, but a vigorous bent toward maintaining their liberties first and foremost and well supported with the ever helpful formal constructs that support the ready maintenance of a free state, is what is most needed. Secession may or may not be an additional, distantly secondary consideration. I see some great virtues in federalism when properly constructed and administered, just as I see equally potential hazards in anti-federalism. Each has its virtues and drawbacks. Each is wholly dependent upon the quality and demeanor of the people whom they purport to serve, for it is precisely those people who comprise the body of governance and not some ill-defined third-party fiction called "government" or "the state" or even "the people", whose reality is naught but a lie foisted upon people too ignorant or lazy to know or care about the truth. This is a central truth that most people fail to grasp. It is so because to acknowledge it would then demand right action on their parts, which in turn demands responsibility for themselves - a demand with which far too many refuse to be burdened. This is why our nation is in the shape we now find it. Until enough people decide to choose true freedom, which exacts a high cost in personal responsibility, we will continue the slide into bald faced slavery, thinking that we can get something for nothing.

Also, one given that should always be assumed is that there will always be one or more cadres of gangsters looking for ways to take what you have without permission, whether it be the fruits of your labor, your freedom, or other rightful possessions. This is called "getting over" and it is as old as the hills.

I am sure there are a few of you that want to shoot me because I keep repeating the same things over and over. I apologize for being such a broken record, but to date I see very little evidence that too many people understand what is REALLY needed here, which is a return to basics and self-examination.

As usual, my plugged nickel's worth.

[osan]

What lesson do you see?

I think the big mistake made by the South was firing on Fort Sumter.

Agreed.



With patience and forebearance, and progress towards an end to slavery...

Slavery was a doomed institution at that time. The owners may have had another 10 years or so where the maintenance of slaves would have remained economically viable. At some point they would have dumped their slaves in favor of automated means.

[klamath]

Secession worked so well last time. Seceding is that sure act of war as PROVEN by history.
Anybody that knowingly does an act that brings a a violent war around my family will be no friend of mine.

[Anti Federalist]

Fair enough. But I am at work. Still doesn't take away from the merits of my opinion.

And I could find five or six old posts with it spelled correctly.

But touche. I will concede that I mispelled it. And I won't even edit it so that you can bask in your victory. :)

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

No victory, I was pulling your leg. ;)

You were agreeing with too many of my posts.

[Anti Federalist]

Secession worked so well last time. Seceded is that sure act of war as PROVEN by history.
Anybody that knowingly does an act that brings a a violent war around my family will be no friend of mine.

So, "we" walk away from a violent, oppressive abuser.

The abuser follows and initiates more violence.

And it's "our" fault?

[Minuteman2012]

Wouldn't the Federal Government just embargo states that seceded? This seems like enough of a disincentive to stop such a thing from happening.

[Anti Federalist]

Wouldn't the Federal Government just embargo states that seceded? This seems like enough of a disincentive to stop such a thing from happening.

I'm sure they would.

We'd be stuck getting our porn, lawyers and weapons systems somewhere else.

Oh, the horror. ;)

[Jace]

Well, I would rather we make every effort to get someone like Ron Paul elected president and get other liberty candidates into government before hoping for secession. I hope we can still make the whole thing work. The US is a great place to live, and I've lived in two foreign countries and visited dozens of others for extended periods. I am often frustrated and dismayed with the direction we are going in, but I know I am fortunate to live here. I have a lot of love for this land, from California to Washington state to New York City to the Deep South and all places in between.

I have family in several states across the country. Georgia, Colorado, Virginia, Florida. I have close personal friends in dozens of other states. I would prefer them to remain countrymen. Some of them are even flaming liberal Obama worshippers, but they are still friends and family.

I love the history, culture, traditions and lifestyle of this place.

Now, if Arizona, Texas or Alaska actually did secede I would feel sad but I might consider emigrating there. But if the psychos running California ever declare independence, I will be running for the border.

[YumYum]

Wouldn't the Federal Government just embargo states that seceded? This seems like enough of a disincentive to stop such a thing from happening.

They wouldn't let the states that seceded drive on their interstate highways.

[Anti Federalist]

But if the psychos running California ever declare independence, I will be running for the border.

That's win/win, as far as I'm concerned. :D

My ideal scenario would be a break up of Canada as well, with Quebec becoming an independent nation, NH, ME and VT joining with the, now separated from Ottawa, Maritime Provinces and Newfoundland, forming the Alliance of Atlantic States.

[Anti Federalist]

Dupe post - NVM

[bravebulwark]

I'm sure they would.

We'd be stuck getting our porn, lawyers and weapons systems somewhere else.

Oh, the horror. ;)

Just shot milk out my nose... THX!!!

:)

[Philhelm]

So, "we" walk away from a violent, oppressive abuser.

The abuser follows and initiates more violence.

And it's "our" fault?

I usually tell my woman that I only hit her because I love her. No, just kidding...they are usually drugged and incoherent, so I don't bother. :D

[bravebulwark]

They wouldn't let the states that seceded drive on their interstate highways.

Just like a roommate who is leaving the apartment - take what you brought, lose your deposit unless you clean up, and the roommate is on his own

Keep the roads, the national (now state) guard, weapons, bases, etc

Each state would just pay it's "bar tab" for federal property that it is claiming as a State responsibility now.

And the State could even pay them back in FIAT dollars because they are valid for all debts public and private ;)

Hello, silver standard!!!!

[Anti Federalist]

I usually tell my woman that I only hit her because I love her. No, just kidding...they are usually drugged and incoherent, so I don't bother. :D


Braccckkk ROFL :D

[Philhelm]

Braccckkk ROFL :D

Well, if you think about it, and I'm sure you have, we as a citizenry are like those women that keep going back to the abusive boyfriend/husband (government). After all, the government just wants to protect us...

[Anti Federalist]

Well, if you think about it, and I'm sure you have, we as a citizenry are like those women that keep going back to the abusive boyfriend/husband (government). After all, the government just wants to protect us...

Exactly right, which is why I phrased it the way I did.

That is precisely what we, as citizens, are acting like: abused girlfriends or wives.

[Mini-Me]

Problem: Around the time of the Civil War, the people of each state tended to have a much stronger loyalty to their individual states than they do today. Most people today do not consider themselves citizens of their states, just citizens of the United States.

Even if we could scrounge up enough numbers to push for secession in state governments, the federal government would respond with military force to "secure" states. The seceding states may or may not be able to get their own National Guard to stick with them in principle, but the biggest problem is that the average American has been taught to worship the US military. This includes National Guard members, and it includes the vast majority of US citizens.

When American troops march down the streets of seceding states to "secure" their position in the state and "keep order," who is actually going to violently resist the same troops they have been indoctrinated to love and worship? Besides the whole indoctrination thing, some of these troops could even be their own friends, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, husbands, and wives, from the very same state. If you think about it realistically, the military is extremely unlikely to just come in "guns blazing," destroying everything in sight and provoking a defensive response. Instead, they will come in under the guise of "peacekeepers" and "law enforcement," and as far as I can tell, the only way for a seceding state to physically repel the invading army would be to fire the first shot.

Who the hell would actually fire that shot? As far as I see it, nobody would, or at least nobody would follow up on it. Nobody wants that kind of horrific bloodshed between countrymen, and I just do not see it happening. Even guerilla warfare by small bands of rebels would not actually work to make secession succeed, because by that time, the military would have replaced the state governments with essentially provincial governments, which have "changed their minds" on the issue of secession. The laws that ordinary people follow would once again be federal laws (specifically martial law, too).

In short, there is really only one way for secession to ever succeed: That is to get the majority of troops on our side too, so that when the time for secession comes, the United States military falls apart internally. This by itself is a tall order, because the United States military does everything it can to turn the troops into nothing more than obedient robots.

[Anti Federalist]

In short, there is really only one way for secession to ever succeed: That is to get the majority of troops on our side too, so that when the time for secession comes, the United States military falls apart internally. This by itself is a tall order, because the United States military does everything it can to turn the troops into nothing more than obedient robots.

Loyalties start to fall apart when you don't get paid, and haven't gotten paid, for months.

Just ask any Red Army soldier circa 1989. ;)

[tremendoustie]

I endorse secession, although it wouldn't be my ultimate goal.

Local government is far more accountable, and less corrupt.

[Mini-Me]

Loyalties start to fall apart when you don't get paid, and haven't gotten paid, for months.

Just ask any Red Army soldier circa 1989. ;)

That's true. Really, the best we can hope for is for the federal government to collapse like the Soviet Union and lose the will to rule by an iron fist. At that point, secession would almost feel redundant from the perspective of the individual states.

Anyway, I think the consensus here is that pushing for increased use of nullification and an increased sense of independence among states (and citizens of states) is the way forward. Nullification is, in a sense, an unofficial piecemeal act of secession. It may or may not attract a military occupation of the states who try it. If it doesn't attract an occupation, then we've made great strides without anyone officially seceding. If it does attract an occupation, an armed resistance simply isn't going to happen, but the act of invasion/occupation would reflect very poorly on the federal government.

The more that nullification is used, the more it will be used: Either the success of nullification or outrage over the heavy-handed response of the feds would likely embolden more states to use it. The more state governments that did, the more hard-pressed the feds would be to commandeer every single one. Over time, I think this very thing is what it would take to erode the morale of the US military, because so many would be wondering things like, "Why the hell are we occupying Texas again?" It would also hasten the financial collapse of the US government, which would struggle more and more to finance all of its occupations, especially in the midst of so many states being uncooperative with tax money, etc. It would be an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole for the feds. In the long run, playing the game like this is likely to result in one of three end-games:
The federal government gives up and retreats to a role that the majority of states will be okay with.
The federal government collapses entirely, and the states sit around in the aftermath wondering, "I guess this means we're seceding now?"
The feds start printing money like crazy to finance their subjugation of the states, followed by hyperinflation, followed by a complete loss of confidence in the feds and then [hopefully] the previous scenario.

[Stary Hickory]

I support secession for sure. It is probably the only means to really force the government back into a constitutional role. I think a major part of any freedom movement must revolve around making secession less taboo in the minds of the public....in fact not seceding is the insane thing to do considering what Americans are being forced to put up with.

[tremendoustie]

Loyalties start to fall apart when you don't get paid, and haven't gotten paid, for months.

Just ask any Red Army soldier circa 1989. ;)

That's a pretty sad statement about soldiers -- that their allegiance is basically to whoever's giving them money.

Personally, I think that if a state peacefully declared independence (and don't fire on any forts for God's sake!) there would be no war.

The government is not willing to slaughter peaceful Americans, it would be far to devastating to them from a pr perspective.

[Mini-Me]

That's a pretty sad statement about soldiers -- that their allegiance is basically to whoever's giving them money.

Personally, I think that if a state peacefully declared independence (and don't fire on any forts for God's sake!) there would be no war.

The government is not willing to slaughter peaceful Americans, it would be far to devastating to them from a pr perspective.

As I mentioned before though, they wouldn't come in guns blazing. They'd roll into the seceding state in an orderly manner and commandeer the seceding state government, only firing if fired upon. This means that anyone firing upon them would lose the moral high ground, and anyone not firing upon them would have their state government commandeered.

I think that scenario is extremely likely if any state secedes outright. It may even happen to states who the feds decide are "overusing" nullification. However, even without bloodshed, it would be a PR nightmare as you said, and that would embolden more states to at least start using nullification more. The feds can't indefinitely occupy every US state with the military, after all.

[tremendoustie]

As I mentioned before though, they wouldn't come in guns blazing. They'd roll into the seceding state in an orderly manner and commandeer the seceding state government, only firing if fired upon. This means that anyone firing upon them would lose the moral high ground, and anyone not firing upon them would have their state government commandeered.

I think that scenario is extremely likely if any state secedes outright. It may even happen to states who the feds decide are "overusing" nullification. However, even without bloodshed, it would be a PR nightmare as you said, and that would embolden more states to at least start using nullification more. The feds can't indefinitely occupy every US state with the military, after all.

So the people should just ignore the commandeered government. Act like they're in recess.

[Mini-Me]

So the people should just ignore the commandeered government. Act like they're in recess.

Eventually, that would happen, and the occupying forces would lose their own morale...but only if states all over the place were using nullification and getting commandeered. Essentially, it would only happen if everyone already knew the feds were losing control. If just one state "misbehaves" and gets commandeered, do you really think the average, ordinary citizens are going to simply disobey the laws of the government during a time of martial law and extreme penalties? "Walking away" is generally not a simple matter for people who actually care about their lives and futures, and most people aren't lining up to become martyrs. There's a reason almost everyone still pays taxes to the IRS to this very day.

[libertarian4321]

I find the whole "secession" idea to be a rather simplistic, cartoonish, and poorly thought out panacea.

Lets assume Texas, the state most often mentioned in these "secession" fantasy scenarios (even though the overwhelming majority of Texans are against the idea), actually secedes and that the military doesn't squash the rebellion like a grape (as they surely would) and that the US doesn't slap crushing economic sanctions on the state (as they surely would).

Then what? You think all the ills of the world would be solved because you replace the likes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama with the likes of Rick Perry and, er, George W. Bush? Not bloody likely.

You'd still have big government, you'd still have a corrupt and inefficient government.

"Secession" is rash, unrealistic, and unlikely to make anything better. I want no part of it.

Did I mention that the "secession" would last about a day before it was put down by the military? This ain't 1861, folks- a time when we had a tiny American military. You're living in a fantasy world if you think secession wouldn't be put down quickly and efficiently, in a way that wasn't possible in 1861.

[libertarian4321]

That's a pretty sad statement about soldiers -- that their allegiance is basically to whoever's giving them money.

Personally, I think that if a state peacefully declared independence (and don't fire on any forts for God's sake!) there would be no war.

The government is not willing to slaughter peaceful Americans, it would be far to devastating to them from a pr perspective.

Do you really think it would be peaceful?

Lets go back to the Texas secession fantasy scenario again.

There are dozens of Federal military installations in Texas, both large and small, including two of the largest Army bases in the country (Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss).

What are you going to do about them? Request that the 34,000 people at Ft Hood, most of whom are combat veterans, are NOT Texans, and extremely loyal to the USA just give up their base and equipment and "move along peacefully" because the "secessionists are in charge now"?

Yeah, that will happen, lol. It's about as likely as a Chuck Baldwin electoral landslide.

Even if that didn't start the ass whipping (with the secessionists being on the receiving end), all it would take would be a group of loyal US citizens who do not support secession asking for the military to help them- and the ass whipping would be on for sure.

[tremendoustie]

Do you really think it would be peaceful?

Lets go back to the Texas secession fantasy scenario again.

There are dozens of Federal military installations in Texas, both large and small, including two of the largest Army bases in the country (Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss).

What are you going to do about them? Request that the 34,000 people at Ft Hood, most of whom are combat veterans, are NOT Texans, and extremely loyal to the USA just give up their base and equipment and "move along peacefully" because the "secessionists are in charge now"?

Yeah, that will happen, lol. It's about as likely as a Chuck Baldwin electoral landslide.


I'd let them hang out as long as they want.



Even if that didn't start the ass whipping (with the secessionists being on the receiving end), all it would take would be a group of loyal US citizens who do not support secession asking for the military to help them- and the ass whipping would be on for sure.

Help them how? Go after people who aren't paying federal taxes? I still think this would be a PR catastrophe.

[tremendoustie]

Then what? You think all the ills of the world would be solved because you replace the likes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama with the likes of Rick Perry and, er, George W. Bush? Not bloody likely.

You'd still have big government, you'd still have a corrupt and inefficient government.


That's totally untrue. Just look at what we have now. Of the three levels of government, the federal government is by far the most abusive, corrupt, and useless. Local government is the most accountable.

Removing the federal layer of government, and merely having local and state, would be a huge leap towards liberty.

[libertarian4321]

Help them how? Go after people who aren't paying federal taxes? I still think this would be a PR catastrophe.

Secession would be disastrous to many people (including the secessionists). I guarantee a huge percentage of the people would oppose the secession (some would probably do so violently). Those who remain loyal would ask the US government to restore their country and their rights as American citizens. I'd probably be one of them- I'm not one to go along with hare-brained schemes (like secession).

Secession fantasies are ludicrous. "Peaceful secession" fantasies are even more so.

[libertarian4321]

That's totally untrue. Just look at what we have now. Of the three levels of government, the federal government is by far the most abusive, corrupt, and useless. Local government is the most accountable.

Removing the federal layer of government, and merely having local and state, would be a huge leap towards liberty.

So having George W. Bush in charge instead of having George W. Bush in charge would be a huge step forward?

Sorry, I'm not buying the "secession as cure for alll our ills" argument. Even if it didn't end in a bloody and violent disaster (which it would), it wouldn't do much to help, and would cause far more problems than it would solve.

[Mini-Me]

So having George W. Bush in charge instead of having George W. Bush in charge would be a huge step forward?

Sorry, I'm not buying the "secession as cure for alll our ills" argument. Even if it didn't end in a bloody and violent disaster (which it would), it wouldn't do much to help, and would cause far more problems than it would solve.

What's your stance on nullification?

[A Son of Liberty]

So having George W. Bush in charge instead of having George W. Bush in charge would be a huge step forward?

Sorry, I'm not buying the "secession as cure for alll our ills" argument. Even if it didn't end in a bloody and violent disaster (which it would), it wouldn't do much to help, and would cause far more problems than it would solve.

You can't really get your hands around the vast, expansive and monolithic federal government like you can local governments.

Yes, I'd rather have George W. Bush than George W. Bush... when the former is only a governor and the latter is in charge of the US empire. And since I'm not in Texas, it wouldn't be my particular problem. ;)

[jmdrake]

It isn't written in the Constitution because it is implicit in a VOLUNTARY compact. It is bizarre to think that the Federal government, which was clearly intended to be an agent of the States with limited powers, and which the states chose to join or not, was some kind of suicide pact or Mafia blood oath from which there was no escape. There is nothing to suggest that was intended.

Also missing from the Constitutuion, by the way, is any authority for the Federal government to attack States that try to leave. And, as I am sure you are aware, the Federal government was one of enumerated powers and all rights not specifically granted it were reserved to the States. Including the right to leave without being attacked and destroyed.

And when it comes to war there IS right even if you lose. The North was wrong and the Federal government now is wrong. And if a State tries to secede now, it would be right even if it loses.

From the constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Remember George Washington suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion? And don't give me that "Oh, but they weren't a state" crap. If states have a right to rebel then so do individual citizens.

If you want pre-civil war evidence of the federal government going after official state actors see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

Lastly the idea that states should have had the right to be slave states is utterly ridiculous. (You said that in an earlier post). Ron Paul was correct when he was that one of the reason for the civil war was the mistake of slavery (http://www.todaysamericandream.com/rp_sorry_mr_franklin.html). Slavery violates every conceivable idea of good government. If you support states rights based on the idea that people can "vote with their feet"...well that didn't apply slaves now did it? How about the idea of a "republican form of government" where the rights of the minority are protected? Note that the constitution said that federal government would GUARANTEE each state have a republican form of government! Do you honestly believe that slavery is an example of the rights of the minority being protected? And lastly the "fugitive slave laws" were a gross violation of states rights. (If you read through the southern declarations of secession you will see that one of their main complaints was that the federal government was not enforcing fugitive slave laws. They wanted their "states rights" to supersede the rights of other states.)

Anyway, I'm done here. I wasn't planning on getting into the silly never ending argument of whether the south was "right" or not. (It wasn't). Instead I wanted to point out the futility of secession versus the fact the nullification has already been shown to work! Go around talking about how the south should have been able to continue slavery and see how much support you end up getting for secession. In fact see how much support you end up getting for it at all.

[jmdrake]

Here's my last post in this thread. I've said everything I can possibly say on the issue. But please watch this video.

YouTube - Forgotten Lessons from the Nullification Crisis (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTlmznJTXo&p=FB7110EDF2528063)

You could get people to unite around nullification. Secession, by its very nature, will always be a divisive issue.

[libertarian4321]

You can't really get your hands around the vast, expansive and monolithic federal government like you can local governments.



If I could, I'd throttle it. Choke it down to a respectable size.

[klamath]

Do you really think it would be peaceful?

Lets go back to the Texas secession fantasy scenario again.

There are dozens of Federal military installations in Texas, both large and small, including two of the largest Army bases in the country (Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss).

What are you going to do about them? Request that the 34,000 people at Ft Hood, most of whom are combat veterans, are NOT Texans, and extremely loyal to the USA just give up their base and equipment and "move along peacefully" because the "secessionists are in charge now"?

Yeah, that will happen, lol. It's about as likely as a Chuck Baldwin electoral landslide.

Even if that didn't start the ass whipping (with the secessionists being on the receiving end), all it would take would be a group of loyal US citizens who do not support secession asking for the military to help them- and the ass whipping would be on for sure.
You get it. If it comes to the point of a federal government collapse then the union might and most likely would break apart but NOT before. Let one person show me a state where a majority of the Private citizens want to secede. Secession would be a minority group trying to force the majority to do what they wanted. Just on that score it would be considered a hostage situation not a secession. When you have a million or more people cut off cold turkey from social security and they are starving in the streets violence will happen.

[Acala]

Secession worked so well last time. Seceding is that sure act of war as PROVEN by history.
Anybody that knowingly does an act that brings a a violent war around my family will be no friend of mine.

The USSR dissolved with nary a shot being fired. If Quebec voted to leave Canada, do you think Canada would attack them? timing is everything.

Anyway, what are you planning to do when you fail to change the Federal government (which you will, sorry to say), whimper and beg your master in Washington to let you have another crust when the bankers are done with their feast?

[Acala]

Wouldn't the Federal Government just embargo states that seceded? This seems like enough of a disincentive to stop such a thing from happening.

They can try. In my view, the moment of opportunity comes when the Federal government is on its knees due to economic collapse. When it is struggling just to keep the lights on and pay the skeleton crew. Then they are least likely to fight it.

[Acala]

Loyalties start to fall apart when you don't get paid, and haven't gotten paid, for months.

Just ask any Red Army soldier circa 1989. ;)

Yup. Even the Continental Army under General Washington was in open mutiny when they were not paid for a while.

The Mighty US army falls to pieces when the dollar collapses. It is built on the borrow and spend fallacy just like everything else around this Potemkin Village.

[Acala]

That's true. Really, the best we can hope for is for the federal government to collapse like the Soviet Union and lose the will to rule by an iron fist. At that point, secession would almost feel redundant from the perspective of the individual states.

Anyway, I think the consensus here is that pushing for increased use of nullification and an increased sense of independence among states (and citizens of states) is the way forward. Nullification is, in a sense, an unofficial piecemeal act of secession. It may or may not attract a military occupation of the states who try it. If it doesn't attract an occupation, then we've made great strides without anyone officially seceding. If it does attract an occupation, an armed resistance simply isn't going to happen, but the act of invasion/occupation would reflect very poorly on the federal government.

The more that nullification is used, the more it will be used: Either the success of nullification or outrage over the heavy-handed response of the feds would likely embolden more states to use it. The more state governments that did, the more hard-pressed the feds would be to commandeer every single one. Over time, I think this very thing is what it would take to erode the morale of the US military, because so many would be wondering things like, "Why the hell are we occupying Texas again?" It would also hasten the financial collapse of the US government, which would struggle more and more to finance all of its occupations, especially in the midst of so many states being uncooperative with tax money, etc. It would be an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole for the feds. In the long run, playing the game like this is likely to result in one of three end-games:
The federal government gives up and retreats to a role that the majority of states will be okay with.
The federal government collapses entirely, and the states sit around in the aftermath wondering, "I guess this means we're seceding now?"
The feds start printing money like crazy to finance their subjugation of the states, followed by hyperinflation, followed by a complete loss of confidence in the feds and then [hopefully] the previous scenario.

^Exactly! Great post!

[Acala]

I find the whole "secession" idea to be a rather simplistic, cartoonish, and poorly thought out panacea.

Lets assume Texas, the state most often mentioned in these "secession" fantasy scenarios (even though the overwhelming majority of Texans are against the idea), actually secedes and that the military doesn't squash the rebellion like a grape (as they surely would) and that the US doesn't slap crushing economic sanctions on the state (as they surely would).

Then what? You think all the ills of the world would be solved because you replace the likes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama with the likes of Rick Perry and, er, George W. Bush? Not bloody likely.

You'd still have big government, you'd still have a corrupt and inefficient government.

"Secession" is rash, unrealistic, and unlikely to make anything better. I want no part of it.

Did I mention that the "secession" would last about a day before it was put down by the military? This ain't 1861, folks- a time when we had a tiny American military. You're living in a fantasy world if you think secession wouldn't be put down quickly and efficiently, in a way that wasn't possible in 1861.

Secession in the USSR wasn't crushed. And most of the states that emerged are better than the one that dissolved. Some are pretty damn good (Estonia, for example).

I think it is almost axiomatic that the more centralized government power is, the worse it is. And you would have a chance to remake State governments with greater checks in place in light of what we now know about what happened to the Federal government. This is one reason putting good people into state government now is helpful.

But I'm not saying that secession is a panacea. I am saying it is the only hope. Even if you got control of the Federal government, which I consider far LESS likely than successful secession, how would you unravel that mess? You would basically have to erase it all and start from scratch anyway, which is just a form of secession from the top down.

And if we get our asses kicked, so what? Let it not be said we did nothing. Or I guess we can stay at home and cower.

[Acala]

Do you really think it would be peaceful?

Lets go back to the Texas secession fantasy scenario again.

There are dozens of Federal military installations in Texas, both large and small, including two of the largest Army bases in the country (Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss).

What are you going to do about them? Request that the 34,000 people at Ft Hood, most of whom are combat veterans, are NOT Texans, and extremely loyal to the USA just give up their base and equipment and "move along peacefully" because the "secessionists are in charge now"?

Yeah, that will happen, lol. It's about as likely as a Chuck Baldwin electoral landslide.

Even if that didn't start the ass whipping (with the secessionists being on the receiving end), all it would take would be a group of loyal US citizens who do not support secession asking for the military to help them- and the ass whipping would be on for sure.

Being free is TOO HARD!! Whaaaaaaaa! Better not even think about trying. Just bend over and take it.

[Stary Hickory]

The only sane position to have is supporting Secession. It's quite ridiculous to say you would stay party to a contract no matter how badly the other party violates the terms of that contract. To me this is the very definition of insane or outright stupid.

[Acala]

From the constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Remember George Washington suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion? And don't give me that "Oh, but they weren't a state" crap. If states have a right to rebel then so do individual citizens.

If you want pre-civil war evidence of the federal government going after official state actors see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

Lastly the idea that states should have had the right to be slave states is utterly ridiculous. (You said that in an earlier post). Ron Paul was correct when he was that one of the reason for the civil war was the mistake of slavery (http://www.todaysamericandream.com/rp_sorry_mr_franklin.html). Slavery violates every conceivable idea of good government. If you support states rights based on the idea that people can "vote with their feet"...well that didn't apply slaves now did it? How about the idea of a "republican form of government" where the rights of the minority are protected? Note that the constitution said that federal government would GUARANTEE each state have a republican form of government! Do you honestly believe that slavery is an example of the rights of the minority being protected? And lastly the "fugitive slave laws" were a gross violation of states rights. (If you read through the southern declarations of secession you will see that one of their main complaints was that the federal government was not enforcing fugitive slave laws. They wanted their "states rights" to supersede the rights of other states.)

Anyway, I'm done here. I wasn't planning on getting into the silly never ending argument of whether the south was "right" or not. (It wasn't). Instead I wanted to point out the futility of secession versus the fact the nullification has already been shown to work! Go around talking about how the south should have been able to continue slavery and see how much support you end up getting for secession. In fact see how much support you end up getting for it at all.

YOU brought up the Civil War. Not me. I don't think it is relevant except perhaps as a lesson in tactics.

The idea that States would be held in the Union against their will by violence is TOTALLY contrary to the CENTRAL theme of the Revolution of 1776 - that the only legitimate government is by CONSENT of the governed. The unavoidable corollary to that proposition, which is the heart of the Declaration of Independence, and was at the heart of the revolution that swept a most of the world's monarchs off their thrones, is that when a people revoke their consent to be governed by a particular government, that government becomes illegitimate.

Any attempt to bind a people to a government they have rejected is wrong.

[klamath]

Secession in the USSR wasn't crushed. And most of the states that emerged are better than the one that dissolved. Some are pretty damn good (Estonia, for example).

I think it is almost axiomatic that the more centralized government power is, the worse it is. And you would have a chance to remake State governments with greater checks in place in light of what we now know about what happened to the Federal government. This is one reason putting good people into state government now is helpful.

But I'm not saying that secession is a panacea. I am saying it is the only hope. Even if you got control of the Federal government, which I consider far LESS likely than successful secession, how would you unravel that mess? You would basically have to erase it all and start from scratch anyway, which is just a form of secession from the top down.

And if we get our asses kicked, so what? Let it not be said we did nothing. Or I guess we can stay at home and cower.
Is your freedom worth another mans freedom? Is your freedom worth the loss of freedom of those millions that die and therefore lost their freedom because you started a war? Millions that didn't want anything to do with your war but are caught in the violence a war brings.

[Anti Federalist]

Is your freedom worth another mans freedom? Is your freedom worth the loss of freedom of those millions that die and therefore lost their freedom because you started a war? Millions that didn't want anything to do with your war but are caught in the violence a war brings.

Is another man's apathy worth my freedom?

Klamath, I understand your fear here, having seen a civil war up close and personal.

I also think you are being short sighted.

I think the war is coming my brother, whether you or I like it or not.

Only question at this point: do we deal with it on our terms, or someone else's?

[carbonpenguin]

YouTube - 4th of July, Vermont Independence Style! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksJ8uNshZfI)

[osan]

I think it is almost axiomatic that the more centralized government power is, the worse it is.

Given the history of human "government", I'd have to agree. IMO this has far more to do with our failings as human beings than of a given governmental architecture, though.


And you would have a chance to remake State governments with greater checks in place in light of what we now know about what happened to the Federal government. This is one reason putting good people into state government now is helpful.

But is there not an equally good chance that state governments would also run amok? Not that many are not already doing so. But I agree that smaller bites are easier to do something with. The shame of dissolution in my eyes is that I think the USA is a great place in many ways, even now. One of the wonderful things about it is our ability to travel and live where we please, more or less. I don't have to worry about being stopped at borders, and while state laws vary widely in some cases, there is some level of consistency such that I don't overly concern myself with running into Roy Bean running a scam in some miserable town. I like that the Constitution establishes (at least nominally anymore) some minimal standards of government - take the Second Amendment as an example: It acknowledges the fundamental right of every man to defend life, property, community, and therefore the means to exercise it. It is a contractual element between the states that the right shall not be infringed. In theory, I should therefore be able to strap on my pistola and travel here and there with absolutely no concern for my safety at the hands of "government" at an level nor in any location just because I have a gun with me for all lawful purposes. If the USA dissolves, I hold precious small doubt that in several states this right will be infringed most egregiously - more so than what we find even today. Is this an improvement?


But I'm not saying that secession is a panacea. I am saying it is the only hope.

ONLY hope? Really? Do we really believe this?


Even if you got control of the Federal government, which I consider far LESS likely than successful secession, how would you unravel that mess?

Very simple: start with complete and utter repudiation of the national debt. Wipe the slate clean and start again. It is doable and thought it would be perhaps a decade or two to straighten up, it would happen were the people here of a mind to see it come to pass.


You would basically have to erase it all and start from scratch anyway, which is just a form of secession from the top down.

Not really, though I think I understand what you mean.


And if we get our asses kicked, so what? Let it not be said we did nothing. Or I guess we can stay at home and cower.

On this we agree.

[klamath]

The USSR dissolved with nary a shot being fired. If Quebec voted to leave Canada, do you think Canada would attack them? timing is everything.

Anyway, what are you planning to do when you fail to change the Federal government (which you will, sorry to say), whimper and beg your master in Washington to let you have another crust when the bankers are done with their feast?
In case you are forgeting history what happened to those republic's of the USSR that tried to revolt before the federal government of the USSR was ready to collapse? They were brutally crushed.

[Acala]

Is your freedom worth another mans freedom? Is your freedom worth the loss of freedom of those millions that die and therefore lost their freedom because you started a war? Millions that didn't want anything to do with your war but are caught in the violence a war brings.

No man has a right to demand that I stay in chains because they don't mind theirs. I think it can be done without a war, but if war there be, then you can choose to run away or side with whoever you think is going to win.

[Acala]

In case you are forgeting history what happened to those republic's of the USSR that tried to revolt before the federal government of the USSR was ready to collapse? They were brutally crushed.

Timing is critical.

[Acala]

But is there not an equally good chance that state governments would also run amok?

Yup. Especially if we do not prepare. Part of the job of preparing for secession is educating people and electing leaders that will shape the post-collapse states. That is where preparation meets opportunity.


The shame of dissolution in my eyes is that I think the USA is a great place in many ways, even now. One of the wonderful things about it is our ability to travel and live where we please, more or less.

Agreed. And no reason that new unions would not form. Places like the USSR broke apart on cultural grounds and stayed apart for that reason. We have a more homogeneous culture and that makes it more likely that a new union (or unions) would form. In general, humans form associations that are mutually beneficial and try to get out of those that are not. If the benefits of a new union outweighed the burdens, they would form. The burdens of the current union CLEALY outwiegh the benefits.


I like that the Constitution establishes (at least nominally anymore) some minimal standards of government - take the Second Amendment as an example: It acknowledges the fundamental right of every man to defend life, property, community, and therefore the means to exercise it. It is a contractual element between the states that the right shall not be infringed. In theory, I should therefore be able to strap on my pistola and travel here and there with absolutely no concern for my safety at the hands of "government" at an level nor in any location just because I have a gun with me for all lawful purposes. If the USA dissolves, I hold precious small doubt that in several states this right will be infringed most egregiously - more so than what we find even today. Is this an improvement?

I think on balance the freedoms that the Federal government provides are VASTLY outweighed by the limitations on freedom. To the extent you have any firearms rights at the moment, they are the result of the States, not the Federal government. The Federal government has NEVER protected firearms freedom - until it just recently struck down the Chicago and DC gun ban ordinances. But in most states, the most onerous firearms restrictions come FROM the Federal government.

Would there be some states that take a more socialist or totalitarian path? Sure. And you would have the choice of not going there and they would get to reap the negative consequences of their choices. By allowing the different states to pursue their own paths, you could have a vast experiment in economics and social policy.




ONLY hope? Really? Do we really believe this?

I do. Most don't.




Very simple: start with complete and utter repudiation of the national debt. Wipe the slate clean and start again. It is doable and thought it would be perhaps a decade or two to straighten up, it would happen were the people here of a mind to see it come to pass.


Sure, you can do that. But then you need to unwind an astonishing amount of Federal law, terminate millions of workers, sell off vast tracts of land, and figure out how to rewrite the Constitution so none of this happens again. An enormous task. It could be done. But why? Why not free all the states and then those who want to try again can start over.

[/QUOTE]

[klamath]

No man has a right to demand that I stay in chains because they don't mind theirs. I think it can be done without a war, but if war there be, then you can choose to run away or side with whoever you think is going to win.

You and your army will kill innocents no if buts or maybes about it. It is the nature of war. There is no clean sanitized war. Anybody who thinks there is such a thing is a naive fool that has obviously has never been to war. There are many that don't even believe in any government, county or otherwise that will ride your revolution for their goals. Anybody that works for any government will be targets and if you bring your children to work some find it aceptable to take you and your children out. It will be your fault for bringing your children to work. Seen it said on these forums and yet they condeme a apache helicopter pilot in Iraq for stating that "people shouldn't bring their kids to war" after he lite them up accidently.
So for you it is acceptable to take other men lives and liberty for the .001 percent chance your free utopia will be realized through bloodshed. It is those in this movement that make neocons seem pretty tame.

[osan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2864966#post2864966)

But is there not an equally good chance that state governments would also run amok?

Yup. Especially if we do not prepare. Part of the job of preparing for secession is educating people and electing leaders that will shape the post-collapse states. That is where preparation meets opportunity.

OK, you ID at least one of the three neessary elements I posted earlier, but make no mention of how this would come about. We are at a point where people DO NOT WANT to be educated and prepared. They'd rather do their net.games.

I will add one thing to this: if anyone thinks that the forces aligned against the USA will simply vanish because the independent sovereign states dissolve the Union and give a jolly "fuck you" to those for whom all this debt paper is held, they are not being realistic in even the smallest degree.

I would bet money I do not have - lots of it in fact - that if the USA dissolves, and I mean REALLY dissolves, we will become the ready targets of military conquest.


Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2864966#post2864966)
The shame of dissolution in my eyes is that I think the USA is a great place in many ways, even now. One of the wonderful things about it is our ability to travel and live where we please, more or less.

Agreed. And no reason that new unions would not form. Places like the USSR broke apart on cultural grounds and stayed apart for that reason. We have a more homogeneous culture and that makes it more likely that a new union (or unions) would form. In general, humans form associations that are mutually beneficial and try to get out of those that are not. If the benefits of a new union outweighed the burdens, they would form. The burdens of the current union CLEALY outwiegh the benefits.
We are not the Soviet Union. We are on someone's shit list for annihilation. Not necessarily physical destruction, but the dismantling of our national character and will such that we will kneel and lick the boots of the masters. This has been the goal for a long time - no big dark conspiracy need be conjured, but only the good intentions of those who think they know better. If we go into the patterns of our history, it is clear that directed intent has been and is still being applied against us.

If we broke apart, there would stand the intolerable chance that large swaths of remains of the nation would regroup to form new, strong, and possibly even FREE nations. Those who have worked generation after generation to bring us to our knees, even for what they feel are noble reasons, are not about to simply allow all that effort to be destroyed. It seems to me to be unacceptably likely that they will see such a dissolution as a possible last and only chance to see their ends achieved. Am I the only one to see masses of UN troops pouring into these states of ours in order to AVERT "disaster"? To SAVE the good people of the USA who had been so abused by the evil corporations and who now suffer from some mania that will serve only to doom them? What do you think conquered peoples in places like Europe and China are going to do in response to UN orders to send in troops? They will be silent and do as they are told. I do not think that separated states in so unsettled a condition will be able to successfully fight off such an assault if it came.

Our slavery built our current military. We may as well keep it awhile longer until we can find a way to fix what needs correction. I guess my message here is that sudden and precipitous change might not work out too well for us in the end. I'd like to think otherwise, but the entire world is aligned against us, that much I am certain of. I hold no illusions that there are no nations that would enjoy the opportunity to wreak some pay back on we Evil Americans. I only advise strong caution in proceeding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2864966#post2864966)
I like that the Constitution establishes (at least nominally anymore) some minimal standards of government - take the Second Amendment as an example: It acknowledges the fundamental right of every man to defend life, property, community, and therefore the means to exercise it. It is a contractual element between the states that the right shall not be infringed. In theory, I should therefore be able to strap on my pistola and travel here and there with absolutely no concern for my safety at the hands of "government" at an level nor in any location just because I have a gun with me for all lawful purposes. If the USA dissolves, I hold precious small doubt that in several states this right will be infringed most egregiously - more so than what we find even today. Is this an improvement?

I think on balance the freedoms that the Federal government provides are VASTLY outweighed by the limitations on freedom. To the extent you have any firearms rights at the moment, they are the result of the States, not the Federal government. The Federal government has NEVER protected firearms freedom - until it just recently struck down the Chicago and DC gun ban ordinances. But in most states, the most onerous firearms restrictions come FROM the Federal government. I fully agree, but again that is a failure of WE THE PEOPLE and not "government" per sé. WE are government. It is OUR NEIGHBORS who have wrought this horror upon us and the rest have done next to nothing to stop it. Are we not seeing this? The problem is US, and not the "federal government". We need to get US straightened out before any large changes can succeed. It is this against which I raise the warning.


Would there be some states that take a more socialist or totalitarian path? Sure. And you would have the choice of not going there and they would get to reap the negative consequences of their choices. By allowing the different states to pursue their own paths, you could have a vast experiment in economics and social policy. And what about states that don't allow you to enter or exit? This seems to be yet another possibility that has not received much air time. WHat if some poor fellow living in MA gets literally stuck there when they go mega communist and close their borders and shoot anyone attempting to leave? Can't happen? Guess again. What then? I don't like this idea of a patchwork where if I drive from one state into another I may find myself in prison because I wore a red shirt on Tuesday, which constitutes a felony there. What about constitutional protections such as presumption of innocence? Right to trial by jury? To remain silent? What if a state decides it's prefectly OK to beat a confession out of you? There is SO much that can go wrong - equally wrong with what we currently have and well beyond.

Wouldl things necessarily go that way? No - but what if they do? How does anyone know that the state legislatures are not as severely influenced by malicious third party influences as is teh federal government? Consider this: you claim it is much harder to correct the wrong at the federal level - I agree. Conversely, it is also far easier to speed the progress of the wrong at the state level. Money and privilege in back room deals do not come to a halt just because the level of operation has gone down one notch. Each state can invoke "national security" and hide its activities just as readily as can the feds. What difference, fifty corrupt states or one corrupt nation?

All I can say is be very careful of that for which you wish.



Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2864966#post2864966)
ONLY hope? Really? Do we really believe this?

I do. Most don't.See above.



Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2864966#post2864966)
Very simple: start with complete and utter repudiation of the national debt. Wipe the slate clean and start again. It is doable and thought it would be perhaps a decade or two to straighten up, it would happen were the people here of a mind to see it come to pass.

Sure, you can do that. But then you need to unwind an astonishing amount of Federal law, terminate millions of workers, sell off vast tracts of land, and figure out how to rewrite the Constitution so none of this happens again. An enormous task. It could be done. But why? Why not free all the states and then those who want to try again can start over.
Rewriting the Constitution is perhaps a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. People have to WANT to be free with sufficient determination and force of will in order to have it. That means the willingness of physically MURDERING those who would trespass on one's rights, and nothing less than that.

The problem we face today is that people demand freedom but are generally unwilling to pay the costs of having it. Once again, the age old saw proves undeniably true: people wanting something for nothing. It is an illusion - an impossibility, for EVERYTHING has a cost - the only questions there are how much and who pays. Something for nothing has been the ruin of every nation since written history began and it is unwinding this nation now at an alarming rate.

Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

[Acala]

You and your army will kill innocents no if buts or maybes about it. It is the nature of war. There is no clean sanitized war. Anybody who thinks there is such a thing is a naive fool that has obviously has never been to war. There are many that don't even believe in any government, county or otherwise that will ride your revolution for their goals. Anybody that works for any government will be targets and if you bring your children to work some find it aceptable to take you and your children out. It will be your fault for bringing your children to work. Seen it said on these forums and yet they condeme a apache helicopter pilot in Iraq for stating that "people shouldn't bring their kids to war" after he lite them up accidently.
So for you it is acceptable to take other men lives and liberty for the .001 percent chance your free utopia will be realized through bloodshed. It is those in this movement that make neocons seem pretty tame.

I have never called for revolution or war. YOU jump to the conclusion that the only choices are war or continuing to play the rigged game of Federal democracy and remain in chains. I reject your false dichotomy. Empires inevitably collapse under their own weight, not by being overthrown. The American empire will meet the same fate. My suggestion is to be prepared to abandon the dying carcass of the USA when it has weakened sufficiently. Your suggestion is what? More hope and change? Perhaps a miraculous conversion of the democratic process from a puppet show for idiots into a real tool of reform? Hahahahaha!

[Acala]

We are at a point where people DO NOT WANT to be educated and prepared. They'd rather do their net.games.

Everything changes when people get hungry.


I will add one thing to this: if anyone thinks that the forces aligned against the USA will simply vanish because the independent sovereign states dissolve the Union and give a jolly "fuck you" to those for whom all this debt paper is held, they are not being realistic in even the smallest degree.

I would bet money I do not have - lots of it in fact - that if the USA dissolves, and I mean REALLY dissolves, we will become the ready targets of military conquest.

Maybe. But I don't see any really formidable neighbors.


We are not the Soviet Union. We are on someone's shit list for annihilation. Not necessarily physical destruction, but the dismantling of our national character and will such that we will kneel and lick the boots of the masters. This has been the goal for a long time - no big dark conspiracy need be conjured, but only the good intentions of those who think they know better. If we go into the patterns of our history, it is clear that directed intent has been and is still being applied against us.

Nah. The goal has been to milk us for all the wealth they can get. And they have just about finished. Nobody cares about you once you have no wealth left.


If we broke apart, there would stand the intolerable chance that large swaths of remains of the nation would regroup to form new, strong, and possibly even FREE nations. Those who have worked generation after generation to bring us to our knees, even for what they feel are noble reasons, are not about to simply allow all that effort to be destroyed. It seems to me to be unacceptably likely that they will see such a dissolution as a possible last and only chance to see their ends achieved. Am I the only one to see masses of UN troops pouring into these states of ours in order to AVERT "disaster"?

Nobody will care once we are broke. As for UN troops, I don't think they are much to worry about. The only army in the world that can take on an enraged American public is the US army. Once it has collapsed, we will not be worth the trouble.



Our slavery built our current military. We may as well keep it awhile longer until we can find a way to fix what needs correction. I guess my message here is that sudden and precipitous change might not work out too well for us in the end.

Ain't gonna have any choice in the matter. No soft landing on the flight plan. sorry. And there ain't gonna be anything to pay our military with. They won't work for waiving flags and patriotic songs.


I'd like to think otherwise, but the entire world is aligned against us, that much I am certain of. I hold no illusions that there are no nations that would enjoy the opportunity to wreak some pay back on we Evil Americans.

Everybody hates us because we are always messing in their affairs. once we stop doing that, nobody is going to get together an army and send it around the world just for the chance to beat us up. They will do it for money, but there isn't going to be any.


I fully agree, but again that is a failure of WE THE PEOPLE and not "government" per sé. WE are government. It is OUR NEIGHBORS who have wrought this horror upon us and the rest have done next to nothing to stop it. Are we not seeing this? The problem is US, and not the "federal government". We need to get US straightened out before any large changes can succeed. It is this against which I raise the warning.

The system is broken and we are not going to fix it. and we no longer have the option of getting things "straightened out" before large changes occur. It is happening. the only question is what will arise from the ashes after this cardboard country burns to the ground.


And what about states that don't allow you to enter or exit? This seems to be yet another possibility that has not received much air time. WHat if some poor fellow living in MA gets literally stuck there when they go mega communist and close their borders and shoot anyone attempting to leave? Can't happen? Guess again. What then? I don't like this idea of a patchwork where if I drive from one state into another I may find myself in prison because I wore a red shirt on Tuesday, which constitutes a felony there. What about constitutional protections such as presumption of innocence? Right to trial by jury? To remain silent? What if a state decides it's prefectly OK to beat a confession out of you? There is SO much that can go wrong - equally wrong with what we currently have and well beyond.

you really think the Federal government is your protector against the evil states? I think that is totally backwards. It is the federal government that enforced the banking scam. It is the Federal government that cluster bombs women and children. It is the Federal government that enforced the drug war. And on and on and on. The states are amateurs when it comes to tyranny. you have been brainwashed into thinking the federal government is actually your friend. It isn't. But I accept that some states may go the wrong way. so don't go to those states.


Would things necessarily go that way? No - but what if they do? How does anyone know that the state legislatures are not as severely influenced by malicious third party influences as is teh federal government? Consider this: you claim it is much harder to correct the wrong at the federal level - I agree. Conversely, it is also far easier to speed the progress of the wrong at the state level. Money and privilege in back room deals do not come to a halt just because the level of operation has gone down one notch. Each state can invoke "national security" and hide its activities just as readily as can the feds. What difference, fifty corrupt states or one corrupt nation?

the chance of having a few free republics arise among the states is much higher than the chance of reforming the Federal government. I don't need all fifty states to become free republics. Just one. Pretty good odds of that.

[tremendoustie]

Those who remain loyal would ask the US government to restore their country and their rights as American citizens. I'd probably be one of them- I'm not one to go along with hare-brained schemes (like secession).

So you would support the federal government showing up and violently attacking people simply because those people didn't want to be under the thumb of the federal government?

How about this: You can keep paying federal taxes, social security, medicare, if you want, and you can leave the rest of us alone.

[tremendoustie]

So having George W. Bush in charge instead of having George W. Bush in charge would be a huge step forward?.

No, I think eliminating one massive layer of bureaucracy and corruption would be a huge step forward -- even if there's still another one.

I also think that the more local a government is, the more accountable it is, and that smaller governments also afford more choice. I only have to move to the next town or state to avoid the town or state government. I can choose a location that fits my preferences.

[Liberty4life]

every state should have its own currency,
maybe the values based on stock averages
or oil or even a conglomeration of all the value of
marketable products

[Meatwasp]

Secession in the USSR wasn't crushed. And most of the states that emerged are better than the one that dissolved. Some are pretty damn good (Estonia, for example).
Or I guess we can stay at home and cower.
Alcala what the devil happened to you? You used to be a peace loving person. Has Cheap Seats moved in with you?
Also read drudge report on how the skin heads are all over Russia after the collapse attacking people. This is what would happen if we started any shit in America.

[Acala]

Alcala what the devil happened to you? You used to be a peace loving person. Has Cheap Seats moved in with you?
Also read drudge report on how the skin heads are all over Russia after the collapse attacking people. This is what would happen if we started any shit in America.

I haven't advocated war. It is other posters who have assumed that secession means war. I don't make that assumption. In fact I think a new civil war would be a disaster. But I think it will not be necessary. ALL empires collapse of their own weight. The American empire will be no different in this regard and I believe the end is near. That collapse will present an opportunity to escape from the clutches of tyranny. I think it will be much easier to build smaller, decentralized republics than to try and reform the giant USA.

Hence, secession. Not now, but when it can be done without a massacre. But now is the time to start moving in that direction with nullification and starting to bring the idea into public debate. People react to the mere idea of secession with revulsion and shock. Why? Why is it shocking to think that a group of people would say "it no longer serves our interests to be part of your country." That is the essential idea this country was built on in the first place.

[klamath]

I have never called for revolution or war. YOU jump to the conclusion that the only choices are war or continuing to play the rigged game of Federal democracy and remain in chains. I reject your false dichotomy. Empires inevitably collapse under their own weight, not by being overthrown. The American empire will meet the same fate. My suggestion is to be prepared to abandon the dying carcass of the USA when it has weakened sufficiently. Your suggestion is what? More hope and change? Perhaps a miraculous conversion of the democratic process from a puppet show for idiots into a real tool of reform? Hahahahaha!

No don't try and get out of your words.

I think it can be done without a war, but if war there be, then you can choose to run away or side with whoever you think is going to win.

That seems pretty damned clear that if it does cause war YOU are willing to accept it.
If the federal governmet collapses on itself and the states drift away on their own I have no problem and understand you concept of smaller governments.
But bear in mind that a group of fractured states might very well be a tempting target for a future imperial chinese government. Now you have a federal government in peking and 1.2 billion more people in your federal government. If you think getting change through Washington is bad try it through Peking.

[tremendoustie]

No don't try and get out of your words.


That seems pretty damned clear that if it does cause war YOU are willing to accept it.
If the federal governmet collapses on itself and the states drift away on their own I have no problem and understand you concept of smaller governments.
But bear in mind that a group of fractured states might very well be a tempting target for a future imperial chinese government. Now you have a federal government in peking and 1.2 billion more people in your federal government. If you think getting change through Washington is bad try it through Peking.

Sorry, and I don't mean to be mean, but that's just paranoid baloney. If you think Afghanistan is bad, try occupying the US. With a small fraction of the money spent just on charity last year alone we could buy a AK-47 for one in three adults, RPG-7s for one in ten, and over a million stinger SAMs. That and we already have more guns than people.

Our federal government makes us weaker, not stronger, by destroying our wealth and our economic stability, and hawking us to China.

Fear of phantom invasions from half a world away are just the kind of crazy paranoia they want everyone to have, so they can convince us we need their sorry asses, which we don't in the slightest.

[klamath]

Sorry, and I don't mean to be mean, but that's just paranoid baloney. If you think Afghanistan is bad, try occupying the US. With a small fraction of the money spent just on charity last year alone we could buy a AK-47 for one in three adults, RPG-7s for one in ten, and over a million stinger SAMs. That and we already have more guns than people.

Our federal government makes us weaker, not stronger, by destroying our wealth and our economic stability, and hawking us to China.

Fear of phantom invasions from half a world away are just the kind of crazy paranoia they want everyone to have, so they can convince us we need their sorry asses, which we don't in the slightest.

Despite the fact that there have been "Phantom invasions around the world for thousands of years:rolleyes:
I don't think that at present China would be a threat but the nature of man is to expand their empires as they grow. To say that the Americans are the only people in the world that wish to have an empire is just about as naive a statement as one can make. As china grows to the worlds supper power they will be exerting their influence around the world. They will be relieing on raw resources for their ecconomic engine and if any instablility threathens that they will act to keep their people from revolting.
Everytime I see someone start talking about our guns and RPGs I laugh. It is a statement someone that has no clue about modern no holds bared warfare would make. They get their information from watching the US in places like the middle east. The US military could have annililated every man woman and child in both afganistan and Iraq if our goal was just to take the land and the US would have done it with very few casualities.

[Acala]

No don't try and get out of your words.


That seems pretty damned clear that if it does cause war YOU are willing to accept it. .

I repeat, I have not called for war or revolution or attacking the empire. I do not advocate those things because I don't think they would be successful and because I don't think they will be necessary if we are skillful. But I also don't dismiss secession just because it MIGHT be met with resistance.

I think the Federal government had reached its peak in size, scope, and strength. Only a fool would advocate any course of action that would result in that entitiy turning its military might upon us. However, having peaked, shortly it will begin to contract. And the contraction is going to be swift and devastating. If we are very lucky, that will lead to an opportunity for free republics to break away without resistance.

The contraction is coming whether you like it or not. The only question is what will we do with any opportunity it presents.

I happen to think we can prepare by moving forward with nullification and starting to think and talk about eventual secession.


If the federal governmet collapses on itself and the states drift away on their own I have no problem and understand you concept of smaller governments.
But bear in mind that a group of fractured states might very well be a tempting target for a future imperial chinese government. Now you have a federal government in peking and 1.2 billion more people in your federal government. If you think getting change through Washington is bad try it through Peking.

WE ARE THE IMPERIALISTS!!!!! Not China. Who has China invaded in your lifetime? You must be buying into the talk of the war mongers.

[furface]

The key to all of this is economics and money. Ron Paul is correct in focusing on the Fed and money. I'm not sure I completely agree with all the Austrian stuff, but he's absolutely correct that the US government and its private owners control us all with their power to control money.

The point for bringing this up is that we need to start thinking about creating economies and trading organizations amongst ourselves. Once we have a few hundred thousand people making stuff for each other, trading with each other, educating our children together, etc. That's when we'll have the power to tell the federal government and anybody else who wants to make us their slaves to go to hell.

[osan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2865593#post2865593)
We are at a point where people DO NOT WANT to be educated and prepared. They'd rather do their net.games.

Everything changes when people get hungry.

Agreed, but at that point things have usually gone past the point of repair. We really do not want to get to that stage, but I fear it will happen - unless, of course, a sufficient majority lays down for the masters, in which case all the "unpleasantness" may be avoided.


Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2865593#post2865593)
I will add one thing to this: if anyone thinks that the forces aligned against the USA will simply vanish because the independent sovereign states dissolve the Union and give a jolly "fuck you" to those for whom all this debt paper is held, they are not being realistic in even the smallest degree.

I would bet money I do not have - lots of it in fact - that if the USA dissolves, and I mean REALLY dissolves, we will become the ready targets of military conquest.

Maybe. But I don't see any really formidable neighbors.

Canada and MX can and perhaps would serve as staging areas for UN forces. Consider the present chaos in MX - UN offers a net of sorts: allow us to base operations on your soil and we will take care of your drug cartel problem free of charge. Greenland is also plenty close enough to serve as a base of operations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2865593#post2865593)
We are not the Soviet Union. We are on someone's shit list for annihilation. Not necessarily physical destruction, but the dismantling of our national character and will such that we will kneel and lick the boots of the masters. This has been the goal for a long time - no big dark conspiracy need be conjured, but only the good intentions of those who think they know better. If we go into the patterns of our history, it is clear that directed intent has been and is still being applied against us.

Nah. The goal has been to milk us for all the wealth they can get. And they have just about finished. Nobody cares about you once you have no wealth left.

This is most myopic, I am afraid. Token fortune is not the goal of those in power. Generation upon generation does not maintain such firm coherence of vision for mere material wealth. The root goal is the acquisition of utter power pursuant to some unadvertised purpose.


Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2865593#post2865593)
If we broke apart, there would stand the intolerable chance that large swaths of remains of the nation would regroup to form new, strong, and possibly even FREE nations. Those who have worked generation after generation to bring us to our knees, even for what they feel are noble reasons, are not about to simply allow all that effort to be destroyed. It seems to me to be unacceptably likely that they will see such a dissolution as a possible last and only chance to see their ends achieved. Am I the only one to see masses of UN troops pouring into these states of ours in order to AVERT "disaster"?

Nobody will care once we are broke. As for UN troops, I don't think they are much to worry about. The only army in the world that can take on an enraged American public is the US army. Once it has collapsed, we will not be worth the trouble.


This is very naive, IMO. The whole point of breaking the USA is to allow for ushering in the whole of the new order. A broken American can mend in time, reasserting its independence. That would be intolerable. What remained of the people of this nation would have to be brought to heel. Leaving us to our devices would not likely serve that end.

As to enraged Americans, please - give it a rest. Most Americans I meet will fold like cheap suits when conditions are right. Offer them food, a uniform, gun, and a new sense of belonging and they will merrily go forth and suppress their neighbors up through the point of killing them. I would also point out that there's some rather novel weaponry out there that few talk about. I've worked in the industry and have known several other people who have worked in places like LLL. I doubt all that research would remain dormant on shelves in the case of a real shindig here in the good old (former?) US of A. A big question would be who controls that technology now? Given the current state of affairs here, it would not surprise me a whit if those technologies were "elsewhere", possibly in production, and being kept rather quiet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2865593#post2865593)
Our slavery built our current military. We may as well keep it awhile longer until we can find a way to fix what needs correction. I guess my message here is that sudden and precipitous change might not work out too well for us in the end.

Ain't gonna have any choice in the matter. No soft landing on the flight plan. sorry. And there ain't gonna be anything to pay our military with. They won't work for waiving flags and patriotic songs.


Still worth hangin gon to them as long as possible. There are real hostiles out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2865593#post2865593)
I'd like to think otherwise, but the entire world is aligned against us, that much I am certain of. I hold no illusions that there are no nations that would enjoy the opportunity to wreak some pay back on we Evil Americans.

Everybody hates us because we are always messing in their affairs. once we stop doing that, nobody is going to get together an army and send it around the world just for the chance to beat us up. They will do it for money, but there isn't going to be any.

Agreed on the first point. As for the rest, you still miss the point - power hangs in the balance and those responsible for all this hanky panky are not going to allow the chance that a new America (or whatever) will rise in the place of the old. Power is the game, not money. Money is but a means and money is whatever those in charge say it is. The world runs on air and has for quite a while. What is to stop it from going on a while longer? Nothing. So long as people believe in the system of currency, it will serve its purpose.


Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2865593#post2865593)
I fully agree, but again that is a failure of WE THE PEOPLE and not "government" per sé. WE are government. It is OUR NEIGHBORS who have wrought this horror upon us and the rest have done next to nothing to stop it. Are we not seeing this? The problem is US, and not the "federal government". We need to get US straightened out before any large changes can succeed. It is this against which I raise the warning.

The system is broken and we are not going to fix it. and we no longer have the option of getting things "straightened out" before large changes occur. It is happening. the only question is what will arise from the ashes after this cardboard country burns to the ground.

We are not quite there yet, though I agree we a re VERY close at this time.

REPUDIATE THE DEBT. First step. Essential step.


Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2865593#post2865593)
And what about states that don't allow you to enter or exit? This seems to be yet another possibility that has not received much air time. WHat if some poor fellow living in MA gets literally stuck there when they go mega communist and close their borders and shoot anyone attempting to leave? Can't happen? Guess again. What then? I don't like this idea of a patchwork where if I drive from one state into another I may find myself in prison because I wore a red shirt on Tuesday, which constitutes a felony there. What about constitutional protections such as presumption of innocence? Right to trial by jury? To remain silent? What if a state decides it's prefectly OK to beat a confession out of you? There is SO much that can go wrong - equally wrong with what we currently have and well beyond.

you really think the Federal government is your protector against the evil states?


I didn't write that nor did I imply it. The CONTRACT between the states, as embodied in our CONSTITUTION sets forth, albeit poorly, a standard of governance required for membership in the Union. It really has nothing to do with the federal government per se insofar as operations go. Were we to strip out the federal government from the Constitution, there would still remain the elements of that minimal standard of governance. Free speech, trial by jury, RKBA, equal protection, and so forth. There is grand virtue in holding to these principles. Our Union does not have to ba an all or nothign affair. How about we toss the stuff that isn't working and keep that which does? How about ENFORCING that which has been unconstitutionally abandoned, like minting nothing but gold and silver coin? Come one - wrap your head around this a bit better. There is some stuff to jettison but not all of it.



It is the federal government that enforced the banking scam.

And WE allowed it. You did. I did. Everyone on this forum did, as did every citizen of this nation. Whose fault is it? OURS - all ours. We let them do it. Nothing anyone can say will alter that truth. Now we are in the shit and only we can save it. Toss your hands up if you please. You will likely get what you wish for in the not too distant future - in one form or another. I am not sure it will be what you think.


It is the Federal government that cluster bombs women and children.

It is YOU who allows it. We are all of us guilty to the eyeballs on these accounts.


The states are amateurs when it comes to tyranny... It isn't. But I accept that some states may go the wrong way. so don't go to those states.

Amaterurs? Are you serious? Have you ever lived in NJ? They are no amateurs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by osan http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2865593#post2865593)
Would things necessarily go that way? No - but what if they do? How does anyone know that the state legislatures are not as severely influenced by malicious third party influences as is teh federal government? Consider this: you claim it is much harder to correct the wrong at the federal level - I agree. Conversely, it is also far easier to speed the progress of the wrong at the state level. Money and privilege in back room deals do not come to a halt just because the level of operation has gone down one notch. Each state can invoke "national security" and hide its activities just as readily as can the feds. What difference, fifty corrupt states or one corrupt nation?

the chance of having a few free republics arise among the states is much higher than the chance of reforming the Federal government. I don't need all fifty states to become free republics. Just one. Pretty good odds of that.

Uh huh. One or ten.... who cares when the rest inevitably align against them? Again you miss the point completely. Those looking to defeat this nation are not going to tolerate smaller "free" ones. They will each become targets, most likely through economic warfare. No matter how you slice it, the free states that might emerge from the dissolution of the Union will remain under attack.

I recommend we preserve the Union - fix what needs it and move on. America is a good thing. If we took the correct measures, like dissolving most of the federal government and apportioning our standing army amongst the states, repudate the debts, reestablish proper currency, get out of the world's business, try-convict-execute the traitors, hunted the gloablists and murdered them - we would be on the road to recovery. How about COnstitutional Amendments that mete out a mandatory death sentence to all federal employees convicted of violating the rights of the citizens? We could go on, but perhaps the point is made.