How to TAKE your freedom back

[TheTexan]

Warning: participation in this thread will most likely automatically add you to the United States terrorist watch list.


We have petitioned our government, and the citizens of this country, to resolve these issues:

We have a right to keep the fruits of our labor, but when we assert this right, we get a gun pointed at us
We have a right to keep the land we rightfully own, but when we assert this right, we get a gun pointed at us
We have a right to make any voluntary trade we like, but when we do, we get a gun pointed at us
We have a right to use any currency we like, but when we do, we get a gun pointed at us
We have a right to do whatever we like on the land that we own as long as we don't harm others, but when we do, we get a gun pointed at us
We have a right to put or not put any substance we like into our body, but when we do, we get a gun pointed at us


The malfeasance of our politicians, and the negligence of the citizens of this country, has led to a system of extortion, oppression, corruption, & disparity. The services our country renders with the money stolen via taxes are ineffective or outright failing. The currency we are forced to use is being intentionally inflated for the direct benefit of the rich, with trillions of dollars being literally stolen from the American people. Our government not only continues to enable this behavior, but actively participates in it, ensuring the destruction of both our currency and our economy. Record levels of government spending has brought with it record levels of corruption, where corporations both write the laws and elect the politicians. Our country has been at perpetual war for a century, enriching the military industrial complex, while simultaneously making us poorer and less safe. With each war, or even in times of peace, our liberties have been slowly eroded. Today we are no longer allowed to decide what we eat, what we drink, or god forbid, what we smoke, in the name of 'protecting us from ourselves'. The police sworn to protect us are trained to kill and enforce, rather than protect and serve. The Constitution that was designed to prevent all this from happening has been manipulated & distorted to the point where it no longer has any relevance, and is all but ignored. A child could read this document and explain to you that our country is no longer Constitutional, yet the transgressions only grow worse with each passing year.

We, as believers in liberty, have significant and irreconcilable differences with the citizens of this country

We have made the above complaints known. We have done our due diligence to educate the American people in the ways of freedom. We gave them the option of freedom, peace, and prosperity, but they have opted against it. They heard our message of liberty, and told us to take it elsewhere. So we shall.

We will no longer tolerate these transgressions against our rights. Not without incident.

Together, we can take back our freedom

We have proven to be a powerful force across the nation. Our efforts to elect Ron Paul have been a resounding success. We may not get the presidential nomination, but that was never the goal. The goal is and has always been the pursuit of achieving liberty. And we are close. We only need to reach out and take it.

We need only pick a state, and go there. The secession will happen on its own.

Once you accept that the rest of the people of this country simply do not want freedom, it becomes clear that forcing our version of freedom on them is just as wrong as them forcing their version of 'freedom' on us. Recognizing this, it becomes obvious that secession is and has always been the ideal solution, both for us, and for the rest of the country.

Welcome to the real revolution.

[heavenlyboy34]

:cool: Microsecession FTW! :)

[Cleaner44]

This will happen in more states than not.

[Czolgosz]

I'm signed up.

[The Gold Standard]

I'm sure everyone who posts on this site is on their list already. And I agree with the premise of the thread, but the rulers are not just going to accept our resignation. People had better be aware of that.

[Okie RP fan]

Frustration is reaching a high point on this forum, I can see it by all of the very liberty minded threads.

I don't know if many of us are still ticked since Super Tuesday and realize it's time to start thinking locally, or what. The time is, indeed, now.

+rep OP.

[TheTexan]

This will happen in more states than not.

Maybe. In any case, we only need one.

[BuddyRey]

Unfortunately, even the least populous U.S. states containa few hundred thousand people, and most of them are not amenable to the complete ideas of liberty.

I'm increasingly convinced that the best thing to do is find a completely uninhabited, or very sparsely populated, island or island territory, and bring our belongings and modern technology there. Devloping infrastructure would take a while, but we're hardy folk in general. I think we could survive a three or four year period of lacking things like shopping centers and movie theaters.

[TheTexan]

Unfortunately, even the least populous U.S. states containa few hundred thousand people, and most of them are not amenable to the complete ideas of liberty.

I'm increasingly convinced that the best thing to do is find a completely uninhabited, or very sparsely populated, island or island territory, and bring our belongings and modern technology there. Devloping infrastructure would take a while, but we're hardy folk in general. I think we could survive a three or four year period of lacking things like shopping centers and movie theaters.

RP had over 100,000 donors. If we were set to purpose, we could move to a state and take over its congress, easily, especially considering how few people actually vote in primaries in many of these states.

But yes, I agree. There is no need to restrict ourselves to US territory.

[Johnny Appleseed]

my kind of freedom

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzSQvamSfa4
slab city here we come!

[J_White]

bump !

[PierzStyx]

The problem with any free state project should be very evident. The larger nation will NOT allow any type of secession. And any group trying to defend their right to succeed will encounter the same problems the Confederate States did when they formed their own nation-mainly that the USA has a larger army, more guns, and more money. All the free state project will do is get the entire movement killed in one fell swoop.

I on the other hand think the best way to do it is to "leaven the bread" so to speak. We spread ourselves across the country and work on those around us, converting them to the cause of liberty. That way we become the "salt of the USA" so to speak.

[Czolgosz]

RP had over 100,000 donors. If we were set to purpose, we could move to a state and take over its congress, easily, especially considering how few people actually vote in primaries in many of these states.

But yes, I agree. There is no need to restrict ourselves to US territory.

I've pondered this concept for quite a while. I believe Freedom could designate an area within the borders of the US as governed strictly by "the" or "a" Constitution (the latter being Constitution v2.0). This would of course lead the imperial US government to treat us as King George did and we would have to be prepared to defend ourselves accordingly. Consider a territory outside of the US, even an uninhabited island may lend itself to attacks from other forces. Which would be better? This would require discussion.

[TheTexan]

The problem with any free state project should be very evident. The larger nation will NOT allow any type of secession. And any group trying to defend their right to succeed will encounter the same problems the Confederate States did when they formed their own nation-mainly that the USA has a larger army, more guns, and more money. All the free state project will do is get the entire movement killed in one fell swoop.

I disagree. You forget, the military is on our side. I also believe the people are on our side, as far as the right to secession goes, and despite their overseas actions, I believe they are inherently decent human beings who would not see genocide so close to home.

150 years is a long enough wait to give secession another try.

Also, as futile and pointless as they usually are, we'd have the U.N. on our side. (other than the fact America=UN)


I on the other hand think the best way to do it is to "leaven the bread" so to speak. We spread ourselves across the country and work on those around us, converting them to the cause of liberty. That way we become the "salt of the USA" so to speak.

This has about the same chance as our founding fathers converting the British to their cause.

[Czolgosz]

The problem with any free state project should be very evident. The larger nation will NOT allow any type of secession. And any group trying to defend their right to succeed will encounter the same problems the Confederate States did when they formed their own nation-mainly that the USA has a larger army, more guns, and more money. All the free state project will do is get the entire movement killed in one fell swoop.

I on the other hand think the best way to do it is to "leaven the bread" so to speak. We spread ourselves across the country and work on those around us, converting them to the cause of liberty. That way we become the "salt of the USA" so to speak.

I think both fronts are worthwhile. Regarding the former, I believe a New America might have strong backing internationally...just as the colonies did way back when.

[PierzStyx]

I disagree. You forget, the military is on our side. I also believe the people are on our side, as far as the right to secession goes, and despite their overseas actions, I believe they are inherently decent human beings who would not see genocide so close to home.

150 years is a long enough wait to give secession another try.

Also, as futile and pointless as they usually are, we'd have the U.N. on our side. (other than the fact America=UN)



This has about the same chance as our founding fathers converting the British to their cause.

As for the military- the South thought the same thing. In fact they were mostly right too. Didn't matter then. Can't see how it would work any better today. If even HALF the military deserted overnight it still wouldn't be enough. The USA would still have the advantage in production, resources, weapons, and manpower. As well as money.

As for the Founding Fathers comment, that is EXACTLY what happened. Or did you forget all of them started out as thinking of themselves as British citizens at one time?

[PierzStyx]

I think both fronts are worthwhile. Regarding the former, I believe a New America might have strong backing internationally...just as the colonies did way back when.

The colonies didn't have strong backing internationally. They had help from France, who wanted to do it so they could screw with the British. It was profitable. That was about it. The only superpower that would help today would be-what, China? None of Europe would. I don't see that happening. China would likely sell arms to the USA before backing a rebel state. More profitable for them.

[TheTexan]

As for the military- the South thought the same thing. In fact they were mostly right too. Didn't matter then. Can't see how it would work any better today. If even HALF the military deserted overnight it still wouldn't be enough. The USA would still have the advantage in production, resources, weapons, and manpower. As well as money.

Regardless, I have my opinion, you have yours. I'm willing to bet my life that they would not be able to get away with attacking us unprovoked. You're not, and that's ok.


As for the Founding Fathers comment, that is EXACTLY what happened. Or did you forget all of them started out as thinking of themselves as British citizens at one time?

I think you missed the point. They were British citizens... then they declared they weren't anymore. They didn't wait for permission from their masters.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Secession is coming. Because we know that the bankruptcy is coming.

The best thing to do is a Free State Project. But that's only the start. The Liberty movement must control the mass media of that State. Mass media is the invisible government, argueably more important. The people in New Hampshire such as the Free Talk Live (radio program) guys have EXACTLY the right idea. We need more of them.

Remember that Thomas Payne's pamphlet Common Sense laid the groundwork for revolution. The Boston Massacre sparked it.

Something similiar will happen again, but first we must saturate the minds of the people with Liberty.

[TheTexan]

Not to mention, it will most likely be a gradual secession, one nullification at a time. If it looks like they're about to drop a nuke on our state, we can decide then if we want to risk another incremental step towards liberty. We can pace it as quick, or as slow, as we like.

And of course slow is a relative term. I mean slow as in 4-6 years. Properly motivated we could do it in 1.

Trying to get the entire country to adopt liberty though... you're looking at 50 years. Or more. Even then you can only expect to get half your freedoms back, at best. I don't want to be old and gray by the time I'm free.

We need a clean slate. We can't waste our lives rolling back the laws of the past.

[PierzStyx]

Regardless, I have my opinion, you have yours. I'm willing to bet my life that they would not be able to get away with attacking us unprovoked. You're not, and that's ok.



I think you missed the point. They were British citizens... then they declared they weren't anymore. They didn't wait for permission from their masters.

Really? Because they didn't get away with attacking Iraq unprovoked, did they? Did you forget that socialists are all about the state and that anything that challenges the almighty state is denounced? How do you think Communist Asia, and Socialist Europe would react to a state rebelling against socialism? If anything NATO would be turned loose against us.

The FF were British citizens, who decided they didn't want to be anymore. And then they had to convince everyone else that they shouldn't be anymore. The greatest value of Thomas Paine was that he was able to do exactly that. And it worked, well enough anyway. And they had an entire ocean and 18th century technology limitations on their side. It took months to get soldiers across the seas then. Now it takes hours.

And I'm not talking about "asking permission" I'm talking about the only thing that works-changing the hearts and minds of people. Nothing else will succeed.

[TheTexan]

Really? Because they didn't get away with attacking Iraq unprovoked, did they?

I said I didn't think they'd allow a genocide so close to home. In their hearts I believe the people of this country are inherently good, but misguided, and I don't see any way to 'misguide' them so much to allow a genocide so close to home.

Also, Kosovo.


And I'm not talking about "asking permission" I'm talking about the only thing that works-changing the hearts and minds of people. Nothing else will succeed.

You're still grasping on to the idea that people want liberty, and just need us to hold their hand long enough for them to get it. I take back my earlier post. Not in 50 years. Not in a thousand years. The only thing that will convince them the system is broken is when they themselves are on the street dying from hunger from the system they helped create.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Let's assume New Hampshire secedes from the USA.

If the Federal Government starts drone bombing NH that would be the WORST thing they could do.

It would immediately be the most talked about event of our history since the civil war... 350 million Americans would be forced to choose sides.

Other States would secede.

It would be a decentralized civil war.


It is safe to assume that the Federal Government would not do this if they are smart.

Indefinite detention, assasinations, and blacked out media is a smarter route... this would happen in the earlier stages, but eventually there would be a tipping point.

[Jingles]

LIVE LIKE THERE IS NO STATE!

[Pericles]

The problem with any free state project should be very evident. The larger nation will NOT allow any type of secession. And any group trying to defend their right to succeed will encounter the same problems the Confederate States did when they formed their own nation-mainly that the USA has a larger army, more guns, and more money. All the free state project will do is get the entire movement killed in one fell swoop.

I on the other hand think the best way to do it is to "leaven the bread" so to speak. We spread ourselves across the country and work on those around us, converting them to the cause of liberty. That way we become the "salt of the USA" so to speak.

This explains why Iraq (with about the population of Texas) was such an easy beatdown. This would be the same Army that ran out of radio batteries in 2003 and small arms ammunition in 2005?

[RPtotheWH]

The free state project in NH is probably the best bet. A portion of the people have already moved there and are making a difference.

[Raudsarw]

The statist system will collapse. We must prevent it from being replaced by another statist system. We must open the eyes of as many people as we can to the true nature of the state, so when the shit hits the fan, people will not simply let themselves be enslaved by new masters, and will instead finally break free from their chains.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

The problem with any free state project should be very evident. The larger nation will NOT allow any type of secession. And any group trying to defend their right to succeed will encounter the same problems the Confederate States did when they formed their own nation-mainly that the USA has a larger army, more guns, and more money. All the free state project will do is get the entire movement killed in one fell swoop.

I on the other hand think the best way to do it is to "leaven the bread" so to speak. We spread ourselves across the country and work on those around us, converting them to the cause of liberty. That way we become the "salt of the USA" so to speak.

Yeah, I'll take my chances fighting. The US is too large to ever have liberty. Hell, many of the Founders thought the 13 colonies were too large for a Republic and liberty, and I agree with them. No one is expecting the State to let you leave. We had to fight for our original Independence, and we'll most likely have to do so again. The other alternative is the mass removal of support for the State, which would work in theory, but good luck getting any semblance of a mass of Americans to remove their support for the State. It would again, take a majority of us moving somewhere. I've chosen NH as have many others. If we want liberty in our lifetime, it's going to come out of NH.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Really? Because they didn't get away with attacking Iraq unprovoked, did they? Did you forget that socialists are all about the state and that anything that challenges the almighty state is denounced? How do you think Communist Asia, and Socialist Europe would react to a state rebelling against socialism? If anything NATO would be turned loose against us.

The FF were British citizens, who decided they didn't want to be anymore. And then they had to convince everyone else that they shouldn't be anymore. The greatest value of Thomas Paine was that he was able to do exactly that. And it worked, well enough anyway. And they had an entire ocean and 18th century technology limitations on their side. It took months to get soldiers across the seas then. Now it takes hours.

And I'm not talking about "asking permission" I'm talking about the only thing that works-changing the hearts and minds of people. Nothing else will succeed.

You seem to forget that only 3% fought in the Revolution, and maybe a quarter were supportive, a quarter or more Tory, and then the rest apathetic. You do not need a majority per se, but it certainly helps to have a fiery determined minority. I think we have the numbers to have a successful Independence in a few states. I think you have your history terribly wrong and thus, your conclusion is likewise terribly wrong.

[TheTexan]

Poll added.

[Shorty Dawkins]

I'm sure everyone who posts on this site is on their list already. And I agree with the premise of the thread, but the rulers are not just going to accept our resignation. People had better be aware of that.

The British didn't want to accept the resignation of the Colonies, either. It is all a question of courage. Do you want to be free? Proclaim it and begin to live as a free man/woman. That is all it really takes. Non-compliance with their agenda makes them impotent. Ghandi proved that. Courage, that something inside us that says, "Hey wait a minute! What I believe is important. It is worth fighting for. It is worth suffering and dying for."

A man once said to me, "If you want an incredible life, reach beyond your fears, your capabilities, and your self-imposed limitations. Reach for something worth dying for, for that makes life worth living."

Shorty Dawkins

[pcosmar]

Secede,,?
Then what?

I do want my freedom, and my liberties,, and to have my rights respected.

I would like to see the country return to the principles that it was founded on..
I however,, have serious doubts that it will ever happen. The "Masses" are not ready for that.
TPTB have other plans, and are implementing them.

I will resist,,

[TheTexan]

Secede,,?
Then what?

Then what? I have my preferences (ancap), but ultimately there a number of ways we could go. All orders of magnitude better than the current situation.


I would like to see the country return to the principles that it was founded on..
I however,, have serious doubts that it will ever happen. The "Masses" are not ready for that.
TPTB have other plans, and are implementing them.

This is precisely why secession is necessary.

[TheTexan]

Secession please. For the children.

[BuddyRey]

Virgin Islands are lookin' pretty good right now.

[TheTexan]

Could be a state. Could be a county. Could be a town. Could be just yourself. Where/how is largely irrelevant. Bottom line, the only way we are going to get our freedom back, is if we take it.

[TheTexan]

Virgin Islands are lookin' pretty good right now.

Agreed.


(thinly veiled bump)

[Keith and stuff]

The problem with any free state project should be very evident. The larger nation will NOT allow any type of secession.

Just incase someone doesn't know, the FSP isn't a secession project and takes no position on secession.


If we want liberty in our lifetime, it's going to come out of NH.

I think NH is the best chance also. I'm very happy that I moved here. After seeing all of the positive legislative news last year, I'm sure I made the right choice.

[TheTexan]

Just incase someone doesn't know, the FSP isn't a secession project and takes no position on secession.

Can you keep an eye out for any county/town secession movements in NH for me? :)

[pcosmar]

Virgin Islands are lookin' pretty good right now.

They are not virgins anymore.

[cstarace]

It depends upon the state we choose and who's going to be in charge of writing up a new Constitution. Other than that, let's go for it.

[PierzStyx]

Secession is a pipe dream. If the majority of Americans wanted more liberty, the Doctor would be at the top of the polls and we wouldn't have this issue of over-bearing government. The fact is most Americans WANT the Fascist mommy state to take care of them. And if you try and secede the USA will just rally those people who didn't (aka the majority) to the Fedgov and turn overwhelming military and economic forces loose against us. We would be crushed. It didn't work in 1860 in the days before supersonic flight, bunker buster bombs, and tanks. And half the nation revolted against the central government then. Its not going to work now. If anything secession would just give the Fedgov the last thing it needed to abolish all vestiges of liberty in the USA in order to "protect" the people from the "terrorists"-us. And we wouldn't just be combating the US Armed Forces, we'd most likely be fighting the combined force of NATO.

Nullification will be meet with the same force of power, or do you think the people of today are more liberty minded than they were in 1832? No, of course not. Now more than ever people believe in total obedience to the central government, and if you don't then you're a "terrorist." Thus the Free State Project is equally hopeless.

Its not that I am ideologically opposed to these measures. But you have to face reality and what will work. If you go brandishing guns you'll only get yourself shot and further the cause of liberty not at all. What we have to do is capture the people's hearts and minds. You have to teach people what it means to be free, and help nurture the flames of freedom until they become raging infernos. When people want their freedom back, they'll gain it. But not until then. And could this way fail? Yes it could. But being "the salt of the Earth" is more likely to succeed than either succession or nullification.

[TheTexan]

If the majority of Americans wanted more liberty, the Doctor would be at the top of the polls and we wouldn't have this issue of over-bearing government. The fact is most Americans WANT the Fascist mommy state to take care of them.

I couldn't agree more.


And if you try and succeed the USA will just rally those people to the Fedgov and turn overwhelming military and economic force against us. We would be crushed.

Won't know unless we try. I'd say it's about damned time for another try at secession, it's been 150 years. Besides, we're left with no other option as far as I can tell.

[PierzStyx]

The British didn't want to accept the resignation of the Colonies, either. It is all a question of courage. Do you want to be free? Proclaim it and begin to live as a free man/woman. That is all it really takes. Non-compliance with their agenda makes them impotent. Ghandi proved that. Courage, that something inside us that says, "Hey wait a minute! What I believe is important. It is worth fighting for. It is worth suffering and dying for."

A man once said to me, "If you want an incredible life, reach beyond your fears, your capabilities, and your self-imposed limitations. Reach for something worth dying for, for that makes life worth living."

Shorty Dawkins


You seem to think just wanting it will make it happen. The ENTIRE Indian nation rebelled with Gandhi. That is not something that will happen in America. To many people want the nanny state to take care of them to give it up.

And the Revolution was added greatly by the limits of 18th century technology. The British couldn't just drop and army off in New York. It took 6 months to get across the Atlantic. Today it would take a few hours to move an army across the world. The entire US Army would be at the door step of any rebellious state within a day-at most. And that isn't even taking into account the overwhelming technology and economic forces that the US can wield that Britain couldn't back then. Or the fact that any group rebelling against the US will also have to deal with the entire continent of Europe in teh form of NATO. There would be no French coming to help us fight back.

I'm willing to die, but not for a stupid, unwinnable reason.

[Noble Savage]

you don't need a piece of sheepskin or a piece of land to be free

declare yourself a free state project

[TheTexan]

You seem to think just wanting it will make it happen. The ENTIRE Indian nation rebelled with Gandhi. That is not something that will happen in America. To many people want the nanny state to take care of them to give it up.

And the Revolution was added greatly by the limits of 18th century technology. The British couldn't just drop and army off in New York. It took 6 months to get across the Atlantic. Today it would take a few hours to move an army across the world. The entire US Army would be at the door step of any rebellious state within a day-at most. And that isn't even taking into account the overwhelming technology and economic forces that the US can wield that Britain couldn't back then. Or the fact that any group rebelling against the US will also have to deal with the entire continent of Europe in teh form of NATO. There would be no French coming to help us fight back.

I'm willing to die, but not for a stupid, unwinnable reason.

I have one counterpoint to make, one that I think that has already been made but bears repeating:

Iraq.

[PierzStyx]

I couldn't agree more.



Won't know unless we try. I'd say it's about damned time for another try at secession, it's been 150 years. Besides, we're left with no other option as far as I can tell.

There is only one option. You have to educate people. People never know they need something until you explain to them why they need it. Any other option is an exercise in futility. Educate people and the rebellion will happen naturally. Try and force it and they will turn against us.

[NoOneButPaul]

Secession is a pipe dream. If the majority of Americans wanted more liberty, the Doctor would be at the top of the polls and we wouldn't have this issue of over-bearing government. The fact is most Americans WANT the Fascist mommy state to take care of them. And if you try and secede the USA will just rally those people who didn't (aka the majority) to the Fedgov and turn overwhelming military and economic forces loose against us. We would be crushed. It didn't work in 1860 in the days before supersonic flight, bunker buster bombs, and tanks. And half the nation revolted against the central government then. Its not going to work now. If anything secession would just give the Fedgov the last thing it needed to abolish all vestiges of liberty in the USA in order to "protect" the people from the "terrorists"-us. And we wouldn't just be combating the US Armed Forces, we'd most likely be fighting the combined force of NATO.

Nullification will be meet with the same force of power, or do you think the people of today are more liberty minded than they were in 1832? No, of course not. Now more than ever people believe in total obedience to the central government, and if you don't then you're a "terrorist." Thus the Free State Project is equally hopeless.

Its not that I am ideologically opposed to these measures. But you have to face reality and what will work. If you go brandishing guns you'll only get yourself shot and further the cause of liberty not at all. What we have to do is capture the people's hearts and minds. You have to teach people what it means to be free, and help nurture the flames of freedom until they become raging infernos. When people want their freedom back, they'll gain it. But not until then. And could this way fail? Yes it could. But being "the salt of the Earth" is more likely to succeed than either succession or nullification.

Nail on the head here... and as things get worse people's minds will only open more to new ideas.

We just have to make sure they come to the ideas of liberty instead of the ideas of socialism...

[TheTexan]

There is only one option. You have to educate people. People never know they need something until you explain to them why they need it. Any other option is an exercise in futility. Educate people and the rebellion will happen naturally. Try and force it and they will turn against us.

Liberty isn't something that needs to be explained. You either want it or you don't. The moment I heard Dr. Paul speak, a light switch went on. No more than 5 minutes, I was awake.

I've been explaining Liberty to a number of people for quite some time now. Explaining, and explaining. Oh so much explaining. Even after I think they get it, they say something stupid and prove me wrong. I guide them as much as I can, but there is no amount of education that can fix these people.

Everyone I know will be voting for Ron Paul because I have been guiding them in the right direction. But if I were to die tomorrow, these same people would forget everything I've taught them and happily vote for Gingrich, Santorum, or Obama in 2012. They are naturally inclined towards tyranny.

I'm not sure yet if it's simply decades of indoctrination, or that they simply don't have the heart for liberty. In either case, it's impractical to try to get (and keep) them on our side.

[TheTexan]

Nail on the head here... and as things get worse people's minds will only open more to new ideas.

We just have to make sure they come to the ideas of liberty instead of the ideas of socialism...

I agree that eventually things will get so bad that they will realize their mistake. But things have been getting worse for what... 100 years?

I don't want to wait until it's too late, and I don't want to die old waiting for it.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I don't see there being time for a secession. I'd say we're looking at a breakdown and balkanization before that happens. Who knows how that will go, but people will be missing meals.

[presence]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?353813-Address-of-South-Carolina-to-Slaveholding-States&highlight=south+carolina

I make no assertion that we return to the days of slavery, but:

As you vote conscious of the ongoing War on Terror; as you consider the FED, IRS, silver, and gold; the ever declining value of our dollar, the ever growing wealth disparity, the ubiquitous "Made in China" label, and our dependence on the price at the pump; as you reflect on The War in Afghanistan and our recent history in the middle east; as you consider Iran, Libya, Syria, and "rogue" states; as you consider our growing welfare state; as you consider nuclear proliferation, the roll of the military-industrial-complex vs. the need for national defence, petrodollar hegemony, our hundreds of military bases around the world, covert ops, nation building, secret prisons, waterboarding and the like; as you solidify your personal views on the issues of abortion, immigration, medical marijuana, and gay marriage; as you consider the War on Drugs, the militarisation of police, and note that 1:99 Americans are now in prison; as you consider SOPA and PIPA... NDAA and the "Patriot" Act; the rise of anonymous, the roll of hacktivism, 99%, occupy, and the Arab Spring; as you consider G8 protests, our UN involvement, NAFTA, world government, CFR, illumnati, bilderberg, Skull & Bones, as you consider corporate personhood, term limits, international and corporate lobby, bailouts, media agendas, our trust in Diebold and the benevolence of campaign finance; as you fail to fully comprehend the 17 Trillion dollars of debt we hold as a nation; in light of foreign aid expenditures; in light of foreclosures, domestic poverty, and destruction of the middle class; as you consider health care and our right to bear arms; as you consider states rights, your God given LIBERTY, and mine: As you awaken to these issues and others, I ask that you also consider your Constitution and simply take the time to reflect upon 4000 words of our largely untaught history:


(bold emphasis mine)
----------------------------------------



Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding States

Convention of South Carolina
December 25, 1860

The Address of the people of South Carolina,
assembled in Convention,
to the people of the Slaveholding States of the United States
It is now seventy--three years since the Union between the United States was made by the Constitution of the United States. During this period their advance in wealth, prosperity, and power, has been with scarcely a parallel in the history of the world. The great object of their union was defense against external aggressions; which object is now attained, from their more progress in power. Thirty--one millions of people, with a commerce and navigation which explore every sea, and of agricultural productions which are necessary to every civilized people, command the friendship of the world. But unfortunately, our internal peace has not grown with our external prosperity. Discontent and contention has moved in the bosom of the Confederacy, for the last thirty--five years. During this time, South Carolina has twice called her people together in solemn Convention, to take into consideration, the aggressions and unconstitutional wrongs, perpetrated by the people of the North on the people of the South. These wrongs, were submitted to by the people of the South, under the hope and expectation that they would be final. But such hope and expectation, have proved to be vain. Instead of producing forbearance, our acquiescence and outrage; and South Carolina, having again assembling her people in Convention, has this day dissolved her connection with the States, constituting the United States.

The one great evil, from which all other evils have flowed, is the overthrow of the Constitution of the United States. The Government of the United States is no longer the government of Confederated Republics, but of a consolidated Democracy. It is, in face such a Government as Great Britain attempted to set over our Fathers; and which was resisted and defeated by a seven years’ struggle for independence.

The Revolution of 1776, turned upon one great principle, self-government, --and self-taxation, the criterion of self-government. Where the interests of two people united together under one Government, are different, each must have the power to protect its interests by the organization of the Government, or they cannot be free. The interests of Great Britain and of the Colonies, were different and antagonistic. Great Britain was desirous of carrying out the policy of all nations toward their Colonies, of making them tributary to their wealth and power. She had vast and complicated relations with the whole world. Her policy toward her North American Colonies, was to identify them with her in all these complicated relations; and to make them bear, in common with the rest of the Empire, the full burden of her obligations and necessities. She had a vast public debt; she had a European policy and an Asiatic policy, which had occasioned the accumulation of her public debt, and which kept her in continual wars. The North American Colonies saw their interests, political and commercial, sacrificed by such a policy. Their interests required, that they should not be identified with the burdens and wars of the mother country. They had been settled under Charters, which gave them self-government, at least so far as their property was concerned. They had taxed themselves, and had never been taxed by the Government of Great Britain. To make them a part of a consolidated Empire, the Parliament of Great Britain determined to assume the power of legislating for the Colonies in all cases whatsoever. Our ancestors resisted the pretension. They refused to be a part of the consolidated Government of Great Britain.

The Southern States, now stand exactly in the same position towards the Northern States, that the Colonies did towards Great Britain. The Northern States, having the majority in Congress, claim the same power of omnipotence in legislation as the British parliament. "The General Welfare," is the only limit to the legislation of either; and the majority in Congress, as in the British parliament, are the sole judges of the expediency of the legislation, this "General Welfare" requires. Thus, the Government of the United States has become a consolidated Government; and the people of the Southern State, are compelled to meet the very despotism, their fathers threw off in the Revolution of 1776.

The consolidation of the Government of Great Britain over the Colonies, was attempted to be carried out by the taxes. The British parliament undertook to tax the Colonies, to promote British interests. Our father, resisted this pretension. They claimed the right of self-taxation through their Colonial Legislatures. They were not represented in the British Parliament, and therefore could not rightfully be taxed by its Legislature. The British Government, however, offered them a representation in parliament; but it was not sufficient to enable them to protect themselves from the majority, and they refused the offer. Between taxation without any representation, and taxation without a representation adequate to protection, there was no difference. In neither case would the Colonies tax themselves. Hence, they refused to pay the taxes laid by the British parliament.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue--to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.

There is another evil, in the condition of the Southern toward the Northern States, which our ancestors refused to bear toward Great Britain. Our ancestors not only taxed themselves, but all the taxes collected from them, were expended among them. Had they submitted to the pretensions of the British Government, the taxes collected from them, would have been expended in other parts of the British Empire. They were fully aware of the effect of such a policy in impoverishing the people from whom taxes are collected, and in enriching those who receive the benefit of their expenditure. To prevent the evils of such a policy, was one of the motives which drove them on to Revolution. Yet this British policy, has been fully realized towards the Southern States, by the Northern States. The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North. This cause, with others, connected with the operation of the General Government, has made the cities of the South provincial. Their growth is paralyzed; they are mere suburbs of Northern cities. The agricultural productions of the South are the basis of the foreign commerce of the United States; yet Southern cities do not carry it on. Our foreign trade, is almost annihilated. In 1740, there were five shipyards in South Carolina, to build ships to carry on our direct trade with Europe. Between 1740 and 1779, there were built in these yards twenty-five square rigged vessels, besides a great number of sloops and schooners, to carry on our coast and West India trade. In the half century immediately preceding the Revolution, from 1725 to 1775, the population of South Carolina increased seven-fold.

No man can for a moment believe, that our ancestors intended to establish over their posterity, exactly the same sort of Government they had overthrown. The great object of the Constitution of the United States, in its internal operation, was, doubtless, to secure the great end of the Revolution -- --a limited free Government-- -- a Government limited to those matters only, which were general and common to all portions of the United States. All sectional or local interests were to be left to the States. By no other arrangement, would they obtain free Government, by a Constitution common to so vast a Confederacy. Yet by gradual and steady encroachments on the part of the people of the North, and acquiescence on the part of the South, the limitations in the Constitution have been swept away; and the Government of the United States has become consolidated, with a claim of limitless powers in its operations.

It is not at all surprising, such being the character of the Government of the United States, that it should assume to possess power over all the institutions of the country. The agitations on the subject of slavery, are the natural results of the consolidation of the Government. Responsibility, follows power; and if the people of the North, have the power by Congress--"to promote the general welfare of the United States," by any means they deem expedient--why should they not assail and overthrow the institution of slavery in the South? They are responsible for its continuance or existence, in proportion to their power. A majority in Congress, according to their interested and perverted views, is omnipotent. The inducements to act upon the subject of slavery, under such circumstances, were so imperious, as to amount almost to a moral necessity. To make, however, their numerical power available to rule the Union, the North must consolidate their power. It would not be united, on any matter common to the whole Union--in other words, on any constitutional subject--for on such subjects divisions are as likely to exist in the North as in the South. Slavery was strictly, a sectional interest. If this could be made the criterion of parties at the North, the North could be united in its power; and thus carry out its measures of sectional ambition, encroachment, and aggrandizement. To build up their sectional predominance in the Union, the Constitution must be first abolished by constructions; but that being done, the consolidation of the North to rule the South, by the tariff and slavery issues, was in the obvious course of things.

The Constitution of the United States, was an experiment. The experiment consisted, in uniting under one Government, peoples living in different climates, and having different pursuits and institutions. It matters not, how carefully the limitations of such a government are laid down in the Constitution--its success must at least depend, upon the good faith of the parties to the constitutional compact, in enforcing them. It is not in the power of human language to exclude false inferences, constructions and perversions, in any Constitution; and when vast sectional interests are to be subserved, involving the appropriation of countless millions of money, it has not been the usual experience of mankind that words on parchments can arrest power. The Constitution of the United States, irrespective of the interposition of the States, rested on the assumption, that power would yield to faith,--that integrity would be stronger than interest; and that thus, the limitations of the Constitution would be observed. The experiment, has been fairly made. The Southern States, from the commencement of the Government, have striven to keep it, within the orbit prescribed by the Constitution. The experiment, has failed. The whole Constitution, by the constructions of the Northern people, has been absorbed by its preamble. In their reckless lust for power, they seem unable to comprehend that seeming paradox--that the more power is given to the General Government, the weaker it becomes. Its strength, consists in the limitation of its agency to objects of common interest to all sections. To extend the scope of its power over sectional or local interests, is to raise up against it, opposition and resistance. In all such matters, the General Government must necessarily be a despotism, because all sectional or local interests must ever be represented by a minority in the councils of the General Government--having no power to protect itself against the rule of the majority. The majority, constituted from those who do not represent these sectional or local interests, will control and govern them. A free people, cannot submit to such a Government. And the more it enlarges the sphere of its power, the greater must be the dissatisfaction it must produce, and the weaker it must become. On the contrary, the more it abstains from usurped powers, and the more faithfully it adheres to the limitations of the Constitution, the stronger it is made. The Northern people have had neither the wisdom nor the faith to perceive, that to observe the limitation of the Constitution was the only way to its perpetuity. Under such a Government, there must, of course, be many and endless "irrepressible conflicts," between the two great sections of the Union. The same faithlessness which has abolished the Constitution of the United States, will not fail to carry out the sectional purposes for which it has been abolished. There must be conflict; and the weaker section of the Union can only find peace and liberty, in an independence of the North. The repeated efforts made by South Carolina, in a wise conservatism, to arrest the progress of the General Government in its fatal progress to consolidation, have been unsupported, and she has been denounced as faithless to the obligations of the Constitution, by the very men and States, who were destroying it by their usurpations. It is now too late, to reform or restore the Government of the United States. All confidence in the North, is lost in the South. The faithlessness of the North for half a century, has opened a gulf of separation between the North and the South which no promises or engagements can fill. It cannot be believed, that our ancestors would have assented to any union whatever with the people of the North, if the feelings and opinions now existing amongst them, had existed when the Constitution was framed. There was then, no Tariff--no fanaticism concerning negroes. It was the delegates from New England, who proposed in the Convention which framed the Constitution, to the delegates from South Carolina and Georgia, that if they would agree to give Congress the power of regulating commerce by a majority, that they would support the extension of the African Slave Trade for twenty years. African Slavery, existed in all the States, but one. The idea, that the Southern States would be made to pay that tribute to their Northern confederates, which they had refused to pay to Great Britain; or that the institution of African slavery, would be made the grand basis of a sectional organization of the North to rule the South, never crossed the imaginations of our ancestors. The Union of the Constitution, was a union of slaveholding States. It rests on slavery, by prescribing a Representation in Congress for three-fifths of our slaves. There is nothing in the proceedings of the Convention which framed the Constitution, to shew, that the Southern States would have formed any other Union; and still less, that they would have formed a Union with more powerful non-slaveholding States, having majority in both branches of the Legislature of the Government. They were guilty of no such folly. Time and the progress of things have totally altered the relations between the Northern and Southern States, since the Union was first established. That identity of feeling, interests and institutions which once existed, is gone. They are now divided, between agricultural--and manufacturing, and commercial States; between slaveholding and non-slaveholding States. Their institutions and industrial pursuits, have made them, totally different peoples. That Equality in the Government between the two sections of the Union which once existed, no longer exists. We but imitate the policy of our fathers in dissolving a union with non-slaveholding confederates, and seeking a confederation with slaveholding States. Experience has proved, that slaveholding States cannot be safe in subjection to non-slaveholding States. Indeed, no people ever expect to preserve its rights and liberties, unless these be in its own custody. To plunder and oppress, where plunder and oppression can be practiced with impunity, seems to be the natural order of things. The fairest portions of the world elsewhere, have been turned into wilderness; and the most civilized and prosperous communities, have been impoverished and ruined by anti-slavery fanaticism. The people of the North have not left us in doubt, as to their designs and policy. United as a section in the late Presidential election, they have elected as the exponent of their policy, one who has openly declared that all the States of the United States must be made free States or slave States. It is true, that amongst those who aided in this election, there are various shades of anti-slavery hostility. But if African slavery in the Southern States, be the evil their political combination affirms it to be, the requisitions of an inexorable logic, must lead them to emancipation. If it is right, to preclude or abolish slavery in a territory--why should it be allowed to remain in the States? The one is not at all more unconstitutional than the other, according to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. And when it is considered, that the Northern States will soon have the power to make that Court what they please, and that the Constitution has never been any barrier whatever to their exercise of power--what check can there be, in the unrestrained councils of the North, to emancipation? There is sympathy in association, which carries men along without principle; but when there is principle--and that principle is fortified by long-existing prejudices and feelings, association is omnipotent in party influences. In spite of all disclaimers and professions, there can be but one end by the submission by the South, to the rule of a sectional anti-slavery government at Washington; and that end, directly or indirectly, must be--the emancipation of the slaves of the South. The hypocrisy of thirty years--the faithlessness of their whole course from the commencement of our union with them, shew that the people of the non-slaveholding North, are not, and cannot be safe associates of the slaveholding South, under a common Government. Not only their fanaticism, but their erroneous views of the principles of free governments, render it doubtful whether, separated from the South, they can maintain a free government amongst themselves. Numbers with them, is the great element of free government. A majority, is infallible and omnipotent. "The right divine to rule in kings," is only transferred to their majority. The very object of all Constitutions, in free popular Government, is to restrain the majority. Constitutions, therefore, according to their theory, must be most unrighteous inventions, restricting liberty. None ought to exist; but the body politic ought simply to have a political organization, to bring out and enforce the will of the majority. This theory may be harmless in a small community, having identity of interests and pursuits; but over a vast State--still more, over a vast Confederacy, having various and conflicting interests and pursuits--it is a remorseless despotism. In resisting it, as applicable to ourselves, we are vindicating the great cause of free government, more important, perhaps, to the world, than the existence of all the United States. Nor in resisting it, do we intend to depart from the safe instrumentality, the system of government we have established with them, requires. In separating from them, we invade no rights--no interest of theirs. We violate, no obligation or duty to them. As separate, independent States in Convention, we made the Constitution of the United States with them; and as separate, independent States, each State acting for itself, we adopted it. South Carolina acting in her sovereign capacity, now thinks proper to secede from the Union. She did not part with her Sovereignty, in adopting the Constitution. The last thing, a State can be presumed to have surrendered, is her Sovereignty. Her Sovereignty, is her life. Nothing but a clear, express grant, can alienate it. Inference is inadmissible. Yet it is not at all surprising, that those who have construed away all the limitations of the Constitution, should also by construction, claim the annihilation of the Sovereignty of the States. Having abolished barriers to their omnipotence, by their faithless constructions in the operations of the General Government, it is most natural that they should endeavor to do the same towards us, in the States. The truth is, they, having violated the express provisions of the Constitution,it is at an end, as a compact. It is morally obligatory only on those, who choose to accept its perverted terms. South Carolina, deeming the compact not only violated in particular features, but virtually abolished by her Northern confederates, withdraws herself as a party, from its obligations. The right to do so, is denied by her Northern confederates. They desire to establish a sectional despotism, not only omnipotent in Congress, but omnipotent over the States; and as if to manifest the imperious necessity of our secession, they threaten us with the sword, to coerce submission to their rule.

Citizens of the slaveholding States of the United States! Circumstances beyond our control, have placed us in the van of the great controversy between the Northern and Southern States. We would have preferred, that other States should have assumed the position we now occupy. Independent ourselves, we disclaim any design or desire, to lead the councels of the other Southern States. Providence has cast our lot together, by extending over us an identity of pursuits, interests and institutions. South Carolina, desires no destiny, separate from yours. To be one of a great Slaveholding Confederacy, stretching its arms over a territory larger than any power in Europe possesses--with population, four times greater than that of the whole United States, when they achieved their independence of the British Empire--with productions, which make our existence more important to the world, than that of any other people inhabiting it--with common institutions to defend, and common dangers to encounter--we ask your sympathy and confederation. Whilst constituting a portion of the United States, it has been your statesmanship which has guided it, in its mighty strides to power and expansion. In the field, as in the cabinet, you have led the way to its renown and grandeur. You have loved the Union, in whose service your great statesmen have labored, and your great soldiers have fought and conquered--not for the material benefits it conferred, but with the faith of a generous and devoted chivalry. You have long lingered in hope over the shattered remains of a broken Constitution.Compromise after compromise, formed by your concessions, has been trampled under foot, by your Northern confederates. All fraternity of feeling between the North and the South is lost, or has been converted into hate; and we, of the South, are at last driven together, by the stern destiny which controls the existence of nations. Your bitter experience, of the faithlessness and rapacity of your Northern confederates, may have been necessary, to evolve those great principles of free government, upon which the liberties of the world depend, and to prepare you for the grand mission of vindicating and re-establishing them. We rejoice, that other nations should be satisfied with their institutions. Contentment, is a great element of happiness, with nations as with individuals. We, are satisfied with ours. If they prefer a system of industry in which capital and labor are in perpetual conflict--and chronic starvation keeps down the natural increase of population--and a man is worked out in eight years--and the law ordains that children shall be worked only ten hours a day--and the sabre and bayonet are the instruments of order--be it so. It is their affair, not ours. We prefer, however, our system of industry, by which labor and capital are identified in interest, and capital, therefore, protects labor--by which our population doubles every twenty years--by which starvation is unknown, and abundance crowns the land--by which order is preserved by unpaid police, and the most fertile regions of the world, where the white man cannot labor, are brought into usefulness by the labor of the African, and the whole world is blessed by our own productions. All we demand of other peoples is, to be let alone, to work out our own high destinies. United together, and we must be the most independent, as we are the most important among the nations of the world. United together, and we require no other instrument to conquer peace, than our beneficent productions. United together, and we must be a great, free and prosperous people, whose renown must spread throughout the civilized world, and pass down, we trust, to the remotest ages. We ask you to join us, in forming a Confederacy of Slaveholding States.
------------------

thank you for reading,

presence

[PierzStyx]

I have one counterpoint to make, one that I think that has already been made but bears repeating:

Iraq.

You're joking right? A few things.

1. Iraq didn't start out as part of the USA. Any rebellion that happens within the US states will have to deal with the fact that a large amount of the population will view us as the terrorists and invaders and the US Army as liberators and will fight accordingly. Indeed to flip the analogy around, we'd be the "US forces occupying Iraq" not the other way around.

2. The US Army never focused solely on Iraq. remember we were invading 3 other countries and occupying Afghanistan at the same time. Yet the US Army was STILL able to conquer and hold it. What makes you think we'd be able to stand against that when the FULL might of the US Armed Forces is turned against us?

3. The US Army conquered and held Iraq for 10 years. Even in the depths of the heaviest parts of Iraqi rebellion the US was never threatened with defeat. Again, how do you think we'd be able to do any better?

4. 1.4 million Iraqi civilians died in the occupation. Hundreds of thousands died as "terrorists" or "insurgents". Yet only 4,000 American soldiers died. This, if anything proves my point about how overwhelmed militarily any rebellion against the US would be.

Should I continue? Iraq, if anything, proves my point. With minimum loss a fraction of the US Armed Forces conquered and held a nation the size of Texas against all military effort otherwise by MILLIONS who were against them. Even after the "withdrawal" the US still maintains a working force of 17,000 soldiers in Iraq that effectively control it's government. The same thing would happen to any secessionist movement.

[TheTexan]

...3. The US Army conquered and held Iraq for 10 years...

We won Iraq? That's news to me.

[PierzStyx]

Liberty isn't something that needs to be explained. You either want it or you don't.

People don't know what they want until their educated in the truth. People currently THINK they're free. They have no idea they're more or less enslaved to the central government. Until they understand what true liberty is, they'll never know they don't have it. You have to teach people the truth to counteract the lies.

[TheTexan]

Any rebellion that happens within the US states will have to deal with the fact that a large amount of the population will view us as the terrorists

Nah, they've pretty much hard-coded it into their brains that Muslim==Terrorist.

They'd have to undo their own programming first. Would take a few years. :)

[PierzStyx]

We won Iraq? That's news to me.

So you think conquering a sovereign nation, overthrowing its government, beating back all rebellions, and installing a puppet government you control and expanding your sphere of influence is anything less than winning? We won Iraq in all the ways that were important to the military interests that wanted the war in the first place.

[TheTexan]

People don't know what they want until their educated in the truth.

Like I tried to tell you, I've told people what Liberty is, and been telling them for a year, and they still don't get it.


People currently THINK they're free. They have no idea they're more or less enslaved to the central government.

This is true. When I bring up specific points, such as the Federal Reserve and how they are being stolen from, they will agree with me. Within 48 hours they've forgotten everything I've said.


Until they understand what true liberty is, they'll never know they don't have it. You have to teach people the truth to counteract the lies.

You're welcome to try. Maybe you're just a better teacher than I.

[PierzStyx]

Nah, they've pretty much hard-coded it into their brains that Muslim==Terrorist.

They'd have to undo their own programming first. Would take a few years. :)

I don't know if you've noticed but its really "Anyone who disagrees with the Fedgov=Terrorists". That has been the thrust of everything form the Patriot Act to the NDAA.

[TheTexan]

So you think conquering a sovereign nation, overthrowing its government, beating back all rebellions, and installing a puppet government you control and expanding your sphere of influence is anything less than winning? We won Iraq in all the ways that were important to the military interests that wanted the war in the first place.

We beat back all rebellions? That's news to me.


Thursday 22 March: 7 killed
Mosul: 3 killed in separate incidents.
Samarra: 1 by gunfire.
Qayara: 1 policeman by gunfire.
Madain: 2 policemen die trying to defuse bomb.
March casualties so far: 253 civilians killed.

[PierzStyx]

We beat back all rebellions? That's news to me.

Yet we, or rather our puppet, remain in control. That control is not threatened. And I don't know if you know this, we don't care if civilians die.

[PierzStyx]

Yet we, or rather our puppet, remain in control. That control is not threatened. And I don't know if you know this, we don't care if civilians die.

And 235 deaths is pissant to the raging battles we had with Sadir's Army et al. Yet we still came out on top.

And none of this disproves my original post that if anything Iraq proves any secessionist state would be squashed.

[TheTexan]

Yet we, or rather our puppet, remain in control. That control is not threatened. And I don't know if you know this, we don't care if civilians die.

These people that are fighting now, will continue to fight so long as that puppet remains in control. This is a fight that we cannot win. Eventually, these people will get what they want.

[TheTexan]

Also, you're still operating on this assumption that Secession means an instant invasion.

Mainstream America actually has a decent amount of respect for secession, at least in my experience. The people I've asked (non-Ron Paul people, mind you) basically said they didn't have a problem with it, as long as the people seceding tried going through the proper channels first, which we have, and were properly represented (which we aren't, yet, this is what we need to work on).

The Lakotah attempt had a number of problems with that latter requirement, btw.

[shelskov]

Seasteading is more feasible.

That being said, I think the Free State Project is the way to go, no secession needed. Gradual but systematic is the best approach. Secession would be too much too fast, would attract too much negative attention, and would conjure images of the civil war. The average American is very uneducated on what that war was about and why it was won/lost. That isn't necessarily something we want people to associate the liberty movement with.

[TheTexan]

Seasteading is more feasible.

Not really. Prohibitively expensive. Plus, there's no (current) way to be self sustained at sea, at least not in the way would be required to have a meaningful existence.


That being said, I think the Free State Project is the way to go, no secession needed. Gradual but systematic is the best approach. Secession would be too much too fast, would attract too much negative attention, and would conjure images of the civil war. The average American is very uneducated on what that war was about and why it was won/lost. That isn't necessarily something we want people to associate the liberty movement with.

Gradual secession, instant secession, it's all the same to me. Nullification is a form of secession. Even the act of moving to NH for the FSP is an act of secession, in a sense.

The important thing though is to separate ourselves from the people who have brought us to this point. Whatever form that takes, I'm all for it.

[TheTexan]

From Federalist Papers #7, arguing against the right of secession


From the view they have exhibited of this part of the subject, this conclusion is to be drawn, that America, if not connected at all, or only by the feeble tie of a simple league, offensive and defensive, would, by the operation of such jarring alliances, be gradually entangled in all the pernicious labyrinths of European politics and wars

Hey dipshit, look at your Federation now, you happy?

Fucking Hamilton. :rolleyes:

[MRK]

I wont be missing anymore meals.

I'm reporting 5 of you every month to the DHS for the bounty on insurrectionists. This way I will have a steady supplemental income to buy me enough food so that I am fit enough for when I get drafted to go door to door to uproot you terrorists.

[TheTexan]

A friend of mine, who I have been educating in the ways of Liberty for over a year now, and who had earlier pledged to vote for Ron Paul, said Obama will win this next election because he is the "Champion of Freedom."

He was totally serious when he said it.

[Jingles]

:cool: Microsecession FTW! :)

Live like there is a no state!

[GuerrillaXXI]

You seem to think just wanting it will make it happen. The ENTIRE Indian nation rebelled with Gandhi. That is not something that will happen in America. To many people want the nanny state to take care of them to give it up.

And the Revolution was added greatly by the limits of 18th century technology. The British couldn't just drop and army off in New York. It took 6 months to get across the Atlantic. Today it would take a few hours to move an army across the world. The entire US Army would be at the door step of any rebellious state within a day-at most. And that isn't even taking into account the overwhelming technology and economic forces that the US can wield that Britain couldn't back then. Or the fact that any group rebelling against the US will also have to deal with the entire continent of Europe in teh form of NATO. There would be no French coming to help us fight back.

I'm willing to die, but not for a stupid, unwinnable reason.Don't forget the flip side of that technological progress you mention: the technology and weaponry in the hands of today's armed citizens is much more potent than what was available to the Americans who rebelled against the British. This is partly why the US military had such a hard time in Iraq and is still having trouble in Afghanistan. The American colonists didn't have sniper rifles or know how to make IEDs.

Having said that, it's true that no one can stand up to the US military in open combat. Guerrilla combat would even the odds greatly and perhaps even skew things in favor of the guerrillas, but a secession attempt would require something closer to open combat. If there were a popular civilian uprising across the US, the military would not be able to handle it, since it couldn't bomb the hell out of its own cities or kill indiscriminately and expect to preserve the government it was fighting for. But if all of those involved in the uprising were confined to a separate territory, that territory could simply be carpet-bombed with impunity.

[Vanilluxe]

Secession is unnecessary, look at Syria and other places, education and the use of technology shall inflame rebellion across the states and people shall demand liberty.

[John F Kennedy III]

I'll secede if we get to have anti-matter weapons.

[Lothario]

how many people/weapons would we need to defend ourselves against the US Government?

[mrsat_98]

i checked other cause I all ready did.

[TheTexan]

i checked other cause I all ready did.

+rep

[Keith and stuff]

How to take back freedom? Move to New Hampshire (the easiest state to get elected and the easiest state to create change once elected). Get elected. Create change but writing a bill to reduce the size or scope of the government. Get the bill passed.

[TheTexan]

How to take back freedom? Move to New Hampshire and secede

Fixed that for you.

Bump

[TheTexan]

I'm increasingly convinced that the best thing to do is find a completely uninhabited, or very sparsely populated, island or island territory, and bring our belongings and modern technology there. Devloping infrastructure would take a while, but we're hardy folk in general. I think we could survive a three or four year period of lacking things like shopping centers and movie theaters.

I'm down. Any ideas on where we could do this?

[cbrons]

Frustration is reaching a high point on this forum, I can see it by all of the very liberty minded threads.

I don't know if many of us are still ticked since Super Tuesday and realize it's time to start thinking locally, or what. The time is, indeed, now.

+rep OP.

Local focus is all we can do - and push nullification

[jllundqu]

So I am guessing the concensus is the free state project in New Hampshire?

I'm in Arizona, but suppose I could make it to NH...

[Keith and stuff]

So I am guessing the concensus is the free state project in New Hampshire?

I'm in Arizona, but suppose I could make it to NH...

Yes. The original factors were a state had to have a low population and not be a lost hope. So highly populated states like AZ were not considered. Lost hope states like RI were also not considered. It was narowwed down to 10 states. There was a vote and NH won. 101 Reasons You Should Move to New Hampshire (If You Love Liberty) http://freestateproject.org/101Reasons

[heavenlyboy34]

From Federalist Papers #7, arguing against the right of secession



Hey dipshit, look at your Federation now, you happy?

Fucking Hamilton. :rolleyes:+rep. Hamilton was a douche. :P