Secession is the only way out

[green73]

Dilorenzo (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/133532.html):


So Senator Rand Paul held a thirteen-hour filibuster to protest the Obammunists' assertion of a "right" to murder American citizens with drones. Senators McCain and Graham predictably defended the murder of American citizens without any due process because, well, because they are fascists, as is the hysterical David Frum and quite a few other equally-hysterical neoconmen.

Sorry guys, but this "debate" was ended more than 140 years ago when the U.S. government established the precedent of murdering hundreds of thousands of American citizens and imprisoning thousands of Northern-state political dissenters without any due process. In fact, neocons like Frum, McCain and Graham often celebrate this fact. I refer, of course, to the mass murder of between 350,000 and 450,000 citizens (according to new research) of the Southern states by the Lincoln regime. Lincoln never conceded that secession was legal; therefore, he considered all Southerners as U.S. citizens and orchestrated the waging of total war on them for four years. He was famous for his devilish experimenting with bigger and better weapons of mass destruction --the "drones" of his day. He rewarded generals like Sherman and Sheridan for supervising the pillaging, plundering, murdering, and raping of Southern civilians during the "March to the Sea" and the burning down of the entire Shenandoah Valley after the Confederate Army had vacated it. For this the cowardly and barbaric Sheridan has been portrayed as a "great war hero."

After the war, the exact same individuals commenced a 25 year campaign of genocide against the Plains Indians, eventually murdering about 45,000 of them, including thousands of women and children, and placing the rest in concentration camps called "reservations."

The Constitution is long dead, Senator Paul. Secession is the only way out.

[AuH20]

But you need some semblance of popular support to get to secession. Rand Paul is building a versatile political movement that can perform at the political circus level or transfer over to a secessionist movement if need be.

[itshappening]

Tom Woods was really good on Alex Jones today (the guest host woman)

He pointed out that nullification is not an acceptable opinion and/or solution on the main talk shows. He says you wont hear a peep about it. He's right of course... They never bring it up despite the fact that it's now mainstreamed with WA and CO nullifiying marijuana law.

I suggest you check it out by listening to the stream. He was on for a full hour.

I'd love for someone to call in to Mark Levin and bring up nullification since he's a constitutional lawyer. Most of them are pansies though who believe in the Fed Gov and its evil laws. Nullification to them is unconscionable because it means a mockery of the strong central government and they seem to ignore it despite the fact that "it's happening".

[green73]

Tom Woods was really good on Alex Jones today (the guest host woman)

He pointed out that nullification is not an acceptable opinion and/or solution on the main talk shows. He says you wont hear a peep about it. He's right of course... They never bring it up despite the fact that it's now mainstreamed with WA and CO nullifiying marijuana law.

I suggest you check it out by listening to the stream. He was on for a full hour.

I'd love for someone to call in to Mark Levin and bring up nullification since he's a constitutional lawyer. Most of them are pansies though who believe in the Fed Gov and its evil laws. Nullification to them is unconscionable because it means a mockery of the strong central government and they seem to ignore it despite the fact that "it's happening".

Thanks. I didn't even know he was on. I checked out their youtube channel but it's not there. Here's the mp3

http://rss.infowars.com/20130308_Fri_Alex.mp3

I'll probably listen tomorrow.

[muzzled dogg]

http://freestateproject.org/

once you get here you'll realize you're out

[ZENemy]

Well the end of the amendment says "the state...........or the people"

well the states suck, so, we gotta BE the people.

Iceland built a new congress of 500 and arrested the banksters!

[Smart3]

Secession (be it Vermont, New Hampshire, Texas or Alaska) is extremely unlikely.

Let us not forget that not a single secession effort in Canada, the US, Mexico* or any (other) Latin American countries (excluding Gran Colombia) has been successful.

If Puerto Rico can't become independent, what makes you think states will be able?

*The secession of Imperial possessions like Guatemala notwithstanding

[mad cow]

Puerto Rico can become independent tomorrow if they vote for it.I wish they would.

[SonofThunder]

Secession is imminent but it won't come from some principled movement, it will come from a USSR style collapse. DiLorenzo is still the man though.

[Mini-Me]

Secession (be it Vermont, New Hampshire, Texas or Alaska) is extremely unlikely.

Let us not forget that not a single secession effort in Canada, the US, Mexico* or any (other) Latin American countries (excluding Gran Colombia) has been successful.

If Puerto Rico can't become independent, what makes you think states will be able?

*The secession of Imperial possessions like Guatemala notwithstanding

Mainly because the federal government is going to collapse at some point. ;)

[emazur]

Yeah, but secession into what? A libertarian society? Sure. But it's far more likely the would-be secessionists will be the "rah-rah-rha Bush, if only Santorum had won we'd be on the right track" type of secessionists. The liberals won't talk of secession, they'll just talk about (in a rare showing of individualism) personally moving to Canada if Republican candidate X wins an election.

[gwax23]

I would like to see secession happen but I doubt it. On

Maybe after the inevitable collapse of the dollar we could see a Soviet Union like dismemberment...maybe maybe not.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://freestateproject.org/

once you get here you'll realize you're out

Obama: 368,529 (52.2%)
Romney: 327,870 (46.4%)

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/new-hampshire/

[green73]

Secession is imminent but it won't come from some principled movement, it will come from a USSR style collapse. DiLorenzo is still the man though.

I agree.

[muzzled dogg]

Obama: 368,529 (52.2%)
Romney: 327,870 (46.4%)

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/new-hampshire/

and?

[Smart3]

there's always the option to kick states out of the Union instead of leaving it ourselves.

I nominate Alabama and Mississippi, to form the new nation of Waziristan.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

there's always the option to kick states out of the Union instead of leaving it ourselves.

I nominate Alabama and Mississippi, to form the new nation of Waziristan.

I nominate California, since it's a failed state, and puts Boxer and that f-ing Feinstein in the U.S. Senate.

[heavenlyboy34]

Tom Woods was really good on Alex Jones today (the guest host woman)

He pointed out that nullification is not an acceptable opinion and/or solution on the main talk shows. He says you wont hear a peep about it. He's right of course... They never bring it up despite the fact that it's now mainstreamed with WA and CO nullifiying marijuana law.

I suggest you check it out by listening to the stream. He was on for a full hour.

I'd love for someone to call in to Mark Levin and bring up nullification since he's a constitutional lawyer. Most of them are pansies though who believe in the Fed Gov and its evil laws. Nullification to them is unconscionable because it means a mockery of the strong central government and they seem to ignore it despite the fact that "it's happening".
Levin is part of the Lincoln Cult and believes the secession/nullification issue was "resolved" by the War Of Northern Aggression.

[mad cow]

there's always the option to kick states out of the Union instead of leaving it ourselves.

I nominate Alabama and Mississippi, to form the new nation of Waziristan.

Please kick them out!I would move there so fast I might strain something in the process.

[Smart3]

I nominate California, since it's a failed state, and puts Boxer and that f-ing Feinstein in the U.S. Senate.

California is certainly large enough to go its own, but it's also the most likely to remain in the Union even if there is a collapse.

[Fivezeroes]

The problem with secession though is that when you do it, you better make sure you have plenty of others to back you. One state against the FEDCOATS would get wiped out in a matter of weeks. Obama is trying to be like Lincoln in that regard.

[green73]

there's always the option to kick states out of the Union instead of leaving it ourselves.

I nominate Alabama and Mississippi, to form the new nation of Waziristan.

They won't kick shit out. It's all about centralizing everything, where the earners pay for the losers.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Mainly because the federal government is going to collapse at some point. ;)


One would think so, but they seem very good at testing the limit, then backing off slightly. I do think their finances are out of control to the point where pointing at the federal reserve as a source of problems serves a useful purpose.

[TheTexan]

Yeah, but secession into what? A libertarian society? Sure. But it's far more likely the would-be secessionists will be the "rah-rah-rha Bush, if only Santorum had won we'd be on the right track" type of secessionists. The liberals won't talk of secession, they'll just talk about (in a rare showing of individualism) personally moving to Canada if Republican candidate X wins an election.

True, but the smaller a state is, the better. Easier to change policy. More representative of the people who live there. Easier to secede into even smaller pieces.

There are many, many benefits to a smaller state, even if on the surface it doesn't appear to change anything.

[TheTexan]

One would think so, but they seem very good at testing the limit, then backing off slightly. I do think their finances are out of control to the point where pointing at the federal reserve as a source of problems serves a useful purpose.

As time passes, the short term gains from dumping the dollar increase, while the long term gains from holding the dollar decrease. It's mathematically inevitable.

[green73]

True, but the smaller a state is, the better. Easier to change policy. More representative of the people who live there. Easier to secede into even smaller pieces.

There are many, many benefits to a smaller state, even if on the surface it doesn't appear to change anything.

Somebody has been reading Hoppe...

http://thegodthatfailed.org/2011/12/22/920/

[Matthew5]

True, but the smaller a state is, the better. Easier to change policy. More representative of the people who live there. Easier to secede into even smaller pieces.

There are many, many benefits to a smaller state, even if on the surface it doesn't appear to change anything.

This. I just want a government that's more manageable and localized.

[UMULAS]

........

[MRK]

The problem with secession though is that when you do it, you better make sure you have plenty of others to back you. One state against the FEDCOATS would get wiped out in a matter of weeks. Obama is trying to be like Lincoln in that regard.

rofl the fedcoats

[Christian Liberty]

I'd say "Go Tom" but I live in Freaking NYS right now so if we seceded I'd likely be even more screwed than I already am. What's the best liberty state? I KNOW it ain't NYS.

[AuH20]

I'd say "Go Tom" but I live in Freaking NYS right now so if we seceded I'd likely be even more screwed than I already am. What's the best liberty state? I KNOW it ain't NYS.

New York is ranked dead last in the Freedom Index last I checked.

[heavenlyboy34]

The problem I have with Dilorenzo is his attack on the constitution and the interpretation. He went beserk on me on questioning him on the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederations and other stuff. I mean the book which I have his autograph on the The Curse of Alexander Hamilton, completely lacks everything on the reason why the constitution and the necessary and proper clause.


I mean secession is constitutional, but the reason why he dispays is wrong.
Did you ask him in person or on the interwebz? If it was just type, you may have expressed yourself in a way that he considered hostile.

(btw, the AoC were only "ineffective" if you consider command and control of everyday actions "effective" as the Court Historians do. One of the reasons the Constitution is such an epic fail is its centralization of power in the federal regime)

[green73]

This. I just want a government that's more manageable and localized.

The most manageable and localized gov't is self-gov't.

[green73]

The problem I have with Dilorenzo is his attack on the constitution and the interpretation. He went beserk on me on questioning him on the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederations and other stuff. I mean the book which I have his autograph on the The Curse of Alexander Hamilton, completely lacks everything on the reason why the constitution and the necessary and proper clause.


I mean secession is constitutional, but the reason why he dispays is wrong.

Details?

[green73]

I'd say "Go Tom" but I live in Freaking NYS right now so if we seceded I'd likely be even more screwed than I already am. What's the best liberty state? I KNOW it ain't NYS.

Maybe there'd be a domino effect, and you could move, but I doubt your state would ever secede first.

[seapilot]

California is certainly large enough to go its own, but it's also the most likely to remain in the Union even if there is a collapse.

I believe there wont be a collapse. More like a seize up of layers of bureaucracy. I have seen it happen with the Fed gov. in a small circumstance recently. They made so much hassle for paperwork that vendors could not get paid for services rendered up to 6 months past. Vendors started stopping service.

This will occur someday on a massive scale when people realize that the Fed gov credit is crap and they are not going to get paid. The gov will promise payment to employees and vendors but eventually vendors stop service and Fed employees start making things work more efficiently in there own departments. This may take up to a year or two years because many people will believe that they will eventually get paid. Eventually the employees will get other jobs or and start selling Government assets into the private sector to pay the bills ( Soviet Union they did this ).

Things will freeze up at the Fed Level. The states that are somewhat solvent will have to take up the slack , cut budgets where the Fed stops with the credit. Things will get very local then. Once states no longer receive any payments from fedgov they are forced to become independent again. Some states might band with others for services out of necessity. Trade will continue except without a big central gov. Military will again be localized with National guard units and bases being supported by independent states realizing they have to continue to fund them for defense purposes. They will be staffed mainly by part time soldiers, that have other jobs in the private sector or local government.

Not quite the secession everyone thinks will happen like the civil war, but more of a secession of states out of necessity rather than out of principal.

[Christian Liberty]

New York is ranked dead last in the Freedom Index last I checked.

Yeah, I figured it would be somewhere near there. I'm still in high school. I wouldn't ever buy property here.


Maybe there'd be a domino effect, and you could move, but I doubt your state would ever secede first.

I'm just hoping we'd never see secession and then closed borders. But yeah, I'm all for what Tom is advocating anyway. I'm just annoyed at the idiocy of New York's leadership. Cuomo and Bloomberg* really need to be tied up somewhere and forced to leave the rest of us alone.

*I don't live in NYC. Even still, I hate the nanny they call "Mayor."

[SonofThunder]

(btw, the AoC were only "ineffective" if you consider command and control of everyday actions "effective" as the Court Historians do. One of the reasons the Constitution is such an epic fail is its centralization of power in the federal regime)

Exactly. See my namesake for more on this issue :-)

(iow, read the Anti-Federalist Papers, then tell me Ron Paul isn't Patrick Henry reincarnated)

[Keith and stuff]

http://freestateproject.org/

once you get here you'll realize you're out

That's funny people, the guest host woman of Alex Jones was Nashua resident Katherine Albrecht. She helped lead the anti-REAL ID movement while living in NH. She spoke at Liberty Forum (her 2nd Liberty Forum to speak at) and talked with Tom Woods about his time in Nashua and the FSP. She is the regular host of a GCN program that is after Alex Jones and before FreeTalkLive (of Keene, NH).

BTW, did you see Alex Jones speak at Porcfest?

[Keith and stuff]

Obama: 368,529 (52.2%)
Romney: 327,870 (46.4%)

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/results/president/new-hampshire/

Surely you have some type of point? Would Glenn Beck not approve or something :)

As you know, liberty candidates did best in NH in 2010 and 2012. Here are some 2012 results.
NH - 68 out of 171 liberty candidates won http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395154-New-Hampshire-11-6-12-election-results-thread-including-the-1-candidate-Ron-Paul-endorsed
NH (according to the NHLA) - 74 out of 149 http://www.nhliberty.org/newsletters/2012/12
ME - 5 out of 18 liberty candidates won http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395145-Maine-11-6-12-election-results-thread-including-the-5-Ron-Paul-endorsed-candidates
MN - 4 out 42 of liberty candidates won http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395203-Minnesota-11-6-12-election-results-thread
MA - 3 out of 17 liberty candidates won http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395202-Massachusetts-11-6-12-election-results-thread
IA - 3 out of 14 liberty candidates won http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?394887-Liberty-Iowa-candidates-Election-results
VT- 1 out of 7 liberty candidates won http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395575-Vermont-11-6-12-election-results-thread
RI - 1 out of 5 liberty candidates won http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395152-Rhode-Island-11-6-12-election-results-thread
NV - 0 out of 3 liberty candidates won http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?395392-Nevada-11-6-12-election-results-thread

[mad cow]

I believe there wont be a collapse. More like a seize up of layers of bureaucracy. I have seen it happen with the Fed gov. in a small circumstance recently. They made so much hassle for paperwork that vendors could not get paid for services rendered up to 6 months past. Vendors started stopping service.

This will occur someday on a massive scale when people realize that the Fed gov credit is crap and they are not going to get paid. The gov will promise payment to employees and vendors but eventually vendors stop service and Fed employees start making things work more efficiently in there own departments. This may take up to a year or two years because many people will believe that they will eventually get paid. Eventually the employees will get other jobs or and start selling Government assets into the private sector to pay the bills ( Soviet Union they did this ).

Things will freeze up at the Fed Level. The states that are somewhat solvent will have to take up the slack , cut budgets where the Fed stops with the credit. Things will get very local then. Once states no longer receive any payments from fedgov they are forced to become independent again. Some states might band with others for services out of necessity. Trade will continue except without a big central gov. Military will again be localized with National guard units and bases being supported by independent states realizing they have to continue to fund them for defense purposes. They will be staffed mainly by part time soldiers, that have other jobs in the private sector or local government.

Not quite the secession everyone thinks will happen like the civil war, but more of a secession of states out of necessity rather than out of principal.

Very probable IMO.If the fedgov has no or worthless money,it soon becomes impotent no matter how many laws and regulations it passes.

People are rightfully scared of the DHS,BATF,IRS and on and on but if they haven't been paid for a few months with some type of scrip that at least allows them to buy some potatoes for their families,well they might be a cheap source for .40 S&W ammunition.

[Christian Liberty]

Did you ask him in person or on the interwebz? If it was just type, you may have expressed yourself in a way that he considered hostile.

(btw, the AoC were only "ineffective" if you consider command and control of everyday actions "effective" as the Court Historians do. One of the reasons the Constitution is such an epic fail is its centralization of power in the federal regime)
The only thing I'm not a big fan of in the AoC is that open borders weren't guaranteed. The whole "Decentralization leads to government choice and whatnot" only works if you can cross the borders. Although I'd still prefer the AoC, I'd prefer a modified version that fixed that.

[heavenlyboy34]

The only thing I'm not a big fan of in the AoC is that open borders weren't guaranteed. The whole "Decentralization leads to government choice and whatnot" only works if you can cross the borders. Although I'd still prefer the AoC, I'd prefer a modified version that fixed that.
Open borders still aren't guaranteed by the CONstitution either. The FedGov and most StateGovs act arbitrarily and selfishly. But yeah, there were several problems with the AoC that should be fixed. That's what the original convention was for-amending the AoC in a way suitable to maintain the spirit of the document while adding practical changes. The Constitution only made things worse.

[Matthew5]

The most manageable and localized gov't is self-gov't.

Meh, I'm not convinced yet. But I'm still in research mode on the idea. :)

[green73]

That's funny people, the guest host woman of Alex Jones was Nashua resident Katherine Albrecht. She helped lead the anti-REAL ID movement while living in NH. She spoke at Liberty Forum (her 2nd Liberty Forum to speak at) and talked with Tom Woods about his time in Nashua and the FSP. She is the regular host of a GCN program that is after Alex Jones and before FreeTalkLive (of Keene, NH).

BTW, did you see Alex Jones speak at Porcfest?

Free Talk Live is great. I wish I had time to listen to it more. AJ spoke PF?

[green73]

Meh, I'm not convinced yet. But I'm still in research mode on the idea. :)

You're unconvinced that the best ruler for you is not you?

[Matthew5]

You're unconvinced that the best ruler for you is not you?

No, I'm not convinced yet that millions of self-rulers can interact peacefully. I'm weighing the macro and micro elements of social interaction of self-rulers.

[green73]

No, I'm not convinced yet that millions of self-rulers can interact peacefully. I'm weighing the macro and micro elements of social interaction of self-rulers.

Oh, so it's others that need ruling.

[Origanalist]

I nominate California, since it's a failed state, and puts Boxer and that f-ing Feinstein in the U.S. Senate.

I second that.

[Origanalist]

California is certainly large enough to go its own, but it's also the most likely to remain in the Union even if there is a collapse.

Pffft. Mexico would annex it in a heartbeat. What, do you think the tough guys in the bay area would try to stop them?

[tod evans]

How about giving Cal. to Mexico and DC to China and the rest of us start over?

[A Son of Liberty]

Secession, all the way down to the individual, is the a logical and moral political ideal. Those who stand opposed to it reveal their true political identity: that of a belligerent, anti-human statist.

[Christian Liberty]

How would individual secession even work? Basically I think to have individual secession you'd have to have anarchy, an idea I haven't been convinced is really workable.

I don't really have a huge stake in that debate personally. While my personal preference is extremely limited minarchistic government, if anarchism, or classical liberalism, or constitutionalism, or even a borg of somewhat contradictory but broadly libertarian (Small l) ideas like Gary Johnson or something, I'll go for it. My enemy is the neoconservative, the ultraliberal, the socialist, the nanny and other similar types of people. I'll worry about which type of limited government once we win the fight for limited government in the first place.

[Christian Liberty]

Open borders still aren't guaranteed by the CONstitution either. The FedGov and most StateGovs act arbitrarily and selfishly. But yeah, there were several problems with the AoC that should be fixed. That's what the original convention was for-amending the AoC in a way suitable to maintain the spirit of the document while adding practical changes. The Constitution only made things worse.

I thought for sure the constitution did guarantee your right to cross STATE borders. I wasn't talking about national borders either, which aren't as big of an issue ofr me but I still think legal immigration for anyone who hasn't committed a serious violent crime should be extremely easy.

[A Son of Liberty]

How would individual secession even work? Basically I think to have individual secession you'd have to have anarchy, an idea I haven't been convinced is really workable.

I don't really have a huge stake in that debate personally. While my personal preference is extremely limited minarchistic government, if anarchism, or classical liberalism, or constitutionalism, or even a borg of somewhat contradictory but broadly libertarian (Small l) ideas like Gary Johnson or something, I'll go for it. My enemy is the neoconservative, the ultraliberal, the socialist, the nanny and other similar types of people. I'll worry about which type of limited government once we win the fight for limited government in the first place.

Don't you, as an individual, have the right to self-determination? Why would states have that right, but not you? Don't state rights derive from the rights of the people themselves?

Step away, for a moment, from the question of whether individual secession is a "workable concept" in and of itself. Start first with whether or not it is a logical and moral concept. Once you come to the easy conclusion that it IS, then you may toil with how "workable" it is.

[Christian Liberty]

Yeah, i would tend to say yes, you personally should have the moral right to secede from your government.

I'm just not sure how it would work.

I wasn't saying to end it at the state. Secession of a county or even town is clearly workable. I'm not sure how it would work at the individual level.

[A Son of Liberty]

Yeah, i would tend to say yes, you personally should have the moral right to secede from your government.

I'm just not sure how it would work.

I wasn't saying to end it at the state. Secession of a county or even town is clearly workable. I'm not sure how it would work at the individual level.

How do you logically or morally justify denying it at the individual level, if you allow it at the state, county, or municipal level? Additionally, if there were a global government, you would certainly allow it at the national level.

All of this dances around the fundamental question - states (governments) are comprised of individuals, and derive their powers from those individuals. As such, whatever a state may do, the individual may do, as a matter of fact.

It is encumbent upon the statist to prove that the individual is NOT the progenitor of rights, otherwise.

[Christian Liberty]

I'm not really a statist except in that I support a very minimal state as a necessary evil.

OK, so lets say you secede from the national, state, and local governments. Your property is now a soveregn nation. Now, if everyone did that, you get anarcho-capitalism, but what if just you did that? You'd be a virtual prisoner on your own property, and tracking it would be impossible.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'm not really a statist except in that I support a very minimal state as a necessary evil.

OK, so lets say you secede from the national, state, and local governments. Your property is now a soveregn nation. Now, if everyone did that, you get anarcho-capitalism, but what if just you did that? You'd be a virtual prisoner on your own property, and tracking it would be impossible.

I'd only be a prisoner to the extent that other individuals refused to interact with me. Even under such terms, I'd be LESS of a prisoner than I am RIGHT NOW - consider that my property is forcibly consfiscated from me, and for purposes which I find wholly disagreeable. I'm "subject" to all manner of laws, presently, to which I do not give my consent, yet if I violate these arbitrary laws I apparently open myself to theft and kidnap, or as statists define them, "fines" and "imprisonment"? Some group of people have decided that marijuana is evil, so if "they" catch me in posession thereof, I'm obliged to have my property confiscated, my liberty obliterated, and my reputation defamed? This is "freedom", to you? I'd very much rather find myself "confined" to my own property, as a "prisoner", if I were freed to ignore such arbitrary and ignoble "laws". I'd be considerably more free, I'm QUITE sure.

I'm not sure what value I, as an individual, would gain from the tracking of other people and their property?

[Anti Federalist]

The Constitution is long dead, Senator Paul. Secession is the only way out.

/thread

/debate

/questions

[Christian Liberty]

Oh, I'm no fan of anything you describe. Ideally I think privatizing almost everything is a good idea. At present however, the government "Owns" a ton of property that you'd be a free rider if you used while being "Seceded" and not paying taxes for. Now, if congress ate those losses I'd say "Fine". They aren't entitlted to anything. But what would ultimately happen is that other citizens would pay for your use of the roads, exc.

Also, who would define the property as "Yours"? You couldn't really defend it yourself. If you secede, the state I assume has no obligation to defend your property rights or punish those who violate them. Which breaks into a "I have the right to whatever I can defend by force." I don't think everyone would respect your property under those conditions.

As for tracking other people's property, all I meant by that is recognizing who is the rightful owner thereof.

Maybe I just don't have enough of an imagination. I think I agree with you more than you think I do. And I'd certainly agree that an unjust law is no law at all. On the other hand, I see nothing with fines/imprisonment for actions that actually do hurt other people, such as murder, theft, exc.

[The Gold Standard]

Oh, I'm no fan of anything you describe. Ideally I think privatizing almost everything is a good idea. At present however, the government "Owns" a ton of property that you'd be a free rider if you used while being "Seceded" and not paying taxes for. Now, if congress ate those losses I'd say "Fine". They aren't entitlted to anything. But what would ultimately happen is that other citizens would pay for your use of the roads, exc.

Also, who would define the property as "Yours"? You couldn't really defend it yourself. If you secede, the state I assume has no obligation to defend your property rights or punish those who violate them. Which breaks into a "I have the right to whatever I can defend by force." I don't think everyone would respect your property under those conditions.

As for tracking other people's property, all I meant by that is recognizing who is the rightful owner thereof.

Maybe I just don't have enough of an imagination. I think I agree with you more than you think I do. And I'd certainly agree that an unjust law is no law at all. On the other hand, I see nothing with fines/imprisonment for actions that actually do hurt other people, such as murder, theft, exc.

The government doesn't own property. It uses force to keep people from owning it. It is essentially unclaimed land.

[Keith and stuff]

For Secession to happen, you are going to want a state with likely at least an ocean border with a spot or an already existing port and a decent airport. Maybe even an international border. So places like VT, WY ID and MT wouldn't make sense. HI, AK TX and NH would make sense. Just saying.

[Matthew5]

For Secession to happen, you are going to want a state with likely at least an ocean border with a spot or an already existing port and a decent airport. Maybe even an international border. So places like VT, WY ID and MT wouldn't make sense. HI, AK TX and NH would make sense. Just saying.

AK might fit the bill. I'm sure Russia would love to defend her against an invasion of the U.S.

[tod evans]

For Secession to happen, you are going to want a state with likely at least an ocean border with a spot or an already existing port and a decent airport. Maybe even an international border. So places like VT, WY ID and MT wouldn't make sense. HI, AK TX and NH would make sense. Just saying.

This would assume that the succeeding states wanted to continue with the current level of imported goods..

[Keith and stuff]

This would assume that the succeeding states wanted to continue with the current level of imported goods..
It would likely want to try to greatly increase both imports and exports, whichever the state was.

[tod evans]

It would likely want to try to greatly increase both imports and exports, whichever the state was.

Personally I view most imports as a net negative and make every effort to support domestic manufacturers....

It seems to me that this "global" economy is a major contributor to our financial woes..

I also understand that many on this board will argue for cheapest prices, country of manufacture be damned.

[A Son of Liberty]

Oh, I'm no fan of anything you describe. Ideally I think privatizing almost everything is a good idea. At present however, the government "Owns" a ton of property that you'd be a free rider if you used while being "Seceded" and not paying taxes for. Now, if congress ate those losses I'd say "Fine". They aren't entitlted to anything. But what would ultimately happen is that other citizens would pay for your use of the roads, exc.

Also, who would define the property as "Yours"? You couldn't really defend it yourself. If you secede, the state I assume has no obligation to defend your property rights or punish those who violate them. Which breaks into a "I have the right to whatever I can defend by force." I don't think everyone would respect your property under those conditions.

As for tracking other people's property, all I meant by that is recognizing who is the rightful owner thereof.

Maybe I just don't have enough of an imagination. I think I agree with you more than you think I do. And I'd certainly agree that an unjust law is no law at all. On the other hand, I see nothing with fines/imprisonment for actions that actually do hurt other people, such as murder, theft, exc.

EVERYTHING the state provides, free people could provide, and in a more just and efficient manner, I might add. That includes security and deed registry.

If in our theoretical example I seceded wholly unto myself, rather than a mass secession of people from the state in general, I do not doubt that the state would seek to isolate me, and to make my life as difficult as possible. The surrounding state would NOT negotiate a fair and equitable user fee for "services" such as highways and utility right-of-ways as a free market entity would; the state, which enjoys monopoly privilege over those of us who give it sanction, has no incentive to do so, and in fact has an incentive to be even more restrictive and onerous with someone who dares step outside its self-defined bounds.

Doing harm to others, as you describe, are not violations of the state. Those are violations of natural law. The state is not required to seek redress for such offenses.

I recommend Murray Rothbard's For a New Liberty (http://mises.org/media/categories/87/For-a-New-Liberty) if you are truly interested in how a society based upon true human liberty might operate.

[keh10]

For Secession to happen, you are going to want a state with likely at least an ocean border with a spot or an already existing port and a decent airport. Maybe even an international border. So places like VT, WY ID and MT wouldn't make sense. HI, AK TX and NH would make sense. Just saying.

Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Louisiana would make a good nation. Any other bordering states can join in if they want :)

[Occam's Banana]

Thanks. I didn't even know he was on. I checked out their youtube channel but it's not there. Here's the mp3

http://rss.infowars.com/20130308_Fri_Alex.mp3

I'll probably listen tomorrow.

'tube ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhK0pYAqvVE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhK0pYAqvVE

[UMULAS]

..............

[heavenlyboy34]

First off, sorry for the grammar in the post I made.

One problem for the AoC was lack of enforcement for the Fed. Gov. was the power to enforce taxes; the Fed. Gov. was lucky if they were to receive 1/3 of revenue. Another was the lack trade commerce that states did with each other; states were fighting each other on the makret such as monopolies and pricing as well as border disputes; not even the Fed could do a thing if a war broke out between other states and they couldn't intervene in military accordance (it was even worse as there was a mob attack in Philadelphia and Congress had to retreat to Princeton since the state didn't offer them protection).

If there was to be an amendment, it had to be unanimous; a law also had to be 9/13 approved by the states, regardless of population (unrepresented republicanism). Others were also foreign policy (which states made foreign policies to other countries) and no national court system to solve the problem.

And I didn't seem like a "hostile" guy when I went to talk to him for a while; spoke nice and went ahead with some questions regarding the constitution (he based it in his speech).

I met him in real life in the first campaign for liberty meeting which we had the priviledge to talk to a person from the Mises Institute.

Although the AoC had many weakness', I like many parts of it such as the trying of conservatism and winning the revolutionary war.

The reason why I prefer the Constitution alot more than the AoC is that the Constitution sparks the limit that the Gov (Fed and State) can do (Note: I am talking before 1865).

One of was a great part of Bi-Partisan Gov, electorate college, checks and balances.

It also used libertarianism as that the bill of rights were the first "Individual rights"; as much as I am a big state fan as everyone, even states can go corrupted and is important to stop that through a use of rules. States did have dictorial stances and the people basically went from servants to the British Empire to their domestic state.

Another impact is the Fed and anti-feds to finally compromise on the idea of Federalism, states can't overrule the fed and vice-versa.


A person may attack the constitution as being ineffective, the only thing that was ineffective was the people who put men in charge, and that was not the fault of the constitution.

But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist. -Lysander Spooner, The Constitution Of No Authority

[UMULAS]

.........

[gwax23]

-Lysander Spooner, The Constitution Of No Authority

Great quote. Sums up my views on the constitution.

Id prefer the AoC anyday to the Constitution. Sure it needed some fixing and tweaking but not what we got out of the constitution.

[heavenlyboy34]

Well if the people become ineffective, then the ideal becomes ineffective. The thing about the constitution is how effective it lasted (and boy did it last). Capito-Anarchism, or the socialist Anarchism that Spooner advocated needs more effort to enforce than the idea of a constitutional republic. All ideologies work on paper, but when it is to be enforced is a different question. Even by having at least 40% libertarians alone in Washington can stop any unconstitutional laws and 2/3 to go back to true liberty.
That's beside the point. The point is that Constituitonalism hasn't and simply cannot live up to the pioneers' and idealists' hopes simply because of Human Nature and Human Action.