Only Through Secession can we achieve Liberty


PDA






The Last Confederate
July 12, 2004, 12:24 AM
Secession of a state (via the “Freestate Project) is the only plausible step toward achieving our desired goal of liberty and firearms rights. The freestate project can NOT reach it’s desired goal if it insists on remaining a part of the union. Even if liberty oriented people dominate the state legislative body, even if we have LP senators and a governor, all we could hope to do is to effect and change all the state laws. We will still have almost zero federal impact. 90%+ of the most restrictive firearms laws are those which are federal in nature.

If the freestate project chooses to remain in the union, it’s citizens would still have to put up with all the immoral and illegal federal laws, from welfare, to gun laws, to taxes and homeland security.

Secession is the only solution toward creating a TRULY free state where we can enjoy unadulterated arms ownership. It is the only way in which we can bypass the federal laws by throwing off the federal yoke of oppression. The union has become tyrannical and secession is the last peaceful method possible for free men to deal with the tyranny. However, in order to secede we need support of the state legislator, which is why the FSP is such a good idea. So we can get control of the legislative body in order to be able to pass a resolution toward secession from the tyrannical union and get on the road toward a truly free state. However, by remaining part of the union this can never be so.

If by remaining part of the union, even if the freedom lovinging citizens control the state legislative body and enact the few local changes a state is still capable of enacting, the goal of the project will fail. Even if other states take notice of the local success of the FSP and turn into “Free states” of their own, they will still be coerced into abiding by all of the tyrannical and oppressive federal legislation. Effecting change in State laws is nice and all, but these days, the monolithic Fed has so much say and control over our lives, much more than the state gov. does. It simply isn’t enough to abide by the Federal’s authoritarianism, while letting New Hampshire do the few things which the Federal union has not yet mandated for it.

Two libertarian senators will have no meaningful effect in the senate. Neither would 4, or six. Our goal is to achieve as much liberty as quickly as possible. To do this would require the nullification of countless tyrannical Federal laws. There are tens of thousands of these already on the books. Now, to work within the system to achieve this is not only a delusion of naivety (name me one great change that was made from working within the system), but even if it WAS possible, it would take too bloody long. Even if we had the support in the congress, senate, executive, judicial, and within the constitutes themselves, to get our bills passed to legalize all things from narcotics, to prostitution, and the private ownership of all forms of weaponry, to the abolition of social security and wel-fare it would take years and years of introducing thousands of bills to gradually turn the tide that authoritarianism has already taken on this country.

Sure, you could try to change the country by passing one mega “freedom bill” that would instantly liberate the country. However, such a mammoth bill would never have any hope in hell to be supported or passed by any legislative body on the face of this earth, now or at any time in history’s past.

Which brings me back to my previous point, “changing the system by working within the system”. I’m afraid such is an outright impossibility. No system on earth has ever been changed by working within it, indeed, it is outside the best interests of the system to create provisions for which it can be abolished. Sure, our founding fathers tried to initiate such a system in the beginning of this nation, but as so often happens, it too has become corrupted beyond conventional means of repair (conventional, IE, working within it to change it).

That is why secession provides us with the only feasible and reasonable solution toward achieving a free and liberated society. It is much easier to liberate a state with many likeminded people than it is to liberated a Massive Confederated nation full of ideologically hostile people.

If you enjoyed reading about "Only Through Secession can we achieve Liberty" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Wildalaska
July 12, 2004, 12:56 AM
Hey Clem bring the Reynolds Wrap its startin again :)

WildherewegoAlaska

buy guns
July 12, 2004, 01:23 AM
from your FAQ page

Q: Does the Free State Project promote secession?

A: No, the Free State Project is not promoting secession.

Rebeldon
July 12, 2004, 02:26 AM
In a truly free republic, secession should always be an option. Secession can be a way to avoid intolerable circumstances regarding regionally polar issues. Gun rights/control is certainly one of those issues. Early in our nation's history, the threat of secession caused regionally polar issues to be dropped for fear of being too divisive.

Was the question of legality of secession really settled in 1865? Jefferson Davis said, "A question settled by violence, or in disregard of law, must remain unsettled forever." Why do you think there are so many Southerners who will not forget?

It may seem ironic, but Mikhail Gorbachev showed more understanding of freedom and self-determination than Abraham Lincoln.

The following is a very challenging read:

http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/dwliv01.html

c_yeager
July 12, 2004, 03:40 AM
These threads always give me a chuckle...

JohnBT
July 12, 2004, 08:55 AM
TLC - I'm curious where you live. I'm in Richmond and there're quite a few diehard Confederates hereabouts. JT

manyironsinfire
July 12, 2004, 09:51 AM
If you thought Waco was horrifiic or Ruby Ridge was unjust--- I shudder at the thought of what the feds would do if a state wanted to susede:uhoh:

Foreign Devil
July 12, 2004, 09:56 AM
Alaska had an independence movement abut 20 years ago, and their candidate actually became governor.

But it just isn't going to happen - Americans are generally happy being Americans. They generally think of themselves as American first, not Floridians or Oregonians.

The R Hawkeye
July 12, 2004, 10:03 AM
Count me in. Secession was one of the many powers retained by the states when the Federal Government was formed. This is precisely why the history of our nation, prior to 1860, demonstrated that the Federal Government feared secession and, due to that fear, refrained from enacting legislation which might trigger it.

The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers granted to it by the words of the Constitution, and that all others are retained by the states and the people, respectively. It is without question that the states, prior to the ratification of the Constitution, possessed sovereignty sufficient to authorize secession from the union. This is the case because, prior to the Articles of Confederation, they were sovereign and independent states, even if united in the cause (as allied states) of independence from Britain. The states did not, by said Articles, relinquish any power of secession from the union, and neither did they relinquish said power via the words of the Constitution, therefore, this power was one of the many retained powers of states. All sovereign states retain the power to withdraw from any union with other states, until said power is specifically relinquished by a fusion into a larger state, and that only by the express words of the document which caused said fusion. This never happened in the United States. Many aspects of state sovereignty were retained, including the power of secession, according to the Tenth Amendment.

Lincoln's actions were clearly despotic in nature, being a violation of the Constitution, which did not grant the federal government, or any component of same, the power or authority to use the military to prevent secession. Secession is just as legal today as it was in 1861, and I am all in favor of it. Let me know which state is seceding, and I will be there to support and defend its legal right to do so.

DMF
July 12, 2004, 11:00 AM
Ah, Hawkeye trotting out the same tired and flawed argument about Lincoln. The war was fought because the Confederate states committed acts of war, and gave Lincoln (and the US Congress) an excuse to fight, win, and re-unite the Union. I know you don't agree, that you claim those attacks by the South were somehow justified, etc, etc., but anyone here willing to research Ft. Sumter and the other attacks on US territory and troops, prior to Sumter, can see the truth. The truth is the South chose war by attacking the US, and they lost.

"War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - General William T. Sherman

buy guns
July 12, 2004, 11:23 AM
if you guys did secede, what is to stop other countries from taking you over? hell, the cartel could overthrow you guys.

The R Hawkeye
July 12, 2004, 11:23 AM
DMF, do you never tire from losing this argument? LOL. Anyone who wishes may study the history of the Civil War and discover that the Union, after a legal secession by the State of South Carolina, not only refused to evacuate their hostile forces from said sovereign and newly independent state (which they were asked to do), but had the audacity to respond to said request with an attempted resupply of said hostile forces. This act of war on the part of the Union provoked South Carolina's act of repulsion, i.e., the firing on said hostile forces.

The R Hawkeye
July 12, 2004, 11:30 AM
If you guys did secede, what is to stop other countries from taking you over? hell, the cartel could overthrow you guys.The same thing that prevents other countries from taking over Switzerland, i.e., "that every man be armed," and willing to defend what's theirs. What stopped the might of the Soviet Union from enslaving Afghanistan? Essentially, it was the unwillingness of the Afghani people to be enslaved. How does Monaco manage to retain its independence?

Molon Labe
July 12, 2004, 11:37 AM
I agree with TLC; secession may be the only way out of this mess.

To the naysayers: what is wrong with secession?

DMF
July 12, 2004, 11:52 AM
Hawkeye, you always seem to ignore that the territory in SC and FL which I am referring to was the property of the US government, legally transferred to the US Government by those states, prior to secession. Claiming that the property in question belonged to the states is false, and would be the equivalent of you selling me a piece of your property, and then unilaterally deciding you wanted it back at a later date.

You are the one who never tires of this argument, because you started this debate, again, not me.

Side note: Just out of curiousity why the new username?

ProGlock
July 12, 2004, 11:56 AM
DMF: I will admit to you that you make a good point. The South (actually South Carolina) fired the first shots at Fort Sumter. In my opinion it would have been better for them to simply form a blockade against federal supply lines coming in.
If they would have offered to escort all federal forces out of the state and guaranteed that no harm would come to them, we'd probably have a VERY radically different history that we do today.

Now granted, Lincoln always said he would never order the federal forces to fire first...that the South would have to fire the first shots if they wanted a fight, and they did. That is what is unfortunate. If another revolution were to happen, it must happen in a non-violent manner for as long as possible and the first shots must never be fired by those who are seceeding.

I am all for the rights of secession. In fact, federal legislators or courts can try to enact any ridiculous law they want to ban it. It will not stop a state from removing itself if it is determined enough.

flatrock
July 12, 2004, 12:11 PM
The same thing that prevents other countries from taking over Switzerland, i.e., "that every man be armed," and willing to defend what's theirs. What stopped the might of the Soviet Union from enslaving Afghanistan? Essentially, it was the unwillingness of the Afghani people to be enslaved. How does Monaco manage to retain its independence?

Were the Afgani people free? A large portion of the population was cruely oppressed by the Taliban. They traded oppression for opression because they were not protected by the rule of law within their country.

Secession is always an option, just as armed resistence against a tyranical government is always an option. However, you won't be truely free unless you live where your govenment supports your freedoms.

Secession from the US hardly guarentees more freedom. Many people have fought for freedom only to find out that their new government is as bad or worse than the previous one.

The United States was founded on freedom. There are ways in which it has gone astray. However, you have the choice of trying to get the United States back on track, or to try and start over. Trying to start over would be a bloody and dangerous course, and I question if it is a reasonable or viable choice.

If you have enough people to viably effect secession, why don't you have enough people to viably effect reforms?

The commerece clause of the Constitution has been horribly abused by the federal government. It's the weak link in many of the unsavory laws that remove personal freedoms. We need to effect both legislative and judicial reform in the US. We also need to start with our youth. Schools need to be forced to teach students about the constitution, and the checks and balances that are designed to keep our government from trampling on the rights of it's citizens.

The fight is being lost because people who wish for the government and courts to follow the constitution are depicted as radicals. Some of them are radicals, and those are used as examples to discredit the efforts of others.

The constitution is in the way of the goals of many of those who consider themselves progressives. The news media is full of them. Our higher education system is full of them, which influences teachers, which in turn influences our children.

The Constitution and our rights are being slowly taken away, and each generation knows less and less about what we are losing.

Secession won't solve the problem, because the problems isn't a small number of people in power opressing the general population. The problem is the general population has bought into the idea that giving up their rights is in their best interest.

Unless you can effect change in the minds of the people, secession is pointless.

jojosdad
July 12, 2004, 12:48 PM
I don't support secession from the U.S., but if anyone wants to revive the idea of the State of Franklin (splitting CA into 2 states) - I'm there.

NIGHTWATCH
July 12, 2004, 12:57 PM
Unless you can effect change in the minds of the people, secession is pointless.
True. Crisis usually brings about that change though. And breaking from the union will always be an option.

The main reason Americans buy guns is because of a fear of government.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds34.html

Bobarino
July 12, 2004, 02:42 PM
if your secession movement is sucessful, could you please take California, New York and Massachusetts with you? the rest of us would appreciate it. thanks.

Bobby

Das Pferd
July 12, 2004, 02:51 PM
:scrutiny:

The R Hawkeye
July 12, 2004, 03:19 PM
If your secession movement is sucessful, could you please take California, New York and Massachusetts with you? the rest of us would appreciate it. thanks.

BobbySo, Bobby, you are essentially advocating that 47 states secede from the union. I'm with you.

The R Hawkeye
July 12, 2004, 03:37 PM
Hawkeye, you always seem to ignore that the territory in SC and FL which I am referring to was the property of the US government, legally transferred to the US Government by those states, prior to secession. Claiming that the property in question belonged to the states is false, and would be the equivalent of you selling me a piece of your property, and then unilaterally deciding you wanted it back at a later date.

You are the one who never tires of this argument, because you started this debate, again, not me.

Side note: Just out of curiousity why the new username?I would like to see the documentation to this effect. Was it a lease, or a sale? At any rate, let us assume that Joe Smith, in 1912, sold a thousand acres of land in Washington, DC to the Russian Government. Would the United States have allowed Vladimir Lenin to station troops there in 1925? Frankly, I doubt it, even if the Tzar had been allowed to do so previously. National security always supersedes real estate deals. I don't think, by the way, that S.C. would have objected to the U.S. growing crops on that land, or running a vacation resort there. It was just the military presence that was the problem.

The screen name change is temporary. I am packed and ready to move to a new state, and my computer is packed away. For some reason, I wasn't able to sign on as myself on someone else's computer, so I started a new screen name. Soon as I settle in to the new house, I will go back to being The Real Hawkeye.

flatrock
July 12, 2004, 03:56 PM
quote:Unless you can effect change in the minds of the people, secession is pointless.


True. Crisis usually brings about that change though. And breaking from the union will always be an option.

I agree that breaking from the union is always an option, I just don't see it as a good option. For it to be viable, you would have to have a State made up primarily of like minded people, have a constitution that protects people's rights, and the means to force the secession and defend your new state. You would need to have a proper judicial system in place to protect the rights of your citizens, and you'd need to provide for new elections soon after secession.

None of that is in place. To me it seems a greater step to get that in place than to attempt change from within. Both are monumentous tasks, but change from within is the high road in my opinion.

If you're talking about a forceful secession of a State without the support of the majority of the citizens, then you're aren't talking about freeing people, you're talking about forcing them to accept your views.


The main reason Americans buy guns is because of a fear of government.

I've never bought a gun because of fear of my government.

I know a great many gun owners, and can only think of one that might consider fear of the government as a primary reason that he buys guns.

Has my government given me reasons to fear it at times? Yes.
However, in the vast majority of the cases where a individual's rights are being stepped on by the government a gun isn't likely to help the situation. In protecting your rights in the US from your government a lawyer is almost always a better tool than a gun.

Note that I said ALMOST always. I won't deny that there may be very rare circumstances where you need to defend yourself against agents of the government. I also feel that it is our right to be able to do so. However, to say that the primary reason that most people own guns is fear of the government appears blatantly false to me.

Mr. Edmonds also ignores a 4th reason people purchase and own guns, sport. I would suspect that between sport shooting, hunting, and personal defense against criminals you cover the reasons that the vast majority of gun owners own guns in the United States at least.

Graystar
July 12, 2004, 04:24 PM
Secession of a state (via the “Freestate Project) is the only plausible step toward achieving our desired goal of liberty and firearms rights. And exactly how do you plan to secede? You DO realize that the United States would never allow a state to simply secede. The US will force you to come back and force you to comply with fines and prosecutions. You intend to fight the US military?

Das Pferd
July 12, 2004, 04:45 PM
if your secession movement is sucessful, could you please take California, New York and Massachusetts with you? the rest of us would appreciate it. thanks.

The US would not succeed without Ca. and NY in regards to the money they generate for the government.

The R Hawkeye
July 12, 2004, 05:56 PM
And exactly how do you plan to secede? You DO realize that the United States would never allow a state to simply secede. The US will force you to come back and force you to comply with fines and prosecutions. You intend to fight the US military?Chances are that in today's political environment, the Federal Government would not actually use force to prevent secession. This is not 1861. We have 24 hour news channels now, and it wouldn't look very good on TV for any administration in office to use US troops to attack a seceding state.

Cortland
July 12, 2004, 07:37 PM
I think the trick to an effective secession would be to approach it in a highly legalistic manner. If, like Jefferson and Madison, you see the U.S. Constitution as a compact (i.e. contract) between 1) Federal Government and 2) the several States and their citizens, you can then show that the Federal Government has consistently violated (and continues to violate) this contract. Thus the Feds violation of the contract releases you (the State) from and any obligations you had under said contract. This elevates the discourse above arguments over politics and power, and frames it in a more high-minded, clear cut, and less rebelious manner.

Rebeldon
July 12, 2004, 08:12 PM
Instead of seceding, why can't we just kick other states out...such as **********, New York, Nazi Jersey and Marxachusetts.

Lincoln supressed any debate in the U.S. about letting the South keep it's independence. Thousands of people were arrested for speaking their mind. Today, such suppression would be intolerable.

Here is a website of some people who are very serious about secession:

http://www.dixienet.org

Graystar
July 12, 2004, 09:07 PM
Chances are that in today's political environment, the Federal Government would not actually use force to prevent secession. This is not 1861. We have 24 hour news channels now, and it wouldn't look very good on TV for any administration in office to use US troops to attack a seceding state. But what are you going to do when they fine you and finally come to arrest you?

The_Antibubba
July 12, 2004, 09:41 PM
While I really like the idea of two Californias, the idea of actual secession from the U.S. is a fantasy. Law is not immutable; there will be someone who can argue the opposite of what you KNOW to be true. So look all you want for a legal basis to secede, but it won't go anywhere.

The most feasible idea is to simply re-locate elsewhere. If 10,000 are willing to pull up stakes to move to "The Free State", can you get 100,000 who are willing to go to "New America"? What nation will sell us the land? Maybe Kiribati will sell us an island-after all, they're all expected to be under water in 30 years; three decades should give us enough time to work a technological solution.

Still determined to secede, LC? well the problem is, you're not a big enough thorn in the Government's side. By the time you had 1,000,000 like-minded citizens determined to exercise their rights, you might be able to get the Feds to help you leave. OTOH, by the time you had those kinds of numbers, you'd be in a position to effect change from within, negating the need to leave. But heck, we can't even get all gun owners on one page-how do you propose to unite a Freedom Party?

The R Hawkeye
July 12, 2004, 11:37 PM
But what are you going to do when they fine you and finally come to arrest you?If a state seceded, Federal Law Enforcement would not be allowed to operate within the borders. That's the whole idea. They'd be arrested by Sherriff Jim and Deputy Bill, then deported.

Glock Glockler
July 12, 2004, 11:42 PM
See WACO as to why it wouldn't work.

buy guns
July 13, 2004, 12:07 AM
you guys should steal one of the hawaiian islands. just tie one of them to a big boat and pull it into international water.

Graystar
July 13, 2004, 02:04 AM
If a state seceded, Federal Law Enforcement would not be allowed to operate within the borders. That's the whole idea. They'd be arrested by Sherriff Jim and Deputy Bill, then deported. No... The feds will come into "your" state, say you're still part of the US and that you better start acting like it. When you don't, then they will haul you off.

When you try to deport them, they'll just come back with tanks.

capt. Nemo
July 13, 2004, 03:00 AM
"The US would not succeed without without Ca. and NY in regatds to the money they generate for the government"
:what
Do you have any idea how much money each of those states absorbs?
Secession is probably not a viable alternative, but it's fun to dream. And the dream turns into a nightmare when California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington and Illinois are included.

Texas...it's like a whole 'nuther country...:cool:

Rebeldon
July 13, 2004, 01:33 PM
If the eleven states that were members of the C.S.A. were separated from the U.S. today, they would have a population the size of Germany and have the fourth largest G.D.P. in the world.

cuchulainn
July 13, 2004, 01:43 PM
you guys should steal one of the hawaiian islands. just tie one of them to a big boat and pull it into international water. Wasn't there a project about 5 or 10 years ago where thousands of people were going to go live on some huge boat and create a community free of any nation? What ever happened to that?

Secession is a pipe dream even if those who want to do it are in the right.

The Real Mad Max
July 13, 2004, 01:50 PM
Yeah! Let's all Balkanize!

Let chaos reign! (You know, cause it all worked out so well the first time we tried that...)

:rolleyes:


All the freestaters should ban (oops, there's a dirty word!) together and buy up Marlon Brando's island! Then you could go there and start a free state.

Hmmm....but that might involve having to tax your freestaters... you know, to pay for just a few things to get your feet off the ground. So to speak...

Glock Glockler
July 13, 2004, 03:23 PM
If that's the case maybe we shouldn't have seperated from England, or maybe the Baltic states shouldn't have left the Soviet union.

It's a concept called self-determination, some people here believe in it.

Penforhire
July 13, 2004, 03:26 PM
Can't say much about sucession but CA's economy dwarfs all other states, NY included, and is often expressed as the "eighth largest economy in the world, if compared to countries country."

I'd love to see a N/S split of CA but it will never happen. The larger Southern population needs Northern resources (water) and settling the water supply situation is near-equivalent to peace in the Middle East.

flatrock
July 13, 2004, 03:39 PM
The US would not succeed without Ca. and NY in regards to the money they generate for the government.

California brings in huge amounts of tax dollars, yet their government has billions in debt because of fiscal mismanagment. The government is simply too bloated and provides too many nunecessisary services.

Yes California and New York provide a lot of tax money, but legislators from those areas are also among the worst at fiscal responsibility.

The United States would be just fine without them.

I also suspect that you might find that a lot of businesses would be willing to move out of CA and NY once they start paying taxes for all the services that those state's legislatures would pass without the moderating influence of the rest of the country.

Simply put. Despite the tremendous economy of CA, I don't think the state would survive without the rest of the US.

JohnBT
July 13, 2004, 04:26 PM
This letter to the editor appeared in the paper this morning. John


Vermont Native Opposes Secession

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

I live in Charlotte, Vermont, the same town as Thomas Naylor, the transplant from Virginia. We don't need his "help" in seceding from the United States. We pride ourselves on being different, but we do not intend to secede, and we resent Naylor moving to Vermont and then telling us how we should live and what we should do.

Ray McAllister reports in a lighthearted way on Naylor's efforts to get his new home state to secede from the U.S. We in Vermont, however, who have to read Naylor's periodic pontifications and harangues in local editorial columns, do not think it's terribly funny or cute. Naylor continually bombards us with his preachy columns, lecturing us, in his trademark I-know-best style, on what "Vermont" stands for. Many of us are just tired of it.

In a particularly galling example of his recklessness, shortly after 9/11 Naylor shocked and horrified us by suggesting, in a cold-hearted column that appeared in our local newspaper, that Vermont should secede to insulate itself from future acts of terrorism aimed at the U.S. This struck many of us as a variant on the "U.S. deserved it" theory. While many of us were still grieving the murder of friends, colleagues, and fellow American citizens, he was publicly suggesting that Vermont should send the rest of the U.S. and the world a message that Vermont is "separate" so that the terrorists won't target Vermont. It was an insulting slap in the face.

I would have thought that the strong and entirely deserved furious reaction he got to that truly offensive piece would have prompted him to discontinue his public, pompous lecture-mongering. But, alas, no. Naylor continues to dish out his paternalistic nonsense. Some of us wish that he personally would secede - back to Virginia or somewhere else. Walter Judge. charlotte, vt.

Rebeldon
July 14, 2004, 01:11 AM
One problem I see with this "Freestate Project" is the lack of a national identity to fall back upon once they are so-called free.

The League of the South is the only serious pro-secession group I know about. They actually have a national identity--Dixie! The South has a cultural, artistic, religious and political heritage that makes it different from the rest of America. Yet it remains distinctly American. Dixie has its own music, food, and the people down South even talk different. If any part of the U.S. had a case for having a name among the nations of the Earth, it would be Dixie.

If the South were to rise again, what kind of country would it be? It would be strong on defense, but not as the police of the world. Forget abortion--it would be illegal. The right to keep and bear arms would be sacred. Political correctness would become politically incorrect.

Joe Demko
July 14, 2004, 02:00 AM
I haven't seen this much fantasizing since the last time I read Letters to Penthouse.

The Real Mad Max
July 14, 2004, 10:42 AM
Yeah, Balkanization truly rocks!

And to take it a step further...I'd say let the seperate cities within a particular state seperate.... maybe even seperate wards with in the city...

Cool, total balkanization. Complete chaos...let it reign baby!

Its the only truly free way to do things. That way our education levels will certainly rise, along with some great health care...highway systems, etc. Lord only knows how solid a defense we will have....something comparable to a modern day Sparta perhaps. Whatever, it will be truly awesome!

Everyman for himself! Sweet....why didn't I think of this before?

:uhoh:

BigG
July 14, 2004, 11:00 AM
Get your horses and swords and ride - like the Huns or the Mongols. Worked for them. ;)

Glock Glockler
July 14, 2004, 11:19 AM
The Real Mad Max,

If a group of people in an area think they're being taken advantage of why shouldn't they be allowed to self-govern?

We seperated from England and the Baltic states seperated from the Soviet Union, was that bad? I suppose anything other than a complete one-world govt that controls every aspect of everyone's life is balkanization and chaos?

West Virginia seperated from Virginia because of their disagreement on slavery, has chaos and anarchy resulted?

Sweden and Norway formed a union for a while, they then decided it wasnt working out and peacefully seperated, is this a bad thing?

Killington, VT pays over $20 million to the state govt yet gets only approx. $2 million back. They think they're getting a bad deal and I agree, why shouldn't they be able to join NH? Actually, VT used to be part of NH but you dont seem to like that chaotic idea of them seperating so maybe we should reclaim all of VT, what do you think?

MrAcheson
July 14, 2004, 11:33 AM
I would like to see the documentation to this effect. Was it a lease, or a sale?

The federal government owns military bases. It does not pay rent therefore it does not lease them. You don't pay state sales tax at the PX or Burger King on a military base because it is federal land not state land. Private sales to a foriegn nation are completely different and purely an obfuscation.

dadman
July 14, 2004, 12:09 PM
Rebeldon,
The link you posted, Stalking the Wild Taboo/Secession and the Free State, is an excellent and informative read. http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/dwliv01.html

An article against secession from the same site:
An Infantile Disorder, http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/sf_infan.html
http://www.lrainc.com/swtaboo/taboos/partiton.html

The Real Mad Max
July 14, 2004, 12:48 PM
Uhmmm, last time I checked, West Virginia and Killington, VT were still part of the United States...

As for what two sovereign nations do with or for each other, I couldn't care less. Thats between the two governments.

Regarding one world government.... That must be your dream, not mine. Yours would be called Chaos. Everyman a government unto himself.

Rebeldon
July 14, 2004, 02:27 PM
dadman,

I read your links: They would good reads as well, although I do not completely agree with them. However, I don't believe that the South will ever secede again. There are too many Yankee infuences already. The Yankee campaign to colonize Dixie has been thorough, especially in Florida.

It would require a major collapse of the American political system for any serious debate about secession to begin in the South. If the Federal Government were to inact draconian gun confiscation, that would be the nexus for such event. But I don't expect that. Our right to keep and bear arms will be gradually infringed. There was no mass revolt over the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. There will be no mass revolt over the next series of infringements either.

Glock Glockler
July 14, 2004, 03:30 PM
Ok, so you're ok if parts of a state want to join another state or become a new indepentant state, you don't think a state should be able to seceed, yes?

Well, why not? Do you really think that Yugoslavia splitting up into many countries is the cause of the problems between the various peoples or is it the result of those problems?

R.H. Lee
July 14, 2004, 03:47 PM
I was born and raised in California. I have never even been to or in the South, so I'm gonna give an opinion. What used to be the "American culture", in terms of values, attitudes and tradition is lost, except for the South. Southerners remain the repository of real America and its values. If our country is to be returned to its roots, it will begin in the South.

capt. Nemo
July 14, 2004, 03:53 PM
What RileyMC said!:)

Joe Demko
July 14, 2004, 03:55 PM
Well, I've been to the South (lived there, too) and I wouldn't go making any such generalization. Plenty of folks in the rural parts of the Northeast, the Midwest, and the Southwest still very much uphold traditional American values. For anybody to even make such a statement insults all those people.

R.H. Lee
July 14, 2004, 04:57 PM
Plenty of folks in the rural parts of the Northeast, the Midwest, and the Southwest still very much uphold traditional American values

That's probably correct, although on more of an isolated basis rather than by communities, as in the South. Apologies to anyone I insulted.

Rebeldon
July 14, 2004, 11:44 PM
I was born and raised in California. I have never even been to or in the South, so I'm gonna give an opinion. What used to be the "American culture", in terms of values, attitudes and tradition is lost, except for the South. Southerners remain the repository of real America and its values. If our country is to be returned to its roots, it will begin in the South.

RileyMc,

You are proof that there is still intelligent life in **********.

It is interesting to note that Southerners are the only available people group that you can make fun of in the media and entertainment these days.

I remeber when the new CBS TV series The Magnificent Seven came out back in 1998. The bad guys were ex-Confederate soldiers. They were terrorizing some Indian village, killing innocent people with no remorse. The original Magnificent Seven, the movie, was about Mexican bandits terrorizing a small Mexican village. They decided that it would be politically incorrect to show Mexican villains, so they made the villains Southerners. Nevermind the fact that there was absolutely no record of any band of ex-Confederate soldiers heading West to bully poor Indian villages. U.S. Soldiers...uh...well...um... :o In fact, ex-Confederate soldiers were known for arming the Indians.

But they had to pick a bad guy, didn't they, so it had to be Southerners. Nobody cares if they offend Southerners. Southerners are often portrayed by Hollywood as backward, toothless, fanatically religious, intollerant, bigotted, uneducated, unintelligent, loud mouthed, poor, rude, riotous, intemperate, stubborn and lazy. And you wonder why some Southerners feel they would be happier being separated? :confused:

If you enjoyed reading about "Only Through Secession can we achieve Liberty" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!