New Hampshire Underground

There is going to be a convention in August in Cambridge, MA to discuss New England Secession. It is being sponsored by the Liberty Tree Society and Massachusetts Sons of Liberty so far, if any other groups (hint hint) want to co-sponsor, let me know. I'll post the details soon.

I support a New Hampshire secession.

The rest of New England seems like a bunch of socialist liberals.

The next step then would be to abolish the confederacy.

Because
I would want NH to be completely autonomous -- at least politically.

TRacy

I'm with Jim on this. I support most independence movements in North America. If a socialist independence movement succeeds, then those are socialists with whom more free states do not have to share a system.
A true confederacy usually implies the voluntary participation of sovereign member states. It is just a way to facilitate cooperation. If that's what's meant by confederation, then I support it.

I believe that if one New England state goes the rest will follow. I would probably prefer to see confederation among the northern New England states. Even though I don't agree with their social legislation, I think that the people of Maine and Vermont generally have much more in common with the people of New Hampshire, than do the people in Mass,CT, and RI. That is of course generally speaking.
Let's not forget that an independent Quebec is a more likely scenario in the short term future than an independent New England. Canada's provinces harbor stronger independence movements than any US state.

Except confederations always consolidate power. you know, the way the original AofC got "consolidated" by the constitution, and the way the Constitution's been consolidated out of existence.

Confederations are evil, and should be viewed w/ suspision even under the most perfect paper documents to "garentee" independence.

No. Complete independence w/o even any entangling aliances or confederations, etc.

Tracy

I agree with Tracy. Trade agreements can be made. Don't need any formal confederation.

confederations are quintessentially part and parcel of the historical anarchist movement...

I'm glad to see the conversation this has spurred!

So, how many folks think they'll go to the convention?

Confederations can only consolidate power if the member states allow consolidation. The AOC didn't gradually slide into being the US Constitution, the articles were effectively trashed and a federal framework was drafted.

It took the vast majority of the state legislatures to approve this essentially new form of government. If a NE confederation were to come into being, it would almost certainly posess a charter which would allow any individual state to leave the confederation at any time. That way if 4 of six members wanted to enact legislation or alter government in a way that was not desirable in the eyes of the other two, the disgruntled states could leave unmolested.

Despite the differences between states, I think you'll always find a certain sense of fraternity between all the states that are currently members of the union, regardless of what political bonds will or will not bind them in the future.

The original AofC charter said that it needed unanamous consent from all thirteen colonies before being changed. Yet the constitution went into effect and the Central government started aggregating those new powers WAY before that last third of states ratified it.

The Constitution was illegal. Plain and simple. But yet it happened.

If the confederation hadn't existed in the first place, it would have been much more difficult for the AoC to get usurped.

Solution -- don't have an AoC in the first place. The rules in the AoC were very explicit. That didn't stop the power mongers.

Moral: Don't trust confederations.

Tracy

But you shouldn't hold the confederation responsible for that tracy. Like you said, it was the power mongers who usurped the confederation. Even if no league existed the power hungry would have still have sought a way to centralize government among the States. The majority of states supported the constitution, and they would likely have federalized with or without the articles.

Let's face it, the states were taking their time in paying back that war debt. I think that the federal power of taxation would have been an acceptable solution, but it should have been put into place only for a set period of time.

I have been formulating some ideas regarding "organizing" the communication and education of state sovereignty.  It really would prove to be a useful tool. 

The problem is I have too many projects going at the same time!

I will definately share more information as I progress further with this undertaking.

Thrive!

Quote from: citizen_142002 on May 03, 2006, 02:09 PM NHFT
But you shouldn't hold the confederation responsible for that tracy. Like you said, it was the power mongers who usurped the confederation. Even if no league existed the power hungry would have still have sought a way to centralize government among the States. The majority of states supported the constitution, and they would likely have federalized with or without the articles.

Let's face it, the states were taking their time in paying back that war debt. I think that the federal power of taxation would have been an acceptable solution, but it should have been put into place only for a set period of time.

They wouldn't have had the pretence of a constitutional convention, if the AOC didn't exist in the first place.

Maybe they would have found another way -- but it would have been more difficult.

Tracy

Good to see the Pine Tree flag, Gray. Which state are you in?

Quote from: citizen_142002 on May 10, 2006, 05:15 PM NHFT
Good to see the Pine Tree flag, Gray. Which state are you in?

Massachusetts.

New England Confederation Alliance (http://newenglandconfederation.org/default.html)

This is an online resource that consolidates websites, blogs, and forums that advocates state sovereignty for the New England states.

It's still under development.  So, more is still being added.

But, what do you think so far?  Any suggestions?

Quote from: Gray on May 11, 2006, 05:37 AM NHFT

Quote from: citizen_142002 on May 10, 2006, 05:15 PM NHFT
Good to see the Pine Tree flag, Gray. Which state are you in?

Massachusetts.

Come north about an hour or two... ;)

Quote from: Dreepa on May 23, 2006, 01:40 PM NHFT

Quote from: Gray on May 11, 2006, 05:37 AM NHFT

Quote from: citizen_142002 on May 10, 2006, 05:15 PM NHFT
Good to see the Pine Tree flag, Gray. Which state are you in?

Massachusetts.

Come north about an hour or two... ;)

I've considered moving to Vermont.  :)  I'll see how the movement there transpires.  (I only live 3 minutes from Vermont)

Quote from: Gray on May 23, 2006, 03:37 PM NHFT

Quote from: Dreepa on May 23, 2006, 01:40 PM NHFT

Quote from: Gray on May 11, 2006, 05:37 AM NHFT

Quote from: citizen_142002 on May 10, 2006, 05:15 PM NHFT
Good to see the Pine Tree flag, Gray. Which state are you in?

Massachusetts.

Come north about an hour or two... ;)

I've considered moving to Vermont.  :)  I'll see how the movement there transpires.  (I only live 3 minutes from Vermont)

no one from the 2nd VT republic has been invited to this conference...

Quote from: FrankChodorov on May 23, 2006, 05:52 PM NHFT

no one from the 2nd VT republic has been invited to this conference...

consider yourself invited. :P

Quote from: FrankChodorov on May 23, 2006, 05:52 PM NHFT
the 2nd VT republic

The direct democracy plank is a little scary... how will the will of the people be prevented from becoming mob rule against the rights of the individual?

If 90 percent vote to take my land is that just?

Plus who's the dude on the horse? ;D

Ultimately no piece of paper can stop tyrrany. More often than not, the paper is reinterpreted to mean whatever one wants, and justifies exactly what it was intended not to create.

While I like the idea of a functioning anarchy, I think it requires a transition period. Otherwise it might "shock the system" too much. Carefully crafted chaos, you could call it.

1. minarchy
2. end government monopoly on judicial hearings
3. end government monopoly on law enforcement
4. allow people to opt-out of government laws
5. end government

If the US broke out into anarchy today, there would be no private law or private law enforcement. If we give these things some time to develop, though, it might just work. I'm skeptical that it would work, but I think we should try to give it a chance.

In order to make this progression, you have to be an independent state, for without a state government there is no confederacy to be made. Of course, conglomerating our gvts is even worse.

Quote from: Roger Grant on May 23, 2006, 07:09 PM NHFT

Quote from: FrankChodorov on May 23, 2006, 05:52 PM NHFT
the 2nd VT republic

The direct democracy plank is a little scary... how will the will of the people be prevented from becoming mob rule against the rights of the individual?

If 90 percent vote to take my land is that just?

Plus who's the dude on the horse? ;D

direct democracy is only to be feared if there is no deliberative body to mitigate against media manipulation...in the case of town meeting (a deliberative body) you act as a citizen legislator.

of course you have the VT constitution and bill of rights too...

Ethan Allen is the dude on the horse....the leader of the Green Mountain Boys.

Ok so the town 99-1 votes to take your land... same thing.  Different govt.

What is popular is ALWAYS right!

Quote from: Dreepa on May 24, 2006, 02:51 PM NHFT
Ok so the town 99-1 votes to take your land... same thing.  Different govt.

I believe the VT constitution and bill of rights covers that issue...

Thanks for your answer. :)

Ethan Allen is definitely cool with me (of course I didn't realize they had color photography back in his day ;) )

I support the movement to secede from the Washington,Deceit corporate cesspool.