Secession meeting

[Little Owl]

Sorry to exploit you all as an information source, but a few months ago I read an article about a secession meeting in New Hampshire sometime in November.  I'm trying to find out the when and where.

I am not an advocate of secession, as I think we need to get our house more in order before considering it.  But I wanted to attend this meeting nonetheless because given the way things have been going over the past six months, I could certainly see changing my tune on this topic.

I'm not being lazy, the usual Google type searches frequently reference a 2006 meeting that took place in Burlington PRV, but nothing new.  (I don't even know that the same group is responsible for this 2008 meeting.)

Any information would be helpful.  I'm almost certain it was in NH, and I think perhaps Manchester.

[David]

Here
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=af095ee7a3b244368ef8eeeefe3679e0&topic=15643.0
The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of succession. 

[J’raxis 270145]

http://www.middleburyinstitute.org/secessionconvention2008.html

And, if you have an account there: https://www.nhteaparty.org/index.php/topic,1303.0.html

[Little Owl]

Thank you both very much.  I went to the Middlebury Institute website.  I was under the impression that this was a single meeting, but it is obviously a "convention".

I was disappointed to see that there was no agenda/schedule for Saturday.  Will more details become available as the event draws near?

I didn't want to commit an entire day to this, but if the day is filled with useful activities I'd be willing to do so.  If not, then I'd like to know what's happening and when so I can pick the most interesting parts.

[Fluff and Stuff]

Thank you both very much.  I went to the Middlebury Institute website.  I was under the impression that this was a single meeting, but it is obviously a "convention".

I was disappointed to see that there was no agenda/schedule for Saturday.  Will more details become available as the event draws near?

I didn't want to commit an entire day to this, but if the day is filled with useful activities I'd be willing to do so.  If not, then I'd like to know what's happening and when so I can pick the most interesting parts.

Come now, just ask people who went to the 2006 version in VT.  This Convention will likely be of little importance.  It will just people people talking of things that will likely never happen.  If you are a libertarian, or LP member more specifically, you will likely love it though   See you there.

[Scott Roth]

Sounds cool.

[Little Owl]

Ok, little of any might come to pass, but I at least want to know what people are thinking.  I got concerned because some of the article I read suggested that some secessionists were looking to create independent big-government republics.

Some of it sounded worse than what we already have, which I why I want to know exactly what people hope to gain from secession before embracing it.

[Brandon]

.

Some of it sounded worse than what we already have, which I why I want to know exactly what people hope to gain from secession before embracing it.

Different people look for different things. Some are looking for the exact same thing as you, others are not. Remeber, there are different groups around the country and the only thing two groups may have in common is the desire to secede.

[J’raxis 270145]

Ok, little of any might come to pass, but I at least want to know what people are thinking.  I got concerned because some of the article I read suggested that some secessionists were looking to create independent big-government republics.

Some of it sounded worse than what we already have, which I why I want to know exactly what people hope to gain from secession before embracing it.

There's a plan I've heard about to create an "independent Atlantic federation" of Canadian maritime provinces and northern New England states. Some people believe this is a UN plot to break up extant nation-states into "regions" then placed under UN control.

[Little Owl]

Different people look for different things.

Trite.  I was specifically wondering what the powers behind this movement seek.  It seemed like there was a strong push towards extended socialism and statism, which is where my suspicions come from.

Some people believe this is a UN plot to break up extant nation-states into "regions" then placed under UN control.

That may sound paranoid on the surface, but it actually agrees quite well with some of the stated goals I've read from supporters of this secession movement.

I always hoped that secession would be viewed solely as a means to escape the thumb of the unconstitutionally overpowered federal government.  Now its starting to sound like a trick to make things even worse.

[BillKauffman]

That may sound paranoid on the surface, but it actually agrees quite well with some of the stated goals I've read from supporters of this secession movement.

I always hoped that secession would be viewed solely as a means to escape the thumb of the unconstitutionally overpowered federal government.  Now its starting to sound like a trick to make things even worse.

I know the founder of the Second Vermont Republic personally (have for 4 years) - even spoke to him this week - they are in no way a front for the UN.

Their influences if I had to characterize it would be "southern agrarianism/catholic distributism" on the right and "mutualism/geo-libertarianism" on the left as radical middle decentralism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Agrarians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

excerpt:
Essentially, distributism distinguishes itself by its distribution of property. Distributism holds that, while socialism allows no individuals to own productive property (it all being under state, community, or workers' control), and capitalism allows only a few to own it, distributism itself seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property. As Hilaire Belloc stated, the distributive state (that is, the state which has implemented distributism) contains "an agglomeration of families of varying wealth, but by far the greater number of owners of the means of production." This broader distribution does not extend to all property, but only to productive property; that is, that property which produces wealth, namely, the things needed for man to survive. It includes land, tools, etc.

[Little Owl]

I've read about the Second Vermont Republic, and they didn't seem like a UN front.  But they DID sound rather socialistic (it IS the Vermont SSR after all), and what you've just written enhances that view.

I read that Wikipedia article on Distributism and, like Communism, sounds completely unworkable.  In fact, I think it suffers exactly the same problems as Communism in that it requires compulsory redistribution of wealth through a system like socialism, yet clings to belief that the powers behind this forced redistribution would suddenly relinquish their power by the kindness of their heart once the redistribution had taken place.

Just like Stalin and Castro relinquished their power....

No thanks.  Secession should be about expanding personal freedom, not curtailing it.

It also seems that Distributism is in some way worse than socialism because at least socialist systems are capable of (inefficiently) organizing large scale capital intensive projects.  I don't see how you would achieve this under Distributism.

[BillKauffman]

I've read about the Second Vermont Republic, and they didn't seem like a UN front.  But they DID sound rather socialistic (it IS the Vermont SSR after all), and what you've just written enhances that view.

I read that Wikipedia article on Distributism and, like Communism, sounds completely unworkable.  In fact, I think it suffers exactly the same problems as Communism in that it requires compulsory redistribution of wealth through a system like socialism, yet clings to belief that the powers behind this forced redistribution would suddenly relinquish their power by the kindness of their heart once the redistribution had taken place.

Just like Stalin and Castro relinquished their power....

No thanks.  Secession should be about expanding personal freedom, not curtailing it.

It also seems that Distributism is in some way worse than socialism because at least socialist systems are capable of (inefficiently) organizing large scale capital intensive projects.  I don't see how you would achieve this under Distributism.

Large scale capital intensive projects are only possible via limited liability which is granted by the state to capital.

Distributism is very closely related to mutualism - free market, anti-capitalism.

The original individualist anarchists were "socialist" (Josiah Warren, Benjamin Tucker, etc) because they believe that "capitalism" wasn't possible without the state protecting profits via privilege (like limited liability) and by removing the state, prices would be driven to cost and capital would no longer be able to command labor so labor would get it's "just due".

So instead of "capitalism" we would have "laborism" where labor would cooperate for mutual benefit (mutualism) including pooling of resources for large projects (see Mondragon).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondrag%C3%B3n_Cooperative_Corporation

[Little Owl]

Eloquent, but it still sounds like statism wrapped in a different cloth.  It retains the central theme of an authority telling people how to run their lives.

If this is the basis for the secession movement, then I want no part of it.

[BillKauffman]

Eloquent, but it still sounds like statism wrapped in a different cloth.  It retains the central theme of an authority telling people how to run their lives.

If this is the basis for the secession movement, then I want no part of it.

Statism is succinctly different than governance as legitimate local authority (see Nock).

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0603b.asp

excerpt:

Nock begins by drawing the contrast between what he called social power and state power. Here he reflects the influence of the classical-liberal sociologist Franz Oppenheimer, whose earlier book, The State, distinguished the only two ways to obtain wealth: the economic means and the political means. As Oppenheimer wrote,

There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others.... I propose ... to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the "economic means" for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means."...The state is an organization of the political means. No state, therefore, can come into being until the economic means has created a definite number of objects for the satisfaction of needs, which objects may be taken away or appropriated by warlike robbery.

Nock picks up from there:

It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

For Nock, "the sole invariable characteristic of the State is the economic exploitation of one class by another." Today we tend to associate talk about class exploitation with Marx and Marxism. But in fact liberals (libertarians) developed class analysis before Marx. The theory is attributed to two French liberals, Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer. In their theory, class and exploitation arise the moment a taxing authority comes into existence, for at that point we have the emergence of two groups: tax-producers and tax-consumers. Taxation is the quintessential form of exploitation. One group labors in behalf of another, the fruits of that labor being expropriated for the privileged class.

Nock (and Oppenheimer) saw this characteristic in all states. But it should be pointed out that Nock distinguished state from government. For him, government grows out of people's desire for freedom, security, and justice, and its interventions are negative. It is what Jefferson (whom Nock admired immensely) had in mind when he wrote the Declaration of Independence. In contrast, a state originates in conquest and intervenes positively in order to appropriate the product of honest laborers for the benefit of the privileged class. This distinction between state and government has been criticized by later libertarians (such as Murray Rothbard), largely on the grounds that any organization that claims the power to tax is to be scorned regardless of what it is called. But Nock was quite insistent. He wrote,

They [government and state] are so different in theory that drawing a sharp distinction between them is now probably the most important duty that civilization owes to its own safety.

At any rate, Nock, although he sometimes called himself an anarchist, endorsed limited government, complete with taxation, at the township level.