Thoughts on proper ways to promote and orchestrate libertarian secession.

[tracysaboe]

I think it's important for NH to secede from the federal government. Our very future survival depends on the feds not dictating or interfering w/ what we do. To me nullification or state interposition isn't an option. It's been done before, and people get apathetic and before you know it, the State's cow-towing again worse then ever before. Getting rid of the yoke of federal oppression would make us so much freer -- and perhaps encourage other states to cast off their chains also.

However, at least in New Hampshire (for that's where we liberty livers will be residing) it needs to be done in a proper manner.

You see, for us secession is only an excellent first step towards more decentralization. Hopefully after the (hopefully peaceful) breakup, cities and counties and groups of cities and counties will start seceding from the state (I mean, we could split the state into 12 states I think, and there'd still be more people per state then lived there in colonial times.) untill hopefully the power and control structures of society are decentralized down to individual families, property owners and individuals and their resulting volentary social networks. (i.e., Individualist anarchy)

But in order for that 2nd step to happen, it's very important to me that a large enough minority of the population has enough freedom ideaology that the State of NH doesn't suddenly become omnipotent once this break-up happens. We don't really want people worshiping the State of New Hampshire believing that it was the entity that saved them from federal tyrrany. If that happens NH itself could potentially become more despotic then it is simply because it won't need to work so hard to compete w/ the surounding areas and we really won't have gained anything in terms of individual freedom. In a few years, it would be quite possible that we'd be taxed at a much higher rate such that it's equal to the ammount we used to pay to both the feds and the state.

Think about it with no federal taxes, the economy w/ grow and with that, and with that comes increased revenues for the State. Which means the State of NH would have more resources of their own w/ which to bully us.

That's why it's very important that when NH secedes, it's a libertarian ideology behind it. Libertarian secession. Private property secesion.

So what do we do now, to make sure that when the time comes it happens in a manner that in the long run is favorable to libertarian values.

1st, it's important to exemplify our beliefs. I think it's wonderfull the demonstrations that you guys do here.

2nd, when the time comes, I think it's probably important that privatiers and private security companies and things defend out rights from the the Feds if the feds choose to make the confrontation violent as opposed to depending on State police to help.

I also believe it's important that the infrustructures like roads and things become private and free market.  That last thing we need is the State of NH saying they're the savoir of us all because we used their roads. How does one start such a business though?

Other then, that, any thoughts?

Tracy

P.S. Don't get me wrong. I would celebrate the break up regardless of how it happens.  But some methods will make further progress easier then others.

[tracysaboe]

I understand that it won't happen overnight.  I just want to be prepared and for the people of NH to be prepared for when it DOES happen, such that we don't turn into a socialist commonwealth (like what will probably happen in Vermont.)

Seperation of school and state is a must to stop the dumbing down.

Tracy

[AlanM]

I always find it interesting, that when I mention secession to people in conversations, very few reject the idea outright. Many say, it might have to come to that.

[Ron Helwig]

I would say that the best course of action is two-fold:

1) Get government (at all levels) out of education

2) Work to reduce federal interventions (i.e. stop accepting federal funds and all their attached strings)

[Gray]

Greetings Folks!

This is my first contribution to this forum.  I find the dialogue stimulating and thought provoking.

Secession, although increasingly becoming a topic of discussion in recent times, is still a touchy subject for alot of Americans.  This course of action is, I believe, inevitable.  One of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, refused to view the American Union as anything more than a utilitarian political arrangement to be judged by the test of time, and he expected it ultimately to devolve into two or three independent confederacies - a development he did not view with any particular dread.

But how, indeed, does such an arrangement develop?  Such an answer would fill many pages.  But, to reply to some elements mentioned in this forum topic, I'll give my two cents.

? This process should not be lead by Radicalism. 
? It should make sense.
? Be not a last resort, but a decision not taken lightly. 

There is much to be added to that list.  Much still to be discussed.

Education is the "key" to this conundrum.  There are many resources out there.  I have a blog (and was flattered to see Scott Roth has it listed in his "signature".  Thanks!     ) that covers secessionism as it pertains to New England.  It includes links to on-line resources.  I will, however, add an off-line resource listing of books that are valuable to this endeavour shortly.

Lastly, how does one acclimate the citizens of our country to this concept?  One way is through the media.  Again, this should (at least at first) be done with subtlety.  As an example, I am currently working on a story that, although it has no bearing on the plot, will introduce the concept that (in the future) the country will be broken up.  It will be introduced as a newscast over the television in the background in a scene that mentions the New England Soldiers having difficulty at the borders, etc.   Another example is a play that was just performed called "The Duel", more can be read here.  Art can be a great communicator.

Thrive!

[Russell Kanning]

Can't I even want secession to happen fast?

[Russell Kanning]

I like the flag you have on your blog.

[tracysaboe]

Gray, that's very good advise about art. (And welcome to the forum.)

I we believe it is inevitable. (which we do.) We should be writing science fiction or  books about life say 50 years from now in a history where the states do split up. Also alternative historical fiction. What might the world be like right now had the south Successfully seceded? Etc.

Sadly I'm not much of a writer, (as most of you can tell) but that's definitely part of it.

Tracy

[Gray]

Thank you all for the warm welcome!


Tracy...what you wrote about "alternative historical fiction" reminded me of a book I read last year titled "The Man in the high Castle", by Philip K. Dick.  Basically, it takes place in 1962, in America, under the conditions that the United States lost World War 2 and America is occupied jointly by Nazi Germany and Japan.  It was an interesting read...but not one of my favourites by him.

Thrive!

[vanguardist]

This is great: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/gonella4.html

[Russell Kanning]

Seems like we have plenty of libertarian science fiction books. We need less talk and more do.
Actual people ignoring the feds and not paying taxes seems much more powerful to me.

[tracysaboe]

Thank you all for the warm welcome!

Tracy...what you wrote about "alternative historical fiction" reminded me of a book I read last year titled "The Man in the high Castle", by Philip K. Dick.  Basically, it takes place in 1962, in America, under the conditions that the United States lost World War 2 and America is occupied jointly by Nazi Germany and Japan.  It was an interesting read...but not one of my favourites by him.

Thrive!

V for Vendeta's Better

Russell: A lot of this battle needs to be in the culture as well though.

[AlanM]

Thank you all for the warm welcome!

Tracy...what you wrote about "alternative historical fiction" reminded me of a book I read last year titled "The Man in the high Castle", by Philip K. Dick.  Basically, it takes place in 1962, in America, under the conditions that the United States lost World War 2 and America is occupied jointly by Nazi Germany and Japan.  It was an interesting read...but not one of my favourites by him.

Thrive!

V for Vendeta's Better

Russell: A lot of this battle needs to be in the culture as well though.

I agree with Tracy. It is no either/or, but both that will contribute to the possibility of success.

[David]

Secession will not happen unless it is non-violent. 
   The Problem- A spendthrift govt that must be maintained by unsustainable levels of borrowing and taxation.  A govt that is legally corrupted, the evidence of this is the corporate bailouts that have occurred twice, first under the republicans, and then under the democrats, and of course the use of eminent domain. 
   The Goal-find a way to stop it.  The most effective way is to withdraw ones support for the gov't, and to stop funding the gov't. 
   The Challenge with the Goal-How to get from Here, to There.  It is risky, without large numbers of people involved to slow down or stop enforcement by the gov't, it becomes very difficult to meet the goal. 
   An Observation-Many, many out of the system activists on both the right and the left are appalled at the abuses of gov't, but are not interested in no gov't, or something that would appeal to a libertarian. 
   Another Observation-The federal gov't, is a territorial monopoly (its states are subordinate to it)  that is stretched thin with massive spending, inefficiencies, and virtually no focus. 
   A Third observation-While anarchists distrust the gov't, everyone else distrusts anarchists. 
   Precedent-In the West, all religions were territorial monopolies, initially very large monopolies, then progressively smaller regional monopolies, till eventually they lost their ability to enforce their monopoly status. 
   A Possible Solution, that the left, right, and hopefully libertarians can embrace-Any nonviolent solution requires a relatively large number of people.  An idea to rally behind that can be embraced by large numbers of people can be a powerful force for change.  While it is extremely difficult to control gov't, and to contain gov't you must control it, it is possible to compete with it.  We do this by breaking the monopoly of the federal gov't as a 'service' provider, by creating various gov'ts that act as real gov't, with the major exception that they are not territorial monopolies. 

We can do this with gov't.  I believe this could be a populist idea that may help provide the large numbers of activists that we need to secede peacefully.  The idea is Chocracy, (choice democracy) also known as panarchy.  Such a system deals with the roads, looks familiar to statists without necessarily being statist, (the characteristics of any particular choice govt' will be based on the choices of its members).  I believe it has the possibility of being popular in part because it works with the beliefs that many hold about gov't, rightly or wrongly, such as that gov't is a social contract, or that it must be democratic, or that taxation is a cost of civilized society.  This is why looking familiar to statists without being statist is so important. 

We will get what we want when they get what they want. 

Short definition-A system of government that rejects a single monopoly government, in favor of two or more equal and independent governments (known as choice governments) within a single territory.  Each governments' jurisdiction is only within the limits of its citizens property.  This jurisdiction becomes the basis for the application of all law and law enforcement.  It differs from a federalist system of government in that federalism has a federal or central monopoly government that gives some of its power to subordinate local governments, whereas choice governments are not subordinate to any other government.

[David]

Theory
   Choiceocracy is based on the idea that the right of conscious dictates that the individual has the right of choice in his/her associations.  Proponents of Choiceocracy argue that governments, as a service provider, are no different than a persons church or employment in regards to the right of association, and that all people have the right to choose their service provider. 
Each choice governments' citizens voluntarily choose to submit to the government, and may quit at any time thus canceling any tax obligation, ceasing to be under its jurisdiction, as well as losing any benefits the citizen may have had.