What are the downsides to secession?

[Russell Kanning]

If the US was split into 50 pieces, each piece would be less statist than it was before the breakup.

Do you really think NH would turn more statist without Fed control?

I personally don't want to have "control of the process". That is the whole point. It should be voluntary.

We have to start by individually breaking free and encouraging others. We will never get there by perfect planning. It is only in the doing.

[tracysaboe]

Just because it's libertarian types pushing for it doesn't mean they'll control the process once it happens, especially as many are decidedly against actually participating in the political process.  The only way to make secession happen in a way that doesn't have a 90% chance of ending badly for the pro-liberty crowd is to have the vast majority of the New Hampshire people on board with the same set of ideals.

If New Hampshire was the libertopia it would need to be in order for secession to work well, we wouldn't need a Free State Project, we'd all just move there and enjoy it.  People pushing for "secession now!" seem to want to skip the whole "get the people of New Hampshire on our side" step of the equation.  Have we learned nothing from the underpants gnomes?

Phase one: Collect underpants
Phase two: . . .
Phase three: Profit!

This is definitley a concern of mine. See my thread
Thoughts on proper ways to promote and orchestrate libertarian secession.
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=2755.0

But even if it doesn't go libertarian, we'll still be a lot freer then we would be. Perhaps NH taxes would go up a little bit -- because they can get away w/ it easier since the federal income tax isn't taking as much to begin with, and because all the surounding states are socialist cesspools. We'd still be a lot freer then we are w/ the current federal leviathon.

Tracy

[Dave Ridley]

One way to look at it...

With any discussion of a radical idea involving some radical thing an entire state might do...it's important to remember that the idea probably will never happen, and to focus on what *will* happen as a result of some people pushing for it.

Real secession would have downsides, but pushing for it probably will not have as many.

Here is what probably *will* happen:

Someone will eventually submit a bill to the NH legislature authorizing secession
The bill will probably get national attention
It will fail
but will spark new debate regarding the role of the feds here
It will focus new attention on the bad things the feds do here (and the perceived good things)
It will get some people waving the national flag and whining that they are Americans first and NH Citizens second
It will generate publicity for the Free State Project
It will further cement in the public mind this idea that NH is a Rogue State

works for me...

[Russell Kanning]

Lots of debate and discussion on methods of secession.

[JonM]

Secession is narrow, autonomy is wide.  If you campaign for greater autonomy for New Hampshire, as is its right under the constitution you will find far less detractors in my opinion.

Call it marketing if you will.  You cleave to the word secession because of its radical connotation, but it is that same connotation that turns off many potential recruits to your cause.  Autonomy has a far more positive connotation which will draw recruits to our cause.  In the end, autonomy may well play out as secession, and by that time those allies frustrated by the federal government's unwillingness to cede its unconstitutional authority will likely join you in that cause.

It's jut my opinion, and that and several bucks might get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

[Fluff and Stuff]

Secession is narrow, autonomy is wide.  If you campaign for greater autonomy for New Hampshire, as is its right under the constitution you will find far less detractors in my opinion.

Conservatives like the words "local control".  Most people have no clue what autonomy is and don't like the idea of secession.  Talk about the need for more local control.

[Russell Kanning]

How about homerule? We could spend the rest of our lives wordsmithing.

[vanguardist]

One way to look at it...

With any discussion of a radical idea involving some radical thing an entire state might do...it's important to remember that the idea probably will never happen, and to focus on what *will* happen as a result of some people pushing for it.

Real secession would have downsides, but pushing for it probably will not have as many.

Here is what probably *will* happen:

Someone will eventually submit a bill to the NH legislature authorizing secession
The bill will probably get national attention
It will fail
but will spark new debate regarding the role of the feds here
It will focus new attention on the bad things the feds do here (and the perceived good things)
It will get some people waving the national flag and whining that they are Americans first and NH Citizens second
It will generate publicity for the Free State Project
It will further cement in the public mind this idea that NH is a Rogue State

works for me...

Heh, the rouge state is the federal government You do not need to use secession. Just nullify every unconstitutional law. That would leave post office and a few other minor things. Read the Kentucky resolution.

[Russell Kanning]

Sounds good.

Nullification!!!!

[vanguardist]

Sounds good.

Nullification!!!!

That's doesn't mean I am against secession (I'm for it). But everything should be tried. Nullification used to a lot more popular in the 1800s

[Tunga]

To paraphrase Gen. Grant and president Andrew Johnson 'The civil war was fought in the highest tibunal (arms) available to mortal man and the Union is found to be indesoluable."

When more people died at the battle of Gettysburg than in the whole vietnam "police action" it's hard for me to favor seccession.

Now if your interested in a lawsuit against the Feds that can show how some one of us has been harmed by the lax border security exibited by our contractually agreed too general government, I'm all ears.

Can someone say: "Breach of contract."?

Or perhaps a denial of Rights enumerated by Treaty?

And by treaty Tunga does say, does mean, does include all of "The US Constitution" with it's attendant "Bill of Rights" (up to the tenth one anyways, I suppose.)

[Russell Kanning]

Yea ..... let's not split with them ..... they are too evil.

[Ron Helwig]

It is our UNION that we signed onto. We didn't sign onto another oppressive master on 6-21-1788.

Yes we did:

the federal government had used strong military force to exert authority over the nation's citizens

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion

twenty were captured and paraded down Market Street in Philadelphia. The men were imprisoned, where one died, while two were convicted of treason and sentenced to death by hanging. Washington, however, pardoned them on the grounds that one was a "simpleton," and the other, "insane."

Thus beginning the continuing practice of Presidents demonizing their opposition.

You can't fool all the people all the time

... he said, knowing full well that you only have to fool enough that you can demonize the unfooled.

[Dreepa]

Perhaps NH taxes would go up a little bit --

I don't think so.
For every dollar that that NH sends the Feds we get back $.83.

[Caleb]

People pushing for "secession now!" seem to want to skip the whole "get the people of New Hampshire on our side" step of the equation.

Jon, I've been thinking about this charge a lot.  There are a lot of free staters that say that we will alienate our neighbors by talking about secession. (Although I think I'm starting to prefer the term "independence" to "secession".) 

What would you think if I told you that I have found the EXACT OPPOSITE to be true.  First, when you talk about something that no one else is talking about, you pique people's interest.  (Remember, they can find 75% of their neighbors who just want to elect people to make their taxes lower.  But a Revolutionary ... those you don't meet every day.)  So you get them interested.  Rope them in by being a little "off the wall".  Then they talk to you.  Not just a little, but a LOT.  I can't even begin to tell you how many times a conversation has gone on when I would have been perfectly content to end it.  The person is EXCITED about the topic.

Now, do they AGREE?  More than you think actually do agree.  Most, however, do not.  But invariably they want to know WHY you wish to declare independence, and when they hear your reasons, they know you are on their side.  They may not yet be ready for your SOLUTION, but they at least feel that you are fighting for what they believe in.

At any rate, you've 1) piqued their interest 2) started a discussion along lines that are never discussed 3) put an idea in their head 4) generated some excitement

I don't see how any of that can be considered counterproductive.  Perhaps you are talking about secession with different people than I am.  But I doubt you are talking with them about it at all.  Probably you are basing your concerns more on fear of what people might think rather than your direct experience.  But the people that are having direct experience are reporting vastly different experiences than what you say you expect. 

I have been very publicly accused of only considering one option, and excluding all others.  I said, in response, that I would try to be more open-minded toward other methods.  Is it possible, though, that you are being close minded to this one particular approach that I am finding beneficial?

Caleb