Secession ? One Lot at a time? (Freedom Zones)

[freedom_baker]

Executive Summary

The big problem with government is that it ?forces? choices on people.  The great success of the market is that it lets the individual make their own choices.  Let's see how we can apply this principle to freedom.

Pro-government folks want government.  Pro-freedom folks want freedom.  How can we make both parties happy?
a
I propose the idea of New Hampshire ?freedom zones.?  Land owners should be able to secede from the state government and declare their land a ?freedom zone.?  Within a ?freedom zone?, the state government would have no power.

Thus, both pro-government folks and pro-freedom folks can be happy.
>>Pro-government folks can have their ?government zones?
>>Pro-freedom folks can have their ?freedom zones?




Introduction:  The Pro-Government versus Pro-Freedom Problem

Some people like big government, high taxes, and complex regulations.  They want more government.  No one should deny them their right to choose.  These pro-government individuals should be allowed to exercise their right to live less free. 

Likewise, some other people like more freedom.  They like small government, low taxes, and minimal regulation.  They want more freedom.  No one should deny them their right to choose.  These pro-freedom people ought to be able to choose to live more free. 

Government action is a win-lose situation.  Either the pro-government people lose or the pro-freedom people lose as we see below.

Scenario A:  New Hampshire government becomes less free
> Pro-government folks win
> Pro-freedom folks lose

Scenario B:  New Hampshire government becomes more free
> Pro-government folks lose
> Pro-freedom folks win

Instead, the market principle of choice could create a win-win situation.  Both the pro-government people would win and the pro-freedom people would win.  Here?s how:


The Solution:  ?Government Zones? and ?Freedom Zones?

Currently, New Hampshire can be considered one giant ?government zone.?  No matter where you go, you are still under the power and jurisdiction of the New Hampshire state government.

Thus, I propose the idea of New Hampshire ?freedom zones.?  Land owners should be able to secede from the state government and declare their land a ?freedom zone.?  Within a ?freedom zone?, the state government and all its sub-governments like cities/counties/school-districts/utility-districts would have no power.

Thus, both pro-government folks and pro-freedom folks can be happy.   Pro-government folks can have their ?government zones?  Pro-freedom folks can have their ?freedom zones?


How do We Implement ?Freedom Zones??

I propose amending the New Hampshire State Constitution.  The amendment would state the following general principles:

Principle 1) Only the owner of a lot of land can secede his land

Principle 2) The owner must provide written and public notice of secession

Principle 3) Secession becomes effective at midnight, January 1st of the next calendar year.

Principle 4) After secession, the New Hampshire State Constitution does not apply within the borders of a freedom zone.

Principle 5) After secession, the New Hampshire legislative branch cannot make any laws concerning activities conducted within the borders of a freedom zone.

Principle 6) After secession, the New Hampshire executive branch cannot enforce any laws within the borders of a freedom zone.

Principle 7) After secession, the New Hampshire judicial branch has no jurisdiction within the borders of a freedom zone.

Principle 8 ) The owner of a freedom zone can apply to admit his land back as a government zone.  This process will be subject to rules created by the legislative branch.


After I create my freedom zone, does this mean I?m completely free?

Answer 1:  No ? because you are still under the power of the US Government.

Answer 2:  No ? because in your daily life you will probably have to leave your freedom zone at some point in time.  You will probably need to pass through public ?government zones? such state highways or regular streets to get to where you're going.  You also probably want to do things like eat out, work, or go shopping on private "government zones" where the owners of the land have chosen not to secede.  When you're inside a "government zone", all New Hampshire taxes, regulations, and laws will apply as usual.


So who would want a freedom zone then?

If this sounds like you, you probably want to create a freedom zone?

I want to home-school my kids without state government interference.
I want to operate my business without burdensome state regulations.
I think taxes are too high and don?t want to pay for inefficient county govt. services.
I want to build my house without having to wait years for city permitting and zoning.
I want to give people haircuts without a state license.


What could be a disadvantage of living in a freedom zone?

Someone could try to murder you inside your house which is inside a freedom zone, and the police would might not help you.  Remember that your local police officer is an agent of the city government which is under the state government.  As such, they have no obligation to help you inside your freedom zone. Furthermore, they cannot enter your freedom zone without your consent.

Of course, you are always free to hire your own security firm or to sign a contract with your local law enforcement and pay them a fee for appropriate protection.

There are many others?such is the price of freedom.


Conclusion

No one should force his preferences on other people.  This is the principle of the market.  Using the insight, I introduced the concept of New Hampshire ?freedom zones? as compared with ?government zones.?  This allows both pro-government folks and pro-freedom folks to get what they want.

So stop thinking about a Free State for a moment.  Put your ideas about a Free Towns and Free Cities on pause.  And start thinking about the possibilities of Free Lots owned by Free Staters...

Imagine every one of the 20,000 Free Staters buying a small lot of land and declaring it a ?freedom zone.?  Now what if those Free Lots became Free Neighborhoods, and those Free Neighborhoods became Free Towns and Free Cities, and those Free Towns and Free Cities became Free States, and those Free States became a Free Nation?

Just some food for thought...

[error]

It's a thought. Now, if you can get it past the bureaucrats...

[freedom_baker]

It would difficult to convince the bureaucrats.  Harder still would be to convince the ordinary person...

[David]

I doubt it will ever happen legally through an amendment.  Excellent idea though.  I had a very similar idea, agreesion free city.  The hard part is to protect yourself and your freedom zone from greedy multi level politicians.  The libs will want your money, and the cons will want to force unity believing a united country is better, and this is true of the grassroots level.  An armed resistance?  Lincoln set the precedence for that.  That is true, even if it was possible to ament the nh constitution. 
I personally think the only thing that might work right now, or near future, is an agreesive nonviolent resistance.  The problem is strategy, numbers, and of course it may not work. 
I'd love to continue the discussion.   

[LiveFree]

So what happens when some robber figures out you live in one of these freedom zones, and breaks in, makes off w/ your stuff, and you weren't home?  Before you say "I have a security system" or "I have mean, viscious dogs!" consider that they might have already thought of that, and taken measures to get around it, knowing that the police will be powerless to investigate.  While I don't want SWAT cops ripping the walls out of homes and murdering 90 year old women on the tips of convicts, and worse yet, lying to get their warrants, I also don't really mind having to pay for investigative services when they aren't grossly inefficient. And before you start talking about a private justice system, consider that nobody would respect its authority, or bother to show up for their day in "court", I know I wouldn't.

There are certain advantages to civil society that I don't think many people are taking into consideration when they propose sovereignty ideas such as this one.

[AlanM]

So what happens when some robber figures out you live in one of these freedom zones, and breaks in, makes off w/ your stuff, and you weren't home?  Before you say "I have a security system" or "I have mean, viscious dogs!" consider that they might have already thought of that, and taken measures to get around it, knowing that the police will be powerless to investigate.  While I don't want SWAT cops ripping the walls out of homes and murdering 90 year old women on the tips of convicts, and worse yet, lying to get their warrants, I also don't really mind having to pay for investigative services when they aren't grossly inefficient. And before you start talking about a private justice system, consider that nobody would respect its authority, or bother to show up for their day in "court", I know I wouldn't.

There are certain advantages to civil society that I don't think many people are taking into consideration when they propose sovereignty ideas such as this one.

OK, you obviously feel a need for government. You are willing to give up Freedom for security. But what about those who wish to be free? Are you willing to allow them the opportunity to proclaim their freedom? Or is it a one size fits all situation, for you?

[error]

Trading freedom for security MIGHT be worth it if you actually got security. Since you don't, it's stupid and pointless to do so.

As for the specifics, this post is so chock full of fallacies, misunderstandings and falsehoods I hardly know where to start.

[AlanM]

  Petitioning the Gov for Freedom is, IMO, a fallacy. Gov does NOT own us. They can control most by FORCE, but Force is all they have. They have no moral right.

[LiveFree]

OK, you obviously feel a need for government. You are willing to give up Freedom for security. But what about those who wish to be free? Are you willing to allow them the opportunity to proclaim their freedom? Or is it a one size fits all situation, for you?

They can do whatever they want.  I just don't think that the absence of a functioning justice system will be very adventageous to them when they're getting bent over by the criminal element.  Unless they intend to be home 24/7, ready willing and able to fend off intruders, it could get a little dicey in the absence of civil society and the rules, and the power to enforce those rules, it comes with.  And I never said I liked ALL of the things that come with "government".  I can't stand the current state of society, let alone government, in this country, and think it needs to be seriously overhauled if not just completely abolished so we could start anew.

As for the specifics, this post is so chock full of fallacies, misunderstandings and falsehoods I hardly know where to start.

It was a short post, so please, do inform.  I'm perfectly willing to listen, and might be swayed.

[AlanM]

  The criminal element is the Gov. They steal money from me every day, and force me to do things I do not wish to do. If I don't obey their dictates I will be tried and imprisoned.

[FrankChodorov]

  The criminal element is the Gov. They steal money from me every day, and force me to do things I do not wish to do. If I don't obey their dictates I will be tried and imprisoned.

the state is different than local governance as legitimate agency (see Albert J. Nock).

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

the Hamiltonians wanted the state to hand out privilege without an obligation to those you exclude.
the Jeffersonians wanted local governance as legitimate agency to be limited to protecting life, liberty and labor-based property.

excerpt:
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. He favored the Articles of Confederation, with some changes, leaving few functions at the national level. Higher levels of government would have to ask the townships for revenue. Perhaps the best term for Nock is ?radical decentralist.?

[freedom_baker]

LiveFree makes some very good points.  Here's my response:

I believe very much in civil society.  On this point, I think we are in agreement.  However, I think we should have multiple civil societies to choose from instead of just one.

Addressing your robber problem, I think the owner of the freedom zone would do the following.

1.  Hire a security guard or a security firm to protect his property
2.  Hire the local police to protect his property

Let's say the owner chooses option 2 and hires the local police for protection.  The owner would sign a contract stating that the police are to prevent and investigate theft on his property. 

Now, suppose the robber breaks into the house and steals your new TV.

Let's say the police catch this robber.

Now the owner has two choices regarding courts.

1.  He can hire a private arbitration firm to handle the case
2.  He can go through the government criminal justice system.

Let's say the owner picks option 1.  He could hire a private arbitration firm to handle the case.  In arbitration, both parties must agree beforehand to be bound by the ruling.  However, the robber could always refuse to go to arbitration.  Then the owner must use option 2.

Let's say the owner picks option 2. Then he could hire the state criminal court system to handle the case.  He signs a contract giving the court jurisdiction over this specific case.  Let's say the courts find the robber guilty.  The court sentences the robber to 1-year in prison.  Then the owner could pay the jail to incarcerate the robber for up to 1 year.

Of course, the owner always has the option of doing nothing and letting the robber go.

So what happens when some robber figures out you live in one of these freedom zones, and breaks in, makes off w/ your stuff, and you weren't home?  Before you say "I have a security system" or "I have mean, viscious dogs!" consider that they might have already thought of that, and taken measures to get around it, knowing that the police will be powerless to investigate.  While I don't want SWAT cops ripping the walls out of homes and murdering 90 year old women on the tips of convicts, and worse yet, lying to get their warrants, I also don't really mind having to pay for investigative services when they aren't grossly inefficient. And before you start talking about a private justice system, consider that nobody would respect its authority, or bother to show up for their day in "court", I know I wouldn't.

There are certain advantages to civil society that I don't think many people are taking into consideration when they propose sovereignty ideas such as this one.

[David]

Worse case senario, everything is as bad as the predictions are.  Could'nt a person just leave?  Yes!  Nobody (that I know of) wants to enforce territorial rule on unwilling persons.  That is what gov't does, and I am not gov't. 
Mankind has suffered throughout history under gov't.  Isn't it about time to try something else? 

[KurtDaBear]

So what happens when some robber figures out you live in one of these freedom zones, and breaks in, makes off w/ your stuff, and you weren't home?  Before you say "I have a security system" or "I have mean, viscious dogs!" consider that they might have already thought of that, and taken measures to get around it, knowing that the police will be powerless to investigate.  While I don't want SWAT cops ripping the walls out of homes and murdering 90 year old women on the tips of convicts, and worse yet, lying to get their warrants, I also don't really mind having to pay for investigative services when they aren't grossly inefficient. And before you start talking about a private justice system, consider that nobody would respect its authority, or bother to show up for their day in "court", I know I wouldn't.

There are certain advantages to civil society that I don't think many people are taking into consideration when they propose sovereignty ideas such as this one.

If you haven't already read it, you might want to read "The Probability Broach" by L. Neil Smith.  It's a bit simplistic and absurd in spots, but it does a fairly good job of painting an attractive picture of a libertarian/private-solution society.

We do have private providers of what are generally considered government functions in the nation today.  Some rural fire departments, for instance, get no tax support and are financed on a subscription basis.  If you do not subscribe, you get no protection.  (The only exception they'll generally make is if lives are in danger; otherwise they simply refuse service to non-subscribers because to do so devalues the currency of their service and encourages others not to subscribe, which then weakens the service for those who do pay.)

[KurtDaBear]

  The criminal element is the Gov. They steal money from me every day, and force me to do things I do not wish to do. If I don't obey their dictates I will be tried and imprisoned.

Probably 15 or 20 years ago, a national news magazine (U.S. News & World Report, as I recall) did an in-depth article of how government "protects" us with their regulations, investigations, etc.  The article dealt with white-collar matters, not violent crime.  Their conclusion was that, at that time, government at all levels was spending around $130 Billion to prevent around $50-75 Billion in potential consumer losses.  That conclusion brings us back to that old question:  With friends like that, who needs enemies?

And that doesn't even begin to address the question of government agents checking up on what plants you're growing in your garden and how much money you moved between your bank accounts last week.