Boston.com: "Vermont secession movement gains traction"

[EthanAllen]

Has anyone else heard a story regarding Vermont trying to break away from the union?  I cant find any material on it.

Thanks,
Nonya

There is a secessionist movement but they are leftists and would join a 'bioregion' under the auspices of the UN so they really would just be joining bigger government than the USA.

This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government. The bioregions are confederations of towns which have nothing to do with the UN. They only said they may seek recognition from the UN once they suceeded.

[EthanAllen]

The use of "socialist" or "socialism" is much too general a term to gain any insight in this context. For instance, Gar Alperovitz wrote a book called "Beyond Capitalism" which was featured in the SVR's publication arm called "Vermont Commons". His arguments of a "cooperative commonwealth" harked back to the 19th century individualist anarchists who called themselves "socialists" that Murray Rothbard credits with having ideas that eventually became market anarchism.

http://www.blackcrayon.com/essays/capitalism/take2/

The terms 'socialism' has become conflated with centralized-authority, just as the term 'capitalism' has become conflated with free markets. These are both dangerous confusions. The social-anarchists are truer to the original conceptions of socialism than the more prevalent state-socialists. Socialism was, as Benjamin Tucker summarized it, the position "that labor should be put into its own."

To understand what this means requires a reassessment of, for instance, the word 'capitalism'. In its strictest (and simplest) form, the term means only this: PROFIT FROM CAPITAL. 'Socialism', in a less-strict, but nevertheless accurate and simple form means: OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM.

WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T CAPITALISM

   1. If I build a house and sell it to you, that is not capitalism, although it might be a free-market transaction.
   2. If I lend you the money to build a house and charge you interest, that IS capitalism, and the anarchists (including Benjamin Tucker)    claimed that the transaction did not take place in a free market.

Why isn't the first scenario capitalism? Because I didn't use capital to make my money -- I used my labor.

[JosephSHaas]

Has anyone else heard a story regarding Vermont trying to break away from the union?  I cant find any material on it.

Thanks,
Nonya

There is a secessionist movement but they are leftists and would join a 'bioregion' under the auspices of the UN so they really would just be joining bigger government than the USA.

This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government. The bioregions are confederations of towns which have nothing to do with the UN. They only said they may seek recognition from the UN once they suceeded.

See: http://www.oilempire.us/secession.html

Surely there's a footnote/ escape clause or exclusion for us in lil' 'ol New Hampshire with our Article 10 Right of Revolution, right?

[CNHT]

Has anyone else heard a story regarding Vermont trying to break away from the union?  I cant find any material on it.

Thanks,
Nonya

There is a secessionist movement but they are leftists and would join a 'bioregion' under the auspices of the UN so they really would just be joining bigger government than the USA.

This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government. The bioregions are confederations of towns which have nothing to do with the UN. They only said they may seek recognition from the UN once they suceeded.

See: http://www.oilempire.us/secession.html

Surely there's a footnote/ escape clause or exclusion for us in lil' 'ol New Hampshire with our Article 10 Right of Revolution, right?

I question any movement that thinks it needs the sanction of the UN to exist? If you're going to secede, that means breaking all ties to national or international entities that have any sort of CONTROL over you, otherwise, what's the point? You are just seceding out of sovereignty and into world goverment -- frying pan to fire as it were.

[CNHT]

Welcome back, er, I think, Bill.

[EthanAllen]

Has anyone else heard a story regarding Vermont trying to break away from the union?  I cant find any material on it.

Thanks,
Nonya

There is a secessionist movement but they are leftists and would join a 'bioregion' under the auspices of the UN so they really would just be joining bigger government than the USA.

This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government. The bioregions are confederations of towns which have nothing to do with the UN. They only said they may seek recognition from the UN once they suceeded.

See: http://www.oilempire.us/secession.html

Surely there's a footnote/ escape clause or exclusion for us in lil' 'ol New Hampshire with our Article 10 Right of Revolution, right?

I question any movement that thinks it needs the sanction of the UN to exist? If you're going to secede, that means breaking all ties to national or international entities that have any sort of CONTROL over you, otherwise, what's the point? You are just seceding out of sovereignty and into world goverment -- frying pan to fire as it were.

Not "sanction". Upon secession they had at one point said they "may seek recognition from the UN" as a new country.

[NC2NH]

Welcome EthanAllen

The terms 'socialism' has become conflated with centralized-authority, just as the term 'capitalism' has become conflated with free markets. These are both dangerous confusions. The social-anarchists are truer to the original conceptions of socialism than the more prevalent state-socialists. Socialism was, as Benjamin Tucker summarized it, the position "that labor should be put into its own."

To understand what this means requires a reassessment of, for instance, the word 'capitalism'. In its strictest (and simplest) form, the term means only this: PROFIT FROM CAPITAL. 'Socialism', in a less-strict, but nevertheless accurate and simple form means: OPPOSITION TO CAPITALISM.

WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T CAPITALISM

   1. If I build a house and sell it to you, that is not capitalism, although it might be a free-market transaction.
   2. If I lend you the money to build a house and charge you interest, that IS capitalism, and the anarchists (including Benjamin Tucker)    claimed that the transaction did not take place in a free market.

Why isn't the first scenario capitalism? Because I didn't use capital to make my money -- I used my labor.

Why didn't #2 take place in a free market? I don't see a market encumbered by external/involuntary regulation of any kind, i.e., coercion.

I say that capitalism is conflated with corporatism moreso than with truly free markets.

Rob

[jsorens]

I don't think most VT secessionists are one-worlders at all. They're radical decentralists, so they could be counted on to fight world government more fiercely than they fight (verbally) the U.S. government. I'm sure many of them would be interested in joining the UN, because a lot of them are essentially naive liberals, who typically think the UN is a good idea in theory. However, the U.S. are currently part of the UN, so I don't see Vermont's becoming any worse than the status quo in that respect.

In the end, I think secessionism in Vermont might be a kind of "noble lie" if it gets enough traction, a wedge to get lefties around the country to think twice about further centralization of the U.S. If it ever got far enough, the feds would probably hand over a few billion to the state government for distribution to the citizens to keep them happy. That's what they did with Alaska when the Alaskan Independence Party started to win elections in the 1980's.

[CNHT]

I don't think most VT secessionists are one-worlders at all. They're radical decentralists, so they could be counted on to fight world government more fiercely than they fight (verbally) the U.S. government. I'm sure many of them would be interested in joining the UN, because a lot of them are essentially naive liberals, who typically think the UN is a good idea in theory. However, the U.S. are currently part of the UN, so I don't see Vermont's becoming any worse than the status quo in that respect.

In the end, I think secessionism in Vermont might be a kind of "noble lie" if it gets enough traction, a wedge to get lefties around the country to think twice about further centralization of the U.S. If it ever got far enough, the feds would probably hand over a few billion to the state government for distribution to the citizens to keep them happy. That's what they did with Alaska when the Alaskan Independence Party started to win elections in the 1980's.

Well before I would step outside the sovereignty of the USA, I would want to be SURE I had NOTHING to do with the UN....that would be worse to me.  I don't know how Bill can deny the bioregions are not part of the UN, as he clearly stated in an original post that this would be a multi-state deal that would even cross borders into Canada, JUST LIKE THE UN PERCEIVES.

See this thread: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=1129.45

As hankster said: "the ultimate goal of the SVR is a confederation of VT, NH, ME and the Canadian maritimes to form a new nation called "New Acadia" about the size of Denmark."

That is the exact description of what the UN wants to do --- worldwide.
Divide up the world according to biologically homogenious units.
Then they can control us better.

And methinks hankster, bgreen, FrankChodorov et al, lives again as Ethan Allen.

[EthanAllen]

Why didn't #2 take place in a free market?

Because there is no free market in credit so the interest can only be usurous.

[CNHT]

Why didn't #2 take place in a free market?

Because there is no free market in credit so the interest can only be usurous.

[CNHT]

Not "sanction". Upon secession they had at one point said they "may seek recognition from the UN" as a new country.

And you promptly erased that from the site when I questioned it. It did not say 'may' it said 'will'. It is part of the UN...sorry!

[EthanAllen]

If it ever got far enough, the feds would probably hand over a few billion to the state government for distribution to the citizens to keep them happy. That's what they did with Alaska when the Alaskan Independence Party started to win elections in the 1980's.

Are you referring to the Alaska Permanent Fund?

[CNHT]

Folks, please don't fee the trolls?

[EthanAllen]

Not "sanction". Upon secession they had at one point said they "may seek recognition from the UN" as a new country.

And you promptly erased that from the site when I questioned it. It did not say 'may' it said 'will'. It is part of the UN...sorry!

Now that is funny. Are there any other powers of coercion you claim to have over people?