Boston.com: "Vermont secession movement gains traction"

[NC2NH]

Welcome back, er, I think, Bill.

Well, we haven't seen economic rent from Ethan yet

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!

Perhaps the discussion being on two different threads has caused some confusion here. People were posting in the Brown thread and here back and forth. I have moved these posts here since the Brown thread is quite long enough without debating Vermont secession there.

Folks, please don't fee the trolls?

With all due respect, CNHT, EthanAllen's posts are relevant to the topic. I am interested in what he has to say even though I suspect I disagree with him on a lot of things. Until he starts interjecting diatribes across the forum, I am not going to consider him a troll.

[NC2NH]

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.

I attended the secessionist conference in Vermont last year, and if I had to pick one word to describe the general consensus, it would be decentralize.

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.

Are you referring to the current regulated credit situation in the U.S.?

If there were zero regulation of the credit market (only borrower and lender involved) would you still consider #2 to be taking place in an unfree market?

[jsorens]

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?

Well, I've just noticed that federal grants to Alaska increased dramatically in the 1980's. I don't think that had anything to do with the Permanent Fund, but maybe it did somehow.

[Braddogg]

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.

Why can they control us better in "biologically homogeneous units"?  And what does that term mean?

[CNHT]

Why can they control us better in "biologically homogeneous units"?  And what does that term mean?

The UN's dream per Agenda 21 is to make environmentalism the new religion (and to get rid of all traditional religions). Surely you've heard their main preacher Al Gore, lately, telling us that if we don't pay a carbon tax to the UN it's going to be the end of the world? The UN can't do much without our money...

Anyway, the UN's idea for global governance is to divide up the world in bioregions -- tracts of land that are similar types of terrain.

In the USA we would have New Acadia, Pacifica, and then I think one other in the center, forgot what that is called, but it is consistent with the NAU's superhighway.

We would be part of New Acadia and it would be as hankster/bgreen/FrankChodorov described and the other two would extend down into Mexico as well.

The UN would have control, there would be a new world constitution and all national sovereignty would be dissolved.

Basically there'd be no where to run, because you'd be up against a world court and a world army.
Think that's better than sovereignty? I don't.

I've been studying this for years and now because of the way things are happening people no longer think it's some wild theory...all they have to do is go to any one of the UN's websites and read the reams and reams of stuff they generate of their 'plans' for the world.

I am still looking for the speech where their chairman said he wanted to be the in charge of 'your very happiness'. How 1984 is THAT?

Thus I want nothing to do with the UN because I saw how destructive they were in our schools.
People argue that the UN is not a gov't entity thus has no power and I say, are you kidding? The US would sign some sort of treaty with them and then in order to enforce it they pass some stupid federal law like NCLB or some other politically correct social stuff.

Reagan wanted to get rid of the dept of education for this reason and couldn't.

The UN feels that if they divide people  up into environmentally similar areas that will make it easier for them to govern and for the people to get along, because after all they are doing this in the name of 'peace'.

This is why I feel it is important to hang on to sovereignty ---- NOT because open borders are bad on the face of it or immigrants as people are bad , but because of who else wants it and what their bigger agenda is and how they are going to help along and promote that agenda.

And that is why I feel things like this Vt. secessionism plays right into their hands....

[CNHT]

This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government.

What is wrong with big business? I hope everyone here who has a business gets it to be BIG and they make a lot of money which they can then keep pretty much MOST of.

[EthanAllen]

If there were zero regulation of the credit market (only borrower and lender involved) would you still consider #2 to be taking place in an unfree market?

In a totally unregulated free market, how would anyone be able to charge interest on money or capital as competition would force price to cost?

I attended the secessionist conference in Vermont last year, and if I had to pick one word to describe the general consensus, it would be decentralize.

This confirms what Jason said. The SVR are not one-world, globalists, but rather radical decentralist on both the left and right. Why would the SVR want to free themselves from the US only to be commanded by the UN - a much bigger entity?

It makes no logical sense.

[EthanAllen]

This is not true as they dislike both big business and big government.

What is wrong with big business? I hope everyone here who has a business gets it to be BIG and they make a lot of money which they can then keep pretty much MOST of.

Big businesses are not the product of the free market as unfettered competition would drive costs to price so it is only by statist intervention that they can protect usurious profits. Intellectual property laws being one example of statist intervention used by big business which can only be enforced by violating the property rights of thos excluded by the privilege*.

* see Stephan Kinsella's arguments against IP.

[EthanAllen]

if we don't pay a carbon tax to the UN it's going to be the end of the world?

Al Gore is suggesting that we substitute a carbon tax for payroll taxes - not pay it to the UN.

[CNHT]

Big businesses are not the product of the free market...

I'm sorry you've lost me there. If I have a product that takes off wildly, and I end up with a big business because of it, that is not the free market?

Ok I'm done with you now....

[CNHT]

if we don't pay a carbon tax to the UN it's going to be the end of the world?

Al Gore is suggesting that we substitute a carbon tax for payroll taxes - not pay it to the UN.

And it would be based on what? How much OIL I burn?

[EthanAllen]

if we don't pay a carbon tax to the UN it's going to be the end of the world?

Al Gore is suggesting that we substitute a carbon tax for payroll taxes - not pay it to the UN.

And it would be based on what? How much OIL I burn?

How much carbon you sequester by using the sky as a carbon sink. So for instance, burning bio-diesel is carbon nuetral.

[EthanAllen]

Big businesses are not the product of the free market...

I'm sorry you've lost me there. If I have a product that takes off wildly, and I end up with a big business because of it, that is not the free market?

How can the product "take off wildly" unless the state intervenes to restrict the market from other competitors? Otherwise, price will be driven to costs.

[CNHT]

How can the product "take off wildly" unless the state intervenes to restrict the market from other competitors? Otherwise, price will be driven to costs.

So you think the STATE should intervene? (yes I said I was done with you but....)

[jsorens]

If there were zero regulation of the credit market (only borrower and lender involved) would you still consider #2 to be taking place in an unfree market?

In a totally unregulated free market, how would anyone be able to charge interest on money or capital as competition would force price to cost?

Interest represents time preference, including any risks that the money will not come back to the lender. Market interest rates probably would be lower if there were no risk of expropriation through tax increases, inflation, war, or other government-caused disasters, but they wouldn't go to zero.