cab21: if the states leave, then attack the federal government like in the civil war, then the usa will respond. the federal government would need to be able to remove it's property from the seceeded states, and the federal government would retain the land it owns inside states so the secceded states would need to form themselves around the territory that is state owned and not federaly owned. a state does not get to leave and keep federal property.
if the states leave, then attack the federal government like in the civil war, then the usa will respond. the federal government would need to be able to remove it's property from the seceeded states, and the federal government would retain the land it owns inside states so the secceded states would need to form themselves around the territory that is state owned and not federaly owned. a state does not get to leave and keep federal property.
That's bull. The fed doesn't have any legitimate ownership in state property at large, it did not spend its own money to buy properties generally. The states probably wouldn't consent to chopping up their contiguous boundaries. Anything the fed had actually paid for, not taken by fiat, it would retain ownership of, sure, but only as equivalent to any other owner in that state, not as a special government entity. Its rights would be equal to everyone elses'.
Whatever you say. How did the federal government come to "own" that land again?
how did the state come to "own" that land?
states have formed from the king of england, and the usa federal government.
the federal government is the one that bought the louisiana purchase in the first place.
alaska is another purchased by the federal government, so why would a state have more claim than a federal government?
http://nevada.sierraclub.org/conservation/publands/publiclands.html
if the federal is not ok, the state cannot be ok
cab21: how did the state come to "own" that land? states have formed from the king of england, and the usa federal government. the federal government is the one that bought the louisiana purchase in the first place.
But the entity they bought it from didn't own it either. That sale was a fraud.
cab21:alaska is another purchased by the federal government, so why would a state have more claim than a federal government?
Russia didn't own it to sell it. In both cases they were just buying non-opposition to US-gov control of those regions.
cab21:http://nevada.sierraclub.org/conservation/publands/publiclands.html if the federal is not ok, the state cannot be ok
State land is also not okay, we agree. Don't you know the libertarian position?
However you asked what the states would do in my scenario, and they'd likely reject the Fed trying to break up their borders. That doesn't say anything about who has a right to the property within those borders ultimately.
Yes, cab, the federal government bought the land from people who had no legitimate claim to it and with other people's money.
"If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it’s sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response."
Really now, what did you expect? To ask them if you can secede and have they say yes? This doesn't seem the kind of thing you request; it's something you just DO.
if a state wants to start a war with the federal government, that will be interesting. a bunch of illegitmate force against each other
Why in the hell would the state governments attack the federal government? That has to be one of the stupidest assertions I've seen all day.
people are suggesting states want to leave and keep federal property, that is a challenge to the federal government. to keep federal property would be a attack on federal property
A friend of mine once joked about what would happen if all fifty states declared independence making D.C. a country on it's own, and then had all of the state militia invade D.C. Would Washington have the U.S. military defend the little spec of land that the District is?
So you accept property rights in some form, cabby?
Why didn't Russia own Alaska? Who owned it?
Well there were some natives there, right?
@Aiser: WTH is your avatar?? I tried looking it up but just can't find it... it looks awesome.
Clayton -
It's the hybrid reaver from StarCraft 2.
Aristippus: The establishment propaganda would completely discredit and destroy any secession movement.
+1
But I think this is part of what we need to change. In this respect, I'm coming full-circle to a kind of "pragmatic minarchism", i.e. that we need to think about how to create governments that are inherently local and too structurally solid to be externally manipulated by colonial/imperial powers.
This approach is far more intellectually challenging than the bluntly anarcho-capitalist "push the Big Red Button" approach. There will never be a Big Red Button anyway, so it's not even a strategic consideration. I think I'm starting to understand where Hayek was going with his Constitution of Liberty idea but maybe I'm reading my own agenda into it.
I see no reason we can't have more "competition in governance" to put it in the language of seasteaders... there's really no reason we need to put out to sea in order to do this and I see no real obvious advantage to being out at sea unless lots of seasteads are already there (collective action problem).
But the great political centers - Washington, DC, London, Brussells, etc. - are like magnets that suck up the vast majority of the intellectual and other talents that could be the building blocks of a distributed grid of mostly localized, competing jurisdictions. Something similar happened with Louis XIV and his constant diversion of the aristocracy while he built out a political structure of nearly total centralization of France's political power in his own hands.
A blunter way to say this is: the lords - whatever their evils - protect us from the King! Without lords, we are exposed to direct expropriation and subjugation by the King. And when the King becomes even more adept at plundering us than the lords ever were, we suffer a twin evil - unrestrained abuse and expropriation. (As Leviathan becomes ever more concentrated, it has less and less incentive to preserve the capital value in its subjects as there is no "escape" anyway... you'll be abused exactly the same no matter where you go).
In the past, peoples have courted a ruler from a foreign land for the express purpose of providing a blanket of protection. The arrangement is often uneasy as the transplant ruler has no kin or geographic loyalty to his rented subjects but that's the rule in modern politics anyway. But maybe we need a change of mindset. Maybe sub-sovereign political units need to start shopping around for rulers who are skilled in all the arts of political machination, military strategy, financial warfare - essentially, a King - and who can engineer and pull off a secession in exchange for a constitutional monarchy modeled on something like Hayek's constitution and maybe the British monarchy or another long-standing monarchy that has demonstrated a capacity for dealing with complex limits to its powers.
I know this is alien-speak to Joe Sixpack at this point in time. But that doesn't mean that it will always stay that way. Perhaps it's something we (liberty-oriented people) can start developing the intellectual foundations for.
The whole thing is idiotic. Oregon, Colorado, Florida, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Michigan voted for Obama in the election. And yet now they are going to secede? Just because a couple of people want to sign a worthless petition doesn't mean anything.
FlyingAxe: Why didn't Russia own Alaska? Who owned it?
Russia's claim to Alaska was the same as Columbus's claim to America. Show up, land on its shores, plant a flag, and 'Claim this land for Spain!'
Nevermind that you haven't done a single damn thing required to own property, like improve it, border it, setup permanent settlement. Nevermind that human beings already lived there.
It was the typical claim of a government, the claim which is actually the unspoken statement that 'if another government moves in here we reserve the right to attack them' and nothing more.
A claim alone is not enough.
Apparently, Scalia says there's no right to secede.
What a joke.
I think Scalia's right - what are you going to do, draft up a letter that says "Dear Sirs and Madams. This letter is to notify you that we, the undersigned, no longer desire to be a part of your organization. We are hereby tendering our collective resignation and would like you to cancel our names from the register and cease collection of membership dues forthwith. We sincerely appreciate your time and attention on this matter."
The only answer you'll ever get is "Hell no!"
But Scalia can only speak for the organization of which he is a part and the rights that it recognizes or not: USG. But if you can effect a secession no matter what USG thinks about it, then I guess you have exercised a "right" to secede, don't you?
Clayton: I think Scalia's right - what are you going to do, draft up a letter that says "Dear Sirs and Madams. This letter is to notify you that we, the undersigned, no longer desire to be a part of your organization. We are hereby tendering our collective resignation and would like you to cancel our names from the register and cease collection of membership dues forthwith. We sincerely appreciate your time and attention on this matter." The only answer you'll ever get is "Hell no!" But Scalia can only speak for the organization of which he is a part and the rights that it recognizes or not: USG. But if you can effect a secession no matter what USG thinks about it, then I guess you have exercised a "right" to secede, don't you? Clayton -
No. Any people group has the right to self-government, especially of the size of states. The "rights" acknolwedged in the Constitution are not bestowed on individuals but rather recognized and protected against any encroachment of government. The right to secession is an inalienable right. Furthermore, the Constitution is a compact among the states to create an agent/entity to act in the states' collective best interest. The USG has no right to force us to remain part of that compact if we no longer desire to do so. Also, law and governments are arbitrary. It has no absolute right. But of course they'll say "Hell no!"
You may write a letter that says something like:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Another funny thing about the petition is that many of the signers are in different states than the one requesting secession.
Probably it is the same people signing each of the petitions rather than thousands from each state.
A new petition demands deportation of secessionists: http://www.examiner.com/article/secession-debate-turns-ugly-as-new-petition-demands-deportation-of-secessionists
shackleford: Apparently, Scalia says there's no right to secede. What a joke.
Scalia's definition of a 'right' is different from libertarians' definition. Scalia seems to think that rights are created, not discovered. So, in Texas, the way the state defined 'the right to have sex' is 'between a man and a woman', and Scalia sees no problem with it (I am judging by his comments re: Lawrence vs. Texas).
FlyingAxe: A new petition demands deportation of secessionists: http://www.examiner.com/article/secession-debate-turns-ugly-as-new-petition-demands-deportation-of-secessionists
Oh boy, now they show their true colors.
@ FlyingAxe
Yeah! Deport people for their opposition to slavery!
This kind of reminds me about how when anybody says something controversial, the fascist chant "USA, USA" is used to drown them out in a sea of arrogance and jingoism.
So far over 675,000 people have joined the petition in about a week.
I do have objections to this:
1. I do not support a "new" government. This government versus that government is a false choice.
2. One response to these petitions would be a dictatorship, which I think Obama would be more than willing to accept.
3. I think the administration may/will abuse this information gathering exercise to identify dissidents.
let's say each state becomes it's own separate nation.
these states are abusive, it would mean the states get to do some of what the federal government is preventing them from doing now. each state all still has oppresive plans for it's people.
cab21: let's say each state becomes it's own separate nation. these states are abusive, it would mean the states get to do some of what the federal government is preventing them from doing now. each state all still has oppresive plans for it's people.
Oh, yeah, because the federal government is a staunch protector against abuse.
Now all 50 states, and 7 have passed the 25,000 signature threshold.
it is a protecter against some abuse, it likes to be the one that get's to abuse.
The establishment will love this movement. Another way to divide the populace against itself and to demonize the opponents of centralization!!
cab21: it is a protecter against some abuse, it likes to be the one that get's to abuse.
The federal government does not protect against any abuse.
JackCuyler: You may write a letter that says something like: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The Declaration has no legal force, as others have discovered. Even the original writers of that had to fight their way out.
At least it's movement and making national headlines. This angst means we can parlay this feeling into education about true libertarian ideals. Republicans the nation over will be more receptive to libertarian conversion than ever, because they're looking for the answer.
It's the question that drives us: what is the matrix. It's the reality that's been pulled over your eyes--in the form of an ideology that tricked people into accepting slavery.
And Rothbard is our Morpheus.
Anenome: At least it's movement and making national headlines. This angst means we can parlay this feeling into education about true libertarian ideals. Republicans the nation over will be more receptive to libertarian conversion than ever, because they're looking for the answer. It's the question that drives us: what is the matrix. It's the reality that's been pulled over your eyes--in the form of an ideology that tricked people into accepting slavery. And Rothbard is our Morpheus.
Who is Ron Paul in your Matrix analogy?
shackleford: Who is Ron Paul in your Matrix analogy?
Ummm, Trinity. Definitely Trinity ;)
And Neo is some kind of autarchist sea-steader?
Aristippus: And Neo is some kind of autarchist sea-steader?
Lmao, well Zion may be a seastead, but Neo is any republican looking for the truth, and the truth is libertarian.