So, obviously, the current petitions for state secession are ridiculous. However, they aren't ridiculous for the reasons that many mainstreamers think they are. Instead they are ridiculous because one doesn't sign a hilariously impotent petition to the White House for them to "review" in hopes of gaining any immediate result.
In a drunken stupor I even signed the Texas petition (I guess I'm already on a couple lists anyways...).
On the bright side, it's putting the idea out into the air and allowing average people to at least hear a rough premise of of states' rights. The problem is that it is instantly being marginalized by most "rational" people as nothing more than the typical Romney-ites butthurt reaction to losing the throne. Many of us are being clumped into the statist-lite majority who simply don't want Obama as their president but would probably elect Romney or Rick Perry as Texas' new president if they had their way.
I've had multiple friends who are modest "beltway" liberertarians comment on the matter and they all seem to think secession is silly. The sad part is that many of the arguments from sympathetic conservatives are the same trite and morally inconsistent arguments against the notion of voting for Ron Paul--"He can't win, what's the point? While I agree with you theoretically, the federal government would never allow us to withdraw from the union."
In fact I had a friend who went as far as to posit that a powerful enough secession movement would trigger the Civil War part II. I responded that it's not the 1860s anymore and Northerners would refuse to be shipped to the South to fight their bretheren to the death over, essentially freedom from taxes, regulations, and civil liberties. It's the Internet age and (I'd hope that) no one would die for a cause as pure as states wanting to be left alone. At least not in my estimation of Americans.
So, instead, the Federal government will simply ignore the cries for sovereignty and ridicule us through their loyal media, attempting to asphyxiate the fires of revolution.
All this being said, what do you guys think about the secessionist movement, in both ideals and reality?
I fully support it.
However, if there were the "Civil War" II, Obama would not use the military to "preserve" the Union. He would use the federal police state. The military would have a problem attacking the seceded states. That's not the case for the federal police agencies.
Of coure you're right. It would be nothing more than "putting down the rebels". But, ideally, support would be so widespread that there would be no way for the Feds to put down the insurrection. It would be likely that they would resort to violence against the peaceful secessionists, which would prompt more staunch opposition, even in non-secession states.
I'll tell you how a state could spark a secession crisis. The mechanism is already in place.
All it would take is for a state to pass a law saying they secede from the union, perhaps as a constitutional amendment, and as part of that law criminalize tax withholding for the federal government!!!
Can you imagine what a shitstorm would go down if that occurred.
Willy Truth: Of coure you're right. It would be nothing more than "putting down the rebels". But, ideally, support would be so widespread that there would be no way for the Feds to put down the insurrection. It would be likely that they would resort to violence against the peaceful secessionists, which would prompt more staunch opposition, even in non-secession states.
We should be careful with our words. I don't think it would be quite an insurrection. It would be secession. The states would just leave the compact and thus fully recover those powers constitutionally delegated to the U.S. government.
However, if there were the "Civil War" II, Obama would not use the military to "preserve" the Union. He would use the federal police state. The military would have a problem attacking the seceded states.
Ah, but here's the strategy:
US is in a war against Iran, Russia, China, and friends.
States attempt to secede.
Seceding states are branded 'confederates' of the hated foreign enemies. In such a scenario, I think the military would act against them.
yall are going to have to defend this 'the military wont intervene', i think thats rubbish and they will without question.
what they would decide to do is strictly how politically popular any decision would be.
I signed the california one.
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
grant.w.underwood: yall are going to have to defend this 'the military wont intervene', i think thats rubbish and they will without question. what they would decide to do is strictly how politically popular any decision would be.
It's for situations like this that the opinion-crafters and intellectual's exist. They'll demonize whomever needs to be destroyed sufficiently that the troops will go along with it just fine.
People haven't addressed the fact people can sign multiple petitions, and sign petitions for states they don't live in.
Both of those seem problematic when tallying support for something.
I'm not sure that, if it came to military action, the American masses would sit idly by while the military invaded Texas or Tennessee. Of course, the media would brand the rebels as some sort of evil Neo-Confederate movement that threatened to revert to slavery or something ridiculous. They would also claim that the "neo-confederates" threw the first stone to justify the military's actions as merely reactionary.
Still, I think most people in America are oppossed to domestic violent military action--they're either uninformed or blissfully ignorant about the current military atrocities that we perpetuate overseas. Obama supporters at least think they're peace loving, as warped as that is. They'd be hard pressed to brush off something so blatantly violent on the homefront.
I'm thinking about signing the one here in Florida.
I present to you...the Minarchy of Palm Tree!
I signed the Florida one for laughs. Nothing will come of this of course. Even OWS got at least 10x more support for their movement and nothing super revolutionary came of it either.
Willy Truth: In fact I had a friend who went as far as to posit that a powerful enough secession movement would trigger the Civil War part II. I responded that it's not the 1860s anymore and Northerners would refuse to be shipped to the South to fight their bretheren to the death over, essentially freedom from taxes, regulations, and civil liberties. It's the Internet age and (I'd hope that) no one would die for a cause as pure as states wanting to be left alone. At least not in my estimation of Americans. So, instead, the Federal government will simply ignore the cries for sovereignty and ridicule us through their loyal media, attempting to asphyxiate the fires of revolution. All this being said, what do you guys think about the secessionist movement, in both ideals and reality?
I'd say that people will be happy to die for central government. People in the 1860s and today aren't really that different, if at all. I'm sure nobody would ever consent to the idea that a mass amount of people would contribute to the extermination of 6 million adherents of one religion, yet it happened. Milgram's Experiment shows that people would not only take the orders to invade the "evil" secessionist states but would probably be glad to do so. And I'm positive that the federal government wouldn't mind giving the order.
People may not be different, but their environments have changed drastically. Although many people are still plugged into the media's Matrix there are more free minds today than there have ever been. This can be attributed to the Internetz.
The state can no longer get away with anything they want without consequences. It's slow going, but people are starting to realize that Uncle Sam has a dark side. Another four years of Obama should help people come to this realization nicely.
But if the military were to put down a secession movement there would be mass protest. At least I'd hope so..
Although many people are still plugged into the media's Matrix there are more free minds today than there have ever been.
Wha..? Maybe in gross terms, but as a percentage of population, there were certainly periods of American history where classical liberalism was the dominant belief, and strong suspicion of centralized power was relatively common. I know, it's hard to imagine.
I wonder what percent of the current military ranks are actually from the states that would most likely secede? Hell, 15% of the military is probably from Texas alone.
Prime: I wonder what percent of the current military ranks are actually from the states that would most likely secede? Hell, 15% of the military is probably from Texas alone.
I bet it's more than half.
@NonAntiAnarchist
Let me rephrase that: the most free minds post WWI America. But, still, that's just being argumentative. The point is that we have entered a new era of communication and knowledge. It's like the printing press revolution but even more accessible.
The Internet is full of libertarians. And those that disagree with us get smacked by logic and sensibility. As long as the Internet stays free from the clutches of the government, we will continue to gain momentum.
Should any state legislature actually vote to secede in this day and age, I think the feds would simply say, "Okay, well, all of our facilities (military bases, federal offices, etc.) in your state are still part of the United States of America [i.e. federal property], along with the interstate highways that go through your state. Furthermore, we'll take any violation of our sovereign rights over these things as an act of war." At that point, alea iacta est.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Willy Truth:The Internet is full of libertarians. And those that disagree with us get smacked by logic and sensibility. As long as the Internet stays free from the clutches of the government, we will continue to gain momentum.
Even if it doesn't stay free from the clutches of government, we could just build another internet.
The futility of the states petitioning the federal government is astounding. States either secede or they don't; there is no permission granted. Petitioning someone is to gain enough people to support a movement in hopes of receiving a response, specifically a response of permission. Essentially, what is happening is this:
The states say, "We do not like how you are treating us. Will you let us leave?" Does an abusive husband allow his wife to leave? The point is to simply leave. Did Lincoln allow the Confederate States of America to form? Absolutely not.
And as for the individuals who believe that there would be a mass resistance to martial law, you're likely mistaken. It's poetic to think of the Revolutionary War and how the new American citizens fought against the British tyranny, but the number (from what I recall) of people who supported the war was roughly 40%, those who opposed it were 20% and those who were indifferent were 40%. Compared to today...there are a lot of people who are sick of federal tyranny, but given that only about 1/3 of the American population voted, the other people are either taking a stand against voting or they don't care. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of non-voters simply don't care. So to have any fruitful resistance to downright tyranny (martial law), there would need to be a significant portion of the population that not only wants to secede but thwart central government altogether. Remember, these major parties are both central government parties: the Republicans by stemming from the Whigs and Federalists, and the Democrats since FDR's time when he hijacked the party.
Regardless of these statistics, I believe, as I mentioned before, that Milgram's Experiment proves a lot about people. It shows how willing they are to go with the collective despite what their morality is telling them about a situation. More than anything, that's the scariest thing of all.
You're right in that the petitions are futile. As I said earlier, it just gives the media fodder to create a false depiction of the average would-be secessionist. Get one redneck saying something about the Confederacy rising again--Cue Jon Stewart making dumb faces.
The difference between now and the CSA is that the CSA seceded legally. After the Civil War, if I'm not mistaken, Lincoln and his goons forced the states to change their constitutions to do away with any severance clauses. Of course the Fed wouldn't let states secede. People in this country care way too much about the legality of their actions, so if the states could establish a strong legal grounds to secede it would at least give them more legitimacy.
south carolina attacks fort sumter, yet the usa started it?
if a state wants to leave and negotiate peace, i support that more than leaving and demanding surrender of the usa and attacking the usa if there is no surrender
Autolykos: Should any state legislature actually vote to secede in this day and age, I think the feds would simply say, "Okay, well, all of our facilities (military bases, federal offices, etc.) in your state are still part of the United States of America [i.e. federal property], along with the interstate highways that go through your state. Furthermore, we'll take any violation of our sovereign rights over these things as an act of war." At that point, alea iacta est.
The states would be wise to delcare eminent domain seizures of these properties as part of any secessionary declaration.
a state cannot claim eminent domain on the territory of another state, only land the is owned by citizens of the state. otherwise we might as well declare eminent domain on china if we can claim land claimed by foreign governments.
We could only hope...
No Internet or radio regulation?
cab21: south carolina attacks fort sumter, yet the usa started it? if a state wants to leave and negotiate peace, i support that more than leaving and demanding surrender of the usa and attacking the usa if there is no surrender
Yes, a single attack does not mean the Confederacy started the war. There were many very minor skirmishes between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. That didn't entail war. A good statesman would say, "Oh, the boys just got a little drunk last and decided to have some fun." This is ignoring the fact that they were tricked into attacking in the first place. The Confederacy left. They did not try to oveertake the U.S. and its lands and people. The "Union" did that against the Confederacy. They started the war. A single shot or attack doth not a war make.
a single shot does not a make a murder then.
a single attack on your home could be all you get, so i say a single shot starts a war.
so i say a single shot starts a war.
A war of who with whom? How a shot fired by one person commits millions to mindless bloodbath?
the conferate army attacked the union army.
either of them can surrender or negotiate to prevent further blood.
I think it was Clayton that has written eloquently about individual secession as the best path forward.
Ghandi developed the plan of peaceful non-cooperation with the British overlords. But to withdraw, or secede, from the legitimacy of the State means a material loss and/or personal risk that most Americans won't embrace.
Zerubbabel: I think it was Clayton that has written eloquently about individual secession as the best path forward. Ghandi developed the plan of peaceful non-cooperation with the British overlords. But to withdraw, or secede, from the legitimacy of the State means a material loss and/or personal risk that most Americans won't embrace.
Has Clayton? Hmm, I've written a bit about that.
It's one of the premises of, for instance, counter-economics.
But counter-economics and a replacement currency are only a piece of the equation. You also need a parallel legal system and dispute resolution, and it has to be broadly extensible. Perhaps an online legal system of some sort...
My apologies Anenome. Sometimes memory fails me. The compliment is still extended, that it was eloquently written.
I see the idea simplistically in that one must first secede and then he is free to form new voluntary associations. Otherwise it is a kind of infidelity to existing agreements/relations.
cab21: a single shot does not a make a murder then. a single attack on your home could be all you get, so i say a single shot starts a war.
Then why didn't the Cold War heat up to a "hot" war?
negotiations can stop hot war. physical violence is not a required response.
it was war nontheless. south carolina demanded the surrender of the fort before attacking it, so that can be a cold example turning into hot from a lack of negotiations
cab21: negotiations can stop hot war. physical violence is not a required response. it was war nontheless. south carolina demanded the surrender of the fort before attacking it, so that can be a cold example turning into hot from a lack of negotiations
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/85383.html
The way by which President Lincoln got the South to fire the first shot on Fort Sumter on April 15, 1861, and launch the Civil War (which the South called "the War Between the States") was shrewd. What Lincoln did was to order a Union fleet to relieve and reinforce Fort Sumter in the middle in Charleston harbor and other nearby forts — but to do so by having a lead vessel merely supply food to hungry soldiers at Fort Sumter. The move worked. Confederate President Jefferson Davis, holding that the Union fleet invading Confederate waters amounted to a declaration of war, ordered the Charleston shore batteries to fire on Fort Sumter. Our author quotes historian Bruce Catton that thus Lincoln neatly got South Carolina standing "before the civilized world as having fired upon bread."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/peterson/peterson12.html