# Think Tank > Political Philosophy & Government Policy >  Secession

## A Son of Liberty

Help me understand why the focus of this movement hasn't become secessionism.  

This is currently a country of 330 million people and growing every day, 4 million square miles of land mass, 6 time zones, 3,000 miles east to west, temperate zones to deserts, mountains to plains, densely populated areas like New York and Los Angeles to places like Wyoming, where off the top of my head I think prong-horn outnumber human beings something like 4-to-1... a multi-cultural population that varies from recent African immigrants to indigenous peoples to "settlers" who can trace their lineage back over 4 centuries within a single county and almost literally everything in between... Montanans have more in common with people from Saskatchewan than people in Florida.  People in southern California have more in common with people in northern Mexico than people in Missouri.  

The idea that this "country" should focus so intensely on a central government in Washington, D.C., let alone on the so-called "local" governments within their own "states" is a $#@!ing lunacy.  When you honestly take a step back and consider what it is that we're discussing when it comes to national politics, if you don't come to the conclusion that the whole goddamned business is completely bonkers, you're missing something.  

Ultimately, as an anti-statist, my goal is micro-secession, but I'd really like someone to explain to me what the legitimate argument is against breaking this monolith up into more reasonable management districts that make considerably more sense than this untenable mass.

----------


## Occam's Banana

_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to A Son of Liberty again._




> Help me understand why the focus of this movement hasn't become secessionism.

----------


## Origanalist

I don't think most here are against it, although I'm sure there is a significant percentage that are. As far as why it isn't the focus, probably just the daily distraction of left vs right.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I don't think most here are against it, although I'm sure there is a significant percentage that are. As far as why it isn't the focus, probably just the daily distraction of left vs right.


I don't think most here aren't against it either, but I do think that there's a considerable - and perhaps organized - focus upon distracting from that end.  

I think that with Ron's failed 2012 run, it's the most logical end to this movement.  I think we should be actively enabling secessionist movements, where ever the may arise, from whatever political perspective they may arise.  

I live in Appalachia... I think it's time for me to start advocating for a secessionist movement within that region.  I think there's actually a good base for that endeavor, given the abundant natural resources and the natural geography, as well as the lingering spirit of the people who live here.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I don't think most here are against it, although I'm sure there is a significant percentage that are. As far as why it isn't the focus, probably just the daily distraction of left vs right.


We "early adopters" will probably just have to wait for the idea to mature and for all the dead-end options (like taking over the system or reforming it from within) are checked off ... (while hoping that there will still be enough time left before the feds _et al._ go "full retard fascist/socialist" ...)

----------


## Origanalist

> I don't think most here aren't against it either, but I do think that there's a considerable - and perhaps organized - focus upon distracting from that end.  
> 
> I think that with Ron's failed 2012 run, it's the most logical end to this movement.  I think we should be actively enabling secessionist movements, where ever the may arise, from whatever political perspective they may arise.  
> 
> I live in Appalachia... I think it's time for me to start advocating for a secessionist movement within that region.  I think there's actually a good base for that endeavor, given the abundant natural resources and the natural geography, as well as the lingering spirit of the people who live here.


Maybe you should run it by Tod Evans, You two may be local.

----------


## Origanalist

> We "early adopters" will probably just have to wait for the idea to mature and for all the dead-end options (like taking over the system or reforming it from within) are checked off ... (while hoping that there will still be enough time left before the feds _et al._ go "full retard fascist/socialist" ...)

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Maybe you should run it by Tod Evans, You two may be local.


 @tod evans is Ozarkian.

----------


## Origanalist

> @tod evans is Ozarkian.


Oops

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> @tod evans is Ozarkian.


Yeah that sounds right.  I know of one member who's from this part of the world (Greene County, PA, to be specific), who I can't think of his username at the moment.  Oh, I believe  @osan is from southern West Virginia if I recall correctly, which reasonably lines up with me, geographically.  

There's momentum for this sort of thing in the world today.  The Trumpist movement is indicative, but also Brexit, as well as the business in Hong Kong if I read it correctly.  

It has legs, if people are willing to run on them.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> We "early adopters" will probably just have to wait for the idea to mature and for all the dead-end options (like taking over the system or reforming it from within) are checked off ... (while hoping that there will still be enough time left before the feds _et al._ go "full retard fascist/socialist" ...)


You're probably correct.  That said I wonder if this may not be just the time in history for us?

----------


## Origanalist

> Yeah that sounds right.  I know of one member who's from this part of the world (Greene County, PA, to be specific), who I can't think of his username at the moment.  Oh, I believe  @osan is from southern West Virginia if I recall correctly, which reasonably lines up with me, geographically.  
> 
> There's momentum for this sort of thing in the world today.  The Trumpist movement is indicative, but also Brexit, as well as the business in Hong Kong if I read it correctly.  
> 
> It has legs, if people are willing to run on them.


There has been and are several ongoing attempts here in the Pacific Northwest and regions near here.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There has been and are several ongoing attempts here in the Pacific Northwest and regions near here.


Are you a part of them, and what is their momentum?

----------


## Origanalist

> Are you a part of them, and what is their momentum?


I never participated. I should. They actually had some momentum, I just can't see them make it past the local politburos.

----------


## Origanalist

https://www.opb.org/news/article/pac...rson-cascadia/

----------


## tod evans

> @tod evans is Ozarkian.


Ozarks-n-Appalachians have very similar folk and could most likely agree on matters.

There's not a lot of flatlanders between the clans but the big muddy would/could prove a formidable barrier to trade if there was trouble..

I am however quite glad that they're a buffer between the coastal swarms and our little slice of Heaven...

----------


## Anti Globalist

I'd love it if secession were to happen but the reality is its not going to happen.  Even if it did, the current president, regardless if its Trump or not, they're not going to sit there and let a group of states leave.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'd love it if secession were to happen but the reality is its not going to happen.  Even if it did, the current president, regardless if its Trump or not, they're not going to sit there and let a group of states leave.


Maybe, maybe not. There will be no way to know for sure unless and until it actually happens.

But the mere desire to refuse to allow it would not be sufficient. It would depend on whether "they" had the political wherewithal to enforce such a refusal, and the political will to accept what that enforcement would entail. (And for the same reason, it is also not simply a matter of "rock beats scissors" ...)

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I'd love it if secession were to happen but the reality is its not going to happen.  Even if it did, the current president, regardless if its Trump or not, they're not going to sit there and let a group of states leave.


Congrats - you've just invented the perpetual motion machine.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Maybe, maybe not. There will be no way to know for sure unless and until it actually happens.
> 
> But the mere desire to refuse to allow it would not be sufficient. It would depend on whether "they" had the political wherewithal to enforce such a refusal, and the political will to accept what that enforcement would entail. (And for the same reason, it is also not simply a matter of "rock beats scissors" ...)


YES.

Currently in the world, we see Great Britain dissolving itself from the EU; we see people in Hong Kong beautifully, nobly, resisting the rule of PRC (a story which has received little relevant media coverage among the major US media outlets, if I understand correctly).  

There is an _oeuvre_ at play in the world today, I think.  There is a symphony of self-determination, and I think it will have been the saddest of missed opportunities if we, the so-called liberty movement, in no less a place than America, fail to seize upon it.

----------


## TheTexan

I'm against secession because I think this country can be fixed.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> I'm against secession because I think this country can be fixed.


You are a Great American. We mere mortals can but hopelessly aspire to such lofty station.

----------


## Zippyjuan

> Help me understand why the focus of this movement hasn't become secessionism.  
> 
> This is currently a country of 330 million people and growing every day, 4 million square miles of land mass, 6 time zones, 3,000 miles east to west, temperate zones to deserts, mountains to plains, densely populated areas like New York and Los Angeles to places like Wyoming, where off the top of my head I think prong-horn outnumber human beings something like 4-to-1... a multi-cultural population that varies from recent African immigrants to indigenous peoples to "settlers" who can trace their lineage back over 4 centuries within a single county and almost literally everything in between...* Montanans have more in common with people from Saskatchewan than people in Florida.  People in southern California have more in common with people in northern Mexico than people in Missouri. * 
> 
> The idea that this "country" should focus so intensely on a central government in Washington, D.C., let alone on the so-called "local" governments within their own "states" is a $#@!ing lunacy.  When you honestly take a step back and consider what it is that we're discussing when it comes to national politics, if you don't come to the conclusion that the whole goddamned business is completely bonkers, you're missing something.  
> 
> Ultimately, as an anti-statist,* my goal is micro-secession*, but I'd really like someone to explain to me what the legitimate argument is against breaking this monolith up into more reasonable management districts that make considerably more sense than this untenable mass.


How small do you want to draw the lines? Should city people be divided from rural people? They tend to be very different.   What about neighborhoods within cities?  They can be quite different.  What about within the neighborhood?   You probably have people who live near you who are not exactly like you.

----------


## oyarde

I fully support secession . I am not looking for anyone to join me . I just opted out myself .

----------


## tod evans

> Should city people be divided from rural people? They tend to be very different.


It'd be less lethal for all involved





> What about neighborhoods within cities?  They can be quite different.  What about within the neighborhood?   You probably have people who live near you who are not exactly like you.


This is completely up to the cities, they created the neighborhoods and all of the associated problems.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> How small do you want to draw the lines? Should city people be divided from rural people? They tend to be very different.   What about neighborhoods within cities?  They can be quite different.  What about within the neighborhood?   You probably have people who live near you who are not exactly like you.





> my goal is micro-secession


Down to the individual.

----------


## CCTelander

> Down to the individual.



"You must spread some Reputation around..."

----------


## tfurrh

First we'll need to work within the party to get them to adopt succession into the platform. That was a joke, but  probably for real.

In my neck of the woods, there's always someone who brings this to the table every two years at convention. I'm the only one who ever votes in favor of it. You'd think with every fourth truck sporting a secede bumper sticker there'd be a little more support.

Also, I KNOW that if Texas seceded it would be an embodiment of almost everything that's wrong with Republicans. Ban everything, and bomb everything....except Israel.

----------


## Matt Collins

It's not politically viable at this time, for better or worse.


Also the country isn't geographically divided like it used to be. Many regional differences have eroded. It's not north vs south or east vs west as much as it is urban vs non-urban.

----------


## TheTexan

> It's not politically viable at this time, for better or worse.


Thanks Matt for bringing some sense and reason into this thread 

We all know that secession of course, would require a 2/3rd majority of both the House and Senate, and/or a constitutional convention with 3/4 of states approving a constitutional amendment.

It's the only way

----------


## TheTexan

I would also just like to take a moment to remind all of you, that advocating for secession without getting permission from Congress is a blatant violation of the Smith Act, and will be reported as such to the FBI.

Thanks in advance for your understanding and cooperation.

----------


## Swordsmyth

If you want to secede you should study past secessions.
You will find that you will need your people in positions of power and influence, that means you need to succeed at conventional politics first at one or more levels of government, you will also find that you must secede a large enough territory that is able to defend itself.

----------


## tfurrh

> If you want to secede you should study past secessions.
> You will find that you will need your people in positions of power and influence, that means you need to succeed at conventional politics first at on or more levels of government, you will also find that you must secede a large enough territory that is able to defend itself.


It also takes a citizenry that isn't 90% pansies.

----------


## Suzanimal

It should be at this point but I imagine the reason its not a more popular idea is because it didnt work out so great the last time it was attempted. They wont just let folks peacefully secede and I know I couldnt beat them in a real fight. 





> Down to the individual.


You sound like Rothbard

----------


## TheTexan

> It should be at this point but I imagine the reason it’s not a more popular idea is because it didn’t work out so great the last time it was attempted.


If secession happens, Zombie Lincoln will rise from the grave and slaughter all who oppose the perpetual union

----------


## Swordsmyth

> If secession happens, Zombie Lincoln will rise from the grave and slaughter all who oppose the perpetual union

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It's not politically viable at this time, for better or worse.
> 
> 
> Also the country isn't geographically divided like it used to be. Many regional differences have eroded. It's not north vs south or east vs west as much as it is urban vs non-urban.


I'm not suggesting an east/west, north/south secession.  That was as much a bastardization as the union itself, or nearly so anyway.  I'm suggesting that there are regions within the geography of the US wherein the interests of the local population broadly align.  Vast stretches of the American west, for example; Appalachia, as I mentioned; New England, of course.  

When you take a step back from US national politics and take a clear-eyed look, it's an absolute absurdity: generally speaking two political factions vying for control to - openly - assert their will upon a nation of 330 million human beings stretched across a varied landscape covering 4 million square miles.  That's freaking asinine... Of course we know what the original idea was - that the Federal government would only handle the 18 enumerated powers, etc., etc.  Welp, that didn't work, and that cat ain't going back in the bag, because there will always be the threat of the next election overturning all of the quote-unquote progress that was made.  This is a death spiral, an absolute dead end.  So again, as I see it what this movement should focus on is breaking the country up into more reasonable districts wherein the interests of the people more closely align.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You sound like Rothbard




Can't think of any higher praise on this forum.  Thanks!

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> _You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to A Son of Liberty again._


The rep should go to you, sir.  The post was inspired by one of your recent posts if I recall correctly.  Regardless:




> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

----------


## Matt Collins

> I'm not suggesting an east/west, north/south secession.  That was as much a bastardization as the union itself, or nearly so anyway.  I'm suggesting that there are regions within the geography of the US wherein the interests of the local population broadly align.  Vast stretches of the American west, for example; Appalachia, as I mentioned; New England, of course.  
> 
> When you take a step back from US national politics and take a clear-eyed look, it's an absolute absurdity: generally speaking two political factions vying for control to - openly - assert their will upon a nation of 330 million human beings stretched across a varied landscape covering 4 million square miles.  That's freaking asinine... Of course we know what the original idea was - that the Federal government would only handle the 18 enumerated powers, etc., etc.  Welp, that didn't work, and that cat ain't going back in the bag, because there will always be the threat of the next election overturning all of the quote-unquote progress that was made.  This is a death spiral, an absolute dead end.  So again, as I see it what this movement should focus on is breaking the country up into more reasonable districts wherein the interests of the people more closely align.


There is a lot more tangible low hanging fruit that can be much easier accomplished.  There are not enough angry people yet to event warrant serious discussion about secession. We're a long ways from it. Now if there is a currency collapse or the feds over play their hand, or another unpopular war, or something like that, then it gets us closer to people being angry enough to act. But we are a loooooong way from any of that. Things simply are not intolerable enough for most people and likely won't be for the foreseeable future.

But we can do things like pass Constitutional Carry, stop local and state tax hikes, repeal gun laws, etc in most places without too much relative effort. That's where I put my energy.

----------


## Suzanimal

> The rep should go to you, sir.  The post was inspired by one of your recent posts if I recall correctly.  Regardless:


It was meant that way.

----------


## Suzanimal

> Can't think of any higher praise on this forum.  Thanks!


I t was meant that way - sorry I’m posting from me damn phone and I keep hitting the wrong button

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> There is a lot more tangible low hanging fruit that can be much easier accomplished.  There are not enough angry people yet to event warrant serious discussion about secession. We're a long ways from it. Now if there is a currency collapse or the feds over play their hand, or another unpopular war, or something like that, then it gets us closer to people being angry enough to act. But we are a loooooong way from any of that. Things simply are not intolerable enough for most people and likely won't be for the foreseeable future.
> 
> But we can do things like pass Constitutional Carry, stop local and state tax hikes, repeal gun laws, etc in most places without too much relative effort. That's where I put my energy.


All due respect, Collins, but this seems extraordinarily oblivious of the advancement of the statist agenda... what advancements in liberty within the framework of the USG can you point us to over the course of the past 75 years or so that would suggest this is a viable avenue?  Of course I understand that secessionist movements have little to point to in terms of successes on their own, but I'd suggest that has more to do with the fact that whatever momentum there's been toward that end has always been sapped by the likes of the Republican party constantly promising smaller Federal government, yet always giving us more and more and more.  

What if people started regularly and directly pointing the electorate TOWARD the DoI, appealing to the PRINCIPLES of the Revolution, and started advocating on behalf of TRUE liberty?  

Look I get what you're saying, I just think it's BS.  I think it's just an imperceptibly slower circling of the same drain.  

Going off of memory here, so forgive me if I misquote: "That when governments become destructive of that end, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it".  

You really don't think we could get a quarter of Americans to get behind that slogan?  If we can't, there's no point anyway.  All is lost.

----------


## Matt Collins

> All due respect, Collins, but this seems extraordinarily oblivious of the advancement of the statist agenda... what advancements in liberty within the framework of the USG can you point us to over the course of the past 75 years or so that would suggest this is a viable avenue?  Of course I understand that secessionist movements have little to point to in terms of successes on their own, but I'd suggest that has more to do with the fact that whatever momentum there's been toward that end has always been sapped by the likes of the Republican party constantly promising smaller Federal government, yet always giving us more and more and more.  
> 
> What if people started regularly and directly pointing the electorate TOWARD the DoI, appealing to the PRINCIPLES of the Revolution, and started advocating on behalf of TRUE liberty?  
> 
> Look I get what you're saying, I just think it's BS.  I think it's just an imperceptibly slower circling of the same drain.  
> 
> Going off of memory here, so forgive me if I misquote: "That when governments become destructive of that end, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it".  
> 
> You really don't think we could get a quarter of Americans to get behind that slogan?  If we can't, there's no point anyway.  All is lost.


I think the federal government is a complete lost cause. Even if we had a dozen Thomas Massie's in Congress we would only be able to slow down the tyranny, not actually reverse it. Whenever they can print their own money it is practically impossible to combat that kind of machine. 

There have been some successes on the federal level, mostly in terms of the 1st Amendment and the dubious 14th Amendment.  But by and large, I agree, the federal government is not fixable. At some point it will collapse due to its own weight... although that could be decades maybe even a century or two. Who knows?


But I do know for a fact that most state legislatures and many municipal governments are much easier controlled or steered on specific issues. We have indeed seen a large growth in firearms freedom over the last two decades for example.

----------


## tod evans

> We have indeed seen a large growth in firearms freedom over the last two decades for example.


Compared to what?

Seems I recall much more "firearms freedom" as recently as 35 years ago.

Things might be changing back a little bit but to make the assertion that there's more "firearms freedom" sounds foolish, or are you trying to push an agenda?

----------


## Matt Collins

> Compared to what?
> 
> Seems I recall much more "firearms freedom" as recently as 35 years ago.
> 
> Things might be changing back a little bit but to make the assertion that there's more "firearms freedom" sounds foolish, or are you trying to push an agenda?


Constitutional Carry is becoming widespread:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry

----------


## tod evans

> Constitutional Carry is becoming widespread:
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry


Wasn't an issue to be legislated 35 years ago, try again.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Wasn't an issue to be legislated 35 years ago, try again.


WRONG.

There have been laws banning concealed carry with or without a permit since the late 1800's in various jurisdictions.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> I think the federal government is a complete lost cause. Even if we had a dozen Thomas Massie's in Congress we would only be able to slow down the tyranny, not actually reverse it. Whenever they can print their own money it is practically impossible to combat that kind of machine. 
> 
> There have been some successes on the federal level, mostly in terms of the 1st Amendment and the dubious 14th Amendment.  But by and large, I agree, the federal government is not fixable. At some point it will collapse due to its own weight... although that could be decades maybe even a century or two. Who knows?
> 
> 
> But I do know for a fact that most state legislatures and many municipal governments are much easier controlled or steered on specific issues. We have indeed seen a large growth in firearms freedom over the last two decades for example.


If the Federal Government is a lost cause, and if the states are areas of focus... why wouldn't an effort be worthwhile to get them to focus on secession?

----------


## nobody's_hero

> It also takes a citizenry that isn't 90% pansies.


/thread

----------


## Matt Collins

> If the Federal Government is a lost cause, and if the states are areas of focus... why wouldn't an effort be worthwhile to get them to focus on secession?


If you have ever spent any time around a legislature then you would know exactly how far away we are from that even being discussed, much less possible.

During Obama there was some talk about it, but nothing serious, unfortunately. Things like the Firearms Freedom Acts are a very small step in the right direction.

The first step is to begin to nullify unconstitutional federal laws within the state boundaries. But that is like moving a mountain to accomplish.

----------


## osan

> Yeah that sounds right.  I know of one member who's from this part of the world (Greene County, PA, to be specific), who I can't think of his username at the moment.  Oh, I believe  @osan is from southern West Virginia if I recall correctly, which reasonably lines up with me, geographically.  
> 
> There's momentum for this sort of thing in the world today.  The Trumpist movement is indicative, but also Brexit, as well as the business in Hong Kong if I read it correctly.  
> 
> It has legs, if people are willing to run on them.


WV, aye captain.

----------


## osan

> Help me understand why the focus of this movement hasn't become secessionism.


Methinks that, all big talk of "freedom" notwithstanding, most people are terrified of actual real-deal, no screwing around liberty.  They want all the perceived benefits of what they view as freedom while recoiling with intense and reflexive violence when confronted with the costs.  Such people, as represented by the Meaner, have no real understanding of the concept and their blood boils at the mere suggestion of it.  They actually think that freedom is free of cost.  That is because they are corrupted and willful idiots.




> Ultimately, as an anti-statist, my goal is micro-secession, but I'd really like someone to explain to me what the legitimate argument is against breaking this monolith up into more reasonable management districts that make considerably more sense than this untenable mass.


The United States is a club of sorts, politically speaking.  If you want to be in the club (as a state), you have to follow certain rules such as not infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

In a more perfect humanity, I would have no problem with this aspect of the American political architecture.  It makes strong sense.  But as we can all see, humans trend to corruption, which has saddled us with drug laws and so forth, which completely disparages and destroys the value of what this nation is SUPPOSED to be: a voluntary confederation of individual and disparate nations who have come together under an umbrella of common principles that speak to the freedom of men and the strict and short-leash limitation of so-called "government".

This confederation is a good thing, in principle.  It is, in fact, miraculous.  Sadly, we Americans have dishonored this architecture, as well as ourselves and all that is morally praiseworthy from virtually the first days of the republic, the Whiskey Rebellion providing sufficient and incontrovertible proof that tyranny immediately took hold in the land of the free.  The experiment failed IMMEDIATELY.  Why?  Because humans.  I am sad to say that there is little to recommend us.

As I have mentioned many times before, nothing short of a reset event is likely to correct the deeply diseased mental positions of the vast majority of Americans.  We were given the greatest opportunity of perhaps all recorded human history to free ourselves from the sorts of servitude that bound all civil societies since at least the time of Sumer and we squandered it immediately.  The bottom line is that, contrary to Ron Paul's words that freedom is popular, it is clearly and unmistakably hated with a bitterness that cannot be given a number by all but a tiny handful of us.

Therefore, the best for which we can hope at this time, our lifetimes, is to make of this land the least horror possible.

The only other possibility I see, and it's a damned thin slice in terms of plausibility, would be if SCOTUS were to very quietly rule in favor of the notion that all men are born free and possessing of natural rights, which would leave the door ajar for select individuals to make their exit from the plantation in favor of the freedoms that scare the color from the hides of the Meaner.  We could then have essentially two societies: those who timidly accede to the whims of the state because they are cowardly miscreants who live in deep FAIL, and those who embrace the beauty and the terror of real freedom - the "animating contest".  The latter would likely always comprise some tiny proportion, perhaps half of a percent or less, and they would be despised by the rest, but I believe it could be made workable.

Imagine that - a nation where those who chose real freedom could actually live in accord with the principles of Proper Human Relations without having to engage in excessive worry for their very lives.

...perchance to dream.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> The experiment failed IMMEDIATELY.  Why?  Because humans.  I am sad to say that there is little to recommend us.


Fundamentally I agree with you, but I'm not entirely ready to give up the ground:

The capacity for _it_ (_'it'_ being the capability to comprehend freedom) clearly exists; many of us here are the Proof of that Fact.  

We are human beings.  Human beings are built with essentially the same Operating System, strengths and weaknesses in this or that area aside.  

Speaking for myself as a former pro-statist and having matriculated within statist society I was at one point even a socialist, all it took was exposure to the Truth.  Once the concept was laid out to me, I couldn't refute the logic, and so I was left with no other choice than to adopt the position.  

Now I'm one who is inclined toward logic.  Intellectually I'm not built to ignore that framework, and once I realize I cannot counter it, as I said I'm left with no choice but to adopt it.  But some are built to ignore logic.  Some - probably many... and perhaps even most - have a weakness in their OS in the area of logic, and are thus susceptible to the Tune of the Piper.  And others have a weakness in their OS in the area of humility, who are inclined to become the Piper.  Thus, our current conundrum.  

But I do believe that the OS installed within each of us contains the coding, whether it is fundamental to this or that individual notwithstanding, I believe that each of us are born with the underlying desire to be free.  The trick is to find the key which unlocks that section of code.  

So as I stated at the start, I agree with you that there is little to recommend us... but I think that 'little' bit is the key. 

Whether it is worth the investment is the question We must ask ourselves.  Because there is no doubt that the task is arduous, and that in all likelihood it takes more time than a human's lifetime... probably many lifetimes... but what more valuable investment is there than that?  What better thing is there to be than a drop in the rain that eventually breaks the dam, even if we won't live to see it?  



I've never expected to see freedom in my lifetime.  My principle aim has been to spread the *Idea* to as many people as I can while my lungs draw air.  I've never resisted the urge to try to turn a mind when I've encountered one that might be open to it.

----------


## tfurrh



----------


## angelatc

> Help me understand why the focus of this movement hasn't become secessionism.  
> 
> This is currently a country of 330 million people and growing every day, 4 million square miles of land mass, 6 time zones, 3,000 miles east to west, temperate zones to deserts, mountains to plains, densely populated areas like New York and Los Angeles to places like Wyoming, where off the top of my head I think prong-horn outnumber human beings something like 4-to-1... a multi-cultural population that varies from recent African immigrants to indigenous peoples to "settlers" who can trace their lineage back over 4 centuries within a single county and almost literally everything in between... Montanans have more in common with people from Saskatchewan than people in Florida.  People in southern California have more in common with people in northern Mexico than people in Missouri.  
> 
> The idea that this "country" should focus so intensely on a central government in Washington, D.C., let alone on the so-called "local" governments within their own "states" is a $#@!ing lunacy.  When you honestly take a step back and consider what it is that we're discussing when it comes to national politics, if you don't come to the conclusion that the whole goddamned business is completely bonkers, you're missing something.  
> 
> Ultimately, as an anti-statist, my goal is micro-secession, but I'd really like someone to explain to me what the legitimate argument is against breaking this monolith up into more reasonable management districts that make considerably more sense than this untenable mass.


Adam Kokesh is running for the Libertarian platform with a platform of localization.  That's not exactly the same, but it's more marketable.

----------


## ThePaleoLibertarian

It's too soon. I think secession is going to become very popular within the next century, possibly within the next couple of decades, but right now it's still the domain of weirdos and ideologues. That's all there is to it, really.

----------


## osan

> Fundamentally I agree with you, but I'm not entirely ready to give up the ground:


I understand.  Neither have I given up.  I am stubborn that way.  But the statistical reality is grim, I believe you may agree.




> The capacity for _it_ (_'it'_ being the capability to comprehend freedom) clearly exists; many of us here are the Proof of that Fact.


Once again, I am on board.  We ALL have that capacity, save perhaps those with brain lesions... like the anitfa, BLM crowds... and Democrats, har har har...




> Speaking for myself as a former pro-statist and having matriculated within statist society I was at one point even a socialist, all it took was exposure to the Truth. Once the concept was laid out to me, I couldn't refute the logic, and so I was left with no other choice than to adopt the position. 
> 
> Now I'm one who is inclined toward logic. Intellectually I'm not built to ignore that framework, and once I realize I cannot counter it, as I said I'm left with no choice but to adopt it.


That is a mark of honesty.  BLM etc. are left with the same choice and they choose wrong.

----------


## Republicanguy

No secession won't be popular, it is a fringe movement, that will have long term and serious impact to the world. It won't happen.

The only error in American history was it being fifty states. But that is history. As for Native countries in time, they will either be states or independent nations.

Global problems require nations to work together, having regional or independent states wouldn't work when the world has all these problems, it is irrelevant, when drought, flooding destroy areas.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No secession won't be popular, it is a fringe movement, that will have long term and serious impact to the world. It won't happen.
> 
> The only error in American history was it being fifty states. But that is history. As for Native countries in time, they will either be states or independent nations.
> 
> Global problems require nations to work together, having regional or independent states wouldn't work when the world has all these problems, it is irrelevant, when drought, flooding destroy areas.


The pendulum swings back and forth, your mad schemes will give way to division.

----------


## Republicanguy

What mad ideas, you are the one that believe in independence, good bye to Nevada, the naughty state with Western Shoshone nation becoming independent, so that is two nations in US borders. Then the South east, Louisiana, Mississippi, these places would not benefit from Independence.

Then Vermont, Rhode Island, they wouldn't either. 

Arizona, and Tohono nation, so declaring from Mexico and Arizona, so issues with Mexico.

----------


## CCTelander

Bump.

----------


## Republicanguy

Funny, nobody wanted to actually imagine the new reality of the idea of independence. For one state, it is a nice idea, but if it creates divisions that has a serious affect on the world order of peace, then this is a poor idea.

----------


## acptulsa

> Funny, nobody wanted to actually imagine the new reality of the idea of independence. For one state, it is a nice idea, but if it creates divisions that has a serious affect on the world order of peace, then this is a poor idea.


What world peace?  You're old enough to remember world peace?

The U.S. govermnent trying to exhort the members of the military to attack their own home towns would cause the whole world to breathe a huge sigh of relief.

----------


## Republicanguy

No, for America's faults, America keeps our world intact. When I vouched for Paul years ago when he ran for office, I didn't see the bigger picture. Just like in 2011, the crowd member said, "no president!" On when did any empire withdraw from the world stage in history.

Ireland for example, needs a peaceful world, and who does it look to? America? The EU, even though the EU has no real military, may be someday it will. Who else? How does Ireland insulate itself from the world economy problems, the primary supply of crude is protected by America. A country like that can't right the wrongs of the world, or deal with unstable governments.

So it is either US, or EU or China, or India one day.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No, for America's faults, America keeps our world intact. When I vouched for Paul years ago when he ran for office, I didn't see the bigger picture. Just like in 2011, the crowd member said, "no president!" On when did any empire withdraw from the world stage in history.
> 
> Ireland for example, needs a peaceful world, and who does it look to? America? The EU, even though the EU has no real military, may be someday it will. Who else? How does Ireland insulate itself from the world economy problems, the primary supply of crude is protected by America. A country like that can't right the wrongs of the world, or deal with unstable governments.
> 
> So it is either US, or EU or China, or India one day.


You are a fool who thinks his assertions are facts and that the world can't function as it did for all of history.

----------


## tfurrh

I do not think there's a single issue that will ever spark a serious succession movement. I do think that splintering could happen only if a lasting economic hardship hits. People are crazier when they're hungry.

----------


## Republicanguy

> You are a fool who thinks his assertions are facts and that the world can't function as it did for all of history.


No it is true, Ireland has benefited from the British empire's later years to America's, and then the EU. Small nations depend on the bigger powers to keep economies going.

Ireland has no capability to keep the sea lanes going or the crude oil flowing. That is what you quickly forget, you aren't someone that likes facts, only blind faith.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No it is true, Ireland has benefited from the British empire's later years to America's, and then the EU. Small nations depend on the bigger powers to keep economies going.
> 
> Ireland has no capability to keep the sea lanes going or the crude oil flowing. That is what you quickly forget, you aren't someone that likes facts, only blind faith.


The world can, did and would deal with those problems without world government or socialism.

You can't think, you only repeat what you are told to believe.

----------


## Republicanguy

No they can't. They didn't even have a navy functioning fifty years ago. 

Iceland is a little more prepared due to their location. But they depend on Canada and America for defense, and a peaceful world.

There is no substitute for keeping the sea lanes, like Carter, Reagan did with the US navy.

----------


## Republicanguy

> The world can, did and would deal with those problems without world government or socialism.
> 
> You can't think, you only repeat what you are told to believe.


Carter said we aren't a small republic, and he was correct. People were talking like you or Paul decades ago about having less of a role in the world. The world is interconnected. Just declaration of war clause was used two centuries ago before crude oil, it is anachronistic.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> No they can't. They didn't even have a navy functioning fifty years ago. 
> 
> Iceland is a little more prepared due to their location. But they depend on Canada and America for defense, and a peaceful world.
> 
> There is no substitute for keeping the sea lanes, like Carter, Reagan did with the US navy.





> Carter said we aren't a small republic, and he was correct. People were talking like you or Paul decades ago about having less of a role in the world. The world is interconnected. Just declaration of war clause was used two centuries ago before crude oil, it is anachronistic.


The world can deal with those problems without world government, it always has.

I thought you claimed to be English?




> Carter said *we* aren't a small republic

----------


## Republicanguy

Yes I live in England. But that is my point, even the Royal Navy couldn't do what America does. May be a coalition like in 1990.

----------


## kahless

> I do not think there's a single issue that will ever spark a serious succession movement. I do think that splintering could happen only if a lasting economic hardship hits. People are crazier when they're hungry.


2nd Amendment - taking peoples guns. 

I think a first step in a more realistic scenario would be for a group of states to form an alliance against federal government power in certain areas.  Remain part of the union but deny the federal governments power under the alliance and do so on Constitutional grounds.  For example the Constitution is pretty clear, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  

The next step the alliance would also need to reject the power of the Supreme Court for their own Supreme Court.  Otherwise activist liberal judges would just continue to overrule their power.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I think a first step in a more realistic scenario would be for a group of states to form an alliance against federal government power in certain areas.  Remain part of the union but deny the federal governments power under the alliance and do so on Constitutional grounds.


The Constitution prohibits a State from entering into any agreement or compact with another State without the consent of Congress (Art. I, Sec. 10, Clause 3).   




> The next step the alliance would also need to reject the power of the Supreme Court for their own Supreme Court.


Ignoring U.S. Supreme Court decisions didn't work following the 1954 school desegregation case, and there's no reason to think it would work today.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Bunch of people in here who seem to be able to foretell the future.  Kinda surprising that you're posting on an internet backwater forum given how rich you must obviously be.

The point in the OP was that there is no clear lane for the Liberty Movement in the current US/global political traffic pattern.  Secessionism is one clear and unoccupied area where we could stake our flag.

The fact is, it will come.  Sure as God made little green apples, it will come.  If we're occupying the space when the moment arrives, we'll have the upper hand. 

Think about that.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> The Constitution prohibits a State from entering into any agreement or compact with another State without the consent of Congress (Art. I, Sec. 10, Clause 3).


It needn't be a formal agreement.






> Ignoring U.S. Supreme Court decisions didn't work following the 1954 school desegregation case, and there's no reason to think it would work today.


It could have worked then and it could work now.

----------


## Republicanguy

> It needn't be a formal agreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It could have worked then and it could work now.


How do you think it could work? You are religious plant, you have no clear head on the world, you want to shut down naughty Las Vegas, and send, Naughty Nevada on it's way, turning into a boomerang state, along with all the native nations, and the problems that will arise financially from independence. That is the problem with this.

I think the Native nations should be independent, but it isn't realistic, with the exception of may be two, Tohono and Western Shoshone. But by that happening, Tohono would cause a problem with Mexico and Arizona, then there is also the Navajo nation.

What would happen to Hawaii?

----------


## Republicanguy

Yeah, there is no possibility of independence, because any independence would cross into roads, businesses, and so on. Ontario could probably be independent, but that is in Canada.

Ideas from two centuries don't work for America today. And this is certainly one of them. In Northern Ireland there are three hundred border crossing points, that cross into farm land, fields, roads, homes, businesses. In Wales, separate from NI in many ways, faces the same problem, many entry points, that couldn't work as an independent state.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> How do you think it could work? You are religious plant, you have no clear head on the world, you want to shut down naughty Las Vegas, and send, Naughty Nevada on it's way, turning into a boomerang state, along with all the native nations, and the problems that will arise financially from independence. That is the problem with this.
> 
> I think the Native nations should be independent, but it isn't realistic, with the exception of may be two, Tohono and Western Shoshone. But by that happening, Tohono would cause a problem with Mexico and Arizona, then there is also the Navajo nation.
> 
> What would happen to Hawaii?


What the $#@! are you babbling about?

Is English not your first language?

Or are you just a bot?

----------


## Republicanguy

I just put my question forward, based on an example with the UK. How could independence work out if a US state did leave? 

May be Kansas could, it only has roads and fields for the west and south west, and north west border.

----------


## Republicanguy

> What the $#@! are you babbling about?
> 
> Is English not your first language?
> 
> Or are you just a bot?


The problem with liberty ideas is they don't work in practice. I watched Ron Paul and Tom Woods, from some mises gathering from early 2015. Just dreamers.

----------


## CCTelander

> The problem with liberty ideas is they don't work in practice. I watched Ron Paul and Tom Woods, from some mises gathering from early 2015. Just dreamers.



I'm sorry but this is, without a doubt, one of the most ignorant comments I've ever read here, and I've read a LOT of ignorant comments here in the last few years. You really need to educate yourself. Your view of the world is 180 degrees out of phase with actual reality.

----------


## Republicanguy

Yeah, and every country wants you packing. No.

All I'm stating independence doesn't work when the world interconnected. It leads to problems. 

Too many think that like with energy resources there always an ideal quick fix, this is how Ron Paul lost his elections and didn't make any progress, only to people who want to believe they can live in a society, and world without much government it is gibberish. 

I see their points, but it is selfishness really. Trying to live in 1919 all over again, take the best and leave the modern bad out of it. I think these people are misguided.

----------


## CCTelander

> Yeah, and every country wants you packing. No.
> 
> All I'm stating independence doesn't work when the world interconnected. It leads to problems. 
> 
> Too many think that like with energy resources there always an ideal quick fix, this is how Ron Paul lost his elections and didn't make any progress, only to people who want to believe they can live in a society, and world without much government it is gibberish. 
> 
> I see their points, but it is selfishness really. Trying to live in 1919 all over again, take the best and leave the modern bad out of it. I think these people are misguided.



Being accused of "selfishness" by a guy who admits to suckling at the government teat, with money stolen at gun point from his fellow Englishmen, while all I want is to be left the $#@! alone to provide for myself and my loved ones without resort to such is really quite precious.

----------


## TomtheTinker

I support it, we are spread too thin.

----------


## Republicanguy

> Being accused of "selfishness" by a guy who admits to suckling at the government teat, with money stolen at gun point from his fellow Englishmen, while all I want is to be left the $#@! alone to provide for myself and my loved ones without resort to such is really quite precious.


Everybody is a welfare loafer, some live a subsistence on the dole, others don't, some work part time, and claim the dole, some work full time, and have their parents, some claim housing and have a child.

There is no good or great, bud, wake up. We live in a world that is interconnected, some are successful, some aren't. There is no wishy washy perfect society, where everybody owns their own home, has two children and goes to church or a Mosque.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Everybody is a welfare loafer, some live a subsistence on the dole, others don't, some work part time, and claim the dole, some work full time, and have their parents, some claim housing and have a child.
> 
> There is no good or great, bud, wake up. We live in a world that is interconnected, some are successful, some aren't. There is no wishy washy perfect society, where everybody owns their own home, has two children and goes to church or a Mosque.


Loser slave is projecting.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

What does the world being interconnected, and the success of some people (or lack thereof), have to do with secessionism?  The world is segmented currently into some 190 countries at the moment.  Are you arguing that each of those should be merged into a single global government?  What disruption do you envision by making some number more than 190 countries?  How does the world become less connected, and how does that impact the success (or lack thereof) of some people?  

I see no impact to the interconnectedness of the world, or the success of people, by creating more countries.  Yes, the world is interconnected, but most people live their day-to-day lives within a few miles of their homes.  They live among and interact with a very small number of other people.  The VAST majority of their interaction with some "central authority" should be on those terms, then.

----------


## Republicanguy

> What does the world being interconnected, and the success of some people (or lack thereof), have to do with secessionism?  The world is segmented currently into some 190 countries at the moment.  Are you arguing that each of those should be merged into a single global government?  What disruption do you envision by making some number more than 190 countries?  How does the world become less connected, and how does that impact the success (or lack thereof) of some people?  
> 
> I see no impact to the interconnectedness of the world, or the success of people, by creating more countries.  Yes, the world is interconnected, but most people live their day-to-day lives within a few miles of their homes.  They live among and interact with a very small number of other people.  The VAST majority of their interaction with some "central authority" should be on those terms, then.


First thing is the US is an exceptional country, as it maintains the peace, it keeps the sea lanes open. People like Ron Paul see the world in one dimensional thinking. An idealistic way. He is naive.

I am not suggesting his former republican party members were correct about the world and all things, but a world with a small power like America would be a different place than it is. 'I see no impact', you don't read history.

As for whether there will be a world government, unlikely. The UN is the current place for any type of government. It was created as a discussion organization. It hasn't really met the founders of the goals it was set out, but it isn't perfect. And probably never will be, especially since there are no elections for it, or direct say by any of us anywhere in the world. 

Many on here can't seem to understand that if personnel were withdrawn and the US order of the world changed, it affect your lives in real ways. And mine too, living in the UK. Including the Irish on both sides of the border. Ireland aligns itself with the US, EU, it isn't a neutral country, and depends on the security of the EU, US, and the British to some extent.

----------


## Republicanguy

> Loser slave is projecting.


Plant, you are a wacko. Such a foolish man, you claim to be lumber jack. You delusional butt wipe.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Plant, you are a wacko. Such a foolish man, you claim to be lumber jack. You delusional butt wipe.


Your delusions are showing again, I never claimed to be a lumberjack.

Tell the nice nurse it's time for your medicine again.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> First thing is the US is an exceptional country, as it maintains the peace, it keeps the sea lanes open. People like Ron Paul see the world in one dimensional thinking. An idealistic way. He is naive.
> 
> I am not suggesting his former republican party members were correct about the world and all things, but a world with a small power like America would be a different place than it is. 'I see no impact', you don't read history.
> 
> As for whether there will be a world government, unlikely. The UN is the current place for any type of government. It was created as a discussion organization. It hasn't really met the founders of the goals it was set out, but it isn't perfect. And probably never will be, especially since there are no elections for it, or direct say by any of us anywhere in the world. 
> 
> Many on here can't seem to understand that if personnel were withdrawn and the US order of the world changed, it affect your lives in real ways. And mine too, living in the UK. Including the Irish on both sides of the border. Ireland aligns itself with the US, EU, it isn't a neutral country, and depends on the security of the EU, US, and the British to some extent.


So then, no _fewer_ countries (presumably), but also no _more_ countries.  Okay.  We've achieved the optimum number of countries.  And you're holding this position based on... what, exactly?  


As for whether or not the US fading from the global scene would impact our lives... well... lives change all the time.  Our lives are ours to live.  As for whether it would impact _yours_?  To paraphrase Rhett Butler: frankly, sir, I don't give a damn.  I was not born to subsidize your security.

----------


## Republicanguy

That is where you wrong. In the state you live in, once your home state is independent, then you need to watch your neighbors because they aren't bound by a constitution. It is easy to dream about an independent country, but the reality of changing it, would lead to other problems in the region.

And then I expressed the Irish depend on a peaceful world, so they support the world power. This is naive thinking, oh I don't give a damn. This isn't about a water problem down the road. Seriously.

And quite doubt many Americans would want to put up with the tyranny of liberty, hardship, that is the true reality of that world. It must suck to live a world where you live by authority, that means nothing to you, and you think nobody matters to you, and you think you can do just fine on your own. This is the world we live in, not a dream.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

Some numbers from Mises are below.  I skimmed over it, so.....






> The new in vogue term, apparently, is "sovereignty referendums":
> 
> Since Massachusetts kicked off the trend in 1776, more than 630 sovereignty referendums have been held. There has been a surge in recent years, as you can see in the figure below. The 1990s alone saw a record 110 sovereignty referendums, largely because of the numerous autonomy and independence referendums triggered as the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia broke up. The 2000s saw 88 more sovereignty referendums, many related to whether the European Union should continue expanding eastward...
> 
> Why the surge? Although each referendum has its own history, we can find some general reasons. Perhaps most important, conflicts over sovereignty have proliferated. According to a recent study, since 1945 the number of ethnic movements demanding greater self-determination has increased more than tenfold. Many former colonies voted on their independence...
> 
> Whats more, when international actors intervene in nationalist conflicts they increasingly promote sovereignty referendums. For instance, in 1999 Portugal brokered a referendum in East Timor, which was administered by the United Nations. Some observers have even suggested that there is a new international norm emerging requiring referendums to legitimate territorial realignments.
> 
> 
> https://mises.org/wire/secession-going-mainstream

----------


## A Son of Liberty

This is a lot of incoherent babbling that doesn't address a single point I made.  




> That is where you wrong. In the state you live in, once your home state is independent, then you need to watch your neighbors because they aren't bound by a constitution.







> It is easy to dream about an independent country, but the reality of changing it, would lead to other problems in the region.


Well shoot, ya got me there.  My plan calls for an end to problems, but it turns out, as you say, there would be other problems.  I hadn't considered that. 






> And then I expressed the Irish depend on a peaceful world, so they support the world power. This is naive thinking, oh I don't give a damn. This isn't about a water problem down the road. Seriously.


See, you said 'seriously', but the problem is that I don't think you're serious.  If you are, you should try to form coherent sentences.  I couldn't say what you're trying to express here if I had a decoder ring.  




> And quite doubt many Americans would want to put up with the tyranny of liberty, hardship, that is the true reality of that world. It must suck to live a world where you live by authority, that means nothing to you, and you think nobody matters to you, and you think you can do just fine on your own. This is the world we live in, not a dream.




lol 'tyranny of liberty'.  Quite a shame what's become of European thinking these days...


Sidenote, I'd resolved to try to be more understanding of contra viewpoints around here, in my limited interactions going forward.  However, in my defense, I'm not sure any of this qualifies as a 'viewpoint'... so I think I'm still in good standing with regard to my resolution.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Some numbers from Mises are below.  I skimmed over it, so.....


These people apparently didn't get Republicanguy's memo:  NO MORE NEW COUNTRIES.  Also, no fewer countries.  We've achieved optimum countryness.  These people should have submitted their application before the deadline.  Sorry.  Rules are rules.

----------


## Republicanguy

You want to live in a world where everything falls into place, a quick fix. There isn't one.

Many countries economies and living standards would change, the smaller ones as a result of no world order by America. The Russian head of state claimed the west are the empires today. But his own country won't tolerate many movements that expand debate, and his society doesn't do democratic elections very well either, it isn't in their history. It is so recent.

No nation that has a large economy remains within its borders, sooner or later profiteering and consumption will happen, especially the latter.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You want to live in a world where everything falls into place, a quick fix. There isn't one.


Oh, I do?  I didn't realize that.  

Strawman much?




> Many countries economies and living standards would change, the smaller ones as a result of no world order by America.


Well I'm very sorry to hear that.  Once again, I was not born to subsidize the living standards and economies of many countries.  

Could you respond to that?  Could you explain to me where I'm wrong to think that I am not obligated through coercion and the forced confiscation of my property to subsidize the economies, living standards and safety of the rest of the world?  




> The Russian head of state claimed the west are the empires today.  But his own country won't tolerate many movements that expand debate, and his society doesn't do democratic elections very well either, it isn't in their history. It is so recent.


Okay.  Thanks for the info. 

Am I missing something or does this have nothing at all to do with what we're "discussing"?  




> No nation that has a large economy remains within its borders, sooner or later profiteering and consumption will happen, especially the latter.


Again, what does this have to do with secession?  Does America not trade with Canada, Great Britain, etc.?  If I recall the history correctly, America seceded from the UK, yet here we are still doing business with those countries.  I'm assuming (based on the above comment) that you believe that once a population secedes from a broader state it's people are going to become isolationist.  Why?  One of the very first things the Americans did after they seceded from GB was to establish diplomatic and economic relations with a multitude of European countries, GB included.  

Secession simply enables more local control of the state, *which is an objective net positive for the individual*.  There's nothing inherently isolationist in it.

----------


## Republicanguy

You or anyone may not like that. But you pay for Iceland's defense, do you not? How many Canadian or US Sorties over Iceland over the years. 

I was thinking with Ireland's continued EU membership they may have to contribute to the EU's security, and they don't want to be a part of that. May be they have to eventually assist in that.

You are proposing Scotland go it alone, in the free market, and not be a member of the UN, I am sure. But that has real world implications for the UK. Nuclear weapons, power, influence. Just withdrawing and going it alone in the modern world of just in time deliveries to the super market, just seems crazy. What happens in one part of the world has an affect on all of us. 

Burying your head is what you are doing, until the day you need assistance paid for by somebody else's dosh. It is perspective. 

May be the withdrawal from Syria is nothing to anybody except those who unfortunately in that mess. But the US can't be smaller and not have some influence over the world to maintain some order, otherwise others will. In an ideal world of liberty, and property, and honestly you could live in a world being an opportunist opt out to everything doesn't affect you as you may think, but it is wrong. Just like a Texan civil war would have an affect on the neighbours and cause security problems all through the US.

This is reality.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

Oohkay... that's a no, then.  Sorry I wasted your and my time.

Moving on... So again I reiterate that secessionism seems like a very open piece of intellectual territory for this movement to take.

----------


## Republicanguy

Yeah, the US keeps the trade going, you make it sound as if only the conflicts destroy everything, what would no influence look like? Sounds like you don't want to think more in depth about this problem of the world. Down the road from where I live a flooding happened, but it didn't affect me where. This is how you see the world, in the view of being an American. 

You can't look at it like it is just a water pipe rupture down the road.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yeah, the US keeps the trade going, you make it sound as if only the conflicts destroy everything, what would no influence look like? Sounds like you don't want to think more in depth about this problem of the world. Down the road from where I live a flooding happened, but it didn't affect me where. This is how you see the world, in the view of being an American. 
> 
> You can't look at it like it is just a water pipe rupture down the road.


Your implication is that if a certain segment of the American population wishes to withdraw from the US government in order to establish a government in closer proximity to their physical being and in closer proximity to their moral center and as a consequence the US government is in some capacity less able to provide all of these ancillary "services" (e.g., "keeping trade going", security, etc.) to a host of non-citizens (all outside of the US government's charter, I might add) that they are acting unjustly somehow.  You're relegating those people to a position of slavery.  You understand that, don't you?

----------


## Republicanguy

Quite right. 

But this is also America's doing partly, since they want to live the drive everywhere lifestyle. And nobody can change this, or wants to, or wants to feel inconvenience. So that is one problem. 

And those world problems would eventually affect those people who do want to leave from the US sphere. So it is interconnected this right there, it sucks! But that is the modern for you.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> Quite right.


The slave admits he wants everyone else enslaved.

----------


## Republicanguy

You created that problem, and are a part of it.

And for your information, Iceland has a woman prime minister who is Green, her party which believes in peace and having a nice environment go hand in hand, and is against the membership of the treaty, quite rare in that country. But they are in coalition and and are the minority on that view. 

It was a founding member, and never wanted to be in it.

But, it is okay to be a little island with a now 350,000 population, it was much smaller many years back. And hold such a view, when the security of the region is paid for by Canada and the US, and Britain, Italy. It is easy for any MP who is Green to express this, so long as they aren't having to put on the uniform or flight outfit to fly above their skies. 

Ireland hasn't got the economy for fighter jets. They only use these since 2004. https://www.military.ie/en/who-we-ar...pilatus-pc-9m/ They had some very old jets from the 1950's for a little while in service up until about thirty years ago. But they were useless.

Unfortunately, this is reality, you want to live in a world where you don't want to be the main player, but you remove yourselves, some of you, and the puzzle falls apart, and it affects all of you. 

I even sent an email to the paul institute on what are Mr Paul's in depth views on how anything he thinks can happen he would like to see, when his country maintains the order. He might like the Prime Minister of Iceland on her view alone, but perhaps not a lot else.

----------


## Swordsmyth

> You created that problem, and are a part of it.
> 
> And for your information, Iceland has a woman prime minister who is Green, her party which believes in peace and having a nice environment go hand in hand, and is against the membership of the treaty, quite rare in that country. But they are in coalition and and are the minority on that view. 
> 
> It was a founding member, and never wanted to be in it.
> 
> But, it is okay to be a little island with a now 350,000 population, it was much smaller many years back. And hold such a view, when the security of the region is paid for by Canada and the US, and Britain, Italy. It is easy for any MP who is Green to express this, so long as they aren't having to put on the uniform or flight outfit to fly above their skies. 
> 
> Ireland hasn't got the economy for fighter jets. They only use these since 2004. https://www.military.ie/en/who-we-ar...pilatus-pc-9m/ They had some very old jets from the 1950's for a little while in service up until about thirty years ago. But they were useless.
> ...

----------


## Republicanguy

> Our location in the north Atlantic and weak transport links will not change with eirexit.
> 
> How will the exiteers raise the taxes needed from reduced trade to fund their independence? We don't fund our defence/neutrality now, the first object of any sovereign state must be to protect its citizens.
> 
> The Brits voted for Brexit on the 100th anniversary of the Somme, the USA for a wall on the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. In 2016, our 100th anniversary year, lets learn from history and work to reform the EU, the largest force for good on this rapidly warming planet.
> 
> Ireland and the EU need migrants to grow, pay taxes and fund social services. I agree with other posters, I'm surprised to find myself aligned with McDowell and SF, but will vote with them to keep Ireland in the EU.
> 
> Let’s not return to the poverty of dancing at the crossroads and relying on the church for state services.
> ...


A poster stated that in this article from late 2016.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/poli...e-eu-1.2864539

I'm explaining you the reality, you don't want to accept the world around you.

----------


## tod evans

> I'm explaining you the reality, you don't want to accept the world around you.


Your world and mine don't exist on the same plane.

It will though the very moment you come to try and take food out of my child's mouth for one of your freeloader projects.

Stay on your side of the pond and invite a few hundred thousand of your ilk from our shores to join you.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Quite right.


And we're done here.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> You created that problem, and are a part of it.
> 
> And for your information, Iceland has a woman prime minister who is Green, her party which believes in peace and having a nice environment go hand in hand, and is against the membership of the treaty, quite rare in that country. But they are in coalition and and are the minority on that view. 
> 
> It was a founding member, and never wanted to be in it.
> 
> But, it is okay to be a little island with a now 350,000 population, it was much smaller many years back. And hold such a view, when the security of the region is paid for by Canada and the US, and Britain, Italy. It is easy for any MP who is Green to express this, so long as they aren't having to put on the uniform or flight outfit to fly above their skies. 
> 
> Ireland hasn't got the economy for fighter jets. They only use these since 2004. https://www.military.ie/en/who-we-ar...pilatus-pc-9m/ They had some very old jets from the 1950's for a little while in service up until about thirty years ago. But they were useless.
> ...



AGAIN, THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SECESSION AS A PRINCIPLE.

You're making absolutely no sense at all.  None of this is any kind of an argument against why secessionism isn't a legitimate goal of the liberty movement.  NONE.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

lol this is too funny.  So far the points made have been:

No new countries

Also no fewer countries (i.e., we've achieved optimal countryness)

Only the current number of countries (and especially the US as currently constructed) can sustain RG's pet projects of global security and trade

Those who would wish to leave the US must not be allowed to do so and are quite rightly slaves to the rest of the world (one would then assume that in RG's fevered mind, expatriation must not be allowed, either.  Thus he implicitly advocates for an American police state with closed borders... or in other words, he wants America to become North Korea)


Seems legit.  Thanks for your time, RG.  It's been enlightening.

----------


## Republicanguy

> AGAIN, THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH SECESSION AS A PRINCIPLE.
> 
> You're making absolutely no sense at all.  None of this is any kind of an argument against why secessionism isn't a legitimate goal of the liberty movement.  NONE.


Yes it does, because once a US state could leave, that changes the taxes, GDP of the US. The security issues, migration. Why don't you understand that? 

If Scotland was attacked and was independent, does it not concern England or Ireland's security? 

Don't forget all those so called welfare projects, help all of you people. Just like a guy who called into radio show I watched months back on youtube sounded a lot like a selfish person who thinks saving a few dollars is the best way to have a cheaper education. 

Did he pay for the roads he drove on? Or get help with his house or car. The selfishness and silly attitudes people have, is sad. 

Some of you need a dose of your own medicine, you are being crass. So long as it doesn't affect me, that is fine, screw everybody else. 

Have your democratic referendum on independence, and add in liberty, it won't go well at all.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Yes it does, because once a US state could leave, that changes the taxes, GDP of the US. The security issues, migration. Why don't you understand that?


Again this bizarre notion that we've achieved some kind of optimal balance in the number of countries, dollars available (to be plundered by other people/countries)... 

I don't understand it, sir, because it is utter nonsense and is incomprehensible.  You make no sense at all.  




> If Scotland was attacked and was independent, does it not concern England or Ireland's security?


How does this sentence change in any way if York were to secede from England?  




> Don't forget all those so called welfare projects, help all of you people.


AGAIN, NOTHING TO DO WITH SECESSION (without addressing the efficacy of "welfare projects").  

And yet again, Iceland's, Ireland's, the UK's security are not my responsibility.  Period.  




> Just like a guy who called into radio show I watched months back on youtube sounded a lot like a selfish person who thinks saving a few dollars is the best way to have a cheaper education.


More irrelevant gibberish... 




> Did he pay for the roads he drove on? Or get help with his house or car. *The selfishness and silly attitudes people have, is sad.*


The unbelievable irony in the bolded sentences above and below... it's surreal... 

You could at least thank us for being the cash cattle in your little security scheme you cling to, you know?  Instead of chastising us as "selfish".  




> Some of you need a dose of your own medicine, you are being crass. *So long as it doesn't affect me, that is fine, screw everybody else.* 
> 
> Have your democratic referendum on independence, and add in liberty, it won't go well at all.


Okay.  Thanks!

----------


## Republicanguy

It may not concern, just as Congolese problems don't concern myself or you. But we use their resources in our mobiles, we are all living in this interconnected mess of the world. I understand the view of wanting to live disconnected from the world, but it looks harsh, and selfish. 

I don't think you can see the bigger picture, or care. I think you prefer the illusion of being able to live on an island where nothing does affect you, until it is there within close proximity where it then does. 

I guess you better join an Irish forum, tell em to saddle up, and provider their own defense, even if that means sacrificing healthcare, and welfare. The NHS is apparently better than theirs, but the UK is a bigger nation, due to a union. It is unequal, in finances, but in the long run it is more secure. 

Scotland has five million, they have a debt, deficit problems, that the Scottish national party can't give answers on how they would solve that with independence.

Catalonia is a wealthy part of spain, the Spanish businesses are setup there, if they were independent, Spain loses the wealth, some places pay more than others.

California has a big economy, you see my point, if you are prepared to sacrifice comfort of what you call slavery, than I guess that is you're own personal position. But many can't do this, and it has serious implications, which is obvious.

----------


## acptulsa

> California has a big economy, you see my point, if you are prepared to sacrifice comfort of what you call slavery, than I guess that is you're own personal position. But many can't do this, and it has serious implications, which is obvious.


If the federal government steals from the poor states like Kansas and gives to the rich states like California, Kansans are likely to decide being part of a larger economy isn't improving their lot in life.

That's the problem with socialism.  Politicians start it off like Robin Hood.  Then the rich bribe them, and the next thing you know, they're stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.  Do you think Kansas should put up with being treated like a colony of California?

That's what we're calling slavery--being treated like a colonist in your own heartland.  It's an entirely predictable hazard of democracy.

----------


## Republicanguy

How did California or any bigger state get wealthy? Are you suggesting Vermont or Rhode Island could provide for themselves? Roads, all the public use. Welfare or not?

https://spectator.us/libertarians-wrong/

Interesting article on US libertarians interested in turning away from the world. Some good points.

----------


## acptulsa

> Roads, all the public use. Welfare or not?


You're just free associating now.

Kansas builds its own roads.  Even the Interstates.  California never, ever built so much as a city alleyway in Kansas.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> It may not concern, just as Congolese problems don't concern myself or you. But we use their resources in our mobiles, we are all living in this interconnected mess of the world. I understand the view of wanting to live disconnected from the world, but it looks harsh, and selfish. 
> 
> I don't think you can see the bigger picture, or care. I think you prefer the illusion of being able to live on an island where nothing does affect you, until it is there within close proximity where it then does.


At this point I can only assume that you're deliberately being obtuse.  Secession has NOTHING to do with isolationism.  And given your membership here you SHOULD be well acquainted with the fact that, despite the best efforts of detractors, we are NOT isolationist - we are all in favor of trade and interacting with the global markets.  

I have at no point suggested that I want to live in a country that is "disconnected from the world".  Secession from a larger state has no relation to isolationism.  




> I guess you better join an Irish forum, tell em to saddle up, and provider their own defense, even if that means sacrificing healthcare, and welfare. The NHS is apparently better than theirs, but the UK is a bigger nation, due to a union. It is unequal, in finances, but in the long run it is more secure.


That's quite fine, where do I join?  Do you think that I would be the least bit shy telling any Irishman, even those several whom I am very good friends with (yes, an "isolationist" like me has traveled the world and have friends throughout Europe.  In fact I lived in Ireland for about a half-year back in the 90's.), that their security is not my liability?  Not in the least.  




> Scotland has five million, they have a debt, deficit problems, that the Scottish national party can't give answers on how they would solve that with independence.


Would it be just for me to demand that I live at the expense of a Scot?  




> Catalonia is a wealthy part of spain, the Spanish businesses are setup there, if they were independent, Spain loses the wealth, some places pay more than others.


"Spain" is not entitled to the product of any person's efforts.  

Goodness, why don't you think about what you're saying?

----------


## Republicanguy

You can stand there and sound moral, but the reality is, what you propose is theory. This world is an interconnected place, the article made good points, that Libertarians have an extreme point on thinking nothing affects them personally. Secession brings these problems to your door step.

Ireland doesn't have an economy to support a proper defense.

You at least have the Icelandic leader to count on for disagreeing with being in Nato. She's a minority. 

Spain may not, but they share a long history, the country setup businesses there, so they have an interest in not wanting Catalonia to go it alone. Obviously it isn't going anywhere as support for it 44%.

----------


## oyarde

> How did California or any bigger state get wealthy? Are you suggesting Vermont or Rhode Island could provide for themselves? Roads, all the public use. Welfare or not?
> 
> https://spectator.us/libertarians-wrong/
> 
> Interesting article on US libertarians interested in turning away from the world. Some good points.


Roads are welfare for any who do not help provide them . In America anyone buying gas or diesel is supporting roads as there are taxes built in. I have pd so much tax I claim my road as my property . Foreigners have to pay my toll .

----------


## Republicanguy

> Roads are welfare for any who do not help provide them . In America anyone buying gas or diesel is supporting roads as there are taxes built in. I have pd so much tax I claim my road as my property . Foreigners have to pay my toll .


Yeah, and they paid too. You weren't born into any infrastructure that wasn't paid for by somebody else. 

Seriously, this whole tax issue gets silly with Libertarian politics.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

bump

----------

