Cut to the chase - secession

[Acala]

Agreed

That's true. Really, the best we can hope for is for the federal government to collapse like the Soviet Union and lose the will to rule by an iron fist. At that point, secession would almost feel redundant from the perspective of the individual states.

Anyway, I think the consensus here is that pushing for increased use of nullification and an increased sense of independence among states (and citizens of states) is the way forward. Nullification is, in a sense, an unofficial piecemeal act of secession. It may or may not attract a military occupation of the states who try it. If it doesn't attract an occupation, then we've made great strides without anyone officially seceding. If it does attract an occupation, an armed resistance simply isn't going to happen, but the act of invasion/occupation would reflect very poorly on the federal government.

The more that nullification is used, the more it will be used: Either the success of nullification or outrage over the heavy-handed response of the feds would likely embolden more states to use it. The more state governments that did, the more hard-pressed the feds would be to commandeer every single one. Over time, I think this very thing is what it would take to erode the morale of the US military, because so many would be wondering things like, "Why the hell are we occupying Texas again?" It would also hasten the financial collapse of the US government, which would struggle more and more to finance all of its occupations, especially in the midst of so many states being uncooperative with tax money, etc. It would be an unwinnable game of whack-a-mole for the feds. In the long run, playing the game like this is likely to result in one of three end-games:

1. The federal government gives up and retreats to a role that the majority of states will be okay with.
2. The federal government collapses entirely, and the states sit around in the aftermath wondering, "I guess this means we're seceding now?"
3. The feds start printing money like crazy to finance their subjugation of the states, followed by hyperinflation, followed by a complete loss of confidence in the feds and then [hopefully] the previous scenario.

^Exactly! Great post!

 

[Acala]

lol

I find the whole "secession" idea to be a rather simplistic, cartoonish, and poorly thought out panacea.

Lets assume Texas, the state most often mentioned in these "secession" fantasy scenarios (even though the overwhelming majority of Texans are against the idea), actually secedes and that the military doesn't squash the rebellion like a grape (as they surely would) and that the US doesn't slap crushing economic sanctions on the state (as they surely would).

Then what? You think all the ills of the world would be solved because you replace the likes of George W. Bush and Barack Obama with the likes of Rick Perry and, er, George W. Bush? Not bloody likely.

You'd still have big government, you'd still have a corrupt and inefficient government.

"Secession" is rash, unrealistic, and unlikely to make anything better. I want no part of it.

Did I mention that the "secession" would last about a day before it was put down by the military? This ain't 1861, folks- a time when we had a tiny American military. You're living in a fantasy world if you think secession wouldn't be put down quickly and efficiently, in a way that wasn't possible in 1861.

Secession in the USSR wasn't crushed. And most of the states that emerged are better than the one that dissolved. Some are pretty damn good (Estonia, for example).

I think it is almost axiomatic that the more centralized government power is, the worse it is. And you would have a chance to remake State governments with greater checks in place in light of what we now know about what happened to the Federal government. This is one reason putting good people into state government now is helpful.

But I'm not saying that secession is a panacea. I am saying it is the only hope. Even if you got control of the Federal government, which I consider far LESS likely than successful secession, how would you unravel that mess? You would basically have to erase it all and start from scratch anyway, which is just a form of secession from the top down.

And if we get our asses kicked, so what? Let it not be said we did nothing. Or I guess we can stay at home and cower.

 

[Acala]

Whaaaa

Do you really think it would be peaceful?

Lets go back to the Texas secession fantasy scenario again.

There are dozens of Federal military installations in Texas, both large and small, including two of the largest Army bases in the country (Ft. Hood and Ft. Bliss).

What are you going to do about them? Request that the 34,000 people at Ft Hood, most of whom are combat veterans, are NOT Texans, and extremely loyal to the USA just give up their base and equipment and "move along peacefully" because the "secessionists are in charge now"?

Yeah, that will happen, lol. It's about as likely as a Chuck Baldwin electoral landslide.

Even if that didn't start the ass whipping (with the secessionists being on the receiving end), all it would take would be a group of loyal US citizens who do not support secession asking for the military to help them- and the ass whipping would be on for sure.

Being free is TOO HARD!! Whaaaaaaaa! Better not even think about trying. Just bend over and take it.

 

[Stary Hickory]

The only sane position to have is supporting Secession. It's quite ridiculous to say you would stay party to a contract no matter how badly the other party violates the terms of that contract. To me this is the very definition of insane or outright stupid.

 

[Acala]

civil war

From the constitution:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Remember George Washington suppressing the Whiskey Rebellion? And don't give me that "Oh, but they weren't a state" crap. If states have a right to rebel then so do individual citizens.

If you want pre-civil war evidence of the federal government going after official state actors see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland

Lastly the idea that states should have had the right to be slave states is utterly ridiculous. (You said that in an earlier post). Ron Paul was correct when he was that one of the reason for the civil war was the mistake of slavery. Slavery violates every conceivable idea of good government. If you support states rights based on the idea that people can "vote with their feet"...well that didn't apply slaves now did it? How about the idea of a "republican form of government" where the rights of the minority are protected? Note that the constitution said that federal government would GUARANTEE each state have a republican form of government! Do you honestly believe that slavery is an example of the rights of the minority being protected? And lastly the "fugitive slave laws" were a gross violation of states rights. (If you read through the southern declarations of secession you will see that one of their main complaints was that the federal government was not enforcing fugitive slave laws. They wanted their "states rights" to supersede the rights of other states.)

Anyway, I'm done here. I wasn't planning on getting into the silly never ending argument of whether the south was "right" or not. (It wasn't). Instead I wanted to point out the futility of secession versus the fact the nullification has already been shown to work! Go around talking about how the south should have been able to continue slavery and see how much support you end up getting for secession. In fact see how much support you end up getting for it at all.

YOU brought up the Civil War. Not me. I don't think it is relevant except perhaps as a lesson in tactics.

The idea that States would be held in the Union against their will by violence is TOTALLY contrary to the CENTRAL theme of the Revolution of 1776 - that the only legitimate government is by CONSENT of the governed. The unavoidable corollary to that proposition, which is the heart of the Declaration of Independence, and was at the heart of the revolution that swept a most of the world's monarchs off their thrones, is that when a people revoke their consent to be governed by a particular government, that government becomes illegitimate.

Any attempt to bind a people to a government they have rejected is wrong.

 

[klamath]

Secession in the USSR wasn't crushed. And most of the states that emerged are better than the one that dissolved. Some are pretty damn good (Estonia, for example).

I think it is almost axiomatic that the more centralized government power is, the worse it is. And you would have a chance to remake State governments with greater checks in place in light of what we now know about what happened to the Federal government. This is one reason putting good people into state government now is helpful.

But I'm not saying that secession is a panacea. I am saying it is the only hope. Even if you got control of the Federal government, which I consider far LESS likely than successful secession, how would you unravel that mess? You would basically have to erase it all and start from scratch anyway, which is just a form of secession from the top down.

And if we get our asses kicked, so what? Let it not be said we did nothing. Or I guess we can stay at home and cower.

Is your freedom worth another mans freedom? Is your freedom worth the loss of freedom of those millions that die and therefore lost their freedom because you started a war? Millions that didn't want anything to do with your war but are caught in the violence a war brings.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Is your freedom worth another mans freedom? Is your freedom worth the loss of freedom of those millions that die and therefore lost their freedom because you started a war? Millions that didn't want anything to do with your war but are caught in the violence a war brings.

Is another man's apathy worth my freedom?

Klamath, I understand your fear here, having seen a civil war up close and personal.

I also think you are being short sighted.

I think the war is coming my brother, whether you or I like it or not.

Only question at this point: do we deal with it on our terms, or someone else's?

 

[carbonpenguin]

Summer Secessionist Fun

YouTube - 4th of July, Vermont Independence Style!

 

[osan]

I think it is almost axiomatic that the more centralized government power is, the worse it is.

Given the history of human "government", I'd have to agree. IMO this has far more to do with our failings as human beings than of a given governmental architecture, though.

And you would have a chance to remake State governments with greater checks in place in light of what we now know about what happened to the Federal government. This is one reason putting good people into state government now is helpful.

But is there not an equally good chance that state governments would also run amok? Not that many are not already doing so. But I agree that smaller bites are easier to do something with. The shame of dissolution in my eyes is that I think the USA is a great place in many ways, even now. One of the wonderful things about it is our ability to travel and live where we please, more or less. I don't have to worry about being stopped at borders, and while state laws vary widely in some cases, there is some level of consistency such that I don't overly concern myself with running into Roy Bean running a scam in some miserable town. I like that the Constitution establishes (at least nominally anymore) some minimal standards of government - take the Second Amendment as an example: It acknowledges the fundamental right of every man to defend life, property, community, and therefore the means to exercise it. It is a contractual element between the states that the right shall not be infringed. In theory, I should therefore be able to strap on my pistola and travel here and there with absolutely no concern for my safety at the hands of "government" at an level nor in any location just because I have a gun with me for all lawful purposes. If the USA dissolves, I hold precious small doubt that in several states this right will be infringed most egregiously - more so than what we find even today. Is this an improvement?

But I'm not saying that secession is a panacea. I am saying it is the only hope.

ONLY hope? Really? Do we really believe this?

Even if you got control of the Federal government, which I consider far LESS likely than successful secession, how would you unravel that mess?

Very simple: start with complete and utter repudiation of the national debt. Wipe the slate clean and start again. It is doable and thought it would be perhaps a decade or two to straighten up, it would happen were the people here of a mind to see it come to pass.

You would basically have to erase it all and start from scratch anyway, which is just a form of secession from the top down.

Not really, though I think I understand what you mean.

And if we get our asses kicked, so what? Let it not be said we did nothing. Or I guess we can stay at home and cower.

On this we agree.

 

[klamath]

The USSR dissolved with nary a shot being fired. If Quebec voted to leave Canada, do you think Canada would attack them? timing is everything.

Anyway, what are you planning to do when you fail to change the Federal government (which you will, sorry to say), whimper and beg your master in Washington to let you have another crust when the bankers are done with their feast?

In case you are forgeting history what happened to those republic's of the USSR that tried to revolt before the federal government of the USSR was ready to collapse? They were brutally crushed.

 

[Acala]

yes

Is your freedom worth another mans freedom? Is your freedom worth the loss of freedom of those millions that die and therefore lost their freedom because you started a war? Millions that didn't want anything to do with your war but are caught in the violence a war brings.

No man has a right to demand that I stay in chains because they don't mind theirs. I think it can be done without a war, but if war there be, then you can choose to run away or side with whoever you think is going to win.

 

[Acala]

Yup

In case you are forgeting history what happened to those republic's of the USSR that tried to revolt before the federal government of the USSR was ready to collapse? They were brutally crushed.

Timing is critical.

 

[Acala]

response

But is there not an equally good chance that state governments would also run amok?

Yup. Especially if we do not prepare. Part of the job of preparing for secession is educating people and electing leaders that will shape the post-collapse states. That is where preparation meets opportunity.

The shame of dissolution in my eyes is that I think the USA is a great place in many ways, even now. One of the wonderful things about it is our ability to travel and live where we please, more or less.

Agreed. And no reason that new unions would not form. Places like the USSR broke apart on cultural grounds and stayed apart for that reason. We have a more homogeneous culture and that makes it more likely that a new union (or unions) would form. In general, humans form associations that are mutually beneficial and try to get out of those that are not. If the benefits of a new union outweighed the burdens, they would form. The burdens of the current union CLEALY outwiegh the benefits.

I like that the Constitution establishes (at least nominally anymore) some minimal standards of government - take the Second Amendment as an example: It acknowledges the fundamental right of every man to defend life, property, community, and therefore the means to exercise it. It is a contractual element between the states that the right shall not be infringed. In theory, I should therefore be able to strap on my pistola and travel here and there with absolutely no concern for my safety at the hands of "government" at an level nor in any location just because I have a gun with me for all lawful purposes. If the USA dissolves, I hold precious small doubt that in several states this right will be infringed most egregiously - more so than what we find even today. Is this an improvement?

I think on balance the freedoms that the Federal government provides are VASTLY outweighed by the limitations on freedom. To the extent you have any firearms rights at the moment, they are the result of the States, not the Federal government. The Federal government has NEVER protected firearms freedom - until it just recently struck down the Chicago and DC gun ban ordinances. But in most states, the most onerous firearms restrictions come FROM the Federal government.

Would there be some states that take a more socialist or totalitarian path? Sure. And you would have the choice of not going there and they would get to reap the negative consequences of their choices. By allowing the different states to pursue their own paths, you could have a vast experiment in economics and social policy.

ONLY hope? Really? Do we really believe this?

I do. Most don't.

Very simple: start with complete and utter repudiation of the national debt. Wipe the slate clean and start again. It is doable and thought it would be perhaps a decade or two to straighten up, it would happen were the people here of a mind to see it come to pass.

Sure, you can do that. But then you need to unwind an astonishing amount of Federal law, terminate millions of workers, sell off vast tracts of land, and figure out how to rewrite the Constitution so none of this happens again. An enormous task. It could be done. But why? Why not free all the states and then those who want to try again can start over.

[/QUOTE]

 

[klamath]

No man has a right to demand that I stay in chains because they don't mind theirs. I think it can be done without a war, but if war there be, then you can choose to run away or side with whoever you think is going to win.

You and your army will kill innocents no if buts or maybes about it. It is the nature of war. There is no clean sanitized war. Anybody who thinks there is such a thing is a naive fool that has obviously has never been to war. There are many that don't even believe in any government, county or otherwise that will ride your revolution for their goals. Anybody that works for any government will be targets and if you bring your children to work some find it aceptable to take you and your children out. It will be your fault for bringing your children to work. Seen it said on these forums and yet they condeme a apache helicopter pilot in Iraq for stating that "people shouldn't bring their kids to war" after he lite them up accidently.
So for you it is acceptable to take other men lives and liberty for the .001 percent chance your free utopia will be realized through bloodshed. It is those in this movement that make neocons seem pretty tame.

 

[osan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan

But is there not an equally good chance that state governments would also run amok?

Yup. Especially if we do not prepare. Part of the job of preparing for secession is educating people and electing leaders that will shape the post-collapse states. That is where preparation meets opportunity.

OK, you ID at least one of the three neessary elements I posted earlier, but make no mention of how this would come about. We are at a point where people DO NOT WANT to be educated and prepared. They'd rather do their net.games.

I will add one thing to this: if anyone thinks that the forces aligned against the USA will simply vanish because the independent sovereign states dissolve the Union and give a jolly "fuck you" to those for whom all this debt paper is held, they are not being realistic in even the smallest degree.

I would bet money I do not have - lots of it in fact - that if the USA dissolves, and I mean REALLY dissolves, we will become the ready targets of military conquest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan
The shame of dissolution in my eyes is that I think the USA is a great place in many ways, even now. One of the wonderful things about it is our ability to travel and live where we please, more or less.

Agreed. And no reason that new unions would not form. Places like the USSR broke apart on cultural grounds and stayed apart for that reason. We have a more homogeneous culture and that makes it more likely that a new union (or unions) would form. In general, humans form associations that are mutually beneficial and try to get out of those that are not. If the benefits of a new union outweighed the burdens, they would form. The burdens of the current union CLEALY outwiegh the benefits.

We are not the Soviet Union. We are on someone's shit list for annihilation. Not necessarily physical destruction, but the dismantling of our national character and will such that we will kneel and lick the boots of the masters. This has been the goal for a long time - no big dark conspiracy need be conjured, but only the good intentions of those who think they know better. If we go into the patterns of our history, it is clear that directed intent has been and is still being applied against us.

If we broke apart, there would stand the intolerable chance that large swaths of remains of the nation would regroup to form new, strong, and possibly even FREE nations. Those who have worked generation after generation to bring us to our knees, even for what they feel are noble reasons, are not about to simply allow all that effort to be destroyed. It seems to me to be unacceptably likely that they will see such a dissolution as a possible last and only chance to see their ends achieved. Am I the only one to see masses of UN troops pouring into these states of ours in order to AVERT "disaster"? To SAVE the good people of the USA who had been so abused by the evil corporations and who now suffer from some mania that will serve only to doom them? What do you think conquered peoples in places like Europe and China are going to do in response to UN orders to send in troops? They will be silent and do as they are told. I do not think that separated states in so unsettled a condition will be able to successfully fight off such an assault if it came.

Our slavery built our current military. We may as well keep it awhile longer until we can find a way to fix what needs correction. I guess my message here is that sudden and precipitous change might not work out too well for us in the end. I'd like to think otherwise, but the entire world is aligned against us, that much I am certain of. I hold no illusions that there are no nations that would enjoy the opportunity to wreak some pay back on we Evil Americans. I only advise strong caution in proceeding.

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan
I like that the Constitution establishes (at least nominally anymore) some minimal standards of government - take the Second Amendment as an example: It acknowledges the fundamental right of every man to defend life, property, community, and therefore the means to exercise it. It is a contractual element between the states that the right shall not be infringed. In theory, I should therefore be able to strap on my pistola and travel here and there with absolutely no concern for my safety at the hands of "government" at an level nor in any location just because I have a gun with me for all lawful purposes. If the USA dissolves, I hold precious small doubt that in several states this right will be infringed most egregiously - more so than what we find even today. Is this an improvement?

I think on balance the freedoms that the Federal government provides are VASTLY outweighed by the limitations on freedom. To the extent you have any firearms rights at the moment, they are the result of the States, not the Federal government. The Federal government has NEVER protected firearms freedom - until it just recently struck down the Chicago and DC gun ban ordinances. But in most states, the most onerous firearms restrictions come FROM the Federal government.

I fully agree, but again that is a failure of WE THE PEOPLE and not "government" per sé. WE are government. It is OUR NEIGHBORS who have wrought this horror upon us and the rest have done next to nothing to stop it. Are we not seeing this? The problem is US, and not the "federal government". We need to get US straightened out before any large changes can succeed. It is this against which I raise the warning.

Would there be some states that take a more socialist or totalitarian path? Sure. And you would have the choice of not going there and they would get to reap the negative consequences of their choices. By allowing the different states to pursue their own paths, you could have a vast experiment in economics and social policy.

And what about states that don't allow you to enter or exit? This seems to be yet another possibility that has not received much air time. WHat if some poor fellow living in MA gets literally stuck there when they go mega communist and close their borders and shoot anyone attempting to leave? Can't happen? Guess again. What then? I don't like this idea of a patchwork where if I drive from one state into another I may find myself in prison because I wore a red shirt on Tuesday, which constitutes a felony there. What about constitutional protections such as presumption of innocence? Right to trial by jury? To remain silent? What if a state decides it's prefectly OK to beat a confession out of you? There is SO much that can go wrong - equally wrong with what we currently have and well beyond.

Wouldl things necessarily go that way? No - but what if they do? How does anyone know that the state legislatures are not as severely influenced by malicious third party influences as is teh federal government? Consider this: you claim it is much harder to correct the wrong at the federal level - I agree. Conversely, it is also far easier to speed the progress of the wrong at the state level. Money and privilege in back room deals do not come to a halt just because the level of operation has gone down one notch. Each state can invoke "national security" and hide its activities just as readily as can the feds. What difference, fifty corrupt states or one corrupt nation?

All I can say is be very careful of that for which you wish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan
ONLY hope? Really? Do we really believe this?

I do. Most don't.

See above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by osan
Very simple: start with complete and utter repudiation of the national debt. Wipe the slate clean and start again. It is doable and thought it would be perhaps a decade or two to straighten up, it would happen were the people here of a mind to see it come to pass.

Sure, you can do that. But then you need to unwind an astonishing amount of Federal law, terminate millions of workers, sell off vast tracts of land, and figure out how to rewrite the Constitution so none of this happens again. An enormous task. It could be done. But why? Why not free all the states and then those who want to try again can start over.

Rewriting the Constitution is perhaps a necessary condition, but it is not sufficient. People have to WANT to be free with sufficient determination and force of will in order to have it. That means the willingness of physically MURDERING those who would trespass on one's rights, and nothing less than that.

The problem we face today is that people demand freedom but are generally unwilling to pay the costs of having it. Once again, the age old saw proves undeniably true: people wanting something for nothing. It is an illusion - an impossibility, for EVERYTHING has a cost - the only questions there are how much and who pays. Something for nothing has been the ruin of every nation since written history began and it is unwinding this nation now at an alarming rate.

Truly there is nothing new under the sun.

 

[Acala]

Clarify

You and your army will kill innocents no if buts or maybes about it. It is the nature of war. There is no clean sanitized war. Anybody who thinks there is such a thing is a naive fool that has obviously has never been to war. There are many that don't even believe in any government, county or otherwise that will ride your revolution for their goals. Anybody that works for any government will be targets and if you bring your children to work some find it aceptable to take you and your children out. It will be your fault for bringing your children to work. Seen it said on these forums and yet they condeme a apache helicopter pilot in Iraq for stating that "people shouldn't bring their kids to war" after he lite them up accidently.
So for you it is acceptable to take other men lives and liberty for the .001 percent chance your free utopia will be realized through bloodshed. It is those in this movement that make neocons seem pretty tame.

I have never called for revolution or war. YOU jump to the conclusion that the only choices are war or continuing to play the rigged game of Federal democracy and remain in chains. I reject your false dichotomy. Empires inevitably collapse under their own weight, not by being overthrown. The American empire will meet the same fate. My suggestion is to be prepared to abandon the dying carcass of the USA when it has weakened sufficiently. Your suggestion is what? More hope and change? Perhaps a miraculous conversion of the democratic process from a puppet show for idiots into a real tool of reform? Hahahahaha!

 

[Acala]

response

We are at a point where people DO NOT WANT to be educated and prepared. They'd rather do their net.games.

Everything changes when people get hungry.

I will add one thing to this: if anyone thinks that the forces aligned against the USA will simply vanish because the independent sovereign states dissolve the Union and give a jolly "fuck you" to those for whom all this debt paper is held, they are not being realistic in even the smallest degree.

I would bet money I do not have - lots of it in fact - that if the USA dissolves, and I mean REALLY dissolves, we will become the ready targets of military conquest.

Maybe. But I don't see any really formidable neighbors.

We are not the Soviet Union. We are on someone's shit list for annihilation. Not necessarily physical destruction, but the dismantling of our national character and will such that we will kneel and lick the boots of the masters. This has been the goal for a long time - no big dark conspiracy need be conjured, but only the good intentions of those who think they know better. If we go into the patterns of our history, it is clear that directed intent has been and is still being applied against us.

Nah. The goal has been to milk us for all the wealth they can get. And they have just about finished. Nobody cares about you once you have no wealth left.

If we broke apart, there would stand the intolerable chance that large swaths of remains of the nation would regroup to form new, strong, and possibly even FREE nations. Those who have worked generation after generation to bring us to our knees, even for what they feel are noble reasons, are not about to simply allow all that effort to be destroyed. It seems to me to be unacceptably likely that they will see such a dissolution as a possible last and only chance to see their ends achieved. Am I the only one to see masses of UN troops pouring into these states of ours in order to AVERT "disaster"?

Nobody will care once we are broke. As for UN troops, I don't think they are much to worry about. The only army in the world that can take on an enraged American public is the US army. Once it has collapsed, we will not be worth the trouble.

Our slavery built our current military. We may as well keep it awhile longer until we can find a way to fix what needs correction. I guess my message here is that sudden and precipitous change might not work out too well for us in the end.

Ain't gonna have any choice in the matter. No soft landing on the flight plan. sorry. And there ain't gonna be anything to pay our military with. They won't work for waiving flags and patriotic songs.

I'd like to think otherwise, but the entire world is aligned against us, that much I am certain of. I hold no illusions that there are no nations that would enjoy the opportunity to wreak some pay back on we Evil Americans.

Everybody hates us because we are always messing in their affairs. once we stop doing that, nobody is going to get together an army and send it around the world just for the chance to beat us up. They will do it for money, but there isn't going to be any.

I fully agree, but again that is a failure of WE THE PEOPLE and not "government" per sé. WE are government. It is OUR NEIGHBORS who have wrought this horror upon us and the rest have done next to nothing to stop it. Are we not seeing this? The problem is US, and not the "federal government". We need to get US straightened out before any large changes can succeed. It is this against which I raise the warning.

The system is broken and we are not going to fix it. and we no longer have the option of getting things "straightened out" before large changes occur. It is happening. the only question is what will arise from the ashes after this cardboard country burns to the ground.

And what about states that don't allow you to enter or exit? This seems to be yet another possibility that has not received much air time. WHat if some poor fellow living in MA gets literally stuck there when they go mega communist and close their borders and shoot anyone attempting to leave? Can't happen? Guess again. What then? I don't like this idea of a patchwork where if I drive from one state into another I may find myself in prison because I wore a red shirt on Tuesday, which constitutes a felony there. What about constitutional protections such as presumption of innocence? Right to trial by jury? To remain silent? What if a state decides it's prefectly OK to beat a confession out of you? There is SO much that can go wrong - equally wrong with what we currently have and well beyond.

you really think the Federal government is your protector against the evil states? I think that is totally backwards. It is the federal government that enforced the banking scam. It is the Federal government that cluster bombs women and children. It is the Federal government that enforced the drug war. And on and on and on. The states are amateurs when it comes to tyranny. you have been brainwashed into thinking the federal government is actually your friend. It isn't. But I accept that some states may go the wrong way. so don't go to those states.

Would things necessarily go that way? No - but what if they do? How does anyone know that the state legislatures are not as severely influenced by malicious third party influences as is teh federal government? Consider this: you claim it is much harder to correct the wrong at the federal level - I agree. Conversely, it is also far easier to speed the progress of the wrong at the state level. Money and privilege in back room deals do not come to a halt just because the level of operation has gone down one notch. Each state can invoke "national security" and hide its activities just as readily as can the feds. What difference, fifty corrupt states or one corrupt nation?

the chance of having a few free republics arise among the states is much higher than the chance of reforming the Federal government. I don't need all fifty states to become free republics. Just one. Pretty good odds of that.

 

[tremendoustie]

Those who remain loyal would ask the US government to restore their country and their rights as American citizens. I'd probably be one of them- I'm not one to go along with hare-brained schemes (like secession).

So you would support the federal government showing up and violently attacking people simply because those people didn't want to be under the thumb of the federal government?

How about this: You can keep paying federal taxes, social security, medicare, if you want, and you can leave the rest of us alone.

 

[tremendoustie]

So having George W. Bush in charge instead of having George W. Bush in charge would be a huge step forward?.

No, I think eliminating one massive layer of bureaucracy and corruption would be a huge step forward -- even if there's still another one.

I also think that the more local a government is, the more accountable it is, and that smaller governments also afford more choice. I only have to move to the next town or state to avoid the town or state government. I can choose a location that fits my preferences.

 

[Liberty4life]

every state should have its own currency,
maybe the values based on stock averages
or oil or even a conglomeration of all the value of
marketable products