Free State Project Forum

FSP -- General Discussion => The Friendly Forum => Topic started by: SPITFIRE on November 07, 2005, 11:51:01 pm

Title: Vermont wanting to secede from US?
Post by: SPITFIRE on November 07, 2005, 11:51:01 pm
"The members of a peaceful freedom-fighting group want no part of neo-cons running the imperialistic U.S. government. Plan to secede from the U.S. gaining momentum in the fiercely independent Green Mountain state.
2 Nov 2005"

I just read this article and I was wondering if anyone might have more info about what is going on up there?
I am stuck here on Long Island now and am so completly outa touch with N.E. news lol
Title: Re: Vermont wanting to secede from US?
Post by: citizen_142002 on November 09, 2005, 10:55:04 pm
If you google, "second vermont republic" you will find a petition, and a site devoted to nonviolently seperating Vermont from the Union. The project has some liberal/geo-lib tendancies, but it is basically libertarian. It encourages trade between VT, New England, Quebec, and the Canadian Maratimes. It encourages the formation of a loose confederation.
I have signed their petition, and encourage you to as well. Imagine independence movements in NH,VT, and QE. We could bolster each other.
Title: Re: Vermont wanting to secede from US?
Post by: S.Scogin on December 14, 2005, 05:33:00 pm
It is in no way libertarian.  Look at the god damned website:  They want a direct democracy, so rule of the masses and will of the masses whatever that may be.  This is not a libertarian ideal.  In order for liberty to flourish, individuals must be protected from other individuals, this does not happen in a direct democratic system.  The wills of others, so long as it amounts to a 51% of the population, rules.  Hell, they'll probably try and enact laws to enforce democracy within private domains "...and the extension of participatory democracy to the workplace and the farm..."  That is not pro-liberty.  Free health care "We encourage small locally controlled health care systems similar to those found in Switzerland in which, unlike the United States, patients, physicians, clinics, hospitals, and insurance providers are all in community with one another."-not libertarian. 

This movement cannot be mistaken with a libertarian movement.  It is favorable to direct democracy, public schools and public health care.  If you honestly think that those will work within a society founded on the principle of liberty, perhaps you should cut ties with the Free State Project.
Title: Re: Vermont wanting to secede from US?
Post by: ThomasPaine on December 14, 2005, 06:40:50 pm

Free Vermont

Green Mountain boys ponder secession.

By Bill Kauffman

Organizers billed the Vermont Independence Convention of Oct. 28 as “the first statewide convention on secession in the United States since North Carolina voted to secede from the Union on May 20, 1861.” North Carolina, the final state to join the Confederacy, overcame its unionist scruples with some reluctance; by contrast, the 250 or so Vermonters gathered in Montpelier, that coziest of state capitals, gloried in the prospect of disunion.

Montpelier is the only McDonald’s-less state capital in the land, and from its late October splendor issued a Jeffersonian firebell in the night, ringing a warning to the national capital: the United States deserve a break(up) today.

Only in Vermont, with its town-meeting tradition and tolerance of radical dissent, would the golden-domed State Capitol be given over to a convention exploring the whys and wherefores of splitting from the United States. And all for a rental fee of $35! (It would have been free if the disunionists had knocked off by 4 p.m.)

* * *

Thomas Naylor, a Mississippi native and longtime professor of economics at Duke, who in best contrarian fashion flew north in retirement to the Green Mountain State, is the founder, theoretician, and chief sticker-of-stamps-on-envelopes for the Second Vermont Republic (SVR), which declares itself “a peaceful, democratic, grassroots, libertarian populist movement committed to the return of Vermont to its status as an independent republic as it once was between 1777 and 1791.”

The Second Vermont Republic has a clear, if not simple, mission: “Our primary objective is to extricate Vermont peacefully from the United States as soon as possible.” The SVR people are not doing this to “make a point” or to stretch the boundaries of debate. They really want out.

Although SVR members range from hippie greens to gun owners—and among the virtues of Vermont is that the twain do sometimes meet—Naylor describes his group’s ideological coloration as “leftish libertarian with an anarchist streak.”

The SVR lauds the principles and practices of direct democracy, local control of education and health care, small-scale farming, neighborhood enterprise, and the devolution of political power. The movement is anti-globalist and sees beauty in the small. It detests Wal-Mart, the Interstate Highway System, and a foreign policy that is “immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional.” It draws inspiration from, among others, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who in bidding farewell to his neighbors in Cavendish, Vermont, where he had lived in exile for 17 years, praised “the sensible and sure process of grassroots democracy, in which the local population solves most of its problems on its own, not waiting for the decisions of higher authorities.”

Naylor likes to say that Wal-Mart, which is “too big, too powerful, too intrusive, too mean-spirited, too materialistic, too dehumanizing, too undemocratic, too environmentally insensitive, and too unresponsive to the social, cultural, and economic needs of individual citizens and small communities,” is the American metaphor in these post-republic days. Perhaps it is. So why not a new metaphor, suggests Naylor: that of Vermont, which is “smaller, more rural, more democratic, less violent, less commercial, more egalitarian, and more independent” than its sister states?

When Naylor laid out the case for independence in The Vermont Manifesto (2003), the political air was heavy, sodden, statist. “Even in the best of times secession is a very tough sell in the USA,” lamented Naylor in 2002. “Since Sept. 11, it has proven to be an impossible sell.” But George, Scooter, and Wolfie, for whom Vermont is just another inconsequential state full of potential bodybag fillers, came to the rescue, putting a rebarbative face on the Empire and opening the door to radical possibilities.

In stepped the Second Vermont Republic, with a blend of whimsicality and seriousness, and its “eye-catching street theater has proven irresistible to the media, as has its exponential growth in the aftermath of the 2004 elections,” according to Cathy Resmer of the Burlington weekly Seven Days.

With polemical wit provided by Vermont’s Bread and Puppet Theater, the SVR has staged mock funeral processions, parades, and Fourth of July floats in which children declared their independence from bedtime, “annoying siblings,” and “my floaties.” The SVR has even achieved a symbolic political success, persuading the legislature to declare Jan. 16 as Vermont Independence Day in commemoration of the establishment of the First Vermont Republic in 1777.

Title: Re: Vermont wanting to secede from US?
Post by: Neo-Jeffersonian on December 16, 2005, 08:24:03 pm
Sounds like a heaven for communitarianism.  I should suggest that a friend of mine move there.  Seems to me that what they are trying to do is implement widespread, small-scale democratic socialism.  I.e., communitarianism.  It's like socialism in small communities, each of which has a kind of "elected" dictator of sorts.  Certainly odd that it's happening so close to the Free State Movement... not neccessarilly the greatest thing for our publicity, it seems.  I mean, if there's all these wackos wandering around right next to the Free State, people are likely to think we're wackos too.  But maybe we are wackos for loving freedom and the lack of government oppression ;). 

It is interesting, though, what they're doing.

Title: Re: Vermont wanting to secede from US?
Post by: ThomasPaine on December 16, 2005, 11:40:56 pm
Socialism is a meaningless term unless you specifically define how you are referring to it. In what sense do you use the term?

Title: Re: Vermont wanting to secede from US?
Post by: Neo-Jeffersonian on December 17, 2005, 12:39:10 am
Well, in this case, I'm talking about social rule.  So, come to think of it, I don't think socialism is the right term.  We'll replace it with communitarianism, which is basically the 51% majority idea.  If your local society tells you that you can do something, then you can, but not otherwise.  So scrap socialism in this case.  Good call, btw.  I probably wouldn't have noticed my own mistake.  So I thank you.  Anyhow, is there a term for social rule?  I'm pretty sure there is, but it doesn't come to mind right away.

Title: Re: Vermont wanting to secede from US?
Post by: ThomasPaine on December 17, 2005, 08:08:32 am
Face to face, human scale, democracy with certain constitutional guaranteed rights.

Title: Re: Vermont wanting to secede from US?
Post by: Neo-Jeffersonian on December 18, 2005, 12:18:45 pm
...not sure I understand that last bit.  Maybe I'm dumb, or I haven't quite woken up yet.  Could you perhaps explain the meaning of your last post?