Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Best case scenario?  (Read 5273 times)

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Best case scenario?
« on: November 14, 2002, 10:20:04 am »

Hello, some newbie questions.

I have been reading here and there, trying to get a feel for things. I have detected some pessimism in places, about things like the "Patriot" Act.

I do not want to get into a discussion about whether the fed govt. is Nazi Germany or not. I want to have at least some hope this thing can work, given a reasonable best-case scenario (that is, let's assume they are not Nazi Germany, for purposes of discussion).

Say we all moved to North Dakota. We do all we hope to accomplish with state govt. The economy picks up, and we all start making a lot of money. That moves us into higher tax brackets than previously. So now what do we have?

We have much fewer of our tax dollars going to the state govt, but *more* going to the feds!

So we try "negotiating" with the feds, as the FAQ suggests. We say, "Feds, how about cutting our tax rates, especially seeing as how you now have to send no block grants, etc. to our state?" Feds answer, "No." (Remember, I am looking at a *realistic* best case - generally, to negotiate effectively, you have to have something to negotiate with! Some stick or carrot...)

I guess I can see some possible improvement generally in the state of freedom, but I'm having a hard time seeing it in the area of taxes. And to be honest, I have a hard time in other areas - e.g., what's to stop DEA from setting up a major operation in Bismark and enforcing all the drugs laws that the state is now refraining from enforcing?

This is a roundabout way of asking, given we have nothing like a nation of independent states any more, isn't it true the best we can hope for is this: a state just a tad less socialistic than Vermont - with oppression as needed supplied by the feds, not the state?
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Best case scenario?
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2002, 10:53:51 am »

Here is an answer I gave to a similar query on another thread:

http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?board=20;action=display;threadid=584

The basic idea is that we can do things unilaterally to make life hard on the feds - or ultimately, we can take back powers unilaterally, through nullification or even a constitutional convention where independence would be on the table.

Quote
We can ratchet up our opposition to the federal government as they attempt to stonewall our reforms.  At first, we can use mass demonstrations and letter-writing campaigns.  If that doesn't work, we can pass a law requiring federal agents to get the permission of our sheriffs before operating in the state, as Montana nearly did.  If they still come in, we can undertake campaigns of mass civil disobedience.  If they beat and imprison us, we can take them to court, using the state government's resources as well.  If our suits on 10th Amendment grounds don't win and don't force Congress to the bargaining table, then we can try nullification, the constitutionality of which has never been definitively ruled on.  If the federal government takes us to court and the federal courts rule against us, we can then try a constitutional convention.  If the federal government does not see the handwriting on the wall and still doesn't back down, then we unilaterally rearrange our relationship with the federal government and seal the deal with a free and fair referendum.

That said, I don't think we will need to go all the way.  The federal government will probably realise that we are far too prickly and too small to make a satisfying meal.  They will allow us to opt out of various regulations, perhaps with a requirement that we crack down on interstate smuggling of drugs (or whatever), a requirement which over time we can gradually neglect to enforce if we choose.  On federal taxes, they will recognise that they don't lose anything by allowing us to refuse to accept Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and to get a tax rebate instead.  Quebec is pushing for this right now from the Canadian government; they've gotten some concessions already, and once the Quebecois people regain their appetite for confrontation, they will probably get some more.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Best case scenario?
« Reply #2 on: November 14, 2002, 11:49:16 am »

OK, fair enough. It's all too easy to fall into pessimism on this issue. Besides, there is this:

http://www.angelfire.com/pr/flo/disobey.html

Also, I recall Vin Suprynowicz (I think) commenting on how unpleasant fed employees are finding it there, wanting to transfer out, and so forth. Community ostracism...

Another way of looking at this, is the question: Is our government more likely to emulate Nazi Germany, or Imperial England (when the latter was faced with the Indian independence movement)? While both were capable of repression and lawless tactics against ringleaders, only the former was able to engage in wholesale killing of its citizens. I'd put my money on our government emulating the Imperial England model any day.

Also, even if we don't intend to secede, that is at least a bargaining point. If we go to negotiations to knock down our taxes and they stonewall, that will obviously increase the pressure for secession. The Quebec model, as you mention...
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5722
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Best case scenario?
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2002, 11:52:28 am »

OK, fair enough. It's all too easy to fall into pessimism on this issue. Besides, there is this:

http://www.angelfire.com/pr/flo/disobey.html

Also, I recall Vin Suprynowicz (I think) commenting on how unpleasant fed employees are finding it there, wanting to transfer out, and so forth. Community ostracism...

Yep, absolutely.  Tar and feathering may be out these days, but there are always other options. ;)

Quote
Another way of looking at this, is the question: Is our government more likely to emulate Nazi Germany, or Imperial England (when the latter was faced with the Indian independence movement)? While both were capable of repression and lawless tactics against ringleaders, only the former was able to engage in wholesale killing of its citizens. I'd put my money on our government emulating the Imperial England model any day.

Exactly... I'd say the Imperial Britain model is even the worst-case scenario.  We need to be ready for its possibility, but I think even that route, in an era of open, globalized information and concern for civil liberties, would be unlikely.
Logged
"Educate your children, educate yourselves, in the love for the freedom of others, for only in this way will your own freedom not be a gratuitous gift from fate. You will be aware of its worth and will have the courage to defend it." --Joaquim Nabuco (1883), Abolitionism

RgnadKzin

  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • The Lakes Region looks very nice to me.
    • PersonalOdyssey
Benefits? Federal benefits? We don't need no stinking federal benefits.
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2002, 04:23:53 pm »

The answer to the federal question is that the vast majority of federal law has no application within the states of the Union. It is geared towards regulating the District and the territories and treay power.

If Free Staters elect a Sheriff, that one person can hold the entire federal government at bay.

With regard to revenue, there is plenty of money being held "off the books" at this time such that there is no need to tax anyone ever again. Search google for CAFR Man.

Logged
Liberty is not a concept  ...
Liberty is a way of life !!!

Penfist

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 814
  • Work together to build something that lasts.
    • Penfist
Re:Best case scenario?
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2002, 08:12:21 pm »

OK, fair enough. It's all too easy to fall into pessimism on this issue. Besides, there is this:

http://www.angelfire.com/pr/flo/disobey.html

Also, I recall Vin Suprynowicz (I think) commenting on how unpleasant fed employees are finding it there, wanting to transfer out, and so forth. Community ostracism...

Another way of looking at this, is the question: Is our government more likely to emulate Nazi Germany, or Imperial England (when the latter was faced with the Indian independence movement)? While both were capable of repression and lawless tactics against ringleaders, only the former was able to engage in wholesale killing of its citizens. I'd put my money on our government emulating the Imperial England model any day.

Also, even if we don't intend to secede, that is at least a bargaining point. If we go to negotiations to knock down our taxes and they stonewall, that will obviously increase the pressure for secession. The Quebec model, as you mention...

I'd love to help ostracize a Fed or two. I will never forget the civilian secretary who worked in my Public Affairs office in the Marine Corps. She had so much attitude about answering the phone and taking messages (basically her only job) that it almost hurt to try and talk to her. Yet we had to promote her to get her out of our office and make her someone else's problem. Heaven forbid anyone bring up the idea of firing her for incompetence and surliness.

It was a turning point in my life watching her and other civilian base employees raping the taxpayers of this country.
Logged
I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
--Thomas Jefferson

Zxcv

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1229
Re:Best case scenario?
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2002, 09:10:51 pm »

Although I have my doubts about a Sheriff holding the whole federal government at bay, it was in fact a few ornery Western sheriffs who pulled the teeth on the Brady Law.

I can imagine some interesting laws that could be passed in a free state. For example, a law requiring judges to inform jurors that they have a duty to judge the law, as well as the facts of the case. Or another allowing the right to vote on tax matters only to persons who provide a net positive benefit to the state treasury (probably tough to implement, though).

BTW, I recall reading somewhere on the FSP site about looking to the initiative to pass some laws. Please beware, this is not as useful as it first might appear. Oregon lately has passed a fair number of initiatives limiting government in some way or another. These are routinely overturned in the state supreme court. The latest was their overturning of term limits.

Seems there is a bit of a conflict of interest on the Judges' parts, since they were part of the same government we were trying to limit. Just my opinion...
Logged

dbrutus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Best case scenario?
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2002, 10:35:20 pm »

Points of leverage for a free state

Filibuster: 2 senators working in shifts can purely block and hold for years. 60 votes is a lot to get and you can filibuster pretty much every vote. We'll let senate business go forward if there's a state fairness act that rebates federal taxes if the return is below x percent of what's sent to washington.

Alteration of interstate compacts: There are all sorts of regional/multistate agreements that can either be created or be withdrawn from. Uniform Commercial Code, law enforcement reciprocity agreements, There is all sorts of trouble that can be legitimately raised if there is no reasonable negotiation.

Extradition: crimes that are victimless are simply not extradited out of state.

Withholding presidential electors. Hell no we won't vote. Or in a close election we'll send multiple slates. State legislatures certify which slate counts.

I'm sure there are lots more but there's certainly no need to jump right into the wild stuff that can possibly call down troops on the FSP. That's just foolish and unrealistic. It took decades for the founding fathers to exhaust their patience. the FSP isn't even started yet. It might just be easier than people imagine to get a fair shake.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

anything