Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7   Go Down

Author Topic: international access: coasts and borders  (Read 44868 times)

fubar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I'm a llama!....AM NOT!
international access: coasts and borders
« on: August 10, 2002, 11:46:20 pm »

Although the matrix does not give it a high weighting, there is a positive rating if the selected state has coastal access.  Additionally, I've noted a number of posters favor coastal or Canadian access.  Not that I'm pushing for any one state or trying to push-out any one state, but I really can't find the reasoning.

Neither the Statement of Intent, the Participation Guidelines, nor the By-laws of FSP mention secession, so let's put that aside for a moment.

Any state selected is understood to come under the existing Consitution of the USofA.  Said constitution gives (in our new world) limited powers to the Feds.  However, there are very specific clauses within the Constitution that are not up for interpretation (in our new world?).

Section 8 (Powers Granted to Congress), clause c:  To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;...

In the existing world (and I do have some experience here), the various states may NOT, in any way, regulate foreign commerce.  Foreign commerce cannot even be taxed by the states (a great loop-hole BTW).

In fact, a 'port of entry' within a state necesitates the presence of Federal law enforcement officers.  Immigration and Naturalization Services, Customs Inspectors, Coast Guard, others...?...

It seems to me (IMMHO) that coastal access and/or Canadian access is actually a negative, due to it's necessary federal presence.

Any thoughts, opinions, or just plain emotional reactions?  Am I missing something?
« Last Edit: September 08, 2003, 08:38:07 pm by JasonPSorens »
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:coastal access
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2002, 12:26:20 am »

Personally, I agree with you.

However, some in the FSP seem to believe that secession is an inevitable, or even desireable, outcome -- and in that case, coastal or border access would be critical.

Part of the small downside of Dr. Williams promoting us this week is that he did so in context of secession -- but we are not a secessionist project.  So many people now erroneously believe our goal is secession, and it is not (officially, anyway).
Logged

fubar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I'm a llama!....AM NOT!
Re:coastal access
« Reply #2 on: August 11, 2002, 01:21:34 am »

Elizabeth,

The way I see it, there are two different things going on.  One is the philosophical/practical/impractical secession argument/friendly discourse.

Primary to that discussion though is the non-profit status and integrity of FSP.  If FSP is 'officially' not advocating secession, then there is no practical purpose in weighting coastal access favorably in its public material (IMHO).

We can all get on the forum and state our opinions.  But, if FSP posts a matrix that advocates coastal access, and the only known purpose for that advocacy is secession, then FSP is a secessionist organization.

I'm not saying, 'get rid of coastal access desires'.  I'm just saying, give justification for it.  Because, without FSP stating its own justification, there is only the various secession forum posts to look at.  I'm not a lawyer, but....I did stay at Holiday Inn Express once....
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:coastal access
« Reply #3 on: August 11, 2002, 01:29:47 am »

Except that... if you were to buy a house, you would want to make sure there were enough exits in case of a fire.  You don't *want* a fire, you plan to live there a long time without your house ever catching on fire, but just in case...   And that doesn't make you an arsonist.

Plus, the factors in the spreadsheet are there for people to use or not.  If people want to weight it positively, they can, if not, they can ignore it.  It's not an "official good thing" -- it's just there as information.  I won't use it to make my choice.  Some will.  You think we should supress the information simply to make a point that will be ignored anyway?

There are other criteria that are of disputed importance -- the % of federal land, for example.  Some think it's critical, others think it irrelevant.  We should "officially" make a decision as to "correct" factors?  Why not just tell people what state to vote for?
« Last Edit: August 11, 2002, 01:30:42 am by Elizabeth »
Logged

cdbern_99

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
  • freedom fighter: source-DNA
Re:coastal access
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2002, 04:31:15 am »

fubar
I think you need to keep in mind a 'worst case scenerio'.  Coastal access provides options i.e, transportation, food source, commerce.

Elizabeth,
% of Federally owned lands is almost a mute point as the Feds have locked up everything immaginable.  To the point of trying to force farmers off their land for environmental reasons (yeah, right).  

The migration of 20,000 people will have a far greater impact on a smaller State and tax its resources.   Someplace like Alaska, with its massive land mass would feel the impact far less than any other State being considered.
Logged

percy, aka tntsmum

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
  • SEE YOU IN THE FREE STATE!!!!
Re:coastal access
« Reply #5 on: August 11, 2002, 05:22:45 am »


Except that... if you were to buy a house, you would want to make sure there were enough exits in case of a fire.  You don't *want* a fire, you plan to live there a long time without your house ever catching on fire, but just in case...   And that doesn't make you an arsonist.

Plus, the factors in the spreadsheet are there for people to use or not.  If people want to weight it positively, they can, if not, they can ignore it.  It's not an "official good thing" -- it's just there as information.  I won't use it to make my choice.  Some will.  You think we should supress the information simply to make a point that will be ignored anyway?

There are other criteria that are of disputed importance -- the % of federal land, for example.  Some think it's critical, others think it irrelevant.  We should "officially" make a decision as to "correct" factors?  Why not just tell people what state to vote for?

My thoughts exactly. The goal, the objective, is to live peacefully as a state of people living in freedom along with the others states; and remain part of the union. But to work under the assumption that everything is going to go exactly as planned is naive. That is always naive. Life doesn't work that way.
Now what could possibly go wrong? We have to ask ourselves....
If the federal government feels threatened by our actions, or doesn't approve of them for whatever reasons, is it possible or probable that they would act on that? Absolutely. If they attempt to force our hand, do we accept that secession might be a possible outcome or do we, from the outset, decide that if the feds don't like what we are doing then we will just knuckle under and say "O.K., never mind then; freedom wasn't that important after all"
If we accept that secession is a POSSIBLE (I'm not saying inevitable, Im not saying probable) outcome, shouldn't we choose a state with coastal or some international access rather than having to ditch the whole idea? or being in a horribly dependent position that will thwart our goals?
I guess it comes down to wether the individual believes that secession may become necessary. If you think there's no way things could ever get that bad; then I agree coastal access just a benny if you like convenient trips to the shore, deep sea fishing and fresh seafood.
Logged

marciesmom

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • I'm a llama!
Re:coastal access
« Reply #6 on: August 11, 2002, 07:42:24 am »

I don't think the coastal access thing has so much to do with actual commerce, or even flight (though how many can get through the Coast Guard and Navy?).  I think it boils down to east/west preference.  Not intending to flame here;  but it seems that those who keep hammering on the coastal access have already decided they want to live on the east coast (since the left coast is already off the charts).  Coastal access is about the only thing the eastern states have going for them, IMO, especially after Amy's updates to the New Hampshire report.
Logged

phylinidaho

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 161
  • Friend of the FSP
Re:coastal access
« Reply #7 on: August 11, 2002, 12:46:02 pm »

I submit that if secession became necessary, any of the Western states could count on being joined by all of the Western states, with the exception of the coastal areas, plus some of the MidWest.  This would give the feral gov more territory than it could subdue.
Logged

percy, aka tntsmum

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 108
  • SEE YOU IN THE FREE STATE!!!!
Re:coastal access
« Reply #8 on: August 11, 2002, 06:21:58 pm »

MY main concern is making sure this effort does not fail; well, taking all the precautions that are possible. I'd hate go through all this and have to look back on a failed attempt, thinking "Darn, we should have thought of that"
So given that, support of neighboring states is an aspect I'd not given it's proper due.
Honestly, I can say that, knowing what I know of the Northeast,... I'm not very confident we could count on the support of neighboring states.
You folks out West.... What say ye? what are the odds of neighboring states coming to our aid if things get rocky? Pretty good?
Logged

fubar

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 17
  • I'm a llama!....AM NOT!
Re:coastal access
« Reply #9 on: August 11, 2002, 10:41:27 pm »

Elizabeth,

"You think we should supress the information simply to make a point that will be ignored anyway?"

Suppress information?  Bite your tongue!

I hear ya.  That second message of mine was due to a legal point I had ratteling around in my brain.  Taking a second look and reading your post....no sweat.


Logged

Thor

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 143
  • Freedom is slipping away like sand in an hourglass
    • http://www.voters4ventura.com
Re:coastal access
« Reply #10 on: September 28, 2002, 11:48:47 am »


We have to ask ourselves....
If the federal government feels threatened by our actions, or doesn't approve of them for whatever reasons, is it possible or probable that they would act on that? Absolutely. If they attempt to force our hand, do we accept that secession might be a possible outcome or do we, from the outset, decide that if the feds don't like what we are doing then we will just knuckle under and say "O.K., never mind then; freedom wasn't that important after all"
If we accept that secession is a POSSIBLE (I'm not saying inevitable, Im not saying probable) outcome, shouldn't we choose a state with coastal or some international access rather than having to ditch the whole idea? or being in a horribly dependent position that will thwart our goals?


Amen!  If we don't have the means to really back up our quest for freedom (secession if NEED be), why bother?  I don't want to pigeon hole myself in a state where the feds can then say, "Well, you CAN'T secede, and now we can turn the screws on every one of you freedom lovers."  Punishment for for being a bad little brother.

Alaska looks like my only vote for the FSP.

JT

  • FSP Participant
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 136
  • How can someone else know what's best for you???
Re:coastal access
« Reply #11 on: September 30, 2002, 02:46:37 pm »


I think a state that borders Canada would probably be a necessity.  In the remote case of secession, at least there would be someone who would be able to trade with us (maybe we could get a province to secede from Canada as well  ;D ).  Maine might be a good choice.  If we choose North Dakota then we will share borders with Canada, the freedom-lovers of MT and the Jesse Ventura electing people of MN, as well as South Dakota.  I think this would make ND a viable candidate as well.
Logged

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5705
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:coastal access
« Reply #12 on: September 30, 2002, 02:55:21 pm »


If we choose North Dakota then we will share borders with Canada, the freedom-lovers of MT and the Jesse Ventura electing people of MN, as well as South Dakota.  I think this would make ND a viable candidate as well.


Yes, but if we choose Montana, then we border small, conservative states North Dakota, Idaho, and Wyoming, as well as Alberta - the most libertarian Canadian province. ;D
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

Biddefred, Me.

  • FSP Participant
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
  • I'm a llama!
Re:coastal access
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2002, 10:29:19 pm »

I don't see this as a project that would lead to secession.  I see it as one that could lead to a reawakening of the American dream.

I live in Maine.  Our coastline ambles along for 3000 miles.
Great fishing industry.  Great recreation industry.

We only have one US neighbor, New Hampshire (live free or die), and we share a long border and a brisk trade with Canada.

Maine has a large breadbasket in the north, Aroostook County, and it has great access to Boston, only 75 miles from Portland.

I could see a major boost in the Maine economy due to the Free State Project's success and a liberating domino effect that would free N. H., Vermont and Massachusettes.

The coast of Maine is a gold mine and a great place to start.
Logged

firefox702

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • MORT AU TIRANTS!
Re:coastal access
« Reply #14 on: October 26, 2002, 11:13:44 am »

Coastal access is important as well as the ability to allow air traffic in and out of the state as a precaution against the Kremlin in DC and the apparatchiks trying to squeeze out the regained freedoms in the "new" state. The problem must be anticipated because, once the project's [hoped and worked for] success begins to become popular knowledge, the  concept will spread and create fear of loss of CONTROL over the general population throughout the rest of the United Socialist States by the Central Commitee. This may necessitate possible secession movement and the concomitant actions of self-defence. Therefore, we must not allow ourselves to face restrictions on "air space" violations or blockades of ports to attempt to "starve" the movement into submission. Remember von Clausewitz said "those who would take the first step into war must already know the last step" Further, if anyone is serious about this project, you MUST remain cognisant of the possibilty of the necessity of self defence--"If they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 7   Go Up
 

anything