Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zxcv]

If the foreign competition really is subsidized, then a possible state policy would be to tax the incoming products to raise its price to what it would be unsubsidized.

However I have to agree with Jason, free trade is part of freedom, and it is the only decent way to raise the standard of living elsewhere (foreign aid sure is not the answer). Maybe our state could raise hell in Washington, telling them we want to opt out of sending them tax dollars for foreign aid money which just harms our farmers.

The other answer to this is for the state's economy to diversify and to become more healthy. That will mean farmers have access to other income. What's that old joke, "I need a second income to be able to afford to farm?"

Finally, farmers and ranchers need to diversify themselves. Start big game and varmint hunting clubs on them, put a little RV park out on them, look at different crops, and so forth (we can help that by removing restrictions on the way they use their land). I'm a city person (sad to say) but I'd love to have a ranch where the owner let me drag up a trailer to spend as much time as I could out there. I'd enjoy helping on the place to pay for the rent (a tax-free proposition, too!)

Of course, the FSP (at least in an interior state, and maybe in any candidate state) may simply not have a "position" on foreign trade. Why should we? We can't affect it and we don't need to antagonize the locals...

[mtPete]

You raise some good points. Zxcv. I don't know that we as a state could tax incoming products, I think that may be one of the few things that does legitamatly fall under interstate commerce.

Farmers and ranchers do need to diversify themselves, and they are. Its probebly one of the few things keeping farming and ranching afloat. But it will only work for so long. Its hard to succeed when the whole world is kicking you while your down.

Farmers and ranchers arn't against free trade persay. The problem is what is often touted as free trade isn't fair trade. Many of the countries that would like to export to us their ag products don't have to deal with all the regulatory expenses we do (environmental, wages, food safety, etc), making it hard for local farmers and ranchers (any industry for that matter) to compete.

[Greggers69]

Well if you have free trade then other countries will want to trade and we could export more.  If we tax it then they'll want less.  Greg

[mtPete]

Yes that would appear to be true under basic economics. Unfortunatly it doesn't always play out that way.

For instance, free trade has resulted in manufacturing jobs in the US going overseas. As a result, we don't have more demand for our product, but fewer jobs. Even if there was more demand, those products are now coming from overseas.

In agriculture, there is extremely little that this nation needs for food that can't/isn't be supplied domestically. While more exports are very important, a bigger threat is that of more (cheaper) imports of food products into the US. These are not needed and only cut into the domestic market, killing prices. Exports could improve prices, imports could kill domestic agriculture. This is the perspective that a farmer/rancher looks at it. The other related issue here is that while we are opening our borders, many other countries aren't doing likewise.

Another related matter is food safty. Free Trade of the Americas could open up the US to imports of food from South America. There are serious food safety concerns about food from SA that could threaten domestic producers and consumers alike.

I'm sorry to debate protectionism versus free trade here. But this is the viewpoint many in the Ag communitee of rural western states have.

[Steve]

Forget North Dakota, they are DISQUALIFIED as a terrorist state harboring nuclear missiles:
http://www.theonion.com/onion3904/north_dakota.html

[antayla]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,889935,00.html

This seemed like important info to me...

[Solitar]

Antayla,
Thank you for that link. Very sobering article for anyone contemplating North Dakota.
Seriously, do we have any Buffalo entrepreneurs among the FSP?
And Missile defense IS one of the few things that really does make sense in ND.
(Steve, the Onion is a spoof web site if you have not yet figured that out.)

Here it is as an embedded link since the forum software broke it above.
The buffalo roam again

[Robert H.]

Thank you for that link. Very sobering article for anyone contemplating North Dakota.

Sobering indeed.  For anyone who has read Asimov's Foundation and Earth, I get visions of the planet Aurora from this article.

[Steve]

(Steve, the Onion is a spoof web site if you have not yet figured that out.)

Yeah, one of my favorites, but the point is still serious: the US bases its nuclear missile silos in at least three states under our consideration: North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming.

http://www.spacecom.af.mil/hqafspc/Library/FactSheets/FactsSheets.asp?FactChoice=13
http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/07/05/silo.implosion.02/
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/icbm/smf.htm

I am of course opposed to the idea that secession is a goal, but it is a stick to have available for negotiations.

[antayla]

Um, that there are nukes there seems to me a reason NOT to choose one of those states.

We couldn't possibly FIGHT the US!  Never mind the fact that it would simply be impossible: we would be profiled as a terrorist group, and lose any sort of international support we might have gained (which btw we should be fostering ASAP imho.) The whole reason I signed on for this venture was because it is peaceful.  I understand that this IS simply a forum, but still... The first thing I'd suggest if we did separate is dismantling those nukes, make something useful outta them

[freedomroad]

Um, that there are nukes there seems to me a reason NOT to choose one of those states.

We couldn't possibly FIGHT the US!  Never mind the fact that it would simply be impossible: we would be profiled as a terrorist group, and lose any sort of international support we might have gained (which btw we should be fostering ASAP imho.) The whole reason I signed on for this venture was because it is peaceful.  I understand that this IS simply a forum, but still... The first thing I'd suggest if we did separate is dismantling those nukes, make something useful outta them

I disagree.  The US government knows that no state will ever try to leave the US.  The FSP does not want to ever leave the US.  All of the states have things the US government would claim it owns if a state ever talked about leaving the US.  Examples are, all of the schools, roads, federal buildings (like post office), airports, seaports, military bases, special federal bases, colleges, energy companies, airplane companies, defense contractors, all federal land, all indian reservations, all national parks, any area that a protect animal lives, and the list goes on and on.  In other words, the federal government could legally claim it owns or part owns 70-90% of all states.  It would never sell any of these property to a state.  THE FSP WILL NEVER TRY TO LEAVE THE US!
You would have to disqualify all 10 states.  This arguement is completely baseless and should never be used for such a serious topic.

I am sorry if I am being too frank or harsh but this must be said and understood by all members of the FSP.

[Steve]

All of the states have things the US government would claim it owns if a state ever talked about leaving the US.

Good point.

In other words, the federal government could legally claim it owns or part owns 70-90% of all states.

Not true at all.  Most of your examples (schools, roads, colleges) are specifically state affairs, not federal.

Some types of federal property are more sensitive than others.  Military bases, especially nuclear bases, would probably fall into the sensitive category.  Post offices do not.  Some states have more than their share of military bases.

The FSP does not want to ever leave the US.

The FSP is a group comprised of individuals.  Groups do not have desires, people do.  Some of the members (definitely not including me) want secession, others (including me) see it as an option for achieving an end, if only for negotiation.  The FSP group position as expressed in its official material does not include secession as a goal, but does leave secession as an option.

[freedomroad]

All of the states have things the US government would claim it owns if a state ever talked about leaving the US.

Good point.

In other words, the federal government could legally claim it owns or part owns 70-90% of all states.

Not true at all.  Most of your examples (schools, roads, colleges) are specifically state affairs, not federal.

Some types of federal property are more sensitive than others.  Military bases, especially nuclear bases, would probably fall into the sensitive category.  Post offices do not.  Some states have more than their share of military bases.

The FSP does not want to ever leave the US.

The FSP is a group comprised of individuals.  Groups do not have desires, people do.  Some of the members (definitely not including me) want secession, others (including me) see it as an option for achieving an end, if only for negotiation.  The FSP group position as expressed in its official material does not include secession as a goal, but does leave secession as an option.

Steve, what you and I think on this issue means nothing.  What matters is what the government’s position is.  The government thinks it has absolute authority over all legal actions at all levels and the Supreme Court agrees.  I am in the Army and I know what the government thinks (and is capable of).  If the federal government even partially funds something then it has the right to exercise absolute authority over it.  An example, the federal government partially funds schools but it exercises absolute authority over schools, right now.  The government will stop at nothing to take what it thinks it owns.  The masses will agree with the government.  This is the same case that shows that American citizens in Dallas, San Francisco, Miami, and Boston own Alaska's reserves, preserves, and other special land.

Chances are extremely small that the FSP will ever gain the political clout in any state to convince 70% of its citizens that seceding from the union is the best option.  Even if this did happen, the people would never go through with the scheme once the federal government either A. declared martial law and started throwing tear gas (they have done it many times for lesser things), or B. started seizing 70% to 90% of everything in the state and claiming it as rightful federal property.  The Congress and Supreme Court would clearly rule in favor of the federal government.

[JasonPSorens]

Maybe, maybe not.  It's hard to tell how things will look 40-50 years from now.  The world changes quickly.  In 1981, people would have thought you crazy if you had said the Soviet Union would let Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania secede peacefully within ten years.  Many people are still incredulous when I tell them that a secessionist party elected a governor in an American state in the 1990s (Wally Hickel, Alaska).  Our goal just has to be on liberty, and wherever that takes us (or our children), who knows?

[Greggers69]

NO matter what we decide.  It'll be a hard fight and if we can win the freedom we so much desire it'll be worth it.  Greg