Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Concerned about a "land locked" US State  (Read 5124 times)

AmericanFreeBird

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • I'm a llama!
Concerned about a "land locked" US State
« on: June 19, 2003, 08:43:14 am »

I read often here but post seldom.  I enjoy the commentary but finding the time to create a coherent post is another thing.

I've read the commentary on states such as Wyoming and South Dakota etc.  The states have many attractive attributes, except for one.  They are totally surrounded by The United States of America.

Why does that bother me?  Well wouldn't it be just to easy for the emperor to lay siege to a district whose borders were totally within his control?  Yes it would.  My one complaint about Libertarians in general is they think that if only they can create a majority vote then nirvana will be achieved.

I hate to disappoint any idealists but the emperor will not relinquish his power so easily.  If our new "free" state doesn't toe the tyrannical line the Federal government will be coming in force to "recalibrate" the state that dares oppose it's omnipotent power.

Don't think so?  Ask some really old people from states like South Carolina what happened to their Daddy's during the Civil War.  Not that our free state will immediately choose to secede from the union, but make no mistake, that choice will come.  The established powers in the U.S. cannot have a bastion of freedom within their borders, that would be to much a threat to their power over the sheep.

The FSP if successful will represent the single largest threat to the Federal power base over the people since the secessionist movement in the 1860's.  A state without an international border or coastline would be too easily cut off and starved out to be able to oppose the already tyrannical Federal edicts (like the USA Patriot act, The National Firearms Act of '34, etc.)  IMHO the Federal government will not stand idly by and just let it happen by a simple majority vote.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2003, 08:51:05 am by AmericanFreeBird »
Logged

LibertyLover

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
    • Libertopia 2010
Re:Concerned about a "land locked" US State
« Reply #1 on: June 19, 2003, 11:23:12 am »

Well wouldn't it be just to easy for the emperor to lay siege to a district whose borders were totally within his control?  
I would much rather be under siege in Wyoming than in a state bordered by Canada or by other states that have given in to statist culture. If the federal government can't control the California border with Mexico, it will hardly be able to control the four borders of Wyoming. I suspect that there are many individuals in the surrounding states who would help supply Wyoming against any siege.

If landlocked Switzerland can be the most free nation in Europe, then surely Wyoming can be the most free state in the US.

I consider being landlocked an advantage because the federal government doesn't have any border controls currently in place and doesn't have any excuse for enforcing the most egregious of the "Patriot Act" provisions.
 
Logged
Libertopia 2010 -- a festival of freedom, community & art for sovereign individuals
http://www.libertopia.org

AmericanFreeBird

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Concerned about a "land locked" US State
« Reply #2 on: June 19, 2003, 11:52:44 am »

Liberty, even though I feel quite strongly about an issue (any issue) I normally try to disconnect my emotions and think the issue through before responding irationallly.

Canada may be a socialist state but the US President has no ability to control Canadian law enforcement, highways that access border US states, or control commerce accross state lines (the line of our Free State).  Wyoming has no non-US border and could be quite easily contained with the Nat'l guards of the surrounding states.

At least with some coastline or preferrably an international border the US Federal government would be limited by that and critical infrastructure items such as food and fuel could be moved into/out of that border to keep the state's economy going.  

Obviously you've not thought it through.
Logged

SethA

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
Re:Concerned about a "land locked" US State
« Reply #3 on: June 19, 2003, 12:07:48 pm »

The advantages of an international border and/or seaport may be outweighed by the additional jurisdiction it gives the Feds. The Dept. of Homeland Security's Coast Guard has primary jurisdiction in commercial ports and major powers on all navigable waterways. The new HS Border Patrol/Customs/ Immigration units have almost unlimited powers in border areas.

For example, none of these agencies follow civil police legal guidelines on search and seizure and they can and usually do document your movements across the border. Your recourse in dealing with these agencies is the Federal not State court system.

Its not a huge negative to have a port or border, I just don't think its a huge positive. Monitoring/Blockcading a small coastline, like NH or DE would be easier for the Feds than securing large land borders.

Now Maine and Alaska are a different story and would probably offer the most protection from a direct siege.
Logged

JHanson

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Concerned about a "land locked" US State
« Reply #4 on: June 19, 2003, 12:09:40 pm »

Hello, long time reader, first time poster.


If landlocked Switzerland can be the most free nation in Europe, then surely Wyoming can be the most free state in the US.
 

Switzerland is also surrounded by more than one country.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/europe/switzerland/switzerland.htm

I think a more appropriate comparison might be West Berlin, Germany after WWII during the Soviet Union's blockade.
Logged

freedomroad

  • Guest
Re:Concerned about a "land locked" US State
« Reply #5 on: June 19, 2003, 12:24:21 pm »

Well wouldn't it be just to easy for the emperor to lay siege to a district whose borders were totally within his control?  
I would much rather be under siege in Wyoming than in a state bordered by Canada or by other states that have given in to statist culture. If the federal government can't control the California border with Mexico, it will hardly be able to control the four borders of Wyoming. I suspect that there are many individuals in the surrounding states who would help supply Wyoming against any siege.

If landlocked Switzerland can be the most free nation in Europe, then surely Wyoming can be the most free state in the US.

I consider being landlocked an advantage because the federal government doesn't have any border controls currently in place and doesn't have any excuse for enforcing the most egregious of the "Patriot Act" provisions.
 

These are good points.  Wyoming borders 6 different states.  The state is part of the Mountain-west and the Mid-west.  The state is also huge.  Most of the people are in the area near Nebraska and CO but for those of us that do not want to live right next to a city with over 3,000,000, Wyoming has tons to offer.  Look at northern-Central Wyoming.  It is many hours from any large MSA and any military base.  Lots of times, in states like WY, MT, and ID the feds do not even enfore their own laws.  The feds do not have anyone there to enfore the law and their people do not think it is worth their trouble.

Maybe this will help.  Do the feds arrest many illegal imigrants?  No.  Where I live, unless you are in a county with an Imigration Serive building, you will not be picked up.  Even if someone calls in illegals, it does not matter.  The feds refuse to travel over 30 minutes to pick them up.  In states like WY, the works the same way.  The feds are quick to enfore their laws in Laramie and Cheyenne because they are right next to Denver.  However, the rather you go into the state, the less likely the feds are to bother you.

Remember, the feds are doing very bad things on the US borders.  I do not want to be near a US border.  Also, the Feds will be less likely to leave us allow if we pick a state like AK because many Americans think they own the state.  The Feds will be less likely to leave us alone  if we pick NH or DE, because the states are very small and close to major cities, so the Feds will not mind the short drives.  
Logged

LibertyLover

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 233
    • Libertopia 2010
Re:Concerned about a "land locked" US State
« Reply #6 on: June 19, 2003, 03:23:00 pm »

Liberty, even though I feel quite strongly about an issue (any issue) I normally try to disconnect my emotions and think the issue through before responding irationallly.

Canada may be a socialist state but the US President has no ability to control Canadian law enforcement, highways that access border US states, or control commerce accross state lines (the line of our Free State).  Wyoming has no non-US border and could be quite easily contained with the Nat'l guards of the surrounding states.

At least with some coastline or preferrably an international border the US Federal government would be limited by that and critical infrastructure items such as food and fuel could be moved into/out of that border to keep the state's economy going.  

Obviously you've not thought it through.


You're welcome to disagree with me, but calling me irrational and thoughtless is not going to win you any points.

I suspect that the US President has a lot more influence over Canadian law enforcement than the rebellious residents of any state would have. I know that the federal government already has agents stationed on the highways at the borders with Canada. If those agents can stop illegal immigrants from crossing those international borders, they can certainly stop large shipments of food and fuel. Of course, the fact is that lots of illegal immigrants are still getting through, in spite of all the new Homeland Security buildup. Therefore, I don't consider a Canadian border to be a huge disadvantage, just a minor one.

I'm having a lot of trouble imagining how the National Guards of the surrounding states could successfully man the hundreds of miles of Wyoming borders, even if they were willing to do so. I find it a lot easier to imagine the freedom loving (or just capitalist) residents of Montana, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, and the Dakotas running the federal blockade for fun and profit.  ::)

Then, of course, there is all the air over Wyoming. How exactly could the federal government control all that? JHanson's suggestion of West Berlin makes the point even better than Switzerland. If that city could withstand the Soviet blockade, how could a large state like Wyoming be blockaded?
Logged
Libertopia 2010 -- a festival of freedom, community & art for sovereign individuals
http://www.libertopia.org

Leonard

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 306
  • Practical Anarchist
    • Unruled
Re:Concerned about a "land locked" US State
« Reply #7 on: June 19, 2003, 03:47:54 pm »

AFB: the USA is very powerful.  Yes.  In fact so powerful it doesn't matter which state we choose.  They can occupy any state militarily if they have the will.  Heck, they can conquer small countries half-way across the planet, whose neighboring states are all either outright unfriendly or at best bought off.  It would be trivial to occupy an American state - outside of the political will to do so, which would not be trivial to develop.  Alaska might offer marginally more protection, and perhaps a land border would be nice so that we could hope to escape the resulting military rule.  But none of these potentialities are good.  

We will have failed if we bring ourselves into military conflict with the USA.  That should be obvious enough.  So we will just have to avoid it.

The notion that the Feds will just sit at our borders and blockade us strikes me as fanciful.  They will come right in to collect "their" taxes and to arrest those of us breaking their laws.  They have no interesting in blockading us.  They have an interest in our money, and preserving their aura of power.

Meanwhile, I disagree with your notion that the Feds are going to care much about the Free State.  They won't if we don't secede.  It's not like they are currently blockading Wyoming, and they are already pretty free.  Our presence there would make it somewhat more extreme, true.  But not hugely so.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2003, 03:48:34 pm by Leonard »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up