Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

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

Author Topic: Secession  (Read 13733 times)

LaissezFaire

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
  • I'm a llama!
Secession
« on: August 22, 2002, 02:11:46 pm »

Secession

There, I said it.

Why is this topic taboo? Can it not at least be discussed?

Logged
I stir the pot.  If you don't like it, simply ignore me.

JasonPSorens

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5724
  • Neohantonum liberissimum erit.
    • My Homepage
Re:Secession
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2002, 03:09:49 pm »

I think the biggest reason not to discuss it further is that no one is interested in secession as an end in itself; if we can achieve our policy goals, including autonomy, without it then it would be a dead issue.  Thus, we probably won't know whether it's something we should seriously consider until 20-30 years from now.  Debating it now is probably pointless, though for better or worse it has been debated to death in these forums already. ;)

By the way, for those of you interested in discussing secessionism and autonomism in general (i.e., the worldwide phenomenon), check out this Yahoo discussion list:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/secession
« Last Edit: August 22, 2002, 03:11:18 pm by Jason P. Sorens »
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

LaissezFaire

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 24
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Secession
« Reply #2 on: August 22, 2002, 03:12:07 pm »


Secession of one the fifty states or a portion thereof:
1) Is bloody unlikely to nearly impossible


See Soviet Union, 1991 (nearly non-violent).  Or better yet, United States of America, 1776.  

Quote

2) Would be fought against by most of the residents of that state


who cares? the whole point of the FSP is to have a majority of the vote.

Quote

3) Would be fought against by the rest of the United States


So what? The goal is freedom for ourselves.

Quote

Serious discussion of secession by the FSP or its members:
1) Destroys the credibility of the FSP among everyone but the most extreme extremists


In other words, it exposes those who really believe in freedom from those who just mouth it.

Quote

2) Would bring so much resistance against the FSP as to destroy its goal - of making a present state freer than it is.


Here's a news flash: Non-libertarians already hate the idea.  And any "libertarian" that speaks out AGAINST greater self-government is not a libertarian nor a supporter of a FREE State IMHO.

Quote

3) Would increase the risk to FSP'ers and their associates and correspondents of tax audits, ATF searches/raids, thorough (and I mean thorough) enforcement of P&Z and other codes by even local officials.


1. This will happen anyway.  Hide your assets and CYA.
2. You give them too much credit, they don't have the resources to do this to 20,000 people.

Quote

4) Would result in a flight of FSP'ers and interested FSP'ers away from the FSP.


I respecfully disagree.  Everyone I told about the FSP "gets it."  Everyone understands that grouping 20,000 libertarians into one state is going to result in secession.  The key to good PR in this enterprise is to avoid being branded as VIOLENT secessionists.

The current trend is for greater local autonomy, just compare a map of 1900 versus one from 2002.  

In the news - Hollywood is secceding from LA.  Where is the violent and hostile reaction that you described?
Logged
I stir the pot.  If you don't like it, simply ignore me.

marciesmom

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Secession
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2002, 08:21:56 am »

We live in Chattanooga--maybe you could extend that a little further south?
Why is it necessary to jump from the concept of a free state directly into secession?  Why can't we take things one step at a time?  None of us are naive enough to completely dismiss the possibility, but such a step is a LONG way off.  I think Walter Williams did the group a disservice when he mentioned secession so quickly in his discussions of the FSP.  Not that we don't appreciate the publicity!  But that planted the idea in many minds that our first aim would be to move into a state and immediately seceed.   'Tain't necessarily so!
Logged

bud

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 32
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Secession
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2002, 09:57:54 am »

The threat of secession has got to be there, or ANY efforts at doing something different from the other 49 states won't happen.  The looters in the District of Criminals won't make any concessions without that threat.
Logged

di540

  • Guest
Re:Secession
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2002, 10:38:55 am »

Montana is currently the freeest state. Did it get that way by threatening to secede?
It can probably become freeer w/out making that threat, but not as free as when making a credible threat. The feds might ignore such a threat if the polls show that there is not a high enough level of dissatisfaction w/them to provoke a change.
Logged

Joshua B

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Secession
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2002, 01:07:28 pm »

Alaska has a very big secession movement with growing support and actually attempted such a thing at least once... and it's members are not in federal concentration camps either because it's members is most of the Alaskan population.  I am not saying the first thing we should push for is secession.  I am  just giving another example of why if we are serious about this and really want this to work... we will pick Alaska  :)
Logged

marciesmom

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 58
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Secession
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2002, 01:10:10 pm »

The Upper Peninsula of Michigan has tried to seceed, or form its own state, or merge with Wisconsin, for years.  So by Josh's measure, then, should we consider the UP?  EH?
Logged

Joshua B

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Secession
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2002, 07:45:12 pm »

Wow, I created a monster  ;D

What I meant to convey concerning what I said with Alaska is the type of people that live there right now.  On another note, if we start worrying about pleasing non-libertarians then we are doomed.  That is why I mentioned Alaska trying to secede from the union, and I honestly don't know why people have such a passion about it, the federal government has gone against everything the fore-fathers fought for and is an enemy of the people, I for one would like to secede from it.  However, I realize I would be inviting it's combined wrath on me, and that is why I don't think secession should be an issue for the FSP in the near future.
Logged

di540

  • Guest
Re:Secession
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2002, 09:31:54 pm »

Solitar wrote:
Quote

Can we or the FSP agree on our use of the term "Secession" to mean
Secession of a portion of a state from its parent state
while staying within the Union as one of the United States.
[p]
No, since that word is loaded with a lot of historical baggage w/in the U.S. to specifically mean the separation of a state from the Union. You'll have to choose another word. Besides, the historical examples you gave were not even examples of separation, but of alienation by a sovereign state of territories that it held, w/the exception of W.Virginia.
[p]
Otherwise, counties face the same problems that QuEbec or Puerto Rico does: they do not have sovereign capacity, which means they cannot unilaterally separate. The best they can hope for is to convince the other members of the federation to agree to the separation. BTW, will the FS have sovereign counties, along the lines of Switzerland (which even has one sovereign city: Basel-Stadt)?
Logged

di540

  • Guest
Re:Secession
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2002, 11:26:27 am »

Solitar wrote:
Quote

I know my analogies and descriptions are repetitive but hopefully
repetition can rein in this wild horse.
[p]
I think that you're stampeding the horse, and that repetition obscures the issue that counties need to have the sovereign capacity to separate from the state, such as in New Hampshire. Somebody posted earlier that the northern counties did so at one time while remaining in the United States - perhaps under a similar status as for Puerto Rico & D.C.: a territory fully incorprated into the U.S. with representation in Congress.
[p]
'Separation' is a better term, since it is overly vague, and will put you in control of what it means in your context, and has less historical baggage. But this issue is a dead horse, since this is a Free State Project, and not a Free County Project.  Even if the FS were to grant counties sovereignty, it's not within the domain of the FSP to concentrate efforts or resources on county separation. This would require a separate project, and only for a state where counties have the capacity to separate.  The most the FSP should do, is to declare whether or not the intention is to give counties sovereign capacity, in full, or in part. My view is that this should not be done while in the Union, if the FS wants to preserve a credible threat of seceding, as a bargaining chip for state demands; It could be used to by the feds to undermine those demands. Turnabout is fair play. If the FS ever does secede from the Union, only then is it an opportune time to grant counties sovereignty.
Logged

di540

  • Guest
Re:Secession
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2002, 09:03:03 pm »

You need to do more than start a new thread. You need to start a new movement called Free Unincorporated Territory Project.
<p>
1st of all, Alaska has no political subdivisions. It is one contiguous block. That was deliberately done to centralise power in Juneau. Thus there is no formally elected political body to express the will of the panhandle people.
<p>
2nd, since the panhandle is an unincorporated territory, it has no legal capacity to anything. What you're trying to do is even more difficult than trying to separate QuEbec or Puerto Rico.
<p>
3rd, given the way you bandy about the term secession, you obviously don't want to leverage that option for the benefit of a Free State w/in the Union, probably are not even interested, or you'd have joined as a member.
<p>
4th, what insider information do you have on all the other states, that allows you to prognosticate on secession as a credible threat in the lower 48?
<p>
5th, you're putting words in the mouth of the FSP by claiming that they want 'to continue in this secessionist movement' when they have not even started. Or are you gifted with infallibility and able to foretell the future?
Logged

Elizabeth

  • Former FSP Vice President
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1650
  • Someone has to ask the tough questions...
    • Free State Project
Re:Secession
« Reply #12 on: August 25, 2002, 12:11:31 am »


But if the FSP is serious about real ultimate secession from the USA


We are *not.*  We are *not* a secessionist movement.  NOT.  Please read the FAQ, Joe.
Logged

James Reyes

  • Colorado Group Leader and Hispanic Liaison
  • FSP Participant
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 61
  • LibertyForums.com
    • Blog & Board
Re:Secession
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2002, 06:50:27 pm »


1st of all, Alaska has no political subdivisions. It is one contiguous block. That was deliberately done to centralise power in Juneau. Thus there is no formally elected political body to express the will of the panhandle people.


Alaska is divided into buroughs which are similar to counties and parishes in other states.
Logged

di540

  • Guest
Re:Secession
« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2002, 07:33:33 pm »

Alaska is no more sub-divided into boroughs than into unincorporated areas. Even if it were completely covered by them, the boroughs would not have the sovereign capacity to separate from Alaska. They can only do what the state allows them to do, as for any town. The average individual has more opportunity to secede from the federal gov't: renouncing U.S. citizenship, Social Security, Medicare; if you don't have a SS No then your employer can't w/hold income tax from your paycheque so you've also seceded from that as well. Anybody who clamors for separation from a state w/out 1st having done these things is a hypocrite. Otherwise, the 2nd most sovereign person in the U.S. is a state. The feds trail behind as a tenant-in-chief of the States & People.  The FSP has chosen the correct entity to take over, in order to help the People force the feds to adhere to the terms of the feds' tenancy, since each State is a party to the tenancy agreement(the Constitution)& has standing to sue for performance.
A borough is not a party to the Alaska Constitution, and is in a less advantageous position.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up