Why bother?

>I do not understand why they would throw their
>endorsements behind a person involved in this sort of
>scandal

Because in this country the rule rather than the exception is that you have to be a criminal in order to be a politician.

Sounds like a great idea, but I do share Kris’ skepticism as to how realistic it is. The FedGov DOES NOT NEED the paltry million or so people of NH who would be seceeding, but they DO NEED to stop the precedent that would embolden other states to follow suit.

Another concern-
If the secession were to succeed, you would then be out from under the (theoretical) protection of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights (I know…what good are they now?!)

But rhetorically, is the constitution of NH a more libertarian substitute?

This isn’t a leading question- I honestly just don’t know.

I think the thing to do is support Aaron Russo’s movie America From Freedom to Fascism. If we could get it in enough theatres all over America it would make a big dent in the real problem–the sense of complacency among most Americans about the federal government. Then with enough Americans up to speed on the problems with the Federal Government, a state such as New Hampshire could get enough support from people in other states to make it a peaceful possibility. Or maybe with enough of a paradigm shift in society, secession would not be a necessity.

I hope NH does secede. What a beautiful day that would be. And if the federales decided to go against the…I’d hope there’s be lots of signs on libertarian doors everywhere that said “Gone To New Hampshire”.

Secession has been successful several times in the past within our boundaries — The United States succeeded from Great Britain in 1783 and Texas succeeded from Mexico in 1836. Each time, though, armed conflict was the result, but in each of those cases, the militarily stronger party actually lost. The Confederate States of America may have actually lasted longer (or won) had they not attacked Fort Sumter so early.

Around the world, though, there are many cases of nations gaining independence without bloodshed — mostly former British and French colonies.

In other news, the FBI has been investigating a rise in terrorist activity in New Hampshire.

“Mexico never recognized Texas as ever having been independent.”

I don’t think Texans cared whether Mexico recognized them or not.

The point is peaceful succession is possible, as is violent succession. I think some discount the US governments lack of resolve to kill New Hampshire citizens if they chose to peacfully succeed. That is not to say that they wouldn’t, though. I don’t know.

There is much New Hampshire CAN do to rid itself of some of the federal government without suceeding. Some of which Kris proposes for Texas in his campaign (education).

Ian, nice bit.

Something to keep in mind, though, is indivdual secession. Why should I have to find a bunch of people who think just like me (even if I COULD:) in order to live in peace? Heck, I want the Republic of Hogarth. The English used to beleive that a man’s home was his castle – meaning he was KING of his own domain. THAT’s the sort of secession I can get behind :)

But, yes, smaller states are probably less odious than bigger ones, so I’m all for group secession as an interim measure. And people say I’m not willing to compromise! ;-)

Short plug for my new website reviving the LP Radical Caucus:

http://www.lpradicals.org/

Radicals take heart! The LP is a radical party!

Commenting on Kris Overstreet’s post #3, point 1, I find the closest analogy to be the ending of black slavery in the US. While I haven’t read enough on the era to say there was no grand plan to neutralize slavery, my impression based on my education is that black slavery ended based on 2 factors: 1: Slaves wanted to be free and did whatever was necessary to gain freedom, 2: Through general promulgation and acceptance by the general population of the concept that black slavery was immoral, inefficient or simply not necessary.

Point 2, Same analogy, so long as a former slave was in a free state I can only assume he found himself better off in most situations (perhaps not all black people appreciated the freedom or even preferred it to slavery). In many situations blacks were discriminated against but neither society today nor society then is being offered utopia, just the opportunity that results from reducing oppression (government coercion or government condoned slavery).

Thane: Slavery ended only because the South seceded trying to protect it- leading to a war which was doomed to destroy it. Without the Civil War, it is unlikely slavery ever would have been abolished. Both North and South feared what would happen if millions of former slaves were suddenly freed- and feared social equality of black and white almost as much.

There was secession to protect slavery; there was a war to prevent secession; and the war led to the end of slavery.

To address your points: (1) Irrelevant, because in the US slavery did not end peacefully. (2) A slave emigrated- he did not “secede” from his master, he fled his home. He did not create a new government- he fled to a government already well established. The equivalent would be if Libertarians in New Hampshire fled to New Zealand instead… except, unfortunately, that New Zealand prohibits all immigration.

Oh, and Ian never said anything about the LP.

Why does everything have to be about the LP?

Commenting on Kris Overstreet’s post #16, one could point out the Former USSR is now a bunch of independent countries now largely (or entirely) free from the previous soviet federal government.

Operating in defiance or indifference to any particular government is sometimes tolerated and sometimes not. The challenge is to persuade individuals in government that it is immoral, ineffective or just not worth it to squash freedom and persuade those who might support government that it isn’t worth it to support it.

“Leave it to Ian the sensationalist, to dig up a website put together by Caleb and promote it as if it has any support. Except from other very extreme radicals in NH. Other FSPers are clear that secession isn’t viable anytime soon, if ever.
I wouldn’t call it gearing up, by a long shot.”

Ian’s post had nothing to do with the FSP, either (other than a link).

Oops, didn’t close the link, and it’s broken.
googling

“The Keene Free Press does not officially support or oppose NH secession.”

Ah …. who am I kidding? ;) We love the idea! :)

How about Keene independence?

I sure hope Seth doesn’t oppose our efforts towards NH independence all over the internet. That could really dampen the enthusiasm and set back the cause of freedom.

Please send your letters to the editor (russellkanning@keenefreepress.com)
Thanks

The way I read the Declaration of Independence (that some of us celebrated this week), states are sovereign. If that is the case, then there is a right of secession.

Despite the hysterical hyperbole that the feds would come in with armed soldiers and kill everybody in a state that left the union, I would suggest that it would first be challenged with mere words by the federal government.

If a state voted for secession, it would most likely wind up in court to decide of it was legal. Of course, the political hacks on the Supreme Court (especially the strict constructionists) would rule it was illegal. But, it would open the topic up for debate and would be in court until it worked its way up to the Supreme Court.

Lincoln’s war of aggression would be discussed again. The reasons for secession would be debated. Once again, it would probably be revealed that the emperor is stark naked.

I can think of nothing better for America to go through this no matter what the outcome.

Well said, Tom Blanton. I think it would take an awful lot of propaganda of demonizing NH to turn public sentiment to support a war of aggression in NH. Plus, they have shown that they can’t fight a 4th generation war. If the people of NH were willing to fight a 4th generation war, it would further threaten The State if it were to engage.

The USA has enough military problems as it is. More 4th generation enemies – of the domestic persuation, no less, could seriously undermine the agenda. The only solution for The State would be to capitulate and sweep it under the rug or to continue to escalate the situation which would require some seriously draconian measures even on the non-secessionist state’s people. Which of course would undermine the legitimacy of The State.

What I am saying here is that the FSP and NH secession are great ideas! But expect some serious, well financed (unlimited money) anti-liberty smear campaigns/demonization and propaganda when things heat up.

Thanks for posting the Texas v White case, Chris. I knew there was some case but I thought it was during the “recent unpleasantness” as opposed to afterwards.

Regardless, if a state seeks secession, the first step would be a resolution voted on by the state assembly and signed by the governor. Perhaps also a public referendum.

Another option might be an amendment to the state constitution declaring the state to be independent.

Then the state would have to seek a negotiated settlement with the US Govt through Congress or the federal court system. As I suggested above, the result would be a national debate on the reasons for secession and the merits.

Possible grounds for a court action would be the unilateral breach of the contract called the Constitution by the federal government. This would not be such a hard case to make. There are too many instances where the federal govt has ignored the 9th amendment to lose the battle in the court of public opinion.

Can someone suggest a good real estate agent in New Hampshire?

Slavery ended only because the South seceded trying to protect it- leading to a war which was doomed to destroy it. Without the Civil War, it is unlikely slavery ever would have been abolished. Both North and South feared what would happen if millions of former slaves were suddenly freed- and feared social equality of black and white almost as much.

Not true at all. Slavery ended in every nation of the Americas in the decades right before and after, with Brazil being the last in 1898. Haiti was the only other nation that fought a war about it. Slavery was doomed for economic reasons (industrialism). It would also have been doomed if the South had seceded peacefully, since there would no longer be any enforcement of fugitive slave acts. An independent CSA would probably have abolished slavery in 5-10 years, 20 at most. Had they done so before the emancipation proclamation, they could have won the war with the support of Europe.

It will occur naturally, as libertarians gather in the Free State. There will be a point in which the diverging principles between the State and the US will become so clear as to require a separation.

Mike R, government grants you nothing. Your rights are inalienable. You have them regardless of government. It’s only a question of if government recognizes them or not. Looking at the Bill of Rights, even when some of those rights are enumerated in the governnments founding document and in the form of contract, the government does not recognize those rights.

Let’s get a Canadian perspective on this. One of our major federal parties (Bloc Quebecois), has the seperation of Quebec from Canada as one of their main objectives. They have over 30 MP’s in the house of commons, imagine having 30 Congreesmen from one state who all want to secede. There are also parties that are registered federally and provincially that want Alberta to secede, BC to secede and Saskatchewan to secede. The only reason there are not a dozen or more countries in North America already is that we have a short history. If we had been living in North America as long as people have been living in Europe then there would be a dozen or more countries here. Once we gain a history bullets will fly. If you think no state in your union will never succeed in seceding then you are an idiot. 360 million people live in the US, less than that live in Europe and make up more than a dozen different nations. Then of course we have geography, it shows just how different we are.

I don’t refer just to transportation infrasturcture but government infrasturcture as well. Add the challenges of geography and someone who makes a decision in Ottawa has no fucking clue what someone in the Yukon needs or wants. Even with technology, the ability of geography to kill smart decision making lives on. As an Albertan I don’t want gun control, I don’t want government funding of the arts, this ain’t just a personal preference, it is a societal preferance in Alberta. In Toronto they want gun control, they want government funding of the art, it is their societal preference. Saskatchewan wants big government, they want big time social programs and as a result people from Saskatchewan have been immigrating to Alberta for decades. Alberta has had a conservative government for 20+ years, Saskatchewan has had an NDP(socialist) government for 20+ years. I tell people from Saskatchewan to fuck off on a regular basis, give it 50 more years and I will be shooting them instead.

If taxes are to be collected then the tax dollars need to stay and be spent in the area they were collected from. This so called social contract bullshit really gets on my tits.

And what a bizarre view it is, Kris – but I would expect no less from you.

Here in Richmond, former capital of the south, there were a large number of free blacks before and during the northern war of agression. In fact, some actually owned slaves themselves.

Slavery was not the cause of the civil war, a fact Lincoln wrote about. Lincoln seemed to be more rascist than many southerners and used the slavery issue as a tool. Slavery was on the way out before the war and while many, if not most, whites believed blacks to be inferior, there was little violence between the races in this area – just separatism.

Richmond is rich with black history. The Jackson Ward district was a black business mecca, ironically until Jim Crow laws were abolished and the black economy decentralized. The Ebenezer Baptist Church located in this area was originally purchased by black and white church trustees during the civil war.

By the way, I just refuted your lies about the platform:
http://hammeroftruth.com/2006/07/02/libertarian-party-convention-recap-sunday/

I did not say that slavery caused the war. I said (in another thread on this blog) that slavery caused -secession-, and -secession- led to the war, and the war destroyed slavery. The Union war object was to stop secession- not to end slavery- but due to many factors slavery had essentially collapsed months before Amendment XIII was declared ratified.

As for antebellum interracial violence, leaving aside whips, manacles, starvation, sundering of families, and other things inherent with slavery, I believe I will do some research. Even a black freedman risked beating or even hanging if he failed to bend or doff hat to even the lowliest white man- this much I know.

Finally, as for Lincoln- he was about as racist as most whites of the period. However, by the end of the war he called not merely for emancipation but political equality- the vote- something he had opposed prior to the war, and which was opposed by most whites even after his death.

Secession wasn’t completely about slavery, but it was one of the dividing issues.

Remember the Confederacy.

That is what will be said about New Hampshire if there are any survivors if secession is attempted. The new saying will be “remember the Nation of New Hampshire”.

Even the land where NH once was will not be habitable for thousands of years if secession is attempted.

George Phillies

What do you mean by “involuntary pedophilia”? Is there justification for pedophilia as long as it is voluntary? Who is the volunteer? Is it the adult, the child or both? Is a child capable of making that decision? I am calling your hand on this one because it was no accident you inserted “involuntary” in the sentence.

I have attended local libertarian discussion groups in Colorado and one of the most disturbing discussions is forwarded by those that I am convinced are pedophiles. They advance that it is OK as long as the child accepts the sex act as being OK and agrees to participate. I cannot agree and end up in a huge fight with those perverts.

Even libertarians must have some standards on issues such as pedophilia. “Anything goes” is not acceptable in society.

Please clarify your position, if you dare to be honest.

One does not have to be a defender of slavery to be critical of Lincoln’s war. Slavery was a horrible institution and southerners should not be tarred with being in favor of slavery becasue of a dislike of Lincoln. The vast majority of white southerners did not own slaves and many were not much better off than slaves.

Even Lysander Spooner wrote about the hypocrisy of Lincoln over slavery.

It is strange that during court ordered busing in the 70′s, there were no riots here in Richmond, yet in the enlightened city of liberal Boston, white racsists rioted.

To ignore the fact that tariffs and the disagreements between federalists and anti-federalists had nothing to do with the civil war is to misread history. For those libertariasn that place Lincoln on a pedestal, I would suggest going back and reviewing his impact on the role of the federal government.

For purposes of the current debate on secession, slavery is a moot issue.

Also, respond to the question Ian posted, stay on topic or you will never find freedom and liberty.