Actually, many of the Founders, such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, endorsed a right to secession, to say nothing of Patrick Henry and Thomas Paine. The fact that the Constitution says nothing about the process of secession implies that it is a 10th Amendment matter, i.e., something for states to decide.
The South's secession was immoral because it was undertaken to preserve slavery, but it appears that it was not illegal. It was undertaken through constitutional convention, in the same way that the Constitution was ratified in the first place. The Articles of Confederation say nothing about a procedure for replacing them; therefore, by your standard, the Constitution is itself illegal.
Immorality and illegality are two separate concepts, as I've been trying to make out in all my responses to you. Something can be immoral but not illegal, or illegal but not immoral.
To be perfectly honest, an explanation to you would be a waste of time, since you do not want to understand libertarianism and you insist on throwing around insults, like calling me a "liar." FWIW, we have made connections with many Vermonters who are friendly to our movement. One thing about Vermonters is that they like decentralization and localism, and that is a large part of what we're about. Regardless, is Vermont going to be chosen? Not likely. But New Hampshire may.
The Constitution says nothing about secession, and in fact several states explicitly reserved the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution (Virginia and New York among them). I'm not defend the secession of the Confederacy, but I am defending the potential legitimacy of secession, when accomplished in a peaceful and democratic manner in order to create a better society for everyone.
I believe if a few states cut off the funding, it would rapidly create an unsustainable situation. The unfairness of the federal government's coercion would become apparent. The citizens of those states that had cut off the funding would feel they had less reason to consider themselves obliged to the government, and they would be more likely to support additional autonomy proposals, proposals that would bring tax money back home where it belongs rather than wasting it on federal programs. For example, a state could demand the right to receive its share of income taxes that go to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - in return, its citizens can no longer draw on these programs. How could such a right to opt out of federal programs be denied? Certainly on grounds of fairness and justice it could not, and on grounds of constitutionality (the 10th Amendment) as well.
Thanks for your support! Spousal consent is indeed very important, and something that stands in the way of participation for some people. But do discuss it with your wife and see what she thinks. I think we need more married couples and families in the FSP, rather than just a bunch of single, male geeks.;-)
Actually it's not much like the Atlantis Project at all. We're not requiring significant financial contributions from participants, we're getting commitments before the move, and we're not trying to create some isolated community of pure libertarians. We will be ordinary folks, involved in our neighborhoods, local governments, and so on, and adapting to local customs and culture.
Absolutely correct. We are not trying to repeal laws guaranteeing the protection of all citizens. In my view, the only roles of the federal government should be to provide a court system to resolve disputes among states or between individuals and the federal government, to provide for a small military to defend the country against clear and significant external threats, to provide a basic framework for customs, immigration, and international law enforcement cooperation, and, finally, to overrule state laws that violate individual rights or block free trade and movement among the states. In this respect I believe that the U.S. Constitution accords the federal government too much power in a few areas, namely, the provision of postal services, post roads, and a currency. However, if we could simply return the federal government to enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8, I personally would regard the Free State Project as a success.
Sorry to have to make this announcement here, but due to the fact that we had to switch servers on our website, anyone who tried to sign up as a Free State Project participant or friend between 1:45 PM Eastern yesterday and 10:35 AM Eastern today did not actually sign up - we didn't get your information, because the directories referenced by the scripts didn't exist on the new server.
As I said, I have no problem with socialists like you taking over Vermont. By the way, you did the same thing to old-stock Vermonters, who were and are very conservative, as we are doing. So how can you condemn us?
Your screed against our imaginary "corporatism" displays an extreme ignorance of libertarian principles. But by all means don't let rational thought get in the way of your hatred. If you would like to pry open your mind for one second, however, you might consider the fact that big business has never endorsed libertarianism; big business is very much *opposed* to libertarianism. The most libertarian business lobby on Capitol Hill is the NFIB, a small-business group.
Actually, no, I wouldn't mind. Socialists have already taken over Vermont in a coordinated effort; let them keep it! Each movement should have its own autonomous zone; let's see which ones succeed in promoting freedom, growth, and equity at the end of the day. My bet's not on Massachusetts and Maryland (or Vermont, unless we "take it back").
Of course we will adopt to prevailing customs. The reason we choose a particular state is that we like what that state has to offer, the spirit of its citizens, and so on. Why not move in? What's wrong with moving in? People seem awfully upset by the idea but can't point out what's wrong with it.
I am the founder and president of the Free State Project, so I thought I'd stop by to clear some things up.
First, if you are anti-libertarian and in favor of intrusive government, it is natural that you will oppose us, especially if we decide to come into your state. However, even if we are coming into your state, you can in no wise consider this a "takeover." As others have pointed out, 20,000 activists aren't sufficient to simply outvote everyone else in any state. They ARE enough, however, to make libertarian ideas relevant and to apply significant pressure to politicians. (Remember, these are not just voters, but activists.) We believe that once we have succeeded in doing these things, most of the populace will vote for our ideas. After all, we have a welfare-warfare state not because people clamored for it, but essentially through inertia: rising incomes have allowed politicians to increase taxation and regulation gradually without causing an outcry. 20,000 activists in a small state will be enough to put libertarian ideas and candidates on everyone's mind. So if you're a statist, you shouldn't fear the Free State Project, unless you fear a straight confrontation between rival ideologies in the public square.
Second, nothing about what we are doing is remotely illegal. We are working peacefully through the political process to achieve liberty at the state and local levels and to push for true federalism as demanded by the U.S. Constitution. This has nothing to do with "compounds," Jim Jones, or militias. Those of you making such ill-informed comments display a mindset that is extremely dangerous for democracy: apparently you would rather have your political opponents killed than to engage them in dialogue. Shame on you!
Finally, if you are a libertarian, I would point out that the Free State Project seems to be the most - nay, the only - viable strategy for liberty in our lifetimes. If we continue to squander our resources trying to bring Washington, D.C. to the light, nothing will change. We must concentrate our resources to achieve political reforms, and the Free State Project is the first credible strategy for doing so. Check out the website (the server should be doing a little better now) and examine our plans in depth. We feel that the precise process, including obtaining signatures before the move, researching the location, and holding a membership vote, make this project likely to succeed where others have failed. http://www.freestateproject.org
Slashdot Mirror
The South's secession was immoral because it was undertaken to preserve slavery, but it appears that it was not illegal. It was undertaken through constitutional convention, in the same way that the Constitution was ratified in the first place. The Articles of Confederation say nothing about a procedure for replacing them; therefore, by your standard, the Constitution is itself illegal.
Immorality and illegality are two separate concepts, as I've been trying to make out in all my responses to you. Something can be immoral but not illegal, or illegal but not immoral.
To be perfectly honest, an explanation to you would be a waste of time, since you do not want to understand libertarianism and you insist on throwing around insults, like calling me a "liar." FWIW, we have made connections with many Vermonters who are friendly to our movement. One thing about Vermonters is that they like decentralization and localism, and that is a large part of what we're about. Regardless, is Vermont going to be chosen? Not likely. But New Hampshire may.
The Constitution says nothing about secession, and in fact several states explicitly reserved the right to secede when they ratified the Constitution (Virginia and New York among them). I'm not defend the secession of the Confederacy, but I am defending the potential legitimacy of secession, when accomplished in a peaceful and democratic manner in order to create a better society for everyone.
I believe if a few states cut off the funding, it would rapidly create an unsustainable situation. The unfairness of the federal government's coercion would become apparent. The citizens of those states that had cut off the funding would feel they had less reason to consider themselves obliged to the government, and they would be more likely to support additional autonomy proposals, proposals that would bring tax money back home where it belongs rather than wasting it on federal programs. For example, a state could demand the right to receive its share of income taxes that go to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security - in return, its citizens can no longer draw on these programs. How could such a right to opt out of federal programs be denied? Certainly on grounds of fairness and justice it could not, and on grounds of constitutionality (the 10th Amendment) as well.
Thanks for your support! Spousal consent is indeed very important, and something that stands in the way of participation for some people. But do discuss it with your wife and see what she thinks. I think we need more married couples and families in the FSP, rather than just a bunch of single, male geeks. ;-)
Actually it's not much like the Atlantis Project at all. We're not requiring significant financial contributions from participants, we're getting commitments before the move, and we're not trying to create some isolated community of pure libertarians. We will be ordinary folks, involved in our neighborhoods, local governments, and so on, and adapting to local customs and culture.
Absolutely correct. We are not trying to repeal laws guaranteeing the protection of all citizens. In my view, the only roles of the federal government should be to provide a court system to resolve disputes among states or between individuals and the federal government, to provide for a small military to defend the country against clear and significant external threats, to provide a basic framework for customs, immigration, and international law enforcement cooperation, and, finally, to overrule state laws that violate individual rights or block free trade and movement among the states. In this respect I believe that the U.S. Constitution accords the federal government too much power in a few areas, namely, the provision of postal services, post roads, and a currency. However, if we could simply return the federal government to enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8, I personally would regard the Free State Project as a success.
So if you need to re-sign up, we're back on the old server and the scripts are working just fine. http://www.freestateproject.org/join.htm
As I said, I have no problem with socialists like you taking over Vermont. By the way, you did the same thing to old-stock Vermonters, who were and are very conservative, as we are doing. So how can you condemn us? Your screed against our imaginary "corporatism" displays an extreme ignorance of libertarian principles. But by all means don't let rational thought get in the way of your hatred. If you would like to pry open your mind for one second, however, you might consider the fact that big business has never endorsed libertarianism; big business is very much *opposed* to libertarianism. The most libertarian business lobby on Capitol Hill is the NFIB, a small-business group.
Actually, no, I wouldn't mind. Socialists have already taken over Vermont in a coordinated effort; let them keep it! Each movement should have its own autonomous zone; let's see which ones succeed in promoting freedom, growth, and equity at the end of the day. My bet's not on Massachusetts and Maryland (or Vermont, unless we "take it back").
Of course we will adopt to prevailing customs. The reason we choose a particular state is that we like what that state has to offer, the spirit of its citizens, and so on. Why not move in? What's wrong with moving in? People seem awfully upset by the idea but can't point out what's wrong with it.
I am the founder and president of the Free State Project, so I thought I'd stop by to clear some things up.
First, if you are anti-libertarian and in favor of intrusive government, it is natural that you will oppose us, especially if we decide to come into your state. However, even if we are coming into your state, you can in no wise consider this a "takeover." As others have pointed out, 20,000 activists aren't sufficient to simply outvote everyone else in any state. They ARE enough, however, to make libertarian ideas relevant and to apply significant pressure to politicians. (Remember, these are not just voters, but activists.) We believe that once we have succeeded in doing these things, most of the populace will vote for our ideas. After all, we have a welfare-warfare state not because people clamored for it, but essentially through inertia: rising incomes have allowed politicians to increase taxation and regulation gradually without causing an outcry. 20,000 activists in a small state will be enough to put libertarian ideas and candidates on everyone's mind. So if you're a statist, you shouldn't fear the Free State Project, unless you fear a straight confrontation between rival ideologies in the public square.
Second, nothing about what we are doing is remotely illegal. We are working peacefully through the political process to achieve liberty at the state and local levels and to push for true federalism as demanded by the U.S. Constitution. This has nothing to do with "compounds," Jim Jones, or militias. Those of you making such ill-informed comments display a mindset that is extremely dangerous for democracy: apparently you would rather have your political opponents killed than to engage them in dialogue. Shame on you!
Finally, if you are a libertarian, I would point out that the Free State Project seems to be the most - nay, the only - viable strategy for liberty in our lifetimes. If we continue to squander our resources trying to bring Washington, D.C. to the light, nothing will change. We must concentrate our resources to achieve political reforms, and the Free State Project is the first credible strategy for doing so. Check out the website (the server should be doing a little better now) and examine our plans in depth. We feel that the precise process, including obtaining signatures before the move, researching the location, and holding a membership vote, make this project likely to succeed where others have failed.
http://www.freestateproject.org