Posted on 11/19/2002 7:29:41 AM PST by newt
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
You aren't a washington pol are you?LOL. For personal professional and cultural interest reasons I agree with you about Delaware or even New Hampshire as both are within stricking distance of the Washington, Phili, New York, Boston corridor which is good for business and culture. But for aesthetic qualities Idaho is real appealing and next to my favorite stomping grounds of Utah. That said I am willing to go wherever liberty will be rooted.
Huh? How would being a puppet to the national government, as Hong Kong is to the Chicoms, be any better an outcome than what we already have?
"Legally the feds don't have a case..."
Since when has that stopped national government thugs from doing anything?
"...the biggest stick the Feds have is money as leverage however a free stae would be a propsperous one and that would offset the advantage the Feds holds in that instance."
Okay, so we're back to my original point. The government couldn't use purse strings to keep the free state "in line", so how would they do it (surely you don't think DC would just smile and wave as the free state thumbed it's nose, do you)? Being as the citizens of a free state wouldn't be inclined in the first place to obey and submit to Washington decrees (and if they're not, what's the purpose of declaring a "free" state anyway?), they'd blow off any "federal" court decision favoring DC. So the military would roll in and occupy the free state and it'd be Reconstruction all over again, without a shot being fired. Nothing would have been accomplished except to reaffirm the national government's iron grip over the 50 states.
"Secession talk would turn off far too many would be supporters."
I disagree completely. Anyone who has fully thought over such matters understands secession would be a distinct possibility, and frankly I'd be worried about the Pollyannas who didn't realize it.
So, to sum it up, I like the theory, but if the folks organizing the FSP aren't going to consider all possible outcomes, they're setting themselves up for failure right from the start. Thanks, but I'll sit this one out.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The Feds have been so successful at usurping power because I do not believe they have been sufficiently resisted or challenged in the legisatures or courts over the years. The direct election of senators hurt the states too but I believe having senators with a mindset of loyalty to a Free State would at least help matters. How would the Feds react overall? Your vision of military intervention theoretically is possible and I couldn't rule out a WACO like scenario at some future point given the mind set of liberals and bureaucrats but pulling a WACO on an entire state or even a simple military occupation would be politically suicidal even in our degenerate political system. Anything is a possibility in this world but I wouldn't let it worry me. That is an extreme case scenario as we are not yet the old USSR.
Regarding the secession issue I think Walter Williams had a point when he wrote of a valid case for secession but I still do not think it viable. Correct and viable being two completely different things. I believe the South had legal right to secede and today even conservatives who might agree with the right can't imagine the United States not being the 50 Unites States and the idea of southern success back then makes them cringe. The sense of patriotism to the country is greater than loyalty to ideals. The "Civil War" also set the legal precedent on this subject which today holds strong. The only chance of a succecful secession I could invision would be in an apocaliptic economic and political collapse and we have to start from scratch anyway so the point is mute. From what I have read I think the folks behind the FSP have given much thought to the matter and I agree with their approach. Why would you sit out a chance for success when staying behind and doing nothing guarentees failure?
Good question, and I guess all I can say in response is to repeat that I don't like the idea of signing on with a group that refuses to realize how badly their plan could turn out. You have admitted that my (granted) nightmare scenario is a possibility, if even an small one. But the folks I corresponded with at the FSP seemed to not even want to comprehend the possibility that the worst case scenario could come to pass. I'm perfectly willing to take a leap of faith, but let's just say I want it to be a very hashed out leap of faith.
As far as the status quo being guaranteed failure, I completely agree with you. But I don't think the status quo is going to continue much longer before the whole nation is in a state of, well, let's call it flux. I think we've already flown over the edge of the cliff, we just don't know it yet. The job of putting together a free state will be much easier once we hit the bottom of the gorge.
Scouts out! Cavalry Ho!
Well, that depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If all you're going to do is move to one state and vote, that's fine and dandy. The Jackbooted Thugs won't mind that as long as you continue to live by their rules. But if all you're going to do is pass some symbolic legislation which adds up to nothing, well what will you have gained?
If, on the other hand, you are serious about throwing off the shackles of the national government, and truly becoming a Free State, then you'd all be wise to face facts...the national government will not sit idly by and let you thumb your nose at them. It will be compelled to act, if for no other reason to discourage other states from following your lead. If the Free State has indeed thrown of the shackles of the "federal" government, legal judgements against Idaho, New Hampshire, Montana, North Dakota, whoever, will be meaningless. The only recourse the national government will have is to use force, or the threat of force, to jerk the state back into line.
You want to talk about risks? I risked a helluva lot in my 11 years in the Army, and am willing to risk even more for my freedom, and for the principles upon which this nation was founded. Risks don't bother me...as long as those standing beside me also realize what the risks are. But if they're Pollyannas who're not even willing to admit what could happen, well, then good luck. There's nothing wrong with hoping for the best, as long as you planned for the worst. Sounds to me like your orgasnization is hoping for the best, and not willing to admit that the worst will probably happen. Good luck to you all...I hope you prove me wrong.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The FSP folks are perceived as Libertarians by many of the people on this site. In case you haven't noticed, Libs are not very popular around here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.