ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2014 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Ron Paul on secession

This weekend I got a couple of calls from the media asking me questions about Rick Perry, our governor here in Texas and the statements he made about possible secession. Now, he didn’t call for secession, but he was restating a principle that was long held and at least in the original time of our country, and that is that there was a right to secession.

Actually, after the Civil War, nobody believes there is a so-called right to secession, but it is a very legitimate issue to debate because all of the states that came into the Union before the Civil War believed they have a right to secede and New England in the early part of the 19th century actually considered it, and nobody questioned them about whether they had the right to do it or not.  Since the Civil War, it’s been sort of a dead issue, but he brought it up. It stirred the media and believe me, it really stirred some of the liberal media where they started really screaming about what is going on here. “This is un-American”, I heard one individual say, “This is treasonous to even talk about it.”

Well, they don’t know their history very well because if they think about it, it’s an American tradition. It’s very American to talk about secession. That’s how we came into being. Thirteen colonies seceded from the British and established a new country, so secession is very much an American principle.

What about all the strong endorsements we have given over the past decade or two of those republics that seceded from the Soviet system? We were delighted with this. We never said, “Oh no. Secession is treasonous”.

No. Secession is a good principle. Just think of the benefits that would have come over these last 230-some years if the principle of secession had existed. That means the federal government would always have been restrained, not to overburden the states with too much federalism, too many federal rules and regulations.

But since that was all wiped out with the Civil War, the federal government has grown by leaps and bounds and we have suffered the consequences, and we need to reconsider this. It’s not un-American to think about the possibility of secession. This is something that’s voluntary. We came together voluntarily. A free society means you can dissolve it voluntarily. That was the whole issue was about.
Just remember one of the reasons that Wilson drove us in unnecessarily into World War I. He talked about what we have to give, have every country in the world the benefit of self-determination, a good principle. Of course, I don’t think he really believed that. But self-determination is a good principle. It’s a very American principle, so to me it’s a shame that we can’t discuss this.

You know, it’s interesting that so many of us have been taught for so many years, and as long as I can remember from the first grade on up taking the pledge of allegiance that we have a republic that’s “indivisible” and we have been preached that and preached it. So therefore, there is no contest, no question since the Civil War that we have even the thought that this could happen.

But you know what a lot of people don’t talk about and they really don’t even know about is who wrote the pledge to the flag. The pledge to the flag came from, for instance, Bellamy, an avowed Socialist who wanted to put into concrete in the pledge this principle of being indivisible, and he did it, you know, for the celebration ironically 400 years of the celebration of the landing of Christopher Columbus, so it was in 1892.

I mean, the pledge of allegiance has not been here, you know, all our history. So I think it’s worth of discussion. I think people should discuss this because right now, the American people are sick and tired of it all and I think the time will come when people will consider it much more seriously is when the federal government can no longer deliver. That time will come when the dollar collapses.

No matter what they do and how many promises they have and how many bailouts they have, they can’t do it if the money doesn’t work. So then, the independence of the states will come back and it doesn’t mean that you’ll be un-American to even contemplate what might have to be done once the dollar crashes.
It's really not a question of a right of secession so much as a question of the American right to self-determination.  Are those who live in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" truly less free than Libyans, Iraqis, and Croatians?  Moreoever, if America is a conceptual nation, then obviously it cannot be a geographic location, nor can it be concepts that are intrinsically opposed to the original concepts.  It should be readily apparent that secular big government forced union "America" cannot properly be considered American, regardless of whether one considers the matter in terms of conventional nationalism or the conceptual nationalism so beloved of the melting pot mythmakers.

We already know the union of the forcibly United States will be divided.  The younger union of the Soviet Socialist Republics broke apart 23 years ago.  The European Union is visibly fracturing already.  The much older union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England will be voting on its dissolution soon.  The only thing we don't know is when the division will take place.  As I have stated before, my expectation is that it will take place by 2033.

Labels:

97 Comments:

Anonymous Ex-Libertarian November 15, 2012 9:06 AM  

Vox:

What are your opinions of nullification as a way for the states to keep self-determination?

http://www.tomwoods.com/books/nullification/

Anonymous DonReynolds November 15, 2012 9:13 AM  

I am certain it is a typo, but the Soviet Union dissolved in 1989, which was 23 years ago....not 13.

Blogger Bob Wallace November 15, 2012 9:13 AM  

The reason no Southern officer or politician was put on trial after the War Between the States is because of the fear they would be found not guilty on Constitutional grounds, which would have set the precedent that secession is legal.

Anonymous history phishtory November 15, 2012 9:15 AM  

"Well, they don’t know their history very well because if they think about it, it’s an American tradition. It’s very American to talk about secession. That’s how we came into being. Thirteen colonies seceded from the British and established a new country, so secession is very much an American principle."

immigration is american tradition!

Anonymous Hayden November 15, 2012 9:16 AM  

Ex-Libertarian

Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are indeed antagonistic principles. Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union, and against the agent of states. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligation, and a state, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other states of the Union for a decision; but when the states themselves, and when the people of the states, have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application.

- Jefferson Davis

Anonymous TheExpat November 15, 2012 9:27 AM  

The only true freedom is the freedom to opt out.

Blogger W.LindsayWheeler November 15, 2012 9:29 AM  

There is not going to be any secession going on! What 16,000 people in a state of 4 to 5 million voters? You wanna bet that 1 to 3 million of those voters are on the government tit with either food stamps, unemployment, welfare money and/or Social Security/SSI and they ain't going to secede from the Money tit.

Everything has been done in the last 90 years to ensure the people's reliance on the Federal Government. Oh yea, secession sounds good---but is it practical? No.

Anonymous JartStar November 15, 2012 9:36 AM  

The only true freedom is the freedom to opt out.

Even God gives people the option of choosing the other team.

Anonymous rienzi November 15, 2012 9:36 AM  

Another example: Quebec has come extremely close to leaving Canada, and if not for Ottawa constantly shoveling money at them, probably would already be gone.

Anonymous Hayden November 15, 2012 9:44 AM  

Forced union is no union!

Anonymous Daniel November 15, 2012 9:51 AM  

There is not going to be any secession going on! What 16,000 people in a state of 4 to 5 million voters? You wanna bet that 1 to 3 million of those voters are on the government tit with either food stamps, unemployment, welfare money and/or Social Security/SSI and they ain't going to secede from the Money tit.

Everything has been done in the last 90 years to ensure the people's reliance on the Federal Government. Oh yea, secession sounds good---but is it practical? No.


Yeah, right, Wheeler. Please address the numerous instances of recent secession, and the subsequent (relative) success of such and then give me an example of a seceded state that is now clamoring to return.

Trust me - the welfare migrants in a seceded state will do what welfare migrants do: they'll migrate.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 15, 2012 9:55 AM  

Vox, it is good that you mentioned the United Kingdom, which came into being by successive acts. In 1604, England (and Ireland) and Scotland shared the same monarch in the person of James IV. In 1707 the Parliaments of Scotland and England (and Ireland) created Great Britain. In 1801, the Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland created the United Kingdom. And in 1922, the Irish Free State (Republic of Ireland) achieved independence with dominion status, while retaining the counties now known as Northern Ireland. This secession by Ireland was achieved through negotiation and Parliamentary action but only after a long and protracted resistance. In the end, the UK government decided it would be better to recognize the independence of Ireland than to continue the occupation. Canada achieved dominion status in 1867 through lengthy negotiations. Australia federated their colonies and became independent in 1901. And South Afrika achieved independence in 1931. Note that in all cases since the American Revolution, secession and independence was achieved through negotiation and legislative act and not by warfare, with the exception of the Irish. But even in the Irish case, independence was achieved through negotiation and legislative acts, the violence and civilian resistance did provide sufficient cause to entertain the negotiations. The Republic of Ireland did not achieve independence by force of arms.

Blogger JohnG November 15, 2012 9:58 AM  

I think the problem with seccession is the California Cancer syndrome - the retards flee the BS in that state, move to a more successful state and then vote for the same crap that ruined their original state. If there was a seccession and new union (like most of middle states), they'd have to deny "immigration" from the socialist states, forever, essentially.

Blogger James Dixon November 15, 2012 10:06 AM  

> ...they'd have to deny "immigration" from the socialist states, forever, essentially.

Or simply deny them voting rights.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 15, 2012 10:09 AM  

Daniel..."Everything has been done in the last 90 years to ensure the people's reliance on the Federal Government. Oh yea, secession sounds good---but is it practical? No."

I must kindly disagree. One of the arguments made against Indian independence by the British was that the men of India were not competent enough to run the country without the help of the British. Ghandi said that all people preferred their own imperfect government to a perfect government run by foreigners. This must be an important tendency of all people everywhere. Southerners had rather have their own redneck country to one where they are an ineffective minority, dominated by people who despise them. I am certain most Americans can understand this.

Of course, there is nothing that says that a free and independent South would not have much of the same social safety net for the poor and the elderly. Every person who insists on remaining under the Federal umbrella of the US government is perfectly free to relocate to any of the remaining states without hindrence or fear. I suspect, a good many would return in good time.

Anonymous Roundtine November 15, 2012 10:09 AM  

I don't think there's going to be universal suffrage in the new state.

Anonymous TheExpat November 15, 2012 10:11 AM  

If there was a seccession and new union (like most of middle states), they'd have to deny "immigration" from the socialist states, forever, essentially.

Yes, and?

Anonymous JP (real one) November 15, 2012 10:11 AM  

According to Tom B, the Silicon Valley wizards are going to make so much money that they can give an iphone to everyone in the parasite class, along with chickens-in-pots, health care, food stamps, SSI, etc. So this is all a moot point. The only danger
is too many living the Wall-E lifestyle of fat, dumb and happy in the brave, new, rich world.

Of course that's absurd...

Anonymous JCB November 15, 2012 10:19 AM  

"There is not going to be any secession going on! What 16,000 people in a state of 4 to 5 million voters? You wanna bet that 1 to 3 million of those voters are on the government tit with either food stamps, unemployment, welfare money and/or Social Security/SSI and they ain't going to secede from the Money tit."

RP addressed this in the quoted material. When the federal govt can no longer deliver, secession will be much more seriously discussed. Until then, however, I would be inclined to agree. Too many people want their govt check, and they will trade their birthright, the well being of their progeny, and their very souls to get it.

Anonymous Orion November 15, 2012 10:19 AM  

With any luck I'd be in Texas when it happens. The only question would be if they would accept a transplanted Northerner on the basis of outlook versus origin. I have felt out of step with the Rust belt for years now (well at least the large metro areas that go blue regularly). If things break down in a worst case scenario, I may just have to emigrate to somewhere like Singapore.

Anonymous Lysander Spooner November 15, 2012 10:27 AM  

The "Compulsory" United States of America , yup that sounds like they hate us because we are so free.....bwaaaaahahahahahaahahaaha

Blogger vandelay November 15, 2012 10:32 AM  

Do you have a link to where this came from Vox?

Anonymous patrick kelly November 15, 2012 10:33 AM  

Online petitions, meh.... when state legislators and governors start petitioning the feds for succession it might actually mean something.

Anonymous TLM November 15, 2012 10:38 AM  

Too bad Rand Paul came out this week with "a pathway to citizenship" for all those law-breaking spics. That'll teach em to respect our laws.
And the argument against leaving the union in my state is that so many are dependent upon Govt handouts, the state would collapse. What they don't mention is that Federal regulations and the war on coal by the greens, has blocked us from being one of the richest states within the union. We have enough coal to eliminate all state taxes, pay our debts, and still give every citizen a piece of the pie like they do in Alaska with oil sales. Very frustrating.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 15, 2012 10:39 AM  

On the question of suffrage, I would prefer a two-parent rule. You can vote, if and only if, both of your parents were natural-born citizens. Recent immigrants do not vote until after they have become assimilated into the society.

I would also require literacy tests for prospective voters. (Correct, the illiterate should not be voting.)

People in prison should not be allowed to vote, nor should welfare recipients, but that disability should not be permanent.

While the original US states were commonly in favor of a property requirement of a minimum number of acres of land (very Jeffersonian, by the way), I would not push for a property requirement. But I would be open to allowing people to vote as stakeholders, specifically, for every $1,000 a person pays in taxes, they get one vote. This would end the tendency of democracy to being driven by the least common denominator. Those who financially support the government should have more to say in how it is operated than those who contribute none of the taxes.

I agree with the commenters here that suggest that universal suffrage is not actually the goal nor is it desirable.

Anonymous Stephen J. November 15, 2012 10:43 AM  

@DonReynolds: "In 1604, England (and Ireland) and Scotland shared the same monarch in the person of James IV."

Minor nitpick: That was James *VI* of Scotland, who became James I of England in 1603 following the death of Elizabeth I.

@rienzi: "Quebec has come extremely close to leaving Canada, and if not for Ottawa constantly shoveling money at them, probably would already be gone."

It can easily appear that way outside Canada, but as a Canadian who's lived with this issue most of his life, I can tell you that an actual secessionary spirit is not that widespread. Public referenda about actually beginning a process of negotiating for separation have always failed, the Bloc Quebecois (the federal sovereignty party) have never been a significant parliamentary presence and the Parti Quebecois (the provincial party) have only held regional power insofar as they manage to secure beneficial aspects of separation (like legal primacy of the French language) without incurring any of the actual expenses a sovereign nation would require. In general the Quebecois much prefer complaining about Canada to actually having to live independent of it.

The biggest problem with secession these days is that the seceding region always wants to keep stuff that technically belongs to, or has been paid for by, the sovereign government. Which means you'd better be sure the state from which you're seceding has neither the desire nor the capacity to drag you back. (And a sovereign state which doesn't have the power to do this might be argued as having lost effective statehood anyway, in which case it's more breakup than secession.)

Blogger Joshua_D November 15, 2012 10:45 AM  

James Dixon November 15, 2012 10:06 AM
> ...they'd have to deny "immigration" from the socialist states, forever, essentially.

Or simply deny them voting rights.


Exactly. I could easily seeing allowing immigrants in given than they could not vote for some particular amount of time (I don't know how long ... maybe 7-14 years?) and they could not receive state benefits for some particular amount of time (if the state even offered benefits to start with). It would seem easy enough to require that a person have a vested interest in the state, skin in the game, before being allowed to vote.

Anonymous DrTorch November 15, 2012 10:46 AM  

I found yesterday's comments of "treason" humorous in light of this article

People used to have a very knee jerk reaction to being likened to Russia. Probably based on emotion, not fact. But now it seems to be a badge of honor, especially when based on fact.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 15, 2012 10:51 AM  

@DonReynolds: "In 1604, England (and Ireland) and Scotland shared the same monarch in the person of James IV."

Stephen J..."Minor nitpick: That was James *VI* of Scotland, who became James I of England in 1603 following the death of Elizabeth I."

Thank you for correcting some of my many errors.


Anonymous rienzi November 15, 2012 10:52 AM  

The Confederacy failed, not so much on the battlefield, as it did diplomatically. If it had obtained recognition from Britain and France, that would have been the end of the struggle right there, and the Confederacy would have gone on its merry way, independent and free.

Imagine Texas declaring independence, and immediately signing a mutual defense pact with Russia or the PRC. Now, if you are Washington, you have two choices, and they both suck. Accept the status quo, and be exposed as the little man behind the curtain, or take the chance of going to war with countries that can incinerate your rear right now, not the usual third world pushovers.

If Texas can get away with it, then what's to prevent Andrew Cuomo from deciding that, just maybe, New York might be better off going it alone, with, of course, Andrew Cuomo as the Beloved Maximum Leader.

And it all cascades from there.

Anonymous DonReynolds November 15, 2012 10:58 AM  

Joshua_D..."Exactly. I could easily seeing allowing immigrants in given than they could not vote for some particular amount of time (I don't know how long ... maybe 7-14 years?) and they could not receive state benefits for some particular amount of time (if the state even offered benefits to start with). It would seem easy enough to require that a person have a vested interest in the state, skin in the game, before being allowed to vote."

Immigrants do not automatically become citizens, much less voting citizens. No educational or welfare benefits should be available to immigrants, regardless of how long they have been here. That rule would keep the welfare state limited and intact and also end the invasion from the Third World for that purpose. Milton Friedman said we could not have a welfare state and open borders. We just need to separate the two. If you came across the border, you are ineligible for welfare benefits.


Anonymous Noah B. November 15, 2012 10:59 AM  

"Those who financially support the government should have more to say in how it is operated than those who contribute none of the taxes."

This is something I've thought for a long time now, too. However, a lot of what we hear about taxation is largely propaganda -- for instance, the claim that half of people pay no income taxes. Anyone who earns income from wages or salary cannot avoid paying Medicare and Social Security taxes, and this money gets spend by the government just like federal taxes do. So even minimum wage earners who claim 9 dependents are still effectively paying 15% to the federal government by the time their employer matches their "contributions."

I know I'm going off on a tangent, but it just aggravates me to hear people claim that half of people pay no taxes, since this requires accepting the government's lies that Social Security and Medicare aren't really taxes and just magically don't count.

Anonymous Noah B. November 15, 2012 11:00 AM  

"No educational or welfare benefits should be available to immigrants..."

If Hollywood wants them, Hollywood should pay for them.

Anonymous Roundtine November 15, 2012 11:00 AM  

Too bad Rand Paul came out this week with "a pathway to citizenship"

But he wants to shut the door on new immigration. That's probably the best deal possible, no one else is even proposing to limit legal immigration.

Anonymous JartStar November 15, 2012 11:01 AM  

Given that Afghanistan has over 40 languages and 60+ tribes it must be a vibrant paradise with intriguing cultures and a low carbon footprint. The most important thing for the US military to do is to stay and try to force Western political boundaries on the people for their own good. Do they not know that by forcing them to stay together and not split up we are making them free?

Anonymous Onefiver November 15, 2012 11:06 AM  

I like to give this to the libtards that get all butthurt over the secession issue:

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2010/1111/Out-of-sticks-US-offers-Sudan-a-carrot-to-let-South-Sudan-secede

Anonymous Alexander November 15, 2012 11:07 AM  

@ Joshua

I do not see why that would be the case. If one of the chief complaints for the secessionists is voting immigrants fundamentally changing the country, why on earth would the new state have a voting system that is (officially) more lenient than the one they are leaving?

Furthermore, if secession actually took hold, I think we can assume a lot of bad blood. States might show some level of tolerance towards like-minded people from neighboring, ideologically similar states, but that's as far as it goes. Given that secession is driven by a sense that 'they' are making life intolerable for 'us', for any they and us, I cannot see the new sovereign state opening its borders and providing benefits to the outsiders, especially while the generation that did the fighting and the dying holds political power.

Anonymous zen0 November 15, 2012 11:08 AM  

Do you have a link to where this came from Vox?


http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-14/over-100000-supporting-texas-secession-ron-paul-weighs

Anonymous DonReynolds November 15, 2012 11:10 AM  

Noah B....."So even minimum wage earners who claim 9 dependents are still effectively paying 15% to the federal government by the time their employer matches their "contributions."

NO minimum wage earner with 9 dependents pays any tax whatsoever, in fact they get a big fat check for many thousands of dollars from the IRS. (Unless they refuse to file for the return.) I agree that amount is net the amount they pay in FICA and Medicare, but I would not include the employer match, which is a payroll tax, and not part of their income.



Blogger Joshua_D November 15, 2012 11:13 AM  

Alexander, if the people of a state don't want to let migrants vote, so be it. If the state offers conditions that are favorable to some, then those people will migrate there, if allowed, whether they can vote or not.

Blogger Joshua_D November 15, 2012 11:14 AM  

My point was mainly to agree that an immigrant solution could be to limit voting, in some manner, to the people who are paying for the government as well as limiting benefits.

Anonymous Daniel November 15, 2012 11:24 AM  

DonReynolds, FWIW that wasn't me you quoted. I agree with you.

Blogger vandelay November 15, 2012 11:25 AM  

Too bad Rand Paul came out this week with "a pathway to citizenship"

Rand's probably eyeing 2016, and he's smart enough to recognize that no GOP candidate has a chance without a viable immigration policy. I'm not convinced it'll hold up against whatever goodies Hillary will have on offer, but it's probably the best he can do.

p.s. thanks for the link zen0

Blogger Nate November 15, 2012 11:25 AM  

I still don't see how the math works to get to the 2030s. By 2016 the US can't even pretend to pay the interest on the debt anymore.

Anonymous Parts is Parts November 15, 2012 11:29 AM  

...and the Confederacy would have gone on its merry way, independent and free.

Independent of D.C. maybe, but free? And what prevents the peoples of the former wannabee confederacy from voting for state representatives that have the balls to tell the feds to take a hike now? Hell, you are voting for your own state representative tyrants now, and you all would be doing the same if you were a confederacy. Either way, you still have trickle down tyrants, and obviously, whether it is federal or local, a tyrant is a tyrant... and the former wannabee confederacy still can't vote itself freedom locally.

Parts is parts.

Blogger JohnG November 15, 2012 11:39 AM  

@TheExpat

I'm not saying there would be a problem with denying them the ability to immigrate - I'm just saying that would be hard and unpopular...there's always the squishy hand wringers. My fantasy is to cede the left and right coasts to the left and keep the middle and redneck Riviera - which would lead to starvation and ruin of course... would have to put in the moat with aligators and land mines.

Anonymous Toddy Cat November 15, 2012 11:47 AM  

Anything that actually has liberals screaming about "Un-American activities"(!) is certainly worth doing, or at least talking about. Besides, guys, I thought that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism". That.s what you told me back in 2005...

Anonymous Roundtine November 15, 2012 11:48 AM  

A true political secession would be an America 2.0. We would build off the original Constitution but consider new amendments to avoid problems cropping up (or add clauses). Two or three well worded amendments could make most types of socialism impossible.

Anonymous Noah B. November 15, 2012 11:55 AM  

"NO minimum wage earner with 9 dependents pays any tax whatsoever, in fact they get a big fat check for many thousands of dollars from the IRS. (Unless they refuse to file for the return.)"

You're right, I forgot about the EIC. The employer match, though, is part of what an employer figures in advance as the real cost of hiring an employee. It's the amount that employee would be paid if not for the government's shell games, and it's set up that way to hide from people how much they're actually paying in taxes.

Anonymous JP (real one) November 15, 2012 11:57 AM  

"We would build off the original Constitution"

Better yet, scrap it and build off the Articles of Confederation.

Blogger TontoBubbaGoldstein November 15, 2012 11:58 AM  

Wheeler,
You are correct. A major buzzkill, but correct.

* Shakes fist at sky and damns demographics and math. *

DonReynolds,

Your voting eligibility requirements would go a long way toward fixing what is wrong with the USA. Seriously, who can argue IN FAVOR of illiterates being allowed to vote?

Anonymous LI November 15, 2012 11:59 AM  

Progressives have changed the popular understanding of democracy from being a tool to being a good in itself. But it's not. We embrace democracy only insofar as it maximizes liberty. Therefore, I would have no problem with a new state limiting voting rights.

Anonymous Roundtine November 15, 2012 12:18 PM  

By 2016 the US can't even pretend to pay the interest on the debt anymore.

Nate, what debt figure are you using, federal debt or total debt (private + public)? And are you assuming rates rise?

Anonymous Redneck Joe November 15, 2012 12:19 PM  

Orion
"With any luck I'd be in Texas when it happens. The only question would be if they would accept a transplanted Northerner on the basis of outlook versus origin"

I lived in NJ until I was 26 and have been in the South for 17 years (Rural TN now). Some are accepting and some aren't. What else is new? I can say the same thing about micro-societies in Philadelphia vs the suburbs. I wouldn't let that worry you.
BTW, the smart ones who would be the best allies when TSHTF tend to be much more accepting when they get to know you than the "Yankee go home" knee jerk types, many of whom have been cashing a welfare or bogus disability check for years.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 15, 2012 12:38 PM  

Secession isn't treason, it is simply undocumented statehood. Liberals love the undocumented.

What part of "it is their right, it is their duty" is hard to understand?

btw, I've been kind of disappointed with a crowd like this, that nobody has started casting this thing yet in Star Wars terms. Ron Paul, I suppose, gets to be Obi-Wan. Obama is Vader, obviously, and Palpatine is I guess somebody like Irving Kristol. Who gets to be Luke, and Han, and so forth?

And can we find a logical way to cast Andrew Sullivan as C3P0?

Anonymous DrTorch November 15, 2012 12:40 PM  

LI wrote Progressives have changed the popular understanding of democracy from being a tool to being a good in itself. But it's not. We embrace democracy only insofar as it maximizes liberty.

Aha, and there's the trick. If you define "liberty" as "democracy" (right to vote) then you most of the people convinced that they're free, even as the gov't takes away their freedoms.

Blogger Galt-in-Da-Box November 15, 2012 12:47 PM  

I wonder how he would react as President, with all the 0bammunists wanting the same thing?
Probably in addition to the TEAbaggers, judging from the Papist "right" that queered their own election!

Anonymous CLK November 15, 2012 12:50 PM  

"Are those who live in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" truly less free than Libyans, Iraqis, and Croatians ..."

I haven't heard VD every say that he is freer in Italy than he was in the US .. I suspect in fact based on the subjects that we discuss here (and ones we don't discuss here) that he very careful not to say/print something that might get himself in trouble with the Italian "free speech laws". If many of things that are said here were said about an Italian citizen or politician or religious person we would be in jail already.

So .. if the US is so bad.. where is better ?





Anonymous Daniel November 15, 2012 12:51 PM  

Hell, you are voting for your own state representative tyrants now, and you all would be doing the same if you were a confederacy.

That's missing the obvious: a state that secedes may also abandon the current ruling structure for something more stable and preservative of the culture - a monarchy or open oligarchy.

Anonymous Kickass November 15, 2012 12:55 PM  

What am I missing here. How is it that things are propped up that long? Aren't we way over the fiscal cliff right now? Aren't we printing like crazy now.

Why would it take that long for all of this to happen?

Anonymous Clay November 15, 2012 1:04 PM  

I'd be happy without a country of Paul & Rand Paul. Good-willed people who will never do jack shit. What's his name? Paul Paul?

We have got to find us a man with the charisma of Hitler, (but, hopefully not the same disposition), to bring the productive sector back to the front.

Is it possibe there is a Jefferson Davis, Albert Sidney Johnston, or Robert E. Lee left out there?

Hell, if you're gonna be at war all the time, you oughta make some money off it.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 15, 2012 1:13 PM  

Ron Paul, I suppose, gets to be Obi-Wan.

Eh-heh-heh-heh.

Anonymous Loki of Asgard November 15, 2012 1:16 PM  

We have got to find us a man with the charisma of Hitler, (but, hopefully not the same disposition), to bring the productive sector back to the front.

Ahem.

Anonymous Josh November 15, 2012 1:18 PM  

We have got to find us a man with the charisma of Hitler, (but, hopefully not the same disposition), to bring the productive sector back to the front.

FYI Clay, Rand participated in one of those frank luntz focus groups on fox news last year and got the highest scores frank had ever seen on charisma

Anonymous Daniel November 15, 2012 1:20 PM  

What am I missing here. How is it that things are propped up that long? Aren't we way over the fiscal cliff right now? Aren't we printing like crazy now.

Why would it take that long for all of this to happen?


First, a systemic series of bubbles can be blown for a little longer, as is obviously the case. The "fiscal cliff" that the politicians are talking about is not the coming economic collapse, but a Keynesian foil like the "debt ceiling" which they have learned very much to ignore with impunity.

The actual point when the economic veil drops away and things go supercrunch could theoretically be as much as three years off, maybe more if they shift all the debt to a massive global superstructure that leaks but will intensify the explosion by a lot.

However, let's say that happens sooner rather than later: 2014. Well, then you have turmoil and riots and conflicts and societal depression to match the economic depression. People, even secession-minded people, will struggle through hardship and start building a black market to get by until the powers that be allegedly "get their house in order" and we get back to "normal." That can easily go for a "lost decade"

That gets us to 2024.

Well, normal doesn't come, and baby boomers die and big federal programs are destroyed. 401(k)s are burned up for firewood, and people are angry, but generally accepting of the fact that government's job is to screw you over when you are down.

However, the beatings increase, the bread and circus dries up, and ethnic divisions are open. Whites tack right politically, and the blacks and browns are shooting over turf. Asians seek, I dunno a better word, a Northwestern damacy of powerful, central political control. Steve Ballmer for regional president or something.

It's hostile now, and people are looking for an excuse, the "one last abuse" to make the push.

The feds, desperate to maintain control, step on the wrong toes. Boom: secession in 2033.

It is a bit of long timeline, but keep in mind that the econ collapse of 2001 was "delayed" by nearly 7 years. These things can grind along for a while. I thought Quebec would have left ten years ago. I still expect it to secede.

Blogger Survival Gardener, AKA David the Good November 15, 2012 1:20 PM  

Someone like a Pinochet would be good.

Anonymous Gen. Kong November 15, 2012 1:21 PM  

rienzi:
Another example: Quebec has come extremely close to leaving Canada, and if not for Ottawa constantly shoveling money at them, probably would already be gone.

There's another factor there also. Ottawa has also been importing thrid-world colonists into Montreal like crazy to make sure the Quebecois wouldn't be able to vote themselves out of the "voluntary" confederation. The voluntary union and confederation are very similar to the voluntary contributions all the little people are required to make each Ides of April.

Anonymous JCclimber November 15, 2012 1:31 PM  

Vox, that isn't the only thing we don't know.
We also don't know if it will be a relatively peaceful dissolution or a violent, bloody one.

The first attempt was violent and bloody.

Methinks that most of the young men who would be called upon to do the fighting in round two would prefer to be on the side of their race and ideology, depriving blue state mindsets of much of their effective fighting force.

Blogger HerewardMW November 15, 2012 1:33 PM  

You've said the EU shows signs of breaking up. I believe that the eurocrats may have found the solution.

Blogger Ellimist November 15, 2012 1:50 PM  

@Gen Kong:

The Ides of April falls on the 13th of the month.

Anonymous JCclimber November 15, 2012 1:52 PM  

Ya'll keep missing a very important point regarding giving "migrants" the vote in any new state formed after a secession.

What are you going to do in your new nation with those "blue state" mentality folks who reside there? When you say you're going to cut off their welfare? Are you going to line the millions of them up and mow them down? Imprison them? Make them work on a chain gang?

Fools. They need to be allowed to migrate themselves to a "blue state" where they can keep their welfare benefits. You see, there would need to be a massive exchange of families across state borders. You block the people currently living in blue states but who share your ideas and worldview from coming to your state, then you're going to have to keep your millions of people already living in your state who share the blue state worldview.

You end welfare mentality and laws in your state, then the welfare queens will want to leave. And those in states where the majority support welfare who despise that mindset will pack up the pickup truck and move their family to a state where they'll be expected to work for a living. Even if it means giving up the right to vote for 10 years.

The truth is, the blue state mentality has seeped in so deep in almost every state, that you won't be able to eradicate it easily. It's been set deep since birth. Only massive disruption, disaster, personal loss can pierce that shell.

You make it clear that recent immigrants to your new state are expected to meet certain conditions, then you should be able to preemptively prevent parasites from coming to your state to reap the benefits of the better system while trying to remake it into the old corrupted model.

Anonymous Athor Pel November 15, 2012 2:03 PM  

"Nate November 15, 2012 11:25 AM

I still don't see how the math works to get to the 2030s. By 2016 the US can't even pretend to pay the interest on the debt anymore."




I am most interested to see how most people will react if their money stops spending. What I mean by stops spending is this, checks won't clear, credit, debit and welfare cards can't be verified, bank accounts can't be accessed by any means. Only the cash in your pocket will be able to be spent for a small amount of time until people realize those are just paper and start demanding precious metals or other recognizable tangible trade goods.

Many nations are already setting up nation to nation trade in their own national currencies in an effort to circumvent using the dollar completely. I mean many nations beyond Russia and China are doing this, those two are just the most visible.

This kind of thing is the handwriting on the wall. It is only a matter of time until the dollar loses reserve currency status. Once that happens America will see financial pain at a level undreamed up to that time.

I've only described one mechanism for a crash, there are others, many others. Any one of them is a possible financial system killer. The system has been manipulated into this position. We are not getting out of it without major amounts of chaos and destruction.

If you folks that deny the possibility of secession need a mental model for a trigger that will work to kick off violent domestic dissent this is a prime candidate.

If you can't feed your family because your money doesn't spend and will never spend again and government goons are coming around cleaning out people's cupboards then fighting over that food becomes literally a matter of life and death.

We're not going to get serious secession movements out of purely political conflicts. We will get states or regions going their own way in order to keep within their control the little food and energy they still have.

The federal government currently has money to get what it wants. Once the money stops working they will use guns. Their political base is in states without abundant natural resources. They will be compelled to get it from the states with those resources.

Do you get it now?



Anonymous JartStar November 15, 2012 2:11 PM  


I still don't see how the math works to get to the 2030s. By 2016 the US can't even pretend to pay the interest on the debt anymore."


Where are you getting your numbers from? In 2008 on 9.6% of the budget was used to pay the interest. Even over the next decade only 14% of all revenue is projected to go to interest.

Anonymous JW November 15, 2012 2:22 PM  

"immigration is american tradition!"

Well the immigration of europeans is traditional!

Anonymous Tom O. November 15, 2012 2:23 PM  

Personally, the SU is bad example of a union that died due to vibrancy. Yugoslavia is a much better example of the vibrancy-induced death that may happen with the USA, and it's probably going to be just as peaceful too.

Anonymous Stilicho November 15, 2012 2:24 PM  

It's really not a question of a right of secession so much as a question of the American right to self-determination. Are those who live in "the land of the free and the home of the brave" truly less free than Libyans, Iraqis, and Croatians?

Indeed. Mark my words, this will be the central question of the 21st century for these Forcibly United States.

Put another, by what right do the residents of New York tell Texans that they cannot be free?

Anonymous Stilicho November 15, 2012 2:36 PM  

what's to prevent Andrew Cuomo from deciding that, just maybe, New York might be better off going it alone, with, of course, Andrew Cuomo as the Beloved Maximum Leader.

You mean it hasn't happened already? I seem to recall a coronation ceremony for Prince Andrew. Except for the going it alone part. A huge NY deficit requires lots of federal largesse.

OpenID ZT November 15, 2012 2:38 PM  

If political voting was left to the land owners as it was originally done, would "immigration" really be an issue?

If local culture was free to associate would they not have the ability to allow/block immigration as the local saw fit?

In Nicodemus Kansas was originally founded by Slaves that wanted a safe place. During the time my grandmother and mother grew up you could go to Nicodemus and do business but you didn't stay in Nicodemus if you were white. It was a cultural known and it was accepted and for the most part everyone was happy. Why should not cities and communities have that same right today?

Anonymous Claymore November 15, 2012 3:05 PM  

You're not free if you're not free to leave.

Blogger Bob November 15, 2012 3:08 PM  

The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. [1] It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution. [Hooven & Allison Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)]

As I understand it, The federal government resides in a United States that consists of the District of Columbia, its territories and federal enclaves. It is not a part of the United States which are united by and under the Constitution.

Seems to me these 50 States united by and under the Constitution could secede from the United States that houses the federal government in the District of Columbia and each become an independent State, just like Isreal is today.

Gotta be a lot of holes in that.



Anonymous Anonymous November 15, 2012 3:08 PM  

And there will be much, MUCH messier issues to such a dissolution than even Scotland and England could come up with. Like all those national military bases, national infrastructure, and other items owned by the national government. Sure, the new nationstates could attempt to compensate, but that doesn't change the fact that leaving the Union is a lot more complex than "Hey, we're gone."

Anonymous Kickass November 15, 2012 3:14 PM  

@ Clay, I hear the AntiChrist will be rather Charismatic and has an opening in his calendar anytime now.

@ Daniel, thanks.

@ Athor, I understand what you are saying will happen, I am just not getting the long drawn out timeline. A slow decline seems to be counterproductive if the whole thing is for the reasons cited. Slow means adjust and overcome. Fast means overwhelmed. Another 15 years just seems unsustainable, but I admit there are probably other factors I am not getting here.

I guess I will just watch Revolution and see how it will happen.

Anonymous Kickass November 15, 2012 3:15 PM  

And how do the Zombies factor in? Don't they speed things up by about three years at least?

Anonymous Kickass November 15, 2012 3:16 PM  

@ Bob, you would think all the underemployed lawyers would jump on this as a class action lawsuit.

OpenID sandalwould November 15, 2012 3:39 PM  

A Tale of Two Pauls:

Ron Paul on secession, "...I think the time will come when people will consider it much more seriously is when the federal government can no longer deliver. That time will come when the dollar collapses..."

Paul Krugman on delusion, "...we won't ever have to pay off the debt...the harm done by deficits to a nation like America in its current situation is, for the most part, hypothetical..."

I hope the 2nd Paul has beachfront property when the debt tsunami hits...

Anonymous JP (real one) November 15, 2012 3:44 PM  

Another tale of two Pauls, this time before the housing bubble & 2008 financial meltdown. Unfortunately, policymakers went the Krugman path.

"To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble."

- Paul Krugman, Dubya’s Double Dip, August 2nd, 2002


Compare to:

"Congress should act to remove taxpayer support from the housing GSEs before the bubble bursts and taxpayers are once again forced to bail out investors who were misled by foolish government interference in the market. I therefore hope this committee will soon stand up for American taxpayers and investors by acting on my Free Housing Market Enhancement Act."

- Ron Paul in the House Financial Services Committee, September 10, 2003

Anonymous Athor Pel November 15, 2012 3:58 PM  

"Kickass November 15, 2012 3:14 PM
...
@ Athor, I understand what you are saying will happen, I am just not getting the long drawn out timeline. A slow decline seems to be counterproductive if the whole thing is for the reasons cited. Slow means adjust and overcome. Fast means overwhelmed. Another 15 years just seems unsustainable, but I admit there are probably other factors I am not getting here.

I guess I will just watch Revolution and see how it will happen."





I didn't name any dates for a reason, nobody on earth knows how long things will take. All we can figure out on our own is the season. Everything else is a guess.

I will say one thing. If we are destined for collapse then we all pray for it to be a slow slide so that each change can be adjusted to. If things happen too fast then no one will be able to adjust and there will be war, famine and disease. There may be those even in a slow slide but our chances of living through go up significantly.



Anonymous Daniel November 15, 2012 4:23 PM  

Think of it this way: the phrase "keeping up appearances" became very prominent during the time in England where the economy of the landed gentry had given way to the industrial revolution of production.

Think of those old Austen books where the family lives in squalor but does every thing they can to "keep up appearances." Their house has no furniture, the carpets are worn thin, curtains have been converted to clothing, the roof leaks...but the facade of the house is kept nicely, and the garden is tended, and the livestock is kept out of site in the lesser courtyard. The family that lives there still holds the image of wealth in their minds, and awaits patiently the return of their fortune.

Those appearances can be kept for a long time - perhaps as long as the patriarch lives. Perhaps the family can find work together in the mills to hang onto the property (now untended because everyone is working 14 hour days) and the building decays slowly.

But the "crunch" has long since hit - long since done its damage. The old ways seem to disappear slowly, but in fact the fatal blow was struck with the first promising shot of the Revolution.

The bullet was fired into the brain of this economy circa 1974. We've been keeping up appearances since then.

That's why people can claim "It's not so bad! We'll muddle through! There's nothing worse to come!" Because, yes - the suffocating unemployment of Wednesday is not measurably worse than the crushing unemployment of Tuesday.

But that's because no one remembers that, on one bright Monday in 1967 almost no one was out of work.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 15, 2012 5:08 PM  

"I hear the AntiChrist will be rather Charismatic"

Actually, has anybody noticed how closely Obama literally matches the physical description of Nyarlathotep?

Krugman: "To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment"

Did he really actually say that? I mean, did a literate, numerate, non-comatose, English-speaking living person with a functioning brain in his head really say that?

Blogger Michael November 15, 2012 7:03 PM  

"I mean, did a literate, numerate, non-comatose, English-speaking living person with a functioning brain in his head really say that?"

No.

Krugman said it.

Anonymous Godfrey November 15, 2012 7:49 PM  

It's not going to happen yet... we still have too many USA! USA! shouting morons right.

But give it time. It's coming.

Anonymous Rosalys November 15, 2012 8:10 PM  

The words "under God" were added to the pledge sometime around 1950. Maybe it's time we amend it again by removing the word "indivisible".

Blogger Shmiggen Mghow November 15, 2012 8:56 PM  

'The Nine Nations of North America' by Joel Garreau - that is what we will resemble circa 2033.

Anonymous daddynichol November 15, 2012 10:18 PM  

In Nicodemus Kansas was originally founded by Slaves that wanted a safe place. During the time my grandmother and mother grew up you could go to Nicodemus and do business but you didn't stay in Nicodemus if you were white. It was a cultural known and it was accepted and for the most part everyone was happy. Why should not cities and communities have that same right today?

I grew up just 5 miles north of Nicodemus and our family farmed along side and with the black land owners. The community was alive and active until the 1960's, then the kids moved away and never came back. It's little more than a road side marker these days. My father knew most everyone in 'demus and I even went to the Emancipation Celebration in the summer, but came home early. The problems didn't start with the local 'demus kids, but with their visiting city cousins.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 16, 2012 1:11 AM  

"The problems didn't start with the local 'demus kids, but with their visiting city cousins."

The point though (well, _a_ point) is that the problems did inevitably 'start', didn't they. It's like the sun rising or something.


Anonymous DonReynolds November 16, 2012 10:36 AM  

"And there will be much, MUCH messier issues to such a dissolution than even Scotland and England could come up with. Like all those national military bases, national infrastructure, and other items owned by the national government. Sure, the new nationstates could attempt to compensate, but that doesn't change the fact that leaving the Union is a lot more complex than "Hey, we're gone."

Nothing messy about it, sonny. ALL Federal property...ALL...becomes the property of the new independent government. All post offices, military bases, national parks/forests, naval facilities, air bases, NASA, radar and communications facilities, coastal defenses, lighthouses, camps, office buildings, Federal courthouses, hospitals, and highways.

The South is roughly a third of the population of the USA. If the South were defined as Texas and Oklahoma and everything East to the Atlantic Ocean, it would be roughly a third of the land mass of the USA. Correspondingly, Southern secession should allow them to assume a third of all military hardware, a third of all gold held by the US government, and a third of the National Debt. Otherwise, there is no reason for the new nation to compensate the US government for anything, any more than the US government will compensate the South for everything they have lost either.

Trade would continue without interruption. We would still sell the rest of the country Coca-Cola, Minute Maid, oil and gas, heating oil, oranges, cotton, catfish and chicken. The mail would still run. FedEx would still deliver packages and the phones would still work. Airlines would fly their usual routes and the trains would still work. Not much left to find all that messy.

Anonymous scoobius dubious November 16, 2012 6:43 PM  

"Not much left to find all that messy."

In a rational world with a minimum of skullduggery, sure, of course, you're right. However. King Arthur, meet Mordred.

Interested parties have a curious habit of always finding a way to MAKE it messy.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Anonymous comments will be deleted.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts