Seems some socialists don’t like the US of Freedom. I guess the pretext for hindering the secession this time would be that they’re trying to institute Communism. [^o)]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-10-03-secessionist-movement_N.htm
SPLC has made similar slanders against the Mises Institute as well and they have a section on their website where LvMI is described as a hate group.
The League of the South actually picketed them once.
I’ve seen it on the SPLC - Sorry, but are they insane?
Let me guess what is the reason for the “racist” tag. Because the organisation has mostly White members, right? So they must be “racist”.
Organizations like tle Southern Poverty Law Center are a demonstration that one can even be totalitarian without having the state involved, just Civil society groups. OK, I presume they get funding from taxes in more than one way and I would not be surprized whether they use the legal system for harassing people they don’t like.
I love these secessionist movements. They’re a great statement.
I wonder if one will ever get legs, and if it did, how the Federal Gov’t would react. Would they treat the secessionists as traitors and turn on the propaganda engine to villify them? Would they attack them and murder them as Lincoln did?
If a secessionist state emerged with a proper approach to liberty, I’d be quite likely to move there. And if the Fed’s attacked, I think I would fight.
I have a theory as to how an Anarchistic secession could be possible within the next few years, but it would require the monetary investments of a few businesses into a risky industry-but hell, anything that opposes the U.S. government is a risky industry. The basic idea is that three-five companies co-operating in unison form basic infrastructure necessary to privatize government. One company (for the sake of argument we’ll call it A) would purchase farm land and develope it into a very basic city. Another company B, would build up employees, and equipment for a well armed private protection agency. A third company C, would set up a banking system and begin developing a gold-backed currency. As for the two companies of questionable necessity, the first, D, would be a company that would provide private jurisdiction on property rights, and the last company, E, would be a currently existing chain, able to request relocations of it’s employees (a large retail company like Walmart or Target would work best). Once this is set up, A declares a secession, sending a notifying letter to officials on all levels and all news sources. It’s very important that it’s emphasized in the letter that the government is clearly a violent and coercive organization if it doesn’t allow this peaceful secession. That way if the secession fails, and the government recaptures the land, they now have to try to defend to the country why they aren’t basically evil. Anyways, A at this point sells off all it’s land, including roads and all the stuff we all know would be sold off in an Anarchistic society. E could play a very crucial role here, in setting up a really important supply of goods in the new Stateless sector while also building up a seceeded population. B’s roll is also very important, as B would offer defense to property owners in the area from the crime and the US government (which is also known as crime). It should be pretty evident what C and D would do. The only real issue is getting a few good entrepeneurs and investors together to put this into motion.
Good plan!
Talking about seccesionism, what is the legal/tax/political status of the Amish in PA?
From Dear Yahoo:
| Do the Amish pay taxes? |
|---|
| Dan Reno, Nevada |
| Dear Dan: |
| Just like the rest of us, the Amish are not exempt from life’s two certainties – death and taxes. However, there is a reason behind the persistent myth that the Amish do not pay taxes. The Amish live within self-sufficient communities and do not collect Social Security, unemployment, or welfare benefits. According to their religious beliefs, paying Social Security, an insurance premium for the elderly, is tantamount to not “taking care of their own.” Amish people who are self-employed are not obliged to pay Social Security tax, but they do still pay all other taxes, including property, income, and sales tax. If an Amish person decides to work outside of the community, he or she must also pay Social Security tax like any other American. In 1955, the IRS extended the Social Security Act of 1935 to include farm operators. At the time, some Amish people immediately complied with the tax, while others conscientiously objected to it. Many felt that it violated the separation of church and state, some did not want to accept monies for government programs, and still others believed that paying a commercial insurance for the elderly went against their trust in God to take care of them. The IRS and the Amish played a convoluted shell game for close to a decade, until it all came to a head with the seizure of a struggling farmer’s horses in 1961. The Amish elders stuck firmly by their principles, and the ensuing media and community outrage over the incident led the IRS to relent four years later. Tucked away in the 1965 Medicare Bill was a clause exempting the “Old Order Amish” and other religious groups that conscientiously objected to paying insurance premiums from Social Security tax. To be exempt, the group or sect must have been established prior to 1950 and maintain reasonable provisions for their elderly. |
Thanks. If Mr Serious says so, it must be correct.
Taxation reminds me of the Steven Wright joke: “I went to the store to buy some batteries. But they weren’t included. So I had to buy them again.” We pay taxes to get good education for our kids. But we don’t get it. So we have to pay for private school. Etc, etc. In accordance with the inexorable laws of bureaucracy - illuminated by LVM himself - we will end up paying tax and getting absolutely nothing in return, while having to pay again for those services we actually do want.
At that point a seccesionist plan may have a realistic chance of succeeding.
Well, the plan is often realistic - But people aren’t often that realistic.
I still remember when before 1994 there were talks about secession in South Africa as well. For most of the time it were Boere/Afrikaners thinking in that line. Several books were written, functionally correct for most of the part. But they didn’t really sell this to the client (Afrikaner people). Ironically most people resented being ruled by the ANC or for that matter any other Black government. Many would have been ready to settle for a smaller territory. But they were kind of afraid of this. One of the arguments they replied with was:“But the world is going to boycott” us. Another reply was that their property happened to be outside the seceding area. Then their was of course the “economic” argument of that they can’t do without “cheap” Black Labour (It isn;t that cheap if one considers ALL the cost it causes). Nothing could really convince these people then. As for the labour issue, how do they think do Denmark, New-zealand and countries of similar size work? Secessions would let reasons for boycott fall away and I do not think such a boycott would have been really that feasible to uphold it over years (it can be dodged pretty easily). Funny enough there are arguments that the “Anti-Apartheid” boycott did even benefit the South African economy. Finally today all the property of Whites is at the ANC’s disgression. So all the arguments against secession were actually flawed. Some of the Blacks (those that managed their Homelands well) were actually also considering (full) secession. But they were overpowered with force and many of the crowd were tempted by the freebies the ANC and the Communists were promissing to them.
This all makes an interesting study. Close to a million middle class people (mostly White) left South Africa since 1994 - they seceded with their feed and luggage. Life is far easier for criminals then it is for law abiding citizens. the gap between rich and poor is increasing and I wonder to what extend does this have something to do with the institutional set up we are having now.