Enemies of Liberty are ruthless. To own your Liberty, you'd better come harder than your enemies..

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Secession


Enlarge this map and study it for a bit.  A professor went through the history books and drew new state lines/boundaries had every secessionist movement in America were successful.  I can't say that he included the Civil War in his factoring, but let's ignore that just for the sake of this discussion.

For my allies who are Secessionists, Anarchists and non Constitutionalists, would this map keep you in the Constitutional fold - predicated, of course, that every state adheres to the bare minimum of Natural Laws articulated in the Bill of Rights, and that each state defended her Citizens the way the Founders intended from the predations of FedGov.

In theory, this map would put like-minded groups together, governing themselves with no need to suffer the lowest common denominator or people they simply can not find agreement.

This is, of course, a discussion for after we win.

I would support such a United States of America under 2 conditions (the same 2 conditions I insist must be reformed today.)  First: No state may impose any law that infringes the Natural Law of a Citizen.  This means a Texan can walk to New York with his pistol on his hip and rifle on his back, and not be molested even once by .gov.  Second: I would insist that each state relaim and use the Tenth Amendment, as intended, to beat the snot our of the Feds when they tried to get all touchy-feely.

This post is a slight diversion from my One Week series, as it considers the Aftermath, an Afrtermath that retains the Constitution.

I would also suggest that in order for this to work, lest any one delegation become too powerful (as we have today) Article I Section II be enforced diligently - 1 representative per 30,000 residents.  As it stands today our representatives do not share my values or our rebukes - because majority rules.  But if my Congressman was recruited from the men and women in my 'burb, you can bet they'd be a little more attentive.

Back to the beginning: Would you non-Constitutionalists give the above a real, legitimate chance under the premise I articulated - especially that FedGov keeps their hands off you.  Don't get too hung up on where we should draw lines - they are merely markings on paper.  The important point is that we not only Restore the Constitution - but make it safer and more secure for the Citizens.

Here's the link.

Kerodin
III

20 comments:

  1. Speaking only for myself. Your two proposed "conditions" are necessary but insufficient to ensure Rightful Liberty in the new confederation.

    Your "first condition" must be much more specific and ensure members of the new confederation agree to implement common-law and abolish statute, ordinance and regulation.

    I choose not to call these members by the label "state" in order to avoid the implication of monopoly on the use of force, establishment of police powers, and other attributes of the modern nation-state.

    This means that only crimes "malum in se", real damage to people and property, will be recognized and prosecuted. No form of faux crime "malum prohibitum" will be recognized or tolerated.

    You can explore my emphasis on common-law v statutory law, and how I arrived at my conclusions, in some of my articles on NCRENEGADE. (most recent listed first)

    "How Will We Govern Ourselves After We Win?"
    http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/how-will-we-govern-ourselves-after-we-win/

    "More Musings of a Liberty Junkie"
    http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/more-musings-of-a-liberty-junkie/

    "In Search of Mr Jeffersons' Liberty"
    http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/in-search-of-mr-jeffersons-liberty/

    Hans
    Living in peace in the NC woods

    ReplyDelete
  2. K---you are a good man---think beyond and above the constitution if free people are to survive and thrive. The framers were brilliant as they looked a liberty vs government examples in history and their present day predicaments and made the best social contract they could at the time.

    Look at the constitution and form of "united states" government it created---with the history of an additional 200+ years to reflect on and improve on that document...even to the point of rewriting entire sections of it.

    Examples----A reformed Bill of Rights and Natural Laws that are not "amendments" but the only foundation of the government----not subject to any amendment/court ruling processes.....

    a) No government of the Republic of Free America shall make any law regarding the people's right to keep and bear arms.

    b) No government of the RFA shall prevent states and territories from leaving the RFA.

    just some examples.....yea....I know you want the focal point to be restoring the existing constitution....but a lot of people out here want way more than that as an extra incentive.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I am not sanguine about a united states concept - we were better off, individually and state-wise, as a confederacy (original, not secessionist). That said, if the constitution as originally conceived, were bolstered (as you suggest) with ironclad safeguards both for individual liberty and against "governmentism" at every level, I'd be willing to set my devout anarchism to the side - at arm's reach.

    ReplyDelete
  4. No set of conditions can prevent the violation of Natural Laws - it takes men of grit and mettle to claim and keep Liberty, whatever the guiding document. There will always be men who mean to be Masters, and we must always put them in a ditch thy begin to go bad.

    On point 2 - I am with you 99.9% go before I go all-in, I need a small clarification: Would you consider a drunk driver who kills someone as a direct result of driving drunk - do you lump him in the malum in se" camp, with a death penalty?

    Thanks for weighing in.

    K

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello "K" - I'll assume "the case of the drunk driver" was directed toward me ...

      I am no expert on common-law, but I'll offer an opinion. I put the quotes around the phrase for a reason.

      Common-law is 'case-law'. Each pleading is a presentation of facts describing an injury or damage with identification of a responsible agent (person or organization). The outcome involves some form of restitution or punishment.

      An outcome delivered by the jurors is based on the particular details presented in the case and not upon a "one size fits all" rule ... e.g. an eye for an eye, a life for a life. The role of the judge is to research history for similar cases to guide the determination.

      Yes, the death is clearly "malum in se" as the injury / damage (death) is not in dispute. However, the circumstances may have a significant bearing upon the outcome at trial.

      As an example, consider an individual killed while jay-walking from between cover of parked vehicles. The jurors might determine that no driver, impaired or otherwise, could have reacted in time to avoid a collision. If so, the presence of alcohol would not be considered a factor in an accidental death. No punishment would be warranted.

      One could hypothesize any number of other examples, ending in cases of clear driver neglegence through lack of control of the vehicle. The spectrum of possible outcomes is much like the differences recognized in statutory law between murder, homicide, wrongful death, and accidental death, each having a range of penalties.

      I hope this explanation helps.

      Hans
      at peace in the NC woods

      Delete
    2. Hans: Yep, I was directing the drunk driver analogy toward your first piece, and as I expected you answered with the proper nuance to make sure the driver would get fair treatment.

      Given the responses here and elsewhere I can honestly admit I fear what happens after victory more than I fear the status quo. At least right now we know we are being raped and in general who is doing the raping. It is very easy for my mind to venture into the realm of warlords in the months/years following the Liberty Games. I am not sanguine the people with sufficient power to sway change will be the people in the rooms helping get "society" back on its feet.

      Stay safe.

      Delete
  5. So, I am not a good man if I do not advocate scrapping the USC and seek to restore the very goals of the DoI and BoR through the process of the USC?

    Everything for which you are asking already exists in the USC - but you refuse to ignore the violators of those rule. Write a new document forbidding them any anti-2A power, and it'll be just a few weeks before they, too, begin to infringe.

    You've already got a document that gives you all the freedom and Liberty for which one could ask - yet no one put heads on pikes when the Bad People fail to stay within the lines.

    It isn't the paper's fault. It's ours. Write a new paper and people will ignore it as freely as they ignore this one. Shall we scrap the bible simply because people don't abide it, or because people still get abortions?

    The problem is in the mirror.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "So, I am not a good man if I do not advocate scrapping the USC and seek to restore the very goals of the DoI and BoR through the process of the USC?"

      Quite the opposite. You're just confusing the means with the end, that's all.

      Delete
  6. I'm guessing you'd prefer that hard time with manual labor be the penalty for the aforementioned drunk driver, rather than death or feel goody AA classes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon: You must not come here very often and/or have the reading comprehension of the average 1st grader.

      I'd support cutting his head off with a spoon.

      Delete
  7. Another voice chimes in (h/t zerohedge)...

    http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/02/the-constitution-failed/

    Lemme make something clear. Contrary to Alan's charges and your suspicions, I am neither an anarchist nor anti-Constitutionalist. I'm just me, that's all, and I recognize that ANY social construct MUST recognize the facts as they are. And the fact is that we are each free-willed volitional beings. Hence to "work," ANY system MUST be built of CONSENT...not vote, decree, benevolent dictatorship, anything. The intended morality has nothing to do with it---you can't COERCE morality. Coercion is the very opposite of morality in a social context, and so is an automatic contradiction.

    Further, I'm definitely no anarcho-capitalist. Speaking of morality, the purchase of immorality can't possibly be any better than the vote for it. Nonetheless, catch this idiocy from the first commenter in the linked post...

    "Anarcho-capitalism is a fantasy, there has never been such a human condition."

    Great logic, huh? Guy would've been a hoot in 1880 talking about horseless carriages. Take a look now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JK: I can't/won't speak for Alan - but I personally don't put you into any category - no label "fits" you well.

      And this statement is not directed at you, but here is a simple fact: The Constitution has never failed ANYONE. It never had the power to defend ANYONE. Just like the Bible, it is a series of words, words used for good and/or ill by Men.

      When I hear the regurgitation that "...the Constitution failed us..." I know I am wasting my time talking to a shallow thinker. I do not care who writes it or what words they use or which language - no written words ever have, ever will be able, to do a single damned thing.

      It takes Human Responsible Agency. And there is our problem.

      It is easier for people to blame anything except themselves for the problems they face. Bad job forecast? Damn that Constitution. Bad diplomacy? Damn that Constitution.

      Abortions hat have murdered tens-of-millions in America alone in the last 40 year - well the fault must be traced back to the bible, because it failed us.

      With these people in the gene pool, I can only hope I am at Ground Zero when an asteroid the size of the sun hits us square on.

      K

      Delete
    2. Exactly. So if the paper can't do it, and it takes the people, I say focus on the people and not the paper. That's all. The paper can follow. Ends/means.

      No label fits me? Hallelujah...success! Really, no label fits anyone, except in the single attribute of the label. And who the hell wants to live as a single attribute?

      Delete
  8. Great comments; thanks. Hans, you know how the typical reader will respond to your superb common law insights: "How will it be administered? How will it be enforced? Who will pay for it?" That's how people think these days, and that's the problem...always looking outside, never in the mirror as K notes.

    We know the answers to those questions..."By consent, by agreement." That's the end of it IMO, no matter how it manifests. That's why I say I'm neither anarchist nor necessarily anti-Constitution. The issue, explicitly stated in the DofI, is the CONSENT of the governed. Call it consensualism, voluntarism, whatever. It doesn't matter what it's called; it matters what it IS.

    For my money, K's got the whole thing pegged in 10 words, with only one word wrong. He wrote, "It takes Human Responsible Agency. And there is our problem."

    Bingo! Except it's not the problem; it's the SOLUTION. It's the only POSSIBLE solution in the long run. I say that not because of my beliefs or my morality, but only as a matter of simple fact. We DO have Human Responsible Agency, so it's absolutely necessary that whatever institutions we form, be consistent with that fact. Anything else is absolutely doomed to failure ultimately, which explains why every "system" that refuses to acknowledge that, ultimately fails. Sadly including the USofA, the good intentions of the Founders notwithstanding. As we see only too clearly, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

    Nobody would flap their arms and expect to fly to Mars, and it's the same with regard to governing individuals. Absent thuggery, only one thing governs each individual...always been that way and always will be. It ain't rocket science; it's obvious. The tough part is admitting it in the face of thousands of years of being taught, and forced, otherwiise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I do not agree that secessionist are necessarily not Constitutionalists. As you say "it is all in there" and "It is also only words that cannot defend us" We must do that ourselves. In my view it is the Federal Government (mostly) and the crony states that have abandoned and ignore/warp the Constitution and the only way to keep it alive will be to secede and then live and govern by it. The Constitution itself may not have much in point of fact about secession but those entities that do not follow it have already left it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. More often than not the secessionist and anarchist come to condemn our Constitution, make all manner of charges saying that there was some sort of Federalist conspiracy to insure a tyrannical government as well as other shit totally unsupported by the literature. The secessionist makes a great to do about how the South was fucked over by the North. While that is true with regard to what happened after the South quit the fight and surrendered, I find it amusing that the Constitution of the Confederacy was virtually word for word like that of our existing Constitution.

    Much of what the anarchists and secessionists say with regard to our Constitution and form of government is the same as what is said by the Communist and Islamist. Ergo, I'm not inclined to trust them and certainly will not stand a post with the fuckers.

    I'm absolutely certain that if I were to ask Barack Obama if he was a communist he would go in to a very eloquent dissertation with all manner of fancy words about how he was some evolved thinker and just as much an American as me.

    Unfortunately, I am a plain man. I'm not much into nuances and such detailed talk. In other words, I'm pretty black and white. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, walks like a duck, it's a duck. Yer either for me or agin' me. And at the end of the day I don't care which. All of us are free to make choices. But at some point, all that individual shit aside, you gotta bond with like minded folks to make anything work.

    I'm sure ol' Barack would have notions about who and what I am. He can think anything he wants about me. I could care less. And that goes for any other rat bastard motherfucker with notions that are not congruent with mine.

    Fortunately for me I'm reasonably sure that the people that matter are for me. I'm also reasonably sure that some of the others will come around. With regard to the rest? Don't care. They chose. I chose. Let's do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Generally speaking, the only way to resolve a contradiction or an indefensible position is to either change something or resort to dishonesty. The rational man is willing to change.

      As was noted on this very blog, it was George Mason who first brought forth the idea that the Constitution might be a conspiracy. Y'know, that's the guy most responsible for what K says is all that counts--1A, 2A, 9A, 10A. You kickin' K out of the Club now?

      No, of course not, because you pick and choose what you want to see and not see. The problem with your duck theory is that it would render you a collectivist thug. Personally I don't buy that at all, but I'm always open to persuasion. I think you believe in Rightful Liberty, but something renders you unable to declare it proudly. If that's wrong, then I'll be happy to be corrected upon your proud declaration.

      You're no plainer than me, but on some topics--like who ought to force whom and why--some nuance is called for. Me, I say only in defense. That doesn't mean one never acts first; it means one never engages aggression against another in the absence of the other choosing to engage aggression himself.

      Commonly, that's called "non-initiation of force" or the NAP. It's perfectly captured in Jefferson's Rightful Liberty statement.

      So start there. Spit it out...do you agree with that or not? Don't dance and don't tell me about me; that's almost a hobby for you lately. Just answer the damn question.

      Delete
  11. Epistemology: http://blog.kentforliberty.com/2014/02/oh-now-i-get-it.html

    It's two lines long, so you've got the time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fuck you Klein. You common anarchist.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's an okay hobby, Alan; whatever turns you on. Still, Rightful Liberty is a pretty important topic, especially around here.

    BTW the only part I really care about is your implicit pretension that somehow I am the cause for what you write or do. That's the whole problem with the world--the refusal to accept responsibility--and I don't understand why you would want to further that silliness. Maybe you'll check that premise some day.

    You got nothing to say about Rightful Liberty, for it or agin' it? Noted.

    ReplyDelete

Please post anonymously and include your recognized online handle in the body of the comment.