How much is too much?

[03Lightningrocks]

You might as well be making the same argument about seat belts. When did you give that freedom up?

Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.

[wheelgun1958]

You might as well be making the same argument about seat belts. When did you give that freedom up?

A seat belt is not injected into my body.

[longtooth]

You might as well be making the same argument about seat belts. When did you give that freedom up?

Driving a car is not a constitutionally protected right.

Agree for sure. I will try to get in trouble again here. I was in seatbelts/motorcycle helmet Way before it became law and the argument/discussion about rights infringement got started. When it was brought up then I always asked the people who were refusing to wear if they were willing to wave the disability pmts for injury and accept that responsibility themselves. Insurance companies were lobbying da gubermeant for the law to protect themselves. Everybody wanted the right to ride dangerous but no one wanted the responsibility of self care.
Off my box.

[wil]

I no longer believe that a Texit is out of the question. And I have no doubt that I’d join a serious effort with viable leaders. But that line of thinking brings about some personal considerations that I haven’t heard anybody else mention.
If we claim that Texas is now an independent country and no longer part of the United States, then we would not be US citizens. You can kiss good by to your Social Security, Medicare, Tricare, and any other Federal benefits. My wife and I own a 2 1/2 acre plot of land in SE Arkansas with a house on it where we had intended to retire. My wife owns 40 acres of timber land up there also. Unless Arkansas comes along with us, I’m sure that would be forfeit.
Would we still use the U.S. currency or come up with our own? If your bank is a federal bank, the US Government might well freeze all assets from citizen in a state of rebellion.
It may be something we have to do, but we should go into it with out eyes wide open.

finally somebody has taken the time to think this through carefully and ask the right question. What do we do about all the people on Social Security if this state, and others, secede? Leave them to starve?

No I am not offering an argument against secession, I firmly believe secession is about the only viable option towards dealing with the current status-quo, and most especially reinforcing the truths identified in the founding laws of this country. That being the Declaration of Independence. As what was identified in that document is literally the starting point of where and why things have degenerated to the point of where we are now. most everything within the current status-quo violates what is in there one way or another.

My point is every time this subject comes up it's the same worthless arguments with no real basis in validity, nobody takes the time to think it through carefully and ask the genuine questions that need answering.
Social Security retirees are one of the legitimate question in the face of this as it is a real possibility they would lose what income they have and they have no other options.
It is possible such a scenario presents the possibility of negotiating the benefits people have worked for they continue to receive. Based on the actions of the left and what that says about them, I suspect they would not agree. They would act vindictively against seceding states by any means they could.

Also firmly agree with the question of what do seceding states do for money? Another fiat currency? That's literally handing the left a seriously capable weapon against seceding states.
I would hope a bonafide plan for secession includes a genuine money backed by precious metal, owing to that is a bonafide hedge against inflating and debasing a currency. Silver would be at least one option if not a genuine gold-backed money.
That could be done, institute a genuine money, not currency, via it being backed by a bonafide precious metal.
It would make it that much harder for the statists within, perhaps we'll call it 'the old country' , to enact monetary based warfare against the new country via deliberate currency debasement.

Another bonafide question, your properties, what of these? Odds are AR would be among the seceding states however that's only one situation, financial market type things? stock market is run in NY, what about people's property tied up in that? NY will not be seceding, that's a safe bet.

I do agree secession is something that we are likely going to have to do, unless states start firmly enforcing the 10th amendment. And should Tx and other states have to secede, we should go into that with a plan before doing so, not make the mistakes the South made when they tried it.

I don't know what the current status of the bill that was put up to develop a plan for secession, however I am genuinely heartened that such a bill exists, what it says about the current status of things.

[madwildcat]

finally somebody has taken the time to think this through carefully and ask the right question. What do we do about all the people on Social Security if this state, and others, secede? Leave them to starve?

Currently, retirees can continue to receive Social Security payments while living abroad in most countries. Whether or not this would happen in a secession situation is a different question. The short term answer would likely be no, but likely the long term answer would be yes, as a working relationship would likely be necessary between the countries.

[wil]

I no longer believe that a Texit is out of the question. And I have no doubt that I’d join a serious effort with viable leaders. But that line of thinking brings about some personal considerations that I haven’t heard anybody else mention.

Everything you mention are actually political questions that can be settled by the final negotiations. I don't think we would necessarily give up any benefits or citizenship since the US recognizes dual citizenship. Land ownership in the US is not subject to citizenship requirement (ask the Chinese), so that is not a worry either. Living there as a non-citizen (depending how that goes) may be a little trickier though.

I have a whole different set of concerns I have been considering. Things like how to protect my family while I am fighting. After all, when the first shot gets fired, we become criminals and traitors until we win. The government will retaliate and harass our family members in an attempt to capture us. They would probably also bug their phones and closely surveil them to see if you contact them. When this starts, if I am in on it, I expect to say goodbye to my whole family for the duration. And since I don't expect to survive if we do not win, it might be my final goodbye.

Those are the types of consequences I am preparing for. I will be betting my life, my family, my fortune, and my sacred honor on it. I want everyone else who is considering it to think of those consequences and prepare for them also.

Part of what I wrote was in reference to the first part of your post, I agree it is possible such things could be handled via negotiation, on the hope the 'old country' would do so.

As for conflict, and it very well may come to armed conflict,we have options. As an armed public we have two chief strengths, our numbers and location. We are everywhere. Is there a historical precedent where those two chief strengths operated on an effective basis? Yes, first being the original minuteman from the founding of this country.
They were effective and they apply to nowadays as they operated locally, hence it applying to our location, armed public being everywhere within whatever seceding state. Modern minuteman operating locally or within your immediate area.
Also the Minuteman had his regular job to support himself, however he was trained to respond immediately when the call came, hence the term minuteman, within minutes response.

Also our numbers work to our advantage, operating locally we can bring strength of numbers to whatever the situation is and being we are decentralized, how are you going to find a specific target to destroy? Can't be done.

within secession it also brings those two factors as an advantage as once a state or states declare themselves independent, it makes no difference if the 'old country' considers them criminals. Truthfully the old country's legal authority has been revoked and therefore they have no legal authority to act within that new country.
What does this do? Creates essentially a safe haven for citizens to act in legitimate self-defense against aggression from the old country, right now anyone who engages in the use of force faces hostile government at the federal, state, county, and city level. Secede and three out of four of those levels of hostile government are removed.
An individual who is acting as a minuteman is no longer a criminal within his new country, he is acting within bonafide self defense via the use of force. It is true the other side wont see it that way, that makes no difference.
What secession brings to the individual and his ability to act in perhaps a minuteman capacity is what matters.

[ScottDLS]

It occurs to me that 1860 style secession is not really in the cards. The economies of the States are too linked. Just the modern telecom and energy and other supply chain infrastructures are too interlinked to function with a total lack of economic (and therefore some level of political) cooperation between the States.

The issue is that over the last 120 years, way too much power has been ceded to the Federal government by the States. The remaining political remedy is to return much of it back. This would involve a significant shrinking of the central government and given the current state of politics and its corruption, I doubt that will happen. But who knows.

I foresee the following scenarios playing out:

The Federal government continues to grow in power and scope resulting a European style social welfare state with high taxes, regulations, and significantly curtailed freedoms, along with a low standard of living for 90% of the population.

States take back significant power from the central government, perhaps through an Article 5 convention, allowing different social and economic models in the States based on the desires of their populations and a looser Federation of "United" States performing the original functions of the central government in foreign affairs and national defense.

A soft secession, with states like Texas rejecting federal authority in many areas where it significantly goes against the interests of these States. Things like taking control of the border from the Feds. Refusing to enforce federal laws and ignoring federal court orders. States doing this would cause significant social and economic destruction to both themselves and the other states and central government. Perhaps some smaller scale armed skirmishes between Federal and State forces.

What I don't see is an all out Civil War II with massive armed conflict and complete geographic political separation.

[BigGuy]

WiL and ScottDLS. You guys have expressed much more clearly the things I was trying to say. You've also both pointed out nuances I hadn't;t considered.

[philip964]

To me for a state to succeed, they would need to agree to “ pay off” their current share of the national debt at the time they leave. Most likely based on their current electoral vote count. Not sure how you would figure their share of Social Security responsibility.

Right now Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden have gotten away with unusually low interest payments on the debt. This has allowed Congress to run the debt way up, with little or no regard for paying it back or worrying about interest payments eating up all the budget ( just think Greece ). However with a real succession or civil war on the horizon. Most other people in the world would turn away from buying our debt and woe look out interest rates would skyrocket.

Rather than getting smaller, we need to talk Canada, Mexico and the Islands to join us, all the way down to Panama.

[wil]

WiL and ScottDLS. You guys have expressed much more clearly the things I was trying to say. You've also both pointed out nuances I hadn't;t considered.

Thanks, this is a subject I spend a fair amount of time thinking about. It gets frustrating owing to instead of people genuinely trying to think towards how it can be done, instead are too many immediate arguments against it and have the appearance of lack of critical thinking. Owing to if secession is not a valid and realistic possibility, then what options do they offer?
Nothing outside of the current status-quo or options within that, of which don't have any real possibility and it begs the question. If the current system is corrupt to the point secession is a valid idea and that fact is self-evident, then why is attempting to use that same corrupt system a valid point of view?

This state existed as an independent country once before and the economic situation was a lot tougher back then, There was far less industry and so forth existed here, yet people found a way to make it happen.
Not to mention most argument seem to be based on this state alone seceding, which if things come to that point I don't see happening.
The most viable candidates for secession are likely the states Trump won and if an individual takes those states, overlays them on the original southern nation first off you'll see the original southern nation matches that almost exactly. Including the border states from back then such as kansas & missouri. And that has held constant through 40+ years of presidential elections owing to those areas being the major bastion for traditional american culture and the truths it was created on, of which secession is an effort to preserve.
Along with that, overlay the prediction the russian made however many decades ago about this country breaking up?
It matches that almost exactly.
I'd do the overlay to illustrate the point however i don't have the computer skills to do so.
The point of this being the economic side of this issue were one to consider the area that covers and what is contained within that in terms of economic activity? There's more than enough for for an independent country.
Along with that is the idea of states that'd not leave. Ca, Mass, new york, upper eastern seaboard, anything the democrats traditionally win. What exactly do they contribute to this state on an economic basis? What would they contribute to that new nation on an economic basis?
I'm not an expert on economics and my thinking could be wrong however what do those states comprise that we would not be able to get by without? A market? look at the size of what might secede and how is that not a market by itself?

No federal income tax in the new country? No more federal excise taxes, regulations, etc. ? How much economic freedom and hence economic ability would that give a new country? Add in a bonafide non-inflationary money backed by a genuine precious metal and you have a very good economic start.
The southern states were in pretty much the same situation as we are now, the morell tariffs being a major contributor to the secession back then and the economic and hence political effect from that. The major difference back then from now being the rate at which goods moved as well as the flow of information however there was still interstate economic activity. Yet the southern nation was able to secede and keep going outside of having to defend itself against an illegal war and the economic drain that creates.

Whatever economic issues with the old country could be used as a negotiation point rather than armed conflict, assuming the old country leaders are rational-minded enough to not resort to violence in the face of secession, it could be a starting point for worthwhile negotiations.

The people who live in seceding states who don't wish to live under a bonafide constitutional republic, with the inherent rights and resulting freedoms that presents?
if they wish to live under the current status-quo then secession abides by their inherent civil right to determine their own future. They have the ability to choose how they want to live, stay within a seceding state or make whatever decisions and actions they feel they need to leave. There is nothing forcing them to stay or go, secession abides by those natural rights.
Regardless of what political beliefs they have, remember they still have the same natural rights as the rest of us.
To ignore those rights means we've taken the first major step towards becoming just like their beliefs, secession is a means of avoiding that and ultimately repeating going down the same path we're forced onto right now.

These are just a couple things off the top of my head, I could write more however it hopefully illustrates the point.

Right now we live under a monopoly of government, we have no other viable option our current status-quo has to compete against hence that monopoly representing a means to power for those who desire it. The current monopoly was directly identified and addressed in our original founding document and the natural law it also identified, that being the Declaration of Independence.
The issue is removing that monopoly and creating an option and under the current status-quo there is no genuinely viable means to do so, voting isn't going to accomplish it given what we've seen done to our vote in this last election.
Secession creates a viable option for self-governance and removes that monopoly and inherently removes the path to power.

[wil]

To me for a state to succeed, they would need to agree to “ pay off” their current share of the national debt at the time they leave. Most likely based on their current electoral vote count. Not sure how you would figure their share of Social Security responsibility.

Right now Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden have gotten away with unusually low interest payments on the debt. This has allowed Congress to run the debt way up, with little or no regard for paying it back or worrying about interest payments eating up all the budget ( just think Greece ). However with a real succession or civil war on the horizon. Most other people in the world would turn away from buying our debt and woe look out interest rates would skyrocket.

Rather than getting smaller, we need to talk Canada, Mexico and the Islands to join us, all the way down to Panama.

below is an article which addresses national debt and partly addresses whether or not that is a consideration in regards to secession.

https://www.libertystorch.info/2021/10/ ... tinctions/

[Hoodasnacks]

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pre ... 1-2021.pdf

Gov Abbot just helped some to allow for personal liberty. If the States assert power, it will help quite a bit.

[wil]

https://gov.texas.gov/uploads/files/pre ... 1-2021.pdf

Gov Abbot just helped some to allow for personal liberty. If the States assert power, it will help quite a bit.

read it and it sounds good, specifically mentions biden using private industry to bully people. So how do we go about using this to stop any attempts at jab mandates?

I work in a federally regulated industry, and they're claiming owing to such the so-called biden EO (of which nobody has actually seen....) supersedes this State EO. I don't buy that argument however as of now, how do we implement this?

At our work there's word going around what's coming eventually it's either take the jab or be banned from the property, no entry to the property allowed without the jab. Not fired, you simply are banned from entry to the property, hence no employment.