Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old November 6th, 2009 #21
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,228
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

Could (State) Secession Become a Real Austrian Opportunity?

by Robert Eschauzier

At the core of Mises’, Hayek’s, Rothbard’s and, more recently, Hoppe’s work lies the recognition that governance of markets and societies is a spontaneous and civilizing force far too complex to be "managed" by any form of monopolistic government. For this reason I will attempt to address the pitfall and opportunity which secession from the Federal leviathan might present from the Austrian perspective, especially as so brilliantly outlined by Hans-Hermann Hoppe is his most recent book Democracy: The God That Failed. Since there has been a flurry of essays about Texas secession recently, I will use that State as an example even though the principles discussed apply to all attempts at secession.

The Pitfall

There is only one problem with formal secession by one of the States, but it is a big one. If it is organized by a group of individuals under the color of "The State of Texas" and presented as a formal declaration by them as coming from "Texas," then no substantive change will have been achieved. Separating Texas from the USA does little more than ease the burden of (Federal) taxation and regulation, while leaving the principle of institutional monopoly government and its modern version of "Democracy" completely unchallenged. It is only the scale of government which is being addressed, not its criminal and cancerous nature. Smaller than the Federal monster, the newly seceded State’s government will nevertheless continue to metastasize as its parasitic nature demands.

The Opportunity

Secession, from an Austrian perspective, offers an opportunity to completely repudiate the very concept of institutional monopoly government no matter what label (democracy, republic, constitutional etc.) is put on it. To achieve this, requires first of all that a group of incorruptible individuals wrest control of the existing State government apparatus from the current group of "business as usual" politicians. That this may be so impossible to achieve as to render useless anything I write from here on may be true. I will nevertheless take the optimistic view in an attempt to come up with a set of practical steps which such a group might undertake to achieve a truly Austrian and lasting secession which results in complete abolition of Government.

1. Declaration of Secession: (The need for this first step is primarily to deny those who run the Federal Government and opportunity to "come to the rescue" with its military forces if the State were abolished a priori.)A formal Declaration of Independence and Secession would have to be written and ratified, likely by the legislature and signed by the Governor. A date for publication in all Media has to be chosen. Formal presentation to (and therefore recognition of) the Government of the US or the United Nations should not be attempted as a matter of principle. One cannot claim that Mr. Obama has no right to (forcefully) impose his dictates on others while then behaving towards him as if he does. If military intervention ensues anyway, then all bets are off in the short term even as the true tyrannical nature of government becomes exposed for all to see.

2. Dissolution of State Government: Once State secession has been achieved, a proclamation must be issued, disbanding all forms of monopolist government, including the formal disbanding of the existing State legislature and resignations of its members and the Governor. All existing "elected" politicians will be encouraged to seek suitable employment in the market. "Lower" levels of government (county, city etc.) should be encouraged (but must never be forced) to follow suit.

3. State "Services": A planned conversion of all existing State Government Agencies to non-monopoly services must be initiated. This must be executed in a humane manner so as not to unreasonably punish workers and others ("clients") who currently depend on these agencies.

4. Currency: Monetary policy is the preferred tool of monopoly governments for political market manipulation. The creation of currencies is a competitive function of the market just like any other economic activity. It must never be allowed to be subject to political fiat.

5. Dispute Resolution: Government courts must be abandoned, to be replaced by competing arbitration services, many of which already operate successfully today.

6. Taxation: With the dissolution of the State Government all forms of State taxation or tariffs become a non-issue.

7. Government Land: Land "owned" by the Texas government must be returned to private ownership. Hoppe elaborates on methodology for this at length, so I will refrain from doing so here. Ownership of Federal lands would initially have to remain unchallenged or at least approached very carefully so as not to give those who run the Federal Government an excuse to initiate military action "to protect its legitimate interests," in mind. In the mean time, any individual or groups who after secession wish to acquire such lands may negotiate with the bureaucrats and politicians in Washington to their heart’s content.

8. Immigration: In a system where ALL land and infrastructure (except initially, Federal) is privately owned, all individuals, regardless of their origin, are trespassing if they access a property without permission of its owner(s). Except for Federal lands, would-be immigrants would therefore have to seek those owners’ permission and, if allowed access, become that owners’ responsibility. Migration therefore becomes just another self-regulating activity.

9. Social Services: Millions of individuals presently receive Federal or State benefits of some sort. Those who wish to continue receiving Federal hand-outs, would be free to do so and, if necessary, migrate to any region still associated with and subject to the dictates of the Federal government. Those who wish to throw off this yoke of slavery, will no doubt find many neighbors (now freed of tax burdens) and local church and other volunteer organizations willing to help any who are in genuine need of assistance.

10. Law Enforcement: Laws are just political opinions "enforced" by (the threat of) violence. Those currently engaged in the practice of "Law Enforcement" may be encouraged to find employment and retraining with non-monopoly security services or to move to regions where their skills at terrorizing innocent people may still be in demand.

11. Crime Prevention: Protection from criminals and other (statist) invaders will most likely be offered by insurance companies who contract for these services with companies skilled in such matters such as possibly some existing mercenary outfits which seek to enjoy the moral high ground of serving a willing client instead of a terrorist monopoly government. The market will govern spontaneously which insurers will thrive and which will fail.

12. Health Care: Healthcare will be provided by practitioners and organizations on a competitive basis. Private, competitive insurance plans will no doubt proliferate. Similarly, quality assurance/monitoring will be offered by these insurance providers and "accreditation services" through regular quality audit procedures. Private charity, both intra- and extra-family, will take the place of Medicare and similar "services." The need for such charity will be magnitudes reduced, because both medical services companies and their clients will operate in a market environment free of government taxation and regulation.

13. Financial Services: Caveat emptor! Private rating services together with liability insurers will audit those engaged in issuance and trading of all financial instruments. Any financial service which fails such audits has little to no chance of surviving for more than a few days or weeks.

14. Environment: First and foremost, pollution will be a matter of (encroachment on) private property rights and must be addressed as such by the parties in question. Preservationists will be free to use their own funds to buy any property they wish to protect. They can also use their wealth to try and encourage voluntary conservation activities by third-party property owners.

15. Education: Schooling will be offered by competing entities, funded commercially as well as by various volunteer religious and other special interest groups. Teachers will be welcomed and employed based on their qualifications. Note also that home schooling is very much alive, especially in Texas.

Conclusion

That it would take years to bring a plan such as outlined above to a successful conclusion is obvious. With the newly emerging strength of the secessionist movement, Austrian economists and thinkers may have a real chance at seizing the reigns of civilization from the statist tyrants. Let’s hope we do.

November 7, 2009

Robert Eschauzier [send him mail] is a dual citizen of Canada and The Netherlands. A life-long entrepreneur, he considers himself an arch “autarchist,” meaning that he views society/nature as a self (auto) regulated arrangement, rather than a non (ana-) regulated one. Since discovering LRC and Mises.org about ten years ago, he has been a voracious if informal student of Austrian economics. He currently lives and works in Chicago.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig10/eschauzier1.1.1.html
 
Old November 12th, 2009 #22
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,228
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

Long, somewhat interesting article on the future of the U.S., by a strategic planner at an Ivy league college.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/quinn/quinn17.1.html
 
Old November 27th, 2009 #23
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,228
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

Digits and Revolution

by Gary North

We are seeing the beginning of a social revolution. This revolution will spread to politics. It is happening under our noses.

A revolution involves five crucial elements: (1) a new view of sovereignty; (2) a new view of authority; (3) a new view of law; (4) a new view of sanctions; (5) a new view of the future. Any revolution that does not involve all five is more of a coup than a revolution: a substitution of new rulers for old, not a change in the system.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north786.html
 
Old December 25th, 2012 #24
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,228
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

Thomas Naylor, RIP

Posted by Lew Rockwell on December 24, 2012 01:28 PM

The great secessionist was a former Duke economics professor, and not exactly an Austrian, but we found common cause in opposing the centralized state and its empire. He championed small nations, and especially a Second Vermont Republic. When Vermont is free, this Mississippian must be recognized as its founding father.

Thanks to Kirkpatrick Sale for this obituary.

THOMAS NAYLOR, R.I.P.
Kirkpatrick Sale

Thomas Naylor—he would cringe at anyone calling him “Tom”—was an extraordinary man and his spirit and his influence will be missed by many.

Thomas died recently of heart failure, in Vermont, the state he and his Second Vermont Republic organization dreamed of having secede from the American Empire he so loved to hate. It’s doubtful if that group will continue without him, but the Vermont Commons folks and others like-minded will keep the dream alive.

I first met Thomas around 2000, when we both attended a seminar chaired by Donald Livingston, the Emory philosophy professor, to discuss the seminal work of Leopold Kohr, The Breakdown of Nations, for which I had written a fond introduction. Around a table of academic rightwingers, with more than a whiff of neoconservative about them, he was the only one to unreservedly understand and appreciate the book and its compelling proof of the desirability and necessity of small nations. We hit it off immediately, of course, and in the course of that weekend I came to know his authenticity, perspicacity, and kindness.

We corresponded a bit, and then in late 2003, when John Papworth, editor of the Fourth World Review in England, was looking around for a place to hold his next “Radical Consultation” meeting, I suggested Thomas and John immediately lined him up for a meeting in Vermont for the next year. Thomas had already started his Second Vermont Republic, an organization of mostly himself working to create a separate state for Vermont as it had been between 1777 and 1791, and he agreed to devote the meeting to a discussion of (and we hoped commitment to) secession. We eventually met in Middlebury in early November (the earliest date after the leaf-viewing season when we could afford the rooms) and devoted two days to answering the question of what could serious people, committed to really changing the government we suffer under and creating societies responsive to human needs, actually do in the world.

We began, naturally, discussing—and shortly dismissing—electoral politics, since no one believed significant change would come out of the present system and present parties—and this was just a few days after Bush had bought himself another Presidency. And we took no time in rejecting the reformist lobby-Congress trap that so many liberal groups spend so much time and money on, since that was dealing with those same corrupt parties. Next we considered the third-party alternative, looking at what effect Perot and Nader had on national affairs—damn little, since the major parties control the system—and concluded that any participation in a corrupt electoral system simply leads to having to be beholden to the same special interests that the major parties are.

What alternatives left? Well, reform and revolution, of course, and we had a few people championing that, but it didn’t take long to realize that all the power was on the other side and they wouldn’t be afraid to lose it, while a guerrilla uprising figured to be costly and futile as well.

That, naturally, leaves only secession, and Thomas was an able champion here in putting forth this to people, most of whom had not even thought of this as an alternative before this session. He tended to stress what I came to call the Push reasons for secession—that is, it allows a state to get out from under an inept, dysfunctional, and evil empire so as not to go down with its inevitable collapse, and it frees it from the taxes, wars, regulations, and entangling alliances of that empire. I favored more the Pull reasons—that is, the benefits the state would get if it was on its own, able to gain some measure of democracy, some hands-on control over the decisions that effects its life, in matters such as fuel, food, and finances, some sense of independence and self-determination.

It was not a super-easy sell, since many of these people had more anarchistic tendencies, pointing out the difficulties of trying to run any government no matter how small, but in the end almost everyone came around. At the end of the day we issued a Middlebury Declaration saying, in part:

“The principle of secession must be established as valid and legitimate. To this end, therefore, we are pledged to create a movement that will place secession on the national agenda, encourage nonviolent secessionist organizations throughout the country…and create a body of scholarship to examine and promote the ideas and principles of secession.”

And thus Thomas Naylor in effect created the secession movement and gave impetus to its growing influence over the next decade.

Thomas never wavered from his support for the movement and particularly the Vermont part of it, but he would have his causes and his strategies within it that once they caught his attention he would carry on with a passion.

That led him, for example, to meet up with some people who remembered when Scott and Helen Nearing were setting up their homestead in Vermont, and when he studied Scott’s writings he found enough of the fierce independence fire (despite the underlying Marxism) to convince him that Nearing was a fitting symbol for the Second Vermont Republic—and anyway, that ought to bring the radicals and the liberals, not to mention back-to-the-landers, into the movement. He somehow met up with a man in Long Island capable of making silver coins, and wouldn’t you know that within a few months the SVR website was offering $50 coins with Nearing’s image on one side and a Vermont flag on the other. That the first 500 of these sold out did nothing to convince some of us that Nearing (who was a lifelong socialist and moved to Maine after giving up on Vermont) had no more to do with secession than Mickey Mouse, but Thomas’s enthusiasm never slacked.

Another of his early passions was the idea of a secessionist think-tank. He didn’t want to do it himself, having enough trouble figuring how to shape an SVR that wasn’t invaded by do-gooders and anarchists and the lot of ex-hippies in search of a cause, so he dumped it on me. I little fancied the idea, but he insisted I was the one for it, and in 2005 I gave in and created the Middlebury Institute “for the study of separation, secession, and self-determination,” a grand-sounding affair that was nothing more than a website run from my study but was, and remained, a beacon for those interested in examining the subject. Thanks in part to Thomas’s urging, I sponsored three national congresses of secessionist organization from around the country (at various times there were as many as 35 operating), gaining considerable media attention, and putting the movement on the map.

Then in 2011 Thomas read Morris Berman’s Why America Failed, animated by this vision: “The principal goal of North American civilization, and of its inhabitants, is and always has been an ever-expanding economy—affluence—and endless technological innovation—‘progress.’ A nation of hustlers, writes [Walter] McDougall, a people relentlessly on the make.” That was right down Thomas’s pike and he wrote a glowing review (as did I, of course) and began to mull over a manifesto that would, in effect, detail how America had profoundly failed as a nation of hustlers and how its present empire was beyond redemption.

That eventually became—after contributions from many people and a rewrite by me (it’s what I do)—the Montpelier Manifesto, issued at and endorsed by an Independence Convention at the Vermont State House earlier this year. Its introduction will give some idea of how it captured much of Thomas’s vision:

“We, citizens of this American land, haunted by the nihilism of separation, meaninglessness, and powerlessness, subsumed by political elites who use corporate, state, and military power to manipulate our lives, pawns of a global system of dominance and deceit in which transnational megacompanies and big government control us through money, markets, and media, sapping our political will, civil liberties, collective memory, traditional cultures, sustainability, and independence, and as victims of affluenza, technomania, cybermania, globalism, and imperialism, do issue and proclaim this Document of Grievances and Abuses.”

That was Thomas through and through, in his fullest Push mode. But the manifesto ends with a nod to the Pull factor:

“Let us therefore consider ways peaceably to withdraw from the American Empire by (1) regaining control of our lives from big government, big business, big cities, big schools, and big computer networks; (2) relearning how to take care of ourselves by decentralizing, downsizing, localizing, demilitarizing, simplifying, and humanizing our lives; and (3) providing democratic and human-scale self-government at those local and regional levels most likely to effect our safety and happiness.”

Thomas’s newest passion, and one that alas he did not live to see through, was a conference gathering as many small nations as possible to discuss their important status in the world as balances to the megastates and set up an on-going organization to keep up a steady criticism of those megastates and empires and to encourage small nations and small nations-to-be—like, for example, Vermont. He had formulated this passion while reading a book by the prince of Liechtenstein, Hans-Adam II, on the importance of the world’s smallest states, of which his was one of the smallest (and wealthiest), and so of course he wrote a review of the book (including a criticism of the prince’s favorable view of the American empire) and sent it off to the prince.

That began a several-week correspondence, and in the end the prince agreed to sponsor a small-nation conference exactly as Thomas had envisioned it. He passed the organizing job on to a scholar who runs the Liechtenstein Institute of Self-Determination in Princeton that he established a few years ago, and there was every reason to think that a conference might be held by the end of next year. Thomas and I talked about it on the phone several times, and he was sure that this would be the instrument finally to stick it to the American empire and gain worldwide backing for the secession movement here and elsewhere.

He won’t live to see it, but his colleagues in Vermont and I, with the help of the Liechtenstein institute and the prince, are determined to make it come off, in memory of Thomas, of course, but also because like most of what Thomas did in his life, it is a good and necessary, and ultimately important, cause.

We will miss him.
_________________
Kirkpatrick Sale is director of the Middlebury Institute and the author of a dozen books over fifty years, including most recently Emancipation Hell: The Tragedy Wrought by the Emancipation Proclamation 150 Years Ago (Amazon.com).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ml#more-129456
 
Old December 25th, 2012 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 41,228
Blog Entries: 25
Alex Linder
Default

Thomas Naylor, RIP

Posted by Lew Rockwell on December 24, 2012 01:28 PM

The great secessionist was a former Duke economics professor, and not exactly an Austrian, but we found common cause in opposing the centralized state and its empire. He championed small nations, and especially a Second Vermont Republic. When Vermont is free, this Mississippian must be recognized as its founding father.

Thanks to Kirkpatrick Sale for this obituary.

THOMAS NAYLOR, R.I.P.
Kirkpatrick Sale

Thomas Naylor—he would cringe at anyone calling him “Tom”—was an extraordinary man and his spirit and his influence will be missed by many.

Thomas died recently of heart failure, in Vermont, the state he and his Second Vermont Republic organization dreamed of having secede from the American Empire he so loved to hate. It’s doubtful if that group will continue without him, but the Vermont Commons folks and others like-minded will keep the dream alive.

I first met Thomas around 2000, when we both attended a seminar chaired by Donald Livingston, the Emory philosophy professor, to discuss the seminal work of Leopold Kohr, The Breakdown of Nations, for which I had written a fond introduction. Around a table of academic rightwingers, with more than a whiff of neoconservative about them, he was the only one to unreservedly understand and appreciate the book and its compelling proof of the desirability and necessity of small nations. We hit it off immediately, of course, and in the course of that weekend I came to know his authenticity, perspicacity, and kindness.

We corresponded a bit, and then in late 2003, when John Papworth, editor of the Fourth World Review in England, was looking around for a place to hold his next “Radical Consultation” meeting, I suggested Thomas and John immediately lined him up for a meeting in Vermont for the next year. Thomas had already started his Second Vermont Republic, an organization of mostly himself working to create a separate state for Vermont as it had been between 1777 and 1791, and he agreed to devote the meeting to a discussion of (and we hoped commitment to) secession. We eventually met in Middlebury in early November (the earliest date after the leaf-viewing season when we could afford the rooms) and devoted two days to answering the question of what could serious people, committed to really changing the government we suffer under and creating societies responsive to human needs, actually do in the world.

We began, naturally, discussing—and shortly dismissing—electoral politics, since no one believed significant change would come out of the present system and present parties—and this was just a few days after Bush had bought himself another Presidency. And we took no time in rejecting the reformist lobby-Congress trap that so many liberal groups spend so much time and money on, since that was dealing with those same corrupt parties. Next we considered the third-party alternative, looking at what effect Perot and Nader had on national affairs—damn little, since the major parties control the system—and concluded that any participation in a corrupt electoral system simply leads to having to be beholden to the same special interests that the major parties are.

What alternatives left? Well, reform and revolution, of course, and we had a few people championing that, but it didn’t take long to realize that all the power was on the other side and they wouldn’t be afraid to lose it, while a guerrilla uprising figured to be costly and futile as well.

That, naturally, leaves only secession, and Thomas was an able champion here in putting forth this to people, most of whom had not even thought of this as an alternative before this session. He tended to stress what I came to call the Push reasons for secession—that is, it allows a state to get out from under an inept, dysfunctional, and evil empire so as not to go down with its inevitable collapse, and it frees it from the taxes, wars, regulations, and entangling alliances of that empire. I favored more the Pull reasons—that is, the benefits the state would get if it was on its own, able to gain some measure of democracy, some hands-on control over the decisions that effects its life, in matters such as fuel, food, and finances, some sense of independence and self-determination.

It was not a super-easy sell, since many of these people had more anarchistic tendencies, pointing out the difficulties of trying to run any government no matter how small, but in the end almost everyone came around. At the end of the day we issued a Middlebury Declaration saying, in part:

“The principle of secession must be established as valid and legitimate. To this end, therefore, we are pledged to create a movement that will place secession on the national agenda, encourage nonviolent secessionist organizations throughout the country…and create a body of scholarship to examine and promote the ideas and principles of secession.”

And thus Thomas Naylor in effect created the secession movement and gave impetus to its growing influence over the next decade.

Thomas never wavered from his support for the movement and particularly the Vermont part of it, but he would have his causes and his strategies within it that once they caught his attention he would carry on with a passion.

That led him, for example, to meet up with some people who remembered when Scott and Helen Nearing were setting up their homestead in Vermont, and when he studied Scott’s writings he found enough of the fierce independence fire (despite the underlying Marxism) to convince him that Nearing was a fitting symbol for the Second Vermont Republic—and anyway, that ought to bring the radicals and the liberals, not to mention back-to-the-landers, into the movement. He somehow met up with a man in Long Island capable of making silver coins, and wouldn’t you know that within a few months the SVR website was offering $50 coins with Nearing’s image on one side and a Vermont flag on the other. That the first 500 of these sold out did nothing to convince some of us that Nearing (who was a lifelong socialist and moved to Maine after giving up on Vermont) had no more to do with secession than Mickey Mouse, but Thomas’s enthusiasm never slacked.

Another of his early passions was the idea of a secessionist think-tank. He didn’t want to do it himself, having enough trouble figuring how to shape an SVR that wasn’t invaded by do-gooders and anarchists and the lot of ex-hippies in search of a cause, so he dumped it on me. I little fancied the idea, but he insisted I was the one for it, and in 2005 I gave in and created the Middlebury Institute “for the study of separation, secession, and self-determination,” a grand-sounding affair that was nothing more than a website run from my study but was, and remained, a beacon for those interested in examining the subject. Thanks in part to Thomas’s urging, I sponsored three national congresses of secessionist organization from around the country (at various times there were as many as 35 operating), gaining considerable media attention, and putting the movement on the map.

Then in 2011 Thomas read Morris Berman’s Why America Failed, animated by this vision: “The principal goal of North American civilization, and of its inhabitants, is and always has been an ever-expanding economy—affluence—and endless technological innovation—‘progress.’ A nation of hustlers, writes [Walter] McDougall, a people relentlessly on the make.” That was right down Thomas’s pike and he wrote a glowing review (as did I, of course) and began to mull over a manifesto that would, in effect, detail how America had profoundly failed as a nation of hustlers and how its present empire was beyond redemption.

That eventually became—after contributions from many people and a rewrite by me (it’s what I do)—the Montpelier Manifesto, issued at and endorsed by an Independence Convention at the Vermont State House earlier this year. Its introduction will give some idea of how it captured much of Thomas’s vision:

“We, citizens of this American land, haunted by the nihilism of separation, meaninglessness, and powerlessness, subsumed by political elites who use corporate, state, and military power to manipulate our lives, pawns of a global system of dominance and deceit in which transnational megacompanies and big government control us through money, markets, and media, sapping our political will, civil liberties, collective memory, traditional cultures, sustainability, and independence, and as victims of affluenza, technomania, cybermania, globalism, and imperialism, do issue and proclaim this Document of Grievances and Abuses.”

That was Thomas through and through, in his fullest Push mode. But the manifesto ends with a nod to the Pull factor:

“Let us therefore consider ways peaceably to withdraw from the American Empire by (1) regaining control of our lives from big government, big business, big cities, big schools, and big computer networks; (2) relearning how to take care of ourselves by decentralizing, downsizing, localizing, demilitarizing, simplifying, and humanizing our lives; and (3) providing democratic and human-scale self-government at those local and regional levels most likely to effect our safety and happiness.”

Thomas’s newest passion, and one that alas he did not live to see through, was a conference gathering as many small nations as possible to discuss their important status in the world as balances to the megastates and set up an on-going organization to keep up a steady criticism of those megastates and empires and to encourage small nations and small nations-to-be—like, for example, Vermont. He had formulated this passion while reading a book by the prince of Liechtenstein, Hans-Adam II, on the importance of the world’s smallest states, of which his was one of the smallest (and wealthiest), and so of course he wrote a review of the book (including a criticism of the prince’s favorable view of the American empire) and sent it off to the prince.

That began a several-week correspondence, and in the end the prince agreed to sponsor a small-nation conference exactly as Thomas had envisioned it. He passed the organizing job on to a scholar who runs the Liechtenstein Institute of Self-Determination in Princeton that he established a few years ago, and there was every reason to think that a conference might be held by the end of next year. Thomas and I talked about it on the phone several times, and he was sure that this would be the instrument finally to stick it to the American empire and gain worldwide backing for the secession movement here and elsewhere.

He won’t live to see it, but his colleagues in Vermont and I, with the help of the Liechtenstein institute and the prince, are determined to make it come off, in memory of Thomas, of course, but also because like most of what Thomas did in his life, it is a good and necessary, and ultimately important, cause.

We will miss him.
_________________
Kirkpatrick Sale is director of the Middlebury Institute and the author of a dozen books over fifty years, including most recently Emancipation Hell: The Tragedy Wrought by the Emancipation Proclamation 150 Years Ago (Amazon.com).

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ml#more-129456
 
Old June 26th, 2016 #26
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,797
Hugh
Default Secession Begins at Home

__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
http://www.aeinstein.org/english/
http://canvasopedia.org/218-2/
 
Old June 26th, 2016 #27
Hugh
Holorep survivor
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The wild frontier
Posts: 4,797
Hugh
Default Secession: The Reasonable Option Everyone Resists

__________________
Secede. Control taxbases/municipalities. Use boycotts, divestment, sanctions, strikes.
http://www.aeinstein.org/wp-content/...d-Jan-2015.pdf
http://www.aeinstein.org/english/
http://canvasopedia.org/218-2/
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:21 AM.
Page generated in 0.13243 seconds.