digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

New Hampshire Secession

republicofnh.org — There's a New Hampshire secession movement. This Platform for NH Independence is one that speaks to both conservatives and liberals. Most of the principles are benefits that other states, if they seceded, could have too. No More UN. No More IRS. And Free Trade! How could a society free from massive the central planning of DC not be prosperous?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -6/+62As much as I like the idea of fulfilling the promise of the Declaration of Independence, I fully expect that any real effort to separate from the jurisdiction of the federal United States would be met with exactly the same response it was met by the first and last time it was tried:

    Military invasion and forced reintegration.

    However, the effort of demonstrating the benefits of throwing off all the chains that can be thrown off is beneficial all by itself.
    • Paktu, on 10/12/2007, -21/+42Let's just pretend that tomorrow, New Hampshire held a referendum and voted to secede. Do you really think that the US Army would roll in with tanks? What does the country gain by keeping a state from declaring independence?

      Besides, our entire military is tied up in Iraq right now...
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -9/+41I think it would be more more difficult for the Government to spread propaganda about a seceding state. I mean. the News Media's right there on the east coast. Everybody that lives in New Hampshire has friends and family in a different state. News travels almost instantaneously these days with Radio, and the Internet then it did way back in the mid-1800s. If anything I would think it would encourage other secessionist movements to finally secede too. Alaska, HI, South Carolina, and even California have secessionist movements. This really is the only peaceful way to decentralize power away from Washington and hopefully end the mass socialism and empire building.

      Tracy
    • finalmillenium, on 10/12/2007, -3/+45Let's not forget that their is a state that can legally leave the Federated states and DC can't do anything about it. Texas.
      At least someone got it right when they were framing their state constitution.
    • drinkGreen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31@Paktu

      "Do you really think that the US Army would roll in with tanks?"

      The U.S. government did it in 1861, except not with tanks. The states seceded, and Lincoln sent in the Army to get them to surrender, which turned into a bloody battle (Battle of Bull Run/Manassas), which in turn started the Civil War.
    • rekrapt, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Yep, that there war of Northern Aggression will get ya'll every time.
    • Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13"As much as I like the idea of fulfilling the promise of the Declaration of Independence, I fully expect that any real effort to separate from the jurisdiction of the federal United States would be met with exactly the same response it was met by the first and last time it was tried"

      Actually, what you're thinking of wasn't the first time--in addition to a few conspiracies to separate from the Union (most notably the interesting tale of Aaron Burr), the closest we've come to secession other than the Civil War was the Nullification Crisis under Andrew Jackson. South Carolina declared it had the power to nullify laws and taxes it didn't like, which didn't sit well with the national government. Rumblings of secession grew, so Andrew Jackson laid the verbal smack down in a written proclamation and a Force Bill authorizing him to use force if necessary. Senator Clay eventually hammered out a compromise tariff and everyone lived happily ever after (until about 30 years later when the economic tensions beteween north and south that had only been postponed, not solved, along with many other factors, helped cause a Civil War)

      So I'd imagine something similar would happen to New Hampshire today--if things got serious, Bush would make a big speech and get Congress to give him authority to use force if necessary, some sort of concessions would be made to NH, and the secessionists would back down. If they REALLY wanted to secede, they'd need to get half the country to go with them to even stand a chance.
    • osuadh, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Unfortunately for these secessionists, "Congress passed legislation outlawing the act of secession by any state in the Union" following the Civil war (from wikipedia). Secondly, "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1869 case Texas v. White that unilateral secession by a U.S. state was unconstitutional and that it had no force in statutory law". So while this may seem like a good idea, the government has assured that they have every right to stop secession from the U.S.
    • ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+27@Paktu
      "What does the country gain by keeping a state from declaring independence?"

      The appearance of legitimacy. Can't have the proles thinking they can choose who governs them. Sure, they allow you to vote between two-halves of the same coin, but the control is still theirs.

      Also, it might foster such un-patriotic questions as, "if a state can leave the union, why can't a county, or a city, or any arbitrary collection of individuals who would wish it so. In fact, why am I subject to the whims of a few men in a far-away city by mere accident of my location of birth." No, we must not let such such dangerous questions arise.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"Do you really think that the US Army would roll in with tanks? What does the country gain by keeping a state from declaring independence?"

      As soon as one state does it, others will try to do the same thing. The whole country will end up in chaos.
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13It's nice to see people in this thread acually know their history. South Carolina always had problems with the feds, and the reason was simple:

      South Carolina made *****-tons of money from exports, but the Feds put so much tax on it that they had to lower prices and make less money, meanwhile the poor tennant farmers and other small time farmers are starving to death while the very select few plantation owners made a decen amount of money. The whole time the Fed was spending all their money (85% of which came from the South) on infrastructure in the Northeast. There's a reason the Northeast is so more developed, and such a ***** now. It's not by chance.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15The fundamental problem with this platform is that THEY HAVE BEEN INVITING SECESSIONISTS TO MOVE TO NH.

      There is a HUGE difference between NH residents deciding to seceed, and a secessionist movement artificially relocating their members to NH and THEN seceeding. Thats not secession, thats kidnapping a state. I was born and raised in NH and although I hate Bush I am more than happy to be an American thanks.

    • ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10@brundlefly76

      They had guys like you back in 1776 too.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyalist_(American_Revolution)
    • yonman14, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@Final millenium: Texas has the same legal basis for secession as done any other state...none. I think you're confusing the fact that at one point they were legally able to divide into 5 seperate states, which would have thrown off the slave state/free state balance.

      Texas didn't even enter the United States legally, as it wasn't approved by Congress, rather it entered through a special session or something by a similiar name.
    • ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9"Texas has the same legal basis for secession as done any other state...none."

      You are wrong unless you can cite where the Constitution grants the Federal government the power to force states from leaving the Union, or where States were prohibited from doing such.

      10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    • cjhowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'd like to see New Mexico secede. Become the third largest nuclear power overnight. Lets see the tanks stop that :)
    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Just to add a little bit of New Hampshire (my home state) trivia. We actually did have a secession from the Union (of sorts) a while back. It was called the Indian Stream Republic.

      http://www.answers.com/topic/republic-of-indian-stream

      On a side note, we were the first state to declare our independence, and establish a constitutional government (Jan 1776)...We're politically motivated and if a Bunch of free staters think they can invade and conquer they've got another thing coming, they picked the wrong state despite its libertarian leanings.
    • brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@ExCornelius

      If you dont understand what a bad idea this is then you are a freewheeling idealist that has studied neither history nor political science and certainly not the Federalist Papers.

      First, the problem with the US is special interest (usu. money). If you think that a secessionist NH is somehow constitutionally immune from special interest because they are leftist that makes you a moron. No nation has found a solution to that, period.

      Second, if you support seccession then you support the unbridled factionalism of the entire United States, not just NH and the opinion of the majority that moved there. You support Vermont becoming communist and Massachusetts becoming facist, because the only thing stopping those two is federalism. You support California becoming its own nation because it is the 3rd largest economy in the world and has no desire to support the lesser 49 states. Manhattan also. Basically you look forward to a post-Soviet Eastern Europe with at least one Chechnya and one Yugoslavia (my bets would be Texas and Florida).

      If you thought hurricane Katrina response sucked wait until the next one when New Orleans has to apply to Texas for foreign aid after the fact. Before you know it corporations are funding massive grassroots media campaigns to overtake states, and then we start gerrymandering natural resources! Oh, yeah, that will work!

      Sessesion is really nothing more or less then barbarian referendum.

      See where this is heading? If you tell a faction that they can just have a state and be happy, well, guess what? *Everyone* will stand in line for that - what makes *you* so special? Why should *your* special interest be the only one to get to seceed? If you support anyone being able to seceed, you better have a general plan first before you implement the test case and open the floodgates.
  • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15Though it is not mentioned specifically on that site (except in the links section), this looks like it could be an offshoot of the Free State Project.

    http://www.freestateproject.org/
    • tommorris, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19The FSP is not a secessionist movement. The secessionists are often a subset of the FSP, but the FSP are not all secessionists. There are non-secessionist methods by which you could achieve the aims laid out on the Rep of NH site - eg. you could pass a law which forbids any representative of the federal government entering NH, or states that federal taxes do not apply to NH citizens or allows NH citizens to defend themselves against federal government agents.
    • Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"The FSP is not a secessionist movement. The secessionists are often a subset of the FSP, but the FSP are not all secessionists. There are non-secessionist methods by which you could achieve the aims laid out on the Rep of NH site - eg. you could pass a law which forbids any representative of the federal government entering NH, or states that federal taxes do not apply to NH citizens or allows NH citizens to defend themselves against federal government agents."

      Article VI of the United States Constitution:
      This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

      Also see McCullouch v. Maryland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland):
      "Although the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it does delegate the ability to control national economic policy, which a bank can be considered part of. Because federal laws have supremacy over state laws, Maryland had no power to interfere with the bank's operation by taxing it. Maryland Court of Appeals reversed."
    • Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9@tommorris again (sorry, edit time ran out T.T)
      So, just like Maryland couldn't destroy the Bank of the US by taxing it to death, NH can't end the Supremacy Clause by taking the teeth out of it.

      That type of thinking was also espoused by Stephen Douglas, who believed that the Federal government could make any law against slavery it wanted, but states could circumvent them by creating laws unfriendly to slavery within their state, such as outlawing enforcement. Luckily this line of thinking was never adopted, or else no law passed by Congress would ever be enforced if a state didn't like it.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10@Koopa

      So, where does it say that the federal government, which, after all is a creation of and servant to the states, can prevent secession?

      Yeah, I'm aware of the War of Northern Aggression. Just show me the constitutional basis for use of force to prevent secession if that is the will of the people of that state.
    • ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6@Koopa

      In the Maryland decision, the issue is not with the supremacy clause, but with the commerce clause. That 99% of all restrictions on our liberties passed by Congress are superficially justified by 16 words should speak to its abuse.

      As for slavery, we have the 13th and 14th Amendments.

      This country was founded as a union of free and sovereign states. Your arguments would make as much sense to someone in 1789 as they would to a Frenchman now regarding the E.U.
    • Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Wow, I can't believe I'm dugg down for citing a landmark Supreme Court case and the Constitution.

      The question about whether states can do what tommorris says they can has been answered already--they can't. What that path leads to is dissolution of the Union. We've been down this road, and it doesn't lead anywhere good. It sounds nice and all, but what happens when one state decides it doesn't like the Civil Rights Act and enacts legislation to block its enforcement? Or what happens when one state decides women shouldn't vote and makes enforcement of the 19th Amendment impossible?

      @williamdyer
      The main defense for the use of force to maintain the Union is the belief that, once each state signed in to the Union, it was a permanent binding contract. If any state could leave the Union at any time, what would the point be of having a Union in the first place? Leaving the Union violates the Constitution, just like leaving any other written contract is a violation of an agreement.

      But please, if you'd like to continue defending the Confederates, be my guest.
    • Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"In the Maryland decision, the issue is not with the supremacy clause, but with the commerce clause. That 99% of all restrictions on our liberties passed by Congress are superficially justified by 16 words should speak to its abuse.

      As for slavery, we have the 13th and 14th Amendments.

      This country was founded as a union of free and sovereign states. Your arguments would make as much sense to someone in 1789 as they would to a Frenchman now regarding the E.U."

      IANAL, but the Maryland decision was renedered based on both clauses. 1) The commerce clause gives Congress the power to establish a bank, and 2) the Supremacy clause makes it illegal for the state of Maryland to destroy it through contrary legislation.

      The Supremacy clause has always been there, and has always meant that states could not contradict the federal government. Sure, the federal government's role has mushroomed into an unrecognizable colossus that our founding fathers would never recognize--but the principle remains the same: it is supreme. The founders knew what would happen if the central government could not enforce its rules, because they had lived with it for years under the ineffective Articles of Confederation.
    • anon52, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Koopa -

      I may not agree with your position, but I agree with your right to state it. In fact, I think you did a good job of asserting your position. For that, I digg you up.

      Now, how can we get digg.com to institute another rating system that can be used to separate personal opinions and values from the manner of presentation? So many times I have felt irritated (or pleased) at the message but felt contrarily about the way it was written. For me, probably most of my down-diggs would be because of presentation, most of my ups would be for agreeing with the content.
    • ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@Koopa
      "The question about whether states can do what tommorris says they can has been answered already--they can't."

      Based not on an explicit reading of the Constitution, but rather on the interpretation by the Supreme Court. The Court also decided de jure racial segregation in public facilities was constitutional (Plessy v. Ferguson). Thankfully the Court's interpretations are neither omnipotent nor permanent.


      "What that path leads to is dissolution of the Union. We've been down this road, and it doesn't lead anywhere good."

      A voluntary Union, such as the one we formed in 1789, would be stronger than one held together by force, such as the one we were in prior to 1776.


      "It sounds nice and all, but what happens when one state decides it doesn't like the Civil Rights Act and enacts legislation to block its enforcement? Or what happens when one state decides women shouldn't vote and makes enforcement of the 19th Amendment impossible?"

      That door swings both ways. Any theoretical ill imposed by a secessionist state -- on its own citizens -- could equally be imposed on a grander and more permanent scale via the Federal government. At least with the former case one has an easier time getting out from under its thumb.
    • joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"The Supremacy clause has always been there, and has always meant that states could not contradict the federal government. Sure, the federal government's role has mushroomed into an unrecognizable colossus that our founding fathers would never recognize--but the principle remains the same: it is supreme. The founders knew what would happen if the central government could not enforce its rules, because they had lived with it for years under the ineffective Articles of Confederation."

      The Articles of Confederation were "ineffective" by not allowing the would-be rulers the power they wanted. The tragedy of the American experiment in freedom is that the government formed by the American Revolution was overthrown by the Federalists a scant seven years after it was formed. The anti-Federalists predicted exactly what would happen if the Constitution was passed. They said it would lead to tyranny because it would never be able to chain down the growth of the federal government. I will always side with constitutionalists against the statists who have been chipping away at the constitutional "safeguards" for over two centuries, but I recognize that it is a losing battle. Liberty can only be won when masses of people realize that no government has a legitimate right to steal and kill, no matter what the Constitution authorizes.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Koopa

      The "permanently binding" thing is nowhere to be seen in the Constitution. The U.S. is a FEDERAL republic. Any power not explicitly given by the states to the federal government belongs to the states. Soooooo... where and when did the states give the federal government the power to shoot people who want to leave the federation?
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@joybran,

      Well said. It's obvious that very few people have read the anti-federalist papers, since they read like a laundry-list of things that have since occurred. Especially the very first Brutus objection which said that anything and everything could be worded in terms of "interstate commerce" and thereby regulated.

      Golly, Senator Feinstein, tell me again how having a magazine that holds 11 rounds instead of 10 "substantially effects interstate commerce"?

      One of the major reasons for the Federal Constitution was the "pay the debts" part. Ya see, a lot of the wealthy types had been speculating by buying up all that "revolutionary scrip" at a discount. They wanted to get paid back at face value, but the states who recognized that the over-printed scrip was never worth face value had been buying them back at that same discount.

      So folks like Hamilton and Washington (who also absconded with the land grants that were meant for his soldiers) made sure that the new Constitutional government took away any power from the states to deal with money.

      Funny thing, that, since one of the objections to English colonial rule was the states not being allowed to create their own money so there had been an endless shortage of coin.
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Koopa
      "Luckily this line of thinking was never adopted, or else no law passed by Congress would ever be enforced if a state didn't like it."

      Actually both Northern and Southern states nullified federal laws all the time up and until the civil war. The Doctrine of nullification or State Interposition is what the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions were all about.

      State and Federal government competing for rule or law rights makes more freedom for the inhabitants. That was one of the whole points of the Constitution and specifically the 9th and 10th amendments. The separation of powers between the Fed, and State governments. And that State governments had just as much right to interpret the Constitution as any branch of the Fed did.

      Now we have central monopolistic government, and if they pass a bad law, it's tyranny for everybody. Not just the inhabitants of a more localized state.

      Also, The federal government's "Fugitive Slave Act" which was endorsed by Lincoln subsidized Southern Slavery. It likely would have already been dieing out on its own (In fact it already was -- it just would have been dieing faster) with-out Federal laws propping it up.

      Tracy
  • robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -44/+6Marked lame.
    • illegalchuck, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Totally lame. I live in NH - there is not widespread dissatisfaction. One guy makes a web page and suddenly we are on the verge of civil war? Let's just drop the 1861 references right now please.
    • Topslakr, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10100% Lame. I too live in NH and this is the first I've heard of it.
    • codemonkey420, on 10/12/2007, -7/+12I'm in NH too. This is BS. You'd think, from that document, that we're all building walls on the Mass border, with guns aimed, mass hysteria, cats and dogs living together, and all that jazz.

      When I open my door I hear birds tweating. I wonder if they're all in on it, and its just me. Alone. In NH without any friends...everyone is watching me, its the satillites. Oh my.

      Maybe I should put up a page about NH deciding to be a communist country...

    • TheG2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I live in New Hampshire as well. I've never heard about this from anyone, not my neighbors, my co-workers, or any of my friends. Just because 10 people put up a website doesn't mean an entire state is going along with the ride, seriously...this made the front page?!?
    • bigdavediode, on 10/12/2007, -12/+3Welcome to the world of the L-diggers, where their editorials are promoted to the top:

      http://bigdavediode.googlepages.com/diggfixexposed
    • Corrosionx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@bigdavediode: if you think that's bad, you should hear what's going on in White House PR/Fox News meetings
    • kurth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Just because YOU have not heard of a grassroots sort of movement, does not mean that it is "lame".

      and just to add fuel to the fire, Isn't Killington(VT), still trying to become part of NH?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killington,_Vermont_secession_movement
  • WickedDrag0oN, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Didnt we try this whole secession thing in the 1800's? From what I understand it didnt work out too well o_o
    • ho0ber, on 10/12/2007, -23/+15That "secession thing" was secession in protection of slavery.
      This "secession thing" is secession in protection of liberty.

      ...just a little different.
    • gettophilosophr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7The south will rise again? What?

      Darnit, there goes my ancestors talking again. Shutup down there!
    • cyberlync, on 10/12/2007, -7/+30The civil war was about states rights more then anything else. Slavery was, at bet, a side issue and a propaganda point for the north.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -8/+35@ho0ber,

      Go check your history books again, just make sure they're not the history books that the government uses in their propaganda camps.

      Slavery was not an issue. Lincoln offered to let the southern states keep slavery forever if they would rejoin the union.

      They refused because the issues that drove them to the separation, abusive taxation, tarriffs, crushing of southern industry for the benefit of northern industrialist interests who had the politicians in their pockets, had not been resolved.

      The abolitionists wanted the South to just go! Norther abolitionists were all for separation, in the hope that the economics of the situation would hit the southern states harder that way (without northern industry to prop them up, as it were) and slavery would implode.

      Slavery was not an issue of the war until after Gettysburgh. Lincoln had prepared the emancipation proclamation as a wonderful working of propaganda to prevent England and France from entering on the side of the South so as to break the Northern blockade which was preventing the exporting of southern goods (first thing the south did was lower the tarriffs) to European markets.

      Once Lincoln had both a military victory _and_ the abolition of slavery on his side, the "free" countries of England and France couldn't enter the war on the southern side without angering their own abolitionist constituents.

      After that, it was just a matter of time and General Sherman.
    • saehn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@CurtHowland:

      Can you cite some sources for your talking points? I'd like to look them up myself.
    • Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -10/+8@CurtHowland
      you must have gone to school in South Carolina, right?

      Yeah, economics were one reason for secession, but focusing on it as the sole cause ignores the political (balance of power in the senate), social (cultural differences between the North and South), and ideological (states rights vs national government, slavery vs. freedom) causes that are equally valid.
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11The only reason the Emanciplation Proclomation ever came about was simple: the British (and maybe French) were about to send ships and supplies to the Confederates, but since they had already outlawed slavery there, they could never justify aligning themselves with a "slave state." It was simply politics. If the Union actually cared about blacks or their rights, then why did it take until the 1960's for there to be black civil rights? Why are all the blacks herded up into urban ghettos in the northern states?

    • peritonlogon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@uttles

      It was also because many southern states (I don't want to say all because I'm not sure of it) offered slaves their independence if they fought for the confederacy. The Emancipation Proclamation helped prevent a large army of confederate slaves from fighting their liberators. Also it was a real rallying cry and uniting factor for the Union. It led to Maryland liberating it's slaves.
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Curts sources are from a very excellent book called

      "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas DiLorenzo

      http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0761526463/sr=1-1/qid=1155624698/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-3779006-9565552?ie=UTF8&s=books

      He's got numerous articles here
      http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo-arch.html

      Tracy
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@skyorbit,

      Actually, I've never read the book. I listened to DiLorenzo's lectures in the Mises.org archive, and have his also excellent book _How Capitalism Saved America_.
  • hoowahman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13FYI, a very interesting podcast that talks about freedom issues and is close to the free state project is http://www.freetalklive.com/

    Very entertaining if your into that sort of thing.
  • kazem, on 10/12/2007, -18/+29Oh behalf of Massachusetts, take us with you! I still believe in the Canadian annex plan, proposed after the most recent presidential election. Everything north of the Mason-Dixon line would annex to Canadia, while everything south of it would become Jesusland or Christonia, your pick.
    • DiggCommando, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17I thought the whole Jesusland thing was a joke until I actually lived in West Texas for a short time. There must have been at least 5 or 6 large evangelical churches within 3 blocks of where I was. Kinda scary.
    • cnowacek, on 10/12/2007, -29/+12Jesusland? Christonia? You're an idiot...
    • lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22As a fellow tax-paying citizen of Massachusetts, I second that notion.

      But in all seriousness, i think bipartisanship is tearing this country apart. I think of myself as neither Democrat nor Republican...Liberal nor Conservative. Why do people INSIST on labeling each other as such. Why can't one have some liberal tendencies and some conservative tendencies???

      I wonder what people will call me when I post this, a damned liberal, or a ***** conservative?
    • hockeysk8, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7@lickmygiggle

      They will definitely not call you a ***** conservative because conservatives don't ***** - they have marital relations - at least in George Bush's puritanical America! On the other hand they could call you a filthy ass-*****, tax and spend, terrorist liberal :-/
    • lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3touche
    • dkarlson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13@DiggCommando

      It was scary? Since when is a church scary? Don't stereotype all Christians because of an idiotic few. The Christians I know are intelligent, have strong families, give back to the community directly or indirectly, are pleasant, polite and encouraging, and are good people. What's scary about that?
    • karmakanic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12Powerful local churches become scary when the congregation takes their relationship with Christ and tries to embed it in law. They become insular clubs where, if you're in you can do no wrong, and if you're out you can't do anything right. City councils become a rubber stamp for what the pastor/deacons decide. Local businesses are forced to join the club or be run out of town. Crime and other intractible problems get ignored, or the official government solution is to pray for the victims. Schools become madrahses where children are indoctrinated into the club, and kids who ask questions and/or don't conform are expelled (along with their parents).

      That's scary.
    • karmakanic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3spelling correction: madrasah
    • bontaq, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Pennsylvania here. Sounds like a great plan. I'd love to be a part of Canada!
    • joybran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"But in all seriousness, i think bipartisanship is tearing this country apart. I think of myself as neither Democrat nor Republican...Liberal nor Conservative. Why do people INSIST on labeling each other as such. Why can't one have some liberal tendencies and some conservative tendencies???

      I wonder what people will call me when I post this, a damned liberal, or a ***** conservative?"

      I agree that the hysteria about liberal versus conservative is tearing the country apart, but the tragedy is that so much of it is fear-mongering by sycophantic intellectuals. As a libertarian, I can tell you that there is virtually no difference between statist Democrats and statist Republicans. The statists incite hatred over insignificant differences that would all be solved by allowing Americans to actually have the liberty for which the founders of America fought.

      Many people who say they have some liberal tendencies and some conservative tendencies actually believe in libertarian principles but have never been exposed to libertarianism as a political philosophy. You might want to take this little quiz to see where your beliefs really fall. http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
    • karmakanic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@joybran

      Thanks! Enlightening quiz - everyone should take it. It's only eight questions, and if you're opinionated (like me), then it'll only take a minute.

      (For me, it was nice to confirm what I've felt/known for some time: I'm a liberal-leaning libertarian.)
    • kadio, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@karmakanic: In the Arabic language, the word madrasah مدرسة implies no sense other than that which the word school represents in the English language, such as private, public or parochial school, as well as for any primary or secondary school whether Muslim, non-Muslim or secular. (from wikipedia)

      Sorry to pick on it, but a couple of years ago the media somehow turned the arabic word for school into meaning some terrifying religous indoctrination camp. I understand the point you are trying to make, and I somewhat agree...but the word you are using is not proper.
    • lickmygiggle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@joybran

      Took the test. Turns out I'm a centrist...Which when you think about it would go along the lines of what I said above. I seem to be pretty much right in the middle of centrist. Go figure. :-

  • ahhell, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Did all the Quebec separatists move there or something?
    • apocalizer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I'm not sure they can pronounce "New Hampshire" in French.
    • Jaq524, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18Nouveau Ampshire
  • swax, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9Over my dead body.

    Live free or die, death is not the worst of evils.
  • Mworthin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Do not hold your feelings back, SWAX!
  • sh0k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Unlimited corporate power is not the best idea.

    Read: Jennifer Government
    • cezar, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Corporations don't exist in a truly free market
    • Bantec, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I agree. The concept that corporations will do what is right because it is good for everybody is a bit naive. Actually the whole article (while I agree in theory) is a bit naive.
    • Haapi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Indeed. "Growth for growth's sake" is the philosophy of a cancer cell.
    • ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Naive, perhaps. But which is sadder, the naivete of these individuals, or that we have lived so long with an all-encompassing government that such ideas are beyond the realm of possibility?
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Corporations don't exist in a truly free market"

      What? Are you concieving of a free market with individuals selling things over the internet? Without a corporation, how are cars and computers supposed to be made? Honeslty, I think you must have been up late and this comment came out wrong, its just nonsensical.

      In Soviet Russia we have true freedom - from corporations
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@martalli,

      A "corporation" is a legal structure that allows for limited liability. The "owners" of a corporation are not liable for the damages, debts or other obligations of the corporation.

      Without that government grant of limited liability (only a government can limit liability, governments have no liability what so ever) there is no such thing as a "corporation". However, that is only one such structure. There are partnerships, cooperatives, and as many different ways to accomplish the same thing as there are ways to invent new mutual contracts.

      For instance, a "share of stock" may have gotten its name from a company selling shares in its _STOCK_ of materials for sale, which it would then disburse back to the investors the principle and profits from the sale of that stock. Only with the invention of the limited liability "corporation" can I own shares of the _company_ itself without also being liable for the actions of that company.

      I fully expect that this meaning of "shares of stock" would again be utilized if the legal entity "corporation" did not exist. So the nay-sayers who insist that without limits to liability no one will invest in anything are wrong.
    • cheapskate, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@martalli: Remember that corporations as they exist today are government-created entities which enjoy certain legal privileges, such as transference of liability from individuals to the corporate entity, among others. In a true free market, per definition no government-enforced privileges will be extended to organizations.
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Bantec
      I don't think anybody's saying that corporations wil do what is right out of some sense of altruism. Corporations are there to serve customers. If customers decide to not purchase from them and go somewhere else, and individual corporation could potentially go bankrupt overnight.

      Corporations try to do what they percieve is right out of the own personal financial self interest of their shareholder.

      Tracy
  • mecole21, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Or how bout we just separate Upstate NY from NYC... im sick of having all my taxes go to pay for that city, while where I live gets neglected...
    • millerm277, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13Yeah, you should combine NYC with where i live (NJ)....and keep all the corruption in one state....

      I swear.....NJ is the only state where someone getting busted for corruption, bribery..etc, doesn't even make the front page.
    • GreenPlastik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Mecole21,
      You may want to a look at the NY state budget. First off NYC has a city tax that covers quite a bit of the funds needed for NYC. Then the largest amount of NY state income tax comes from the NYC metro area. The amount of money that NYC generates for the state of NY is greatly out of proportion with the amount that the state returns to NYC in discretionary funds.

      If the national security scare hadn't made it roughly 1 million bucks a day for security in NYC and if the Dept. of Homeland Security could actually budget their resources and do so in a way that actually matches potential target with money that reflects the likelihood of an attack, then maybe NYC wouldn't need as much money.

      As it stands, NYC produces more in income taxes for NY state than it receives back in proportion. And for your information, the NY city council has had a motion to secede from NY tabled for quite a while now. It's the state that has kept it from actually moving forward on it.

      The more you know...
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1New York is definitely on a roll now, but just thirty years ago, it was nearly a financial ruin, rescued by the Municipal Assistance Corporation, with state and federal help. I wonder if it could have achieved its current position without that assistance, and how it would do if it separated from the rest of the US, and started to face trade tariffs and immigration rules for people entering or leaving New York for work.

      There are great arguments for the constitutionality of secession. The new US government under the Constitution became active after with 9 of 12 states ratified it, despite the Articles of Confederation requiring unanimity. Some states were forced to vote for it under duress (Rhode Island, North Carolina), Finally, the Constitution is essentially a voluntary contract of states with now explicit clause preventing secession (all other rights conferred on the states in 10th Amendment).

      Nonetheless, talk of secession is like mental masturbation. Secession is not very practical - otherwise Quebec would have seceded from Canada years ago. Also, more Americans have died in the civil war than all other wars combined. The fact is that another secession would require civil war, unless the federal government has essentially collapsed.
  • shmooth, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6What a spectacularly bad idea for the people of NH. How much easier a time would massive corporations have of fully controlling the NH government?

    Morons.

    It's like people hear the word 'decentralization' and they think 'brilliant!' - like a damn Guinness commercial or something, never once stopping to think of the real implications of such a move. The idiots in Quebec are on the same track.

    Good luck, suckers.
    • j20jeep, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I agree with the above comment.

      If anyone doubts the power of global corporations now, one of the largest of which is the federal government, just wait until some multi-billion dollar corporation weather it be an oil company or a foreign company maybe from China decides to pay every person off serving in political office in a state which manages to secede.

      It won be any free-er than it is now.

      It will turn into another market share war.

      those people in political office will only working in the best interests of the corporation. currently dominating that state, not for the good of the state itself.

      They wont give a hoot about environmental issues let alone global warming.
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Corporations and businesses don't shoot you just for refusing to purchase their products.

      And much of the corporate structure, limited liability laws, and regulations that govern modern corporatism are anything but free market. Corporatism more represents various government interventions known as Mercantilism.

      Tracy
  • isemism, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Wheres good ol Andy Jackson when we need him?

    (j/k- I know he was a bigoted *****, but he did keep the Union together through out the 1820s - and as far as I know, hes the only president to ever pull a gun on someone while in office)
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Jackson's presidency was fatally impacted by his personal hatred of Indians. If not for the Trail Of Tears, if he had abided the decision of the Supreme Court in finding in favor of basic rights of Indians, I believe that the later Indian wars after the war between the states could have been completely averted, and the lives of millions of people who happen to be Indians would have been saved and improved.

      His successor, Martin van Buren, was an even more spectacular success. You owe it to yourself to check out the following lecture:

      Martin van Buren, what Greatness Really Means:

      http://www.mises.org/mp3/Pres/Pres11a.mp3
  • JimmyDushku, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3This is like hearing Montana is seceding.....okay?....
    • Topslakr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Just because you don't hear about a place everyday doesn't mean it has no impact on you or your life.
    • JimmyDushku, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1True....but it doesn't
  • tont0r, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1This is the dumbest thing Ive ever read. They arent going anywhere. Nor is this to be taken seriously. It was made by some guy, not the people in government in NH. Marked as lame.
  • Specks, on 10/12/2007, -16/+2This is a complete and utter joke, or it reads that way. They can't be serious. Not to mention the Constitution would never allow this.
    • Beanlover, on 10/12/2007, -2/+24England didn't allow for their colonies to declare their independence either.
    • Nightspark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4As far as I remember, the Constitution says nothing about secession. Which, in my opinion, was really poor planning. But the excellence of everything they did plan probably makes up for it.
    • xeniac1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Beanlover

      If I recall correctly there was some sort of armed rebellion surrounding the colonies declaring independence from England. As a NH resident, I can't imagine many of my neighbors taking up arms to cede from the US. Considering in southern NH, most of us work in MA anyway.

      This isn't exactly a "popular" movement.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Specks

      C- in history for you, dimwit.

      Who MADE the federal government?

      What does the word "federal" mean?

      And, for extra credit, show me the "union will never be unmade" clause in the Constitution.
    • Rodzirra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Specks: "This is a complete and utter joke, or it reads that way. They can't be serious. Not to mention the Constitution would never allow this."

      Could you quote the part of the Constitution which says as much?
  • westwind429, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm curious, and maybe someone from NH can help me out here...is this a widespread movement or a fringe group?
    • Topslakr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6As a lifetime resident, this is the first I have heard of it.
    • xeniac1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I'm also a NH resident, and no, this isn't a big movement.
    • Nicklogan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2News here for me too.
    • CurtHowland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4California and Oregon also have a movement to form the State of Jefferson.

      http://www.jeffersonstate.com/

      Sure, it's just a bunch of kooks. So were Sam Adams, that smuggler John Hancock, and his cronies, until the anarchist Thomas Paine wrote a best seller.

      I'm still wondering who is going to write the book which will inspire getting rid of King Bush 2 and the power structure that put him onto the throne.
    • calebjohnson77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is a NEW movement. Time will tell how widespread it becomes. The Vermont secessionist movement has become pretty widespread (currently 9% of Vermont citizens support it).

      We believe that the upcoming collapse of the dollar will make the US obsolete. Our aim is to ensure that the ideas of "independence" and "libertarianism" are forever linked.

      Of course independence is an uphill battle at the moment, but we believe it is the moral one. The federal government has lost all moral legitimacy to govern.

      Caleb
  • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3They might as well take Massachusetts, Vermont, and Maine with them. That would be a nice sizable country. After living in the area for a few years, I can say that all those states are pretty similar, and they would all fit well together.
    • griz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9You are obviously not from the Northeast or at all familiar with politics on New England.
      VT is as crunchy granola hippy liberal as you wanna get while NH is extraordinarily Conservative. It's surprising they don't just cancel each other out and cease to exist.
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5That's not impression I got from NH for the 4 years I lived there (Portsmouth), near The University of New Hampshire. It was all hippies as far as the eye could see.
    • gromnie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Actually, if New Hampshire secedes it'll either have to take Maine with it, or Maine will have to become the Alaska of the east coast, separated from the 'mainland' entirely by Canada and the New Hampshire Frei Stadt. That could be fun, too...

      ...except for the double border-crossing on the 16 mile stretch of 95. Six hours to get to Boston from Portland and a double anal-probing from jumpy, heavily armed, tin-toy dictators asking stupid questions like, "Why on Earth would yew even WANT to leave Our Fair Country, the U S of A, Boy? Yew sum kinda Commie Muzlim? And sence yew wuz so keen on leavin', why the Hell d'yew thank we gots to let yew _back in_, Traitor-Boy?"

      Whee...
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I kind-of doubt that New Hampshirites would want to confederate with a completely socialist state like Vermont. Not sure about Maine.

      I support the Vermont Secessionist movement, but their goals and reasons for secession couldn't be more different.

      Why can all three of them be completely independent countries?

      Tracy
  • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Careful NH. The last time any states exercised that right, they (we) lost, and the conflict was misnamed the "Civil War".
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Personally I think this country could use a good civil war. Maybe NH's antics will spark that war. It's time to some fear into our elected officials.
    • calebjohnson77, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1We're betting that Abe Lincoln was smarter than the morons we keep electing. The fact is that Abe Lincoln took a gigantic risk because he was smart enough to realize that the independence of even a single state could eventually destroy the entire union. We don't think "W" is that reasoned, and even if he was, we don't believe that our brethren in the other states would support a military invasion against New Hampshire. Keep in mind, most of us have relatives in other states. I doubt my Hoosier mother will be clamoring for war against NH if it secedes, but she just might be willing to Cindy Sheehan any dictator who wants to use force against us.
  • BuRz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17We , separatist of Quebec, support the separatist movement of NH. Every state or province that wish to leave a Country MUST have the right to do it .

    Good luck.
    • dsendecki, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6Well, there's a half-dozen people in support of you.
    • Nightspark, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Well, there's a half-dozen people in support of you."

      If I recall correctly, it's closer to almost half of the House of Commons.
    • Bantec, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Last time I was in Quebec they were having an anti-English rally. No not the Brits, they were protesting a language. Seriously! It was a big protest. If NH has these sudo-French snobs backing them, they have lost any of my support. If the French say 'duck' I jump.
    • dsendecki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The BQ have switched goals. They are no longer as interested in Quebec Separatism (although the topic still comes up). They are more interested in getting Quebec a bigger chunk of the pie (tax revenues to be spent in Quebec), and thus they are essentially a regional political party with its efforts focused on making its voters happy.

      Separatists in Quebec are a dying breed. You're confusing the Bloc Quebecois with the separatist movement. They are no longer one in the same.
  • thefoxtrot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3any hope for the people's republic of kalifornia to something similar?
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5There's already something similar, but they spell it with a "C".
    • jhicks, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Isn't that spelled "eh," eh? :)
    • Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Don't be jealous just because our Governor can destroy your governor and then utter a sarcastic one-liner over his rival's demise.
    • calebjohnson77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, California has a secessionist movement. It is linked to in our links section on the Republic of NH site. www.republicofnh.org

      Caleb
    • techforumz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1"Kal" may have a secessionist group, but, in general, the Cal populace are complete socialists, so, bad for Cal good for everyone else. Yay! Secede Cal!!!!
  • jcolson, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3In regards to TX state constitution:

    http://www.lonestarwebworks.com/texassecede/faq.asp
  • griz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yea, well Vermont wants to do the same thing...

    http://www.vermontrepublic.org/about
  • jiggadigga, on 10/12/2007, -13/+3You have got to be kidding me? 166 people digg this? Just more evidence that people in America are so unintelligent that a single one-sided article can persuade them to believe in an idea that is fundamentally flawed.

    You enact free trade with the whole world and you'll become a drug distribution center for the eastern half of North America. Then the US and Canada will be all over you like the US is all over Colombia. If you don't regulate who comes and goes from NH, then the US will put border checks on every way in and out of NH. And lastly, without all the taxes, who is going to foot the bill to maintain roads (if you can even keep connected to the US highway system), provide police, and maintain infrastructure? Come on, this idea just doesn't make sense.
    • graystar, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10It always comes down to the road's doesn't it?
    • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2You forgot:
      No EPA means NH becomes the Toxic Republic of NH, with every company dumping its hazardous waste in NH.
    • calhoun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13> You have got to be kidding me? 166 people digg this? Just more evidence that people in
      > America are so unintelligent that a single one-sided article can persuade them to believe
      > in an idea that is fundamentally flawed.

      Digging something doesn't mean that you agree with it, it only means you find the article or the related discussion interesting.
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually Roads, used to be mostly privately build.
      Read the book "The Voluntary City." It's a good history lesson.

      You don't need government to build roads. Private businesses can and have in the past done it much more efficiently.

      Tracy
  • lhenkel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Be funny if Canada conquered them. Better yet, Canada comes in and "liberates" them.
    • dvfreelancer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"Be funny if Canada conquered them. Better yet, Canada comes in and "liberates" them."

      Yeah, health care (at least at some minimal level) for everyone, drugs people can afford, low crime rate that would be horrible. You don't see anyone on TV burning the Canadian flag, do you?

      I for one would welcome our new Canadian overlords, aye.
  • HappyPig, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1As a lifelong NH resident, this is just dumb. With such a huge legislative body as ours, it would never happen. As Griz just said, look to Vermont for a more reasonable movement (anti-UN? What the hell - are we John Birchers all of a sudden?)
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You don't need to be a John Birtcher to oppose the U.N. In fact a majority of mainstream conservativese including some of the Neo-Cons don't like the U.N. Forbes ran an artical about abolishing the U.N. a little while ago. Or at least getting the U.N. out of the U.S.

      But the powers that be think they can control the U.N. for their own purposes. So since the U.S. won't get out of the U.N. any time soon, Why not just get the U.S.and the U.N. out of New Hampshire?

      Tracy
  • ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I hope this gains momentum and I hope Maine goes with it.
  • carve, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13It is kind of strage we don't let states seceed to begin with. I can't believe we actually went to war over keeping the south as part of our country. We've been paying for that ever since. The entire south absorbs far more federal resources than it provides, and I think their populace would prefer a theoracy anyway. It holds the rest of the country back culturally and economically. I know- very un-PC. Go ahead and flame me.

    I know I define myself as a west-coaster almost as much as I define myself as an American. If the west coast were a seperate country- particularly the pacific northwest, that is where I'd want to live.

    zapatopi.net/cascadia/
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"can't believe we actually went to war over keeping the south as part of our country"

      kinda hard to feed an industrial revolution and an exponentially increasing population without the agriculture and natural resources of the Southern states.
    • joybran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9At the time of the War for Southern Independence, it was the South supporting the North economically because incredibly high tariffs were bleeding the region dry. That's why the South seceded, because they didn't like being plundered for the benefit of Northern manufacturers.

      After the war, the infrastructure of the South was destroyed and whatever was left was plundered by carpetbaggers. If it has been a drain on the rest of the country, it was because of the war and Reconstruction. It was like American taxpayers having to pay for bombing Iraq back to the Stone Ages and then having to pay for the enormous no-bid contracts to rebuild it.

      I'm not sure of the statistics, but I think the South as a region has finally recovered and is now paying its "fair share" of the plunder to Washington D.C.
    • Lynxpro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Then author a referendum in the form of an initiative (proposition) in whichever Western State you live in to support secession. A loose confederation of California, Oregon, and Washington would be an economic powerhouse. Heck, California alone is an economic powerhouse and if 55% of our tax revenue didn't flow to the Feds not to be spent here, we wouldn't have any sort of chronic fiscal problems.

      Of course, the idea of secession is hampered by tools who advocate breaking up California into two (or three) separate states within the Union which would only serve to strengthen the Federal Government. Similar to what the U.K. faces with Scottish secessionists who would simply make two to four separate nation states that would be weak in the face of encroaching federalism by the European Union in comparison to the U.K. as a strong nation-state critical of said encroachment.

      There's even a splinter group at the California/Oregon border who want to create their own State of Jefferson separate of both California and Oregon and they defiantly make license plates and road signs.
    • dwxpub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@joybran

      I guess it depends on what you consider fair share. I couldn't find a handy chart, but this map might work - if a state gets back >1.00 of money paid in federal taxes, it's not exactly a fair share - their economies are getting a nice subsidy from the feds, and the other states.

      Of the Confederate states, it looks like TX/GA/FL are holding their own.
    • dwxpub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Err, missed the link.

      http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923084.html
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm originally from North Idaho and their was a secessionist movement their -- to secede both form the U.S. and Idaho. People even today say things like this all the time.

      1) "How can those goons in Boise understand what's really going on all the way over here."

      2) "How can those goons in Washington understand what's really going on all the way over here."

      Tracy
  • DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5I wonder if the induhvidual who wrote this bothered to consult the rest of NH.
    • JakobLundberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5You have to consult all of NH just to have an opinion?
    • calebjohnson77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Do I have to consult everyone in my state in order to Petition for Redress of Grievances?

      Caleb
  • HardCorps, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11If all this does it get people to question government as a cause of some problems, then it is effective. So many times "liberals" and "conservatives" blame each other, but then agree that the federal government just needs more money to solve the problem. Maybe government causes the problem, or intensifies it. Everyone is in agreement that freedom is good - but there doesn't need to be a law about everything and a cop in every home to bring that about.

    I fully support this succession movement and I believe many others do also. Actually read the argument instead of assuming "what if" cases.
  • kweee, on 10/12/2007, -9/+7Wow, some guy throws up a website saying that New Hampshire should secede, and now it's suddenly a "movement." Geez, my bowels have had bigger movements, and they're always much more successful than this one will ever be.
  • snapster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7from the article: "Most foreign cars are levied with tariffs of 100% or higher."

    Am I missing something? Why such an obviously false stat? Not that anyone here actually cares what the article says but... Even countries without most-favored nation status (ie.. our political enemies practically) are subject to only a 10% tariff.

    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Tell that to your Honda Dealer.

      Tracy
  • fantasticFlan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Didn't we already fight this war?
  • Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Even a successful secession by Rhode Island would send an powerful signal to the rest of the country about the viability of autonomy.

    The country has gotten bigger, by a factor of some 160 times bigger, population wise. The government designed by Jefferson for Jefferson's time cannot continue to hold up under Bush in Bush's time. The checks and balances system has long since been exploited and bypassed and thereby giving the federal government as much license to do whatever it wants to do.

    Maybe it doesn't have that many adherents at the present, but I am sure that as time goes on and Bush uses his second term warfare on the rest of the Middle East it will become ever the more lucrative a position to hold.
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The more decentralized the power structures the merrier :)

      Tracy
    • techforumz, on 06/26/2008, -0/+1Obama/Clinton/McCain will be far worse than Bush ever was, mark my words... At least Bush was funny...
  • RyeBrye, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11Key West seceeded from the United States in the 90's in response to the US gov't blocking traffic into and out of the keys because of drug concerns. They called themselves "The Conch Republic" and had a navy of ornery sailors. Immediately after they declared independence they applied to the United States for foreign aid.

    I dont think that they were ever formally recognized as seceeding by anyone, but they still talk about it down there.
  • mhockey14221, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Who needs New Hampshire anyways?
  • industro, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1If a natural disaster wipes out half a town, what happens then? Is there a clause?
    • joybran, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Fortunately, they would be free to solve the problem themselves instead of having to wait for FEMA to make it worse.
    • HappyPig, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Flatlandah, huh?

      FEMA DID come to many small NH towns (Alstead in particular) last year after some catastrophic floods and did a (believe it or not) a decent job of getting the place back together.
    • calebjohnson77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Fema did come to my town. I live in Keene, and they set up base there to help out the Alsteaders and other towns who had been affected by the floods. A lot of the voluteers that I know went home because most of the residents weren't going to the government for help. I guess we in the granite state tend to be a little less reliant than in some other areas. One of the National Guard tried to tell my friend that he couldn't go to his house. He walked right by and said, "I'm going to make sure no one is stealing my stuff." The National Guard came to my home and tried to "mandatory evacuate" me (and in fact my whole street), but no one listened to them.

      Its amazing what happens when you tell them "no" ...
  • Koopa, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1oops--digg down
  • HappyPig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Is there anyone here from NH aside from the site's author that's in favor of this?
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I own land in NH. Hell yeah I'd like NH to secede.
    • jpmullet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I was born and raised in NH for 24 years(Lakes Region). For the past 2 years I have traveled across the US and lived in South Florida and now reside in San Diego, CA. Growing up in the woods in such a friendly atmosphere, you never realize how many lazy scumbags there are out here. Where has the system gone wrong, and how is so easily accepted? Wake up America...
  • faskill, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I took from this article an idea... an idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hope that others, instead of insulting the author perhaps endeavor to see why they are saying what they are saying... Do I believe secession is the key? My opinion on that isn't necessarily important; I do believe that we are losing our rights and freedoms in a land that was formed by people fighting for these freedoms (granted these freedoms may be as simple as freedom from taxation/tariffs). A war was waged, a victory attained, and now... well, I'll leave you to fill in what "now" is really like.

    Just my two cents.
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5And now, ten years after the revolutionary war we set a a central government with all the same powers of the British crown, and with-in a year tariff rates were 5 times higher then anything the colonists put up with from Britain. :(

      And NOW this country is embed with ridiculous amounts of socialism, regulation and taxes.
  • gr8whitesavage, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2The United States of Digg!

    Think about it.
  • xeniac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I don't recall this working out too well for the Griffin family:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petoria
  • burnsy55, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1Did anyone actually read this?

    It read as if it were written by some highly idealistic college student that just took Political Science 101.

    I wouldn't put much more weight to it than that.
  • batmanjr, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2What would they do for currency?

    Since the currency is only worth as much as what is backing it. Any precious metal reserves that are held there are property of the USA so that can't be used to back it.

    So who in some other country would put any value what so ever in the NHdinallor(or whatever it would be called)

    I think it is a good theory they are putting forward, but I highly doubt it will ever happen.
    • ExCornelius, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9You might want to read up a bit more on what "backs" our currency. Hint: it isn't gold or silver.

      In any case, they have it covered:
      http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2003/HB1342.html
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5yep, it's guns
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Well, if you read the platform, it says people should be free to use whatever they want as currency. Many people will continue to use U.S. dollars. Others might use Euros. Eventually the market might standardize and people will start using gold or silver again. Who knows? They don't believe in using guns to force others into using a particular type of currency.

      Tracy
    • calebjohnson77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Since we don't know what the state of the dollar will be when Independence is achieved, we simply call for using whatever currencies we can get our hands on. Perhaps the Swiss franc?

      Eventually we believe specie currency is the best. You're right, it will take a little while to get there. Every nation discussing the prospect of independence faces this issue. This is not a new issue, nor is it a reason to shelve the idea of independence.
    • williamdyer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Currency is just stored value. Use dollars, Euros, whatever you like.
  • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9People may laugh at this but, knowing how dire the federal government's debt situation is, I see this as rational. Medicare will begin to require significant tax increases in 20-30 years from now. At some point, certain states will get tired of being taxes out of everything and leave the union, relieving them of their tax burden. So this seems to me t obe a canary in the coal mine. The problem isn't bad now but it will get very bad soon.
    • carve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That is an excellent point. Right now, every man, woman, and child in the U.S. owes something like $30k on the national debt. By merely leaving the union, that burden would be evaporate. I just woudn't want to be in the last few state holding the bag! They'd be a 3rd world country overnight!
    • martalli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3According to the National Debt Clock: $28,285.97 per person
      According to wikipedia, NH has 1,235,786 people

      Per capita, their share of the debt is $34,955,405,722.42, 71% of the yearly state domestic production ($49 billion, wikipedia). Federal spending in New Hampshire was $7.959 billion in 2004. State expenditures were $2.065 billion in 2003. In other words, anything short of quadrupling the state revenues would mean a cutback in the services provided in NH. Notably, my source does claim NH paid $9 bill for the $7bill received. I hope the $2 billion is enough to offset the ability to move to the US, the possible decrease in tourism, etc.


      Debt Clock: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
      Federal Spending in NH: http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/347.html
      NH State Expenditures: http://www.unh.edu/nhcpps/nhbudget/budgettrends2003.pdf (table 3)
    • calebjohnson77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly. On the Republic of NH site, I have an essay called "Betrayal of the Dollar" that describes how dire our situation it. Currently, we have almost 58 trillion in unfunded liabilities. (The National Debt figures conceal this through creative accounting, but USA Today recently did an expose on that.)

      We are bankrupt, friends.

      Can New Hampshire possibly do worse on its own?
  • Devious1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9If a state were to do such a thing, I'd move there. The PATRIOT Act, and War on Drugs are reason enough, less tax would be great, but not very realistic.
  • ghostrunner, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I think the biggest problem with NH seceeding is how weird the US flag would look with only 49 stars. We'll have to annex somebody to even things out. My vote is for Iceland.
  • IchiroBoston, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7LOL... Ok NH, go ahead and do it. :)
  • kpkpkp, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Take a look at the size of Western versus Eastern states, and you see that the western states, and very specifically California, are under represented in the Senate. California should do one of two things.

    Either:
    a) Break into three states
    (more about that here: http://www.digg.com/tech_news/Split_California_into_three_states_)
    or
    b) Succeed from the union, taking Washington and Oregon with them, forming their own country, joining NAFTA and becoming a preferred entry point for goods coming from the Pacific rim or passing between Canada and Mexico.
    or
    c) Do both, the new country of Pacifica having the states of Washington, Oregon, Jefferson (as true-Northern Californians favor), Central California (pick a name, already), and, of course, Southern California (they can pick a name too, eh?)
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3under represented in the senate...

      if you don't like the constitution, that's one thing, but by definition California is not under represented.
    • geronimo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That is the nature of the senate, it gives the smaller states more say, offsetting the larger states who have a bigger sway in the house of representatives.

      Having said that, redistricting has completely tilted the h of r to the benefit of smaller states who have "rigged" the system well. So both houses as of this point are rigged toward one party. The solution to that is to make redistricting more fair and practiced by impartial judges only.

      But those with the power will oppose that with all their means. Notice how they supported redistricting reform in California but just hated it in Ohio. One state(california) they don't have power thus they support it, the other state(Ohio) they do have power thus they think it's evil. And at the national level, if it's good for california, why not the federal government?

      I'm afraid you will never get a straight answer to that conundrum.
    • skyorbit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I know during the hay day that elected Arnold. One of the Candidates was planning on seceding and then applying to the U.S. government for foreign aid.

      Tracy
  • Qenton, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4When the state signed up it is for better or worse till either one is a radio active hole in the ground (death till you part) There is no divorce. That was hashed out about 150 years ago

    So why is this like this. So all the states TRY to fix things and not just bug out when the going gets tough.

    So yes, a army would march in, force them to surrender (wouldn't take long). We would send the carpet baggers in to collect the back taxes and be done with it. Wouldn't help NH economy much either.
    • Ruckgesicht, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8""There is no divorce. That was hashed out about 150 years ago""

      Actually Jefferson and many of the other founding fathers figured it would only be a matter of time before another revolution would have to occur to keep things in check. Instead of that revolution we had a civil war, giving not less but more power to the federal government. The right to seceed was given at the start, very much contrary to your claims.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ruckgesicht,
      It wasn't a civil war. In a civil war, you have two (or more) factions within one country fighting one another for the control of that country. The southern states seceded and formed the Confederate States of America, which was separate from the United States. The Confederacy had its own federal government, military forces, currency, and court system.
      The war was fought between two separate and sovereign countries. So call it what you will, The War between the States, The War for Southern Independence, the War of Secession, or whatever, but it certainly was not a civil war by any stretch of the word.

      However, the winner writes the history books, and unfortunately it's common to call it the "civil war". For the record, I believe it's best that we lost and that all the states were reunited. I'm a proud American first and a Southerner second. However, I will not use the wrong terms to describe the war just because some Yankees are more comfortable pretending the CSA never existed as a nation.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.