Zeppflyer on July 14, 2007, 08:42:29 pm
I just finished "A State of Disobedience" by Tom Kratman.  It's a great read.

After newly elected President Wilhelmina Rottemeyer orders the Surgeon General's riot troops to destroy a mission where a group of antiabortion protesters have taken refuge, the Governor of Texas declares that the state will no longer allow the collection of federal income tax, starting a second War of Secession.  The Texans fight to curtail the federal government and bring it back to something that the Founders would have recognized as their own.  Not quite an anarcho-capitalist paradise, but steps in the right direction.

I just figured that this group would appreciate a book about Texas fighting to bring the Feds down to size.

A a free sample of the first few chapters can be found here:  http://www.webscription.net/chapters/0743471709/0743471709.htm

Here is a another great sample:

"The people who did this, who committed this horrible crime, believe that they have accounted for everything; that they have foreseen everything. They think that with their guns they have frightened half of us into submission . . . and with their taxes bribed the rest of us into acquiescence.

"They think that they can get away with anything—murder, mayhem, massacre—by just showing some teeth on a television, promising to steal some more money only so they can give it back . . . after it takes that expensive night on the town in Washington, to be sure . . . and telling us how they feel our pain."

Juani's face grew bitter. " 'Feel our pain' . . . so they claim. Do they? Did they feel it when they roasted twenty-six of our children alive in a storm shelter? Did they feel it when they blasted a priest of God to bits with their gunships' rockets and machine guns? 'Feel our pain'? They can no more do that than they can feel our rage."

Among the crowd, many began softly to weep, joining their cries to Elpidia's. Schmidt—himself—found the need to wipe his eyes.

"But why not?" Juanita continued. "What have they to fear from us, after all? Haven't they frightened—the half—and bribed the other half?"

Bitterness fell away before rage. "Oh the fools, the fools, the stupid . . . Stupid . . . STUPID and utterly contemptible fools." Juani stopped for breath before continuing. She stepped away to put her hand on her brother's casket. "They have left us our sacred Texan dead. And while Texas, under their yoke, holds these dead, Texas will never be at peace.

"For I have had a vision. And with this vision I speak to those who think themselves my people's masters, and I speak to them in my people's name. Beware, you tyrants in Washington. Beware of the day that is coming. Beware, you sanctimonious hypocrites. Beware of the risen people. Do you think, you tyrants, that law is stronger than life? Do you think, you hypocrites, that your fascist propaganda can outweigh mankind's desire to be free?"

Looking directly into the camera now, face grown red even through her olive complexion, Juanita pronounced the future. "We will try it out with you. We will take back what you have stolen. We will be free."

Rocketman on July 14, 2007, 09:56:14 pm
I can see where this story would be appreciated by many in the audience.  If I'm not mistaken I believe that the Texas constitution prior to Texas being admitted to the United States had a clause in it to be able to succeed from the Union if it so wished.

Zen Redneck on July 16, 2007, 07:45:07 am
A good read for everybody is The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.  There you'll see that other states joined up with that provision, too.

Rocketman on July 16, 2007, 02:03:36 pm
Could you tell me how many and what part of the country?  I bet most were from the south and west.

Zen Redneck on July 17, 2007, 09:31:45 am
I'll have to check, but I know Virginia and Rhode Island were two of them.

Rocketman on July 17, 2007, 10:15:16 pm
I went to the local library this afternoon and asked for the "politically incorrect guide to the Constitution".  They don't have it being that it is a relatively new book but I asked that they purchase it.  If they do have it I should get it in about 3 weeks.  The library board looks at each book that they purchase so considering this is a fairly union (democractic) town, it may or may not be approved.  I have asked for some books in the past and about half the time they don't approve them.  No reason given.   :(

Zeppflyer on July 19, 2007, 08:37:58 am
Oh, here's another good book from Baen.  "Freedom" is a collection of scifi short stories about what free society is and what it means.  There's some good stuff in there.

Free sample: http://www.webscription.net/p-161-freedom.aspx

I would recommend chapter 4, "The Ungoverned" as one of the best stories about a libertarian society that I have read.  "Not quite up to Moon is a Harsh Mistress" level, but more plausible.

Leviathan on July 20, 2007, 03:35:43 am
Anybody here (other than me) know what happened to those secession clauses?  That's right.  SCOTUS (our near and dear supreme court, supreme arbiter of the law of the land) decided, in a case titled Texas v. White (and yes, that is a url, you can click on it...  I had some problems with that in a sociocrat forum recently), that the constitution forbade secession and that heretofore all laws and state constitutional provisions which allowed for secession to be unconstitutional.  This ruling was made during Reconstruction when they were looking to justify that the civil war was a just war.  Do you know what these simply lovely individuals based this majority opinion on?  Two things.  The first was Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1.

Quote from: The United States Constitution
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Which is preposterous, since that just means that so long as they're members of the Constitutional Union they agree to hold an elected legislature rather than some other form of State governance.

The second, and you'll probably want to be sitting down when you hear this one if it's a new story for you, was the Preamble.  Yes, folks, the preamble.  The part about "in order to form a more perfect union".  The argument went that this was a reference to the Articles of Confederation, which had the line:

Quote from: The Articles of Confederation
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Since the Union under the Articles was considered perpetual, and the constitution formed a more perfect union, it must therefore follow that a more perfect union is a more perpetual union.  An indivisible union, that must never be severed.  Which is also nonsense, because if the Justice in question had looked two lines down he'd have seen:

Quote from: The Articles of Confederation
Article II.
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Which by the justice's own logic would infer that the constitution demanded an even more sovereign member State.

And the ultimate irony was that the case in question was a bond issue, where Texas was a claimant.  The court ruled that it even had grounds to consider this preposterous notion of whether it had been constitutionally legal for it to secede because it had to decide whether they had standing for the suit.  And with that standing established as a "they never left, because they couldn't have" motion, they declared that all provisions with which a state may claim the right of secession were nullified as never having been valid.

You never hear about that one in schools, now do you?

Rocketman on July 20, 2007, 10:29:10 am
Leviathan:
     Your right, I didn't know any of this, but it doesn't surprise me.  Asking SCOTUS to rule fairly on an issue that concerns federal government power is like expecting to get a fair shake from Al Capone ruling against the mafia.  They should have declaired that they had a conflict of interest and asked another body to rule on it.  The world court maybe?  I don't know, but if those states decided that the agreement had been violated by the feds and went to the world court to let them decide, I think they would have a reasonable case.
     Another thought is a provision in the Constitution that dissolves the United States if 2/3 of the existing states vote in favor of it. 

Leviathan on July 20, 2007, 02:47:51 pm
Leviathan:
     Your right, I didn't know any of this, but it doesn't surprise me.  Asking SCOTUS to rule fairly on an issue that concerns federal government power is like expecting to get a fair shake from Al Capone ruling against the mafia.  They should have declaired that they had a conflict of interest and asked another body to rule on it.  The world court maybe?  I don't know, but if those states decided that the agreement had been violated by the feds and went to the world court to let them decide, I think they would have a reasonable case.
I don't think there was a world court as such at the time.  And why would SCOTUS admit a conflict of interest?  Technically, the original issue could be seen as under their juristiction and lacking in a conflict.  The fact that SCOTUS decided to take the original issue and use it as justification to claim standing on a broader issue renders it highly unethical and illegal, at least in my opinion.  The court had been stuffed pretty well with Lincoln appointees who were keen to justify his decision to refuse to withdraw the troops.  They seized on Texas v. White, and thus they had a judicial justification for him violating sovereign territory.  Whereas there were some dissenting opinions that the Supreme Court could've had juristiction to rule on the original issue by treating Texas as a captured territory rather than a state that had never had the right to withdraw.

Oh, though wouldn't taking a national issue to an international court kinda invalidate that whole "sovereignty" thing?  It'd make the states beholden to another power as the ultimate authority on its own laws.
     Another thought is a provision in the Constitution that dissolves the United States if 2/3 of the existing states vote in favor of it. 
The provisions in question are the ninth and tenth amendments  :P  And they go much, much further than simply saying if 2/3rds want to withdraw the Union is no more.  The direct result of those would mean that each and every state has the right to say "goodbye union, hello independence" whenever they want.  Since secession is not a power denied to the states or reserved to the fed.  Except in the de facto sense since the North pretty firmly illegally denied the South the right of secession.

It's times like having done the research that shows just what people have given up over time that I wish to hell probability broach were close to the reality, and some little tunnel would open up to a world where government is that bunch of powerless talking heads that even if they managed to pass a controlling legislation it would just be ignored.  But alas, those dreams of a world where the government rightly fears its people are far off here and no relief from another world is in sight.

Rocketman on July 22, 2007, 10:20:29 pm
I don't think that if there was a probability broach that suddenly opened up in say Colorado that you would find many people who read these words that wouldn't be packing and gassing up the car right now.  I liken this to the support that Ron Paul has for president which is totally out of preportion to the suppose numbers that the news media says that he has.  My personal belief is that a whole lot of libertarian minded people in this country have simply given up hope for anything resembling a free society and don't even bother to vote anymore.  What's the use if your choices are Hillary Clinton or Mitt Rommey?  I think though that many people in the general population are starting to wake up a little because of a poll recently done said that among Republican voters that the choice was "None of the above" among the current crop of candidates.  Too bad it won't be a choice for the Presidential election in 2008.  :P

archy on August 23, 2007, 01:00:54 pm
I went to the local library this afternoon and asked for the "politically incorrect guide to the Constitution".  They don't have it being that it is a relatively new book but I asked that they purchase it.  If they do have it I should get it in about 3 weeks.  The library board looks at each book that they purchase so considering this is a fairly union (democractic) town, it may or may not be approved.  I have asked for some books in the past and about half the time they don't approve them.  No reason given.   :(

You might try hitting them with a state *Open Door Act* request for a copy of the minutes of the board meeting. It depends on the various wording of the law depending on the state in which you reside, but it does tend to remind the bureaucrats just who it is on whose behalf they're supposed to be working. And depending on how the political wiind blows in your locality, they may choose to get in the books you want just to keepyou from shining the light of public interest on the dark places where the cockroaches prefer to do their business with less scrutiny.

 
Ah'm just a lowly salesman for the Deef Smith Greeting Card Company....

Zeppflyer on October 02, 2007, 06:46:11 pm
I went to the local library this afternoon and asked for the "politically incorrect guide to the Constitution".  They don't have it being that it is a relatively new book but I asked that they purchase it.  If they do have it I should get it in about 3 weeks.  The library board looks at each book that they purchase so considering this is a fairly union (democractic) town, it may or may not be approved.  I have asked for some books in the past and about half the time they don't approve them.  No reason given.   :(

You might try hitting them with a state *Open Door Act* request for a copy of the minutes of the board meeting. It depends on the various wording of the law depending on the state in which you reside, but it does tend to remind the bureaucrats just who it is on whose behalf they're supposed to be working. And depending on how the political wiind blows in your locality, they may choose to get in the books you want just to keepyou from shining the light of public interest on the dark places where the cockroaches prefer to do their business with less scrutiny.

It's really not fair to assume a conspiracy.  I've worked for a few libraries in my time.  They get thousands of requests every year for books and have extremely limited budgets to cover them.  Not to mention space considerations.  If only one person is asking for a book that no one on the board has ever heard of, odds are that they will not get it.  As to no reason given, think of the time and expense that it would take to respond to all of the people who propose books.  My advice would be to play the political game.  Either get a few friends to request the book too or talk to one of the committee people one on one and get them interested.

Think also, if you request that Blockbuster start carrying a movie that was a bit controversial and  not overly popular, would you expect them to automatically start doing it or give you a lengthy reply as to why they don't?  It's not just a government entity being bureaucratic, it's a case of limited resources.  Libraries honestly do attempt to cater to the needs and desires of their patrons.

archy on October 17, 2007, 12:40:16 pm
Quote
It's really not fair to assume a conspiracy.  I've worked for a few libraries in my time.  They get thousands of requests every year for books and have extremely limited budgets to cover them.  Not to mention space considerations.  If only one person is asking for a book that no one on the board has ever heard of, odds are that they will not get it.

True; don't assume sinister motives when incompetence or laziness may be more likely motives. But in either event, the result may be the availability of the book just so the pesky problem goes away. And by digging intoi the matter, you may indeed uncover more a more sinister force at play, whether it comes from a single unsympathetic individual or multiple serious wrongdoers.   
Ah'm just a lowly salesman for the Deef Smith Greeting Card Company....

Sean Roach on October 20, 2007, 11:48:10 am
So, what's to stop them from having an informal discussion over breakfast, and a meeting, with minutes, after lunch?

 

anything