After reading Lew Rockwell’s column about Obama comparing his proposed health care plan to the postal service, I got to thinking about other government services that do not compare to the same services provided by the private sector. Rockwell, in his article, compared how hard work on the part of such as UPS and FedEx have allowed them to succeed, while continued government subsidizing has caused a repeated loss at the USPS, and that the USPS has not allowed any competition to its “right” to deliver first class mail.
What services that the government provides are better than a private option?
To begin with, one would say that the military could not operate without government help, but I would argue that it is because of government help that the military operates at a handicap. If left to only those who are trained military minds, the efficiency of the military would far exceed what it does now, as would the cost of that military. There would be no tiptoeing in places such as Viet Nam and today, Afghanistan. With military minds completely running the show, leaving government diplomacy out of the picture, we would have probably already captured Osama bin Laden with nowhere near the losses we now have suffered. In fact, with only military minds running the military, we probably wouldn’t have gotten involved in some of the conflicts that we have. Government intervention has only slowed the progress of the military in achieving its goal of winning the battle, regardless the cost to the enemy. I can only imagine how the Revolutionary War would have gone if diplomats, instead of George Washington, were in charge of it. We would still be speaking with a British accent.
What about domestic police protection, you might ask. You say we couldn’t get by without government providing us police protection. I agree, we need police protection to keep the weak from becoming prey to the unscrupulous strong, but it is government intervention in this area that has weakened the ability of law enforcement to do the job they are trained to do. Again, if only experienced law enforcement people were making the rules, there would be no need for Miranda laws that keep so many guilty from being punished. Reasonable force would not be looked upon as police brutality, and police would not be afraid to do their jobs out of fear of being sued or losing their jobs. Imagine Elliot Ness and his group being limited to what they could do in the twenties. We would still have Al Capone types running things in Chicago and New York. Oh wait, we do have, only now they are in government.
Government can only continue to operate like it does, at a loss, because it can do to the people what it would not allow the people to do to themselves. It steals from them, not at gunpoint, but by making laws that allow them to extort from us nearly half of our earnings, if we have any earnings, to pay for their programs and support their losses. It takes from those who are willing to work for a living and gives what it takes to those who are not. It votes itself raises each year without asking if they are affordable. Imagine, at your workplace, that you were able to tell your bosses that you were going to take a raise without their approval. Do you think you would get the raise? You would be lucky to keep your job in the real world; that is the real world without government interference. Government legislation today would not allow your employer to fire you unless there was some sort of reason that they approve of. Otherwise, your employer could be sued and suffer great losses by edict of some government court system.
What about your company retirement plan, is it as good as what government people give themselves, at our expense? Where can you find a job where you can work for two years or so and get a retirement plan that will pay you an amount equal to your yearly salary when you leave that job? And that’s for life, not just a couple of years. How long would your own retirement plan remain solvent with a plan like that?
Public service was originally designed to be just that, service, not a career choice. Citizen government was what the founders had in mind. They would not recognize the length of “service” by the likes of John Dingell, Robert Byrd, or Ted Kennedy, to name but three. Stromm Thurmond would have been put out to pasture long before he turned one hundred. Most who began this country would not have considered serving in their positions for more than one term. In the first place, it didn’t pay well enough to make it a full time job, and they already had full time jobs at home. Most were either businessmen or farmers whose business and farms required their attention, and they were only giving their time for a limited period. Those early founders would not have considered a career in politics possible. Things sure have changed, but not for the better.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Secession Myths Busted
The following is reprinted from the Texas Nationalist Movement website
1. The entire question of secession was settled during the Civil War.
Myth Busted - the application of Federal military might to invade, occupy and forcibly repatriate the Southern states in no way answered the legal question of the legality of secession. In point of fact it can rightly be argued that the Federal government exceeded its delegated powers by using force against a the states.
2. Secession is the same as revolution and revolutions always mean bloodshed.
Myth Busted - A revolution is a change in government, secession is merely a separation of governments, a divorce or a dissolution of a compact.
3. No state have ever seceded anywhere in the world.
Myth Busted - recent examples would include, Montenegro, Lithuania, Estonia, All of the former Soviet Republics, and even Scotland regained some of her sovereignty in 1999 (something she lost in 1805)
4. If one or more of the various states secedes it will likely end up no better than a third world country, isolated, alone and poor.
Myth Busted - Not true, a free Alaska would be Saudi Arabia with snow, California would be the world's 7th largest economy. Other states would of their own choosing form trade alliances and various confederations or even federal unions. The point is these would be on their terms, governemnt of and by the people.
5. The United States was born on the 4th of July 1776, a state has no right to leave.
Myth Busted - The United States was not born in 1776, that was thirteen free and independent colonies shedding the yoke of imperialism. The United States was born with the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, its parents being the free and independent states.
6. If a state were to leave the Union it would mean war, the Federal government would never allow it.
Myth Busted - This myth plays right into the very notion of tyranny and governmental control. If the Federal government were to invade a state seeking to establish self-determination using the very same justification found in the Declaration of Independence would that act in and of itself not be enough to convict the Federal government of tyranny? Governments are supposed to do what the people allow, not the other way around.
7. Secession is treason, secessionist are traitors.
Myth Busted - The love of one's state is not treason, loyalty to one's home is not treason. The belief in government of and by the people is not treason. The belief in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserving all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal government to the States and People is not treason. Tyranny, oppression and perversion and usurpation of the Constitution is treasonous.
*This document courtesy of the American Secession Project
1. The entire question of secession was settled during the Civil War.
Myth Busted - the application of Federal military might to invade, occupy and forcibly repatriate the Southern states in no way answered the legal question of the legality of secession. In point of fact it can rightly be argued that the Federal government exceeded its delegated powers by using force against a the states.
2. Secession is the same as revolution and revolutions always mean bloodshed.
Myth Busted - A revolution is a change in government, secession is merely a separation of governments, a divorce or a dissolution of a compact.
3. No state have ever seceded anywhere in the world.
Myth Busted - recent examples would include, Montenegro, Lithuania, Estonia, All of the former Soviet Republics, and even Scotland regained some of her sovereignty in 1999 (something she lost in 1805)
4. If one or more of the various states secedes it will likely end up no better than a third world country, isolated, alone and poor.
Myth Busted - Not true, a free Alaska would be Saudi Arabia with snow, California would be the world's 7th largest economy. Other states would of their own choosing form trade alliances and various confederations or even federal unions. The point is these would be on their terms, governemnt of and by the people.
5. The United States was born on the 4th of July 1776, a state has no right to leave.
Myth Busted - The United States was not born in 1776, that was thirteen free and independent colonies shedding the yoke of imperialism. The United States was born with the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, its parents being the free and independent states.
6. If a state were to leave the Union it would mean war, the Federal government would never allow it.
Myth Busted - This myth plays right into the very notion of tyranny and governmental control. If the Federal government were to invade a state seeking to establish self-determination using the very same justification found in the Declaration of Independence would that act in and of itself not be enough to convict the Federal government of tyranny? Governments are supposed to do what the people allow, not the other way around.
7. Secession is treason, secessionist are traitors.
Myth Busted - The love of one's state is not treason, loyalty to one's home is not treason. The belief in government of and by the people is not treason. The belief in the 10th Amendment to the Constitution reserving all rights not specifically delegated to the Federal government to the States and People is not treason. Tyranny, oppression and perversion and usurpation of the Constitution is treasonous.
*This document courtesy of the American Secession Project
The Case For American Secession
The following is a reprint of an article written by Kirkpatrick Sale of the Midlebury Institute, and taken from the Texas Nationalist Movement website
The Case for American Secession
By Kirkpatrick Sale of the Midlebury Institute
(Chronicles magazine, November 2005)
*rehosted here with the express permission of Mr. Sale
There has always been talk about secession in this country by those variously disgruntled on both the right and left, but since the last Presidential election, which showed great and deep-seated divisions in American society on a variety of fundamental issues, that talk has grown exponentially. I would not argue that it will actually lead to a dissolution of this nation into separate states or regions or confederacies, but that is not by any means inconceivable, and I would say that the issue should be taken seriously and examined carefully.
The first question to be asked, and it is not a frivolous one, is whether secession is legal—whether the Constitution can be read, and history cited, as permitting (or at least not forbidding) a state to declare its independence from the Union. Scholars have come down on both sides of this issue, but that fact alone suggests that there is a legitimate argument to be made. To put it simply:
The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the U.S. to the states or the people, so states may act unless specifically prohibited. The Constitution in fact says nothing about secession, and as Confederate states were seceding Congress considered an amendment forbidding secession, which means that the principle wasn’t there in the first place. Three of the original thirteen states (Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia) kept an explicit right to secede when they joined the Union, and since that was never challenged of questioned it must be a right that all states enjoy. And in the 19th century, before South Carolina began the bandwagon of secession in 1860, seven states (Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Vermont) enacted acts of nullification—meaning their refusal to recognize some or all of the powers of the national government—without any retaliation by Washington.
Of course Lincoln’s government acted as if secession were illegal and unconstitutional, and its victory established the practical case, operable to this day, that states will be punished if they try to secede, and the Constitution is irrelevant. But it did not establish a legal case, and the legal (not to mention moral) argument for the right to secede remains strong. So strong that even if it were denied in the U.S. courts it would likely be defended in the court of world opinion by many of the world’s nations, including those in the European Union and those that have recently exerted that right (in the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, for example). And that might make it difficult for the Federal government to act against a state that has voted for secession, particularly if there were no overriding moral issues (a la slavery) and the state proved agreeable to negotiation over Federal property and assets within its boundaries.
Even accepting that, a second question arises over whether a Federal government could allow a state or especially a group of states to secede, regardless of rights, if it threatened the sovereignty and power of the remaining nation. Washington might not want to let California go, as much as the neocons might like it, for fear that Cascadia (Oregon and Washington) and New England (and who knows how many disgruntled others?) would follow suit. If it still had the military means and the loyalty of the remaining troops, it might be expected to contrive a way (a Gulf of Tonkin or WMD excuse) to justify the invasion of a secessionist nation.
And yet, and yet. It is hard to think that a Federal government would actually command its troops to mow down Los Angelenos and San Franciscans the way they do the innocents of Falluja and Najaf, or withstand the barrage of criticism, domestic and international, if it did; such an act would more likely propel additional secessions than gain support. It is harder still to think that the troops would actually carry out such an order, killing (ex)Americans on (ex)American territory. And if the troops did actually succeed in conquering and occupying an independent state, the population would be virtually uncontrollable—if it is not possible to win the hearts and minds of Vietnamese and Iraqis by invasion, think how much less possible it would be to win over people who had voted for secession with the full knowledge that it might lead to war,
It is not fantastic, then, to imagine that instead of a futile war Washington would be willing to negotiate a settlement, in the hopes that, by giving concessions on autonomy and self-regulation, say, and by demonstrating the extent of the Federal dollars lost, it could win a secessionist state back into the Union. In some cases that might well happen, and if it failed it would at least show a government intelligent and confident enough to act as a future ally rather than a marauding warmonger. And as an ally, it might be able to establish diplomatic and trade ties that would allow it to still use such resources and talents of the new state as it wanted, perhaps even the bases it had previously used. With the additional benefit of no longer having to maintain Federal offices, regulators, highways, parks, dams, and such, and even presumably with a negotiated fee in compensation for these lost assets.
There is another strategy that a Federal government determined to squash secession might take, involving no troops, no war, nothing but a few phonecalls. Washington might put pressure on large chain operations—Wal-Mart, Target, McDonald’s, General Motors, Gannett, and many others—to cease doing business in the secessionist state, lest the Feds make things difficult for them in all the others. And unless the secession is so widespread that more states are out than in, a highly unlikely outcome, the corporations will comply and shut down and withdraw their businesses in the independent state.
Would that—or even the threat of that—cut the legs out from under a secessionist state and force it to come crawling back to the Union? I think not, for several reasons.
First, a seceding state would have to be, and would want to be, in great measure self-sufficient, providing for itself those goods and services it could not trade for with the outside world. Like Japan historically, and a number of other new states, it would create a phenomenon that Jane Jacobs has called “import replacement,” the building of bicycles at home, recycling the metals and materials from the dumps and by the wayside, instead of buying them from abroad. It would certainly not be able to offer bikes for sale as cheaply as Wal-Mart does, at least at first, but it would put many more people to work per bike than Wal-Mart, and strengthen its economy in ways that would eventually enable its people to buy the more expensive product. Imagine this going on for a host of other goods across the state, replacing those that can be made by intelligent recycling and manufacturing, refitting and reusing others, developing hand crafts as a substitute for machinery to create others, refusing to make those that are pointless, wasteful, environmentally harmful, or costly, and foregoing many that turn out after a while to be neither necessary nor desirable. Wal-Mart would not only not be missed, it would be seen as having been a foolish enterprise that foisted too much needless “stuff,” in too many useless varieties, of too shoddy a manufacture, with too much added-in transportation costs, on a gullible and malleable public.
And if the citizens of the new state really missed some big chain store and couldn’t work out a replacement, they would stoically bear that burden as good and loyal patriots.
A second reason that the economic threat would not have much force is that the new state might well start out with more money in its coffers because it would not have to pay Federal income, gasoline, telephone, and other taxes; seventeen states (twelve of them “blue,” interestingly enough) now pay more to the Federal government than they get back in Federal benefits. California, for example, got back just 78 cents in benefits for every dollar it sent to Washington in 2003 (according to the Tax Foundation), and as the independent Republic of California would thereby have an extra 22 cents in its pocket for every dollar—that would have meant, in 2004, that the citizens would have $88,000,000 lying around that wouldn’t be going to Washington and they could use for local projects. Sounds like a pretty nice cushion to me.
Of course not every state is California, and the attempt at some sort of economic independence would work out differently in different places—and if it looked like a state couldn’t be on its own economically it would be very foolish to launch a secessionist movement. But a great many states in this country could be economically viable on their own, with arrangements that would let them trade with outside nations, including the U.S. and Canada. Besides, the necessity of economic survival is a very fertile mother, and like many small nations an independent state could find ways of making itself useful in the economic world; indeed some of the richest nations—Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Cayman Islands, Iceland, Belgium, San Marino, and Singapore, for example—are some of the smallest, and that’s leaving aside the Persian Gulf oil states.
The last reason for being optimistic about small-state viability, and the nullity of the Wal-Mart strategy, has to be put in the context of the economic future of the United States. I happen to be among the growing band of people who believe that there will be extremely difficult times ahead, and in the nearer rather than farther future, as a combination of crises and calamities pushes us to a completely new kind of society. They include the dwindling of cheap oil supplies (which already seems to have begun) and skyrocketing gasoline prices, the collapse of the value of the dollar from the spiraling trade deficit and national debt, the bursting of the real estate bubble, the effect of global warming on agriculture and fisheries, the rise of sea levels, the spread of diseases old and new, the increase in severe weather (of which Katrina is a foretaste), the diminution of fresh water, the exhaustion of tropical forests, the erosion of arable soils, the continued pollution of air and water, the depletion of mineral resources, and the whole impact of human activity on the global environment (“Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted”: Ecosystem Millennium Assessment, March 2005).
As a result of all that—or indeed of any of several parts of that—the national economy will have to transform itself. It will in fact be less a national than a local economy, particularly as gasoline supplies diminish and become prohibitively expensive and the dollar becomes an increasingly irrelevant measure of worth. James Howard Kunstler, whose new book The Long Emergency is about the likelihood of just such a future, writes that it
will require us to downscale and re-scale virtually everything we do and how we do it, from the kind of communities we physically inhabit to the way we
grow our food to the way we work and trade the products of our work….Anything
organized on the large scale, whether it is government or a corporate business enterprise such as Wal-Mart, will wither as the cheap energy props that support bigness fall away.
And then a small independent state, which can be more or less buffered from the national emergency and dependent on a relatively self-sufficient economy, makes a lot of sense.
Which might be the best argument for secession right there. If the future is going to be anything like what we alarmists are saying, there would seem to be a need to establish small-scale institutions and enterprises and trading circles as soon as possible, along with revivified community enterprises and cottage craftsmanship, and a statewide level suggests itself as the appropriate scale. And if that can be done in connection with political and cultural independence, such economic independence makes a powerful and attractive package. More than that, perhaps a necessary one.
Necessary, and, I want to argue, desirable. This country simply is not working right—as both the war in Iraq and the bumbling of Katrina (at all levels) make clear—and its corruption and inefficiency are harmful to the bulk of the population. The Federal government, aside from being bureaucracy-bound and politically hamstrung, is too big and complicated and inherently incompetent, and its attempt to provide for 280 million people and maintain a global empire of 725 military bases has proved to be impossible, placing terrible political and financial burdens on everyone. Secession would allow populations to escape this Leviathan, keep its human and financial resources from going down that rathole, avoid association with the failed politics of an ugly empire, and set its own policies (on same-sex marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, and so on) without interference from a distant central government increasingly in the hands of corporate interests and right-wing ideologues. It would allow a blue state a chance to escape from the policies and culture of a red-state government and set its own course. It would, in short, allow people to leave the country they dislike without leaving the homes they cherish. What could make more sense?
Kirkpatrick Sale - is the author of thirteen books, including Human Scale and Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision (University of Georgia Press). He is a founder and director of The Middlebury Institute for “the study of separatism, secession, and self-determination.”
The Case for American Secession
By Kirkpatrick Sale of the Midlebury Institute
(Chronicles magazine, November 2005)
*rehosted here with the express permission of Mr. Sale
There has always been talk about secession in this country by those variously disgruntled on both the right and left, but since the last Presidential election, which showed great and deep-seated divisions in American society on a variety of fundamental issues, that talk has grown exponentially. I would not argue that it will actually lead to a dissolution of this nation into separate states or regions or confederacies, but that is not by any means inconceivable, and I would say that the issue should be taken seriously and examined carefully.
The first question to be asked, and it is not a frivolous one, is whether secession is legal—whether the Constitution can be read, and history cited, as permitting (or at least not forbidding) a state to declare its independence from the Union. Scholars have come down on both sides of this issue, but that fact alone suggests that there is a legitimate argument to be made. To put it simply:
The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the U.S. to the states or the people, so states may act unless specifically prohibited. The Constitution in fact says nothing about secession, and as Confederate states were seceding Congress considered an amendment forbidding secession, which means that the principle wasn’t there in the first place. Three of the original thirteen states (Rhode Island, New York, and Virginia) kept an explicit right to secede when they joined the Union, and since that was never challenged of questioned it must be a right that all states enjoy. And in the 19th century, before South Carolina began the bandwagon of secession in 1860, seven states (Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Georgia, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Massachusetts, and Vermont) enacted acts of nullification—meaning their refusal to recognize some or all of the powers of the national government—without any retaliation by Washington.
Of course Lincoln’s government acted as if secession were illegal and unconstitutional, and its victory established the practical case, operable to this day, that states will be punished if they try to secede, and the Constitution is irrelevant. But it did not establish a legal case, and the legal (not to mention moral) argument for the right to secede remains strong. So strong that even if it were denied in the U.S. courts it would likely be defended in the court of world opinion by many of the world’s nations, including those in the European Union and those that have recently exerted that right (in the former Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, for example). And that might make it difficult for the Federal government to act against a state that has voted for secession, particularly if there were no overriding moral issues (a la slavery) and the state proved agreeable to negotiation over Federal property and assets within its boundaries.
Even accepting that, a second question arises over whether a Federal government could allow a state or especially a group of states to secede, regardless of rights, if it threatened the sovereignty and power of the remaining nation. Washington might not want to let California go, as much as the neocons might like it, for fear that Cascadia (Oregon and Washington) and New England (and who knows how many disgruntled others?) would follow suit. If it still had the military means and the loyalty of the remaining troops, it might be expected to contrive a way (a Gulf of Tonkin or WMD excuse) to justify the invasion of a secessionist nation.
And yet, and yet. It is hard to think that a Federal government would actually command its troops to mow down Los Angelenos and San Franciscans the way they do the innocents of Falluja and Najaf, or withstand the barrage of criticism, domestic and international, if it did; such an act would more likely propel additional secessions than gain support. It is harder still to think that the troops would actually carry out such an order, killing (ex)Americans on (ex)American territory. And if the troops did actually succeed in conquering and occupying an independent state, the population would be virtually uncontrollable—if it is not possible to win the hearts and minds of Vietnamese and Iraqis by invasion, think how much less possible it would be to win over people who had voted for secession with the full knowledge that it might lead to war,
It is not fantastic, then, to imagine that instead of a futile war Washington would be willing to negotiate a settlement, in the hopes that, by giving concessions on autonomy and self-regulation, say, and by demonstrating the extent of the Federal dollars lost, it could win a secessionist state back into the Union. In some cases that might well happen, and if it failed it would at least show a government intelligent and confident enough to act as a future ally rather than a marauding warmonger. And as an ally, it might be able to establish diplomatic and trade ties that would allow it to still use such resources and talents of the new state as it wanted, perhaps even the bases it had previously used. With the additional benefit of no longer having to maintain Federal offices, regulators, highways, parks, dams, and such, and even presumably with a negotiated fee in compensation for these lost assets.
There is another strategy that a Federal government determined to squash secession might take, involving no troops, no war, nothing but a few phonecalls. Washington might put pressure on large chain operations—Wal-Mart, Target, McDonald’s, General Motors, Gannett, and many others—to cease doing business in the secessionist state, lest the Feds make things difficult for them in all the others. And unless the secession is so widespread that more states are out than in, a highly unlikely outcome, the corporations will comply and shut down and withdraw their businesses in the independent state.
Would that—or even the threat of that—cut the legs out from under a secessionist state and force it to come crawling back to the Union? I think not, for several reasons.
First, a seceding state would have to be, and would want to be, in great measure self-sufficient, providing for itself those goods and services it could not trade for with the outside world. Like Japan historically, and a number of other new states, it would create a phenomenon that Jane Jacobs has called “import replacement,” the building of bicycles at home, recycling the metals and materials from the dumps and by the wayside, instead of buying them from abroad. It would certainly not be able to offer bikes for sale as cheaply as Wal-Mart does, at least at first, but it would put many more people to work per bike than Wal-Mart, and strengthen its economy in ways that would eventually enable its people to buy the more expensive product. Imagine this going on for a host of other goods across the state, replacing those that can be made by intelligent recycling and manufacturing, refitting and reusing others, developing hand crafts as a substitute for machinery to create others, refusing to make those that are pointless, wasteful, environmentally harmful, or costly, and foregoing many that turn out after a while to be neither necessary nor desirable. Wal-Mart would not only not be missed, it would be seen as having been a foolish enterprise that foisted too much needless “stuff,” in too many useless varieties, of too shoddy a manufacture, with too much added-in transportation costs, on a gullible and malleable public.
And if the citizens of the new state really missed some big chain store and couldn’t work out a replacement, they would stoically bear that burden as good and loyal patriots.
A second reason that the economic threat would not have much force is that the new state might well start out with more money in its coffers because it would not have to pay Federal income, gasoline, telephone, and other taxes; seventeen states (twelve of them “blue,” interestingly enough) now pay more to the Federal government than they get back in Federal benefits. California, for example, got back just 78 cents in benefits for every dollar it sent to Washington in 2003 (according to the Tax Foundation), and as the independent Republic of California would thereby have an extra 22 cents in its pocket for every dollar—that would have meant, in 2004, that the citizens would have $88,000,000 lying around that wouldn’t be going to Washington and they could use for local projects. Sounds like a pretty nice cushion to me.
Of course not every state is California, and the attempt at some sort of economic independence would work out differently in different places—and if it looked like a state couldn’t be on its own economically it would be very foolish to launch a secessionist movement. But a great many states in this country could be economically viable on their own, with arrangements that would let them trade with outside nations, including the U.S. and Canada. Besides, the necessity of economic survival is a very fertile mother, and like many small nations an independent state could find ways of making itself useful in the economic world; indeed some of the richest nations—Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco, Cayman Islands, Iceland, Belgium, San Marino, and Singapore, for example—are some of the smallest, and that’s leaving aside the Persian Gulf oil states.
The last reason for being optimistic about small-state viability, and the nullity of the Wal-Mart strategy, has to be put in the context of the economic future of the United States. I happen to be among the growing band of people who believe that there will be extremely difficult times ahead, and in the nearer rather than farther future, as a combination of crises and calamities pushes us to a completely new kind of society. They include the dwindling of cheap oil supplies (which already seems to have begun) and skyrocketing gasoline prices, the collapse of the value of the dollar from the spiraling trade deficit and national debt, the bursting of the real estate bubble, the effect of global warming on agriculture and fisheries, the rise of sea levels, the spread of diseases old and new, the increase in severe weather (of which Katrina is a foretaste), the diminution of fresh water, the exhaustion of tropical forests, the erosion of arable soils, the continued pollution of air and water, the depletion of mineral resources, and the whole impact of human activity on the global environment (“Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet’s ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted”: Ecosystem Millennium Assessment, March 2005).
As a result of all that—or indeed of any of several parts of that—the national economy will have to transform itself. It will in fact be less a national than a local economy, particularly as gasoline supplies diminish and become prohibitively expensive and the dollar becomes an increasingly irrelevant measure of worth. James Howard Kunstler, whose new book The Long Emergency is about the likelihood of just such a future, writes that it
will require us to downscale and re-scale virtually everything we do and how we do it, from the kind of communities we physically inhabit to the way we
grow our food to the way we work and trade the products of our work….Anything
organized on the large scale, whether it is government or a corporate business enterprise such as Wal-Mart, will wither as the cheap energy props that support bigness fall away.
And then a small independent state, which can be more or less buffered from the national emergency and dependent on a relatively self-sufficient economy, makes a lot of sense.
Which might be the best argument for secession right there. If the future is going to be anything like what we alarmists are saying, there would seem to be a need to establish small-scale institutions and enterprises and trading circles as soon as possible, along with revivified community enterprises and cottage craftsmanship, and a statewide level suggests itself as the appropriate scale. And if that can be done in connection with political and cultural independence, such economic independence makes a powerful and attractive package. More than that, perhaps a necessary one.
Necessary, and, I want to argue, desirable. This country simply is not working right—as both the war in Iraq and the bumbling of Katrina (at all levels) make clear—and its corruption and inefficiency are harmful to the bulk of the population. The Federal government, aside from being bureaucracy-bound and politically hamstrung, is too big and complicated and inherently incompetent, and its attempt to provide for 280 million people and maintain a global empire of 725 military bases has proved to be impossible, placing terrible political and financial burdens on everyone. Secession would allow populations to escape this Leviathan, keep its human and financial resources from going down that rathole, avoid association with the failed politics of an ugly empire, and set its own policies (on same-sex marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, and so on) without interference from a distant central government increasingly in the hands of corporate interests and right-wing ideologues. It would allow a blue state a chance to escape from the policies and culture of a red-state government and set its own course. It would, in short, allow people to leave the country they dislike without leaving the homes they cherish. What could make more sense?
Kirkpatrick Sale - is the author of thirteen books, including Human Scale and Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision (University of Georgia Press). He is a founder and director of The Middlebury Institute for “the study of separatism, secession, and self-determination.”
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
MEDICAL CARE AND CAR CARE
Like caring for your family sedan is necessary in order to keep it running right, caring for your individual health is also required in order to enjoy the benefits of life. Sometimes it is necessary to take your car to an experienced mechanic to fix a problem that you can’t deal with personally, and it is also necessary to visit a medical professional on occasion in order to solve a problem that you have little or no knowledge about.
By doing regular upkeep, like oil changes and some lubrication, changing spark plugs when necessary, or replacing a fan belt or radiator hose, maintaining a good finish on the exterior of the car, keeping tires inflated to the proper pressure, and numerous other small but necessary jobs, an individual can avoid taking his car to the dealer or mechanic, thus saving money that is needed elsewhere.
The dealer or mechanic will still have all of the work they can handle with major things like engine overhauls, body and fender repair, transmission replacements, and other major problems that the average car owner either can’t do or doesn’t have the tools for. It is required, in order to stay in business, that the dealers or mechanics charge a fee that allows them a profit so that they will be there the next time you need their services, plus allow them to make a decent living.
Medical care works pretty much on the same order. Much of what the medical profession treats today are regular maintenance problems that could have and should have been taken care of by the individual. In the same manner as not abusing your car and expecting it to continue to perform as advertised, an individual cannot continue to abuse his or her body and expect it to continue to function as designed by our Creator. There are some things that require the need of a professional human being mechanic; that is one who works on the problems of our bodies that we can’t work on ourselves. Like the mechanic or dealer who must make a profit in order to be there when we really need them, the medical professionals also need to show a profit in order to be there when needed.
We are now told that we must have universal health care, meaning in reality, universal medical care, since health care is your responsibility, not your doctor’s. We are told that everybody must have this universal coverage or be fined.
When someone is forced to take on something that they don’t want, like medical coverage insurance, there is a very real possibility that it is going to be over used and abused. Doctors and hospitals will be even more overwhelmed than they now are, and care will be diminished while costs will necessarily rise for the service. Rising costs do not mean that hospitals and doctors will be reimbursed accordingly, as the cost for each procedure will be determined by the medical care provider; our loving government.
If the same applied to your auto mechanic, and he could not charge the rates necessary to maintain a profit, he would soon go out of business, leaving you to look for another mechanic. The same situation will apply to hospitals and doctors when they cannot maintain a profit. Those now studying to be doctors will choose some other field instead, and hospitals overcome with increasing costs and no way to cover them, will have to close.
Also, imagine that when your neighbor takes his car to the dealer or a mechanic for a service that once cost one hundred dollars, and now there was a law that said that service would only be compensated for to the tune of fifty dollars by the government plan, and on top of that, you would have to chip in to pay for your neighbor’s service. Would you stand for that? I think not, so why should you stand for the same circumstance in the medical care business?
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, an old saying tells us, but even though the system may be in need of repair to some degree, central government is breaking it even more, making it totally unusable for all.
By doing regular upkeep, like oil changes and some lubrication, changing spark plugs when necessary, or replacing a fan belt or radiator hose, maintaining a good finish on the exterior of the car, keeping tires inflated to the proper pressure, and numerous other small but necessary jobs, an individual can avoid taking his car to the dealer or mechanic, thus saving money that is needed elsewhere.
The dealer or mechanic will still have all of the work they can handle with major things like engine overhauls, body and fender repair, transmission replacements, and other major problems that the average car owner either can’t do or doesn’t have the tools for. It is required, in order to stay in business, that the dealers or mechanics charge a fee that allows them a profit so that they will be there the next time you need their services, plus allow them to make a decent living.
Medical care works pretty much on the same order. Much of what the medical profession treats today are regular maintenance problems that could have and should have been taken care of by the individual. In the same manner as not abusing your car and expecting it to continue to perform as advertised, an individual cannot continue to abuse his or her body and expect it to continue to function as designed by our Creator. There are some things that require the need of a professional human being mechanic; that is one who works on the problems of our bodies that we can’t work on ourselves. Like the mechanic or dealer who must make a profit in order to be there when we really need them, the medical professionals also need to show a profit in order to be there when needed.
We are now told that we must have universal health care, meaning in reality, universal medical care, since health care is your responsibility, not your doctor’s. We are told that everybody must have this universal coverage or be fined.
When someone is forced to take on something that they don’t want, like medical coverage insurance, there is a very real possibility that it is going to be over used and abused. Doctors and hospitals will be even more overwhelmed than they now are, and care will be diminished while costs will necessarily rise for the service. Rising costs do not mean that hospitals and doctors will be reimbursed accordingly, as the cost for each procedure will be determined by the medical care provider; our loving government.
If the same applied to your auto mechanic, and he could not charge the rates necessary to maintain a profit, he would soon go out of business, leaving you to look for another mechanic. The same situation will apply to hospitals and doctors when they cannot maintain a profit. Those now studying to be doctors will choose some other field instead, and hospitals overcome with increasing costs and no way to cover them, will have to close.
Also, imagine that when your neighbor takes his car to the dealer or a mechanic for a service that once cost one hundred dollars, and now there was a law that said that service would only be compensated for to the tune of fifty dollars by the government plan, and on top of that, you would have to chip in to pay for your neighbor’s service. Would you stand for that? I think not, so why should you stand for the same circumstance in the medical care business?
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, an old saying tells us, but even though the system may be in need of repair to some degree, central government is breaking it even more, making it totally unusable for all.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
SOME QUESTIONS CONCERNING SECESSION
There are those involved in the secession movements, who have some legitimate concerns that will need to be answered. I don’t pretend to have all of the answers, but I will share my opinion with you.
I recently heard back from a gentleman who is the West Texas State Director for the Patriotic Resistance Movement. He is not for secession because he feels it would cause an influx to Texas from other states that would not choose secession, and he probably has a legitimate concern. However, those who would come to Texas would be productive people who want to keep more of what they would earn, while at the same time, we would be witnessing an exodus from Texas of those who do not believe in secession and those who choose to live off of the welfare state. I see no down side to this.
Another concern I have seen quite a lot is wondering how those now on Social Security would continue to be compensated if we secede. Another legitimate concern; but let’s examine it more closely.
Today there are countless Americans living on Social Security who chose to make their homes in other countries, because American dollars go further than the local monetary unit. Americans now eligible for Social Security who chose to live in the Republic of Texas should, and probably would be no different. That said, Social Security is on a schedule to go bankrupt by around 2017. That being the case, the point seems to be moot. With the current loss of jobs in the US now, fewer workers are still left to contribute to the Social Security funding, which will probably hasten the demise of the system, as well as Medicare.
That’s another concern; medical coverage. As already mentioned, Medicare is on the rocks and will probably go down with or before Social Security, so it cannot be depended on anyway. If Obama’s health care plan gets voted in, those in the top earning bracket will be taxed an additional 5.4% to pay for it. How long would you expect the top earners to stay in a United States that is sucking their lives away? They would probably come to Texas, or some other state that secedes from Washington, bringing their productive ability with them, creating more jobs for Texans and more income which will make health care more within the reach of all Texans. (Or to which ever seceded state they chose to migrate.)
I know there are other concerns, such as security; but let’s face facts. Under the current system we have no security on our borders now, and at least we could enforce the southern border protection against violation. Texas’ National Guard is not a federal force, but under the control of the Governor of Texas, and would be under the control of the leaders of the new republic. We would have a force equal to or larger than most of the nations of the world. I don’t think we would see an attack by what ever is left of the United States military once secession take hold. I doubt if there would be much cooperation from members of the military now, to invade a state that elects to secede.
For the most part, I see little downside and many benefits to any state seceding from Washington, especially in today’s climate. Washington will eventually implode under its own weight, and I see no reason for freedom loving Americans from which ever state, to go along with the self destruction.
I recently heard back from a gentleman who is the West Texas State Director for the Patriotic Resistance Movement. He is not for secession because he feels it would cause an influx to Texas from other states that would not choose secession, and he probably has a legitimate concern. However, those who would come to Texas would be productive people who want to keep more of what they would earn, while at the same time, we would be witnessing an exodus from Texas of those who do not believe in secession and those who choose to live off of the welfare state. I see no down side to this.
Another concern I have seen quite a lot is wondering how those now on Social Security would continue to be compensated if we secede. Another legitimate concern; but let’s examine it more closely.
Today there are countless Americans living on Social Security who chose to make their homes in other countries, because American dollars go further than the local monetary unit. Americans now eligible for Social Security who chose to live in the Republic of Texas should, and probably would be no different. That said, Social Security is on a schedule to go bankrupt by around 2017. That being the case, the point seems to be moot. With the current loss of jobs in the US now, fewer workers are still left to contribute to the Social Security funding, which will probably hasten the demise of the system, as well as Medicare.
That’s another concern; medical coverage. As already mentioned, Medicare is on the rocks and will probably go down with or before Social Security, so it cannot be depended on anyway. If Obama’s health care plan gets voted in, those in the top earning bracket will be taxed an additional 5.4% to pay for it. How long would you expect the top earners to stay in a United States that is sucking their lives away? They would probably come to Texas, or some other state that secedes from Washington, bringing their productive ability with them, creating more jobs for Texans and more income which will make health care more within the reach of all Texans. (Or to which ever seceded state they chose to migrate.)
I know there are other concerns, such as security; but let’s face facts. Under the current system we have no security on our borders now, and at least we could enforce the southern border protection against violation. Texas’ National Guard is not a federal force, but under the control of the Governor of Texas, and would be under the control of the leaders of the new republic. We would have a force equal to or larger than most of the nations of the world. I don’t think we would see an attack by what ever is left of the United States military once secession take hold. I doubt if there would be much cooperation from members of the military now, to invade a state that elects to secede.
For the most part, I see little downside and many benefits to any state seceding from Washington, especially in today’s climate. Washington will eventually implode under its own weight, and I see no reason for freedom loving Americans from which ever state, to go along with the self destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
