Think secession–all the way down to the level of the individual household. — jtl, 419
Chief Justice Salmon Chase was wrong. In Texas v. White (1869), he wrote the majority opinion on secession:
The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to ‘be perpetual.’ And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained ‘to form a more perfect Union.’ It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?
Except the Republic did not date its governing principles to the Articles of Confederation, which were clearly a failure – a failure clear at the time, in fact. Instead, it dated to the Constitution. That was ratified by all original thirteen States, and it is clear that it would not have been ratified if the States hadn’t thought that they couldn’t leave if they had needed to. Indeed, the ending of the Articles of Confederation were essentially an act of secession.
Chase was an interesting bird. He founded the Free Soil movement – “Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men”. It was an unabashedly abolitionist party, and reflected what was very probably the real cause of the American War of Southern Independence (the “Civil War” to you Yankees).
And Chase wasn’t just one of the chief proponents of the political position, he was Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. One of the charges leveled at the post war Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals was that it was “Victor’s Justice”; America had an 80 year history of Victor’s Justice, dating back to Texas v. White.
And so secession was ruled illegal.
The problem, of course, is that it was only illegal because “Honest Abe” Lincoln determined that it was better that 10% of the military age population be killed or wounded in battle than a set of States should choose to leave the Republic. For a while, it worked.
For a while, the Fed.Gov demonstrated that it could deliver – more growth, more prosperity, freedom increasing through the 1960s. In 1969, the Fed.Gov landed a man on the moon. It was the high water mark of government legitimacy.
What we’ve seen since then is an intentional fracturing of the Republic, based on race, gender, and class. Political careers have been made for those who have done this – Al Sharpton is a particularly loathsome example of this, but he is by no means alone. Barack Obama may be the most successful of these, parlaying racial themes of guilt and offered redemption into two terms in the White House during which he has thoroughly politicized the Federal Agencies. Eric Holder was the chield law enforcement official in the land but ran the Department of Justice along racial grievance lines. If you have any doubts about this, read up on the New Black Panther Party, George Zimmerman, and Ferguson MO.
Obama reflected a small but well organized segment of society determined to fundamentally reshape society. Unsurprisingly, this hasn’t turned out to be popular with much of society who overwhelmingly voted Democrats out of House and Senate seats – historical defeats for Obama’s Democratic Party. The voters gave significant majorities to the Republican Party in both houses of Congress, because GOP candidates ran on a platform of overturning Obama’s overreach on health care, immigration, and general weakening of the USA on the international stage.
Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck on Wednesday announced he is leaving the Republican Party.
“I’ve made my decision — I’m out,” Beck said Wednesday on “The Glenn Beck Program,” his broadcast on TheBlaze.com. “I’m out of the Republican Party. I am not a Republican. I will not give a dime to the Republican Party. I’m out.”
The host said Republicans lost him with their inaction on both ObamaCare and illegal immigration.
“All this stuff that they said and they ran and they said they were doing all of these great things and they were going to stand against ObamaCare and illegal immigration — they set us up,” Beck added. “They set us up. Enough is enough. They’re torpedoing the Constitution and they’re doing it knowingly.”
Can’t really argue with any of that. And he’s not the only one:
Yes, Establishment GOP, you can teach us that you will always lie to us, stab us in the back, humiliate us and crush us; but if you teach us that, be aware we are learning another lesson, too. Not just that “The Establishment Will Always Crush You,” but the lesson that There is no hope in any kind of conventional politics for those of us who want better than this Pile of Shit the two parties give us.
1. Many inner-circle strategists in the Republican Party machine basically believe the game is over demographics wise. They’ve believed this for a long time. Call them the “We Are Doomed” Machiavellians, trying to make a barely-palatable lemonade out of some very nasty lemons.
2. Privately, personally, they probably agree with everything Richwine and all the rest have ever said. But it doesn’t matter, because, on the strategic time scale, we’ve already crossed the Rubicon.
3. Tactically, short-to-medium term, you could follow the Sailer Strategy and, maybe, squeeze out a few Revanchist wins for Republicans, but it would be counterproductive. The Cathedral (they don’t call it that, of course) would make easy hay of “the hateful white party” in due time, and it would go the way of the Know-Nothings in Boston – permanent obsolescence.
4. So, the best you can do, if you care at all about the long-term survival of anything like even a fake opposition party in out decadent democracy, is to embrace the Latin American / Texan model, an increasingly Brazil-esque society, but one in which, in some places, at some times, you can still get some Hispanics to feel fondly about and vote for the Republicans.
5. To do this, you must absolutely, positively, and, most importantly, preemptivelycave to everything you think the Democrats could possibly leverage against you. Which, in practice, means being the volunteer auxiliary PC-enforcer on your own side. It also helps when you’ve got big business on your side.
Salmon Chase had been a member of the Whig Party, which fractured under the strain of abolitionism. The Republican Party looks like it’s headed for the same crack up.
But it doesn’t really matter: it’s clear that the citizens of this Republic will not vote themselves out of this mess. The Establishment is united – across both Parties – against the population whichholds them in increasing contempt.
So if there’s no way to vote in representatives who will represent the will of the People, what remains? It’s hard to see any alternative to the country splitting into two or more parts that will eliminate the Washington D.C. Establishment as something that can impose unpopular laws on them.
Secession was tried before in the US and it failed. If part of the US tries to secede, the Protestant-Hippie-Communist-Jesus types get offended and their blood lust knows no bounds. They were fine with the death of hundreds of thousands to prevent secession. Then they took property, installed new governments and destroyed local economies for the better part of a century.
Secession in the US is only a long, drawn-out suicide.
This time, it’s hard to see a politician willing and able to sacrifice 10% of the military age population in a War of Secession. And so Chief Justice Chase’s decision is more or less irrelevant. He had the legitimacy imposed by a victorious army at the point of the bayonet; the current Establishment doesn’t have that and doesn’t seem to be fixin’ to get it anytime soon.
And so if reform is not possible, exit is the obvious result. The Republic has large parts what are tired of having a left wing ideology rammed down their throats – and an ideology that enriches Wall Street and the big banks, at that. These people have played the game the way it has been laid out, by the rules that were what everyone had been told were just – one man, one vote. And that vote clearly is a waste of time.
Okay, then. But things will not continue as they have. Part 2 covers the implications for the 50 States.
Murray N. Rothbard was the father of what some call Radical Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism which Hans-Hermann Hoppe described as “Rothbard’s unique contribution to the rediscovery of property and property rights as the common foundation of both economics and political philosophy, and the systematic reconstruction and conceptual integration of modern, marginalist economics and natural-law political philosophy into a unified moral science: libertarianism.”
This book applies the principles of this “unified moral science” to environmental and natural resource management issues.
The book started out life as an assigned reading list for a university level course entitled Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: The Austrian View.
As I began to prepare to teach the course, I quickly saw that there was a plethora of textbooks suitable for universal level courses dealing with environmental and natural resource economics. The only problem was that they were all based in mainstream neo-classical (or Keynesian) theory. I could find no single collection of material comprising a comprehensive treatment of environmental and natural resource economics based on Austrian Economic Theory.
However, I was able to find a large number of essays, monographs, papers delivered at professional meetings and published from a multitude of sources. This book is the result. It is composed of a collection of research reports and essays by reputable scientists, economists, and legal experts as well as private property and free market activists.
The book is organized into seven parts: I. Environmentalism: The New State Religion; II. The New State Religion Debunked; III. Introduction to Environmental and Natural Resource Economics; IV. Interventionism: Law and Regulation; V. Pollution and Recycling; VI. Property Rights: Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain; and VII. Free Market Conservation. It also includes an elaborate Bibliography, References and Recommended Reading section including an extensive Annotated Bibliography of related and works on the subject.
The intellectual level of the individual works ranges from quite scholarly to informed editorial opinion.