The Decentralist Manifesto

We need a new world order. Capitalism is broken.  We must return power to the people!

The solution is not a hierarchical global order with a single world government. We don’t need two hundred nations – we need two thousand nations, each respecting the human and cultural freedom of its people, each minding its own business. 

You say no one can manage two thousand nations. 

You’re right, and that’s the whole idea. We don’t need world government, we need world networks, that enable people in those two thousand nations to link up for specific purposes when it is to their mutual advantage to do so. Networks of trade, of information, of sharing cultures. Networks to extradite criminals, to keep dispersed families in touch, to solve problems. Networks that everyone participates in, but no one owns.

Idealistic? Perhaps, but “with no vision, the people perish.” *

Capitalism isn’t inherently evil, but it has been corrupted from years of large corporations buying favors from governments. We need to stop losing ourselves in corporate and governmental bureaucracies. Instead, we need to look within ourselves to solve problems locally through citizenship and entrepreneurship. We need to restore a system in which government grants no privileges, and creates no roadblocks except as necessary to maintain public safety.

We don’t need big banks – we need honest money – money that is a store of real value and is accessible to all people.

We don’t need religious theocracies, but we do need, within each of us, faith in God that we can do good according to His purposes.

We don’t want other people telling us how to live, so why do we let a bureaucrat in Washington (let alone in some faraway land) tell us what we can eat, drive, or do with our own money, or what medical care we will be allowed to get?

We need to create governments, churches, schools, and businesses that are built on a human scale – that we all understand and can influence. We need to make laws we can understand and respect, then respect the laws we make.

Our new world order wants nothing to do with empires or imperialism; so those who share this vision must work through their local councils and state legislatures. We must take some risks by starting our own businesses and avoiding those who help enrich other countries at our expense. We must help our neighbor in need through our churches and community chests, and stop depending on government to do our giving for us. We must raise and educate our children in the values that will make them strong and independent. Charity – and prosperity, sound government, and proclaiming the truth – begin at home, so let us begin there. Every community that embraces these values will find others like it. Together (independently, but in cooperation), they will move states. States will move nations, and nations will change the world.

People of the world, cooperate! You have nothing to lose but your humanity!

*  Proverbs 29:15 kjv

Platform of The Ohio Republic

Readers who have followed The Ohio Republic through more than a few posts understand the principles that guide it, but I thought it might be helpful to state it as a platform:

1. The Ohio Republic is committed to individual freedom: spiritual, political, and economic. When considering policy positions, we keep this end in mind. Our most general rule is WWJD? In spiritual matters, “what would Jesus do?” in political and economic matters, “what would Jefferson do?”
2. The Ohio Republic seeks government that is decentralist, which may be loosely defined as a system in which there is little or no federal government, little state government, and as much local government as the people desire; but accountable to the state for corruption and violations of basic human and political rights by local officials.
3. The Ohio Republic being, of course, Ohioan, seeks practical approaches to problem solving. Too often, libertarian thinkers get lost in a fantasy world created by the ideology. Solutions are not practical if they ignore political and economic realities, or if they fail to take the dark side of human nature into account.
4. The Ohio Republic specifically rejects anarchism. While government must be strictly limited, it remains necessary to protect the people from criminal use of force and from fraud. Government can promote the liberties of the people effectively and efficiently, by returning to Constitutional principles and by replacing the proactive (administrative) compliance model with a passive (judicial) model. (I shall explain this principle further in my book, Governing Ourselves, to be published later this year).
5. The Ohio Republic, consistent with its commitment to decentralism, presses the Ohio General Assembly to assert the rights of Ohioans and of our state government against unconstitutional intrusion by the federal government. If we are to protect our rights and remain in the union, we must demand that our Ohio General Assembly interpose in those instances where federal law exceeds the limits set in the United States Constitution. (This is more commonly called nullification)
6. The Ohio Republic advocates Ohio’s independence from the United States as a last resort, when all efforts to reason with the federal government through the standard political process and nullification have failed. There is no question in our mind, based on the experience of other nations, that Ohio is perfectly viable as an independent Republic; provided that its government and people have taken certain preparatory steps prior to the declaration of independence. Prominent among these are the revitalization of the organized state militia, and the establishment of a currency based on silver or gold.
7. The Ohio Republic draws on our Judeo-Christian tradition to support its emphasis on personal freedom, not to proselytize for any religious belief; but because the Bible has documented a way for a people to live in political and economic freedom, as long as the people accept individual responsibility for their own actions.

On revolution

The Ohio Republic has repeatedly written on the possibility of revolution. I have thought for some time that a revolution is in the air in this country; even though I think Glenn Beck’s assertion that it has already begun is premature. However, given the rate at which the degradation of our liberties is taking place, as evidenced by the TSA scanners, the Food Safety Act, and (possibly) the proposed rules on “Net neutrality,” I can see the revolution beginning in 2011, instead of 2012 as I had originally thought.

Every revolution is unique, and each affects its society in a unique way. Each is the explosion that follows when pressure builds up beyond the ability of a society’s institutions to contain it. Since the pressure builds up gradually, it is impossible to predict when the explosion will take place – but those who are watching can see the pressure building, and know that one is imminent.

How a revolution ends depends on whether the instigators prevail, as they did in Russia in 1917; and how prepared they are to govern, as the French were not in 1792. It also depends on how the people react to the revolution. Do we surrender to what appears to be an unstoppable force, or do we try to stop the revolution, as the French did in 1968? History shows that revolutions hardly ever end in exactly the way the instigators expect. Hegel’s dialectic is true, albeit not in the way Karl Marx anticipated: the thesis (revolution) is always met by an antithesis (reaction), resulting in a synthesis (society following the revolution). If revolutions do not always end as expected, its ideas (or its scars) will nevertheless continue to influence the society.

Glenn Beck is correct on this point: revolutions begin by creating chaos. No one (including Mr. Beck, if he is honest with himself) can know right now whether his particular recipe is accurate. His theory is that the revolution will involve a bottom-up approach (by union thugs and “progressive” activists on the street), coupled with a top-down one (by officials in the Obama Administration and rich and influential people like George Soros). There certainly is evidence that the radical left will try to pin the chaos on tea party activists and “right-wing extremists.”

We may not be able to avert a revolution, but we can prevent the left from imposing its dictatorship of the proletariat on our country. The left has an Achilles heel: its intellectual arrogance. Every statement they publish, every plan they make, reeks of contempt for the intelligence of the American people and their willingness to act. They think that we will fall for every trap they lay, that we will immerse ourselves in football and Desperate Housewives on the tube until it is too late. They think that those of us who do resist, will do so violently. After all, what other reason can there be for asserting our right to bear arms? The rest of us, they think, will engage in a feckless quest to use our corrupted institutions to reverse decades of policies that they have developed in preparation for this day. The key to stopping the left, then, is to act in ways they do not anticipate.

However, to act in ways they do not anticipate, we need to develop some new ways of thinking. Once the revolution begins, the United States of America-as-we-know-it will cease to exist. Not may, will. All of us who treasure our history and our institutions will experience the stages of grief: denial, anger, loss and, acceptance.

In the war of ideas, the Eastern Establishment must be countered by a libertarian intelligentsia; which, fortunately we do have. We have the Mises and Cato Institutes, Walter Williams, and Chuck Baldwin. In Ohio, we have the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law and the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions. Ohio has another asset, not evident in very many other states: a cohesive liberty movement. That movement made a mistake in this election by trusting too much in the Republican Party; but it will soon realize that it was a mistake. In our state history, we have protected civil liberties much more effectively than most other states. The reason for this has been the fidelity of our courts to the Bill of Rights in our 159-year-old Ohio Constitution. Obviously, we’re not perfect (as Manna Storehouse and the Constitution Day kerfuffle in Andover attest), but we can be proud of our overall record.

With one exception, we have everything we need to protect our freedom. We have the brains, the movement, and the laws behind us. What we need, and this does not come naturally to Ohioans, is the willingness to use them in creative ways.

In revolutionary times, we must think of ourselves as Ohioans first and Americans second. While the nation remains in some semblance of domestic peace, we must continue to use our existing institutions to resist tyranny; for example, by using our new Republican General Assembly and Governor to nullify unconstitutional federal laws in Ohio. We must uphold the rule of law as long as we can.

But when that peace ends, the rule of law at the federal level will go with it. In preparation for that day, we have three very high priorities: we need to strengthen our organized state militia to augment the National Guard to protect us from externally-generated violence; we need to establish a mechanism for using silver in everyday transactions (honest money); and we need for all of us to start thinking, buying, and as practicable, manufacturing locally. And we need to start on all three priorities now. As I wrote earlier, we cannot predict the day the revolution will begin, but we can sense that it will begin very soon. It could be today – it could be a year from now; but we need to prepare now.

In so doing, we will do one of two things, both protecting our liberties. If the rest of the United States proves to be of the same mind as we are, we will all defeat the “progressives” and save the union. Otherwise, we will be prepared to declare and sustain our independence.

Is constructive change possible?

I think so -- but let me share with you a correspondence I had with a friend of mine last night, who will only be identified as Q. I'll call myself A:

Q: Do you think that participation in the system as it exists now is necessary to bring about peaceful secession, or can it be achieved without direct participation?

A: I suppose peaceful secession would be possible without direct participation in the system -- especially in a revolutionary situation in which the federal government bared its teeth against the states or the people -- but I have difficulty picturing how it would work, because our fellow Ohioans are so attached to the rule of law that they would not be likely to accept a change by any other means.The beauty of peaceful secession within the system is that it is achieved through the rule of law. A government thus instituted will immediately be accepted many nations (other then the rump USA and others under its thumb) as legitimate.

I also think it would be easier to pull off. Granted, right now -- especially given the response of many of our friends to Glenn Beck's rally, during which my stomach did flip-flops, it seems unlikely and to many, hopeless. But my experience agrees with Rush Limbaugh (Aug. 5) that secessionism isn't the "rantings of extreme kookism" anymore.

Ohio historically has been one of the most pro-Lincoln unionist of states, but my personal encounters with people suggest a rapidly growing acceptance of secession (especially if attempted gradually after a few nullifications of federal law). Ohioans today are less likely to be hostile to secession in principle than convinced that it will not work, or that it will result in an extremely violent federal backlash. If a poll were taken today, I think 20-25% of Ohioans would be open to secession, nearly double what I estimated from a Zogby poll two years ago.

One of the problems with promoting new ideas in this state is that people are likely to say that they won't work before they consider the idea's merits. Ohio [is] a tough environment for an intellectual.


Q: Personally, I'm having trouble finding a reason to participate directly (elections, etc.) these days. Almost as if it gives "them" credence, if you know what I mean. And so many are so blind. Things really shake them to their core and they hold on to false truths so tightly. I was there once, but libertarianism came so much easier to me I think. I'm not sure why, but I feel like I wasn't nearly as thoroughly brainwashed as many I encounter these days... or they're genuinely just so diametrically opposed as to be hopeless... I haven't decided.

A: Libertarians are still in the wilderness. While it seems to be an obvious answer for people like us, a lot of people perceive the Libertarians to be wild anarchists. In my opinion (and I've talked about this with Ken Matesz*), there are shades of Libertarian just as there are shades with everything else. The "conservative" Libertarian (I'm calling myself one of those) is one who believes that some government is necessary at all levels; but with very little federal government, a little more state -- or even better, a weak national government in the State of Ohio -- and all the local government the people want (I call this decentralism).To more directly address your concern:

If I were not a classified state employee**, I would be working on [a Libertarian] campaign for State Senate. His district appears in polls to be nearly evenly divided between the R and the D (there is no incumbent running), and he has an outside shot of winning with, say, 38% of the vote. I think we all need to be involved in the system, but we must have the courage to actively support and build up the Libertarian (or if that is too extreme for you, the Constitution) Party as (1) a viable alternative to the "two evils", and (2) a base on which the secessionist movement will grow when the time comes (and I am confident that it is coming soon -- within two years). In the meantime, we need to prepare our fellow Ohioans for accepting the actions that will be needed to restore liberty.

----

Now, I half expect a frequent commenter to this blog to come in with his Constitutional arguments as to why it is impossible for a state to secede. However, he has yet to satisfactorily answer this question of mine:

When can we come to the conclusion that the federal government is fouled up beyond all repair; and when we reach that conclusion, what can we do about it?

His answer, in essence, is to apply the Article V amendment process -- one that we have shown to be dangerous to liberty, and one which the current power élites are likely to respect about as much as they do the rest of the U.S. Constitution.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Constitution. It was divinely inspired, and if followed, would effectively protect our freedoms. But the revolution will come when the people realize that in the last ten years it has become a dead letter.


* Libertarian candidate for Governor.
** Who is barred from partisan political activity by section 124.57 of the Ohio Revised Code. In this post, my toes are probably touching the line marking non-compliance, but as I understand the letter of the law, I am not crossing it.

Think Ohio couldn't make it on its own? Think again.

Kirkpatrick Sale (left) has extensively studied the size (both land area and population) of nations and their relative effectiveness -- economically, politically, and in their ability to maintain the literacy and freedom of their peoples.

His conclusion: Ohio (land area 40,000 sqare miles, population 11.5 million) is a bit on the large side. Of the 223 independent political entities in the world, Prof. Sale finds* that 58% are smaller than Switzerland (which, at 7.7 million is much smaller than Ohio). And 85 of the 223 have an area less than 10,000 square miles -- one-quarter that of Ohio.

He has summarized his findings into Sale's Law: "Economic and social misery increasers in direct proportion to the size and power of the central government of a nation." He backs this up with a brief review of four periods of world history when governments radically centralized -- the most recent being 1910-1970. Accompanying those periods were the most devastating wars, the most severe depressions, and the highest inflations in modern history.

The entire article is very interesting, and may be found in Truth to Power, to which a virtual buckeye is due.

The biggest barrier to freedom and independence is the one that resides between our ears.

* Using a Wikipedia ranking based on United Nations population statistics.

Tea Party civics and the logic of lawyers

Now comes Joseph Becker, who in writing an opinion piece for the National Law Journal, holds that the "[Tea] Party members' reading of the 10th Amendment to deny broad power to the federal government is without support in legislative history or Supreme Court case law."

The summary is correct. It doesn't. However, there's a flaw in Mr. Becker's logic, as we shall see presently. He begins by citing the response of the First Congress to anti-federalist objections that the Tenth Amendment should deny the federal government all powers not expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. In the debates, James Madison countered, "it was impossible to confine a Government to the exercise of express powers; there must necessarily be admitted powers by implication."

Mr. Becker continues:

The proposal was rejected. Chief Justice John Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), thought this bit of negative legislative history profoundly significant: It meant that the federal government had implied powers inferable from those actually granted. A wooden reading of the amendment, favored by grand simplifiers of the Tea Party, would not disclose this hidden truth.

A "wooden" reading? Do I detect a hint of bias? Here is what the distinguished New York attorney says about Tea Parties:

The party's affection for the 10th Amendment exudes something else: an aroma, not of tea but of the foul smell of secession. In Texas, the air is particularly heavy with the scent. It is apparently not enough that the calamitous Civil War was fought to put an end to such talk. Nor, it seems, is it significant to that state's current governor that, as a legal proposition, the Constitution prohibits secession: This is an "indestructible union," said the Supreme Court in Texas v. White (1868), a post-War holding that the purported secession by Texas (ironically) was a nullity. The principle is now indubitable.

I'll get to Texas v. White in a minute.

Mr. Becker continues by citing U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in what he called a "dismissive" construction of the Tenth Amendment, quoting the good Justice in 1833 as writing that the amendment "could only 'reserve' that which existed before." A state cannot reserve a power that never existed.

This argument is logically sound, except for one thing. The thirteen original states, Vermont, Texas, Hawaii, and (technically) California, were de jure independent nations prior to their ratifications of the Constitution. Every state is required as a condition of admission to ratify the Constitution. This is usually done -- as it was in Ohio in November 1802 -- in the form of an ordinance by the new state's Constitutional Convention. This suggests to me that for every state, for the brief moment between the adoption of its initial state Constitution and the passage of its ratification ordinance, was de facto an independent nation, with full sovereignty. In other words, all the powers that apply to independent nations were "reserved" to the states prior to their ratification of the U.S. Constitution, if only for a brief moment. I am not suggesting here that any state other than those I named above even thought of this (though four of the original thirteen did expressly reserve the right of secession in their ratification statements). Nor am I suggesting that any of them had any desire in that moment to bolt from the union. Nor am I suggesting that they were in any condition to do so if they had tried. But this is a legal discussion, and as a matter of constitutional law and procedure, this appears to be the truth to me.

Mr. Becker closes by pulling out Texas v. White, a U.S. Supreme Court decision that was written in the heat of Reconstruction, at a time when the United States had completed its conquest by force of another nation, the Confederate States of America. The Confederate States used the established processes of law to secede; but the unionists wanted to use the law to cement the military victory. In other words, he who uses Texas v. White as the basis of an argument against secession is being hypocritical. Why? Because he is asserting on the one hand, that we are a nation of laws, and the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the law. On the other hand, as I just wrote, he is stating that might makes right. Now which argument should we expect from a professional who has sworn to uphold the law as an officer of the court?

Let me remind the reader of a contrary argument, made by Judge Harris in the case of Chancely v. Bailey and Cleveland, 37 Georgia Reports 532 (1868) * While it expresses the minority opinion of that court, I believe it states the truth about the adoption of the U.S. Constitution:

If any prominent advocate of the Federal Constitution had … intimated an opinion, that by ratification of the Federal Constitution, the states surrendered their separate individuality and sovereignty as States, such was the extreme jealousy for the maintenance of State sovereignty, [that] such an opinion… would have led to the prompt and overwhelming rejection of that instrument.

The intent of the framers of the Constitution and of those who attended the conventions to ratify it is quite clear and a matter of public record. They did not make the right of secession explicit, because they believed that rights are given by God, not any government; and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..." The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, but here in Ohio (and many other states), we have a Constitution that asserts the same right (Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution).

This Court finds in favor of the Tea Parties. Case dismissed.

* On page 350 of the link.

Virtual buckeye to Bill Miller at Secession and Nullification News and Information.

Top ten reasons the Founding Fathers would do it over again today

From Matt Bianco's blog, The Bound Dragon:

Some of the same reasons Thomas Jefferson enumerated in his Declaration of Independence and for which the Founding Fathers who signed it declared independence from Great Britain and King George III’s rule in 1776 apply today to the current United States Government. And for these, the Founding Fathers would again declare independence, they are: [The Declaration of Independence is shown in roman, Matt's comments in italic.]

1. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. The U.S. government has forbidden the States to govern as their citizens demand by withholding Federal funding which was unnecessarily taken from the States to begin with.

2. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. It passes the laws it wants, against the desires of the people and the mandates of the Constitution, and it does so by promising money to specific bodies of people at the expense of the rest.

3. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. It has attempted to manipulate the employment market by preventing Foreigners from migrating hither and competing for jobs; thereby preventing Employers, in the employment of their private property, from freely entering into contract with Employees as they choose. [I partially disagree with Matt here. Society has the right to protect its institutions from cultural change resulting from immigration of persons having contrary values].

4. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance. We have a multitude of Offices that are unconstitutional and used to harass our people, including but not limited to the Department of Education, the Department of Homeland Security, NASA, and the Internal Revenue Service.

5. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. Standing Armies are a natural part of our society since World War II, and the result, predicted by the Founding Fathers, is that we have troops stationed in over 150 countries without the Consent of their legislatures in some, and have been involved in numerous wars, conflicts, nation-building projects, and peacekeeping missions since then.

6. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation. We find ourselves subject to the whims of the United Nations, NATO, and a variety of other treaties; not yet among them but coming soon: Copenhagen.

7. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world. American free trade is hampered, not helped, by treaties like GATT and NAFTA; additionally, we find our government furthering harming our trade with protective tariffs against items like sugar and Chinese tires.

8. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent. Taxes aren’t just imposed on us without our consent, like the up and coming Cap and Trade tax, but hidden from us through inflation and raised without our consent.

9. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury. This is especially true as the Writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended, and not only foreigners but Americans with them have been held without a trial in the name of national defense.

10. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Americans, upset with the current course of his nation, have petitioned our government through signatures, rallies, protests, telephone communications, e-mails, faxes, and most recently through their own state legislatures with the passage of tenth amendment resolutions only to be answered by repeated injury: acts which define a Tyrant.

The “How” of Independence

We Ohioans are a practical people. We have little patience for abstract theories and pie-in-the-sky speculation. With this in mind, readers of The Ohio Republic have patiently waited through 445 postings discussing why we should become independent, with a few postings going over some of the risks – but with nary a mention of how.

The purpose of this post is to provide a starting point for discussion of how Ohio might achieve independence within the next few years. It lacks sufficient detail to be a plan. It assumes that that the economy will continue to go downhill for at least another year, that attempts to consolidate power in the Federal government and to establish a single world currency will continue, and that people will become more discontented with the situation as time goes on. It also assumes that a peaceful resolution is possible. As I wrote yesterday, peaceful resolution may prove to be impossible. An angry mob may attack the Goldman Sachs offices, or the Federal Government might try to manufacture a Kristallnacht in an attempt to silence freedom-loving Americans. However, we have to make our assumptions on the basis of what we know; and right now, I shall assume that the right of peaceful dissent will continue, at least for the next year. I present this as an approach that can work for the people of Ohio. I leave to the peoples of Vermont, Texas, etc., to determine their own approaches.

The first step to independence is absolutely fundamental. A few later steps can be taken; but no effort will succeed without it. From the beginning, we must start thinking like an independent nation. We must think about how Federal policy impacts us, and how we would solve the same problems on our own, given the freedom to do so. We must remember that “Federal Funds” are taxes taken from our own pockets; and that, as I also wrote yesterday, Wall Street has profited at the expense of our retirement plans, college funds, and in too many cases, homes. We can publicly display our willingness to think this way by flying the Ohio flag alone. We can insist on defending our liberties on the basis of the Ohio Constitution, instead of the U.S. Constitution (a right that has been supported by U.S. Supreme Court decisions).

Secondly, we must raise the awareness of our neighbors that Ohio can protect itself from Federal encroachment on our liberties. This can be done by publishing articles that document how the Federal government has expanded its powers far beyond those specified for it in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, to which the Federal Government was limited by the Tenth Amendment. We must ensure that a State Sovereignty Resolution passes the Ohio General Assembly. We also need to publish articles to document how individual rights have been encroached upon by the Federal government in violation of the U.S. Constitution (Every post in The Ohio Republic with the label “Attacks on Constitutional rights” except those relating to Manna Storehouse, cites unconsitutional Federal actions).

Thirdly, we need to clearly define what it is we do believe. How would we strengthen our Constitutional guarantees of liberty, given the experience of the last 222 years? We need to define a philosophy that can easily explain how personal freedom can be maintained in our time.

All of these steps will have to be completed before we can even think about a mass movement or political party! If we do not have public awareness of what we need to do, they will remain content to live with their misconceptions about freedom in the United States.

Once political action becomes a reasonable option, we can talk about petitions, mass demonstrations, amendments to the Ohio Constitution to enable us to assume the powers reserved for independent nations, and the modalities of negotiating (or forcing) independence from the United States. But that is a subject for another day.

In the meantime, we have work to do.

When ideology supersedes country...

... there may be a good reason.

I am completing a bit of unfinished business following the April 15 Tea Parties and the fallout from Texas Gov. Rick Perry's statements on secession. Specifically, I would like to help Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts, Jr., deal with his "jolt of unrecognition, that instant of worry for the state -- and future -- of the Union." Mr. Pitts' writing is worthy of respect. He won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2004, and his concerns for the Union reflect those of many Americans today. He deserves a thoughtful response, which I hope this post will provide.

Gov. Perry, at a Texas Tea Party said,

"When we [Texas] came into the Union in 1845, one of the issues was that we should be able to leave if we decided to do that. My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pay attention. We've got a great Union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that?"

That remark struck Mr. Pitts as "surreal." He considers it "borderline traitorous" that a Governor of Texas (as opposed to a "yahoo from some group of gun-toting goobers") would make such a statement. From his perspective, it appears to be a case of the losing party in an election wanting out for ideological reasons.

"Country, after all," he writes, "is supposed to be that which pulls us together after everything else -- politics, race, religion -- has pulled us apart." This is a noble sentiment, and in different times, I would agree with him; but the issues raised at the Tea Parties, and which Gov. Perry is addressing, run much deeper than mere political posturing. They run to the very core of our being as a nation.

The title of this post is the one originally assigned to Mr. Pitts' column by the Miami Herald. The Columbus Dispatch attached a different headline, "Whatever happened to putting one's country first?" Secessionism is gaining strength, because the United States of America no longer has a Federal government dedicated to the purpose established for it in the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Forming a more perfect union" was achieved with the ratification of the Constitution by nine States. Consolidation into a single national government is not perfecting the union, it is abolishing it from the top.

"Establish justice"? This blog is full of reports of Federal abuse of the justice system.

"Insure domestic tranquility"? You may establish law and order at the end of a gun, but domestic tranquility means more than that. Domestic tranquility is the ability to go about your business secure in your knowledge of what is right and wrong according to the law.

"Provide for the common defense"? Can you honestly say that terrorism would be a threat if the United States did not have a military presence in the Middle East? Even if you wish to be so crude as to suggest that oil is indispensible to us we can stop purchasing it from the Arabs. There are fields we can still develop, and there are alternative sources of supply. My point is, were it not for our presence in the Middle East, radical terrorists would have no motivation to attack us. Eliminating their motivation strikes me as a much more effective defense strategy than the one we are currently pursuing.

"Promote the general welfare"? Dependence on government is not welfare. Enabling the economy to work with minimal governmental regulation lets the free market do the heavy lifting to ensure the prosperity of all of us.

"Secure the blessings of liberty"? Clearly, the record since at least 2001 has shown the Feds moving in the opposite direction.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from consent of the governed -- that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." (Emphasis added).

Mr. Pitts, there are times in history when unconditional loyalty is dangerous. Consider where we would be if the Thirteen Colonies decided to put King and Country first. Consider how different the world might have been if the Germans in the 1930s had decided that there were values higher than country.

Our founding fathers taught us that loyalty should be conditional. If the Federal government acts in our interest, we will respond with deep and enthusiastic loyalty. If it does not, and all other means of asserting our will fail, then we have an obligation to ourselves and our posterity to institute new government. We may decide that the problem was that governmental power is too big and too distant to keep us safe and happy, and if that is the case -- and many of us are convinced it is the case -- then secession is a peaceful remedy that gives the greatest respect to the rule of law. The only alternative is violent revolution. I, for one, would prefer not to annihilate myself and a large percentage of my countrymen in its pursuit.

Yes, states can secede. Here's why

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank, has studied secession as an inalienable right, within international law, and within American law. Particularly interesting is its analysis of Texas v. White, in which the institute demolishes the commonly held myth that the decision permanently forbade any further thought of secession with its reference to "an indestructible Union of indestructible states."

On a lighter note, they won points from me in displaying Ohio on their map as a purple State, something I have argued all along.

Virtual buckeye to PathIveMade at the Ohio Freedom Alliance.

Managing the Revolution

Reaction from some of my commenters and a number of bloggers to the State sovereignty resolutions suggests to me that many observers still have a Lincolnesque fixation on the idea that secession, or even asserting State sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment is somehow tantamount to civil war.

In my post February 1 ("The center cannot hold"), I explained why I believe that the current economic situation will foreshadow the collapse of the United States of America. This is, of course, a radical thought that goes against everything we were raised to believe. It is also a disturbing thought, and for that reason alone, it is understandable that many Americans are living in denial.

One of the reasons The Ohio Republic favors secessionism is to help us all prepare for the collapse we see coming. In a way, "secession" is a misnomer. If the United States collapses, no State, in declaring its independence is really "seceding", in the sense of making a conscious action to break away. Instead, independence becomes a rational response to maintaining freedom under law for our own people when the larger nation ceases to exist. In other words, preparing for independence is a sensible way to manage a revolution. The alternative is chaos (think Somalia, but don't think it couldn't happen here).

While I question the long-term effectiveness of the State sovereignty resolutions, I strongly support them as one last effort to preserve the Union, by returning it to the Constitutional principles that kept us free for over 200 years. What we are doing today is not siding with Jeff Davis against The Union -- that was a different time with different issues. What we are doing has more in common with the first secession -- that of thirteen colonies against an Empire that rejected the traditional rights of Englishmen where its colonies were concerned, and did so with a haughty arrogance that tested the courage of every patriot. A challenge very similar to the one we face today.

If the State sovereignty resolutions succeed in their object, we will again feel truly blessed to be part of the United States of America; but if they fail, we have a responsibility to ourselves and our descendants to preserve our peace and our liberty the best way we can.

In the way of denial lies death, destruction, and despair. In the way that we are advocating lies freedom, and even more importantly, hope. For myself, I would rather have liberty than death.

The center cannot hold

Most people with whom I discuss secession think the idea is flaky. We fought the War Between the States almost 150 years ago, the North won, and that settles it. Fair enough, for a time when the people had confidence that their Federal government would take into account the interests of all of the people, not just some of them; in a manner consistent with our Constitution and our heritage.

Hardly anyone thinks that way anymore. President Obama and the Congress have been working on an “economic stimulus” package to throw another trillion or so at the problem; about one-third of which is nothing but old-fashioned pork, and the rest of it of unknown validity for addressing the problems we are facing. We are told that if we rely on tax cuts, people will just save the money. While saving helps us as individuals, our failure to spend, we are told, will hurt the economy. This is not true. Even if we all do save any tax breaks or just use them to repay our mortgages, it may slow recovery a bit, but will produce better results on the long run. Savings now will increase the supply of money that banks can use to lend to corporations to build new plants, create new technologies, and enhance their competitiveness. Smaller loans can help entrepreneurs get into business. This is not just some wild-eyed dreaming – it is basic economics – assuming that the banks are operating rationally in their own interest. And just as importantly, it gives us the freedom to manage our own money as we see fit.

The problem is, tax cuts will not ensure that the money will flow to the governmental and corporate interests that have bought out the Congress, and perhaps the Presidency as well. Congress has not asked for, let alone received, an accounting for the first $800 billion. Banks that received the first round of TARP* funds are rebuffing efforts to determine how it was spent.

The system is broken beyond repair. We have centralized our financial system to a point that all of our banks and brokers are dependent upon what goes on in New York and foreign financial centers. We have centralized our government to a point where it is inconceivable that any agency other than the Federal Government can solve a problem; despite 200 years of American experience to the contrary.

The choice in our elections is like one between strawberry and lemon-lime Kool-Aid. If both flavors are laced with cyanide, what difference does it make?

I am uncomfortable with the idea of class warfare – to me it reeks of Communism; but the truth is, we are seeing a war waged against the middle class. Government has bought out the poor, and is funneling money to the rich through defense contracts, bank bailouts, and, too often, favorable regulation. But how is government financed?

By taxes. And who pays those taxes? We do. Our work, our productivity is being sacrificed to support a corrupt system. So why is it still holding? So far, the taxpayers have been in denial. We are so engrossed with our private lives (or with television), that we cannot see the bigger picture.

We either cannot, or do not want to see that Peak Oil will put an end to the cheap transportation of goods over long distances. It will increase the cost and decrease the availability of electricity. It will force us to change the way we do everything, from farming to manufacturing to government. We will soon discover the long-hidden truth that all economics is local. We will have to buy food from the local farmer (or grow our own) to survive. We will have to buy from the corner grocer or local haberdashery to survive. The glut of Chinese goods will end, because it will become too costly to send them here.

In the meantime, we are printing trillions of dollars as casually as we only recently printed billions of them. One day, our economy will be flooded with dollars, and hyperinflation will set in. Heaven help the unprepared on that day! We speak now of burdening our children and grandchildren with debt. That will not happen, because at some point the debt will be repudiated; but we will be saddling them with generations of much harder work than we are used to. Making things, growing things, building things, just as our great-grandparents used to do. Social Security, Medicare, and social welfare programs will be memories of the past. The sudden end of these programs will cause suffering for millions of people.

The poor people won’t be hurt at first – they’re on the dole. The rich people won’t be hurt, either. Those that aren’t on the dole have the resources to weather the storm. The middle class (the center of our society) will be devastated. When the middle class collapses, so does the nation. If our Federal policy of throwing trillions of dollars in “bailout” money is not soon reversed, our nation will collapse. My guess is that collapse will occur within the next four years.

When the nation collapses, we will have three choices:
- We can decide that we need control, and accept a totalitarian dictatorship or a world government (which may have the same effect);
- We can allow ourselves to descend into chaos, like Somalia and Afghanistan; or
- We can prepare ourselves, as individuals and as State and local governments, for the inevitable, and apply the “Right of the People to alter or abolish it [the Federal Government] and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to [us] shall seem most likely to effect [our] Safety and Happiness.” **

I am a secessionist because the third option makes the most sense to me. It is the only one that will continue our historic freedoms under the rule of law. I hope and pray that this is the option that makes the most sense to you.

* Troubled Assets Relief Program
** Declaration of Independence.

Madison's reply to Lincoln

Today is Constitution Day, the 221st anniversary of its signing by men from thirteen very diverse states, who determined that a written Constitution provided the best guarantee of liberty and safety for the new United States.

The Ohio Republic frequently refers to the Constitution of the United States. Some may object that we have made an idol out of a "scrap of paper." If you have not read the Constitution lately, I strongly urge you to do so. It is not a lengthy document, and can be read in about an hour. Take particular note of the defined powers and limitations imposed on the Federal Government by Article I, Sections 8 and 9; and of the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1-10). Reflect on what the Founders defined, and how far we have strayed from their vision.

I would like to celebrate the day with some excerpts from Federalist #39, written by James Madison, which refutes a commonly-held view, popularized by Abraham Lincoln, that the Constitution was a contract between the people and the Federal Government alone; and not also one between the States and the Federal Government [Emphasis in italics Madison's, in underline mine]:

"...[I]t appears, on one hand, that the constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the DISTINCT and INDEPENDENT States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each state--the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution will not be a national but a federal act...

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered to be a sovereign body independent of all others, and is only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal and not a national constitution...

"..[T]he proposed government cannot be deemed a national one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects..."

If, therefore, the states are viewed as distinct and independent, and are, by their ratification of the Consitution bound by their own voluntary act, it logically follows that such states can lawfully terminate that union by secession. Otherwise, the States are not independent, and the act that was voluntary for one generation would bind all future ones, therefore becoming involuntary for the succeeding generations.

What is decentralism?

Longtime readers of this space may recall that I make occasional references to the philosophy of decentralism. Until now, however, I had difficulty finding a succinct statement of principles. This difficulty was resolved with the help of Rob Williams at Vermont Commons when he linked another Vermont site that republished the statement shown below.

Decentralist League of Vermont

Statement of Principles, March 1977

"In a free and just society all men and women will have the fullest opportunity to enjoy liberty, achieve self-reliance, and participate effectively in the political and economic decisions affecting their lives. Wealth and power will be widely distributed. Basic human rights will be protected.

"The principle of equal rights for all, special privileges for none, will prevail.

"When economic and political power is centralized in the hands of a few, self-government is replaced by rigid and remote bureaucracies, the independence of each citizen is threatened, and the processes of freedom and justice are subverted. Centralized power is the enemy of individual liberty, self-reliance, and voluntary cooperation. It tends to corrupt those who wield it and to debase its victims.

"The trend toward centralization in our social, economic, and political systems has given rise to a deep sense of powerlessness among the people, a growing alienation throughout society, the depersonalization of vital services, excessive reliance on the techniques of management and control, and a loss of great traditions.

"Decentralists share with 'conservatives' repugnance for unwarranted governmental interference in private life and community affairs. We share with 'liberals' an aversion to the exploitation of human beings. We deplore, however, conventional 'liberal' and 'conservative' policies which have concentrated power, ignored the importance of the human scale, and removed decision making from those most directly affected.

"Decentralists thus favor a reversal of the trend toward all forms of centralized power, privileged status, and arbitrary barriers to individual growth and community self-determination. We oppose political and economic systems which demand obedience to the dictates of elite groups, while ignoring abuses by those who operate the controls. We believe that only by decentralization will we preserve that diversity in society which provides the best guarantee that among the available choices, each individual will find those conditions which satisfy his or her human needs.

"Decentralists believe in the progressive dismantling of bureaucratic structures which stifle creativity and spontaneity, and of economic and political institutions which diminish individual and community power.

"We support a strengthening of family, neighborhood and community life, and favor new forms of association to meet social and economic needs.

"We propose and support:
-- Removal of governmental barriers which discourage initiative and cooperative self-help

-- Growth of local citizen alliances which strengthen self-government and broaden participation in economic and political decisions
-- Widespread ownership of productive industry by Vermonters and employees
-- Protection of the right to acquire, possess and enjoy private property, where the owner is personally responsible for its use and when this use does not invade the equal rights of others

-- Rebuilding a viable and diverse agricultural base for the Vermont economy, with
emphasis on homesteading

-- A decent level of income for all, through their productive effort whenever possible, or through compassionate help which enhances their dignity and self-respect
-- Reshaping of education to promote self-reliance, creativity, and a unity of learning and work

-- A revival of craftsmanship in surroundings where workers can obtain personal satisfaction from their efforts
-- The use of technologies appropriate to local enterprise, and which increase our energy self-sufficiency

-- Mediation of disputes rather than reliance on regulations and adversary proceedings

"This decentralist program implies a de-emphasis of status, luxury, and pretense, and a new emphasis on justice, virtue, equality, spiritual values, and peace of mind.

"Decentralism will mean a rebirth of diversity and mutual aid, a new era of voluntary action, a full appreciation of our heritage, an affirmation of meaningful liberty, and a critical awareness of Vermont’s relationship to the rest of the nation and to the world."

The desire for decentralism drives many, if not most, of the secessionist movements in North America today. It drives my desire for Ohio independence. Decentralism reflects more than mere political separation from the Empire; it speaks of a desire to reclaim our basic humanity.

Must secession be violent?

Recently, I encountered this reaction to the secession idea from a writer at the Ohio Freedom Alliance forum:

Since the topic of Secession was raised a few weeks ago. I can not understand why the secessionists members of the OFA desire to take extreme measures to Secede From the Union? When We the People still have the tools to bring our elected representatives to justice. And I do know some members have stepped up to the plate and even got in there Representatives face. Public accountability is a very good thing. I personally will support any Legislation or Law Suit brought forth to impeach members of Congress , the Senate and the Executive branch who have failed to uphold their oaths of office to Support and Defend the Constitution.

I totally agree, and support those efforts, including Rep. Kucinich's impeachment petition. I strongly agree that we need to hold our public officials to accountability, remove them from office when they fail to act in the public interest (and, contrary to most political scientists, I believe there is such a thing as the "public interest", but I grant that it is an abstract idea, and often a matter of opinion). I grant that we have the tools. Unfortunately, experience has shown that, with rare exceptions, they do not work.

My question to the Secessionists. Do you the Secessionists support secession though the legislative process? or by other means? The Libertarian party dose not support Violence in order to achieve political goals, Neither do i support violence.This issue just blows my mind.

I have stated unequivocally that I am opposed to the use of violence to secure Ohio's independence. The Ohio Republic's stated purpose is"... to advocate the peaceful, legal independence of Ohio from the United States of America. In it, I shall discuss the philosophy that will underlie the new political system; the emotional, legal, and practical issues involved in achieving independence; and highlight news of differences between the State of Ohio and the United States Government."

Violence defeats the purpose for two reasons: first, it merely begets greater violence against us from a régime that is all too eager to use it, and second, it destroys our moral authority -- consider the examples of Mohandas Gandhi and Dr. King.

However, the legislative process will not work, either; because it will not be seen as a sufficient expression of the will of the people on a matter of this magnitude. The method used by the Confederacy -- that of state conventions, was the standard method at the time for revising state constitutions, and was generally recognized at the beginning of the War for Southern Independence, even by the U.S. Congress, as being a lawful expression of the will of the people. Since that time, we have developed the initiative and referendum (added to the Ohio Constitution in 1913), which I believe would be even better, since it would constitute a direct mandate of the Ohio people.

Now, I am not delusional. If an ordinance of secession were to be put before the Ohio people today, I would expect a vote of approximately 87% in opposition (based on the results of a survey I shall post in The Ohio Republic shortly). However, with education and the crises I think are coming (loss of liberty and collapse of the dollar), the idea may gain popularity very rapidly.

Albert Einstein was quoted as saying that insanity was doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result. No third party in the United States has elected a President since Abraham Lincoln. No third party has ever gained a majority, or even a significant minority, in Congress. We have tried reform over and over again. There was an extensive reform movement in 1912-1913, which produced many excellent changes at the local and State levels -- and some horrible ones at the Federal. In my lifetime, we have had George Wallace trying to rise above his segregationist roots to provide an alternative to two parties between which there wasn't "a dime's worth of difference" -- this in 1972. John Anderson tried to take a more moderate tack in 1980. Ross Perot got 20% of the popular vote in 1992 and not one electoral vote! The Libertarian Party has run in every election since, when, 1976?

Reform clearly isn't working. We have allowed our Federal Government to become corrupt beyond all repair. If Ohioans are to regain our freedom, we must try a different approach.Understand that advocating secession is not the same as advocating sedition (advocating the overthrow of the government by violence or other unlawful means) -- or treason (giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war). We are not seditious, because if the other 49 states all want to remain in the Union, they are welcome to do so, or to paraphrase the rabbi's blessing in Fiddler on the Roof, "God bless and keep the President of the United States --- far away from us!" As to treason, we all agree that there is no legitimacy to the war in Iraq, so withdrawing our soldiers from that war would be a highly moral act showing that we really care that they risk their lives for a cause worth defending. I invite you to read more about my thinking in The Ohio Republic. I suggest you begin with my Basics label, then move about as you please.

Time to start thinking like an independent nation

An alarm went off in my head when I read Saturday’s economic news:

- Crude oil prices Friday increased $10.75 per barrel to $138.54. This is a record increase for one day, doubling the previous record Thursday. On Saturday, I saw the price of unleaded gasoline over $4.00 ($4.019) for the first time in the Columbus area.

- U.S. unemployment jumped 0.5% to 5.5%, the highest one-month increase since 1986. (But see BizzyBlog for a caution about seasonally adjusted data).

- The Dow-Jones Industrial Average dropped 394.64 to 12,209.81.

- The U.S. dollar fell to a near-record low against the Euro (€1 = $1.57).

That on top of continuing concern about high food prices, mostly occasioned by the escalating price of oil; the announcement last week that 13% of Ohio’s families lived below the poverty level (most of whom had breadwinners with full-time jobs); and an increase in unemployment in auto plants in northern Ohio and two major employers in southeastern Ohio.

What are the Feds doing about it? As far as I know, nothing.

What will the Feds do about it? Probably nothing, except throw a few welfare and pork-barrel dollars our way to keep us hooked.

With the $5.2 billion dollar initiative to modernize Ohio’s economy, the State is taking constructive action; but we need to do more.

We need to start thinking like an independent nation.

Don’t get the wrong idea – I’m not suggesting secession right now; or even resistance to Federal authority. We’re far from being ready for that; but we can take this news as a warning of worse things to come; events that could convince us that separation from the American Empire is the key to our freedom, well-being, even survival. We can prepare for independence in our role as the State of Ohio by:

- Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of every Federal dollar that comes into Ohio. We must ask ourselves: is there a better way to accomplish the same end? If the State can design a program that works better and costs less than the State cost to a Federal program, we need to say “No, thanks,” to the Federal funds and develop a program that works our way. On the short term, this will also result in a very unfavorable balance between taxes out and Federal payments in; but it will also remind us that so-called "Federal funds" are nothing more than our tax dollars, returned to us under Washington's restrictions and after the Feds have taken their cut.

- Remembering that the people are sovereign (re-read the quote from the Ohio Constitution at the upper right of this page). We elect State government to work in our interest, not that of the Feds. We need State and local elected officials who are attuned to that difference, and make decisions according to our interest.

- Standing courageously for our personal freedoms. Stop cowering at the hyped threat of “foreign terrorists.” They are only a threat because American troops are occupying their territory. Stop catering to the “politically correct.” We must learn how to discover the truth and find the courage to express it in our political conversation.

- Speaking out for real jobs, real community, real business opportunities (large and small); building sustainable local economies, mass transportation systems, and alternative energy sources.

- Building an Ohio our children will call home and be proud to call their country.

American history in the last generation should satisfy anyone that President Obama cannot solve the problems we face, nor can President McCain, nor can the Congress – especially not the Congress! Our Federal Government is corrupt, probably beyond repair, and has more than proven its inability to take any constructive action for the American people.

The time to begin thinking independently is now.

Bitter? Darned right, we’re bitter!

Robyn Blumner wrote an opinion piece on Sen. Obama’s now-famous comment about the people in the small towns being bitter. This column should be copied, linked, and posted as being one of the best secessionist manifestos written to date.

What is she bitter about? Read the column to capture her passion, but here’s the laundry list:
- Waging a war putting our young people in harm’s way and shifting the bill to later generations;
- Wealth and taxes shifted to the wealthy at the expense of the middle class;
- A “macabre” health system that lets a single illness destroy the economic health of a family (a situation with which I am personally acquainted);
- “Industry insiders” put in charge of the agencies that regulate them, twisting policy to their own advantage;
- Doubling of the national debt in the last seven years;
- Iraq reconstruction funds wasted in corruption;
- A counterproductive foreign policy that makes enemies of long-time friends;
- The willingness to use torture, making us recruiters for our enemies.

Let me add some more:
- Continued destruction of Ohio’s manufacturing sector with no relief in sight;
- Federal resistance to developing industries to create sustainable and environmentally-friendly solutions to our energy and transportation needs.
- Playing on the fear of terrorism to accelerate the erosion of our Constitutional liberties.

The system is fouled up beyond repair. None of the Presidential candidates can (forget about will, the correct word is can) resolve these issues at the Federal level. The Federal Government abuses its power because it has the power to abuse and knows it.*

The Republic of Ohio:
- Will be incapable of waging foreign wars; but very capable of defending itself and its borders;
- Will be 26 times more accountable to its own people, better insuring a fair system of taxation;
- Can find a sensible solution to health care within its own borders, using its own resources;
- Can, with the accountability mentioned above, ensure that regulators do the job they are hired to do.
- Will continue to operate on a balanced budget, every year, as it has every year since 1852.
- Will limit or eliminate governmental foreign aid, but have the ability to coordinate private efforts abroad.
- Pursue a non-military foreign policy according to its own interests, particularly with respect to trade and commerce.
- Will strictly follow the Geneva Conventions in time of war, in the highly unlikely event that a war should occur.

* See chapter 2 in Leopold Kohr, The Breakdown of Nations.

The case for Ohio independence – the short course

Let me start the new year by clearly stating the reasons I am pressing for Ohio’s independence from the United States. This is only a high-level overview, but this entire blog is its commentary:

1. We are experiencing potentially severe environmental changes affecting our weather, our wildlife, and the quality of our air and water. Far from preparing us to deal with these issues, the position of the Federal Government has been to ignore them entirely.

2. The U.S. economy is dependent on foreign oil. Oil is now past peak production and in the hands of increasingly unstable régimes. The Federal Government has chosen not to take any constructive action, either to stabilize the price of oil, or to significantly reduce even long-term consumption. This poses a serious economic and national security risk.

3. The Federal Government is sacrificing the lives of Americans in a war that cannot be justified on the basis of national security.

4. As the mortgage crisis has shown, personal debt has reached intolerable levels; aggravated by continuing Federal budget deficits. The deficits are being financed by a collapsing Social Security system and by foreign investors. This dependence upon foreign investors poses serious economic and national security risks.

5. Federal tax, energy, and environmental policy has favored global corporations at the expense of small business and the people. Indeed, we can argue that the Federal Government is not a democracy, but a kleptocracy that no longer governs by consent of the governed.

6. The Federal Government, since at least 1913, has exhibited a steady pattern of curtailing the rights and freedoms of individuals. I am planning a series to show just how the Constitution has been slowly eradicated by Federal legislation and bureaucratic activity.

7. States’ rights, once a vital check on the expanding power of the Federal Government, have been nearly abolished altogether. The problem is that “one size fits all” solutions really do not fit anyone very well. One result is that the Federal bureaucracy now impose mandates that have to be funded from State resources.

8. For all of the hoopla surrounding Ohio’s role in electing the President in 2000 and 2004, there is no evidence that Ohio has experienced any political benefit whatsoever; except perhaps that Ohio is breaking even between Federal tax collections and Federal disbursements. When we consider the costs of maintaining the administration in Washington, Ohio still is not getting fair value per dollar sent.

I maintain that Ohio’s taxpayers will better served by a Republic of their own, even after taking into consideration the costs of a national defense, diplomatic service, and some regulatory tasks. It will be 26 times more responsive to the will of our people, eliminate layers of bureaucracy required to interpret and enforce Federal rules, and will limit its military activity to true defense.