3B9D1317.1425A08C@objectent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> Mike Lorrey wrote:
> >
> > Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Hahahahaha hehehehe! We can barely get 20,000 people to attend
> > > a protest rally on these subjects and you want to get them to
> > > lay their lives, fortunes and citizenship on the line to
> > > actually seceed from the US? It is a fun dream but I think it
> > > is really dreamland right now. Assuming you can find these find
> > > Libertarian brave souls, do you think they will have the means
> > > or the will to develop a strong enough Defense to survive? Or
> > > are we talking major technology breakthrough that throws a
> > > forcefield around the entire state?
> >
> > a) NH's state constitution retains the right to secede, and has since
> > before it became the 9th and ratifying signor of the US Constitution.
> >
>
> Sure, sure. But we saw what happened the last time any states
> attempted that. I have little reason to believe the response
> today would be less extreme. Particularly if the new
> state/country is set up with laws quite different than the US.
> I can imagine the excuses for the US to respond militarily.
>
> > b) What makes you think a defense is needed beyond the existing state
> > Air Guard units?
> >
>
> I doubt the existing Air Guard would be sufficient against the
> combined military of the rest of the US.
>
> > c) YOU can barely get 20 people to agree with your cynicism, but you
> > don't seem to be aware that the Free State Project has been done before.
>
> It is not cynicism at all. It is despair of any such scheme
> being workable.
>
> > The fellow who started the current incarnation is a Yale person who has
> > dug up evidence that there was a similar organization in the early 70's
> > at Yale whose purpose was to flood a small state with left wingers to
> > tip its political balance. The state they chose was Vermont, and they
> > did get the numbers they wanted to move there, and look at the result
> > today: socialized medicine, gay marriage, anti-logging laws, and a
> > confiscatory state education finance law, as well as anti-growth laws
> > and a ban on BGH in the state.
>
> Excuse me but there is not a damn thing wrong with gay
> marriage. There is something wrong with bigots telling me that
> my desire to marry the partner of my choice is wrong or a matter
> of the moral or political decadence.
I didn't say it wasn't, but you must admit that this is a policy that is
generally exclusive to the left. I think it's rather indicative that
Vermont is the only state to legalize this AND that the state supreme
court decision that mandated the legislature craft such a law used
typically leftist 'judicial activism' in inventing an interpretation of
the state constitution that claimed to read something that was not
there.
Oh, and I forgot, Vermont also has one of the most 'pc' of hate-crime
laws, where individuals have been convicted and put in jail for simply
using the 'n' word.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:27 MDT