![Loading ... Loading ...](http://web.archive.org./web/20121124161608im_/http://www.ronpaul.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-polls/images/loading.gif)
Is all the recent talk of secession mere sour grapes over the election, or perhaps something deeper? Currently there are active petitions in support of secession for all 50 states, with Texas taking the lead in number of signatures. Texas has well over the number of signatures needed to generate a response from the administration, and while I wouldn’t hold my breath on Texas actually seceding, I believe these petitions raise a lot of worthwhile questions about the nature of our union.
Is it treasonous to want to secede from the United States? Many think the question of secession was settled by our Civil War. On the contrary; the principles of self-governance and voluntary association are at the core of our founding. Clearly Thomas Jefferson believed secession was proper, albeit as a last resort. Writing to William Giles in 1825, he concluded that states:
“should separate from our companions only when the sole alternatives left, are the dissolution of our Union with them, or submission to a government without limitation of powers.”
Keep in mind that the first and third paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence expressly contemplate the dissolution of a political union when the underlying government becomes tyrannical.
Do we have a “government without limitation of powers” yet? The Federal government kept the Union together through violence and force in the Civil War, but did might really make right?
Secession is a deeply American principle. This country was born through secession. Some felt it was treasonous to secede from England, but those “traitors” became our country’s greatest patriots.
There is nothing treasonous or unpatriotic about wanting a federal government that is more responsive to the people it represents. That is what our Revolutionary War was all about and today our own federal government is vastly overstepping its constitutional bounds with no signs of reform. In fact, the recent election only further entrenched the status quo. If the possibility of secession is completely off the table there is nothing to stop the federal government from continuing to encroach on our liberties and no recourse for those who are sick and tired of it.
Consider the ballot measures that passed in Colorado and Washington state regarding marijuana laws. The people in those states have clearly indicated that they are ready to try something different where drug policy is concerned, yet they will still face a tremendous threat from the federal government. In California, the Feds have been arresting peaceful medical marijuana users and raiding dispensaries that state and local governments have sanctioned. This shouldn’t happen in a free country.
It remains to be seen what will happen in states that are refusing to comply with the deeply unpopular mandates of Obamacare by not setting up healthcare exchanges. It appears the Federal government will not respect those decisions either.
In a free country, governments derive their power from the consent of the governed. When the people have very clearly withdrawn their consent for a law, the discussion should be over. If the Feds refuse to accept that and continue to run roughshod over the people, at what point do we acknowledge that that is not freedom anymore? At what point should the people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with an increasingly tyrannical and oppressive federal government? And if people or states are not free to leave the United States as a last resort, can they really think of themselves as free?
If a people cannot secede from an oppressive government, they cannot truly be considered free.
Download [PDF Transcript] – [MP3] – [MP4] – [FLV]
(right-click, then click “Save Link As”)
Ron Paul: This may well be the last time I speak on the House Floor. At the end of the year I’ll leave Congress after 23 years in office over a 36 year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the principles of individual liberty.
It was my opinion, that the course the U.S. embarked on in the latter part of the 20th Century would bring us a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security.
To achieve the goals I sought, government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable costs of policing the world and expanding the American Empire.
The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my view point, just following the constraints placed on the federal government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.
How Much Did I Accomplish?
In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. No named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways—thank goodness. In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without Congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant and dependency on the federal government is now worse than any time in our history.
All this with minimal concerns for the deficits and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much longer. A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.
The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.
The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”
Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.
I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.
Authoritarianism vs. Liberty
If authoritarianism leads to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to fight in the revolution against the powerful British government.
Recent Comments
10:32 am: "It is unfortunate that the pro-life case has been championed by some of society’s worst: Catholic..." - Nemesis
10:05 am: "True, Brad. However, I doubt she goes for stoners. Therefore you would have no chance. I’m..." - Nemesis
9:27 am: "THEY USE DRONES SO THEY ARE PERVERTS THAT WANT TO WATCH YOU TAKING A BATH!!!!!!! I MEAN WTF IS WRONG..." - WarLord645
9:25 am: "0:30 FUCK U PEDOPHILE" - WarLord645
9:05 am: "You’re an idiot. Public education is socialism. Government maintained highways is socialism...." - Cthulhupunk
9:00 am: "I don’t agree with all of Ron Paul’s policies, but I always get the feeling that when he..." - SeanOBriain
8:31 am: "the Gov will run you down so it can pick you up and OWN you…" - onefugowie
8:23 am: "What impresses me about Ron Paul is that he talks about the moral reasons for making decisions. I..." - Darcy Lindzon
8:20 am: "He hooked up a role playing Gollum in the “Hobbit” …”Anarchy???…We wants..." - gobee53
8:51 am: "Tsk." - Ryan Hayes
8:21 am: "This retired fuck-up just wants to seceed so he can open up a business so he can only sell his..." - Babyface6200
8:04 am: "There are two kinds of people who oppose Ron Paul: Those who are afraid to take charge of their own..." - CHRLPTRSN
8:43 am: "Ron Paul needs to lead a coup d’etat against the subversive monkeys who have hijacked our..." - GoodVibezin
8:36 am: "I’m a little late to the party on this reply, but if you’re gonna call someone a dumbass,..." - strack40
8:36 am: "The Pope was right when he said ” Humanity has lost the ability to recognize the difference..." - UnitedBoycott
6:55 am: "You said: ” … I’m … Someone thats brave behind a computer but in the real..." - Amoralizer
6:40 am: "Seriously, chav, get a life. You don’t impress anyone with your childish name-calling...." - Amoralizer
6:24 am: "Hill billy, eating mayonnaise sandwiches and fucking your sister" - Alfie Scarborough
6:24 am: "I thought we agreed to a truce! The term “language” referred to your usage of a swearword." - Amoralizer
6:24 am: "your soul is dogs hit" - Alfie Scarborough