Mïlïtías in the US

[Virgil Showlion]

The complete question:

Which statement best reflects your views on US militias?

By "militia" here, I am specifically referring to a group of men, women, and children numbering 120 of more souls living on a single private property or set of private properties in the continental US.

The property owned by the militia is:

• contiguous (one plot, with no "holes" inside)
  
• fully owned by title deed. This does not mean that the property is legally owned. For example, if a militia chooses not to pay property taxes or if the land has been claimed by eminent domain, the militiamen would be considered "squatters". The condition here is that all parts of the land "very recently" belonged to members of the militia without being voluntarily transferred to other private owners.
  
• not inside or near (within 10 miles) of a major (population >500,000) US city

Within the property, militiamen reserve the right to:

• establish all laws, including those regarding property rights, taxation, life, and liberty
  
• defend person and property by any means necessary from trespass, attack, or seizure by any US civil, state, or federal authority, including police and army personnel
  
• barter with any willing merchants outside the compound

I'll leave the motivations of the militiamen as an "unknown". But if it makes a difference to your decision, assume that the militia is politically motivated by the belief that the US government is utterly corrupt and no longer a representative of the people, that taxation without such representation is unjust, and that a militia is the only way the militiamen can enjoy liberty and prosperity.



The complete answers:

Answer 1: Under no circumstances should they be allowed

Answer 2: Acceptable provided they respect all laws (local, state, and federal) while not on their property.

Answer 3: Acceptable provided they use no government services (local, state, and federal), including public sewage, public water, police, fire, ambulance, public road construction (including roads to and from their property if their property is isolated), public garbage collection. This is IN ADDITION TO the condition of Answer 2.

Answer 4: Acceptable provided they pay for any public services (in the above list) they specifically use. This is IN ADDITION TO the condition of Answer 2.

Answer 5: Acceptable; might makes right

Answer 6: Acceptable, if... (post conditions in thread)

Answer 7: I couldn't care less

[vandalshandle]

They are acceptable as long as they have official Roy Rogers and Hopalong Cassidy guns with red barrels, and agree to abide by the Code of the West. The official decoder ring is OK, if they send in $1 and 10 box tops of Post Toasties.

[Virgil Showlion]

For those of you voting "Under no circumstances should they be allowed", it would make for an interesting discussion if you described how corrupt the US federal government would have to be in order for you to change your mind on the matter. What milestones would you look for?

[thatchica]

Within the property, militiamen reserve the right to:
establish all laws, including those regarding property rights, taxation, life, and liberty
defend person and property by any means necessary from trespass, attack, or seizure by any US civil, state, or federal authority, including police and army personnel
barter with any willing merchants outside the compound

I'll leave the motivations of the militiamen as an "unknown". But if it makes a difference to your decision, assume that the militia is politically motivated by the belief that the US government is utterly corrupt and no longer a representative of the people, that taxation without such representation is unjust, and that a militia is the only way the militiamen can enjoy liberty and prosperity.

If they don't want to follow the government or they think the government is utterly corrupt and don't want to fix things through public opinion and vote, then they should leave the country. There are islands for sale in various parts of the world. They can go and purchase the whole island and form their own place there. In my opinion militias do not have a place on American soil. This whole resistance against the government is BS. If they don't like it they can move elsewhere and take their crazy ideas with them.

[thatchica]

Mar 12, 2012 17:28:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

For those of you voting "Under no circumstances should they be allowed", it would make for an interesting discussion if you described how corrupt the US federal government would have to be in order for you to change your mind on the matter. What milestones would you look for?

I am that one vote. Do I think the US government is corrupt? Hell yeah I do. Do I think the people should gather to over throw the government? Not when there are other avenues. A group of 100 or 1000 or 5000 taking on how many million? It's stupid. If they don't like the US they are free to move about the world and find a place that suits them.

[Virgil Showlion]

There are islands for sale in various parts of the world. They can go and purchase the whole island and form their own place there.

Purchasing and colonizing an island for a group that size would cost hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. In practical terms, it's impossible.

That doesn't invalidate your objection to their setting up shop on American soil, but I feel I should point out that colonizing an island isn't an option in the real world.

[thatchica]

Mar 12, 2012 17:36:22 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

There are islands for sale in various parts of the world. They can go and purchase the whole island and form their own place there.

Purchasing and colonizing an island for a group that size would cost hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars. In practical terms, it's impossible.

That doesn't invalidate your objection to their setting up shop on American soil, but I feel I should point out that colonizing an island isn't an option in the real world.

haha I was putting it out there as an option.

What I don't believe in is these groups collecting lots of firearms to one day have their say with police/FBI. Seriously.. we have seen this played out before. The militia never wins.

I don't believe in these groups making up their own laws and punishments. Most of these groups we hear of that do these things are corrupt on their own.

When you live in a country you accept their rules. If they don't like it, they can run for public office to change things, move out of the country and renounce their citizenship, or STFU about it and live like the rest of us do and abide by the set laws, pay the taxes and get off the high horses.

[sgtjer]

I'll take #1 for 600 dollars, Alex.

I'm willing to compromise though ..... they can have Alcatraz as long as they never leave.

Oh, and Delray Beach .....

[Virgil Showlion]

Understood, Ms. Chica.

I was more wondering about milestones like public debt. For example, currently the US public debtload is $48,709.00 per citizen (or about $200,000.00 per family), not including state and municipal debt, and unfunded liabilities. A credible argument can be made that neither (electable) US federal party has the slightest intention on reducing or even significantly mitigating the rate of increase in this number.

The result will either be a total collapse of the US monetary system, or punishing austerity along with confiscatory taxes. Some optimists believe this won't be the case. But at some point (say, the US public debt exceeding $20 trillion, or $25 trillion, or $30 trillion) even the most optimistic among us would have to concede that one of these two options is inevitable. For you, are there any milestones that stick out in your mind?

If the US currency collapsed, for example? If the public debt surged to a level where you felt collapse was imminent? If taxes were levied so that you were paying 50, 60, 70 percent of your income to support government programs and interest on US debt? If inflation exceeded 15% per year?

At what point would you condone your countrymen jumping ship (you obviously don't condone it now)? At what point would you jump ship yourself?

[billisonboard]

What is described in the OP is the establishment of a sovereign state, potentially one with "benefits". If it were to be allowed, I would call for full secession and accompanying requires (e.g. renouncing U.S. citizenship, potentially visa requires to leave their country to visit the United States, etc). I would not support some sort of half-assed step.

[thatchica]

Mar 12, 2012 17:56:05 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Understood, Ms. Chica.

I was more wondering about milestones like public debt. For example, currently the US public debtload is $48,709.00 per citizen (or about $200,000.00 per family), not including state and municipal debt, and unfunded liabilities. A credible argument can be made that neither (electable) US federal party has the slightest intention on reducing or even significantly mitigating the rate of increase in this number.

The result will either be a total collapse of the US monetary system, or punishing austerity along with confiscatory taxes. Some optimists believe this won't be the case. But at some point (say, the US public debt exceeding $20 trillion, or $25 trillion, or $30 trillion) even the most optimistic among us will have to concede that one of these two options is inevitable. For you, are there any milestones that stick out in your mind?

If the US currency collapsed? If the public debt surged to a level where you felt collapse was imminent? If taxes were levied so that you were paying 50, 60, 70 percent of your income to support government programs?

At what point would you condone your countrymen jumping ship (you obviously don't condone it now)? At what point would you jump ship yourself?

I no longer live in the US. I do believe that one day (in our lifetime) the US will collapse and I don't want to be there when it does. As children we were fed a lot of lies about how great the US was and it was the best government and not corrupt like other countries. There was a huge sense of patriotism in earlier years. Sitting outside the US and watching that fall is sad. I agree that neither party is or can do anything to fix it before the fall. The sense of entitlement that was breed into multiple generations of Americans isn't going to go away on its own. There will have to be a collapse and a reset.

I do believe that the fall is eminent. However I don't think militias taking over is the answer. There will be a lot of public chaos, but having these self glorified groups start a civil war is not the answer.

[Virgil Showlion]

For the purposes of the poll, Bills, you can assume the militia would agree to those terms. They would relinquish their US citizenship and would remain on their property unless new land was purchased and added to it by other Americans wishing to join (in which case their borders would expand). However, they would require that goods flow tax-free across their borders both ways, both from Americans bringing them goods in trade and leaving with goods in trade.

[vandalshandle]

Mar 12, 2012 17:53:14 GMT -5 sgtjer said:

I'll take #1 for 600 dollars, Alex.

I'm willing to compromise though ..... they can have Alcatraz as long as they never leave.

Oh, and Delray Beach .....

They are welcome to Cleveland if they want it...and Gary, Indiana.

[Spellbound454]

So whats the difference between this and setting up another country on US soil?

What is they were Communists, Muslim extremists or a Doomsday religious cult?
Who decides who can set one up...what are the parameters?

I think it can only cause division. People grow fearful of what they don't understand and fear leads to intolerance. The great claim of the US is that it is the land of the free and there for everyone.
Not individual pockets of separate peoples.

[mmhmm]

Nope. Not on United States soil. If I'm that unhappy, I'll move. It's a big world. Right now, this big world is in a big world of hurt. However, call me an optimist but I'm not going to sit down, whine a while and give up. I believe the ship can be righted if people are willing to do their part (including the part that supports those who CAN'T do their part). I'm willing.

[billisonboard]

Mar 12, 2012 18:12:31 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

For the purposes of the poll, Bills, you can assume the militia would agree to those terms. ....

How much are you going to amend the poll. You offered answer 6. That is what I answered.

... They would relinquish their US citizenship and would remain on their property unless new land was purchased and added to it by other Americans wishing to join (in which case their borders would expand). ....

No, they would stay in their country and would only be allowed in our country on our terms. They might well attempt to annex land to their country. Terms would have to be worked out for them to do this.

... However, they would require that goods flow tax-free across their borders both ways, both from Americans bringing them goods in trade and leaving with goods in trade.

That is a policy that their country would have to negotiate with the United States.

[Deleted]

I'll support bill's conditions, though I can't see why the U.S. would bother to concede the territory to them.

Failing that, you are welcome to establish an incorporated area or city or whatever you want to call it. You can make your own local rules, but you are still subject to state/territory and federal laws.

[Tennesseer]

All U.S. citizens are free to stay or go. If you decide to stay follow the rules.

[Deleted]

I can see it now... Pervo-land where they can make their own rules about marrying 8 year olds...

[cme1201]

I honestly don't care one way or the other.

A group of a 120 people really doesn't scare nor concern me. Now a state on the other hand.

[Tennesseer]

The Democratic People's Republic of Wyoming?

[cme1201]

Mar 12, 2012 20:54:46 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

The Democratic People's Republic of Wyoming?

Wyoming the Free State?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

I picked 6. Militias are acceptable because we have the right to free association, to express our views, and to keep and bear arms. It's not so much as they are acceptable, they are guaranteed the absolute right to exist. How could they be stopped? What Constitutional authority does the government have to break them up?

[AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP]

Mar 12, 2012 18:04:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What is described in the OP is the establishment of a sovereign state, potentially one with "benefits". If it were to be allowed, I would call for full secession and accompanying requires (e.g. renouncing U.S. citizenship, potentially visa requires to leave their country to visit the United States, etc). I would not support some sort of half-assed step.

We have a precedent for a "half-assed" step, and here it is:

Under the Clinton administration, the government established, in certain economically disadvantaged areas "enterprise zones".

I would like to see "Liberty Zones". In a liberty zone, the STATE government would still have jurisdiction, but the federal government's jurisdiction and power would be limited to the enumerated powers; the general welfare clause would be properly defined as an introduction to the enumerated powers, and not itself a grant of power.

In a liberty zone, there would be broad leeway to experiment with innovative ideas like opting out of Social Security and Medicare, freedom from burdensome federal mandates, exemptions from regulations not covered by the enumerated powers.

In the event of a dispute, the STATE government would be the one to send the cops- no federal cops, agencies, bureaus, etc.

[billisonboard]

Mar 12, 2012 21:42:31 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

I picked 6. Militias are acceptable because we have the right to free association, to express our views, and to keep and bear arms. It's not so much as they are acceptable, they are guaranteed the absolute right to exist. How could they be stopped? What Constitutional authority does the government have to break them up?

_{You need to read the OP as well as the poll part itself}

[Deleted]

But you basically said in your OP that state and federal laws would not apply and the 'militia' could make any laws they wanted on their own property....

Oops... sorry, OP wasn't Paul... the OP says...

[thatchica]

Mar 12, 2012 21:49:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We have a precedent for a "half-assed" step, and here it is:

Under the Clinton administration, the government established, in certain economically disadvantaged areas "enterprise zones".

I would like to see "Liberty Zones". In a liberty zone, the STATE government would still have jurisdiction, but the federal government's jurisdiction and power would be limited to the enumerated powers; the general welfare clause would be properly defined as an introduction to the enumerated powers, and not itself a grant of power.

In a liberty zone, there would be broad leeway to experiment with innovative ideas like opting out of Social Security and Medicare, freedom from burdensome federal mandates, exemptions from regulations not covered by the enumerated powers.

In the event of a dispute, the STATE government would be the one to send the cops- no federal cops, agencies, bureaus, etc.

Sorry dude.. never going to happen. As long as the state is part of.. oh say the COUNTRY. Your crazy right wing ramblings will never come to pass. See you on CNN during the next compound bust!

[billisonboard]

Mar 12, 2012 21:49:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

Mar 12, 2012 18:04:12 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

What is described in the OP is the establishment of a sovereign state, potentially one with "benefits". If it were to be allowed, I would call for full secession and accompanying requires (e.g. renouncing U.S. citizenship, potentially visa requires to leave their country to visit the United States, etc). I would not support some sort of half-assed step.

...

I would like to see "Liberty Zones". In a liberty zone, the STATE government would still have jurisdiction, but the federal government's jurisdiction and power would be limited to the enumerated powers; the general welfare clause would be properly defined as an introduction to the enumerated powers, and not itself a grant of power.

In a liberty zone, there would be broad leeway to experiment with innovative ideas like opting out of Social Security and Medicare, freedom from burdensome federal mandates, exemptions from regulations not covered by the enumerated powers.

In the event of a dispute, the STATE government would be the one to send the cops- no federal cops, agencies, bureaus, etc.

is what I am talking about not supporting.

[Tennesseer]

Mar 12, 2012 21:55:34 GMT -5 thatchica said:

Mar 12, 2012 21:49:38 GMT -5 AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP said:

We have a precedent for a "half-assed" step, and here it is:

Under the Clinton administration, the government established, in certain economically disadvantaged areas "enterprise zones".

I would like to see "Liberty Zones". In a liberty zone, the STATE government would still have jurisdiction, but the federal government's jurisdiction and power would be limited to the enumerated powers; the general welfare clause would be properly defined as an introduction to the enumerated powers, and not itself a grant of power.

In a liberty zone, there would be broad leeway to experiment with innovative ideas like opting out of Social Security and Medicare, freedom from burdensome federal mandates, exemptions from regulations not covered by the enumerated powers.

In the event of a dispute, the STATE government would be the one to send the cops- no federal cops, agencies, bureaus, etc.

Sorry dude.. never going to happen. As long as the state is part of.. oh say the COUNTRY. Your crazy right wing ramblings will never come to pass. See you on CNN during the next compound bust!

Just in case a moderator believes thatchica is calling pbp names, today pbp described himself to thatchica as a "crazy right wing religious nut".

www.notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=politics&thread=20740&page=5#918245

[vandalshandle]

Well, I am taking all of the warnings to heart, and I am here to tell you that if the government comes to take away my BB gun, I am going to put their eyes out!