The mass shooting by the evil predator in Connecticut on Friday in the federal and state mandated gun-free zone at the government school is a tragedy.  Like so many of the shootings, the thousands of wrong-headed and hoplophobic regulations that promote disarmament of “non-credentialed” citizens has left thousands dead and more wounded.  The usual suspects among the government supremacists are dancing on the graves of the children by calling for more restriction on individual protection and seeking to disarm greater swaths of the population that don’t meet the approval of the government.  Mind you, this will not disarm the greatest threat to individual safety, the police nor will it disarm the greatest threat to world peace, the American military.  The legislation and regulation will only target the “law-abiding”, that vast population of earning cattle that roam the tax jurisdiction called the United States.

Not only will the plantation dwellers be stripped of arms and the articles of self-defense, they will be forced to make convincing noises about why that makes everyone safe including, of course, the children. Many observers have made the case for the absurdity of all of this far more ably than I, whether concerning the Second Amendment, criminal fear of armed citizens and the ocean of statistics that can be manipulated by both sides of the weapons debate.  That is not the distillate of what I am asking.

The central question remains:  is there a consistent meme in the government-media complex case for weapons disarmament and prohibition.  There is and it is rather simple.  The government’s primary war is one it has waged and will fight through eternity for its very existence.  Whether democratic, communist or socialist or every difference in between; the state must extinguish individual self-sufficiency wherever it finds it.

The urban incubation of collectivist ideas is part of the reason.  City folk pride themselves on their lack of self-sufficiency.  They proudly open small refrigerators containing merely condiments and empty larders and brag about the sheer number of restaurants and cuisines available to them just a short jaunt away on government transit of one type or another.  Collectivism finds a natural germination here because one of the real societal divides is between urban folk and ruralites.

The urban enclaves in a democracy provide the majoritarian voice needed to rob various minorities of their rights and privileges whether these are notions of color or creed.  Unlike free(d) markets, government programs and initiatives and regulatory regimes are always a zero sum game that takes from one party to benefit another.  Unlike free(d) markets, there is always an injured party and in the case of civilian disarmament, this becomes quite literally true.

This urban voice dominates the government-media complex de jure and de facto despite the irony that the attacks and imputations against gun-owners rivals that of the Democratic fears of armed blacks at the end of the 19^th century and beginning of the 20^th century and the double-speak that informs the media coverage of government police savagery nation-wide.

The government hates individual ownership of guns for a basic reason that pales in comparison to their use against tyrannical behavior by said government; private ownership of defense at the atomistic level in any society lessens dependency on the government for anything; once this capability to defend against both private and public predators reaches a peer competitor level with these aforementioned forces, the balance tips in favor of individual autonomy and tips the scales toward self-sufficiency.

Self-sufficiency is the cardinal sin and self-reliance in a voluntary community from the family to friends to business associates always undermines the government’s ability to control its subjects.  Guns in the hands of the population is the first building block to this twisted and inhuman arrangement that makes all inhabitants of a nation-state not only the clients of the warfare-welfare state but the potential inmates of the established penal system through actual caging, parole or probation for regulatory statutory violations of the myriad rules of the state.

No state on Earth whether the US or North Korea or Germany or the Sudan can sustain itself absent police forces and the increasing equivalency of American private arms to the assigned weapons of the 19,000 (!) government police agencies in the US is a direct threat to these coercive arms of the state but more importantly, diminish the monopoly on protection these police forces advertise but rarely fulfill.

The US War on Self-Reliance has been going on since the formation of the Republic but started to gain significant steam with the War of Northern Aggression and the Lincolnian consolidation of federal supremacy over state action.  Scratch the surface of every regulation in the monstrosity called the Federal Register and it boils down to destroying individual self-reliance in a voluntary community.

While the government’s fear of individual armament has a component of fear for its very existence in the event of sedition, rebellion or revolution, the overweening imperative is the constant and consistent destruction of any form of behavior that divorces the individual from dependence on the government no matter how large or inconsequential. Think of this way, once the government strikes and blots out all individual initiative which is the essential building block of self-sufficiency, its only fear for existence would be the delivery of its own demise through its behavior such as the impending economic collapse authored by the worthies in the Treasury and the Congress.

Why does the government conduct raids on illegal vegetables whether drugs or organic?  Why did they fight homeschooling tooth and nail?  Why are preppers and survivalists being demonized?  Why is practically every human transaction on American soil subject to some form of rules or regulation?

Put in perspective, the War on Self-Reliance is job one for any form of government; otherwise, the ability to threaten and cajole compliance and obedience starts to diminish rapidly when the subject populace can take care of itself unassisted, thank you.

The latest Sturm und Drang on display by the government spokes-apparatchiks for individual disarmament is merely part of a larger tapestry to dissolve and eliminate individual autonomous action.

Nothing less and nothing more.

While the list of reasons to declare our independence seems never-ending, one very basic concept that all NH citizens can understand is money. NH is consistently one of the biggest donor states, every year. As you know, a “Donor State” is a state that pays more to the Federal Government than it receives. From 1986-2005, New Hampshire was ranked as a Top 5 donor state out of the 50 states, every single year for 20 years. NH citizens consistently pay more to Washington DC than they receive. Independence will mean we can keep our money right here at home rather than begging Washington DC for part of our money back.

What are your prospects for success?

Success to us will mean that enough NH citizens will be informed about the benefits of independence to make a very real impact on the direction of NH. Since we’re a non-profit, tax deductible foundation, success to us will not necessarily be legislative success. If NH citizens are educated on the issues and talking about them with their friends, family members, co-workers, and classmates, we’ll be successful.

Our speech is definitely restricted as a tax-deductible foundation, but this can be a blessing in disguise. For example, when we’re asked which political party, political candidate, or legislation we support, we can confidently say that we’re actually not allowed to comment too much on those types of questions. This will prevent our opponents from pigeon-holing us as an arm of any political party. In some ways, we’re more free and protected.

The other obvious benefit is that all donations are tax-deductible. After we work hard and prove that our Foundation is worthy of support, we expect the larger donors to take a look at us. If we’re successful in NH, the implications are global.

In Texas v. Smith (1869), the Supremes rendered secession illegal (surprise!) but the Miller/Swayne dissent provides an interesting backdrop to why the court was wrong even from a Constitutional perspective. What do you think?

 As you say, it’s not surprising that the federal government would tell citizens that they can’t leave the federal government. That’s the equivalent of a possessive, wife-beating, lying, unfaithful husband being anointed the judge at his own divorce proceeding; he’s always going to side with himself and rule that the wife can’t leave him.

The federal constitution doesn’t specifically address the issue of a state separating, but the right to leave is implied with the 10th Amendment. Furthermore, there aren’t very many constitutions that actually specificaly give the people the option of revolting and/or leaving. However, that’s another thing that makes NH different. The NH constitution specifically mentions this right in Article 10, The Right of Revolution, which says, “…whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government”. This, to me, is another detail that helps NH in our quest for independence.

Any coordination with the Free State Project New Hampshire?

There is absolutely no coordination between our Foundation and the FSP and there never will be. Some of their members are supporting our efforts and some of their members are definitely against everything we do.

I think every state should have one of these organizations and eventually a cross-country consensus can be built. Do you anticipate a research arm to your institution; a clearinghouse for national and global secession movements and trends?

This is a great idea that would certainly help a lot of people in this world. Right now, we’re only concerned with NH independence. In the future, after we gain our independence in NH, perhaps we could transition into a more national organization.

Is America as a centralized polity too big to succeed? 

America is without a doubt too centralized and too enormous to succeed. Really, America’s fate has been sealed for several decades. When a nation grows too big – both in territory and in population – it’s inevitable that a separation is needed. One city trying to control the lives of over 315 million people, even for the biggest fan of centralized government, can’t last forever. Inevitably, when asked how the country should be governed, the people living in one area of the country are going to disagree with the people in another area of the country. A peaceful separation would solve the grievances.

Do you think that a plurality of multitude of different nations in north America will lead to more peaceful and prosperous times?

In my opinion, peace will be the ultimate benefit of a break-up of the United States. Never again will American citizens pay for wars half way around the world that have little or nothing to do with the security of the US. It’s true that without central banking and a fiat currency, there would be no chance of achieving the level of centralization currently demonstrated in Washington DC. But to me, the loss of human life is the biggest tragedy. The fewer large, centralized nations there are in the world, the lesser the odds are of war.

One of the reasons the US was so prosperous is because of a giant (mostly) free trade zone between all of the 50 states. As long as Americans realize this and continue a similar policy in the post-US world, Americans will be more prosperous than ever before.