My own Country!

[TheBigDog]

Awww, shucks... :)

[Theory5]

As long as your country is acknowledged as a sovereign entity by whatever country you stole land from, then sure. Otherwise you face overthrow from hostile natives (the police) from failure to comply with international law (not paying taxes).

Then how would I make it recognized? Send a letter to the state or country government?

 

I think finding a remote island is your only option at this point. Then just hope the war fleets or pirates from nearby nations don't come and take you over. :)

but ins't that just like buying a barge, building a house on it and sailing into international waters and declaring myself a nation? whats the point in that? I would have to go to another country to buy and sell stuff.

[freeztar]

Then how would I make it recognized? Send a letter to the state or country government?

 

That would be funny! :)

I imagine a flag-staking with fireworks and media hoopla. It would be a glorious moment, until they came to cart you away. The closest thing to a nation within a nation (speaking of the US) is the Michigan Militia, and they don't claim their land and affairs as a separate country. I think most uppity folks frown upon the idea of self-proclaimed countries within the US, especially in a post-911 environment. Abroad, I've heard of a certain Bohemian "stronghold" in Belgium (I think, someone confirm please). Supposedly, the police would not enter the area, but would patrol its perimeter. It lived under slightly different rules than the occupying country, but again, they were not recognized as a sovereign nation.

 

but isn't that just like buying a barge, building a house on it and sailing into international waters and declaring myself a nation? whats the point in that? I would have to go to another country to buy and sell stuff.

 

Upsides and downsides:

 

Up

````

You own and manage your own country. You do what you want!

 

Down

````

Trading routes are long voyages requiring a sizeable, seaworthy vessel.

No interaction besides one's own family, not much genetic possibility.

 

Yeah, not much benefit for the sacrifice. ;)

[Freddy]

Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

 

who knows about this? its in the Constitution. I read about it in the history books (by myself. I think they skip that part)

yet what do we do about it?

We just cant go up to them and say: here is a petition we want you out.

NO They vote on it. using the same system we are trying to get rid of! It would involve lawyers to fight them, yet another part of their system!

The US Constitution can be altered by Amendment or by federal court interpretations. There is no provision for abolishing it, except through amendment. Imagine the 27th Amendment abolishes the entire Constitution.

 

Also, the Declaration of Independence no longer holds any legal capacity in the US as the US Constitution became the basis of all US law.

[Qfwfq]

Well....no. Its my parents property and technically the bank owns it but as long as they pay the bank, we own it.

You mean it's leasehold and not freehold. Anyway this wasn't the point of my question, it was followed by a consideration which is an answer of sorts, here's the whole thing again:

 

There is a slight jurisdictional hitch. Is it your property? Before declaring independence you had the benefit of the state within which it lies guaranteeing your right of property. After becoming independent, you have no guarantee but your own. The same goes for the independence itself, so ya better choose your foreign policy carefully.

 

After that you misquoted Freddy's reply, I corrected the name but please be more careful when quoting someone. :confused:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

"Those who forget to remember the past are condemned to repeat it", George Santayana

Truer words were never spoken...Though I'm getting tired of history repeating and I have yet to forget!

[LaurieAG]

Hello Boerseun,

 

Seccession = High Treason = Death Penalty.

 

That's not universal, six months after 9/11 both the UK and Australian governments removed the death penalty for treason.

[tierradelfuego]

Can I declare my property my own separate country? Is there a law against that? Would the government even bother to acknowledge that its my own country? That would be cool. please get back to me.

 

This is a complex topic. To think that you are going to be able to create your own country by simple declaration is ridiculous. You should do your own research.

SECESSION.NET would be a good place to start.

[Theory5]

country by simple declaration is ridiculous.

 

Its these little challenges in life I enjoy. :-P

If its doable, I dont see what the big fuss is all about.

and besides, it could be fun.

and a "simple declaration" is what all Americans can understand. Did you know, the newspapers all design their newspaper so it can be EASILY read by someone with an average 7th grade education? because thats all some people have! it is outrageous! don't you agree?

[Freddy]

I guess it boils down to you can declare whatever you like. Have you heard about the NH couple who advocated not paying their federal income taxes? Everything was fine until they actual refused to pay them. They were convicted of tax evasion and hauled off to jail. The government is selling their house to boot. So go ahead declare independence, but be careful not to actually take any actions that the government views as illegal. The feds love to make examples of people.

[freeztar]

Have you heard about the NH couple who advocated not paying their federal income taxes? Everything was fine until they actual refused to pay them. They were convicted of tax evasion and hauled off to jail. The government is selling their house to boot. So go ahead declare independence, but be careful not to actually take any actions that the government views as illegal. The feds love to make examples of people.

 

...cough...cough...Thoreau...

[LaurieAG]

Have you heard about the NH couple who advocated not paying their federal income taxes? Everything was fine until they actual refused to pay them. They were convicted of tax evasion and hauled off to jail. The government is selling their house to boot. So go ahead declare independence, but be careful not to actually take any actions that the government views as illegal. The feds love to make examples of people.

 

Hi Freeztar and Freddy,

 

In Australia we have a slightly different situation because of a certain Act of our parliament in 1986 that changed our sovereignty status (i.e. the parliament crowned themselves) but we the people were never asked to vote on the change.

 

In my case I have asked the ATO to 'take me to court ASAP' when I refused to have any business/personal dealings with them (since 1998). When asked why I didn't have to pay our federal tax I responded that our federal treasurer had announced on national telivision that 'our constitution is broken'. As we the people cannot break our constitution he must have been referring to the undemocratic and unconstitutional behaviour of both our major political parties.

 

The second 'final notice' basically asked the same questions so I responded with a copy of my letter to Australia's then Governor General in 1998 where I requested that the Australian Constitution should revert to it's last constitutionally legitimate position should our politicians fail to gain approval for their change to the status of our national sovereignty at a future referendum of the people of the states.

 

They failed on both accounts in the 1999 referrenda and the ATO have not bothered me since!

[Freddy]

...cough...cough...Thoreau...

At least Thoreau had a rational reason for not paying taxes, local poll tax, to fund what he felt was an unnecessary war with Mexico. This couple belongs to a group of misguided Americans who just cannot read the Constitution, which plainly states this in:

 

Article I, Section 8 - Powers of Congress

Clause I: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes,...

 

They got 5.5 years. Thoreau got out the next day after his aunt paid his debt.

[Qfwfq]

They got 5.5 years. Thoreau got out the next day after his aunt paid his debt.

So Thoreau's debt was paid, the question would be whether that's the only difference between these two cases.

 

Thoreau definitely was a case of civil disobedience and for a tenable reason, it certainly isn't a case of declaring independence and so isn't the original point of this thread. I don't know enough about the NH couple to judge and I struggle to understand whether the Australian example is on topic. Attempted secession, or civil disobedience?

[LaurieAG]

Thoreau definitely was a case of civil disobedience and for a tenable reason, it certainly isn't a case of declaring independence and so isn't the original point of this thread. I don't know enough about the NH couple to judge and I struggle to understand whether the Australian example is on topic. Attempted secession, or civil disobedience?

 

Hi Q,

 

Or Passive Resistance?

 

Unlike the Australian case the taxation office didn't let 2 years worth of charges fall off the charge sheet due to the statute of limitations. Also, there were 150 staff working on legislation for our taxation office when I posted a copy of the claim for reversion sent to our head of state, one and a half weeks later they were all suddenly transferred to Treasury.

 

One key difference is that Thoreau didn't have the support of a high proportion of the legal fraternity who believe that only a referrendum will make our federal Corporation laws (amongst others) constitutional without doubt.

 

If the government takes me to court, even if I lose, I can appeal right up to our High Court and obtain a determination on the correct procedures for the transfer of sovereignty status in a country that has a constitution for a constitutional monarchy. That's a very good reason for the government not to take me to court and not to open a can of worms.

[Qfwfq]

Er...

 

Passive resistance is a method theorized against foreign occupation. The term could be applied to the NH case if and only if they had declared independence and thus considered state and federal claims to sovereignty over their land as a foreign occupation. I don't see how it would apply to Thoreau, he wasn't against his country, only against an action of his government.

 

For the rest, you aren't talking about secession as far as I can make out.

[LaurieAG]

Passive resistance is a method theorized against foreign occupation. The term could be applied to the NH case if and only if they had declared independence and thus considered state and federal claims to sovereignty over their land as a foreign occupation. I don't see how it would apply to Thoreau, he wasn't against his country, only against an action of his government.

 

Hi Q,

 

?Mahatma Gandhi used passive resistance successfully in South Africa to gain release for 'coloured' people from opressive laws under the then Apartheid regime in power at the time. The majority of the South African native peoples had to wait a while longer until apatheid was abolished.