Note that we specifically noted these were for the PRIMARIES. Libertarians in Georgia don’t force taxpayers to bear the cost of selecting our nominees, unlike the Ds/Rs – we do that at a 100% privately funded convention.

I do NOT support violence as a means to achieve my objectives. Nullification/seccession is PROVEN to lead DIRECTLY to war, and therefore they are NEVER valid means to achieve goals.

Remember, the Union did NOT fire the first shots last time – the Rebels did.

The States pre-existed the Union. The States created the Union. The State can freely leave the Union. The overwhelming bulk of the evidence contemporaneous to the founding of this country supports this view. The Webster/Lincolnian view did not become prominent until later when it served the interests of the nationalist centralizers to believe it.

“those who think otherwise were defeated 150 years ago”

Please, please tell me you are not, good libertarian that you are, endorsing the notion that might makes right or that war settles fundamental questions of this sort. History, not war, settles this question and history is overwhelming against you.

Generally Jeff, it is important for people who are attempting public commentary, like a blogger for example, to actually, at a minimum, have some clue what they are talking about. Study some history and get back with us once you bone up your knowledge base a bit.

The candidate referred to in that comment blatantly supports an “independent Southern Republic”, and this rhetoric is, in my opinion, treason – point blank.

We ARE *ONE* Nation – not multiple. We are THE United States of America, and those who think otherwise were defeated 150 years ago.

I have replied to Jason before about the states’ rights issue, but will do so here again briefly. Rights are not real things. You can’t touch them. You can’t feel them. They are a philosophical construct. As such, there is no reason they can’t be invested in states. But we aren’t really talking about rights. We are talking about state power, state authority, state prerogative, etc.

The single individual invested with his rights is completely powerless against the state. He can stamp his feet and wag his finger all he wants about his rights, and it won’t do him a dang bit of good when the Feds are arresting him. To have power to assert your rights you need competing sovereignties (such as states) and competing institutions (guilds, the Church, etc.) that have their own independent sovereignty and power. Advocates of state power are perfectly happy with the atomized individual asserting his rights because the individual is powerless. They fear, however, a bunch of rebellious states. Hence the liberal hysteria when the concept is invoked.

Read “Secession and the Modern State” by Prof. Donald Livingston. Google it. You might learn something.

BTW, the logical end to the idea that the cent gov is the protector of individual rights and can’t tolerate any opposition from the states is one world government. If we can’t tolerate local entities like states asserting sovereignty then on what basis do we tolerate nation states asserting sovereignty? This is one of the insights of paleolibertarianism, something you would benefit by familiarizing yourself with.

What on earth is this a reference to? Surely this is not a reference to supporting state opposition to federal encroachment and tyranny. Because I KNOW as a good L/libertarian you support such things.