Evergreen Republic First Ed

The EvergreenRepublic

A Vision for Cascadian Independence

By Justin A. Herndon

The Evergreen Republic

A Vision for Cascadian Independence

By Justin Herndon

First Edition- 2012

The Evergreen Republic by Justin A. Herndon is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License. You are encouraged to freely distribute or quote this work in whole or in

part in any non-commercial context.

Contents

Foreword...................................................................................................................................................1Part 1: Rationale

Introduction..............................................................................................................................................3Foreign Policy...........................................................................................................................................4Economy....................................................................................................................................................7Culture....................................................................................................................................................12Politics.....................................................................................................................................................20Energy and Environmental Policy........................................................................................................31

Part 2: The VisionIntroduction............................................................................................................................................33Foreign Policy.........................................................................................................................................34Economy and Fiscal Policy....................................................................................................................36Culture....................................................................................................................................................42Political Structure..................................................................................................................................49

Part 3: Proposed Founding DocumentsDraft of the Articles of Secession..........................................................................................................61Draft of the Constitution for the Republic of Cascadia......................................................................64

Part 4: The Road to IndependenceIntroduction............................................................................................................................................74Phase 1: Public Awareness....................................................................................................................77Phase 2: Forming the Party...................................................................................................................78Phase 3: Enacting the Plan....................................................................................................................79Option 1: Peaceful, Civil Secession.......................................................................................................79Option 2: Acquisition.............................................................................................................................81Option 3: Revolution..............................................................................................................................82A Word on Alliances..............................................................................................................................86

Part 5: Proposed Agenda for the First CommitteeIntroduction............................................................................................................................................89Roadmap to Independence....................................................................................................................90Monetary Policy.....................................................................................................................................90Revenue...................................................................................................................................................91Statutes and Laws..................................................................................................................................91Standards and Measurement................................................................................................................91Language.................................................................................................................................................93National Symbols....................................................................................................................................93

Part 6:This Author's OpinionPersonal perspective..............................................................................................................................95On Force and Reason.............................................................................................................................97Oligarchy as a detriment to Civil Society............................................................................................98Laissez-Faire Capitalism is Oligarchic................................................................................................99The danger of theocracy........................................................................................................................99Why Egoism Cannot Preserve Liberty..............................................................................................100Egoism as a Force Against Liberty.....................................................................................................102On The Importance of Family and Family Pluralism......................................................................104Reflection on the English Enlightement.............................................................................................105The Importance of Organized Resistance..........................................................................................105On the Grand Dilemma of the Human Condition............................................................................106

A Warning on Questionable Alliances...............................................................................................107Why Inevitable Oligarchies Must Be Resisted..................................................................................108Conspiracy Theories as Viral Propaganda........................................................................................109On the Futility of Punitive Taxation..................................................................................................111The Importance of civilian Control of Government.........................................................................112

Appendix A:Proposed National Symbols, Songs, and DesignsProposed National Anthem.................................................................................................................114Proposed Flag Design..........................................................................................................................115Proposed Currency..............................................................................................................................116Proposed Motto....................................................................................................................................118Proposed Capital..................................................................................................................................118Proposed Use of Uniforms...................................................................................................................118Proposed Flag Protocol........................................................................................................................119

Appendix B: Further Reading and BibliographyGeneral Politics and Socioeconomics.................................................................................................120Case Studies in Independence and Secession....................................................................................121Ideas to Build a Better World.............................................................................................................121Practical Advice for CIP Members in Troubled Times....................................................................122History Texts of Potential Relevance.................................................................................................122Documentaries of Note........................................................................................................................123

To My Father, who raised me to speak up for what I believe in.

And to the faculty and staff at Richmond the American International University in London, with deepest gratitude for a life-changing experience.

1

ForewordThis book is the end result of much soul-searching and years of seeing the disastrous direction

my country has been taking. After having taken several political stances over the years I have come to the conclusion that none of them will save America because the country is fundamentally broken.

This is not a unique or particularly insightful observation. If anything, the idea that the United States has painted itself into a corner seems to be an increasingly common point of view. What is rare, however, are workable suggestions.

What I offer with this book is both a discourse into the reasons I think the American experiment has failed, and a series of suggested solutions that a new, independent nation could implement to prevent them from happening.

I consider myself fortunate, upon moving to Oregon in the summer of 2011, to have come across the Cascadia Independence Project, a movement dedicated to creating a new republic in the US states of Washington and Oregon, as well as Northern California and the Canadian province of British Columbia. It is a young movement with a largely online presence at this time, and much of the region is only vaguely aware of them to date.

While the movement does not have a concrete platform or leadership as yet, I write this treatise specifically with the CIP in mind. It is my hope that this will become the starting point for further dialog toward organizing a real front for Cascadian independence, as well as creating new awareness of the movement and its possibilities in a broader part of the American populace, but particularly with the people of the Pacific Northwest.

First, I will explain in detail my rationale for suggesting secession as a serious solution by outlining the problems our nation currently faces.

Second, I will outline my own vision of an ideal alternative to the policy, culture, and structure of our current nation.

Third, I will offer a draft of a constitution, based on that of our own United States, that will demonstrate what I feel are the deficiencies of the current document.

Fourth, I will discuss some of the potential means by which a new nation may be formed, and discuss their advantages and disadvantages frankly.

Finally, I will offer a plethora of suggestions, from a proposed list of topics for the first Cascadian assembly to consider, to proposed symbols, personal opinion, and resources for further reading.

It is not my intention to frame this as the definitive manifesto on Cascadian independence. Although I feel deprived by being a “newcomer,” I am not originally from this region. I am not the most educated person; I have only 2 and a half years of university education. I am also not particularly experienced in politics despite years of observation. Mine is an “armchair” perspective, meant to be a

2

starting point, not the final word. Let those with more knowledge, experience, and a lifelong experience with the rich culture of the Northwest take what they will and run with it.

I must add that even in the short time I've been working on this book, the world has become noticeably more hostile to civil liberties and privacy. The US government has now begun persistently pushing bills that would allow the Internet to be shut down or seriously controlled, and for the operators of websites they disapprove of to be arrested with only an accusation.

Meanwhile, The FBI has begun to openly solicit social network providers to develop software that will allow them to track citizens more easily through sites such as Twitter and Facebook.

Other countries, among them Australia and the UK, have been pushing bills that would gradually tighten the noose on free communication. Certainly, the EU seems eager to jump on the same bandwagon as the US in building an infrastructure to suppress the free exchange of ideas.

A book such as this one may be illegal very soon. If certain laws are passed, this book may be removed from websites and the websites' owners jailed without trial, simply because someone (likely an FBI agent) anonymously reported a supposed violation.

By putting my real name on this book and making it available to the general public for free, I am taking a huge risk. I am now a target for harassment, smears, and misinformation. That murky world where government, media, business, and special interest groups meet will surely take an interest if this book becomes too popular.

I'm not putting out this book because I think I'll be safe. I'm doing this because I believe that independence for the Northwestern states is right. When being right becomes a crime, I'll be honored to be counted among the guilty.

If this be treason, let us make the most of it.-Attributed to Patrick Henry

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.-John F. Kennedy

3

Part 1: RationaleIntroduction

It is this author's belief that the cultural, political, and structural problems currently plaguing the United States of America are not only profound but, by their very nature, ultimately destructive and inescapable through the ordinary means of the political process.

In some cases, the obstacles to reform are purely cultural; certain ideas that might work are too taboo to even discuss. In other cases, the obstacles are structural, and the will and means for reform in certain areas simply does not exist.

Such resistance to reform has sent the United States into a death spiral from which it will sadly never recover. The country will continue its descent into debt, disarray, corruption, poverty, and repression until there is hardly a shadow left of the old democratic republic.

If we are lucky, the country will hit bottom and jobs will be created again, in the form of the sort of low-wage sweat shop labor we once exported to China and India. If we are unlucky, the entire system will likely become so weak as to degenerate into mob rule and will become the playground of wealthy oligarchs who pit partisan fighters against one another in a bloody guerrilla war for absolute control.

To this end, consider the following as prime examples of why, in my estimation, it would be a more worthwhile endeavor to start a new nation than to try to reform the current one.

4

Foreign Policy

First and foremost, America's foreign policy is one of our biggest liabilities. It is the proverbial ten thousand pound gorilla, the one liability that will bankrupt and endanger our nation faster than anything else.

Foreign wars and meddling

Prior to the world wars, the United States looked after itself and only itself. Any foreign wars were fought with the end goal of expanding territory, and military resources were concentrated primarily on defending the homeland.

After the second world war, this changed. With Hitler gone, the Soviet Union became more openly belligerent toward the West. This was met, in America, by two distinct movements that would soon conflate into one unwieldy alliance.

One was the Evangelical movement, that had its roots in the American religious revivals of the Nineteenth century. Its doctrine was steeped in a peculiar Nineteenth century interpretation of Calvinism and an increased apocalyptic fervor. By the turn of the twentieth century, it had become an all-encompassing social movement with its roots deep in business and government.

The other was the egoist movement, spearheaded by Nietsche and Schopenhauer in the nineteenth century and given a populist, pro-capitalist spin by Russian-American pop novelist Ayn Rand. It was a movement that cherished the acquisition of individual wealth and the preservation of an upper class of creative powerhouses as a means to a stable, prosperous society.

These seemingly conflicted beliefs- one consisting of a religious collective destiny and fervent nationalism, and the other consisting of a belief system that summarily discarded nationalism, religion, and collectivism- began to find common ground in their distaste for communism, and a new political chimera emerged in the form of today's conservative platform. On the one hand, it touts fervent nationalism and religiosity to many people; to others, the movement provides vindication and encouragement for amoral business practices and political maneuvers that have only one end goal: absolute power for an elite few.

From this unwieldy alliance came the disastrous idea that our enemy's enemies were our natural allies. In the name of spiting the Soviet Union, we began a gainless war in Vietnam, armed the Taliban, and installed and supported questionable leaders such as the Shah of Iran, Saddam Hussein, Agosto Pinochet, and Manuel Noriega.

What we ended up with, though, was not a single monolithic threat that we could manage, but dozens of additional threats which, in the end, we would later be either politically obligated or strategically required to deal with; the monsters we created became our greatest threat.

The Shah of Iran was deposed by his own people after evicting many Iranians from their land to secure US access to oil reserves. The resulting Islamist regime, while not a direct threat, shows naked hostility both to the US and to human rights in general.

5

Saddam Hussein seemed like a good fit to control the wild and unruly territory of Iraq, but in the end we couldn't even keep our own allies friendly with each other. His invasion of oil-rich Kuwait and his open hostility toward the US and Israel were his undoing. Our people could have cared less how many innocent iraqis were butchered by the Baath party, and we had no real reason to fear Saddam Hussein at all; but we were strategically obligated to protect Kuwait from our former ally, because we had an entangling alliance there.

Then there's the Taliban. They were an extreme Islamist group that our own people decided to arm... with a slight push from the rabidly anticommunist Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon. American thinktanks funded by a religious megalomaniac were behind the creation of a paramilitary ruling body that not only oppressed its people, but supported America's enemies. Anticommunists like Moon are largely to blame for 9/11, but enjoy a privileged position of influence in American foreign policy to this day.

Then, of course, Pinochet and Noriega were exactly the sort of right-wing thugs a Reaganite could love- if only from a distance. Pinochet didn't last, and Noriega lost favor with the CIA after he disrupted the structure of the drug cartels. Neither of them have had a lasting legacy except to ultimately embolden the rise of leaders like Hugo Chavez. If anything, our efforts against the rise of communism and socialism in South America have actually helped it gain root, because the people there got sick of the alternatives we shoved down their throats.

This is to say nothing of the various wars and conflicts that all stemmed from this deepening pit of intrigue we've dug ourselves into. In just my lifetime, we've been to Panama, the Balkans, Afghanistan, twice to Iraq, and we've been involved in innumerable standoffs. How much of this could have been prevented if we had simply bolstered our defenses at home and not worried about policing the world?

Then, of course, there is the fiscal damage. Our budgets have been stretched paper thin by all this foreign fighting. What both the major parties seem hesitant to admit is that most of our debt comes from policing the world.

Rank-and-file Republicans seem to be in the deepest denial about this fact. They tend to blame everyone from welfare recipients to Public Broadcasting for our debts, even though they had a very minimal role in it. Consider that the cost of Obama's health care bill over ten years- which was universally opposed by Republicans on budget grounds- would be less than the cost of the war in Afghanistan over the course of just one year, which was almost universally supported by Republicans!

America's foreign policy from 1945 to the present has been one disaster after another, and the consequences of our previous mistakes are still coming to light. How long will it be before hostilities in North Korea flare up into a pan-Asian war, or until Israel calls us to war against Iran? And how long can our nation stay intact if we keep blowing our money on fruitless wars of attrition? Any serious talk of ending the wars on the grounds of the budget is usually brushed aside by that odious old straw man: “can we afford not to?”

The answer should be a resounding “Yes.” Yes, we can afford not to waste trillions on foreign wars with no end and no gain. Yes, we can afford to re-appropriate our resources for strictly defensive purposes. Yes, we can afford to begin cutting entangling allegiances. But the answer I hear,

6

collectively, is only “maybe we should,” or “let's look into that.” The lack of urgency and lack of decisiveness will prove to be America's undoing.

7

Economy

To say that the U.S. Economy is in trouble is a magnificent understatement. What began as a minor “hiccup” in the early 2000s quickly destabilized into what could prove to be the worst economic disaster of all time.

Identity: Laissez-faire versus mixed

First, it should be noted that for the most part, the U.S. Economy has developed a distinct lack of identity; no one is really sure if our system is intended to be laissez-faire or mixed, and nobody can agree fully enough to go in one direction completely.

Now, we have a strange mess of laws . On the one hand, we have all the characteristics of a mixed economy: partially regulated trade, antitrust laws, and taxation are all present. Monetary policy is handled by a central bank, and a partial social safety net is available for the poor.

Even so, we have also continued cuts to social programs, partial slashing of regulations in trade and banking, a certain relaxation of wage laws, and the near total deregulation of the gold and precious metals trade.

In part, it is because our market is reliant on a mixed infrastructure. The United States has always, in practice, been a mixed economy even if we have delved into the realm of laissez-faire in theory. Even so, elected officials, who are wary of anything vaguely resembling “socialism,” have begun to try to pry the country away from a mixed economy while still keeping those parts that business and industry seem to like.

Added to the mix is a recent wave of constitutional thinking that basically claims that regulating the economy is unconstitutional, and therefore the US economy can only be laissez-faire by its very nature. Their claims are based on a literalist interpretations of the text and have not, so far as I'm aware, been supported by any serious scholars of constitutional law; nonetheless, their message is a popular one that many small-time entrepreneurs, anticommunists, and conspiracy theorists seem to take to heart.

And yet, the resulting lack of commitment to any one system has done more damage than either a mixed economy or a laissez-faire system could ever bring about on their own. Neither political will nor market forces seem capable of shifting the questionable lending and trade practices that dominate the stock markets today, and without a solid direction for the economy, those markets will only become less and less stable until they cannot function at all.

Short-sightedness

In American business, decisions are made quarter-to-quarter. CEOs seem convinced that long-term gains aren't worth the short-term losses, and that pleasing the shareholders for the current quarter means bigger profits... at least, for that quarter.

As a result, businesses have lost the focus of their original intent- to provide products and services- and continually put less effort into productivity and quality control than they do into cooking

8

the books and wooing the stock brokers. Some businesses even seem to exist solely to win a bigger market share, with no productive goals whatsoever.

The sad fact of the matter is that this emphasis on short-term gains has made actually producing a product or performing a service almost completely unprofitable. Any publicly-traded company may as well give up its identity and its productivity to its shareholders.

They then turn the blame over to the politicians, especially any politician who dares raise taxes or strengthen oversight and regulations. They claim these actions make it impossible to profit and they are partly right; it is impossible to profit over the short term when adjusting to any sort of change. American business is, first and foremost, lacks the ability to adapt and thus fears change.

By comparison, companies in Europe and Japan, despite higher taxation, more costly wages, and more expensive utilities and materials, continue to turn a profit because they have their sights set on the long-term goal of profiting from their products and services. They are more capable of adapting to changing markets because they aren't punished by their shareholders and executives for cutting profits in the short term; the long-term survival and profitability of the company is the end goal.

The constant fear of change and inability to consider long-term consequences is a hard tendency to break, and one reason it would be easier to start a new nation. Reforming such tendencies would require not only changing how our markets work, but how investors, CEOs, and board rooms work from the ground up; in other words, building a new culture.

Over-reliance on China

In the 1970's, the Nixon administration struck what may, very soon, prove to be the coup de grace against the American economy by warming relations with China.

Nixon, as well as his wealthy backers, knew that Chinese factories were allowed to make their workers pull long shifts without breaks, pay starvation wages, and duck safety and environmental regulations... all the things American businessmen wished they could do. A special relationship with China was established, and the rest is history.

Today, we rely on China to produce nearly everything for us. Chances are, if you have an electronic copy of this text, you're viewing it on a computer with Chinese-made components. If you have children, take a look at their toys; nearly all of them will say “Made In China.”

It's getting so that you can't even avoid Chinese products in the grave; just type “China coffin exports” into any search engine and you'll find dozens of companies selling coffin hardware, coffin shells, and even complete coffins and urns, all made in China.

And what has this left us? No American company can compete against the Chinese. No American worker can be expected to survive on the wages a Chinese worker makes (even the Chinese find it hard to get by on what they're paid).

In the face of such competition, American companies have either shut their doors for good, or outsourced their labor to China. American workers, meanwhile, find it increasingly difficult to find

9

any sort of work outside of food service, hospitality, or the military unless they have a four-year degree, and even a college education has begun to lose its luster to prospective employees.

This, along with our military misadventures (because we had to do something with all the new army recruits who were desperate for money) has plunged the country deep into debt which, conveniently enough, Chinese banks swollen with American consumer's money were all too willing to lend our government. We are now in no position to cut off the flow of Chinese goods because we have found ourselves locked into an inextricable state of debt bondage that will either end with the complete collapse and takeover of our government by China, or by war with the Chinese.

Labor relations

Labor relations in the U.S. Can be summed up in one word: dysfunctional.

On the one hand, you have employers who despise unions and will go out of their way to hire non-union workers and scabs, break up and intimidate unions, and avoid paying fair wages to those workers they do find.

On the other hand, there are unions whose demands far exceed what would be called reasonable for their line of work. Not so long ago, the steel workers at a plant in Georgetown, South Carolina, complained that $80,000 a year was not enough to survive on! This was at a time when the median wage in the US was less than half that.

When one considers that others perform jobs with a similar level of risk for less than half that cost within the U.S. (and in all likelihood less than 1/10th that cost in China), one can almost begin to sympathize with businessmen who outsource labor to China... almost.

With no one to tell either the workers or the employers whose demands are warranted, one is left only with the infinite sense of entitlement that both unions and employers insist upon.

Employers insist upon the infinite entitlement to profit, even at the expense of the American worker; thus they will try to pay as little as possible to have labor performed. Only the threat of unionization keeps many non-union jobs lucrative for most workers, and in sectors where unions have made few inroads (such as food service), wages are abysmal.

Unions, meanwhile, insist on their infinite right to demand wages and benefits, even when those wages and benefits far exceed the skill, risk, and effort involved in their particular line of work. They still follow the old Hoffa-era hardnose approach and almost never back down from a dispute without highly specific concessions.

The government, meanwhile, has no guidelines for arbitration to say whether the workers or their employers are being unreasonable. There isn't, for instance, any sort of guideline for wages that says if $80,000 a year- about what some medical professionals make- is more than adequate for a steel worker, and if the courts are involved at all they can only arbitrarily decide in favor of one party or the other. Not surprisingly, they most often decide in favor of employers.

10

Labor relations thus continue to plague the few remaining American businesses, and while the small minority of remaining union workers pull substantial wages, non-union workers often struggle to make ends meet. Meanwhile, as the unions lose power and more and more non-union jobs become available, corporations seem more emboldened to cut corners on benefits, wages, and the safety of their workers.

In time, organized labor in America could be a thing of the past- the combined victim of its own hawkishness and of a tremendous cultural shift toward devaluing the lives and contributions of the working class. When that day comes, the American worker will indeed find plenty of jobs, but these will be in noisy, dangerous sweat shops earning barely enough to survive. The age where a factory worker could afford to own his own house, a new car, and a family of five will be a distant memory.

Corporate Welfare

Here we come to a sad indictment of our system, one that exposes one of the most profound double standards in American government.

Although they abhor it in theory, few politicians will vote against sending money to failing companies, especially if those companies have done them some favor or have some strategic importance.

One perfect example is the auto industry. It is nearly impossible, with the combination of overhead, labor relations, and thin profit margins, for a car company to remain profitable, and no auto company has been consistently profitable in this country since the 1950s.

In a perfect, sunshine-and-daisies laissez-faire world, the solution would be simple: let them die or be bought out by the Chinese like everything else, because their business model is a failed one that cannot be sustained.

Of course, there is just one fundamental problem with this: we don't live in a perfect vacuum where laissez-faire principle applies neatly to everything. If the American auto industry were to go completely bankrupt or fall into the hands of potentially hostile countries such as China, we would lose one of the few strategic advantages we have left. We would have no means to produce vehicles for our military and government should relations with China turn sour.

A positive solution would be for the government to start its own concern to build cars, trucks, and other machinery for the military. This would not only be relatively inexpensive (because we could build them at-cost), but it could potentially create thousands of jobs.

This, of course, would never be accepted by most Americans. To them, any thought of the government entering into any manufacturing (or any other business, for that matter) reeks of socialism. Even if there were no plans to produce civilian vehicles whatsoever, the news media would be plastered with pictures of boxy, lackluster Soviet cars with the subtext that the auto industry was about to be “nationalized.” Heading the charge, not surprisingly, would be the PR departments for the Big Three.

Instead of spending maybe half a billion to start their own vehicle factory, then, the government

11

injects tens of billions into the auto industry when its executives come flocking in begging for handouts. Some companies, such as GM, are kept alive by the government buying a large share in the company... but still allowing the company itself to remain private and make the same mistakes it has always made.

This kind of story has repeated itself, to a lesser extent, with other industries, but the auto industry is a prime example of the sort of wasteful approach to strategic industry that has been the hallmark of American policy for most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

12

Culture

There are many things within the cultural makeup of the U.S. That pose extreme liabilities. The U.S. Is a nation that resists reform, takes a sacrosanct approach to certain ideas, and is steeped in literalism, authoritarian thinking, classism, and anticommunism.

As a result, it has become a haven for antiquated ideas, legal dodges, career politicians, and failed systems that have long since been abandoned in the rest of the developed world.

Getting a handle on the myriad problems with American culture requires taking a long, uncomfortable look at ourselves and our own long-cherished beliefs about our people and our nation. It is one of the hardest things to discuss in a civil manner, and one of the easiest ways to generate controversy and heated arguments.

The Religious Right

Once upon a time, there was a country founded on Christian values that looked, acted, and voted just like people do on Sunday... at least, that's what a large part of the country would have you believe.

Far from being just another strain of Christianity, the religious right is a many-headed monster that comfortably wears the robes and speaks in the voices of the old fire-and-brimstone gospel preachers. And because they hide behind tax exemptions, lax campaign finance laws, and innumerable loopholes in respect to the role of religion in politics, their leaders are powerful, ruthless, and above all, practically untouchable.

The Religious Right consists of the biggest cadre of kingmakers in the world. Many of them, if you trace their affiliations, have ties to Sun Myung Moon, who himself also has ties to right-wing death squads, the Taliban, and- ironically enough for such an ardent anticommunist- North Korea.

The religious right was largely responsible for the election of George W. Bush, rallied support against same-sex marriage in nearly every state in the union, and has fought a long, unabated war on things like birth control, free speech in the media, and public education.

They have many companies that donate to their causes. Do some research on some of the popular restaurant and retail chains that operate in the US and you'll find ties to the Unification Church, Focus on the Family, and numerous other religious thinktanks.

They have a massive media wing, both with primary voices such as TBN, and with secondary voices, as in their close relationship to many “mainstream” conservative media. Listen closely to Bill O'Reilly or Rush Limbaugh some time and see how often they make references to religion.

Other media outlets, such as the Washington Times (yet another front for the Unification Church), are outwardly secular, but are quietly owned by religious organizations.

They can afford to hire some of the best spin doctors in the country, and are more than willing to twist the facts to prove themselves right, then hide behind the shield of political correctness to claim

13

they are being persecuted if they are openly questioned or debunked in the media. Under this ideological shield of demanding “balanced” coverage, they have sent openly hateful organizations- such as the Family Research Council- to act as a voice in even allegedly “liberal” media outlets. If anyone in the media dares dismiss them for the fact that their arguments are based on bad research and shaky interpretations of data, they are quick to cry “Christian persecution!” and guilt the media into giving them a voice.

They don't always paint themselves as a persecuted minority, however. When they need to make themselves look bigger and more popular than they really are, they will boast about how they represent a mighty majority in a predominately Christian nation (even when most American Christians don't actually identify with them). They will switch between these two identities- the beleaguered minority and the mighty majority- freely and readily, sometimes within the same spiel.

They back politicians who know exactly how to woo even secular voters. Many voters who found themselves put off by Bush's stance on same-sex marriage and religious views felt obligated to vote for him because of his fiscal views, or his supposedly tough stance on terrorism. By siding with the “free market” politicians, they have made themselves capable of exerting influence even over secular parts of society.

In all reality, they are neither persecuted nor a majority; they are a powerful, boisterous minority. The core of the religious right consists of perhaps a handful of actual leaders, with a few thousand organizers of any importance, and a few million core supporters. On their own, they would not be able to sway elections; however, their ability to find common ground with the seething anticommunist, xenophobic, pro-business, anti-gay, and anti-abortion public has expanded their influence far beyond the sphere of their membership.

Because they play to a populist message, they effectively control the country, and have done so since the days of Reagan. The Obama and Clinton presidencies have been nothing more than a fluke; they have not lost control, but have merely had to regroup to find new and better ways to worm their way back into power.

In founding a new nation, we must find ways to limit the infiltration of the Religious Right into our committees without becoming hostile to the free exercise of religion as a personal choice. No doubt, organizations like Focus on the Family will try to spawn new wings under the guise of charities, thinktanks, or legitimate churches, but these will become breeding grounds for theocrats.

They will speak in the terms of liberty and fairness, and of being given a chance to present their view, but once they have that chance, they will dominate the conversation and we will become helpless against them. Any hope of a policy of gender equality, non-intervention in foreign affairs, keeping our public schools secular, or limitation of religious contributions to political campaigns will be summarily ruined and our republic will become a clone of the US.

Cascadia certainly wouldn't be the first nation outside the US to fall prey to the Religious Right. Already, many other countries have seen a rise in influence from American Religious Right organizations. Groups like Focus on the Family have large missions in Africa, Europe, Asia, and South America.

14

Particularly in Australia, the influence of US-backed Christian conservative groups has become strong enough to sway elections because their culture is fertile ground for the messages these groups bring.

Their agenda is clear: nothing less than world domination will satisfy the Religious Right.

We must not fall into the same pitfall that the US and many other countries have fallen prey to; we must be able to tell religious organizations from political action groups, expose those who want to make our republic in their image, and politely show them the door. Freedom of religion should also mean freedom from religion.

Rights Without Responsibilities

There is a certain arrogance to the idea that rights have no responsibilities attached to them. Unfortunately, that sentiment seems to be all too prevalent in contemporary culture.

The news media wants the right to free speech without the responsibility to remain factual and impartial.

Corporations want the right to make money without the responsibility to actually pay their workers and clean up their own messes.

Citizens want the right to have a say in their government, without the responsibility to actually go to the polls or run for office. They would just as soon let someone else do it all for them, which is why we have an entire caste of career politicians.

Thus we have become a nation that at once prizes and takes for granted our rights; we end up indulging the rights we find the most comforting to the point of abuse, and ignoring the bothersome responsibilities inherent in those rights.

The framers of the constitution held it as an article of faith that people would somehow be reasonable enough to understand that rights incurred responsibilities. Maybe that faith was misplaced, or maybe we've been raised on this idea of entitlement for so long that we've forgotten what those rights really mean.

In any case, I cannot see a good way around this; to try to legislate responsibility would be both futile and a poor substitute for the sort of cultural change that would be needed. Such cultural shifts cannot be engineered within the time frame we would need to preserve those liberties, as the shift away from responsibility was one that took more than two centuries.

Impatience and short-sightedness

Although this is a problem that has plagued the economy, it is by no means limited to the economic sphere.

Americans are extremely impatient and extremely short-sighted; if they cannot get results within one election cycle, or within a fiscal year or quarter, they are convinced that they will never see

15

results.

This impatience has also spawned a sound byte culture, wherein a politician has to be able to sum up their views, solutions, and ideas in catchy- if meaningless- aphorisms and anything requiring explanation at length is regarded with suspicion and derision.

But even beyond politics, this tendency toward impatience manifests as a deeply-embedded cultural meme. Take a look at television or movies produced in America between 1950 and the present. Compare the earlier shows with the more recent ones. Fixed, sustained shots have gotten shorter and more active panning has been introduced.

Nowadays, a sustained shot of more than 3 seconds makes the average moviegoer feel that the pace is “sluggish.” Never mind that most of the films coming out are re-makes of films from 40 years ago, or sequels, or rehashing age-old plot devices; most people can barely remember what they saw ten minutes ago, let alone ten years ago. Our entire media culture is tailor-made to someone with the attention span of a goldfish.

Even food has to provide rapid gratification. Look at some of the newer products on supermarket shelves; the overwhelming trend is toward items that are shelf stable, heat in less than 3 minutes, and are easily opened with a simple pull tab or screw-off cap. Of course, one of the side effects of making food this easy to access has been the use of noxious additives to make it more flavorful and provide a longer shelf life.

But what has this culture of catchy phrases, instant gratification, and life in the fast lane really gotten us? An economy in shambles, a cultural aesthetic that recycles the same stale ideas over and over, a pandemic of obesity and type II diabetes, a government that cares more about looking effective in the short term than getting anything done in the long term, and elections that have more to do with who can create the best slogan than who is more qualified for the job.

The culture of impatience and instant gratification, it would seem, is a cultural dead end.

Scorched-earth anticommunism

“Better dead than red” was the old slogan that once rang through the halls of our public schools and on Capitol Hill. We were willing to annihilate ourselves and everything we stood for just to keep the communists at bay, and we had the means to do just that.

We made deals with tyrants, theocrats, crooks, and maniacs because they weren't communists. We spent trillions of dollars trying to buy favor with countries who would do our dirty work to fight the Soviets. We funded, armed, and in some cases even trained right-wing death squads the world over in the spurious name of freedom.

We outed leftists in our own country. We “cleaned up” Hollywood in the 40s and 50s during the McCarthy era. We made it harder for left-wing groups to operate while almost completely ignoring right-wing groups.

When the people we armed turned on us, when the left wing managed to survive in spite of our

16

efforts, when we ended up becoming the cradle of neo-nazism, and when the media brought to light what was happening in the name of our cause, how many people actually paid attention?

Those who were there- the lofty decision makers, the kingmakers, the political organizers, the soldiers, and the voters- do not regret arming the Taliban, installing Saddam Hussein, or supporting Pinochet. They look back on it with a fond smile as “the good fight,” and gloat over how they supposedly stopped communism in its tracks.

Never once do they look at the irreparable damage they've done to their own country. Our principles, our budget, and our reputation have all been summarily destroyed in the name of stopping an enemy at all costs, and we have yet to finish reaping the full, bitter harvest of our works.

One solid reason for Cascadian independence is to create a clean break from the madness of twentieth century anticommunism, and from its current and future results. Those of us who can look back on history and actually learn from the failures need to band together and stay clear of those who would persevere in error.

Anti-intellectualism

The easiest way to be excluded from the popular dialogue on American current affairs it to be labeled “elitist.”

So just what is an “elitist” anyway?

The definition is subjective, but basically it amounts to someone who shows any trace of education, refinement, or expertise.

In the 2004 elections, John Kerry spoke at length about the problems at hand. George Bush spoke in catchy sound bytes. Photos surfaced of John Kerry wind surfing, which outraged many Americans in the heartland; Bush took photo ops on his ranch, chopping down trees or hunting, which endeared him to many blue collar Americans.

In the end, Bush won because Kerry was pegged as too smart, his hobbies too exotic, and his long, wordy sentences were too difficult for people with limited vocabularies to understand. People liked Bush because he wasn't a threatening intellectual who seemed smarter than they were; he was speaking to them on their level, from their level.

How often, when making an important policy decision, do the congress or the Supreme Court actually consult with an expert in the field? More often than not, they would rather call in either an emotional witness or a member of a lobbying group who proclaims themselves to be an expert than to actually get a professor or doctor in on the discussion.

There is certainly no requirement to have anyone involved in decision making other than our senators, a group of people whose lives are typically dedicated to politics, who frequently know nothing of life outside the Beltway, let alone the sociology of same-sex parenting, or the science of climatology, or what a reputable economist would say about supply side economics as practiced in Washington.

17

When a senator or congressman makes some painfully ignorant statement, who is there to censure them? The media might make it public, but most people- the vast majority- don't care. There is no outrage because the sad fact of the matter is, it is fashionable for our politicians to be stupider than we are.

Thus we trust our most important policy decisions to a headless monster, namely a government run by out-of-touch, painfully ignorant, and often blindly stupid individuals who we'd be loathe to trust to bring back a dozen eggs from the store, let alone balance the budget. It really does beg the question, why do we do this to ourselves?

This is a cultural problem, rooted in the same conflicted reasoning that asks for rights without responsibilities and expects immediate results for long-term solutions. It has left the country without a “brain trust,” with only those with the political savvy or money to make a bid for power standing in for their infinitely smarter constituents.

Authoritarian Paradox

Americans hate their government, but they love authority.

They will at once curse the government for becoming too involved in their lives, but gladly allow police to expand their powers of search and seizure exponentially in exchange for their safety.

Some may remember the way people acted in late September 2001, the people who rallied behind Bush's every word. They swore that unquestioned allegiance to the “American way” was the only answer, even as the media and government spewed a deeply authoritarian vision of what that “American way” really was. The Americans we saw in 2001 weren't the proud, defiant rebels of Bunker Hill; they were the scared, cowering subjects of a government that told them how it was and demanded compliance.

That's how Bush won the election twice, in my estimation. He surrounded himself with people like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney who knew how to work every angle of paternal appeal. It looked a bit like a game of “good uncle, bad uncle,” with Bush playing the obliging figure willing to give people what they wanted, and Cheney shaking a stern warning finger about the great terrorist menace that would surely strike if he was no longer in control.

And yet, the same people who extolled Bush as a “strong leader” and trusted the government with unprecedented powers of arrest, prosecution, interrogation, and surveillance, would be loathe to trust the government with their health care or paycheck.

To call such a system “fascist” is frankly an insult to fascists. Most fascist regimes throughout history actually took active roles in investing in infrastructure, job creation, and the general welfare of the working class. The United States, as it stands now, doesn't even have those perks; it embodies all the disadvantages of fascism with none of its redeeming qualities. Perhaps if the same government that can arrest, try, convict, and execute you in a secret kangaroo court would throw in a nice pension scheme rather than an ailing Social Security system, it would make more sense.

18

Clearly, those of us inclined otherwise- who abhor the police state but would not mind a broader selection of entitlement programs for citizens- had better look elsewhere; America's not going to throw us a bone any time soon.

Ignorance of our own nation

More people can quote the Big Mac jingle than the pre-amble of the constitution.

A large part of the populace is convinced that the Founding Fathers were all conservative Evangelical Christians rather than deists.

Most people don't know that there is no constitutional protection against confessions obtained under torture, duress, or by deception.

Likewise, a large number of people are convinced that citizens have a constitutional right to armed revolt written into the constitution.

And how often do you hear cries of something being “unconstitutional” from all sides of the political spectrum? It's not so much an allegation with any merit any more as it is an inflammatory statement meant to rally support against something controversial.

More often than not, it's the courts that have to decide, and if you look at some of their decisions in detail, you learn just how much power the constitution actually grants the government- and frankly, it's a bit frightening.

For example, the courts recently upheld the right of the president to order assassinations of U.S. Citizens without a warrant, in their own home. The rationale is that the “war on terror” is a global war, and therefore the “battlefield” consists of the entire world. Bending the rules this way is perfectly within the constitution, by the way.

Clearly, reform cannot begin without a public demand for reform, and the public will not demand reform if they are blithely ignorant that it is needed. Whether by design or by accident, the bulk of the US is kept in the dark as to what exactly needs to be reformed, and imposing the kinds of reform necessary would be unthinkable.

For that matter, people's ignorance of the constitution and the vision behind it has led to the ultimate decline of the social contract on which the nation was founded.

The social contract can be summed up in the pre-amble of the constitution: citizens (we the people- and that's everyone) are expected to support rule of law and peaceful, civil solutions to problems (establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility). Citizens are asked as part of the contract to serve in a conscript army (provide for the common defense). Citizens are asked to look out for the good of their neighbors rather than simply looking after themselves (promote the general welfare), and they are asked to understand, uphold, and teach the meaning of this constitution to their progeny (secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity). The constitution that follows is merely the guidelines within which to serve that contract, but it is not the contract itself.

19

What part of that social contract hasn't been violated or challenged, then? Civility is dead, the courts are used to intimidate and harass people in the form of lawsuits, we now have a standing army of international aggression, and people who only look out for themselves, going at it like a pig in a poke and doing nothing to help the next generation keep what they've got.

Any bid to establish a new nation must come with a bid to establish meaning and identity along with that nation, or the social contract will become as meaningless as that of the United States.

Widespread Apathy

It has been said that evil is when good men fail to act. In America, that has become something of a cultural norm.

Apathy has become fashionable in some circles. People who are passionate about something- especially righting injustice- are written off as “bleeding hearts” who have more compassion than sense.

The democratic republic, meanwhile, now groans under the strain of citizens who will neither run for office nor vote. According to infoplease.com, voter turnout in the U.S. Hasn't topped 60% since 1968. In a typical election, at least half of all eligible voters simply stay home.

Overall, there is an overwhelming sentiment in America that “it doesn't matter.” The vote they cast the second Tuesday in November, the letters they could write their senators, the campaigns they could run in their own communities- they all seem, to the nihilist generation, to be a waste of time because they believe their voice won't be heard or heeded.

But one need only look at the crumbling infrastructure, the corrupt caste of career politicians, and the increasingly militarized police state we live in to know that just throwing our collective hands up and saying “too bad” is no longer an option. Giving in to a bad system should never be an option, and apathy will only allow it to get worse.

20

Politics

The politics in America are just as damaging as the culture and very much a product of it. The health of a nation can often be determined from the top down, and in America that is certainly the case. The picture one gets when looking at the political arena in America is a distressing one.

Partisanism

It has begun seem, at least in the case of the US, that partisanism and civility are two completely opposing goals. The level of partisan bickering in the US has reached a fevered, at times violent pitch in recent years.

Elections are seldom about selecting the most competent decision-makers. It is a popularity contest for charismatic con artists who tout a hollow, meaningless version of “American values.”

These values are not at all related to the social contract of our foundation, nor are they relevant to good policy, but are a surrogate set of values generated by the media and government to win votes and sell consumer goods; they are a vapid set of empty words that no one seems to truly understand.

Elections are also about repeated failures and expressing distaste. In a two party system, one can only have two logical outcomes for the balance of power, and one would think that the people would learn after neither outcome has the desired results, that neither party has their interests in mind.

Instead, nearly every election becomes a reactionary referendum that the party in power is somehow less likeable than the underdog, and the minority party comes grovelling, promising change that never comes.

Then there are those voters- something of a minority but nevertheless part of the problem- who vote strictly along party lines. They vote for what their party stands for in theory, but cannot bring themselves to admit that they have failed in practice. For the Democrats, they vote for equality, accountability, and civil liberty even when their party essentially lets the Republicans rule by proxy. For the Republicans, they vote for prosperity, freedom, and justice even when their party stands for economic chaos and the police state.

The party system could, of course, be reformed to accept three or more parties; other parties certainly exist. However, the will to do this is simply nonexistent, save for a few people written off by their countrymen as a fringe element. Even if this obstacle could be overcome, there would be the added difficulty of reforming the electoral process to be more fair to third and fourth party candidates, for which there is almost no support.

Thus the two-party circus continues, feigning reform and responsibility, but ultimately delivering nothing but stagnation.

Career Politicians

There is no profession so onerous to the cause of liberty and civility as that of the career politician. No terrorist can claim the same severity of damage that senators and congressmen on their

21

eighth or ninth term have wrought upon this country, and no shut-in could claim the same level of detachment from the current state of affairs.

When the constitution was framed, it was largely expected that ordinary citizens would answer the call and run for office out of altruistic concern for their country. The field was wide-open to newcomers, and the educated, intellectual overachievers who ran for office were seen as a revival of the classical ideal.

Gone are the days when self-taught inventors and erudite scholars who could speak Greek and Latin sought office; nowadays, it is ambitious but intellectually weak entrepreneurs with an eye toward power and influence who hold sway.

The current caste of politicians isn't so much a caste of brilliant minds as it is a gathering of those with a narrow sort of intelligence, a keen understanding of how to use laws and the emotions of others to their advantage while lacking remorse and moral scruples. I am speaking, in purely clinical terms, of people who exhibit all the symptoms of sociopathy.

But because it is the sociopaths who succeed in our society, particularly in politics and business, we have, by selection, begun to breed more of them. We instill sociopathic values of personal gain above all things in our children by the media, schools, and in our homes. We create systems of hierarchies for them in the social setup of our schools, the sort of jungle of popularity and influence a sociopath thrives in. We reward and praise those who barely skirt the laws to achieve their goals as clever and worthy.

Should it be any wonder, then, that this is the same society that leads the world in producing serial killers? When those who get what they want at all costs are glorified, we should expect no less.

The chief difference between a career politician and a serial killer is that a career politician knows how to get what they want without openly breaking the law; if anything, serial killers are far less of a danger to society because they more likely to be stopped before they kill too many people. A politician can kill millions with the stroke of a pen, and it's all perfectly legal.

Thus we end up with a cadre of people with very little concern for the safety and wellbeing of their constituents, but a keen understanding of how to win votes and avoid prison. They will go to great lengths to make it look as if they are standing up for what is right, even if they have to invent some new evil by way of moral panic to look like they have a cause; they invent monsters in order to slay them. While children die of preventable diseases in our own country, the people who could make a difference go fighting invented evils.

Those who find a way into this caste seldom leave. A cross-section of American politics shows names and faces that have been involved as far back as the days of Reagan, Nixon, or even Kennedy. These same names and faces keep reappearing year after year, finding a new niche and resettling in a different arrangement until at last they die of old age, having not held a job outside the Beltway since the days when a house cost $6,000.

There is scarcely a good thing to be said about career politicians in America; it is a damaging practice and a bad example for our culture. And yet, there is also no will for reform.

22

We could limit terms for the congress, but that would have to be voted upon by the congress themselves.

We could require everyone to run for congress once in their lives, but who would vote for such a law? Anyone even suggesting such a thing would be put down as infringing on freedom of choice, and the egos of those who fear being obligated to serve their country would be stroked frantically.

The practice of allowing career politicians will probably continue, and these same stale cold war politics, narrow-minded manipulators, and sociopathic values will continue to rot the nation from the inside until there is nothing left.

Government contracts and sweetheart deals

The turbulent years of the Bush administration brought to light the problems inherent in government contracts. It became readily apparent that some companies were not only very nearly inseparable from the government (such as Blackwater/Xe and Halliburton), but that they had less accountability than the government. The exact number of summary executions carried out by Blackwater guards in all parts of the world on behalf of our military is still a mystery, and they will in all likelihood never be tried for their crimes.

Government contracts are also ridiculous popularity contests. The government will hand down ridiculously-long, often contradictory specifications for machinery, then award a contract worth hundreds of millions of dollars to buy machinery that doesn't even meet those specifications because it's from a company that they trust.

And where does the wise management of resources go during all this? Right down the $10,000 toilet. Part of the reason our foreign wars have been so expensive is the large amount of military-spec equipment purchased from exclusive contractors, that has to be different from anything on the civilian market as a matter of policy.

It would be much more lucrative for the government to produce its own machinery, but it is standing policy for the U.S. Government to not become involved in manufacturing. Therein lies a fundamental weakness with our nation's defenses; we are reliant on companies- many of whom rely on expensive government bailouts to stay alive- to provide the necessary arms, vehicles, tools, and shelters used by our troops.

Once again, the will for reform is simply absent. There is no impetus to rewrite the laws to allow the government to purchase civilian equipment. The national obsession with stamping out anything vaguely resembling socialism makes sure that the laws keeping the government from producing its own materials are never repealed. The public does not consider these issues to be important enough to exert demand, and the companies that provide these products and services are frequently owned by friends and family of politicians.

Media Influence on Policy

Here is a problem that has driven reformers and civil rights advocates mad: what can you do

23

about the undue influence the media has over political campaigns?

News stations are under no legal obligation to be honest, to present the facts in an unbiased manner, or to clearly disclaim op-ed as non-factual. They are prone to trends and memes and will often fixate on whatever bandwagon generates the greatest controversy to spawn better ratings.

The resulting level of public disinformation is disheartening, to say the least. To hear the media tell it, pushers are selling drugs to grade schoolers, anyone can go out and buy a machine gun loaded with armor-piercing rounds without a permit, Obama was born in Africa, Israel never once hurt a Palestinian who didn't deserve it, and the American Family Association isn't an influence-mongering hate group at all but a serious research institute worthy of citing.

I consider this to be, at its heart, a cultural problem. The for-profit media lies because outrage sells; the lies they tell, which appeal to backward sensibilities, are only told because a large part of the country is already perfectly willing to believe them. But the net result is an echo chamber where our most crass and paranoid citizens will inevitably find validation for their ideas, gain credence, and band together to create a flood tide of reactionary thinking.

For this reason I cite the media as a negative influence on politics, not because they are intrinsically bad, but because they have become an amoral entity that perpetuates misconceptions and humors popular delusions in the name of profit. Shy of stricter definitions of what constitutes “fraud” and “deceit,” there is little that can be done with the present framework. It is a problem deeply embedded with the political culture of the US.

The Police State

One phenomenon that has been accelerated by our reactionary media is the disturbing growth of the police state over the last 40 years.

The media generates a public outcry that crimes- both real and imagined- are spiraling out of control. Politicians respond by spending more on police patrols, toughening sentencing laws, and increasing the number of crimes that can be committed. Not surprisingly, it isn't enough.

Soon they begin resorting to more dire measures, exploiting every loophole available under the constitution and the law and- in some instances- even violating their own laws and constitution.

It is a little-known fact that the US constitution does not contain any protection against confessions obtained under duress, torture, or by deception. There are state and federal laws that limit the practices somewhat, but they are frequently ignored.

Part of police training is to put as much strain on a suspect as possible to get them to talk, by whatever means are allowed. Under the Bush administration, torture became admissible evidence (and has been used to re-try and re-convict several members of the Black Panther movement for crimes committed nearly 50 years ago).

This means if you are suspected of a crime, even if you are innocent, you can be brought into the police station, questioned for hours on end without sleep, possibly tasered, and told that your

24

supposed accomplice has ratted you out even when they haven't. Then, when you finally tell them what they want to hear after 17 hours of interrogations just to get them to stop, you can be tried and convicted on that confession.

What's more, police forces everywhere have been given more leeway in how they use and interpret your rights. Due to a recent Supreme Court decision, if you choose to use your right to remain silent, you now must explicitly state that you will only speak through an attorney or it will be assumed, by default, that you can be questioned. This, despite more than 50 years of legal precedent for the Miranda Rights to be treated as rights exercised implicitly once they have been read.

But it doesn't stop at simply bending the existing rules and getting creative with the law; the courts have now begun awarding the police special rights not afforded to citizens.

At least three states- Massachusetts, Maryland, and Illinois- now have legal precedents that forbid citizens from taking video of police abuse. What is singular about these cases is that, unlike the wiretapping and surveillance laws that they supposedly uphold, these laws also apply to places like public highways where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. In other words, in some states, you can shoot video of any motorist on a highway, except the police.

The bottom line, of course, has nothing to do with privacy; it was made as a response to a rash of videos showing police being abusive toward citizens (just type “police brutality” or “abusive cop” into a video site like YouTube and see how many videos come up). With no video evidence to embarrass police forces, the police can now be as abusive as they want without repercussions.

Local and state authorities aren't alone in takign on sweeping new powers. In the last decade, the Federal government- already embroiled in some questionable actions- has become increasingly brazen in its abject contempt for due process.

In the name of fighting terrorism, some of the most openly hostile rhetoric and legislation against freedom and due process have gushed forth from the back rooms of the nation's capital.

The so-called “global war on terror” is a frightening thing if you look at it because of what it stands for. Just the name itself is a carte blanche for the government to do anything. Take the first word, “global,” for instance. This means the government has declared every inch of the earth a battlefield, and will not hesitate to treat it as such, for whatever ends it desires. Everywhere from the Taliban strongholds of the Afghan border to a little league baseball diamond in rural Iowa can now be considered a part of the battlefield; there is no “home front” any more.

Now consider the word “war.” Because it is considered and treated as a war- even if it is not officially declared- it expands the limits of what the government can do. In a time of war, for instance, the government can order the summary execution of American citizens on the battlefield and, as the courts have stated, that battlefield can be anywhere, even in their own bedrooms. The word “war” that leaves no question that hostilities are beyond reconciliation, and that only a series of strategic victories leading to either surrender or annihilation can bring about resolution.

This last point is troubling when you consider the last key word in this phrase, “terror.” Generally, it is not “islamist terror cells,” “terrorists,” or even “terrorism” that is spoken of. It is

25

“terror,” an ill-defined and abstract phenomenon. What we have, essentially, is a declaration by our government that they have the right to fight shadows and abstract ideas, and kill anyone they consider a problem in the process. It is, in a manner of speaking, a government's ill-defined war on its own citizens.

Of course, the phrase “global war on terror” has since begun to fade from use. Bush began calling it “The Long War” toward the end of his term (another disturbingly vague phrase), and Obama would rather not refer to it by name at all. And yet, if you look at the policies involved, you see a continuum- not just starting with Bush and continuing with Obama, but stretching back at least as far as Nixon and the Cold War.

Our government has become so incredibly hostile to due process and aching for some semantic relief from the rights of the accused, but that they have become so open about it and the people- by far and large- are complacent. There is no shred of outrage left in the average American, and many still cling to the idea that the world suddenly changed back in 2001 and that it has to be this way.

The Disastrous “War on Drugs”

Much the same could be said about the disastrous “war on drugs,” which has been waged for far longer than the war on due process and has, in the long run, done more harm to date.

There is a sector of the population- most likely a minority- who understand that the drug war has been an expensive farce and cost us valuable financial and human resources, but there is an even smaller minority who actually care enough to demand action. Those who actively try to rally support for such measures as legalizing cannabis and offering policy alternatives to the war on drugs routinely get shouted down by the media, government, law enforcement, and a chorus of their loyal followers.

To them, the billions of dollars we spend on DEA raids, harassing addicts, and aiding foreign governments to destroy small portions of crops like Opium and Coca makes more sense than using that money to rebuild our failing education system. To them, giving someone a criminal record for the rest of their lives for having just an ounce of marijuana is “justice.” To them, we're somehow doing society a favor and protecting their children, even if their children probably don't have the money to buy drugs in the first place.

The level of insanity behind the drones who put their full force behind the war on drugs is difficult to comprehend. Former L.A. Police chief Darryl Gates, who founded the anti-drug program D.A.R.E., once testified before congress that every recreational drug user should be shot as traitors.

This has a similar ring to policies enacted by Maoist China against opium users, and while Gates later retracted his statement as hyperbole, his dismal record on civil rights as chief of police during the Rodney King era is well known. Later in life, Gates went on to work with companies that specialized in electronic surveillance, and worked tirelessly to build the American police state until his death in 2010.

Up until the twentieth century, it was generally believed that the constitution protected one's right to ingest whatever substance they chose, and to manufacture and use it for their own use. It was only after campaigns tainted by racism, sanctimonious religious fervor, and paranoid paternalism that

26

the idea became accepted that the government existed to protect people from themselves. By the 1970s, Nixon- ever paranoid that hippies were somehow out to get him- gave the government sweeping powers of arrest, search, and seizure, and the “war on drugs” was born.

And what of those countries who allow or tolerate that alleged evil-of-evils, marijuana? The Netherlands has a much lower murder rate than the U.S. Spain- where it is legal to grow your own for personal use- also has relatively low rates of violent crime and a high standard of living. The UK, where simple possession is no longer an arrestable offense, has higher test scores for schoolchildren, a relatively low murder rate, and up until the economic crash of 2008 (which, I'm happy to say, can't be blamed on marijuana) had fairly low unemployment rates. This is hardly the picture of societies coming apart at the seams that we've been sold.

The war on drugs is a known failure, but a failure that the US government persists with. It should not be low on our list of grievances.

The Criminal “Justice” System

Those who are arrested in this country routinely find themselves- along with millions of others- being processed by a court system that fudges evidence. They are often faced with the prospect of not being able to afford good legal counsel and being pressured into a plea bargain, and imprisoned in environments where they routinely mix with rapists, murderers, gang members, and other hardened criminals.

They are given long sentences- which get longer by the year thanks to increasingly stringent sentencing laws in the name of being “tough on crime”- and if they ever get out, chances are they will end up back in prison because after a decade or two in the state-run crime academy that is an American prison, a first-time offender will become unable to function outside of a prison environment.

It is a system given names with a ring of snide derision, like “corrections” and “justice.” In reality, it is nothing more than a holding pen where people who have run afoul of the law can be kept out of sight, out of mind, for as long as is legally feasible.

Perhaps most disturbing of all is the culture that has led to this situation. There is no longer a belief in reform; the American people increasingly believe that criminals are simply “bad people” who have to be put away somewhere, that reform is impossible, and that those who commit a crime have lost their humanity.

It is not a system of “corrections” or “justice,” but a system of state-sponsored revenge, fueled on populist fervor and funded by overzealous politicians eager to make their mark as being “tough on crime.”

Capital Punishment

Perhaps nothing is a greater expression of state-sponsored revenge than the institute of capital punishment. In countries such as North Korea, China, and Iran, it is the will of the state and the tyranny of the few that keeps the executions flowing; In the US, it is the will of the people and the tyranny of the majority.

27

Most Americans aren't the least bit bothered by the fact that the US shares company with nations like Iran, rather than with most Western democracies, in keeping capital punishment on the books; they pride themselves on that age-old, tired moniker of being “tough on crime.” For many, capital punishment is the expression of divine law; for others, it is a good, socially-acceptable outlet for bloodlust.

It cannot be said without serious debate that the methods of execution are exceptionally cruel; after all, twenty years in an American prison implies far more suffering than a twenty second lethal injection. Even hanging- still practiced up until the 1990s in some states- can be completely painless if done correctly.

The real heart of the problem is not a question of whether or not executions themselves cause undue suffering; the problem is that capital punishment has no real functional purpose or rational basis. The mindset behind capital punishment assumes that a murderer is either incapable of reform or unworthy of redemption. It is an implicit statement that they have no remaining value as human beings, a thought that ought to be rejected by believers in individual rights.

This is to say nothing of the distressing numbers of cases where the innocent have been sentenced to death, even in modern times, based on less-than-credible evidence (as in the case of Troy Davis). To keep the death penalty assumes that there is no “reasonable shadow of a doubt” in these cases; in reality, there is always a reasonable shadow of a doubt, and whether or not a judge finds that should be of no consequence.

There are studies that supposedly support the practice of capital punishment as a deterrent, making glowing claims about how many lives each execution supposedly saves. These studies, of course, conveniently overlook that the two states that perform the most executions- Texas and Virginia- have significantly higher murder rates than states like Vermont and Alaska that have no death penalty statute (thanks to www.deathpenaltyinfo.org for this information).

The deterrent factor- even if true- does not justify the practice. Such an argument could be taken to its logical extreme to justify turning non-violent crimes into capital offenses in the vain hope of deterring crime. This happened in 19th century England and could easily happen again in the US if the current state of things continues its slide into chaos.

Another problem with capital punishment is that it implies a lengthy appeals and detention process. In order to execute one prisoner, millions must be spent to transport, house, feed, clothe, and hear innumerable court cases testing the validity of a death sentence. While a murderer in Sweden or France might have been released and successfully reintegrated after 20 years for a fraction of the cost, a murderer in Alabama might still be appealing a death sentence. Some people who have no problem with the war on due process would rather simply get rid of the appeals process altogether; but then one finds a scenario where there is no appeal for someone who is, in fact, innocent.

That is where we find the final major flaw with capital punishment: it is a practice most at home in a despotic regime. A despot may need a quick and dirty deterrent, but they have no need for the niceties of appeals and due process. In fact, capital punishment is done with great efficiency in nations that do not care about the rights of their people. If capital punishment continues to be an option in the

28

US, and if due process remains under sustained attack from new legislation, it should be a foregone conclusion that one day very soon, political dissidents in the US will be lined up against a wall and shot without trial.

When all the facts are considered, there really is no rational basis for the death penalty. It is a drain on resources, a tumor of needless bureaucracy on our courts, a relic of a pre-industrial age that clings tiresomely to modern times, and the likelihood of its abuse by the state to silence people of interest is simply too great. It has no place outside a despotic regime that can execute its citizens without appeal or scruples, and serves no good purpose except as morbid satisfaction for a culture with a failing grasp of the value of human life.

Education

Few institutions in America are as beleaguered, second-guessed, underfunded, and derided as our public school system.

But, as John F. Kennedy once said, “Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain.”

Some politicians want to inject religious discussion into the curriculum and oppose or minimize any lessons that contradict their narrow worldviews. Other politicians want to slash funding for the public schools and make private school vouchers the norm.

Still others want to do away with public schools entirely, believing in the laissez-faire pipe dream of the private sector always knowing best (or, perhaps, they have a secret agenda to turn America in to a third world country where only a small wealthy caste has an education and the rest of us eat dirt; it would certainly seem that way at times).

Whatever the case, we can be sure that billions of dollars we could have used toward building a public education system to be the envy of the world is instead being siphoned into the hands of DEA agents, corrupt politicians (at home and abroad), private military contractors, covert projects, earmarks, and questionable budget proposals.

Here's a novel idea: why don't we build more schools instead of prisons? Why don't we buy more school buses instead of tanks? Why don't we buy more textbooks instead of greasing the palms of Afghan warlords? If we could end our embroilment in endless wars and disastrous justice policies, we could raise a generation that was smart enough to avoid such conflicts in the future.

But we could do even better. Why not have curricula written by educators rather than parent groups and legislators? Why don't we teach the children what works when it comes to things like contraception and natural history, instead of trying to sell them on an agenda to protect them from themselves?

Why not have the entire system set to the highest academic standards, run by the preeminent experts in the field of education? Why don't we adopt ideas that have worked in other countries, like longer school years and school days? Why don't we expand vocational and artistic programs within grades K-12?

29

We don't do it because there is no drive to do it. Our politicians have their agendas, and providing a free, public, and quality education to our nation's children isn't part of it. They have found the perfect populist vehicles for lessening the demand for education reform in laissez-faire fantasies and perpetual deficits.

Keeping an increasingly ignorant, poorly-educated public in the thrall of moral panics and a steady diet of fear, however, is par for the course.

Infrastructure

America's infrastructure is beginning to show signs of age, neglect, and decay.

Take a ride down the highways in some of the poorer states, such as South Carolina. You'll see weeds growing into the emergency lanes and between the expansion joints in the freeways, medians that haven't been mowed in months, guard rails that have been hit but not repaired, and bridges that sag alarmingly in the middle.

A lot of it has to do with the building and maintenance contracts the state and federal governments use. These private companies often overcharge for their labor, and often have an unspoken monopoly in the regions where they operate. Ostensibly open public works bids are often foregone conclusions as companies owned by relatives and friends of politicians get the contracts. When these companies do get the contracts, the work they perform is often below standards, over budget, and late to be completed.

Some of it has to do with the sheer lack of public works funds. Much of the money that could be spent rebuilding schools, roads, and power plants here is instead being used to build schools, roads, and power plants in places we bombed a few years ago. Every road that is resurfaced in Kabul is one less road in Biloxi or Detroit that could be resurfaced; every power plant in Baghdad is one less power plant in rural Oklahoma.

Our crumbling infrastructure is one of the most visible signs of our country's misadventures in fighting wars we can't win. Only a few years ago, the roads, bridges, and public buildings were in noticeably better condition.

This is to say nothing of the dismally bad condition of our nation's power grid. It is overburdened and underfunded, the current plants aren't nearly enough to meet demand, and the current grid lacks the redundancy to avert a catastrophe if a major line is taken out by accident or by sabotage.

Water management, meanwhile, is relegated largely to state and local authorities. If water reserves for a major metropolitan area were to become contaminated, or their treatment facilities were to become disabled, there would be no plan in place to route water resources from elsewhere in the nation, and no nationwide network of water pipes to move water from one place to another.

Poor infrastructure also poses potentially lethal strategic problems for defending the homeland against invasion and air strikes. If certain weak points in the US power grid and Interstate highway system are taken out, it could leave the country deeply vulnerable; however, the lack of redundancy and

30

resilience to such attacks is neither being addressed, nor widely discussed as an issue of national security.

The lack of funding, resilience, and organization in our infrastructure has left the country weak and unable to cope with the demands of everyday life, let alone national emergencies. Even so, the risk is downplayed by both the government and media, and the political will, as with so many things, is simply not there to effect change.

31

Energy and Environmental Policy

Few things highlight America's vulnerabilities like our government's policies on energy and the environment. If anything has endangered this country more than war, terrorism, economic turmoil, and divisive politics, it has been the way we continue to squander natural resources.

It is true that our environmental policy has not been as disastrous as that of Russia, China, or Brazil, who continue mass campaigns of deforestation, contamination, and runaway development.

That being said, the environment is generally low on the list for most elected officials. They consider it a “fringe issue” and for the most part, do their best to either make some token gesture, or try to paint environmentalist as part of some vast left-wing conspiracy.

When environmental laws are passed, those who suffer the most usually aren't the most flagrant violators- large multinational industries that dump millions of gallons of toxic waste a year- but small companies that might put out a fraction as much harmful waste. While large companies continue to quite openly rape the environment, small companies often find themselves being forced out of business.

This, in turn, is only cited by the right wing as “proof” of their stance that environmental laws are just an excuse to attack businesses. Rather than create ways to help businesses restructure and pay for compliance with new laws, they seek to gut the laws until they do nothing, and prevent new laws from being passed.

Conservative pundits will elaborate further, claiming that environmental science is a fraud and that industrial pollution, global warming, and the endangerment of species and environments are all myths perpetrated by a shadowy communist underground. These conspiracy theories, of course, are widely believed well outside the conservative fringe.

Then there's the question of energy and resource conservation. It seems any talk of reducing consumption is anathema in Washington. Voters want a government that tells them it's okay to be greedy, even at the cost of exhausting resources. They want their tchotchkes, and they're going to vote for whoever lets them have their comfort objects.

They're rendered docile and submissive by creature comforts; they become infantile, lashing out at anyone who they perceive as trying to take their comfort objects away. The culture has thus become one where conspicuous consumption is not only embraced, but treated with the esteem of a moral duty. People who drive more efficient vehicles, take care to reduce waste, or use recycled products, are marginalized as “smug” or “pious” by the media.

All the while, where does this lead us? Oil producing nations tend to try to keep us on their side because we're one of their biggest customers, but this has forced us to support brutal regimes like Saudi Arabia that still think it's a good idea to behead someone with a sword in the public square.

And yet, paradoxically, we look the other way when it's the Saudis, while pointing a finger at Iran for doing essentially the same thing. The only real difference is that Exxon can't set up an office in Tehran; the difference between our “enemies” and “allies” is paper-thin.

32

People, of course, have started to become aware of this fact, so the latest red herring out of Washington is “reducing dependence on foreign oil.” It's usually used as a pretext to drill in the Gulf of Mexico and the arctic regions of Alaska.

There are just a few fundamental problems with this.

First, the ANWR does not have the amount of oil the Bush government had claimed. In fact, according to the US department of energy, less than 2% of the world's oil supply would come from the arctic reserves. The supply would be exhausted sooner than anticipated, and it would not have an appreciable impact on world oil prices, no matter how many times the Tea Party chants their magical catechism, “Drill Baby Drill.”

Second, oil is a fungible commodity. When oil is put into circulation, it is mixed with barrels of crude from across the globe. Our cars run on oil from nearly every oil-producing country, including Iran. So with only 1% of that oil coming from the arctic, the net effect to middle eastern oil production would be so miniscule as to go unnoticed in the Persian Gulf.

It should be noted that the same politicians pushing for drilling operations in the arctic have absolutely no plans for restricting foreign oil imports. And why should they? If the oil barons of the Middle East aren't happy, their friends in our government aren't happy either.

The only reasonable solution is to reduce our dependence on oil altogether, but the government and media remain mum on this fact, and the people, by far and large, are kept in the dark.

33

Part 2: The Vision

Introduction

Now that we have covered, in detail, what is wrong with the country, the next question is what do we intend to do about it?

No free state can be born without vision; otherwise we would create only an ideological void into which anyone could toss their worst ideas. In that case, the entire exercise of independence would be in vain, and our fledgling republic would become subject to the same problems we wish to avoid.

The vision set forth here should not be the final word. In fact, there should be many more visions like this one, all thought out and considered for their merits. The more ideas are brought to the table, the better the end result will be.

What must remain consistent is the willingness to consider new, untried ideas. They should never be dismissed offhand simply because they haven't been tried before; rather, they should only be dismissed if, after lengthy debate, they simply prove unworkable.

To that end, in forming a republic such as this one, the question of “why not?” is no longer merely a rhetorical question; it must be asked with sincerity, debated, and addressed methodically, and applied to even the most audacious ideas.

34

Foreign Policy

A good foreign policy is essential to the survival of a free and stable republic, but it is one of the most harrowing balancing acts any person or group can perform.

We must acknowledge ourselves as part of the world without surrendering to a will that is not our own.

We must be peaceable neighbors without surrendering to constant bullying by more powerful nations.

We must be willing to trade for things we don't have, while not glutting the market with imports we don't need.

Most importantly- and most difficult- of all, we must be able to assert ourselves as a sovereign entity without falling into the trap of mindless nationalism.

Our ability to craft a good and reasonable foreign policy will go a long way toward ensuring the peace and stability of Cascadia for future generations.

Good Relations to the U.S.

It would be foolish to take on the United States as an enemy; although weakened by years of conflict and mismanagement, the US can still do damage to any nations it deems “rogue states.” We should make it clear from the start that we want a peaceful separation from this country, and that we want to maintain open trade and communications for American products and media.

That being said, we should not take any abuse of our good will by the US government lightly, and we should not allow ourselves to be bullied. We will allow certain concessions to help ease relations, but never at our expense. We will still choose our own allies, pass our own laws, and assert our own cultural sovereignty, and we will not accept sanctions for those actions which sustain us as a nation.

A Cool Head Toward the UN

The United Nations can be a friend or they can be an enemy. They may help us with becoming legitimized as a new state, but they may exert tremendous pressure upon us.

On the one hand, the UN has made great strides toward pressuring the world into marginalizing the death penalty and torture; on the other hand, they have emboldened the global war on drugs, which has led to the deaths, arrests, and torture of millions worldwide.

On the one hand, they have provided much-needed aid to places hit by natural disasters, such as the tsunami-ravaged shores of southeast Asia a few years ago; on the other hand, they have largely ignored large parts of East Africa hit by famine, war, and genocide.

We should not view the UN, then, as entirely an enemy, nor entirely an ally; we should view

35

them as an organization with both positive attributes, and real faults, and tailor our relations to them accordingly. We must work with them when we believe the outcome will be positive, but we must never allow ourselves to become entangled in any agreement, treaty, or action that goes plainly against Cascadian interests. We must be willing to respectfully disagree and abstain from things we have no business being involved in.

Non-Aggression

In cases where we are not directly threatened, military action would be ill-advised. The most stable nations on earth- among them Switzerland and the UAE- maintain their stability by adhering to policies of non-aggression and neutrality in external conflicts.

The rewards are clear: these nations attract investors from across the globe because their money is safe in such an environment. Swiss banks are less likely to collapse than American, British, or French banks because the US, Britain, and France are all embroiled, to some degree, in foreign conflict.

In any case, we should not allow international pressure- including media spin from the trigger-happy US media- to push us into attacking another nation that does not threaten us directly. We should not allow ourselves to be told what other countries we are to defend or invade on behalf of a third party. Our military will exist for the sole purpose of fending off an invasion, and will be specialized to that task and that task alone.

Reciprocity

Treaties, agreements, and accords can be good, but only if all parties concerned honor their end and no party accepts a greater burden in the negotiations.

We should thus be extremely choosy in which treaties we sign and how we enforce them; no treaty that would put us at a disadvantage should ever be put to the pen.

Particularly in trade agreements, no nation should allow any other nation to dump cheap imports at its ports while not being given the same advantage. This is poison to a domestic economy; imports must be regulated with a domestic interest in mind.

We should harbor no hostility to any nation, but we will give no nation an opening to influence our affairs more than we can influence them internally.

36

Economy and Fiscal Policy

A Mixed Economy

Unlike the US, which has for decades grappled with its socioeconomic identity as either a laissez-faire or a mixed economy, Cascadia should be a mixed economy from the start, both in intention and in explicit mission.

Some of the most successful economies in the world have been mixed economies. While unregulated capitalism begets feuding oligarchies such as Renaissance Venice, and over-regulated economies grow stale and inefficient like the Soviet Union, a system of moderate regulations and rules has produced stable economies such as those of Switzerland and Sweden.

For those sectors most vital to the survival of a nation- among them manufacturing, communications, and health care- it only makes sense that we allow the government to produce for itself and for any future social programs rather than relying on the private sector.

There should be public hospitals for government employees, legislators, and the very poor; there should be government factories to produce tools and vehicles for the military, the postal service, and other agencies. The government should also have a voice in the media to state its position on issues.

Private companies, meanwhile, would be under no obligation to produce anything for the government, or to participate in any social program. Private media outlets would have no obligation to defend the government. The only obligations privately-held companies should have would be to uphold regulations and acceptable standards in trade, labor, production, environmental protection, and finances, and to pay such taxes as are required of them.

Leaving market forces to care for the economy is like leaving your child at home with the doors unlocked, and assuming anyone who has the nerve to walk into the house has good intentions. But regulation must also be smart, and no heavier than it has to be. Punitive taxes and regulations that impose needless restrictions to spite certain people have no part in a good mixed economy.

Our challenge will be to strike the balance between allowing for generous growth and for creating a sustainable system that is less vulnerable than the caprices of the global market.

Policies focused on the long term

One of the biggest problems in both business and politics in America today is the short-sightedness of it all. Both politicians and CEOs are focused on getting results within the next quarter or fiscal year, and will perform whatever actions are expedient.

The result is not surprising. A senator gets elected, introduces a poisonous bill that gets shareholders' hopes up, and for a time, a few thousand jobs get created. Never mind that this hypothetical bill actually creates a false sense of security that causes a catastrophic crash years down the road (as was the case with many of the Bush policies).

37

Our nation should plan for the long-term, with policies tailored to get the best results over years and decades, not months and quarters.

No Special Trade Deals

The failure of the so-called “global marketplace” as an economic and humanitarian disaster should speak for itself. If a developed, established economy such as the US can take such hard hits when competing with sweat shops abroad, what hope does a fledgling republic have?

We can keep tariffs low on certain products until such time as we can produce them domestically, but we cannot afford to give any one country lower tariffs than the others. That is an open invitation to subjugation and dependence. All imports should be taxed according to whether or not they are necessary to import in the first place.

Labor Relations Important

One of America's biggest blunders has been the dysfunctional relationship between labor and management. No nation can hope to have a functional industrial sector if the management can mistreat their labor at will, or the worker can make unreasonable demands on the management. Only positive steps to mend the age-old rift between the workers and employers can create a harmonious society.

First, all workers should be given the right to organize. Without this fundamental right, employers have little incentive to offer non-union workers good wages. However, when labor unions are formed, there should be guidelines to limit their demands within reason.

A set of guidelines outlining what wages, protections, and benefits should be reasonably expected in a given industry should be written into law.

Ultimately, if the extant laws are not enough to solve a dispute, labor disputes should be settled in court, not by a judge alone but by a jury of citizens. In this way, no single person can unilaterally declare a union's demands “unreasonable.”

If the potential for abuse is mitigated and all parties are held to legally-enshrined standards of conduct, organized labor can become an engine for positive social change.

Government Factories for Government Contracts

To minimize the risk of losing domestic capacity to produce items for the government, and to save billions on costly subsidies to private companies, all industries that are vital to the country's infrastructure- such as military hardware, motor vehicles, construction, and finance- should have a parallel concern run by and for the government already in place. If necessary, the government should be able to buy out a failing private company in order to gain tooling, assets, and personnel.

These public entities will be forbidden from competing commercially. The only access any citizen should have to these products or services will be through military service or social programs. The government factories will exist primarily to meet the needs of our government, and will generate additional revenue by exporting products to foreign markets.

38

These government factories will also provide a relatively stable source of jobs that will be more recession-proof than those of consumer-driven private companies. The potential is there to employ a large percentage of the population in the business of running a government which, in a small enough nation, would have a very positive effect on the general welfare of our citizens.

By not relying entirely on the private sector and foreign imports for military and civil hardware, our government will save money by not having to resuscitate ailing private companies.

This practice will do more than simply alleviate financial pressures associated with subsidies and bailouts, however; it will also allow us to reduce the influence of war profiteers and the military-industrial complex on our policy. So long as the majority of military hardware is made in state-run factories, there is no profit motive for war.

We should always observe a sharp division between the public and private sectors, and never allow any company to pressure our government into buying something they don't need, or creating a demand for their services.

Personal Imports

While standards for commercially-imported goods should be equal to those for goods produced domestically, the standards for private imports for personal use should be considerably more relaxed.

For instance, when it comes to vehicles, the US often shuts out some of the best, most efficient, and least-polluting vehicles in the world simply because no one has ever bothered submitting them to NHTSA tests. It doesn't matter if many of Europe's best sub-compacts do better in the Euro-NCAP than many American cars; because they haven't met NHTSA's specific standards, they can't even be imported for personal use.

For commercial imports, we should have a system of crash test and emissions test equivalency tables to choose which standards we will accept; for private imports, we should allow any vehicle that can meet our emissions test at its port of entry and has basic road equipment, such as signal lights and seat belts.

The lax restrictions on personal imports shouldn't be limited to vehicles, however. It should include items from countries that, for whatever reason, we do not deal with directly.

If someone wants to import cannabis, coca, or other substances for personal use, they should be allowed to. As long as they're not selling the product commercially, it's their business what they do in their own homes. We should have reasonable limits on how much can be imported at one time, but it any amount less than one ounce should be allowed.

This will put a serious dent in the illicit narcotics trade; who's going to pay $200 an ounce for marijuana when they can grow it at home with seeds they legally imported from Amsterdam? With the narcotics trade weakened, the criminal underworld will shrivel and crime rates will plummet. Millions in dollars in funding will be cut off to terrorist organizations, and many hostile governments will find themselves without a source of revenue.

39

About the only thing that needs to be regulated strictly is the import and export of live plants and animals. We should be vigilant not only against the illicit trade in endangered species, but against the introduction of pathogens into the Cascadian ecosystem.

By making generous allowances for personal imports, we can ultimately make an investment in national security by destroying black markets and cutting off funding to hostile powers.

With a few exceptions, what you carry home in your suitcase should be your own business.

No Corporate Personhood

Imagine a court case involving two people. One of these people could be in only one place at a time, could only handle a few tasks at once, and could only live to be 100 years old at the very most; the other person could be in many places at one time, could handle thousands of tasks at once, and could live 150 years or more. Who do you think is going to win in court?

Cascadia should have the discretion to differentiate between one person and a large collective of people; US law has no such distinction.

US law wasn't always like this; up until the 1870s, corporations weren't treated like individuals. It wasn't until the railroads successfully lobbied congress that they were given the status of personhood.

Given how many innocent men, women, and children were killed by and for the railroads (particularly Native Americans killed in summary executions by U.S. Government cavalrymen at the behest of the railroads), I think it's fair to say that this entire concept has been a disaster from the start.

This is to say nothing of all the innocents murdered by companies like Brown & Root, Blackwater/Xe, and on behalf of companies like Halliburton. Because the exact records of these companies and their employees are protected as an individual's right to privacy, there is almost no oversight of their actions even when they have worked on behalf of our government.

Corporate personhood is a bad idea conceived for all the wrong reasons. No reasonable society should want or need it.

Experiment in Alternatives to Interest

At one time, it was unheard of in both Europe and the Middle East to charge interest on loans. In fact, until Henry VIII's creditors wanted something in return for helping build his navy, practically no one in Europe considered “usury” to be a good idea.

Far from grinding to a halt, however, both Europe and the various caliphates of the Middle East had thriving economies, based in part on the real-market value of goods, and in part on the objective availability of currencies.

It should be no surprise, then, that medieval Europe and Persia never had massive economic crashes. Markets were solid because they weren't based primarily on flimsy things like speculation and

40

secondary profits from lending.

When we sit down to forge our monetary policy, this should be the first thing we consider. Our mission is to create a nation that is stable, that has learned from the tragic lesson of the United States, and that is not prone to the same vulnerabilities.

An interest-free economy, or one where interest, inflation, and speculation are handled in a different way, should be a serious option to consider.

Taxation

Taxation should be simple and straightforward.

Besides small taxes for large tracts of land or for vehicle licensing, taxation should be limited largely to income tax. Even sales tax should be reduced or even done away with entirely.

The rate will be a low, flat percentage of all incomes. Only those making less than what constitutes a living wage (for the sake of argument, let's say $12,000 US for a single person and $27,000 US for a couple with one child) would be exempt.

All types of income should be taxed at the same rates. This would include capital gains, inheritance, commissions, lottery winnings, and self-employment. However, there should be as few exemptions as possible so that the net revenue we collect will be higher than if we had the many thousands of exemptions the US Tax Code observes.

With fewer tax shelters available, on the whole we might expect to collect more revenue at the lower tax rates as reporting would be more straightforward; the taxpayers either receive income, or don't, and it shouldn't matter how they come into that money as long as it's legal.

Many of the highest-earning Americans pay relatively little in taxes once they file write-offs for their Porsche SUV (because it's a “commercial vehicle”) and their $1M Palm Beach condo (because they do a token amount of work from home and it's “office space”). We can- and should- have more sense than that in forming our tax policy.

Even if the per capita revenue we collect is less than the amounts we would have collected under the US system, it would not be a substantial loss; by not blowing our fiscal budgets on military misadventures and corporate welfare, we simply won't need that kind of revenue.

Whether a low, flat rate of taxation will actually promote growth remains to be seen; it may have a modest effect, but it should not be counted on to promote growth on its own.

In times of war, we should necessarily raise taxes to cover the costs. In fact, a sharp raise in taxation for the wealthiest individuals should be expected in the event of any armed conflict. The net intent is not to declare a perpetual state of war so as to raise taxes on the wealthy permanently, but rather to discourage the rise of a caste of war profiteers who make a living buying, selling, and speculating on the implements and outcomes of war.

41

Property taxes should remain low. For residential properties under 20 acres, and commercial properties under 1 acre, there should be no property tax at all (a farm, for these purposes, would be a commercial property unless it is purely for the subsistence of its residents).

Landowners who purchase property at a low cost should pay their property taxes according to the price they paid, not its current value. If a property remains within the family by way of inheritance, the tax rates will remain the same. Only if a property is sold should a higher tax rate based on the actual current value of the property be assessed.

After all, there should be no reason why a family that has lived on a plot of land for generations should be forced to sell their grandfather's house because the taxes are higher than they were in his day, but in many places that happens all the time. Ultimately, this only plays into the hands of wealthy developers who can afford to snap up valuable land and keep up with the taxes, and you end up in a situation where most of the land ends up in the hands of a few wealthy land barons.

Tariffs on imports should be set as needed. Imported goods- particularly luxury items, but especially any and all goods imported from countries with notoriously cheap labor- should be taxed in a way that reflects not only their market value, but their potential impact on our economy.

42

Culture

Part of the reason for Cascadian separation is a certain spirit that sets this region apart from the rest of the world. The key to our success lies in not only identifying what these unique cultural attributes are, but in promoting and nurturing them as something positive.

Furthermore, promoting unity and reaching out to those who do not understand or agree with policy, rather than ignoring their questions or concerns, will build a stronger and more unified culture that stands a better chance of avoiding the deep divisions that plague the US today.

Free Expression

The free expression of our people- whether by personal statements in their lifestyle and appearance, or by any form of media- should be prized as a positive Cascadian value.

No city or municipality should make any law that dampens or restricts personal expression, as in the case of restrictive building codes that forbid certain colors, or prohibitively expensive and arbitrarily dismissed permits to hold public demonstrations. All public spaces- among them the parks and public thoroughfares- should be neutral grounds for expression.

This limitation of the government to regulate and license free speech should extend to the media, both in print and in radio and television. Unlike in the US, where only the wealthy can afford the exorbitant license fees to start a commercial radio station (and thus most are owned by large conglomerates), there should be no fees and no registration required to start a radio or television station. We should even reopen analog television bandwidths- currently banned in the US- for use by analog enthusiasts.

Amateur TV stations could become a popular hobby, and could liven up the air waves with new and exciting alternatives to corporate media.

The only role the government should have is to ensure that no one's rights are violated, whether they be from signal intrusion by rival stations, deliberate slander and fraud, or by intellectual property violations.

Furthermore, there should be greater freedom for those employed by certain companies or organizations. There have been a number of cases in the US where employees have been terminated for making statements that were neither made during work hours, nor relevant to the operations of the company they worked for.

We need laws that specifically protect the free speech of people off the clock; barring the disclosure of trade secrets that could damage the company, there should be no defense for punishing workers for speaking their minds on their own time, and companies who fire someone for statements made off the clock should have to prove that their interests were harmed.

We should also allow for some leniency in the fair and non-profit use of media. In particular, we need laws to define orphaned property and laws to define fair use and plagiarism as specifically as possible. This will not only protect copyright owners, but also protect consumers from frivolous

43

lawsuits.

Only those acts which blatantly violate the rights of others should be forbidden entirely. Among these are the usual crimes against person and property, such as theft, assault, murder, fraud, libel, and sexual exploitation; All other things have their place.

Fraud of any kind should never be tolerated. False advertising, bogus news reports, political ads which completely disregard the truth, and any other instance where the public is lied to en masse should be prosecuted aggressively.

By opening new avenues of opportunity to amateur broadcasters, eliminating speech-suppressing bureaucracy, and using common-sense legislation against fraud and the abuse of others' rights, we can create a flourishing culture where the arts and entertainment find untold opportunities to grow, and we will become a haven for amateur media.

Celebration of Intellectuals and the Arts

More than simply being a haven for artists, academics, experts, and achievers in the fields of science and technology, our nation should be a place where these people are celebrated.

From an early age, our school children (and their parents) should be taught the importance of a well-rounded education. Art, music, and science classes should be compulsory for grades K-12, and we should have schemes to help as many of our citizens as possible to achieve a Bachelor's degree or higher.

When our legislative or judicial body meets to make important decisions regarding policy, at least one academic expert in a field relevant to the discussion should be part of the debate; it makes no sense to make economic legislation without the help of an economist, or environmental legislation without the help of an environmental scientist.

In civil and criminal court cases, the provision of an expert witness for the defense should be the rule, not the exception, and should be subsidized.

In our code of laws, we should have provisions for the paid subpoena of expert opinions, and strict academic requirements for these people so as to screen out the numerous frauds and pseudo-experts that abound in the world today.

In our monuments, let us not limit ourselves to soldiers and statesmen, but also build monuments of equal splendor to the men and women of the arts and sciences. Parks, museums, and statues heralding our greatest achievements in science and technology would be best placed closest to our centers of government, where our national assembly and high court meet.

Let us bring the greatest minds from around the world to help us in our times of need, and let us reject no offer of advice until we have heard what they have to say.

Let Cascadia be, in all things, a tribute to and a product of the greatest in human achievement.

44

Religion as a Personal Choice

Whatever our personal feelings on religion, these should not steer our republic. That goes for everyone.

We should not have any official policy on religion; we should not even have a special status for religious organizations aside from those that perform charitable work, and by doing so we should relieve our government of any right or responsibility to say what is and is not a “real” religion.

Only in monuments to specific individuals, such as burial markers for veterans, should any recognition of religion be put forward. These references should reflect the convictions of the person being honored, and not any pretension of a collective religious identity.

Likewise, in any instance where an endorsement of religion might be incorrectly inferred, it should be the state's duty to explicitly disavow an official endorsement of religion and to reaffirm the freedom of conscience as an individual right.

Religious charities should be allowed to operate tax-free, but only if they focus their energies on helping people rather than influencing policy. These charities excel as a supplement to fill certain gaps in the social safety net, but should not be a surrogate for public assistance.

In general, only when a religious sect violates certain laws or an individual's rights- such as denying a child medical care, performing abuse or mutilations on people or animals, or encouraging violent acts against civilians- should the government interfere with their practices.

Likewise, someone whose religion requires them to proselytize should be allowed to do so in any public space, or in any private space where the owner has agreed to allow it. However, any bid to proselytize that interferes with the rights of others, disrupts the actions of a public agency, or amounts to disorderly conduct or harassment should not be tolerated.

There was one particular example in the US where an evangelical group sent hecklers to actively interfere with a gay pride parade, by physically resisting not only the progress of the parade, but the officers who moved them. When they were arrested and charged for their conduct, the Religious Right cried foul, saying it was their rights that had been trod on, and not the rights of the peaceful demonstrators.

We should never consider such an argument as valid. These counter-protestors had every right to demonstrate on the sidelines, hand out literature, shout slogans, wave signs, and even form their own counter-march.

Instead, they chose to interfere with someone else's demonstration and thus infringed upon their right to free speech; the validity of their claim to “oppression” ended when they chose to oppress someone else.

To that end, organizations whose intent is to press religious agendas on public policy (whether explicitly or by proxy) should not be allowed to operate in our nation. It is not contrary to anyone's individual rights; they still have the right to forbid their families or congregations from having

45

abortions or same-sex weddings, and they still have the right to raise their children to believe in whatever moral conviction they choose. They do not, however, have the right to lobby our government to impose theocratic rule.

We need safeguards in place to prevent organizations that press religious agendas on public policy from gaining power, and to keep certain people from outside Cascadia known for founding or being heavily involved in these organizations from entering the country.

The US is in something of a bind in trying to fight the influence of these organizations, in part because they are culturally entrenched. Whatever the true convictions of the founding fathers, they did use a Judeo-Christian lexicon, and there is no doubt about the religiosity of the American people in general. It is a hard sell to promote secular government in a country where the overtly-religious “Battle Hymn of the Republic” and “God Bless America” are two of the most popular patriotic songs.

We cannot allow that to happen to us. The people should be allowed to address their government for positive change, but not by means of religious special interest groups.

Let whatever church worship as they like, but let the public sphere remain a neutral ground from them. Our state will make no assumptions of being blessed by any deity, only that every citizen should acknowledge the divine in their own way without the government to say which way is the proper one.

Gender Equality and Variance Recognition

Cascadia should, furthermore, promote gender equality in all things. Any discrimination in hiring, housing, wages, or any other aspect of public life on the basis of gender should be punished severely.

In reporting an individual's gender for statistical or identification purposes, additional categories beyond “male” or “female” should be available for intersex, pre-operative transgender, or physically sexless people. Post-operative transgender individuals should be recognized rightly as their newly-assigned sex and given the same protections as any other gender group, and pre-operative transgender persons should be given the full dignity of protection under law.

Furthermore, people who are born physically intersexed should not be subjected to sexual assignment surgeries until they are old enough to decide for themselves. Depending on the psychological state of the child, this can vary widely; a family doctor and psychologist should discuss the matter with both the child and their parent/guardian before performing the operation, and the choice to remain permanently intersex should be a valid and legally viable option. No one should have their body mutilated simply to fit into one of two narrow categories that do not reflect biological reality.

Civil Unions for All

In the interest of keeping the church and state completely separate, marriages by religious groups should remain the domain of the respective churches that perform them, but the state should have no obligation to recognize them. Likewise, no religious organization should be compelled to perform a marriage that is against their organizational beliefs.

46

Rather, a broad civil union scheme, where all registered partnerships are given the exact same status, should be implemented. This civil union scheme would not only be open to any two adult human partners of any sex, but it would also be open to people who are not conjugally involved.

The advantage of this is that people who choose to remain single their entire lives will instead have the option of entrusting a close friend or confidante with their estate and care in the event of their death or disability. It will also allow citizens who are not currently in a civil union to sponsor friends to immigrate readily by declaring their union and obtaining a visa.

These unions would also have a minimum period of 10 years before they could be dissolved, unless ample evidence of physical abuse, imminent danger, fraud, or other criminal activity can be presented.

In particular, families with children should be obligated to remain in a union until a child reaches the age of majority (unless the child's wellbeing is threatened by the union). No child should be subjected to a divorce on the grounds of their parents' sexual incompatibility or petty disagreements.

These measures are intended to keep people from casually abusing the rights and privileges involved in the civil union scheme. If these restrictions are not put in place, a person could, for example, run a cottage industry of “marrying” immigrants long enough to get their citizenship, then divorcing them promptly and moving on to the next client.

This scheme would apply retroactively, and all ecclesiastical marriages performed in the old republic that were deemed legally binding would be grandfathered in; likewise, any marriage or union that is legally binding in another country should be recognized here.

If these suggestions are implemented, Cascadia would become one of the most socially advanced nations on the face of the earth. Few countries- even those with full rights for the LGBT community- offer official gender designations for the intersexed.

By letting nature define physical sex and by letting individuals define a valid union, we will create a society that will set a bold example for the entire world.

A True Post-Racial Society

The United States government relies heavily on data regarding race and ethnicity.

Is it any wonder, then, that the United States government- and its various states- have a dark and frustrating history with race relations that only seems to evolve to new types of inequity, rather than any real bid to achieve a truly civil society in which race is no longer an issue?

For Cascadia, I propose that the government no longer place any importance on race and ethnicity whatsoever. There should be no terminology, in official government documents, for “race,” nor should there be any discourse among official government agencies in terms of ethnic or subcultural groups defined by ancestry.

47

This will, I should hope, reduce the tendency of police, politicians, public servants, and other members of the public sector from profiling, discrimination, and unfairness.

It will also eliminate the need for creating needless legislation simply for defining someone's race. In the United States as it stands, the states are so varied that in some states, I might be technically African-American due to the “one drop” rule and my likely African ancestry coming from a poor white antebellum Southern family; I do not look, feel, or act this way, but some bureaucracies might be convinced to apply this classification.

I propose for Cascadia that we de-emphasize race in all official proceedings. Rather, when differences between people must be referred to, there are other ways of dealing with them that are less patronizing, inaccurate, and alienating.

Most systems of identification- whether for official ID cards or for describing suspects- refer to race as a physical characteristic. Particularly when searching for a suspect, though, using racial terms is not only gratuitous, but has the potential for creating deeper bias against the accused.

Rather than saying “suspect is a white male,” police bulletins could say “suspect is a light-skinned male” and follow with a more in-depth description of the suspect's most striking characteristics or- if such is available- provide an image for identification.

In cases where hate crimes and discrimination are suspected, then the case should be handled on an individual basis, and it should be clearly noted that the perception of race or ethnicity was on the part of the individuals involved, not on the part of the state.

In regards to scholarships, public assistance, and other funds to aid the needy, I feel that any such social programs managed by the state should be available to all citizens based on need. There should be no programs that favor any race, religion, or national origin over any other in terms of assistance. If some groups are at a greater disadvantage, then individuals belonging to those groups should be considered for aid based on their proportionate disadvantage alone; otherwise, disadvantages due to race tend to become self-perpetuating.

The state should also allow privately-run organizations that assist minorities with college tuition and other assistance to operate freely, but should not offer them any funding or assistance. Just as organizations that promote a religious agenda should be separated entirely from the state, so too should organizations that promote the idea of race as a social construct, no matter how benevolent their goals.

In starting anew, Cascadia has an unheard of opportunity to become the world's first post-racial society, but that initiative must begin with the government. If the state is willing to treat all of its citizens equally, then its citizens should be more willing to see each other as equals and brethren under the common flag of Cascadia.

If the state recognizes all its citizens as equal, then there should be no excuse for excluding any citizen from a job or housing for which they would be otherwise qualified, on any superficial basis; we do not have to recognize race on an official level to defend our citizens against bigotry because we will defend all citizens equally.

48

Policy Toward the Native Tribes

Few people have received a more unfair or disrespectful treatment at the hands of the US government than the first peoples of North America. Even today, they are treated as a “special affair” to be dealt with, a sore point in a country that wanted to exterminate them and resists accepting them as a part of the national heritage. “The Indian” in popular American culture is treated as little more than a mascot, a symbol of the land in its wild state, but is seldom given the dignity of being accepted as part of the country that was built on that land.

In regards to Cascadia, it must be said that any new policy toward the native tribes should be developed and decided upon by meeting with representatives of these tribes. Because the native tribes of Cascadia are as much shareholders in the outcome of our independence as we are, their input and specific insight are valuable in assuring our republic best meets the needs of all of its people.

It would be wrong of us to begin imposing upon these native tribes a hasty and likely inadequate package of assistance without first hearing from the tribes themselves, as if we somehow knew their needs better than they did. They deserve more respect than that.

There are, however, some small ideas that may help pave the way for the nations of the Pacific Northwest to coexist peacefully with our government while still asserting a greater degree of independence than they would have under the US government.

Fist of all, the tribes of Cascadia should be given the full authority to recognize membership based on whatever criteria they choose, whether by blood ancestry or by appointed membership. Because the Cascadian republic should not be in the business of collecting ethnic data or posing questions of race, the right and responsibility is on the native tribes to recognize their own by whatever measures they choose.

Second, tribal authorities should be given a stake in resolving all disputes that involve their members. For disputes that occur between members of the same tribe or between two different tribes, tribal authorities should have jurisprudence; for disputes between non-tribal citizens and members of the tribes, our courts should work with the tribal authorities to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Third, the tribes of Cascadia should be given unlimited non-commercial use of public lands. Provided there is no significant concern regarding the environmental impact of their actions, members of these tribes should be able to hunt, fish, farm, forage, and even live on public lands unrestricted. In cases where there is a significant environmental concern, the issue will need to be discussed by all shareholders (including both government and tribal authorities) before a decision toward the greatest good can be made.

Ultimately, though, the greatest thing we can do for the tribes of Cascadia is to trust them to know what is good for themselves, to listen to what they have to say, to help them only if they ask for our help, and to give them the freedom to do what they need to do.

49

Political Structure

As a new nation, Cascadia stands at an advantage for trying new ideas and for adapting old ones in ways that have never been tried before.

Here is where the boldest proposals must be made, and where the most uncompromising drive must be focused; there are many ways to do this “right,” but whatever way we choose, we must pursue it with passion and dedication if we hope to see our dreams fulfilled.

The proposals set forward here for the Cascadian government, therefore, will not be modest, nor will they be entirely comfortable to everyone, but they are bold and should be seriously considered, in light of history's past failures.

Legislature of the Republic

It has been said that the sort of people most likely to run for office are the sort of people who least deserve to lead; the realities of many of today's democratic republics would certainly seem to support this theory.

Perhaps for Cascadia, the judicial and executive branches remain much the same as in any democratic republic. However, the legislators of this republic- rather than being volunteers seeking the position- should be drafted from the ranks of the general populace.

Under this system, anyone over 18 years of age, with at least a high school education, and no convictions for violent crimes for at least 7 years should be registered to serve on the legislature.

Those with a college education, completely clean criminal records, and who score highest on civics tests should be given priority in the draft; however, they should not be the only candidates. Our secondary schools should have a strong focus on civics and social studies so as to prepare all students for the possibility of service on the legislature.

Only those with health issues, single parents, people with clear conflicts of interest (such as two previous terms), those with disabilities that would prevent them from performing their duties, and those with prior obligations such as military service should have any expectation of being exempt.

These draftees would be paid a living wage for the time they serve on the legislature, and would have all expenses related to their service- such as travel costs- paid for. They should also be legally protected from termination from their jobs, much the same way US military reservists enjoy this protection when serving on a tour of duty.

This system of a draft for public service has several purposes.

First, it reinforces the social contract as a binding obligation to citizens. It allows the social contract to not only remain strong, but also normalized as part of everyday life. It should not be seen as an invasion of privacy or deprivation of free will; indeed, it should be defended relentlessly as a mechanism for the preservation of liberty.

50

Second, it normalizes the idea of being actively involved in politics. Rather than allowing a culture of apathy and non-involvement to become the norm, people might feel more concerned with the direction the government takes if they know that at any given time, they can be called to serve on the legislature. People will be encouraged to think about how they would act in that situation, and classes should be taught in public schools to teach civics and social studies with the understanding that these are not merely trivia about how the government works, but actual life skills that students will need.

Third, it creates a no-party system within the legislature without resorting to the tyranny of a one-party system. These people, from across Cascadia and of different backgrounds, will be expected to have differing opinions on the issues, but will not- should not- be expected to tow any party line. Thus all decisions are made based on the true convictions of those present, not on the prevailing partisan ideas; all decisions that end badly will be blamed only on those who were present, not on any specific party or ideology.

Finally, it strips public offices of any sort of prestige. A seat on the legislature will no longer be a mindless popularity contest; there will only be those who are selected, and those who are not, and all of this will be done by a detached, random draft that is not subject to inane trends, moral outrage, or partisan shifts.

The idea is not without its criticisms, but these are easily defended.

One criticism is that by drafting ordinary citizens, we basically bring in people who are not fit to lead or to make important decisions. This, of course, relies on the magical thinking that those in the current system are somehow more fit to make decisions than ordinary citizens.

One look at the US legislature and the colorful but disturbingly thick characters it attracts is enough to destroy this argument for any sane person. Senators with irrational fears about gays, communists, and Muslims are commonplace. Congressmen often pass legislation controlling the use of technology that they know nothing about (such as the Internet). Many legislators display a level of immaturity, stubbornness, and lack of judgment that prevents anything of meaning from getting done. So what, then, is so special about this crop of career politicians that ordinary citizens simply do not possess?

Another argument against this proposal is that ordinary citizens may not have the knowledge, expertise, or experience needed to make the important decisions.

Once again, please refer to the marvelous dream team that is the United States Congress. How many of them actually understand the science behind things like evolution, climate change, or space travel? And yet they weigh in on these issues, often without any sort of input from experts in the field. If anything, a delegation of drafted citizens, with the aid of bona fide professionals, academics, and researchers who have studied the most pressing issues, would perform better than the US Congress in every respect.

Yet another criticism is that if people are compelled to serve, they will not perform to the best of their abilities, and that the prestige of an elected office is incentive to encourage career politicians to perform their best in order to maintain their careers.

51

However, amongst career politicians, it is not the best decision-making that furthers their careers. Some people who make highly-questionable decisions (such as Strom Thurmond's filibuster of the Civil Rights Act) are actually rewarded with a lifetime of re-elections rather than punished by voters.

Furthermore, the idea that compulsion breeds apathy may make sense in an egoist culture, but how about a culture that values public service? In ancient South Korea, for instance, public service was highly esteemed because the people promoted Confucian values of mutualism. Citizens must be aware that they are part of the process, and that their contribution is important.

By leaving the decision-making to draftees rather than elected officials, if anything there will be a greater potential for the legislature to make the right decision. No one will be there trying to save their career or look good for the voters; they have only one directive, to make their decisions for whatever period they serve, then take their pension as a senator and go back to their day-to-day lives.

I believe by creating a republic in which ordinary citizens are drafted into the legislature, we can create a stronger, more focused government that sticks to its goals and create a culture that values and normalizes public service.

Rethinking the Justice System

Several key points should aid in producing a more fair, equitable, and above all effective justice system.

The penal system must be reformed tremendously, in both its means and its philosophy. Ours should not be a republic that sanctions state-sponsored revenge, but instead aims to set right what was wrong, and to prevent it from happening again.

The system, then, should have an eye toward two things: compensating for the damages incurred in a malicious act (such as paying for someone's medical expenses after an assault), and for ensuring that the perpetrator is unlikely to act again.

The latter should be the primary focus of the penal system. Prison populations should only comprise of those who are appraised- by a panel of criminologists and psychiatrists- to be too dangerous to allow into the general population. The sole aim of their detention should be the reform and rehabilitation.

To that end, we should take lessons from those nations with the lowest rates of recidivism. Certainly, on the more humane end, many Scandinavian nations have progressive penal systems that work exceptionally well. Toward a harsher end, perhaps borrowing ideas from Japan's rigidly disciplined prison system (where prisoners are not even allowed to speak unless spoken to) should be considered as well. No option where the end result is reform and re-integration into society should be ruled out.

As for the exact types of sentences, I believe longer sentences may look good from a populist perspective, but do little to actually help the situation. Realistically, sentences longer than 10 years should be the exception rather than the rule, and life sentences should only be reserved for those

52

prisoners who are so incorrigible even under intensive conditioning that they can never be released.

Finally, in the interest of preserving our nation as one that values life, the death penalty should be abolished. Although several highly flawed studies suggest that executions provide a deterrent, they seem blithely ignorant of the fact that the states most likely to execute a murderer also have the highest murder rates.

The primary purpose of capital punishment, deep down, is to instill fear of the state in the populace. When loyalty and respect for a regime begin to erode, its administrators become desperate and having capital punishment on the books creates an unwelcome opening toward repression.

We should not extend that kind of temptation to Cascadia; there should be an explicit clause banning the death penalty in perpetuity written into our constitution, even if it means sowing the seeds of our republic's own destruction. That is one tool our government should never have at its disposal.

Constitutional Protection against Rendition

The practice of rendition- of extraditing a suspect who committed a crime to a country other than where the crime was committed- is inexcusable.

And yet, the US government has made increasing use of this practice, not just in the treatment of terror suspects, but in the enforcement of laws against Internet piracy.

What is needed in our constitution is explicit protection against rendition by a foreign power, as well as strict guidelines for extradition in general.

For instance, our citizens should also be protected from extradition to any state where they would face torture, execution, or denial of due process. This is in part inspired by similar laws in France and Switzerland.

A Self-Sufficient Government

Private companies should be allowed to operate, but the new Cascadian government should not have to rely on them at all. Instead, we should be willing to produce any and all items to be used by the government, especially cars, trucks, and aircraft.

We would bring in experts from around the world to help us set up these factories, and hire teams of engineers and factory workers to help design and build vehicles and tools to suit the needs of our government. In some cases, we may be able to adapt existing designs and tooling; for example, for our police and postal service, we may be able to use previous-generation tooling from companies such as Mitsubishi or Fiat, purchased wholesale and imported for our exclusive use.

These factories will not only create jobs, but will save the state tremendous amounts of money. These items will be produced only when needed, and made at cost, rather than being purchased from a company making a substantial profit.

The vehicles and tools produced in these state-run factories should not be available for direct

53

sale to the civilian market; civilians should still have to purchase commercially-made vehicles, tools, and other items sold on a more or less open market. However, we should be willing to export anything produced in our state-run factories as a means of generating additional income for our nation, and should regularly sell off our obsolete items in surplus auctions.

It is especially important, too, that not only tools and vehicles, but weapons be produced by the government. All weapons produced by civilian companies should be limited to the civilian market, but the government should be forbidden to buy them and must instead produce its own. In this way, weapons manufacturers will be unable to exert undue influence on the government to wage wars for the sake of selling a product.

The same should go for any services used by the Cascadian government. If our government needs anything, it should provide for itself rather than relying on a fickle market to provide a solution; private industries remain private, and the public sector remains public.

As regards security contractors- the so-called “corporate armies” that rose to notoriety during the Bush administration, such organizations should have no legitimate purpose in our national defense. Because our armed forces will serve an entirely defensive role, there is no need for hired muscle.

In the event that the help of citizens not enlisted or trained by the Cascadian military should ever be needed, they should be treated as an irregular militia and fall under the authority of the military. They will be classed as “mercenary combatants,” a class any citizen can obtain when the armed forces openly solicit them, but they will be held to the same standards as those members of our professional, state-sponsored armed forces. All war crimes, all cases of insubordination, and all actions not approved by the various commanders of the armed forces should be punished as severely as they would be in the case of any soldier.

By observing a distinct separation between state and industry, we can help prevent the rise of a military-industrial complex that lobbies for wars to fill their coffers. This will ensure that our nation never falls prey to the fate of the US, to become a global police force just so a few corporations can sell their latest products and services.

Cascadia should be a nation of prosperity, but above all a nation of peace. If we can always have that foremost on our minds, then we can resist the temptation to yield to a military-industrial oligarchy.

The Question of an Armed Populace

This is a highly controversial subject, and no matter what side one takes, there will be controversy.

For our purposes, let us propose that the firearms policy of Cascadia should be much the same as that of the US.

First, consider history. An armed populace and a constitutional protection toward the right to keep and bear arms has historically been a sign of an equitable society. It was the teeth in the 18th

century idea of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. This is why to this day France, in many ways a

54

kindred spirit to the US, is one of the only other countries to have a constitutional protection for the right to bear arms.

Now consider the applicability of such liberties in a modern setting. First, can an armed populace contribute to national defense in the capacity of an irregular militia? Perhaps not as much as was the case in the 18th century, when invading forces were less likely to be prepared for assymetrical warfare and guerrilla tactics.

But would this give us any advantage at all? Yes, however slight, it would contribute to our security against an invading force.

Considering many Cascadians already possess firearms of the same types used by militaries around the world (such as the AR-15, MP5, and AK-47), they won't be terribly mismatched for firepower either. It would not be a permanent solution nor a cure-all to prevent an invasion. However, in the event that the Cascadian government and military are unable to respond, a large number of loyal citizens with military-grade weaponry could be an asset, no matter how small.

Another important point is that gun control, if anything, plays right into the hands of exactly the sort of oligarchs we do not want in Cascadia.

Indeed, that seems to be what the protectors of the status quo have in mind, to make sure that only a minority of wealthy individuals can defend themselves against the hoards of unwashed peasants at their gates. They have been successful elsewhere in the world; in many countries with strict gun control, a billionaire can carry a handgun, but a factory worker cannot, based solely on their social class and “demonstrated need.”

To this, gun control should not be construed as an intrinsically left-center or socialist position, but as a tool of the wealthy and powerful to oppress the working class. If the majority of the people are to have the majority of the power, then they cannot give the majority of the weapons to a minority of the population. An egalitarian ideal without a means of egalitarian enforcement is worthless.

Another important point is that many of the arguments in favor of gun control have very little basis in objective fact, or play on selected statistics for emotional impact.

A favorite statistic among gun control advocates is that most suicides in the US involve a firearm of some kind. This is true; however, the availability of firearms, globally, is not a factor in suicide rates.

The second highest suicide rate in the world belongs to South Korea, where it is a capital offense to own a firearm of any kind. Many of the top ten nations are either in Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia, most of them countries with very stringent gun control.

So would lessening the availability of firearms prevent suicides? Not very effectively. There are other methods of suicide available that are just as easy. Suicide is caused by mental illness, and someone who is distressed enough to kill themselves will find a way. It would be a better investment, by far and large, to invest in public mental health and strike at the causes of suicide rather than its means and methods.

55

It is also interesting to note that there is no clear correlation between the firearms laws of individual states and their respective crime rates. Some states, like California, are fairly restrictive but have high firearm crime rates; some, like Oregon, are extremely lenient but have fairly low crime rates. In between there is a mosaic of other states with varying degrees of permissiveness, and the only real correlations that can be seen appear to be regional, not legislative. Predominately conservative states seem to have the highest rates of firearm-related murder and suicide.

For Cascadia, we should keep the US firearm laws more or less intact, with a few exceptions.

First, civilian firearms should not have a minimum quota of domestically-made parts. Such restrictions should only exist for firearms used by the police and military.

Second, we should roll back the laws to their status as of 1934, and allow the licensed transfer of fully-automatic weapons. Those who serve actively in the military or who have been honorably discharged after completing military weapons training should be exempt from licensing restrictions.

The number of crimes committed with full-auto weapons before their 1986 ban was very minimal; in fact, the vast majority of crimes across the entire 20th century were committed with cheap small-capacity handguns, usually obtained illegally. The ban on full-auto weapons has actually led to many cases where, because of the way the law is written, people have faced long prison sentences for accidentally producing, purchasing, or being found with weapons that, according to law, were “machine guns” because they contained parts that were specific to full-auto versions; it does not matter, according to the law, if the weapon itself is capable of firing automatically. Any law that can be violated so easily by accident is not a law that should be defended.

Finally, there should be a constitutional provision that underscores the seriousness of allowing the public to own firearms. Anyone who purchases a firearm of any kind will have to sign an affidavit, swearing to use their firearms in defense of the nation when called to do so. They will never be required to declare what kind or how many guns they own (nor will there be any requirement to register or list them), only that they have at least one gun of an undisclosed type, and understand they will be expected to defend the nation if needed. Those who cannot or will not agree to this simple explicit agreement should not be allowed to own a firearm.

More than anything, our republic needs to emphasize that this, along with any other right, comes with responsibilities, or else we will degenerate into the sort of egoism and apathy that has caused the US to rot from within. It isn't the availability of guns that has made the US so crime ridden; it's the idea that owning a gun has no responsibility attached. If the Republic of Cascadia can create a culture that accepts and celebrates the responsibilities associated with our civil rights, we will stand far longer than our neighbors.

Education

For Cascadia, public education must remain one of our first and most cherished priorities.

First, the government's central authorities should be responsible for funding and ensuring the equitability and accessibility of our schools.

56

When it comes to writing curricula and setting standards, however, the government should not do this alone. No decision regarding academic standards and curriculum should be made without the advice of experienced educators and lifelong experts in the relevant fields.

These educators and experts- selected based on their experience, achievements, and qualifications- should be allowed to write curricula and set standards with as little interference as possible. Only when they have completed their proposal should the public be allowed to voice their concerns, and only in a well-regulated public forum.

Parents and their representatives who have a genuine grievance with something about a curriculum should have to prepare a well-reasoned, comprehensive, cited, and researched counter-proposal that gives good, rational arguments as to why a curriculum should be changed. Their grievances should not refer solely to religious sources and should not contain personal attacks or political jargon. If they cannot piece together a factual, balanced argument, their proposals should not be considered.

However, all proposals that are rejected should be given a well-reasoned response that details the reasons why the proposal is not workable; no one, no matter how shrill and irrational, should be subjected to a patronizing “because we said so” explanation.

In regards to private schools, only a diploma or grade completion certificate from a private school that meets the same achievement standards as the public schools should be accepted as a valid document; anyone can start a private school, and anyone can attend one, but they should not expect to be admitted to a university or allowed to claim a high school diploma if their education has been substandard.

In the US today, there are far too many college applicants who don't know what the Magna Carta is, have never heard of covalent bonding, can't write a proper sentence, and think a discussion about whether or not there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark constitutes a scientific debate. It's a sad state of affairs, and we should not allow the state of education in Cascadia to reach such a crisis.

Energy and Environmental Policy

A nation that misuses its resources is doomed to failure.

Cascadia should learn from the mistakes of the past. We aren't setting out to become a global superpower, but to become a self-sufficient nation, and an important part of self-sufficiency is creating a sustainable energy and environmental policy.

First and foremost, the environment must be given the same esteem in all considerations as any humanitarian concern. In particular, the Cascadian bioregion should be given its due respect not only as a dead mound of dirt on which to plant our flag, but a living part of our culture that shapes and molds our goals, values, and ideas. Our goal in all legislation should be to balance a sustainable system of growth and development while maintaining the natural integrity of the land we live in.

For that reason, environmental research should not only be supported, but fully funded by the

57

state, and the conclusions of environmental scientists should be referred to whenever any law affecting the environment is brought up for debate.

A large part of treating human and environmental affairs as equal issues is to take the redress of grievances seriously. Many ranchers, factory owners, and property owners feel at odds with environmental laws, and their concerns should not go unanswered.

In cases where an environmental law may cause hardship for businesses, land owners, or other entrepreneurs, the government needs to work with these people in order to resolve any disputes and minimize hardships without compromising the integrity of the environment.

We should, for example, never pass any environmental legislation that affects companies unless we are willing to help subsidize compliance for those companies that can demonstrate a pressing need. We can also subsidize the advice of experts to help companies balance their finances in order to better comply with new legislation.

But beyond mere legislation, our culture should emphasize respect and reverence for the environment. Symbols of the natural wealth of Cascadia should be abundant and ever-present, on public buildings and currency.

This is why the “Doug Flag,” the tri-colored banner that so elegantly represents the natural roots of the Cascadian movement, should be our national flag. Its center piece, the Douglas Fir, should be taken to represent the very spirit of the Cascadian people.

In regards to energy, there should be a strong emphasis on public funding for sustainable sources. Because Cascadia does not have sufficient fossil fuel reserves, nearly all fossil fuels would have to be imported; thus, we should place our first priority on reducing the need for fossil fuels. Sustainable, low-impact sources such as reclaimed natural gases (from landfills and sewers) and green technology such as wind, solar, and tidal energy should be our primary sources of energy.

We should make it a point to derive the bulk of our nation's electricity from low-impact sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, and tidal energy. Nuclear, hydroelectric, and biofuels should come second, and fossil fuels should be the least of our sources.

Fossil fuels will continue to play a role in operating motor vehicles, but even this can be mitigated. By developing biofuels that do not rely on food crops or that are made from reused waste materials, we can avoid the pitfall of spiraling grain prices. By operating more government vehicles on natural gas and making it easier for citizens to convert their existing vehicles with subsidized loans, we can reduce the need for petroleum imports further.

Any vehicle produced abroad that gets better than 50MPG fuel economy should be automatically approved for import, provided it can pass a cursory emissions test at its port of entry and has rudimentary road equipment.

The net goal should be to reduce our per-capita fossil fuel usage to less than 40% of that of the US within a decade of sovereignty. This will ensure not only our environmental sustainability, but our economic independence in the decades to come.

58

Legal Reforms

The Republic of Cascadia needs to consider several important legal reforms that will set it apart from the US.

First and foremost, there must be a constitutional provision protecting all suspects from confessions obtained under torture, duress, coercion, or deception.

Further, we need stricter laws about obtaining warrants and gathering evidence. An officer who wishes to use anything at all as evidence (including trash left in a public place such as a curbside or police station by a suspect) should have to have a warrant unless the suspect gives it to them voluntarily, and they should be required to inform the suspect before hand if they intend to use an item as evidence.

Judges and prosecutors should be selected for each case from a pool of qualified applicants. To ensure there is a ready supply of applicants, our universities and law schools need programs tailored to training certified judges and prosecutors.

This will have two purposes. It will keep career prosecutors and judges from making convictions solely on the grounds of saving their careers, and it will create a broader pool of judges to help clear dockets more rapidly. No one should have to wait many months or even years for their trial.

The state must be willing to pay for whatever attorney a suspect chooses, and attorneys will have tremendous leeway in the fees they charge. This will both allow the accused to secure the best quality legal counsel, and it will force the state to drop flimsy cases and to save their money for cases where a conviction is likely.

The legal definition of insanity needs to be more in line with the present-day state of psychiatry. This should include obsessive behaviors of such an extraordinary persistence as would indicate a general loss of self-control, a history of suicidal behavior, a history of severe emotional and personality disorders, and pervasive delusions of any kind. Anyone who exhibits a lifelong history of mental illness, who then commits a crime relevant to the nature of that illness, is not in a mentally balanced state and should be treated accordingly. This should not exclude the traditional legal definition of insanity (being unaware of actions, or incapable of judging right from wrong), but rather expand upon it.

Finally, family and firsthand acquaintances of defendants should not be compelled to testify against them. In fact, they should have as much right to not incriminate the accused as the accused has to not incriminate themselves.

Those who do not wish to incriminate an acquaintance would sign an affidavit foregoing any involvement in the trial. However, anyone who recuses themselves from a trial on these grounds should not be allowed to testify on behalf of the defense, and they would be forbidden from compromising the trial. They would have no contact with any party involved in the trial until after a verdict has been reached.

59

These reforms are nothing short of ambitious, and may find a great deal of resistance. In particular, those reforms which give the accused greater protections against confessions, furtive evidence gathering, and incrimination by peers will be looked upon as being “weak on crime” by reactionaries.

But Cascadia's justice system should not be about being “tough on crime.” It should be about maintaining civility and protecting the innocent.

Once upon a time, so they say, the US justice system was the same way; the maxim “better to let 100 guilty men go free than to let one innocent man hang” was the motto of the courts and law enforcement. Now they would rather let 100 innocent men hang than one guilty man go free.

We can do better than that, and we will do better than that. If we choose the protection of the innocent over “looking tough,” we will set a new example for the world to follow.

Health Care

For those who can afford them, we should allow private, minimally-regulated hospitals and clinics to continue to run as they always have.

For those who cannot, there needs to be something better than a simple legal mandate to buy insurance.

We should have a series of public hospitals across the country. These hospitals would be taxpayer-funded and provide all the services of a private hospital, but would only require a health service card (approved based on need) to gain access to care.

In order to keep costs down and standards high, here are some small suggestions that may help.

First, a large number of the doctors in these hospitals should be newly-graduated medical school students. Their knowledge will be the most up-to-date, but they can be paid much less for the same work.

We would create several initiatives to encourage med school and nursing graduates to work for public hospitals. They would have their student loans forgiven completely if they complete a 7 year contract with the hospital, they would owe no payments while working there, and they would be protected from liability for the duration of their contract. The last measure would help keep lawsuits against young, inexperienced doctors to a minimum, something that would help both the young doctors and the state.

To ensure that no one uses this immunity to become negligent or to abuse patients, these doctors should still be subject to termination if they are found to have engaged in grossly negligent behavior, and all complaints will be investigated. No doctor in a public hospital should have such airtight tenure that they cannot lose their job for being negligent, abusive, or incompetent.

Doctors who stay ten years or more would be given a competitive salary comparable to a private hospital. These senior doctors would also be placed in charge of the wards in the hospitals and

60

be responsible for helping groom the young doctors and nurses who staff the hospital. In the event that no doctors are available in a given region, the state will make the position available to the first qualified person.

In the event that a private hospital has some extraordinary facility or service that a public hospital does not, there should be a system in place to assist low-income customers to go to private hospitals for the sake of performing life-saving procedures. The private facilities would be compensated fairly for their services. By far and large, however, the public hospitals should be self-contained whenever possible.

In order to save costs for the public hospitals, treatment of illnesses caused by smoking, alcoholism, and drug abuse needs to be minimal. Whenever possible, someone suffering diseases and complications related to these activities needs to be referred to a private hospital. When a cause can't be reasonably assessed, no one with any condition should be turned away, and when drug or alcohol abuse itself is the problem, there should be publicly-funded rehab programs readily available.

61

Part 3:Proposed Founding Documents

Note: In the Articles of Secession, clauses and sentences in italics represent text which may be more likely to change or be stricken in a final draft, depending on certain factors.

Articles of Secession for the Republic of Cascadia (proposed draft)To be ratified by the First Cascadian Congress:

A declaration of independence and the articles of secession, this X day of X, 20XX.

WHEREAS the governments of the United States and Canada have become ineffective and;

WHEREAS we, the First Cascadian Congress believe that the interests of our region are best served by a government based within the Pacific Northwest states, and;

WHEREAS the region known as Cascadia retains a unique cultural and biological character unique within the continent of North America and is best defined as an independent region in its own right;

We, the first Cascadian Congress, do hereby declare our independence from the United States and Canada, and do deliver to our respective governments and to the United Nations these articles of secession and sovereignty:

1. We seek total sovereignty and autonomy for the region known as Cascadia, which shall comprise of the US states of Washington and Oregon, and the northern half of California which shall hereafter be known as the State of Jefferson, and of the Canadian province of British Columbia. This region shall hereafter be known as the Republic of Cascadia, and shall be wholly responsible for its own defense, legislative prerogatives, and internal affairs.

2. We seek recognition as a sovereign nation by the United Nations, and a voting membership in the same. We would also strongly request to become a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council. We will not, however, be coerced by the U.N. Or any of its various member nations

62

into standing down from our bid to sovereignty.3. We seek a peaceable separation from our host nations, and will not openly threaten or

intimidate either the United States or Canada into recognition by use of armed revolt; however, we do hereby reserve the right to defend our new nation against all aggressors, including any and all military forces from the United States, Canada, or their allies.

4. We seek the immediate withdrawal of all commercial banks within Cascadia, and the immediate cancellation of all debts owed by Cascadian citizens to such private banks. We further seek the return of all property stolen by commercial banks from Cascadian citizens.

5. We seek the immediate return from conflicts abroad of all Cascadian citizens currently serving in the various National Guard units based within Cascadian borders, and the return of all weapons, vehicles, and materiale to the same.

6. We seek the immediate withdrawal of all US government officials from Cascadia. We further seek the handover of all military bases on Cascadian soil to our interim government and to reach an accord for the withdrawal of US military personnel within 90 days of delivery of these articles.

We further declare that all persons resident within Cascadia, upon the effective handover to our interim government, shall be given 90 days to show proof of identity and declare whether they choose to claim citizenship or remain a resident alien, or to return to their respective homelands. After this 90 day period, those who have failed to declare citizenship or vacate the country shall be subject to deportation. Only when an application for citizenship has been made in this period will the usual laws of immigration and citizenship be waived.

Such corporations as have provided armed service to the US military shall be required to leave the Republic of Cascadia. Such corporations as have provided manufacturing and non-combat services to the US government shall be asked to either end all exclusive contracts with the US government or withdraw all interests from Cascadia immediately.

In the interest of good relations with the US, we shall allow the continued production and export of military machinery including weapons, aircraft, and components, so long as these items are not exclusively provided to any foreign power or used in any act of aggression against the Republic of Cascadia. If, however, the US shows any tendency of aggression toward the Republic of Cascadia or our citizens, we reserve the right to end all export of arms and military machinery to the US.

We hereby extend to the United States and Canada an amiable agreement to trade and travel freely between our three nations, and shall accept any of the following documents as valid for entry into Cascadia:

a. A United States or Canadian passport

b. A driver's license issued by a state or provincial authority within the US or Canada, including the various US territories

c. A US or Canadian government ID, such as police badges, military ID, or other positive identification as a federal, state, or local government agent within one's home nation.

This shall not be construed to extend jurisdiction of said authorities to within our borders.

63

We shall levy no punitive tariff, nor any extraordinary restriction on goods produced in the United States or Canada and sincerely request reciprocity on the part of the US and Canadian customs and excise for goods produced in Cascadia.

Ships, aircraft, and other vehicles belonging to the US or Canadian governments may dock, land, or otherwise enter Cascadian spaces for purposes of emergency landing, refueling, and joint exercises, provided the crews of said vehicles have requested permission first. Likewise, US and Canadian aircraft and ships may navigate the air space and waterways of Cascadia, provided they:

a. Do not make any unauthorized landings or make port without the correct approval, or;

b. Do not engage in acts of aggression or espionage

64

Constitution of the Republic of Cascadia (proposed draft)

Herein to be ratified by the First Cascadian Congress, and to be amended by this and all subsequent congresses as shall meet in the legislature of the Republic of Cascadia, are contained the terms and rules by which Our New Nation shall abide.

Here is our social contract by which we agree to abide:

We the People of the Republic of Cascadia, in order to form a more perfect republic, establish justice, ensure civil equity, provide for the common defense and public service, promote the general welfare, and secure the means of liberty unto ourselves and our posterity, to ordain and establish this constitution for the Republic of Cascadia.

Article I - The Legislative Branch NoteSection 1 - The National AssemblyAll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in the Assembly of The Republic, and its representatives apportioned at a ratio of one per 1,000,000 citizens or two per administrative division, whichever is greater.

Section 2 – Selection of LegislatorsThe Assembly shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by random draft from among the eligible citizens residing in their administrative division.

No Person shall be a legislator who shall not have attained the Age of eighteen years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the Republic or a Citizen at the time of the foundation of the Republic, whichever is longer.

No person shall likewise be a legislator who has committed a violent crime within ten (10) years of their draft, nor shall any person who is mentally or physically incapable of performing their duties be selected for any position of service to the assembly, as a legislator or otherwise; neither shall anyone who has served two previous terms be eligible.

Legislators and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several administrative divisions which may be included within this Republic, or according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by the whole Number residents. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the legislature, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. All provisions for apportioned representation shall be subject to subsequent review and amendment by the Assembly.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any division, the Executive Authority thereof shall authorize a draft to fill such Vacancies.

The Assembly shall choose their other Officers, and also a President, who shall have no vote except when votes are divided.

The Assembly shall have the sole power to bring and try impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the Republic is tried, the Chief Justice

65

shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under The Republic; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Section 3 - MeetingsThe Assembly shall meet at least four times in every Year, and such Meeting shall be on the first day of each season unless they shall by Law appoint a different Day.

Section 4 - Membership, Rules, Journals, AdjournmentThe Assembly shall be the Judge of the Elections and Returns of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as the Assembly may provide.

The Assembly may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.

The Assembly shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members on any question shall be entered in the Journal.

Section 5 - CompensationThe legislators shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law.

No legislator shall, during the Time for which he was conscripted, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the Republic which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the Republic, shall be a Member of the assembly during his time in office.

Section 6 - Revenue Bills, Legislative Process, Presidential VetoAll bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the Assembly, and must pass a simple majority to be considered by the President.

Every Bill which shall have passed the Assembly, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to the Assembly, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of the Assembly shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of the Assembly shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Assembly by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Section 8 - Powers of the Assembly

66

The Assembly shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts, and promote the general Welfare of the Republic; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the Republic;

To borrow money on the credit of the Republic, not exceeding 20% of the fiscal budget unless granted special exception by the President;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the Republic;

To set the standards for the coining of Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the Republic;

To establish Post Offices and Highways and to maintain and regulate the usage and standards thereof;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water except by presidential veto;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the military and any irregular militia as may serve under the military's command, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the Republic of Cascadia;

To provide for the protection and integrity of the land and environment;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular divisions, and the acceptance of the Senate, become the Seat of the Government of the Republic, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the Republic, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on the AssemblyThe privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended.

67

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any Administrative division.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one division over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one division, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No bill shall be considered for law until the Assembly has first heard the opinions of at least two accredited academic experts whose areas of knowledge are relevant to the issues raised by such a bill. If such an expert is not present within the ranks of the Assembly, they shall summon such an expert from an institution of learning such as an accredited university. Only when such experts cannot be found with a relevant field of expertise shall the Assembly vote without giving audience to an enlightened opinion.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the Republic: And no citizen of the Republic shall, without the Consent of the Assembly, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of Adminstrative DivisionsNo Division shall coin Money except such as meets the standards set forth by the Assembly; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but silver and gold a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No division shall lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports.

No division shall, without the Consent of the Assembly, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another division, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

No division shall, under any circumstances, pass any law, act, or constitutional amendment which shall infringe upon, hinder the execution of, or otherwise obstruct or weaken any part of the constitution of the Republic, nor shall they enforce such laws as have been found in contempt of this constitution.

Article II - The Executive Branch NoteSection 1 - The President The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the Republic. He or she shall hold Office during the Term of four Years, and be elected every election cycle on the first Tuesday in November. He or she shall then be inaugurated the following twenty-first day of January.

68

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the Republic at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person who harbors allegiance to any foreign power, state, prince, or potentate, or has served as an officer in the armed forces of any nation other than Cascadia; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty-five Years, served at least one term in the Assembly, attained a complete university education, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the Republic.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the Republic, or any state.

Before he or she enter on the Execution of his Office, he or she shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the Republic, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Cascadia."

Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, AppointmentsThe President shall be Commander in Chief of the Military and all militia- regular and irregular- of all administrative divisions, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he or she may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he or she shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the Republic, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He or she shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Assembly, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the legislators present concur; and he or she shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Assembly, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and all other Officers of the Republic, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Senate may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening the SenateThe President shall, from time to time, give to the Senate Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he or she shall judge necessary and expedient; he or she may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene the Senate, but the Senate shall have the power to adjourn itself without executive order; he or she shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he or she shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

Section 4 - DisqualificationThe President, Vice President and all civil Officers, representatives, and Supreme Court Judges of the Republic, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

They may also be removed from office by a popular ballot of two-thirds of all citizens eligible to serve

69

on the Assembly, including but not limited to the acting members of the Assembly.

Article III - The Judicial Branch Section 1 - Judicial powersThe judicial Power of the Republic, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Assembly may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges may be appointed by the president, but must be approved by a simple majority vote by the Assembly. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall serve no more than fifteen years in any one position, or no more than 45 years in the Judiciary system as a whole. The judges shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury TrialsThe judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the Republic, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the Republic shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more administrative divisions; between Citizens of different divisions; and between Citizens of the same division claiming Lands under Grants of different divisions, The Judicial power of the Republic shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the divisions by Citizens of another division, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which an administrative division shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the division where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any division, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Section 3 - Treason NoteTreason against the Republic, shall consist only of giving its enemies aid or material support. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of three Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Senate shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, and no sentence of death shall be handed down.

Article IV - The Administrative DivisionsSection 1 - Each Division to Honor all othersFull Faith and Credit shall be given in each division to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other division. And the Assembly may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - Citizens, ExtraditionThe Citizens of each division shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several

70

divisions.

A Person charged in any division with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another division, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the division from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the division having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

This shall not be construed to apply to extraditions to foreign powers, or to the rendition of citizens.

Section 3 - New DivisionsNew Divisions may be admitted by the Assembly into this Republic; but no new divisions shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other division; nor any division be formed by the Junction of two or more divisions, or parts of divisions, without the Consent of the majority of the citizenry within the region concerned.

The Assembly shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the Republic; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the Republic, or of any particular division.

Article V - Amendment The Assembly, whenever two thirds shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several divisions, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, or, upon popular ballot by which two thirds of the citizenry demand an amendment, which, in any Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several divisions, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Assembly.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, OathsThe Republic hereby waives all liability to any and all debts incurred by the United States of America and by the various states, and upon sovereignty shall not be held liable for the repayment of such debts; the Republic shall remain liable for all debts incurred in the processes of autonomy and sovereignty for its own purposes, and any and all debts unto itself as a free and independent nation, but shall not accept the debts of any other foreign state.

Article VII- The Rights and Duties of the CitizenrySection 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, ExpressionThe senate shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Citizens of the Republic shall therefore have the right to publish, view, distribute, or otherwise disseminate any media regardless of its content, provided it is not produced in such a way that would otherwise infringe upon the rights of other individuals.

This shall not be construed to include communications which are deliberately false or misleading that do not disclaim their false nature; communications or publications depicting the exploitation of minors; and communications or publications containing intellectual property that has been used without

71

permission in order to obtain a profit.

Section 2 - Right to Bear ArmsCitizens of the Republic shall have the unabridged right to keep and bear arms, and the responsibility to maintain and properly use their firearms.

All citizens who purchase a firearm must declare that they own at least one such firearm, but shall not be required to disclose the nature, number, or identifying characteristics such as serial numbers in regards to their personal weapons. These declarations shall be stored in a central database available to all gun brokers and in the event that a customer has already made such a declaration on the prior purchase of a weapon, no further declaration of firearm ownership shall be required.

All citizens who declare firearm ownership are expected to bear the responsibility of answering to military conscription in the event of an invasion. This shall not be construed to require citizens in possession of firearms to enlist in a standing army.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be construed to apply to weapons with a high potential for bystander casualties such as grenades, land mines, thermonuclear devices, bombs, missiles, or any other such indiscriminate or imprecise weapons as may in the future be developed. However, the Assembly as well as the various state legislatures shall, at their discretion, provide for the licensing of such unconventional weapons for civilian use.

Section 3 - Quartering of SoldiersNo Soldier shall, in time of peace nor war, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner.

Section 4 - Search and SeizureThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

When no warrant shall be present, all agents of law enforcement are required to explicitly inform citizens of their right to deny search and seizure, and under no circumstances shall the denial of a citizen to grant search or seizure of property be construed to implicate probable cause or suspicion. It shall be defense against prosecution in any criminal case where these procedures are not followed precisely by law enforcement.

Section 5 - Trial and Punishment, Civil CasesNo person shall be held to answer for an infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the military, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of conviction; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or his friends or relations, nor be deprived of liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an

72

impartial jury of the district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and of all evidence held against them; to be confronted with the witnesses and specific evidence against them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for their defense.

The jurisdiction wherein the trial is held shall be therefore responsible for payment to any counsel the accused shall choose, and shall give the accused total freedom in selecting an attorney for their defense.

It shall be a defense against prosecution in all cases when evidence, up to and including testimony or a confession, has been obtained under conditions of extreme duress, deception, misleading statements by arresting officers or police interrogators, or by torture.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. The right of all citizens to life shall not be abridged as punishment for any crime.

In Suits at common law, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the Republic, than according to the rules of the common law.

Section 6 - Construction of Constitution.The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Section 7 - Powers of the Divisions and PeopleThe powers not delegated to the Republic by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Divisions, are reserved to the people or to the divisions.

Section 8 - Slavery ProhibitedNeither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the Republic, or any place subject to their jurisdiction, even as a penalty for crimes committed within its jurisdiction. No prisoner nor free person shall be compelled, for any reason, to work except on a voluntary, paid basis, and the prisons must offer the option of paid work to all prisoners.

Section 9- The Condition of Freedom by DefaultIt shall be the goal of all institutions within the government to preserve the condition of freedom of its citizens to the fullest extent that is safe and allowable for all concerned, and for all action and legislation on the part of the government to err on the side of freedom.

This shall include the duty of the criminal justice system to refrain from any detention or reduction of rights or privileges to any citizen or resident alien beyond the extent required for the safety of that individual and the peace and safety of the general public.

Section 10 - Citizenship Rights.All persons born or naturalized in the Republic, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, shall by default be citizens of the Republic and of the division where they reside. No division shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens or subjects of the Republic; nor shall any division deprive any person of liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any

73

person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; nor deny any right granted to all citizens on the basis of race, religion, creed, national origin, gender or identity, or sexual orientation.

Citizens of the Republic shall have all rights to their own bodies, including but not limited to the consumption of chemical substances of any sort and the production of such substances for personal use without license; Reproductive rights; Recourse against any insult to the body perpetrated by the government for whatever reason; and the inalienable right to life.

Section 11- Prohibition on the Taxation of RightsNeither the Assembly, nor the president, nor any officer or body within the Republic or its individual divisions may impose any tariff, tax, levy, fee, or licensing procedure which may inhibit the free expression of any of the rights detailed in this constitution. This shall include but by no means be limited to the issuance of paid permits for the ownership of firearms, publication of media, or for peaceable assembly.

Section 12- Protection against Rendition and Unjust ExtraditionNo citizen of the republic shall be subject to rendition to a foreign power for crimes committed while within the Republic of Cascadia; nor shall any citizen be subject to extradition to a foreign state where they are likely to face torture, execution, or denial of due process. Further, the authority shall be given to all police, military, and intelligence forces to seek and detain all foreign agents attempting to illegally render suspects from Cascadian soil by any means necessary.

Section 13- Citizenship responsibilities.Citizens of the Republic shall have the right and duty to serve in the capacity of legislators to their government when summoned by random draft.

Citizens of the Republic shall have the responsibility to pay taxes equal to a set percentage of their adjusted gross income.

Citizens of the Republic who choose to bear arms shall have the responsibility to use those arms in the defense of their nation in time of war.

Citizens of the Republic shall have the responsibility to uphold the rights of their fellow citizens and subjects and to pursue due diligence to defend those rights in whatever way possible.

Article VIII- PostscriptThis Constitution, and the Laws of the Republic which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the Republic, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every division shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The legislators before mentioned, and the Members of the several Legislatures of the administrative divisions, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the Republic and of the several divisions, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution and shall be tested according to their knowledge and understanding of civil procedure for such office as they may be appointed to; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the Republic.

74

Part 4: The Road to Independence

Introduction- Why Independence?

The move to become an independent entity is neither easy, nor in any way a small endeavor. Of all the challenges Cascadia must face, this is by far the most daunting obstacle. Even so, it must be done.

This is in part because of how entrenched and set in their ways our host government currently has become. The mechanisms for reform may be there, but the impetus for reform is not. This is not to say that reform is impossible; however, at what cost and to what level the necessary reforms will be implemented is anyone's guess.

Consider also the uniqueness of our region's specific needs for reform. We would either have to take on a certain degree of regional autonomy in order to make them work, or we would have to impose them upon an entire nation which may take exception to them. Regions such as the Midwestern and Southern states may take strong exception to the sort of reforms we seek, and this would create undue tension within the union. It is much easier for a region such as ours, with a solid sense of identity and purpose, to assert its collective goals as an independent state than to impose those goals upon a host government based thousands of miles away.

In other words, independence is easier than reform.

But choosing independence simply because it is “easy” is not enough- not on its own. The decision must be made because of a deeper need for representation and governance that is relevant to the region.

Consider politics as usual. The ways and means of the Beltway are very much steeped in an East Coast way of life. But by far and large, they tend to shy away from the West Coast. In fact, “California” is a dirty word in the capital; it implies both geographic and cultural distance from the East Coast establishment; to them they see the nation divided into “California” and “Real America.” But we are, politically, not so much in line with their ideas of “Real America.” So far as our

75

government is concerned, we are all Californians.

It is not enough to have our own senators, congressional delegates, and (in the case of our friends in BC) our own seats in Parliament; Washington and Ottowa's regional contingents still woefully under-represent the Pacific coast, and the better part of the vote will often be slanted against our best interests.

The need for independence to achieve our goals, then, is a pressing one, and the means of becoming an independent state should be foremost on the minds of the Cascadian people.

In this section are some general caveats regarding the move toward independence, several models by which a nation may gain its independence, and the likely difficulties involved in each model.

This part of the book is very important and should be read over carefully. Any points of confusion or controversy will be considered for inclusion into future editions of this work, as is necessry.

An Important Reminder

There is no guaranteed model, no tried and true method, no magic bullet that will automatically turn the Republic of Cascadia into an independent state overnight.

Only a handful of countries have ever split from their host governments successfully, and even fewer have done so peacefully and without any hint of civil strife.

There will be resistance from both within and without. There will be people who will want to hijack this movement for their own ends; there will be people who will outright sabotage us to play their own political games if given half a chance.

The US government will probably be very cold to the idea, no matter how we choose to do it, and we will forever be in danger of being labeled “extremists,” “communists,” or even “terrorists.” We must be aware that when it comes to international politics, it's more than sticks and stones; words can hurt. Words can kill a movement before it even begins, because words are the currency in which all ideas are traded.

Now here is one more fact, and it's not a pleasant one: in all honest likelihood, our bid for independence will probably not be successful. If history and current affairs are any indication, the odds are largely against us.

In the event that a bid for secession turns violent, it is entirely possible that those of us involved in the bid for independence will be tried for levying war against the United States, even if we were not involved in fomenting or perpetrating any violence. The risk of being executed as a traitor, while fortunately very small, is also very real.

But the likelihood of our success should not be the determining factor in our stand for independence; if anything that should be the least of our worries.

76

Remember always that the reason we strive for an independent Cascadia is because we consider the alternative- an ongoing rule by an increasingly restrictive and irrelevant federal government- to be unacceptable. The likely consequences of not making a bid for independence should be all the motivation we need, because those will be very dismal.

It is my personal hope that, if this book provides nothing else, it will help to galvanize the idea that a bid for independence will be worth the endeavor. So long as that sentiment takes root and thrives, we will always have a chance.

77

Phase 1: Public Awareness

Before we can even begin to talk about Cascadian independence as anything more than a bid for regional identity, before we can start a formal independence party, before we can form a committee to ratify a constitution and vote on a roadmap to independence, the first step will be launching a campaign for public awareness.

This campaign does not need to be expensive or elaborate; the quality of the material we put out will be second to the act of putting it out.

There are the usual channels- online communities, flyers stapled to telephone poles, and handing out pamphlets. This has to be done on a constant basis in the most visible places, particularly in our largest cities.

But there are some other things to consider. Cities such as Vancouver, Seattle, and Portland often host large public events, for example. Why not rent a booth and talk to people rather than just handing out flyers to people who don't have time to stop?

Better still, why not make our presence known by taking part in the events? As we become more organized and better-funded, the CIP should sponsor parade floats, concerts, and other things to make ourselves more visible publicly.

We should reach out to the native tribes of the Northwest as well. Because they will have a large stake in our independence, they can help us by becoming our advocates and allies. Speaking to tribal leaders, giving them a voice in our committees, and showing genuine solidarity and concern for the tribes of our region will be a major step in building alliances and awareness.

We should also never underestimate the power of local businesses to help with both funding and publicity. Local businesses who help sponsor CIP events could be given membership in a “Cascadian Chamber of Commerce,” and be given a small decal to display in their front windows.

As our public awareness grows, we should begin to become more organized until, when we are well-known as a force within the community, we can move on to the next phase.

78

Phase 2: Forming the Party

There's no sense in having a party if no one will come. But when people are ready, there's no sense in not having a party.

I use the word “party” in the loosest sense; namely as an organized front to promote Cascadian independence and- if necessary- run for elections within the extant system so that a vote or petition for independence will be easier to deliver.

This party should not plan to remain in power once independence has been obtained; it should be dissolved once we have achieved independence, and part of its duty should be to plan for the transition of power.

This party should also form the basis of our committee for independence, which will serve as our first national assembly and interim government during the transfer of power. From within the ranks of this group, we will select- either by ballot or by drawing lots- representatives for each of the various regions that wish to join the Cascadian independence movement.

The national assembly's first duty will be to determine a roadmap toward independence, to ratify a constitution, and to set the motion for independence in action; whether it be by a civil petition, a ballot, or by some other means.

79

Phase 3: Enacting the plan

By this time, the committee should have a plan in hand, and should begin steps to enact that plan.

Depending on the circumstances, there may be several options at the disposal of the party:

Option 1: Peaceful Civil Secession

This method seems simple enough. It involves separating from the host nation on generally agreed-upon terms, with no armed resistance and a treaty to lay out the terms in a mutual agreement.

However, there is much involved in this process.

How It's Done

There is no standard method for a civil secession, but the process usually follows certain logical steps.

A committee- which will typically become the interim government ahead of the first general elections- first drafts and ratifies the Articles of Secession and Constitution.

The Articles of Secession are either delivered unilaterally by the committee to the host nation, or are put to a referendum by the people of the disputed territory.

Additionally, a bid for recognition with the United Nations usually accompanies the delivery of the Articles of Secession.

If all parties involved agree upon the Articles of Secession and a handover of power is granted, the interim government then begins making preparations for the transfer of power and for the first elections.

Considerations

First of all, our committee for independence needs to be well-organized and must have a common vision agreed upon before any bid for secession can begin, or else it will be nothing but a laughable farce by a group of self-important but fatally irrelevant people, and will be treated as such by the government and media. Our committee must be both organized enough to know what it wants and professional enough to be taken seriously or our bid for independence is dead in the water.

Although the need is less pressing in the case of a peaceful secession, it is still wise for any region that seeks independence to have sufficient resources and infrastructure to survive on its own without a great deal of help from the host nation. Should relations with the host nation become hostile, such self-sufficiency will allow us to pursue a non-violent rebellion in the face of sanctions and blockades.

80

If holding a referendum, the better part of the populace needs to be both aware and supporting of the goals of independence. The referendum needs intensive oversight to ensure a fair vote, and a ready system for a recall should the results of the referendum be questionable.

Furthermore, relations with the host nation must not be so deteriorated that a peaceful bid for sovereignty will be dismissed offhand; diplomacy will be very important in these early days.

Potential Difficulties

The first difficulty is in getting all the members of the committee on the same side. It is likely that our committee will not all be composed of left-libertarian supporters of a green democratic republic; they will probably fill the entire political spectrum from the most conservative to the staunchest Marxist.

Infighting will be the first obstacle to overcome, and once our delegates are no longer at each other's throats, achieving a common vision without watering down everything that would make Cascadia a distinctive and worthwhile endeavor may prove a severe challenge.

Don't think for a moment, either, that no one will try to infiltrate the committee to their own ends. We must be extremely careful to balance openness and civility with the integrity of what we intend to do.

To that end, conflicts of interest within the committee must be closely monitored. If we intend to liberate Cascadia from Big Finance and religious meddling, then it would not make sense to allow anyone with connections to international banks or theocratic organizations, nor would it make sense to entertain any talk of making concessions to Big Finance and Big Religion. To this end, certain concessions (such as including religious language in our official literature, or dropping our sanctions against the US-led banking industry) simply must be off limits or we will risk leaving our people's greater interests neglected.

One important thing to remember, especially in the case of Cascadia, is that the Federal Government does not particularly want to lose the massive amounts of revenue it gleans from the Pacific Northwest states. The delivery of our Articles of Secession may be greeted with a unilateral “no” from Capitol Hill and the White House simply because our land is too fiscally, commercially, and strategically important.

The big banks certainly have a lot to lose by our sovereignty, as well. If we want freedom from the commercial banking cartels, that means billions in losses by companies like Chase and Bank of America, and they won't take that passively. If there is a way to sabotage our bid for independence, they will find it and they will employ it for all they're worth.

If the Federal Government agrees to a referendum, there is no guarantee that the referendum will be held fairly. If recent national elections are any indication, there could be massive irregularities in the vote, a tremendous amount of deception and intimidation against potential voters, and a number of ballots that simply vanish on their way to the final tally.

Furthermore, even in a fair and proper ballot, there is no guarantee that the referendum for

81

secession would be a success. Between slanted campaign ads, voter apathy, a misunderstanding about the nature of the ballot, and a general reluctance to embrace something as radical as independence, a referendum on independence still has a high likelihood of failure at the present. Whether or not this will be the case in the future, as discontent with the federal government grows to an all-time high, remains to be seen.

If discontent is high and public support is behind a bid for secession, but the host government refuses that request, this could lead to very unpleasant escalations. Discontent will lead to protests; protests might degenerate into riots, riots might degenerate into open clashes, and the US could be plunged into a bloody civil war. This is clearly not something we want.

Mass discontent is all the US government would need to launch severe crackdowns on any and all supporters of Cascadian independence, and if any of our supporters resort to guerrilla tactics, all bets are off; the Cascadia Independence Project will be very handily written off as a terrorist organization, and will be subject to the full brunt of the US government's most cruel tactics. In the United States, human rights don't apply to “terrorists;” thus we should do everything we can to avoid that label.

Option 2: Acquisition

This seldom-used method involves the outright purchase of land from a host nation with the explicit goal of using that land as part of a sovereign entity.

How It's Done

Once the initial committee has reached a generally agreed-upon vision for an independent Cascadia, they begin the process of raising funds to purchase land from the United States government for the purpose of founding an independent Cascadian republic.

The committee will then make an offer to the US government and, if the US government approves, the deed to the land in question will be handed over and a new republic will be formed on that acquired land.

Considerations

As before, the committee must all be in relative agreement about their common goals.

The committee must also be able to procure considerable funds. Obviously, a wealthy backer or assistance from some international organization (whether it be a bank, a charity, or a philanthropist) may be needed.

The host government must also be willing to sell the committee the lands they need at a fair price.

Potential Difficulties

Although this way seems the simplest in theory, in reality it is extremely far-fetched.

82

First, consider the size of the territory involved. This would be the largest purchase in the history of the North American continent since the purchase of Alaska from Russia.

That purchase was $7.2 Million in 1867 dollars, or roughly 2 cents per acre. Adjusted for inflation (at 2010 rates), that's roughly the equivalent of $110 Million, or 31 cents per acre.

Now consider the laughable likelihood of obtaining any land anywhere for only 31 cents per acre. Even at a fire sale price of $1500 per acre, we'd be looking at a price tag in the high billions.

Obviously, acquiring this kind of funding would be extremely difficult.

Now consider what would happen if we secured a wealthy backer to help us obtain that kind of money. We would owe such a debt to that person or organization that we would never be able to slight them in the least. They would, by default, be able to effectively write our laws and constitution and gain total immunity from any reproach. It would no longer become our nation; it would become merely our host nation, run by its rightful owners.

Another major difficulty would be in getting the US to willingly sell us any sizable, usable portion of the Pacific Northwest in the first place. Any land they would likely sell us would probably be strategically useless, completely lacking in infrastructure, and far too small to be of any use to our original vision of a coastal republic representing the Pacific Northwest states. Even if we could get together enough money to buy the entire states of Washington and Oregon, it's doubtful they would sell.

Now let's assume that we have gotten sufficient funds to purchase a large part of the Cascadian territory without making a deal with a despot in waiting, and that the US government has agreed to sell us the land. There is still one more potential problem to contend with.

Remember all that money we've hypothetically blown in purchasing large parts of the West Coast of the US? That was money we might need to actually run our new nation. We'd have to compensate by immediately levying hefty taxes on every citizen, cutting government programs left and right, and generally operating on a shoestring budget. It would leave us exceptionally vulnerable; one tiny economic setback would send us reeling into a nosedive that we'd never recover from.

Acquisition may work well for procuring small territories, or expanding an existing nation, but as a means of achieving independence, acquisition may be one of our weakest options.

Option 3: Revolution

A revolution generally implies a total breakdown in communication and relations between a people and their government. It is not a desirable state of affairs, nor is it a particularly efficient means of achieving independence.

The basic mechanism of a revolution is the refusal of a people to accept the authority of their host government. This can take any of several forms, ranging from a bloodless coup that succeeds within days, to a drawn out civil war fought to a stalemate.

83

A revolution need not be an armed revolt, but this is the usual tendency of revolutions. For this reason, declaring a revolution must be done only when it is plainly apparent that the will for independence has exceeded civil means, and that such a state where bloodshed is permissible has been reached.

It should at this time be stated, firmly and categorically, that neither this work nor the author, nor the Cascadia Independence Project openly or implicitly support, nor do we call for, an armed revolt against the United States government.

How It's Done

A revolution may either begin with generalized discontent solidifying into an open rebellion (as in the case of the Arab Spring) or it may be spearheaded by a revolutionary committee (as in the case of the American and French revolutions).

Either the people at large or a committee representing the interests of the people typically demands the resignation or removal of the standing government authority.

Sometimes, the committee serves as a parallel government in defiance to the extant government authority. This may be as elaborate as forming a paramilitary wing and minting one's own currency, or as simple as the people vesting greater trust and support into the revolutionary committee.

Revolutions often turn violent. Quite often (as in the case of the American and Russian revolutions), it is the existing government authority who draws first blood. However, sometimes members of the revolution may draw first blood instead, thus provoking the host nation to retaliate.

Regardless of how exactly a revolution is carried out, the underlying goal is simple: to put an existing government authority in a position where they must relinquish power, whether by simple intimidation and social pressure, or by exerting greater force in armed revolt.

Considerations

A revolution is usually only warranted if it has become clear that there are no other means of recourse. If, for example, the US government has refused a peaceful bid for sovereignty, but that bid was supported by the greater part of Cascadia's citizenry, then a revolution, while not desirable, may be proposed as an option.

If a peaceful bid for secession is met with violence from the government, however, then a revolution becomes more than a mere option; it becomes a moral imperative.

Important to consider before resorting to a revolution is the readiness of all parties concerned. If everyone involved in the revolution is ready to take that revolution as far as it needs to go to succeed, and if all parties are aware of and willing to face the likely consequences of a failed revolt, then they are ready to begin. However, if any of these things are in doubt, then there should not be a bid for revolution.

It is also important to consider the material preparedness of the region making its bid for

84

independence. Can the region sustain itself while under blockade from its host nation? Can the region gather a sufficient force to fight a proper insurgency, should the need arise? And can the region deal with the consequences of independence won on less-than-friendly terms?

A revolution is not something to be taken lightly. Only when the times and conditions warrant one and the people involved are willing to risk everything should a revolution be proposed.

Potential Difficulties

Unlike the previous two models for achieving independence discussed above, revolution stands alone in that it represents a genuine conflict.

One of the inherent problems with revolution is its basic nature. Revolution- bloodless or otherwise- represents a breakdown in relations. It is the action of a people who are beyond negotiations, and will usually be treated as such by the sitting government.

Revolutions can be successful, especially if the sitting government concedes to the demands of the revolutionaries; however, once a revolution becomes armed, the odds favor the sitting government.

At this point it is important to note that there is no constitutional provision allowing the citizens to revolt against the government. In fact most nations- the United States included- have written provisions for suppressing insurrections, with no specific clause that these uprisings be armed.

In the case of the US constitution, it is contained in Article 1, Section 8 which outlines the powers of the United States congress. It explicitly states that one such power is “...To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

Treason, furthermore, is defined in Article III, Section 3 to include “levying war” against the United States. Although this is subject to interpretation, a good guideline for distinguishing an act of war is whether or not the forces involved are armed; an armed revolt (as in the case of the Hutaree militia) is typically accepted as “levying war” in the legal sense.

This is very important to note because as popular myth would have it, secession and revolt are widely believed to be constitutional rights. In committee, someone is bound to bring up this widely-held belief, whether out of ignorance or (less likely) as a means of subterfuge.

There have been cases where movements have been alleged to have been incited to violence by government infiltrators as a pretext to the prosecution of the whole group; such rumors have circulated about both the Black Panthers and the Branch Davidians for some time now. Paranoia will not serve us well, but having a cool head will. Anyone who proposes open revolt before all other options have been exhausted should be held in contempt of the committee. This cannot be emphasized enough.

Another important thing to remember is that if we were to attempt a revolution, it is highly unlikely to succeed. Participants in a bloodless coup would probably be rounded up, beaten, and hosed out of the way by riot police, and participants in an armed revolt would most likely face a tactical response. Facing the US military in open, face-to-face combat would end very badly for anyone who tried it; US Marines have exceeded a 50:1 kill ratio in conflicts such as the Battle of Mogadishu.

85

Consider, too, that if a revolt were imminent, the US government may have a means of rounding up those of us with a substantial role in the CIP before one even began. In 1984, Colonel Oliver North authored one such plan, dubbed Readiness Exercise 1984, or REX 84. The “scenario and drill” called for the suspension of the constitution and the declaration of martial law, followed by the arrest of large numbers of “national security threats” in the event of widespread opposition to a war.

Whether anything like REX 84 is on the books now or not is subject of debate; REX 84 (and its related exercises) are at the heart of many conspiracy theories, some less believable than others. But the sheer audacity of REX 84 should come as a stern warning that if we come to blows with the US, we shouldn't expect any niceties.

A revolution is something to be avoided if at all possible. Its likelihood of failure is high and its potential toll- both on the people and on the CIP- makes it a bad option and one that should only ever be considered when all other options have been taken.

86

A Word on Alliances

It would be tempting, in the process of building a new nation amid a cold or even hostile reception, to throw our lot in with nations that are at odds with the US.

Certain nations- particularly Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, may even approach us as potential allies. Some may even offer their material support to the movement.

It would be best not to indulge them. Typically, such offers of help come with a great quid pro quo, and if that quid pro quo happens to be an entangling alliance, we will end up in much the same situation most Western powers are involved in now.

Remember too that taking money from a sworn enemy of the US as a means of separating from the authority of the US government could be counted as an act of treason; although a treason charge may come as part of the process of independence (whether the charge is justified or not), it is best not to give good cause for such a charge if it can be avoided.

Furthermore, never assume “the enemy of my enemy is my ally.” It would be a tremendous double standard if Cascadia, a nation built on human rights, secular government, and non-aggression were to become heavily involved with Iran, a country that embodies none of those things. Such a compromise would likely weaken our republic to the various influences that have caused such countries to become so hostile to human rights.

We should also not count on nations with a better human rights record to help us, even in the event that we face persecution and repression for our cause. Remember that many EU member states have very close ties to the US government, and the EU in general would fare poorly if it were to openly support Cascadia over the US. We should not turn down their help if it is offered (in fact we should seek it), but we should not take it as a matter of faith that the Hague will step in and try Pentagon generals for war crimes if they start gunning us down in the streets either.

In regards to Israel and their opponents, it is best that we maintain a position of neutrality. On the one hand, siding with Israel would likely mean an entangling alliance; on the other hand, siding with Israel's opponents would likely mean supporting human rights abuses of equal or greater nastiness and an invitation to aggression from the US and the EU. The less intrigue we have with any part of the Middle East, the better.

The exact dynamic of how our alliances would play out is anyone's guess, however. The US has a reputation for getting what it wants by being the one country that almost no one dares to oppose. Those few that openly oppose the US usually end up the subject of crippling sanctions. Because of this, few nations may be willing to help our cause.

In the event that another large part of the US were to break off and form its own country first, however, this may change the game.

With the US facing the embarrassment of a large and wealthy region splitting off on its own, other nations may be emboldened to help us. It is important that we pay close attention to what they stand for and what they want from us in return before accepting any offer of help, no matter how

87

generous.

A Word About Law Enforcement and Local Governments

It would be a very good idea to get as many state and local governments- particularly their law enforcement branches- to side with us. This, however, will not be easy.

In the event that law enforcement becomes sympathetic to the Cascadian cause, it will have a ripple effect if and when the people take to the streets in open defiance. If law enforcement sides with the people, the current authorities have fewer options for suppressing an open revolt.

If the US military becomes involved in the efforts to suppress a revolt, the more heavily armed divisions of local police forces could even form the core of a volunteer militia.

Likewise, local and state governments that side with the Cascadian cause rather than the federal government will go a long way in allowing the movement to persist in the face of suppression by providing material comfort and safe gathering places for us.

Part of what has made the US military's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan a failure is the fact that local police are generally sympathetic to the local militia in many rural regions, and won't lift a finger to fight them when they aren't being hounded to do so; one man's corrupt government is another man's safe haven. This is often the case in many poorer countries where local causes have more authority than the central government.

However, getting law enforcement and local governments on our side will not be easy. For one thing, by its very nature, the Republic of Cascadia should stand for the empowerment of citizens at the cost of special rights for police. New restrictions on interrogation, search and seizure, drug laws, and the way court cases are tried will be an unwelcome change for many veteran police.

Likewise, many career politicians will see the end of career politics as a threat, and will probably show little sympathy for the movement when they realize that our demands include a complete restructure of government that leaves them completely redundant to the system.

In fact, police and politicians alike may find the large number of Cascadian activists involved in the Occupy movement to be disagreeable, and may treat open demonstrations for Cascadian independence with extreme prejudice. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that a civil protest that follows the law will be treated with respect.

Getting local governments on our side will be easier if a Cascadian Independence Party can be successfully formed; however, this will ultimately be up to the voters.

Whatever the case, we should not become something less than ourselves in order to win local governments to our side; they can freely choose to support us, oppose us, or choose indifference, but we should not change who we are to accommodate them.

If we can win the support of any law enforcement body or any local government- no matter how small- the boost to our movement will be tremendous. If all we have to begin with is a single town

88

somewhere along the country roads of Oregon or Washington where the Doug Flag flies from the city hall, it's still a foothold, and it's a real step toward independence. If not, we should not be discouraged; the movement should strive to get local authorities on our side, but should be prepared to carry on without their help.

89

Part 5:Proposed Agenda for the First Committee

IntroductionThere is more to asserting independence than the excitement of the noble struggle. It also

involves a lot of banal but ultimately important decision-making.

These decisions should be made by the First Cascadian Committee, once such an organization can be formed. The Committee will serve much the same form as the Continental Congress of 1776 served for the newly-declared United States, as both a Committee to discuss a collective vision for the land to come, and as an interim government until the adoption and implementation of a working constitution.

The committee's structure may vary, but a good starting point may be to have at least one delegate from each proposed Cascadian state, plus one speaker who will officiate meetings, put forward the day's agenda, and be charged with maintaining an orderly, civil debate.

The various members should be either the first qualified volunteers who come along, or elected by popular vote by the present members of the movement. They should hold their posts until such time as a permanent Cascadian government is set up.

Ideally, these volunteers should have some amount of university education, should be at least vaguely familiar with the rules of order, and should demonstrate a working knowledge of civics. They must, of course, also be residents of the regions which they represent.

The Rules of Order must be observed closely within our committee. Nothing good will come of what happens there unless everyone who wishes to speak may do so freely, and dissenting opinions are given without interruptions or personal attacks. It would be the speaker's duty to censure and, in extreme circumstances, to eject a representative whose behavior is so unruly or counter-productive as to provide nothing of value to the conversation.

We have one advantage that the Continental Congress didn't have in 1776: we do not need to have all of our members in the same place at the same time to hold a debate. Twenty-first century technology has paved the way for real-time discussion in a virtual format.

The delegates of our committee will be able to join a live debate by conference call, or by using a voice chat client such as Skype. If visual presence is desired, we may even go so far as to hold our

90

debates via video chat, or even at a virtual location, using a 3D program such as Second Life in a virtual meeting hall- patterned after Independence Hall, if we so desire.

This sort of freedom to discuss matters from the comfort of our home or office will allow us to have meetings more frequently and on shorter notice, and thereby allow the decision-making process to continue smoothly and with fewer interruptions.

From the time of its formation to the implementation of our constitutional government, the committee will be responsible for planning campaigns, organizing our bid for independence, allocating and managing funds, creating basic codes of conduct, ratifying our first code of laws and constitution, and may even serve as an interim government, managing the country and organizing elections and drafts for the president, high court, and our first congress.

As our interim government, it will also have the task of overseeing the gradual phasing out of the US federal system and the implementation of our new system. This will include re-structuring the courts, re-training law enforcement, implementing border security checkpoints, and assisting the US in withdrawing from Cascadian soil.

But before all that, our committee will have to decide on a myriad of subjects, some of them rather boring. For the sake of completeness, some of these topics are outlined below.

Roadmap to Independence

The first committee will be responsible for discussing and finalizing our plans for becoming an independent state.

Considerations should include how to deal jointly with the US and Canadian governments should British Columbia wish to join us; the exact wording of our articles of secession; which model of secession to advance with; and contingency plans for likely complications.

It may be wise, when debating this subject, to ask for the opinion of professors of both political science and history, and to invite them to engage actively in the debate.

The final roadmap- which should take as long as need be to form- should be as complete and workable as possible.

Monetary Policy

Monetary policy is a very important step toward founding a new nation.

The committee must debate what our currency will be called, what it will be based on, how it will be valued and exchanged, and may even propose or debate the design and composition of coins and bills.

Other subjects such as banking, lending, interest, and the handling of debts should be discussed.

Some things the committee may want to consider strongly- both as a matter of justice and as a

91

matter of winning the hearts and minds of the people at large- is the complete nationalization of the banking industry and the complete cancellation of the personal debts of all Cascadian citizens. Also, as mentioned earlier in this work, it may be worth considering alternatives to interest altogether.

Whatever we do, it would be a good idea for the total value of coins in circulation to equal or exceed that of the total value of paper notes, and that for the coins to have a fixed standard of composition and weight; any rise in the price of metals should be reflected in the introduction of smaller denominations rather than a change in the coinage itself.

Professors of economics, political science, and business administration may all be of assistance in creating a workable monetary system. New ideas that have not yet been tried should be considered, but should not be our only options.

Revenue

A coherent revenue system that serves solely as a means of gathering funds for the common goals of the government, its institutions, and its defense is very important to any nation.

The committee must decide on a revenue system that is not only just and fair, but works.

Some suggestions for the committee include exploring a fixed income tax levied on all types of income at the same rate; the abolition of punitive taxes; the abolition of sales taxes; and the simplification of the tax code to be easy to read, understand, and enforce.

Professors of economics and government, as well as professors of history, may have helpful suggestions that may create a more solid revenue policy and should have a well-represented voice in the discussion.

Statutes and Laws

Cascadia will need a unified code of laws, and this code of laws must be both workable and compatible with our goals of civility, equality, and social justice.

One suggestion the committee may want to consider is the adoption of a modified version of the US Code, but simplified and rationalized into something much shorter, less ambiguous, and easier to enforce.

This process may take a very long time to complete; in the mean time, the US Code may be adopted as a standby and gradually amended as needed, with only those clauses found to be most offensive to liberty changed or removed right away.

Alternatively, if another, less onerous code of laws can be found that is closer to the committee's shared vision for Cascadia, that code of laws should be adopted and modified to suit our needs.

Experts in common law, legal scholars, lawyers, and legal historians may be of service in helping author our code of laws.

92

Standards and Measurement

Although seemingly boring and unimportant on the surface, an agreement on standards of weight and measurement- as well as product and service standards- needs to be reached.

Remember in particular that units of measurement affect everything, including government, industry, and the sciences. It is important to consider the standards we use carefully.

Something to take into consideration is the fact that the US and Canada use different systems; the US uses a simplified version of the old English system, sometimes dubbed “SAE” standard when referring to hardware; Canada uses the metric system for nearly everything. If we include British Columbia in our republic, we have to make considerations for both metric and English measurements as our primary system.

Although the metric system would be ideal to adopt universally, it may prove frustrating for those who still use scales, speedometers, and measuring tools calibrated in English measurements. Certain concessions- such as posting road signs in both metric and English measurements- must be considered.

It may be wise to let retailers keep selling fruit by the pound and milk by the gallon for many years even if metric measurements are adopted as the official units for Cascadia. Such a transition would have to be gradual, and the committee needs to discuss exactly how to go about that transition.

Other standards have to be considered. Emissions and safety standards for vehicles are important because they will have a profound impact on Cascadia's transportation infrastructure. Will we, as suggested elsewhere in this book, waive emissions and safety standards for “gas saver” vehicles? Will we adopt another country's safety testing standards, such as the NHTSA or Euro-NCAP standards? Will we create our own standards, but allow for reciprocity and equivalency with NHTSA, NCAP, and the others?

Traffic and accessibility signs should also be considered. Will we keep the typical North American style road and safety signs, or will we adopt a standard of intuitive designs closer to those used in Europe and Asia?

Product safety, noise control, fire suppression, and other safety and occupational standards have to be considered. Obviously, it makes sense to adopt existing standards, but this should not be done without first debating the merits of these standards.

Emissions standards for factories and other machinery should also be considered carefully. Clean air and water should never be anything less than a top priority if we are to plan for the long-term survival of a Cascadian republic.

Legal experts, environmental scientists, and consumer advocates should be consulted to assist in this debate.

93

Language

What will the official language or languages of the Cascadian Republic be?

Obviously, English ought to be one of them. The vast majority of people in our region speak it, including most of the indigenous peoples. There is the slight question of whether to use American spelling or Anglo-Canadian spelling (e.g. color vs. colour), but there is room for an easy compromise.

Chinook Jargon has been proposed by some as a secondary official language; this could be done, but the old Chinook Jargon is virtually unknown; including this as an official language would be a purely ceremonial move unless we also include it as curriculum in Cascadian schools. Certainly, other dead or moribund languages have been revived this way, such as the Manx language.

On the Canadian side, there may be strong support for adding French to the list of official languages. Certainly, French has a long standing foothold in North America as a whole and is spoken by much of the world at large, and is worth considering as one of the official languages of Cascadia.

Spanish may also be considered. Despite its distance from the Mexican border, parts of Cascadia have large immigrant populations. The neighborhood where I live is predominately Latin, for instance. Certainly, as Spanish becomes more common as an (unofficial) secondary language in the United States, teaching Spanish in our schools may help trade and relations with our neighbor.

Linguists and ethnographers should be free to weigh in, but in this matter a good, “gut feeling” agreement may be enough.

National Symbols

The symbols of Cascadia- our flag, our national anthem, our great seal, and even the component symbols that make up each of these- should all be things that represent our common goals and values.

For example, it wouldn't make sense to build a republic dedicated to peace and non-aggression only to adopt a battle anthem like “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

The more relevant to the region these symbols are, the better. For example, incorporating native wildlife into our currency and public symbolism would be a good way to emphasize our identity as a rich bioregion. Canada already has a series of very attractive coins featuring native wildlife; theirs is a good example.

As for the flag, although it should be put up for debate in case there are other, better ideas, the “Doug Flag” that has become the most public and recognizable symbol of the movement for Cascadian independence is a likely choice.

The national seal- a symbol to be used on all of our official documents, as well as incorporated into currency and public buildings- should incorporate as many aspects and symbols of our vision as possible. Symbols of our natural heritage, of our peaceable goals, of our esteem for free expression and human rights, and of our various regions within Cascadia, should all be considered.

94

For this, the committee might consider consulting with scholars of local folklore, historians, and others with a rich insight into Cascadian heritage.

95

Part 6:This Author's Opinion

Collected here are some loosely-associated thoughts and opinions by the author, many of them relevant to the text or spirit of the manifesto.

Personal perspective

My personal perspective is from that of one who saw the abject failure of the American system, and particularly the abject failure of fiscal and social conservatism in its most devastating forms.

As stated in the foreword of this work, I am not a native of Cascadia. I was born in Oklahoma and raised in South Carolina, to two parents with long-standing ties to the Southeast. The Herndon name has been documented along the border of Georgia and South Carolina since before the American Revolution, and until the 20th century most of them lived as sharecroppers or subsistence farmers; I am from old stock, but by no means old money.

To say that there weren't problems in the South to begin with would be a naïve statement. I was raised around people who swore racism was a thing of the past, but muttered the word “nigger” under their breath. I was raised around preachers who preached compassion to the poor, but struck down any bid to help them unless it was from their church. I was raised around people who swore that nobody was in need in America, even as I saw the slums on the barrier islands that, even in my time, still lacked basic necessities like running water. I was also raised to be wary that statements like these, even if true, were a great risk to express.

I have been to the communities where my father grew up, walking in the shadows of the abandoned Graniteville mill, watching Augusta's broad street- with its median built by legendary architect I. M. Pei, fall into disrepair. I have heard him tell me how, when he was sick with meningitis in 1968, he watched shootings on the street from high above, and saw the dead and wounded being carried into the hospital, and how on a single day he saw more than the “official” death toll being wheeled into the hospital under bloody sheets.

96

Seeing these things from afar, where he could see the naked hate for what it really was, made him the man he is today, one who taught me well about the mental traps one can set for one's self. And I am thankful to have been raised by someone who can stand above such petty and immoral ideas of racism and classism, and who encouraged me to write my ideas, no matter how unpopular they may be.

Although the first four years of my life saw us in Oklahoma and Torrejon, Spain, we settled in Monck's Corner, South Carolina in 1988, then moved to Summerville, South Carolina in 1989.

The first school I went to was a small private school run by the Assemblies of God, but being the sort who has never been entirely trusting of authority rubbed them the wrong way. I was expelled after only a few months. Among the reasons was the allegation that I had put a curse on another child on the playground. My mother continued to teach at this school for some time, until she became concerned that the curriculum there lagged horribly in math and science. She had third grade students who still had never heard of Sir Isaac Newton, and could only do simple addition and subtraction.

To this day I have little faith that a system of private schools can ever be adequate because the public school education that followed- however impoverished the Berkeley County schools were- still served me better than a religious education ever would have. We attended crowded classrooms in windowless rooms and dirty, roach-infested trailers. My elementary school, Sangaree, had over 1200 students in grades 1 through 3 and only one TV set on a cart to share between all the classrooms. The school bus I rode on was a 1966 International Harvester, an antique even in those days. But even as under-funded as it was, I did learn there.

We moved to Conway, South Carolina in 1994. There, just a short distance from Myrtle Beach, the stage was set for my final disillusionment with fiscal and social conservatism.

Myrtle Beach seemed liberal compared to the rest of the state. People were less openly racist, there was an actual, open gay community, and theatre and visual arts seemed to have a lot of public support.

But Horry County showed me just how quickly a system run by corrupt developers can go bad.

The politicians in Myrtle Beach had a point to prove on just how “family friendly” they were, and would often organize raids on gay bars and establishments where gays were known to gather. Several gay bars were closed down after 1960s-style raids where broad charges of “indecency” were handed down from undercover officers inciting lewd acts. One club, the Rainbow House, was harassed by the city for displaying its rainbow flag under the guise of a city sign ordinance. When Myrtle Beach had its first gay pride parade, the mayor and developers then organized a big “family day” where heterosexual families could get into the Myrtle Beach Pavilion for free.

But up until the 2000s, the city at least did well. The tourists swarmed in every year and attractions like the Pavilion, WaterBoggan, and Myrtle Square Mall brought in a fair amount of money.

Still, the region strained under some hidden tensions. Schools were frequently defunded, even as more earmarks were set aside for resort developers. Neighborhoods in Conway began flooding after local officials were bribed to let developers build on wetlands, because they thought they knew better than the ecologists.

97

By 2004, things were already bad. Long before the economic crash hit the rest of the country, Horry County already had one of the highest unemployment rates in the region (according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there were something like 100,000 more people than jobs in the area at the time).

Then the developers struck the final blow. They became even more greedy than before and, following conventional conservative wisdom, decided they could bring in more money if they “created value” and turned the working class resort town into the next Hilton Head.

They built a massive, misplaced eyesore of a 5-star hotel next to the Myrtle Beach Convention Center, where nobody would stay. They razed Myrtle Square Mall, hoping to expand the Convention Center hotel complex, but as of 2009 it was still a vacant lot. Tall shrubs and sapling trees now grow where I once met Pat Conroy in a B. Dalton book store.

And that landmark of landmarks, the Myrtle Beach Pavilion, was also razed to make way for luxury condos; to this day, that too remains an empty lot.

With so many landmarks gone and the property values artificially inflated, smaller businesses like WaterBoggan and a number of local restaurants could no longer afford to pay their artificially inflated rent; they went under.

Myrtle Beach is now only a shadow of what it once was. Many of the shops at the remaining malls are boarded up with For Sale signs. Many businesses shut down when the local development moguls priced them out of the market, only to find nobody wanted to pay $50,000 a month to lease property in Myrtle Beach. The fiscally conservative ideas of creating prosperity out of nothing by “creating value” killed the town I grew up in.

These are why I reject greed, conservatism, corporatism, and the East Coast way of life. I saw the ruin they bring about and determined that my partner and I would find a safe place to live. I still ache for how the South has suffered in the name of profit and maintaining the Status Quo, but the will to change is simply not there. They continue to cling to failed ideas, coming back to the same people who beat them down like an abused child begging for a hug from his mother.

And so forgive me if I seem to be nothing more than a poor southern carpet bagger looking for an audience. I have put my will and energy behind Cascadia because the people here actually care about things like equality and justice, and aren't afraid to rally behind a cause that has been labeled “leftist.” The people of the Pacific Northwest embody something rare and valuable in America today, something that should be nurtured, encouraged, and grown into a national culture.

On Force and Reason

Reason without force is defenseless, but force without reason is indefensible. Force is only justified when reason offers no other alternative.

In forming a nation, it is good to have some degree of force available at one's disposal. Certainly, there are times when a military response is needed.

98

When that means of force becomes the driving cultural and legslative heart of a nation, however, that nation's civility and survival are forever compromised. Nations do not exist to fight wars, nor do they fare particularly well when this is all they fancy themselves to exist for.

Therefore, let cooler heads forever be in control of the military and police. Let people of reason and learning have an important role in making laws and decisions. When it comes to civil matters, always trust a professor over a general.

Oligarchy as a detriment to Civil Society

A civil society must be against oligarchy in all its forms.

Oligarchy by its very nature is contrary to civility. When one elite caste takes full and total control of a nation to the point where only they exert any appreciable influence, the net happiness and freedom of the better part of the populace will suffer.

An elite caste must, after all, protect its status. What is the very first thing any despot does to protect themselves? The destruction of free speech and free thought, even before mass disarmament. The public is subjected to increasingly harsh censorship and increasingly stringent restrictions on where, how, and when they can speak their minds. The schools either become camps for instilling loyalty to the elite caste, or they are rendered weak and ineffective. Academic focus is lost and the graduates of these schools are more docile, more gullible, and less aware of their plight.

It is no chore to disarm a people who have become mentally weak. Once people stop thinking for themselves, they can either be convinced to take up arms against disloyal neighbors (thereby saving work for the elite caste by terrorizing them by proxy), or to lay down arms completely. Those who did nothing to save free speech even as they cling to their guns will become the first line of defense for an oligarch; these are the mobs, the gangs, the enforcers of “normative” ideas and behaviors that act in a state of semi-autonomy even as their actions benefit the elite; such was the case of the Ku Klux Klan in the late 19th century.

But oligarchy, horrific as it is, also represents the default state of affairs for human government. If a system is left with no checks or balances, sooner or later one group or another will become an oligarchic caste.

The only solution I see is that the three estates of a modern society- government, industry, and the People- must forever remain in a perpetual quid pro quo. A civil society is nothing more than a sustained cease-fire between disparate groups who do not always hold each other's best interests in mind.

As such, it is important for each of these three estates to maintain, in equal share, free voices, free knowledge, and a healthy measure of force of arms. A weapon is as only as good as the brain behind it, but even the smartest brains are not bulletproof.

The press must be open and free to report the truth; the people must be able to read the stories they print, and write their rebuttals if need be. More than that, they need to be educated to the point

99

where they can confidently discern the truth for themselves. I cannot think of a single developed nation that values freedom of the individual that does not invest heavily in is public schools.

And if this much is respected, there will be no need for force of arms; in a civil society, everyone has a dusty rifle.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism is Oligarchic

It is the tendency of Laissez-Faire capitalism to become an oligarchy. The net response to free market competition is to either out-compete until one's competitors fold, or to acquire one's competitors in a merger.

In the absence of antitrust laws, one would gradually have one corporation that, by default, becomes the state, and its head becomes the supreme ruler. This one corporation would control all manufacturing, all lobbying, all retail, all imports and exports, and would have so much sway in the government that government would become irrelevant.

In other words, it is the equal and opposite reaction to communism; rather than the state taking over industry, industry takes over the state. Either way, the fate of an entire nation is decided by a small group of toadies and insiders who were not elected, nor face any chance of censure.

The danger of theocracy

To try to mix religion and government is a tremendous contradiction. Turning water to wine would be a more lucrative endeavor.

A government, by its nature, must decide the correct course of action according to what is right for the situation. It must remain flexible in its decision-making, and must never have any practical option out of reach to ensure the long-term survivability of the state.

A theocratic state is no different in its needs; the main difference is that a theocratic state cannot be open about its flexibility.

Instead, a theocratic state must have its public face- that of a religious authority that acts on behalf of divine mandate- and its private face- that which engages in the daily business of running a viable state.

Theocracy, then, is incompatible with transparency. They can try to keep the populace from prying by discouraging questions, re-directing the conversation, shaming and intimidating the people out of dissent, but sooner or later, if the government is transparent enough, someone will let on that the emperor has no clothes.

A theocratic state must keep its inner workings a profound secret in order to survive, and to do this, they must have as few laypeople involved involved in governance as possible.

In time, elections become suspended or become a closed matter for an elite caste to vote in, and anyone who wants to break into government must go through innumerable hurdles to prove their

100

loyalty to the system. There are no “outsiders” to rock the boat, and those who do make it in have been screened and forged into abject loyalty.

This is how organized religions work in their natural state, and it works well for them. But they will not change their workings once they have achieved the status of a governing body, and this becomes a problem. What amounts to a fairly harmless bid for sectarian unity when church and state remain separate becomes an impenetrable barrier through which no contrary ideas may pass when the church and state become one.

When new ideas cannot find their way into government, the inevitable result is stagnation, repression, and eventual collapse. It happened to Europe during the reformation, it is happening now in Iran, and it could happen again in any place that allows a theocratic state to take hold.

There are some in America today who think that a theocratic state can be a democratic state; these are the most dangerously deluded people we will contend with in the course of our bid for independence. We are to have no business with them if we are to form a free and civil society.

Why Egoism Cannot Preserve Liberty

Egoism can never preserve liberty for all.

I recall some time ago, a friend of mine (who often posts journals online with open-ended questions) posed this classic dilemma, which I'd seen many times before:

An oppressive regime has captured your best friend and plans to execute them. However, they will spare your friend's life on one condition: you must surrender to them and spend the rest of your life behind bars, with no hope of escape. Do you save your friend and spend the rest of your life in prison, or do you let your friend die?

An alarming number of comments- the majority, no less- said they would let their friend die. I had seen this question posed many times before, and each time, it seems, fewer and fewer people have it in them to step up and save their best friend.

This same person posted an open-ended question about the Occupy Wall Street movement. Many of the same people who commented that they would let their friend die to save themselves blasted the movement, one person even going so far as to say “nothing a bit of good old fashioned police brutality can't fix.”

These two questions are relevant to each other, because both of them demonstrate how people relate to the rights of others. Those who would not step up to save their friend from death at the hands of tyrants also seemed the least likely to step up and save their fellow citizens from being tear gassed, beaten, and jailed even in cases when they had broken no laws.

And yet, if they were asked why they held such an antagonistic view of the Occupy movement, the net response was usually something along the lines of the perception- or fear- that the protestors had or would infringe on their civil rights, even when they had not.

101

This, I think, is a symptom of the all-pervasive egoism that is turning Western society into one gigantic gulag. An egoist can only think about their own rights, and in looking after only one's own rights, one can only defend one's own ideas, beliefs, and practices. To stand up for the beliefs and practices of someone who believes the opposite of your own is contrary to self interest, and therefore anathema.

I grant you, in theory egoists are all about preserving the free exchange of ideas and the dignity of all individuals. But in practice, they have no qualms about systematically making it more and more difficult to speak one's mind without consequences, until only those with the income to employ themselves and build a media empire have any chance to speak freely.

In their minds, those who can do are the only ones who deserve to, and those who cannot achieve that sort of wherewithal have nothing of value to say. The public sphere where opinions can be expressed is allowed to shrink ever smaller.

Today in America, you can be fired from some jobs for expressing your thoughts from home on the Internet. How long before having a weblog or making comments of any sort is a prerogative reserved for the landed elite, and the average citizen becomes disposable chattel who have to earn their natural rights because they cannot afford their own space in which to exercise them? When one is born a servant on the manor, one must live by the manor's rules.

Another major issue is the fact that empathy has become unfashionable. Consider my first example, about the best friend who was about to be executed. Considering most human beings broadly, they would not want to watch their best friend die and would do anything to stop that. It's a basic degree of empathy that is so deep as to be instinctive for most warm-blooded creatures. It's the same reason a mother bird will throw herself to the dogs to save her chicks, or a pack of wolves will face down hunters to save their pups.

But to do the same for one's friend- to accept an unpleasant and permanent situation to save another from an unpleasant and permanent situation- is considered altruism, and altruism is a dirty word among egoists because it implies needless sacrifice, value lost without any value gained, and self-destruction.

I find a massive, glaring problem with this.

The act is not genuinely altruistic at all. Altruism implies that nothing is gained in return; this is not so. For someone who has not forgotten their humanity, there would be a good measure of satisfaction, even gratitude, that they could save their friend.

Although this has no material value, it is nonetheless a perceived gain and one that the brain is biochemically wired to receive. To discount this notion as pure emotivism is ignoring billions of years of evolutionary history; emotion is not just a second-hand product of intelligence that serves no real practical purpose, but an evolutionary tool that, whether we realize it or not, guides our every action and ultimately contributes to the survival of the species as a whole.

In a society where it is customary to believe that others' rights and lives have value worth saving, this person who sacrificed his freedom to save his friend may very well find himself being

102

saved by another brave soul who risked death to do it. They may also find that the people outside the prison walls have taken up their name as a rallying cry; their unjust imprisonment may well be the straw that broke the camel's back because it was not unfashionable to care about a complete stranger.

Sooner or later, in such a society, enough people would set their own safety aside to face likely death or imprisonment to topple the regime because they understand and value the rights and freedoms of their fellows. Oppression cannot stand when all rights are held in equal esteem.

When one values only one's own safety, wellbeing, thoughts, opinions, actions, and ideas and believes they have no obligation to defend anyone else's rights, the mechanism of liberty becomes “every man for himself.”

When a view becomes unpopular, or repressed, an egoist will not defend it because it doesn't suit them. They cannot be bothered to stand up for their fellow citizens; it's sink or swim.

But when everyone else is gone, who is there for the egoist when they, too, run afoul of an increasingly fickle and repressive system? The last domino falls with the last man standing.

To preserve liberty, there must be both a cultural esteem for difference of opinion, and more importantly, there must be a culture that values and glorifies empathy and compassion as true humanist virtues, not as limiting factors that destroy wealth and hinder personal gain.

Egoism as a Force Against Liberty

It is the common practice of egoists who wish to justify their position to speak of how, in history, nobody who was openly egoist has ever been accused of oppression.

This, of course, is typically followed by an academically stilted discussion of an intellectually stunted array of stock figures: Hitler, Stalin, and Napoleon among the favorites.

The feared dictators of the past, they argue, represent the force of collectivism and the state over the individual. They cite, typically, the rhetoric and trappings of dictators: the religiosity, the cult of state, the inflated sense of urgency, and use this in a bid to prove that it is collective action that represents the true evil in society.

But in this the egoist betrays himself for what he truly is: a developmentally-stunted child who puts on his father's mortar board hat and plays at being a genius. His vocabulary to express his ideas is tellingly limited, his catalog of examples is starkly thin, and his observations on the history are superficial and without depth or nuance.

For behind each tyrant who rose to power wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, there was a mind that had only one thing in mind: its own personal gain.

For some, that mind was not their own. George W. Bush had a large cadre of power-hungry handlers who were as keen to exploit his own good will as they were to exploit the gullibility of the public, for instance. There was nothing the least bit sincere about any nationalist appeal made by Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, or any other member of that Cabal that began its relentless drive toward

103

the brink of destruction.

For others, that mind is very much their own. The railroad tycoons of the 19th century starved immigrants, cheated workers out of their wages, swindled the government into providing them special rights, and lobbied for the near-genocide of the native races of the American plains. But whatever glowing collectivist rhetoric justified the gunning down of tens of thousands of Lakota, it was the greed of a few egoists that signed their death warrants.

Isn't it telling, then, that this last example is conveniently minimized by egoists? Ayn Rand- the mother of pop egoism in America- famously quipped:

I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect?

In other words, as Rand would have it, because the tribes of America didn't build cities and railroads, they were “savages” and had no culture, and therefore no concept of rights, and therefore no rights. She also, in her typically verbose way, goes on to say that two wrongs do make a right because some Indians took violent action against white settlers, therefore not respecting their rights, and therefore rendering an entire race fit to be gunned down.

It's a convenient way of shrugging off the issue. Indeed, if one takes more than a cursory glance at Rand's philosophy, it becomes clear that every nuance is deliberately designed to vindicate Rand's heroes. She does this well, and to that narrow goal she does express an exceptional aptitude. It carries a certain semblance of genius, inasmuch as the machinations of any sociopath reflect a certain stunted level of brilliance. But beyond its superficial semblance of genius, it is a flawed, arrogant, and childish means of sidestepping the truth: that thousands died because of the material appetites of a wealthy few.

Cooperation toward a common goal is as much an engine for progress as the ideas of the individual; no individual stands entirely alone, and no society can function well unless the individual has certain rights. The dichotomy of the individual versus the collective is a false one, and one employed by those who either see reality as pure dichotomy because of some pathological defect, or who speak the language of dichotomy because it suits their agenda.

It is those who employ false dichotomies, arrogant arguments, and stale presumptions wrapped in the trappings of intellect and reason who are the true enemy. This applies as much to the statist as to the egoist, and more often than not they are the very same entity.

104

On The Importance of Family and Family Pluralism

The family unit is important in the formation of a functioning, civil society. The family is the first line of support in times of crisis and the first social group a person will ever deal with.

When a family is present to positively instill the values of honesty, fairness, cooperation, and compassion, a child will learn these values. A child's mind absorbs whatever it is exposed to, and hungrily; I can think of no better food for such a hungry mind than to show them the very best of what a human being can be.

From birth, a child should be surrounded by people who embody these virtues, and the society around them should do everything to encourage families to participate in public life together. Families should be celebrated and encouraged to thrive as component units.

A family might be seen as a sort of micro-state; it is a nation within a nation. It is also a bellwether for the health of the greater society around them.

When most families in a given society are in poor health, that society will wheeze under the strain of people raised in broken, dysfunctional homes. Once the children of selfish, spiteful, lazy, and disrespectful people grow up, they too become selfish, spiteful, lazy, and disrespectful. For this reason, it is vitally important, for the integrity and health of the nation, that society as a whole take an interest in the integrity and health of its component families.

However- and this pitfall snares many traditionalists, nationalists, and theocrats- we must view the health of a family purely from a functional standpoint, and not from its composition. A family should never be judged on the age, number, and sex of its component members but on how they function as a unit, and how properly adjusted the children they raise are.

Thus, if given the choice between a single parent who is a good parent and a married couple who are abusive and neglectful, we should always favor the single parent; if a homosexual couple can raise a child who is as sociable and community minded as that of a good heterosexual couple, we should not withhold our praise for them. We should make no presumptions, and judge families solely on how each one performs.

Families of all types will, from time to time, fail to perform. A wise nation should invest heavily in a child welfare system that puts the physical and mental wellbeing of children at its highest priority. This investment- more than police, more than defense, and more than infrastructure- should be the primary concern of a nation concerned about its future.

Remember too that low birth rates are nothing to be concerned about. A small nation with a modest birth rate can sustain itself and its natural resources far longer than one with an excessive birth rate. What we should be concerned with is not the quantity of children being born, but the quality of life they face throughout their lives and the quality of their upbringing.

I believe Cascadia- a nation of only 15 to 20 million over a vast area- has room to grow, but we should not force population growth upon ourselves. More people means less pristine wilderness, and in time a doubled, tripled, or quadrupled population that occurs faster than sustainable development can

105

be implemented could cause the eventual collapse of our natural resources.

If we must choose, let us choose a handful of well-raised children from highly diverse families over a bumper crop of poorly-raised children from “traditional” but inconsistent families.

Reflection on the English Enlightement

The English enlightenment introduced some ideas that persisted, but also had many ideas that fell to the wayside in favor of a more egoist or nihilist interpretation of 18th century enlightenment liberalism.

That move to the wayside followed the rise of egoists and constructivists, who were an equal and opposite reaction to duty ethicists such as Kant.

But now, as the egoist and constructivist movements have started to mature, these too are beginning to show their faults.

Perhaps what is needed is a serious, tenet-for-tenet dialog between the surviving remnants of the Enlightenment- the Kantians, the Hobbesians, and the Benthamites- and the more cynical popular ethicists of the present day. Perhaps even the modern-day deists could enter the debate; they do still exist, after all.

Serious questions, such as how to adapt 18th century ethics to 21st century problems, need to be addressed carefully. Could Hobbes or Payne have imagined what the Internet would do to people's lives, both good and bad? What about some of this medical technology that people now have access to?

We find the conclusions in the dialogue, then we exclude conclusions that we know did not work in favor of ones that have worked and ones that haven't been tested. We test them methodically.

I believe the next philosophical leap should be the net product of a dialogue between Enlightenment liberals and modern egoists and constructivists, taking the very best qualities of each.

If we build a movement to independence rallying around that philosophy, the resulting national culture will be one of the most enlightened nations ever conceived.

The Importance of Organized Resistance

Resistance doesn't need to be violent, but it does need to be organized.

Bloodless coups have become fairly common in the last century. In many cases the handover of power ultimately occurs with little or no loss of life. It has been proven time and again that a victory can be won this way if the conditions are right. Ethically, this is a very desirable way of doing things because it means the greatest good with the least waste of lives and resources.

But no successful resistance in history has ever been disorganized. Organization is the difference between being dismissed as a loose group of malcontents, and being taken seriously as a political force.

106

It is the difference between having common, united goals with a mutual agreement to achieve those goals, and having a loose collection of people with a vague idea of discontent. And yet, such are the mobs I see on protest days across America. Chiefly two camps I see, one enamored of the status quo and one in protest, but neither can acknowledge that they are not a solid movement; they are a meme, a vague center of discontent, but they are not a united front to imposing that discontent.

I can tell you that the first of these two to form a coherent organization- a committee dedicated to the reform each camp seeks, and nationally visible as an organized front- will become the dominant force in American politics.

The Cascadian cause should not fall into the pitfall of associating certainty, unity, and organization with conservatism. We can value these virtues and not compromise our core tenets of liberty, equality, and fraternity.

In fact, we will go nowhere unless we can overcome that aversion to certainty and decisiveness; We must believe that our cause deserves to triumph, and we must be organized enough to do it.

On the Grand Dilemma of the Human Condition

At the root of all human unhappiness rests the deepest of all contradictions, a Grand Dilemma that stands in the way of peace, civility, and enlightenment.

By his very nature, a human being embodies this dilemma: his mind demands its affirmation as an individual, but his instinct and body demand codependency.

That the human being is a curious creature born of unique and desperate circumstances is self-evident. It is not enough to look at the weak morphology of the human frame and address it as the consequence of a social lifestyle and a highly capacious mind; many of the brightest social creatures can survive so much more effectively on their own than a lone human being.

Observe the dolphin, the chimpanzee, and the elephant, for example. They are faster, more agile, stronger, possess sharper teeth, claws, and keener senses- the human body, by contrast, is so dull as to make solitary survival for even the most resourceful nearly impossible. The cases of a lone human being surviving more than a decade on their own are rarest of all, and normally brought about in the most dire of circumstances.

Thus the arrogant ape is corralled- not by any artificial will, but by his own needs- to the company of others. The full-time task of survival with expansive brains in diminished bodies is distributed into manageable blocks of time, set tasks, labors to be completed.

And yet, even as he performs his duty to his immediate others, his mind grows restless and hungry for affirmation, even exaltation.

So completely at odds are these two natures- the inner reality of the ego and the outer reality of interdependence- that no philosophy to date has properly reconciled them.

107

It has sufficed, for so many long ages, for human philosophy to either place an elevated importance on the group- to the despair of the ego- or to place an elevated importance on the ego- to the detriment of the group. The dichotomy grows, widens, and festers more bitterly with each polarizing century, each arrogant teacher who believes they have solved the Grand Dilemma.

The Grand Dilemma is not solved because the Grand Dilemma is bred into the human condition. The Grand Dilemma is the human condition. Culture can only emphasize or diminish small minutiae of the dilemma, but cannot destroy it completely for it is instinct.

The arrogant ape, who lives in sprawling hives of steel and glass built by hands other than his own, the most capable of whom would live in a cave or a straw hut if not for the efforts of his fellows, constantly grasps for his identity as a self-made creature even as he benefits from the collective efforts of the species.

And likewise his fellows- in the same breath even- fawn over their arrogant chiefs, but cut down those who try to become their equals or betters, even to their own detriment. By the same mechanism they control those who lust for power, they oppress those who would bring new and better ideas.

For this reason, civility can exist only as a sort of stasis, a cease-fire, a reluctant concession to the limitations imposed upon us by biology. The balance between cooperation and ego is forever a tenuous one, and one that is constantly challenged by the will of nature.

No society, then, can function without some concessions both to the need for cooperation, but also the need for self-affirmation and a sense of self-importance. I believe the egoists are partly correct when they say that total collectivism fails because it does not acknowledge the individual; what they fail to grasp is that total individualism is just as destructive because, just like collectivism, it ignores one of two conflicting needs.

While reasonable boundaries should be set where they are necessary, a civil society should allow a great degree of flexibility in terms of self-expression, freedom of association, and pride of ownership and acquisition. Limitations on these freedoms should be approached with caution and reluctance, but they should not be abhorred so completely that the need for cooperation is abandoned.

A Warning on Questionable Alliances

Know your enemies, and never assume the enemy of your enemy is your friend.

The move for Cascadian independence won't be without resistance, nor will it be without elements that try to use it to support their own agendas.

There is a very good chance that the Cascadia Independence Project will be infiltrated by federal agents looking to make a case to declare us a terrorist organization. Beware of anyone who trades in conspiracy theories, or insists that we “act now.” These are the mechanisms often used by federal agents to provoke members of groups like ours into action so that we can be discredited and shut down.

The CIP is also especially vulnerable to other groups who also want the Pacific Northwest for

108

their own purposes. There is another group outside of the CIP that also wants to create a new nation in the Pacific Northwest. It is known as the Northwest Front and is organized by white supremacist Howard Covington. Covington has written an entire cycle of novels about forming a white separatist nation in the Pacific states.

Covington wants to project the image of being simply “pro-white,” and of having no interest in senseless attacks on unarmed civilians, but it's a thin veneer to say the least; if one even skims his novels, one instead finds some of the most bloodthirsty propaganda ever conceived.

He refers to cold-blooded murder in callous, flippant terms; shooting someone is “tickling” them, killing an important government or media figure is “taking out a Burger King,” and killing an interracial couple is “giving them their jungle fever shots.”

I strongly suggest that everyone involved in the CIP make themselves aware of the Northwest Front's demands, agenda, and lexicon. Knowing the way members of the Northwest Front think, the terms they use, and the arguments they fall back on will make it easier to spot infiltrators.

At this time I do not know how many supporters they have or what kind of resources or organization might be at their disposal, but do not underestimate them. Never forget that a powerful minority with a hateful agenda can cause havoc if left unchecked.

Why Inevitable Oligarchies Must Be Resisted

A state of being or an inevitable outcome is not justified strictly by itself.

In politics, nowhere is this more true than when dealing with that most unpleasant of specters, namely the Iron Rule of Oligarchy.

It has been observed- perhaps correctly- that no political movement, no matter how democratic its goals, will inevitably become an oligarchy owing to the willingness of the majority to be led and the willingness of a minority to provide leadership.

Some, however, have erroneously tried to apply this as justification for the rise of autocracies. Because a democratic system will inevitably slide into oligarchy, they claim, it represents a “natural progression” that is best allowed to occur.

This is a fallacy on two profound levels.

First, to say that oligarchy is defensible because it is a “natural progression” of affairs assumes that all natural progressions are necessarily right or defensible by their very nature. By that logic, one could also argue that a house's timbers should be allowed to rot because their decay represents a “natural progression.”

Second, it presumes that “natural progressions” should rightly apply to a system that is, in and of itself, not natural. Indeed, no political system can be said to be entirely “natural” because it must resort to artificial means- namely a social contract- in order to create and enforce its very existence. In much the same way, a house is not a “natural” item; it is an item made from natural components that

109

people have assembled in a way that suits them.

As far as oligarchy itself, there can be little positive said about it. When one small caste rules a large number of people, they must forever defend their power to maintain their influence. The usual means of doing this is by destroying any contrary influence, even at the cost of excluding newer, better, and more desirable ideas. An oligarchy can only survive by recycling the same stale ideas perpetuated by the same people, and its ultimate result is collective intellectual stagnation. This is as true for statism as it is for corporatism.

It follows, then, that if a government wishes at its onset to remain democratic, its government and its people must contribute to the cause of maintaining that state of affairs. The government- like a house- is unstable and impermanent when not supported by constant examination and maintenance.

To that end, a democratic system must also enshrine in its institutions a means for a periodic overhaul of its inner workings (beyond something as simple as elections). There must be both a means and an obligation, every few decades, to examine the structure and function of a government and if necessary completely restructure it to better suit the original social contract.

A democratic government must also necessarily contain the seeds of its own destruction. It must have enshrined within its founding constitution and contract certain vulnerabilities which will allow its people- if they feel it is necessary- to completely subvert its authority and start all over again.

These vulnerabilities must be known, taught, and explicitly stated, and must only allow a revolution from within while not exposing itself to foreign enemies. In other words, this can only be done by extending certain rights to its citizens, among them the right to communicate freely and the right to an education.

In terms of allowing for revolution, these are more important and fundamental than the right to bear arms; after all, an educated man who has access to the blueprints can build his own gun if he really needs to.

This is not to disparage the importance of firearm ownership, but to emphasize just how important it is for free thought and communication to take precedence. The right to own any property- guns included- should always come a distant second to the right to knowledge.

An oligarchic state may be inevitable, but its onset should not be seen as something one must accept; no more than one must accept the breakdown of an engine, or the collapse of a house. From time to time, engines and structures, like governments, must be completely renovated.

Conspiracy Theories as Viral Propaganda

When I was much younger, back in the 90s, conspiracy theories did exist, but they were largely held to the fringe.

The 2000s seemed to change things. While it was unfashionable to accuse the government of any wrongdoing after the September 11th attacks, as people became restless, conspiracy theories became more widely accepted.

110

The shift began when the government could no longer live up to its expectations for security. Here we have a government that could not fend off an attack by an unsophisticated band of desperate Islamists, who could not catch their leader despite tracking him since the first World Trade Center attack in the 90s.

The government- in collusion with the media- responded to these doubts about its ability to keep tabs on terrorists by making Al-Qaeda out to be far more sophisticated than they truly were. Early on, we heard about mountain bases with military-grade surveillance equipment, sophisticated television studios for propaganda films, and world-class weaponry being used by the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

By making the terrorists out to be more sophisticated, the government kept up the illusion that they were not inept or backward, and that they still had the whole world fully and completely under control. What I believe happened then is that those who had believed that the government was a massively powerful Big Brother entity were vindicated, and found an audience.

The first conspiracy theory to gain widespread acceptance was the “truther” movement. Many people believed even questionable analyses of the 9/11 attacks, because they couldn't accept that the government would really be ineffective enough for that to happen. The first wave of 9/11 truthers spanned the aisle across liberal and conservative audiences, and documentaries like “loose change” garnered a great deal of popular attention.

There were two camps that sprang up thereafter. The first to really come to light was on the left. I recall being lectured numerous times by people who swore that owning a gun, voting, protesting, or otherwise posturing toward liberty was pointless because of the “shadow government” that ran everything. I would be lying if I didn't suspect, at that point, that the Bush administration was somehow using conspiracy theories to frighten the left into submission.

Now, the most ardent conspiracy theorists seem to be on the right. In particular, Glenn Beck seems to have done a great deal to popularize conspiracy theories such as the new Red Scare, the Birther movement, and even the infamous FEMA death camp story.

Even to those who aren't fans of conspiracy theories, the overwhelming public opinion has been pushed toward the government knowing everything you see, think, and do. Arrests of would-be terrorists make big headlines; what the media seldom talks about is just how amateurish these terrorists usually are. If anything, we should be surprised that there haven't been more attacks similar to the July 11, 2005 attacks in London on American soil; such an attack would be easy to carry out. But the appearance of invincibility holds most of the people stupid enough to carry out such an attack afraid to try it; the rest are too stupid to even pull it off and usually get caught.

I seriously hope that as a movement, the CIP can examine the situation in the world today objectively. Ignore the hype about who's getting caught doing what; learn the facts, find out what's really going on. Remember that those who don't want us to be independent- particularly those in industry and the media- will try to seed the masses with conspiracy theories that will make our movement seem weak, small, and impotent while the federal government looks big, powerful, and imposing.

111

Don't build traps for paper tigers; I may not agree with everything they do, but if the activist collective Anonymous has taught us anything, it's that even in this world, you can still stand up and be heard. They prove once and for all that ordinary people can assert their will with impunity, and that's an important lesson.

You may notice too that the media has noticed them, and has played them up to be a much more organized and sophisticated group than they really are. They're not; they're just ordinary people, some of whom are somewhat more aware of the latent vulnerabilities of the Internet and government, who share a similar purpose and communicate over a vast, loose network. Arrests of Anons are widely publicized, but they always come back.

I hope that if we encounter negativity, smear campaigns, and resistance, that the spirit of Anonymous can manifest itself in our movement too. We should remain largely peaceful and pursue change without violence, but still resolute, skeptical of posturing and belittling, and willing to say “come at me bro!” when the corporate and financial interests that fear us posture with idle threats. But more importantly, I hope urban legends and conspiracy theories bandied about as “fact” by the media never discourage us from doing what we set out to do.

On the Futility of Punitive Taxation

Punitive taxation is a pointless exercise.

Taxation itself does, but taxation has only one real purpose: to fund a government and its public works. The implicit social contract behind taxation is that this money will be gathered only when needed, and dispersed wisely.

But there is no necessity nor wisdom to punitive taxation. When taxation, which has been traditionally upheld as a civic duty suddenly becomes a punishment, it becomes a punishment meted out broadly and with no recourse. In time, when subjected to increasingly stringent taxation, the people will become antagonistic to the social contract, and that cooperation between the people and its government will be lost.

In some instances, people will try to avoid it. When imposing a punitive tax on certain items or income levels, the people begin exploiting loopholes. Back in the 18th century, the British Parliament passed a hefty tax on gin to spite London's infamous gin mills. Undeterred, London's drunks either began making their own “bathtub gin,” or were offered an alternative that omitted gin's juniper berry flavoring, and therefore was not subject to the tax. The concoction was dubbed “Parliamentary Brandy.”

This is the case with higher bracket taxes on the wealthiest earners too. Traditionally, those facing the highest rates of taxation will take every chance they can to avoid it. Offshore bank accounts, tax shelters, and massive deductions are all used to make sure that those who owe higher tax rates never actually have to pay them.

In some cases, punitive taxation does nothing at all. For example- if I may include a personal anecdote- when the new, higher federal taxes on tobacco were instituted around 2009, I was working with several chain smokers. They complained loudly about Obama's decision to sign these taxes into

112

law, but it didn't stop them; it didn't even slow them down. They were so far gone with their nicotine addictions that they had to have their fix, even if it was bankrupting them. This is often the case with alcohol and gambling taxes as well.

If certain groups have their way, sugary snacks and drinks will be heavily taxed in the US. If and when that does happen, I see one of two things happening. Either it will worsen the already precarious situation of poor families who will have fewer options available to feed their children, or- very likely- the food and beverage companies will find some clever loophole and it will be business as usual.

Punitive taxation trades in a very ineffective pre-industrial mindset that declares that social problems have no causes, and thus by punishing certain behaviors one can control them.

Reality is not that simple. Punitive taxation treats the causes of social problems by attempting to limit access to certain items and means, but it cannot treat the root of the problem. It's at best a lazy attempt at social engineering, and at worst an excuse to grab more money when the government is wasting its revenue on war and misadventure.

I would hope that the supporters of this movement, and particularly our first committee, have the wisdom to see taxation for what it is: a necessary tool for keeping a society working. Nothing less, nothing more. We should not fall into the Libertarian trap of discounting taxation as entirely bad or seeing it as a “necessary evil,” nor should we rely on taxation alone to “level the playing field” when there are so many other factors at work in social inequality.

The Importance of civilian Control of Government

Beware the officers of the previous regime.

If and when a Cascadian state is established, we must take care that we do not allow a power vacuum to be filled by those who have a military cunning for organization, intimidation, and the seizure of power.

The chief problem with the Arab Spring- particularly as it was practiced in Egypt- was that it was a decentralized movement that ultimately allowed the only centralized authority- the military- to seize power. Now Hosni Mubarak's officers, who trained and rose through the ranks under his very same brutal regime, are the brokers of power in Egypt. They control the elections, they police the streets, and they will likely suppress further revolts when the new Islamist government proves too repressive.

We cannot have that in Cascadia. A constitutional protection to keep former officers of the US and other military forces out of the executive branch is an imperative. Remember that civilian control of the military is the main idea behind an executive office, and that any former officer of another military will be more likely to maintain their allegiance to another power.

This is why I have included the following clause in my proposed draft for a Cascadian

113

constitution:

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the Republic at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person who harbors allegiance to any foreign power, state, prince, or potentate, or has served as an officer in the armed forces of any nation other than Cascadia...

This builds on extant clauses in the US constitution defining the eligibility for presidency. However, the US constitution had no such prohibitions on former officers serving in the capacity of president. George Washington, a former British officer during the French and Indian wars, became the first constitutionally-elected president of the US. Said president later went on to use military force to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion of 1789, with significant civilian deaths.

Cascadia should reject such militarization of its government and such heavy-handed treatment of its citizens. For this reason, we should reject the role of ex-officers of the previous regime, or of any other regime, in wielding executive power.

114

Appendix A:Proposed National Symbols, Songs, and Designs

Proposed National Anthem

Song of the EvergreensWords and music by J. Herndon

1.Between the shore and mountainsides There grow the evergreensAbove the land, below the skyEnduring and serene!

ChorusAnd if these evergreens can standAgainst the roaring storm,What chance do jealous tyrants haveAgainst the bold free-born?

2.The fir, the redwood and the larchStand firm upon this landFrom windswept treelines, down the vale,And to the ocean sand(chorus)

3.Between the shore and mountainsidesThe land is rich and clean!Come sing our anthem hand in hand,Among the evergreens!(end)

115

Proposed Flag Design

“The Doug Flag”

Designed by Alexander Baretich.

Baretich comments he designed this flag in 1994 while living in Europe and homesick for the forests of the Pacific Northwest. It features three horizontal bars emblazoned with a large conifer.

116

The blue represents clear skies, rivers, and oceans and is a traditional color for loyalty and truth. The white represents the snow and is a traditional color for purity, peace, and sincerity. The green represents the forests and fields and is a traditional color for life, hope, and joy.

The conifer in its center- often taken to be a Douglas Fir but not necessarily- represents endurance, strength, and serenity in the face of danger. The conifers of the northwest stand in defiance of nature and humanity alike, and resist destruction by simple persistence, size, and sheer numbers.

This design also harkens back somewhat to the “pine tree” flag of the American revolution, flown by ships of the Continental Navy. It can be seen as an affectionate nod to the American Revolution without the militaristic contemporary associations of Gadsden's “Don't Tread on Me” flag.

The Doug Flag is both an elegantly simple design, and instantly recognizable as a distinct symbol of Cascadian pride and unity. It has been featured as an affectionate symbol for fans of the Portland Timbers, Vancouver Whitecaps, and Seattle Sounders; on bottles of Hopworks Secession Cascadian Dark Ale; on the Wikipedia page for Cascadia; and on Fleet Foxes' 2008 self-titled studio album.

Proposed Currency

The Cascadian Hour

The Committee may (perhaps rightly) choose a currency system that is completely unlinked to any current form of currency; my suggestion is somewhat more conservative, but still maintains a

117

certain independence of design.

Here is a sample design for a Cascadian One Hour note, though by no means the final design:

The name “Hour” was inspired by the Ithaca Hours, a local currency used in New York. It is a concept adapted loosely from Time Banking, wherein hours of labor and human time are considered the baseline for all value in society.

Its value should be set at parity with the value of one hour of labor, and the value of one hour of labor- for our purposes- should be determined by the question of how much a person must earn working 40 hours per week to effectively sustain a family of four. One Hour will represent minimum hourly wage.

So, for example, if the minimum income to sustain a family of four is roughly $27,000 US, and a person working full-time works approximately 2000 paid hours per year, then the value of one Cascadian Hour is roughly $13.50 US.

Every coin should be composed of metal roughly equivalent to its face value, and the face value of all coinage should meet or exceed the face value of any and all paper notes in circulation. In fact, the public reliance on paper notes should be discouraged, with coins more widely used and accepted in shops and public utilities.

All notes and coinage should have designs that harken to the region's natural heritage, another source of wealth and value. Shown here on this design is a wapiti (or elk). Some other natural images that could be shown on Cascadian Hours include Mt. Hood, Deception Pass, the Coast Redwood, the Gray Wolf, the red fox (perhaps the first ever to appear on currency of any nation), the salmon, and the spotted owl.

118

Proposed Motto

“Ukuk mamook nasika tumtum kloshe”

A phrase in the old Chinook jargon. It means roughly “This gives us hope” or “We've got a good feeling about this.”

This motto both incorporates the fading regional dialect of the Chinook trade language and a positive, universally-understandable sentiment that reflects one of the things our movement should be about: hope and a good outlook for the future.

Proposed Capital and Legislative Buildings

Although the location of the capital should be debated carefully, I believe that the legislative district should be formed from the northern part of Portland, OR and the southern part of Vancouver, WA. Much like the District of Columbia strides two states separated by a river, this new legislative district- the District of Cascadia- would have its home in two of the region's most important states.

Regarding a meeting place for the legislature, I believe that Cascadia's national assembly (whether we call it a congress, parliament, or some other term) should have the option of assembling via a virtual environment. This would be a state-run voice chat server, publicly readable but accessible only to legislators and to academics who wished to offer advice. To maintain order, everyone who speaks will request a “ticket” from the web server and be queued for their turn to speak. When their turn comes, only they can speak and they will have the floor for a few minutes before being forced to yield for the next ticket, and so forth.

The legislature should also have a ceremonial home, where it meets on occasion. The Pioneer Courthouse or the old customs building in Portland, OR would be natural choices, but these are not the only option.

Proposed Use of Uniforms

Uniforms are typically associated with a culture of militarism; if military-style uniforms are commonplace, militaristic behavior seems to follow. While uniforms are not the cause of militarism, they are one of many factors.

To mitigate this, I believe that police uniforms should be deliberately designed to be as demilitarized as possible. A simple design of slacks, a polo shirt with an embroidered badge, and dress shoes will allow for unity and standards of dress without imposing a paramilitary presence.

Likewise, there should be serious limits on how and where military personnel are allowed to appear in uniform. A culture where military uniforms on everyday streets become a normalized sight is one where military patrols will not look out of place, but a culture where such a uniform implies a special circumstance will make any semblance of martial law unappealing and alarming.

119

Proposed Flag Protocol

Flag protocol should be as simple as possible. In regards to display of the national flag, any display that is reasonable and respectful should be fit for any public building. This means as long as the flag is flown at full-mast on an adequately long pole, it shouldn't matter on which side any other state, local, or foreign flags are displayed.

Rather than burning soiled or tattered flags, the proper means of disposal should be recycling. It would be more meaningful, in the spirit of our movement, to put a destroyed flag to good use than to dirty the air by burning it.

We should forgo an official Pledge of Allegiance. In fact, there should be no oaths required of anyone except in the case of government officials, military, and police. Only those who have an explicit mission to protect the nation should have to swear an oath of loyalty aloud. As a citizen's duties are implicit, so should a citizen's oath be a silent one.

No aspect of flag protocol should ever be construed to be legally binding for private institutions or for individuals; its implementation will be strictly limited to public buildings and agencies, and no bid to criminalize breach of protocol should ever be allowed to leave the floor of our national assembly.

120

Appendix B:Further Reading and Bibliography

General Politics and Socioeconomics

Chomsky, NoamProfit Over People: Neoliberalism & Global OrderSeven Stories Press, 2011

Gorenfield, JohnBad Moon Rising: How Reverend Moon Created the Washington Times, Seduced the Religious Right, and Built an American KingdomPoliPoint Press, 2008

Hedges, ChrisEmpire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of SpectacleNation Books, 2010

Klein, NaomiThe Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster CapitalismPicador, 2008

Moyo, DambasiHow the West Was Lost: Fifty Years of Economic Folly-and the Stark Choices AheadFarrar, Strauss, and Giroux, 2011

Pierce, Charles P.Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the FreeAnchor, 2010

Sharlet, JeffThe Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American PowerHarper Perennial, 2009

121

Unger, CraigHouse of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful DynastiesScribner, 2004

Wolin, Sheldon S.Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism Princeton University Press, 2010

Case Studies in Independence and Secession

Jackson, T.A.Ireland her own: An outline history of the Irish struggle for national freedom and independenceLawrence and Wishart, 1971

Naylor, Thomas H.Secession: How Vermont and All the Other States Can Save Themselves from the EmpireFeral House, 2008

Naylor, Thomas H.The Vermont Manifesto: The Second Vermont RepublicXlibris, 2003

Premdas, Ralph R.Secessionist Movements in Comparative PerspectivePalgrave Macmillan, 1990

Weller, MarcContested Statehood: Kosovo's Struggle for Independence Oxford University Press, 2009

Ideas to Build a Better World

Alinsky, Saul D.Rules for RadicalsVintage, 1989

Atlee, TomThe Tao of Democracy: Using Co-Intelligence to Create a World that Works for AllThe Writers' Collective, 2010

Cahn, Edgar S.No More Throw-Away People: The Co-Production ImperativeEssential Books Ltd, 2004

Korten, David C.

122

Agenda for a New Economy: From Phantom Wealth to Real WealthBerrett-Koehler Publishers, 2010

Thoreau, Henry DavidWaldenProject Gutenberg (online text)

Thoreau, Henry DavidCivil DisobedienceProject Gutenberg (online text)

Practical Advice for CIP Members in Troubled Times

AnonymousPiece Now, Peace Later: An Anarchist Introduction to FirearmsUnknown publisher, unknown date

AnonymousSurvival Guide for Citizens in a RevolutionAnonymous press release, unknown date

Carson, Dale C and Denham, WesArrest-Proof YourselfChicago Review Press, 2007

Center for Constitutional RightsIf An Agent KnocksCCR, 1998-2010

Tobiason, Timothy W.Identifying Undercover Activity and AgentsSelf-Published, Circa 2000

History Texts of Potential Relevance

Burns, EricInfamous Scribblers: The Founding Fathers and the Rowdy Beginnings of American JournalismPublicAffairs, 2007

Dray, PhillipThere Is Power in a Union: The Epic Story of Labor in AmericaAnchor, 2011

Terkel, StudsHard Times: An Oral History of the Great DepressionThe New Press, 2000

123

White, RichardRailroaded: The Transcontinentals and the Making of Modern AmericaW. W. Norton & Co., 2011

Documentaries of Note

American Experience - The Way West: How the West Was Lost & Won, 1845-1893Dir. Ric BurnsPBS Paramount, 1995 for PBS

Hooked: Illegal Drugs and How They Got That WayDir. Tom YaroschukTera Media, 2000 for The History Channel

The Power of NightmaresDir. Adam CurtisBBC, 2004

Unsolved History: The Death of the USS MaineDir. Dan LevittTermite Art Productions, 2002, for The History Channel