For at least the past few months, Dan Bongino has been flirting with the idea of a state seceding from the union and governing itself as an independent nation. Bongino is among the most popular conservative talk show hosts, and he is the only conservative podcast that I listen to daily. After conservative congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene reiterated her strong support for a national divorce, Bongino dedicated a substantial portion of his shows over the past week to seriously address the idea of separating from the radical left. In addition to Greene, Thomas Massie, a popular libertarian-conservative congressman from Kentucky has mentioned secession on numerous occasions. To Bongino’s credit, he did not simply say that secessionists are ‘stupid jerks’. He listed what he believed to be the major advantages and disadvantages of secession. He did list some of the best reasons to secede. But there are many more. His list of reasons to remain in the union and continue fighting the endless futile battle for control of DC and all 50 states was very unimpressive. In fact, I have resolved nearly every issue he listed in my books, articles, and talks. A few of the disadvantages he mentioned were so insignificant that I never even thought about them until now. I will address those in this article, as well. 

He said there are a few cons:

Bongino asserts that progressive states would never leave the conservative states alone; there will be a political invasion…They will follow you to these red states. This is hardly an issue. Conservative states could make their borders, immigration, citizenship, or voting stricter. Or they could amend their constitutions to prevent simple majorities from violating rights. Or they could prohibit new movers to the state from voting until they have lived there for five years. Also, few progressives would leave their preferred state to enter hostile territory. Remember, progressives hate Texas now, despite federal law keeping the conservative state extremely progressive in many ways. Once independent, conservative states would be exponentially more hostile to progressives (no gun laws, no welfare, no gay marriage, no abortion, etc. More likely than a progressive influx into the state after secession would be a progressive exodus away from the state the moment the votes are counted and the secession clock begins ticking.

Bongino asserts that taxes would remain the same or increase for conservative states. The traditional manner of making this argument is that states would need to increase their taxes or increase new taxes to fund the federal programs that would no longer be available. I addressed this non-issue at length in a prior article and in my books. Bongino actually made a more interesting argument on his podcast. He said that progressive states would still obey strict regulations, which would likely apply to any business operating within those states, even if they are based in red states. He also said that progressive states might impose tariffs and taxes on migration and trade. As for doing business in the anti-liberty states, we will either do just fine without trading with them, or they will minimize or cease their enforcement of the onerous regulations in order to trade freely with other states. It really is that simple. As usual, the free market would work it out. In regard to the tariffs and border taxes, pro-liberty individuals would likely avoid the awful leftist states. Eventually, those states would likely loosen those restrictions in order to attract tourists and commerce. 

What about the national debt? The leftists will never let us go! I am not sure if I heard Bongino mention this, but it is a serious issue that I hear frequently during the Q&A portion of my speeches. There are a few responses:

It’s not my debt. It’s not New Hampshire’s debt. It’s the debt accrued by sociopathic politicians from DC who never represented me or my desires in any way. I am not responsible for their horrible, evil, violent, destructive actions. 

Is there any plan for the DC politicians to pay off its debt as things stand today? Of course not. 

According to international law, a seceding state is not responsible for any debt from the union that it left. 

As I’ve explained in my articles and books, New Hampshire would be so fantastically prosperous after declaring independence from the DC Empire that it would be able to pay off the roughly one trillion dollars of debt that the DC politicians might claim it owes. 

What about national defense?

I have explained at length in The Blueprint For Liberty and Articles of Secession why an independent New Hampshire would be much safer than the current united states. Suffice it to say that the events of only the past few weeks have proven that the DC Empire’s military is either incapable or unwilling to protect us. The Chinese government has mocked us by sending balloons into our airspace and then sending them floating over the union for days, and they have likely done so many times before. The federal government can’t secure a border, it focuses on military wokeness over preparedness, it prioritizes dangerous COVID vaccines over adequate numbers of soldiers, and it spreads itself way too thin, stationing soldiers in 180 countries around the world. Additionally, it is undisputed that the DC Empire’s abrasively interventionist policy over the past few decades has certainly fomented substantial hostility toward the united states. People and governments from Iran to China are now greater threats to all individuals within the union as a result of the DC Empire’s foreign policy. An independent New Hampshire would not have any of these issues, making it safer than it is as part of the failed union. 

The states each literally have their own militaries. They are called the ‘National Guard’. Until Woodrow Wilson stole them from the states and federalized them all in 1916, these militaries were loyal to their individual states. They still exist, but we need to bring them back to their states. Again, the theft of the state guards by the DC Empire is yet another major reason to secede. 

I addressed national defense in an article, as well. 

Bongino seemed to infer that individuals who reside in a state that secedes would still have a ‘military commitment’ to the DC Empire. This is a rather silly argument, because soldiers surely move out of the union all the time. They could retire from the military. Of course, I would always advise against joining the DC Empire’s military in the first place. 

What about interstate travel? Bongino is worried that we might need a passport or visa to travel to other states once we secede. Again, I do not plan to ever travel to a communist authoritarian state. If they want pro-liberty people to visit their states, they will need to make it easier. Many states throughout the world have allowed free movement between their borders. The progressives claim to be the biggest advocates of freedom of movement. They could not possibly establish any kind of border checkpoints. And libertarians like those in New Hampshire also support free movement of people. Other than possibly some conservative states, there might be no restrictions on movement between states once the union dissolves. I explained this in more detail in an article, as well. 

What about gun laws in blue states? Bongino lamented that the current reciprocity for gun permits would be lost once the union dissolves. This argument has very little legitimacy, as far as I can tell. 

The progressive states like NY, CA, NJ, etc. already do not respect firearms permits from pro-liberty states. Secession would not change that. Currently, stepping foot in NYC with any firearm exposes the bearer to life in prison. Would secession really make that reality worse?

The moderate states could choose to continue respecting permits from other states if they so desire. Again, secession would not change this. In fact, secession would allow for true competition and genuine laboratories of experimentation. Once the states could all see clearly that the safest states are the ones with no restrictions on firearms, they would have immense pressure to give up on gun control in their own states. 

Perhaps the biggest pro-gun argument for secession is that for the individuals living in the free states (New Hampshire, Wyoming, Missouri, etc.) the only restrictions on firearms are federal. New Hampshire does not have any gun laws. The only reason I cannot have a suppressor or the rifles I want is because of the DC Empire’s laws. Once we secede from the union, my full self-defense rights will be immediately restored! 

Finally, in response to the horrible argument that independent blue states would implement gun control once the US Constitution no longer applies to them, one needs only to look at the current gun laws in states like California and New York. These states ignore the federal government and spit in the face of the Supreme Court of the DC Empire whenever those institutions push back against the states’ blatantly unconstitutional gun control. They already don’t care about natural rights, self-defense, or the Constitution. Secession could not possibly make those states more hostile to gun owners. But again, who cares? I will never visit those states after the divorce. 

What about social security? What about Medicare and Medicaid? 

They are insolvent anyway. Within a few years, Social Security and Medicare will not have the funds to make the necessary disbursements. Medicaid is technically a state-run program, though the DC politicians have overtaken this and made it even worse than it was. It is failing and it should be totally abolished.

I addressed these programs in articles and books, as well. 

Social security is paid to individuals regardless of whether they live in the union. Secession is unlikely to affect this program. 

The overall prosperity of the individuals living in the Republic of New Hampshire would be so tremendous that even the poorest, sickest, and oldest people would likely live far better lives than they currently do as subjects of the DC Empire. 

Without federal regulations on healthcare, the independent states’ medical systems would boom to unimaginable levels.

Interestingly, Bongino said a divorce could be good because it would require us to write a new constitution. First, States each already have Constitutions. And they are pretty good already. But since he brought it up….I have some ideas for a Constitution that would ACTUALLY protect our natural rights, and I present the entire document in The Blueprint For Liberty. Bongino and Greene both ultimately decide on federalism being the best solution. Again, my books explain why that is even less likely than secession. Some suggest a Convention of States as the ultimate solution. I addressed this well-intentioned idea in an article, as well. Spoiler, it would not fix the union. 

While he may not realize it, Bongino constantly mentions the many serious reasons why we need to secede from the union before it’s too late. 

Bongino said that these aren’t the kind of things you can figure out after seceding. You need to figure out all of these answers now! That’s exactly what the bully always says and insists on. Of course you can figure out where to stay or who to marry AFTER running away from your abuser! When in an abusive relationship – as we are currently in with the DC Empire – the advice is always to leave as soon as possible and figure out the details later. 

I would gladly accept any opportunity to speak with or debate any person who is serious about peaceful separation, including Dan Bongino. 

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Liberty Block or any of its members. We welcome all forms of serious feedback and debate.

1 Comment

Russell Kanning · March 4, 2023 at 12:51 pm

The NH colonists didn’t have a complete plan for life after independence, but instead they declared their reasons and intentions in a Declaration of Independence. We have been working out the details ever since for good or bad.

Comments are closed.