Plan B (AKA, the “Virtual Constitutional Convention”)

1. Of course we’d rather keep the country together; and we’d be completely satisfied with the existing state and federal constitutions obeyed as written.  But you and I know that likelihood of that is exceedingly, increasingly small, and that we really should prepare for what may happen next.
2. Of course we hope we’re wrong about our probable course.  But monetization of our national debt, now at over 40% of the GNP, almost assures dramatic and awful consequences both here and internationally.  It’s wise to consider both political and economic retrenchment to the most basic, proven forms.
3. Of course we would hope that all people everywhere would choose to live free.  But history demonstrates this to be a vain hope.   While there is no way to be certain where human politics are concerned, it seems logical to plan for a smaller geographical unit than the current USA, and to first consider an area with a culture and history of independence.  Many states have an equal or even greater percentage of liberty-minded citizens, but Texas seems to be a good draft model.
4. Our goal is to live in peace.  Voluntary interactions between humans and the suppression of human violence in all forms are both goal and method.
5. Toward this, we are creating a written social covenant called a “constitution” for a proposed political state under the Rule of Law.  This constitution will be the sole authority of all powers delegated to this state.  The state will have no powers that are not clearly and specifically written into this constitution.  This constitution will be the law of the proposed political state.
6. The words of this constitution will be clear enough to be understood by all; few enough to be known by all; and universally applicable to be obeyed without exception by all human beings within the border of the proposed state.
7. Three general rules:
   1. What is wrong for citizens is wrong for the state.  For example, exceeding the state’s contractually limited taxing authority is criminal theft; unauthorized killing is murder.  
   2. Citizens have infinite inalienable rights, while the state has no rights; only limited authority.  Therefore, what’s right for citizens isn’t always right for the state.
   3. Crimes committed by state officials are to be considered worse than crimes committed by citizens.