Alaska's King

This site is for the exploration and discussion of a Constitutional Monarchy, as well as important Alaska news and information. Feel free to post your comments.

My Photo
Location: Alaska, United States

Welcome from the King of Alaska.

Thursday, October 06, 2005

Discussion Topic: An Independent Alaska

From time to time, we will be discussing the pros, cons, and whatever else of an Independent Alaska. Please post your comments, and you will note you can post anon. Spam will be deleted, so don't bother.


Blogger The King of Alaska said...

Here are a few points to get us started:

1. Federal Income Taxes will be abolished
2. No State Income taxes for individuals-reduced taxes for businesses
3. Bigger Permanent Fund Dividend
4. Reduction in Federal-Owned Lands. They will keep the bases. This will free up areas for other uses.
5. The Federal government will still provide for our defense, just as it does for other countries. Alaska will remain a strategic location for the defense of the U.S., and so a deal will be struck.
6. We will keep the big slice of the natural resource pie, instead of shipping it off to a far away government.
7. No Alaskan will fight and die in another nation, for a war they may not agree with, unless they want to.
8. Native-Aboriginal people will gain sovereignty
9. Improved quality of life, especially in the Villages: Sewer, water, power, health and dental; education, communication, and access.
10. Reinstate the Homestead/Agricultural Programs.

11:57 PM  
Anonymous Kodiak Clan said...

"8. Native-Aboriginal people will gain sovereignty"

How do you propose to do this?

1:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Alaska were a free Nation, gasoline would be, what, $1.00/gallon, or less?

We have the oil, the pipelines, the infrastructure.

1:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

They're not going to let you do this. They would sooner kill you than lose billions of dollars in taxes and natural resources.

I support your initiative, but I fear for your life.

1:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How about this: Take some of the lands that are locked up, and sell them at fair market value?

That would bring billions to the new treasury, and make land available for people to homestead on.

5:07 PM  
Blogger Ken said...

Well, I'd think independence to have legs, save for one reason: Dee-Fense!

This is a rich land. Were we independent, Russia, China, or Japan would try to take it. Japan already did try, and I'd bet deep down in their nasty little souls they'd like to try again. In fact, given the present financial status, control, and ownerships of our fisheries, mayhap they already have!

You see, the only way we could gain independence is if the USA itself were to collapse. Then, we could do it.

But, lacking the Lower 48 as a coherent entity, we'd not have the "free" Dee-Fense! umbrella now enjoyed by, say, Canada. No way the US will allow Canada to be subjugated, and no way would the US allow an independent Alaska to be, either.

BUT, the ONLY way we'd become independent is if the US collapsed; then, no Dee-Fense! And, any serious attempt at secession, and I must agree with previous posters: eventually, they'd come up here and...

they - would - kill - us.

Don't doubt that.

Great idea, I'm actually for it, but it can't fly, pal. No matter how well armed we are, we cannot compete against the New Age of Weaponry with Mini 14s.

4:02 PM  
Blogger The King of Alaska said...

Thanks for your comments, Ken.

I must disagree with some of your statements, however. In researching this, I find that many states are moving towards the same thing. The opposition can't kill us all, and they certainly can't kill our Civil Liberties.

I'd like to reiterate that we are proposing a peaceful, rather than armed and violent, succession.

Recently, a new nation was created in Canada.

We can do it here, too. It will take some work, and there will be some resistance, especially from Anchorage and Juneau, but we can make them city-states and exclude them if necessary.

11:43 PM  
Blogger Ken said...

Yeah, well, I dunno; maybe. I must admit the same idea is being circulated seriously in Vermont. I suppose it's not completely impossible, and I must admit I'm pretty sick of the Lower 48. It is in no way identifiable as the country in which I grew up. So, how would we go about this legally and peacefully? I mean in practical terms that would have some chance of success.

As for defense, I remain sure that the USA would never willingly allow another foreign power to control such a rich and strategic area.

As for Juneau, I agree. Anchorage, well, we DO have to go shopping on occasion! Spenard Builders Supply and all that. But, I suppose an independent city-state would still need the money from us here in the Bush. ;-}

7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I live in Arizona, and I find your comments interesting, especially about other states (Vermont, etc.) talking seriously about the same thing. Can anyone provide some links about this?

Personally, I think the US should stay one entity, much like "King" is saying, but should be reorganized and divided into autonomous regions, where the Federal government has very little power except for defense and international relations, somewhat like the EU is organized.

But instead of each state being independent, which would just lead us to the same situation we're in now, they'd be organized into autonomous regions, where each region has more power over its member states, so each is sort of like a separate country. This would eliminate a lot of the confusion from having so many very small states (i.e., all the little East Coast states).

The main regions would be like this: Northeast, Southeast (Florida would probably be separate), Midwest (Ohio/Indiana/Michigan area), Central, Texas (it'd be by itself), Southwest (Arizona/New Mexico/maybe Utah/Nevada), California (by itself, or maybe it should be split north/south), Pacific Northwest, and of course Alaska would be by itself because of its size and location.

Having an organization like this would allow us to have a strong economy, like we're seeing with the EU where they no longer have to screw around with different currencies, tariffs, etc., but would prevent a single Federal government from becoming too powerful and not representing all the regions properly, leading to the dangerous situation we're in today (I really think the idea of the US collapsing is quite possible).

But by combining many of the smaller states, which are very similar to their neighbors (how different is Rhode Island from Connecticut or Massachusetts? I could walk the length of RI in a day!) into larger regions with a stronger government, the inefficiency of 50 quarreling states would be avoided.

Any thoughts?

9:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Renting pixels is a clear demonstration of land value taxation's basis in economic rent. The same principle should be applied to tax domain names and IP addresses to fund ICANN and the government(s) that enforce domain name property rights. It applies also to things like spectrum and orbital slots for communications satellites.

Ultimately this principle applies to taxing net assets in general.

Since the primary function of government is the protection of non-subsistence property rights, it is sensible to charge a use fee for those rights. Note, I said "non-subsistence" property rights. The point here is that house and tools of the trade are protected from confiscation under bankruptcy law precisely because they are subsistence assets. Where government does not exist, subsistence properties are typically defended by the occupant, whose life is sustained by those assets. Government brings precisely the property rights we associate with civilization -- assets beyond home and tools of the trade.

Given the relatively liquid nature of civilization, it makes sense to define "subsistence" in some dollar value of assets. Various ways of defining the dollar value are all approximately equal:

* The median price of housing a person plus the median price of capitalizing a job.
* The threshold used by the SEC for "qualified investor".
* The level of savings insured by the FDIC.
* Or, for the historically inclined: The market price of 20 arable acres in the Confederate south, a mule, a plow and a small house on such land.

Until a citizen accumulates the subsistence net asset level, they should pay no tax and then pay tax only on the net assets they own above subsistence.

Assessment should be by the owner, thereby establishing a "fair market value" for the exercise of eminent domain. Net assets only would be taxed and would be calculated by subtracting the fair market value of debts against the estate from the self-assessment of the occupant.

Other forms of taxation could be eliminated in a revenue neutral way if net assets, in excess of subsistence levels, were taxed at the risk free interest rate (approximately the interest rate on the national debt).

Indeed, given the centralization of asset ownership that has resulted from the subsidy of non-subsistence property, a subsidy inherent in civilization, it may be the failure to use this tax base is the ultimate cause of the repeated decay of civilizations from ancient times.

6:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home