George Rebane

This afternoon the Nevada County Supervisors heard a presentation on the State of Jefferson by the movement's local steering committee.  It was followed by public comment from both pro and con residents of our county.  I made the following statement during the public comment segment.

I too want to thank you for hearing from the State of Jefferson steering committee.  I am a proponent of advancing this historical experiment in constitutional self-government.  It is indisputable that the voices and values of rural counties have been largely ignored in many state houses.  Until recently these counties have been resigned to their second class status by staying the same ol’ same ol’ course.  But to more of us, continuing to follow Rodney King’s appeal to ‘just get along’ brings to mind a famous man’s definition of insanity.

We realize that today the SoJ movement is still new, not well understood, and therefore opposed by more than the usual collectivists whose historical aim has always been to increase the size of Leviathan under which we labor today.  For them the creation of smaller and more like-minded jurisdictions such as SoJ is counter to the global unification goal they hold dear.

It also appears that our Nevada County government staff has taken a strong stand against SoJ by suggesting that when compared to other so-called SoJ counties in northern California, our county stands out as the best while still ‘working together with’ Sacramento.  However, to me the staff’s data tables tell a different and more illuminating tale.  Historically these rural counties have enjoyed productive economies based on agriculture, timber, mining, and recreation.  But that was before Washington and Sacramento unleashed their massive bureaucratic assault, enforcing on them versions of dubious and scientifically unsupported bromides that promise to save the environment and stop manmade global warming.

Today the years of buckling under diktats from the likes of the EPA, CARB, Water Resources Board, and other government agencies have devastated the region’s economies and resulted in the dire statistics that our county staff has assembled.  Nevada County’s placement at the top of that sorry heap has less to do with any bounty from Sacramento, than with our fortunate proximity to a large urban corridor, and our historical but now diminishing industrial base.  In short, the data you have been presented is simply a detailed epitaph in the making for rural counties that have gone along to get along with Leviathan, only to reap a dismal reward for their cooperation.

To my mind the only remaining viable alternative to SoJ is our joining or even leading the growing national movement to restore ‘permissionless innovation’ by simply adopting ‘Just Say NO!’ as a response to insane and inane regulations.  As a fortuitous coincidence, today is the release date of By the People: Rebuilding Liberty Without Permission from the celebrated political scientist and sociologist Charles Murray.  This book is a ‘how to’ manual for America’s small businesses and political jurisdictions going viral to effectively resist and turn back regulations which are “pointless, stupid, and tyrannical”.  It contains a detailed plan of how Americans can start saying NO!, one regulation at a time.  And in the event you missed Murray’s nationally published essay on the subject this weekend, I will gladly email you the link.  Gentlemen, I suggest that change for the better is afoot across this land. 

Finally, all the arguments against SoJ rest on stasist projections.  Stasism is the belief that we can see tomorrow only through the lens of current practices kept rigidly unchanged.  Its corollary is ‘if it hasn't been done, it can't be done’.  But proponents of the State of Jefferson believe that in this most exceptional country the world has ever seen, the new and the never-been-tried has always served as a beacon to innovation, enterprise, and in the end, a better life.  Thank you.

[update]  The BoS session on SoJ lasted almost exactly two hours; way too short of a time to get everything aired.  But hopefully, the Supes will take a deeper look at the wisdom of forming the State of Jefferson.  Their next step would be to agree to a resolution or declaration in support of doing more discovery about SoJ, a move which should eventually make Nevada County a participant in the conversation on how to approach Sacramento on the matter, and what course to take if Sacramento blows us off.

The progressives’ mantra of financial infeasibility is a stasist red herring that may persuade the low information type voters (and politicians).  But an important factor that did not get more mention beyond my comment is that SoJ and ‘Just say NO!’ can now advance from a national awareness to a national movement.  Unfortunately all of today’s commenters  – including some who shared substantial autobiographies to frame their feelings –  focused on an extremely parochial perspective that posed the SoJ initiative in a vacuum relating only to northern California rural counties, as if such experiences about representation and self-determination were not shared by the rest of the country.

It is my strong belief that SoJ in California will succeed only to the extent that it can connect with other such movements in America, and in the process give and draw strength from the national initiatives, be they for the formation of new states or aggressive civil disobedience against pointless, stupid, and tyrannical regulations.  If SoJ decides to fly solo into the assured maelstrom of progressive resistance, it will fail on all counts.  If it joins arms with such movements across the country, the chances for increasing the number of states in the union, or at least achieving significant regulatory rollback, will increase sufficiently to make the enterprise a betting man’s game.

Kudos to Board chairman Ed Scofield and the supervisors for running a model town hall session where all had a chance to hear from the State of Jefferson promoters and the public who also wanted their voices heard.  God bless us, we are still America!

[18may15 update]  More people have weighed in on last Tuesday's SoJ presentation to the BoS.  Mr George Boardman, columnist for The Union who frequents these pages, offered his thoughts in the newspaper's 18may15 edition (here).  While correctly identifying Nevada County as the potential Marin County of the new SoJ, he succumbed to the stasist (q.v.) view of how the remainder of the new state would fare economically.  Generating stasist projections is a simple, comfortable, and readily communicable enterprise, but also overwhelmingly error prone and a hard addiction to shed.

I also received an email from Mr Eduard (Eddie) Garcia, chairman of the NC SoJ steering committee, with his attached thoughts on last week's event and its echoes.  I believe he has submitted them to The Union which could have productively paired the two viewpoints, but apparently chose not to.  In any event, Mr Garcia's unedited piece follows.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE MAY 12^TH PRESENTATION TO THE BOS

Last Tuesday, May 12^th, the Board of Supervisors listened to a presentation about the State of Jefferson movement.  By The Union’s account, over 250 people attended the presentation.  The meeting was presided by the Chair of the Board, Supervisor Ed Scofield, who, very even-handedly, allowed  proponents and opponents of the State of Jefferson to express their opinions.

The opposition to a new state seems to share its concerns with the State of Jefferson proponents that the rural counties of Northern California do not have a voice in our State Legislature.

However, there is a disagreement on what should be the remedy to our lack of representation.  The  opposition’s solution seems to fit perfectly a definition of insanity: keep doing the same thing over and over expecting different results!

The opposition also bases their position largely in their belief that the State of Jefferson is not financially sustainable.  They are not providing any data to support that belief.  We, on the other hand, have submitted studies that show the absolute financial viability of the future 51^st state.  I would like to invite our opposition to a public discussion on this issue at which time data could be examined in depth to clarify this issue.  Since this issue seems to also be of great concern to our Board of Supervisors and our county’s CEO, it would be very informative if our Board of Supervisors would schedule a hearing to have both sides present their case for discussion.

The CEO of our county seems to have jumped into the fray by including a document entitled “Various Comparisons with Jefferson Counties” in his May 8^th weekly Friday Memo.  In it he compares Nevada County to eight selected counties out of the twenty that are working to become the 51^st state.  In these comparisons, Nevada County comes out on top in most criteria.  That is no surprise since our BOS and the CEO are doing a great job administering our county.  The implication of these comparisons would seem to be that Nevada County should not become a part of the new state.  However the CEO did not attend the presentation, when he might have had any questions answered.  It would have been more informative if all 20 counties under consideration would have been included in the comparison.

One does have to question what prompted our CEO to publish such a document four days ahead of the State of Jefferson presentation.  While the CEO’s office does a great job of administering our county, perhaps it would have been more appropriate to listen to the grassroots presentation and ask questions if necessary, rather than issue an incomplete document.

While Mr. Haffey is perfectly free to offer his personal opinion, one would question the motivation behind publishing an “opinion” as the CEO of our county.

One last observation on the May 12^th meeting.  At one point, it was requested that the opponents to the SOJ raise their hands followed by a request that the supporters raise theirs.  By my humble, conservative estimate the supporters’ hands far outnumbered the opponents’!