What do you think?
Rate this book
The Vermont Manifesto: The Second Vermont Republic
Not unlike other states, Vermont's quality of life, political independence, and sustainability are threatened by Corporate America, the U.S. government, the war on terrorism, homeland security, American imperialism, and globalization. This is a call for V
128 pages, Paperback
First published October 7, 2003
1 person is currently reading
13 people want to read
About the author
Thomas H. Naylor
25 books3 followersFounder of the Internationally not recognized Second Vermont Republic and Professor Emeritus of Economics at Duke University.
Naylor believes in personal freedoms and liberties and has spoken out against consumerism.
Naylor is seeking to secede from the United States of America with his Second Vermont Republic.
Naylor believes in personal freedoms and liberties and has spoken out against consumerism.
Naylor is seeking to secede from the United States of America with his Second Vermont Republic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 9, 2021
I remember finding this for free online in either late middle school or early high school (I can’t find it for free anymore for some reason) but anyway, it seemed like an interesting idea at the time, the idea of solving all our problems by secession. And for as much trouble as Texas has caused us, I wish they would. But how different is this really from anything social science wise in the 90’s going into the early 2000’s- the condemnation of corporatocracy alongside attitudes about race relations that would be considered cringe today?
May 21, 2012
Not a great piece of writing but a strong argument in favor of VT secession. Naylor eviscerates the American empire and the current 2 party farce but gets bogged down in his VT travelogue and tedious reactionary rants.
Not likely to convince anyone but a good source of information for those of us interested in VT's go-it-alone option, particularly information on VT's history and constitution and the legality of secession in a post-civil-war America.
Not likely to convince anyone but a good source of information for those of us interested in VT's go-it-alone option, particularly information on VT's history and constitution and the legality of secession in a post-civil-war America.
January 17, 2017
Meh? Not an instruction manual by any means, he leaves out just how the state could be a viable economic entity. I think he also give too much credence to the idea that we are too small to bother keeping. What is far more interesting is it's use as a basis for thought experiments on sustainable development and decentralized governance models.
March 6, 2022
I have mixed feelings about this book, which, incidentally, is one part basic political philosophy, one part complaints about big government and big corporations, and two parts travel brochure for VT activities. On the one hand, I agree with most of Naylor's critiques of the US government and multinational corporations. And I would love to live in the independent Vermont he envisions.
But I think Naylor vastly overestimates how practical the Vermont Republic model would be for much of the rest of the US. He loves comparing VT to Switzerland--and I don't have a problem with that, as I think the comparisons are pretty valid. However, he also repeatedly points out that Vermont is the exception within the US. That its independence, egalitarianism, self-reliance, commitment to democracy, community-orientation, etc. all make it unique. And if those values could be exported to other states, I suspect the nation as a whole would be much better, whether Vermont split off or not.
But most other states are not like Vermont. Imagine is Republican controlled Texas or Alabama became an independent republic. How well do you imagine that equal rights would fare? For African Americans? For LGBT people? Reproductive rights for women? Religious rights for non-Christians? And, of course, all of these rights could be stripped away "democratically," especially if voter roles are purged of those whose rights are to be taken away. And while Naylor mentions the former Yugoslav states in passing, he neglects to mention the genocidal violence that accompanied the break up of Yugoslavia, or the ethnic and religious hatreds that marred the early years of independence in states like Serbia and Bosnia. He also bypasses completely the violence--racial, ethnic, religious, and political--that has characterized a number of post-colonial nations when they've gained independence.
Another problem is that many states--especially in the South, where I suspect anti-government sentiment and a desire for "independence" are highest--rely disproportionately on the federal government. States like Kentucky or West Virginia get back substantially more money from the federal government than they put in, meaning that if a state like WV were to try and declare independence, the economy would likely collapse because of the loss of federal funds. Obviously for states that put in more money than they get back (like NY, CT, or CA), not paying into the federal coffers would mean an economic boost. But for states that depend on federal money to remain functional, the kind of independence Naylor envisions would require massive re-conceptualizations of the state economies, in ways that would likely be impractical if not impossible.
https://youtu.be/3Xca5rGd7BM
But I think Naylor vastly overestimates how practical the Vermont Republic model would be for much of the rest of the US. He loves comparing VT to Switzerland--and I don't have a problem with that, as I think the comparisons are pretty valid. However, he also repeatedly points out that Vermont is the exception within the US. That its independence, egalitarianism, self-reliance, commitment to democracy, community-orientation, etc. all make it unique. And if those values could be exported to other states, I suspect the nation as a whole would be much better, whether Vermont split off or not.
But most other states are not like Vermont. Imagine is Republican controlled Texas or Alabama became an independent republic. How well do you imagine that equal rights would fare? For African Americans? For LGBT people? Reproductive rights for women? Religious rights for non-Christians? And, of course, all of these rights could be stripped away "democratically," especially if voter roles are purged of those whose rights are to be taken away. And while Naylor mentions the former Yugoslav states in passing, he neglects to mention the genocidal violence that accompanied the break up of Yugoslavia, or the ethnic and religious hatreds that marred the early years of independence in states like Serbia and Bosnia. He also bypasses completely the violence--racial, ethnic, religious, and political--that has characterized a number of post-colonial nations when they've gained independence.
Another problem is that many states--especially in the South, where I suspect anti-government sentiment and a desire for "independence" are highest--rely disproportionately on the federal government. States like Kentucky or West Virginia get back substantially more money from the federal government than they put in, meaning that if a state like WV were to try and declare independence, the economy would likely collapse because of the loss of federal funds. Obviously for states that put in more money than they get back (like NY, CT, or CA), not paying into the federal coffers would mean an economic boost. But for states that depend on federal money to remain functional, the kind of independence Naylor envisions would require massive re-conceptualizations of the state economies, in ways that would likely be impractical if not impossible.
https://youtu.be/3Xca5rGd7BM
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews