Lots of right-wing folks seem to think the right answer is saving the United States, helping the 67 million people who voted for more of what we're having now (never mind who started it) understand the error of their ways. Appealing to reason in the face of mass mania didn't work in central Europe seventy-four years ago and I don't think it's going to work now. (Those Americans who still feel their ways weren't erroneous in the 2008 November election can enjoy their future. It just isn't right that the rest of us have to share it.)

     The right answer is building another free country, a Second America (SAM), same as we did in 1789, keeping the freedom theme, and trying to fix some of the small mistakes. Unlike back then, we have aviation and the Internet as forces for freedom. The obvious questions are who should build SAM and where SAM should be located. The more-subtle question is what should SAM be?

     Who should build SAM? I think we should get a million millionaires who care about freedom together and have them build a country where they could enjoy the benefits of their current and anticipated future wealth. These people could be Americans, but they may be Europeans, Asians, and others disenchanted with the Global Progress visions of twentieth-century universally-creeping socialism.

     Where should we build SAM? Ah, here's a much more interesting question. My first answer is Namibia. Almost nobody lives there now and those who do would almost certainly relish the number and kinds of jobs that would become available with a million millionaires moving in. A coastline, good weather, and lots of natural resources are good things. Methinks they would cheerfully embrace our political dogma expressed in the 1789 Constitution of the United States.

     My second answer is the Republic of Texas. Texans are already fiercely proud of their land and its independent heritage and there already is a second government run by a bunch of folks whom the in-place government considers a bunch of kooks. The machinery and resources are in place to start a new country in the current State of Texas.

     My third answer is more interesting. Why does it have to be anywhere at all? We have global communication and universal cybernetic information, so why not just have people pony up a million euros (€1M) to become members of SAM. (I don't have that much money, but maybe they'll hire me anyway even if I'm not rich enough to be a full member.) A non-geographic-nation SAM could still have its own currency and its own courts. Maybe we could keep it on the open seas while the oceans are still free.

     What should SAM be? Let's start with the 1789 Constitution of the United States of America:

     Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of trade.

     All members shall pay the same tax and shall enjoy the same rights of membership. Furthermore, if the rates of taxation should become unequal for any reason, then each member's vote representation shall be in proportion to tax paid. Finally, no member who receives subsidies, is a felon in prison or on parole, or otherwise does not contribute shall have voting representation. It shall require a vote of 80 percent in both houses of Congress and in popular vote to establish any tax unequal among members and that tax shall have to be renewed yearly with the same 80-percent vote.

     It is the primary role of the Judiciary to preserve the sanctity of contract between consenting parties. Those who bring suit must first meet the burden of proof that there is a legitimate claim to be had, or else the plaintiff shall pay legal fees for both sides. Once the legitimacy of claim is established, a lawsuit shall be settled in favor of a plaintiff if and only if he establishes that there are damages, that the behavior of the defense caused these damages, and that there was reasonable agreement that the defense is responsible for preventing these damages.

     What is the future of SAM? I used to believe the idea of the United States was to create an eternal flame for freedom. While two centuries of United States history have provided a beacon of hope for oppressed peoples, our economic freedom has suffered greatly in the last 75 years.

     SAM will not last forever. Maybe it shouldn't. Maybe freedom not only requires being fought for, and sometimes died for, but also requires rebuilding and renewing. There are wonderful pieces of machinery whose lives are limited as they wear out from use. We rebuild and remanufacture these pieces of machinery, why not our free country as well?

     What about the current United States? Think how hard it was in 1940 for people in central Europe to leave their homelands and to sally forth, many to America. They had a place to go while we have to build our future. Still, it's going to be sad to leave the land that has been our home for so long. Maybe, with the non-geographic version of SAM, we can retain our own geographic identity with the United States while keeping only a minimum economic footprint for its government to tax.