In a recent development worth noting, Robert Kennedy Jr. has come under scrutiny for seeming to be an advocate for liberty, while simultaneously refusing to commit to preserving the peace during a prospective Texas [or NH] independence.
The issue of independence in states like Texas or New Hampshire is a hot topic, with the percolating idea of state sovereignty hitting both national and local platforms. Central to these discussions is the importance of non-interference and non-violence, particularly from figures of power. It is vital to ensure a peaceful transition should a state vote in favor of independence, crucially contributing to the fulfillment of democratic principles.
Via the Free State Project, it was revealed that Kennedy Jr, despite alluding to an aura of supporting liberty, has declined to make a commitment to avoid interference in such scenarios. This perceived incongruity between words and potential actions has generated questions regarding his stance on liberty and individual state rights.
The expectation is that every presidential candidate should have a clear and unshakeable commitment to non-violence if a state votes for independence. Their dedication should be to the democratic process and to the sanctity of each individual’s right to vote and decide the future of their state. It would serve as an acknowledgment of the power given to the people, a recognition of their voice.
As the debate around state sovereignty continues to evolve, it is hoped that key figures like Robert Kennedy Jr. would become more explicitly supportive of a peaceful process, upholding the very foundation of democracy.
