Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obviously it's not going to happen in one or two days or even a week -- but there was talk of secession some time before the Soviet Union collapsed and it broke apart into a number of countries.
The fall of the USSR was fast and mostly bloodless and non-violent. It started with people wanting autonomy for their own states -- it didn't just happen overnight, but that and the huge debt were main reasons.
If all Obama can do is keep raising taxes to absurd levels and go on spending like there's no tomorrow-- he will bring on more pressure for secession.
people can be so stupid. they don't understand what it would be like to be cut off from all the things the gov provides...roads, education, protections, access to flights/airports and a million other things. now you revoke their citizenship and isolate them, cut off all aid and say **** off... They would need a visa to cross the border, Can you imagine the price of tarrifs on their imports?
These spoiled brats wouldn't know what hit them as they become a third world nation. They could use all their wonderful guns on each other and rid the world of more stupidity.
How about we let them succeed and then invade them? This way the military industrial complex would be happy and our military can fight during the day and go home at night. As the conquering country we can subject them to do minial labor with no healthcare insurance and pay them less than the illegals. We will be on our way to economic greatness again!
So what if some part of Texas or Louisiana wants to remain in the U.S. -- should they have the right to secede from their states?
No, but there's an app for that... It's called mobil. They can use those federally funded interstate highways to get back into whatever is left of the U.S. And remember, speed kills. Drive within the speed limit. Don't look back.
people can be so stupid. they don't understand what it would be like to be cut off from all the things the gov provides...roads, education, protections, access to flights/airports and a million other things. now you revoke their citizenship and isolate them, cut off all aid and say **** off... They would need a visa to cross the border, Can you imagine the price of tarrifs on their imports?
These spoiled brats wouldn't know what hit them as they become a third world nation. They could use all their wonderful guns on each other and rid the world of more stupidity.
you're assuming that roads, schools, internet, education, police etc.etc. would have never materialized had there never been government intervention.....
How does secession end government intrusion since there is nothing to prevent the seceding government from being just as intrusive as the one that it just let.
True, but you probably have a better chance of controlling government intrusion in a small country than a huge one.
Quote:
This is why I consider libertarians and secessions as immature political theorist, the problem isn't intrusion or lack of liberty but the juvenile belief its either my way or I'm going to runaway from home.
There is no connection between Libertarians and those who want to secede. You are connecting dots that have no connection.
Another myth regarding secession is that in the newly free "state", that the politicians and economic elite that reside within it will or would be any different from the ones that were controlling the larger geographical region (country) that the state decided to secede from.
It would not take long for the newly formed government in the area that seceeded to start increasing in its levels of control and abuses of freedom that the original nation did before the state seceeded.
The problem is not secession. It is the fact that within mankind there lies an incredible amount of evil and need to control other people along with all of the imperfections of most or all political systems. If an island existed with only 1,000 people on it that were considered a union for economic and political reasons, it would not take long for one group of about 50-75 inhabitants to want to seceede and form their own state on a certain section of the island and maybe several groups over a period of time.
The most basic and fundamental union involving people that dates back a long time, is marriage and it only involves two people, but even now, a union as simple as that does not stand a chance of surviving without eventual 'secession' or as it more commonly called: divorce. However, when both parties leave the union, they tend to encounter the same problems in future unions as they did in the first one and do not change or alter there mode of thinking and living in any way that would eventually guarantee a more perfect and lasting union. Magnify that on a larger scale in terms of a population having a sort of union with a government (politically, economically) and the problem intensifies and the same remedy of secession is often sought out as a cure for what they are not happy with.
The problem is ultimately philosphical in nature, and based on the fact that human beings have different perspectives on life and all that it involves including morals, ethics, money and law. This never changes, regardless of how many times a nation fractures and loses part of it's land and citizens to secession. Even if a state seceeded and then each county within seceeded from the state and then each city within the counties seceeded, followed by neighborhoods seceeding from the respective cities. Eventually and followed to it's most micro-unionic level, couples seceeding from each other. The end result if allowed to continue and if a human beings lifespan lasted long enough to witness the progression of it all would ultimately be a form of anarchy - with each individual seceeding from society and claiming sovereign status apart from even relatives, while proclaiming himself to be immune from any laws, dictates or control by anyone else.
[SIZE=3]1. The Constitution does not prohibit secession. The legal argument boils down to this: 1. The Constitution does not mention secession. In any way. 2. The Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now I don't have a Ph.D. in logic, but even I can figure out that if something is not mentioned, then, according to the 10th Amendment, it isn't prohibited to the states. In fact, it is the opposite of prohibited. Now I know that the Supreme Court says no secession allowed, which means the federal government has declared that you can't escape the federal government. Gee, that's no shocker. So, sure, if you believe that the federal government should be the last word on what the federal government can and cannot do, then that's fine. Just don't pretend that we have constitutional government. If the federal government gets to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion box for the feds.[/SIZE]
True. It does not mention Secession in any way shape or form. For or against. However, a state would probably have to get a Constitutional amendment or at least a super-majority of voters in that state before Secession could take place.
Quote:
[SIZE=3]2. The Civil War did not "settle" the issue. Well, it settled the issue in the way that I settled the matter of ownership of that Steve Garvey baseball card when I beat up that other kid and took it. (OK, that never happened, but you get my point.) Secession was never settled beyond the federal government's assertion that it has the right to kill people who try to exercise their rights protected by the Tenth Amendment.[/SIZE]
Yes and no. It certainly "settled" the issue of several states making a pact amongst themselves against other states (something they aren't supposed to do according to the Constitution) and then immediately attack Federal facilities. The South brought the Civil War on itself. There could have been a compromise or at least a more intelligent way going about leaving the Union, but they immediately went full retard and ended up they way they did.
Quote:
[SIZE=3]3. Secession is treason/unAmerican/craaaazy/for slavers only. Prior to the confederacy, there were some slaveowners who got together and seceded from their government. They were called Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. If you're opposed to the secession of 1776, then that's fine, you might be consistent on this issue, but if you're one of these right-wing pundits who thinks the Declaration of Independence should be read aloud every July 4, and then says that secession is nutso, you might try actually reading that document you profess to love.[/SIZE]
While it is true that there is the possibility of a reasonable and sensible secession by a state in the Union. If enough people no longer what to be part of a country; it is ultimately the sane and humane thing to let them go peacefully rather than keep a potentially hostile population within its borders or risk a bloody civil war. However, it is kind of odd that the most vocal supporters of secession are Confederate apologists and the "Obama was born in Kenya" crowd.
Also, the South's idea of freedom included that a third of its population was completely denied it. I support a decentralized government and "states' rights". I also support the abolition of slavery (something that is irrelevant in most places) and the right of people not to be oppressed by the government and the South would have resulted in a much less free country, so I don't bemoan the fact that they lost. I only bemoan the fact that they screwed up decentralized government for the rest of the country with their bulls--t.
Also, the South's idea of freedom included that a third of its population was completely denied it. I support a decentralized government and "states' rights". I also support the abolition of slavery (something that is irrelevant in most places) and the right of people not to be oppressed by the government and the South would have resulted in a much less free country, so I don't bemoan the fact that they lost. I only bemoan the fact that they screwed up decentralized government for the rest of the country with their bulls--t.
Pure conjecture.
The rest of the world ended slavery peaceably. The South would have too given a little more time. There was never a need for Lincoln to kill 800,000 Americans.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
