Constitutional amendment allowing for a state's secession: good or bad idea? (Congress, weapons)
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.
Use your brain on this. Do you really think that a splintering of this nation into 50 or more individual states is going to lead to the people in said states being more prosperous, more economically viable, more influential on the national stage... or less?
Do you think 50+ nations sitting around next to each other with 50+ different policies on trade, rules on enabling business, and legal adjudication processes on everything are going to produce less friction to drive business investment...or more?
Doesn't matter if that's what they determine is best for themselves. It's hard to believe that a progressive, Woodrow Wilson, was the one that popularized the idea of self-determination given that the left is against it now.
Doesn't matter if that's what they determine is best for themselves. It's hard to believe that a progressive, Woodrow Wilson, was the one that popularized the idea of self-determination given that the left is against it now.
To be fair, Woodrow Wilson pushed self-determination mainly because it was in the interests of the United States, and only to the extent that it benefited the United States. Its outcome would have been to weaken all of our rivals, by stripping all the European powers of their colonies. Which then would have thrown open all of these newly independent countries to American trade, American industry, and American influence.
A good case-study for this, is American involvement in the Philippines. Our actual purpose in the Philippines, was because we needed to "pivot" into the Asian market, which had been dominated by the European powers, who carved up Chinese trade between themselves.
America was "left out", and had pushed for "free-trade" with China, to throw off European domination/monopolization. We started a war with Spain, claiming they sunk the USS Maine in Havana, Cuba(they didn't). And then proceeded to throw the Spanish out of Cuba, and the Philippines, ostensibly claiming to bring them freedom and independence. But in reality, we came to dominate them politically and economically, to serve our economic and national interests.
In the case of Cuba, we were thrown out by Fidel Castro about 60 years later(though we still have Guantanamo Bay). But in the case of the Philippines, they threw us out almost immediately.
The argument for self-determination didn't accomplish anything. The winners of WWI(namely, Britain, France, and Russia), all maintained their empires, and expanded them. Only the losers, Germany, Austria, and the Ottoman Empire were carved up based supposedly on self-determination(but not even close). But in the case of Austria, who had wanted to unify with Germany after WWI, was prevented from doing so by the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of Vienna, and the Treaty of Saint-Germain.
Why? Because the actual point of WWI, was to defeat the "Central Powers", and weaken them to the point of impotence. Thus removing them as rival powers in the world order. Thereby strengthening the position of the other powers.
This video is about the best I've ever seen to explain WWI.
America's entry into WWI, was because of our overlapping commercial and banking interests with Britain. Britain was willing to borrow a lot of money from us, to buy our armaments, industrial goods, resources, and food. Without America financing the war, Britain couldn't have won.
In order to guarantee that Britain and France could repay the money they borrowed, we entered into WWI, and at the end of the war, the debt incurred by Britain and France, was to be repaid by the losers of the war, Germany and Austria, which subjected the once-proud Germans to a practical state of slavery(read about the occupation of the Ruhr).
And this poor treatment of Germany, and the intentional severing of Germans for the purpose of keeping them weak, and the confiscation of German territory by the winners of the war, setup the conditions that would lead to WWII.
Hitler wanted to reunify the German people, and reclaim the territories stolen by the Treaty of Versailles. Which was only signed by the Germans, after they were being starved to death by the British blockade, which was held in place for nearly a year after the armistice, in order to force Germany to capitulate to the insane demands of the allies.
Regardless, no one in power believes in self-determination, not in America, and not anywhere else either. It is a myth, a lie, a fraud, a facade, that gives justification for the furtherance of anything that might serve our national interests, and nothing more.
"""Unrestricted movement of citizens of the said former state and the United States of America."""
Why in the world would we want that?
States like California want to leave the US and then let illegal immigrants flood across their borders? Fine, but they can't come over in to the U.S.... Not to mention that Liberals leaving California are beginning to ruin once great states like Colorado after they flee the hell they created for themselves back in Cali.
If you want to leave the Union, great, but you don't get to enjoy the benefits of being in the US after you leave, otherwise, why leave in the first place?
"Freedom of movement" throughout the EU was a big reason that Brexit became a reality. People are tired of this globalist, borderless idea.
Last edited by WhipperSnapper 88; 06-28-2016 at 03:46 AM..
Status:
"Repub's IVF ruling is anti-family and anti-America"
(set 7 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,783 posts, read 3,565,231 times
Reputation: 5683
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient
Use your brain on this. Do you really think that a splintering of this nation into 50 or more individual states is going to lead to the people in said states being more prosperous, more economically viable, more influential on the national stage... or less?
Do you think 50+ nations sitting around next to each other with 50+ different policies on trade, rules on enabling business, and legal adjudication processes on everything are going to produce less friction to drive business investment...or more?
If all these states are seceding, why they hell would they agree to "free trade" and all these other things? You **** or get off the pot.
It's pretty stupid to advocate for it unless you want us all to slide back a few generations in living standard and relinquish international influence.
Freedom is much more important than having either prosperity or global influence, even both simultaneously (as the Brexit vote shows). At any rate, free trade is up for debate, especially since so many now have second thoughts about it - at least "free trade" in its current form, or at least the speed at which the US is making agreements. That being said, free trade in its most basic form does not dictate the partner's internal policies - only a mutual agreement to reduced or no tarriffs. In fact, such treaties have an opt-out clause in case they want to nullify the agreement (although there may be a clause delaying actual nullification by a year or two before giving notice).
As for the stupid part, if things get bad enough, if the majority of life thinks losing some wealth and international influence is a price worth paying for independence, that's their call.
This is actually a really great concept in that it would create a freemarket for nations. If a nation wants more areas to join then it needs to run things well and treat its people well.
Freedom is much more important than having either prosperity or global influence, even both simultaneously (as the Brexit vote shows). At any rate, free trade is up for debate, especially since so many now have second thoughts about it - at least "free trade" in its current form, or at least the speed at which the US is making agreements. That being said, free trade in its most basic form does not dictate the partner's internal policies - only a mutual agreement to reduced or no tarriffs. In fact, such treaties have an opt-out clause in case they want to nullify the agreement (although there may be a clause delaying actual nullification by a year or two before giving notice).
As for the stupid part, if things get bad enough, if the majority of life thinks losing some wealth and international influence is a price worth paying for independence, that's their call.
Independence from what? The fact that most red states receive more in federal aid than they pay in taxes? Independence from the security of the world's greatest military? Give me a break.
As a Georgian, I get to hear some of these arguments from time to time from some of my neighbors. These people just don't realize how boned they would be if secession actually happened. Most of the time they are a thinly veiled racist plot (see "The Southern League" for some good reading) from people who want to reap all of the benefits that their federal, state, and local taxes offer but don't want to actually pay them. Like roads? Parks? Streetlights? Police? Firemen? Libraries? Schools(shouldn't ask this one probably)? Making sure everyone has enough to eat? Clothes to wear? A place to live?
Listen. If there was some other entity available that could effectively offer these things to the people other than the Federal, State, or local government then I'd be all ears. Fact is, the free market never created them, and in fact, was forced through union efforts to even offer a wage at all, any kind of worker safety rights, vacations, maternity leave, and countless other benefits that modern workers expect.
My ancestors tried secession once, and it didn't work out so well. Re-evaluate these "transgressions" you think you see from the federal government and realize how great you actually have it.
Status:
"Repub's IVF ruling is anti-family and anti-America"
(set 7 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,783 posts, read 3,565,231 times
Reputation: 5683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
You don't seem to understand how the world works. You seem to believe that ideas rule this world. That is a foolish assumption. Power rules this world, it always has, and it always will.
To the extent that governments have changed, they have only changed in ways which have made them more powerful. You are only as free, as your freedom has enabled America to become a world superpower, mainly through "economic growth".
If your freedom didn't provide your government more power, then you wouldn't have it.
It sounds like you must be young, and just began learning about "libertarian" ideas. It might do you well to supplement your Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Hayek, and Murray Rothbard, with some Lysander Spooner and Mikhail Bakunin.
Let me add, you have a naive conception of history. If freedom made governments powerful, we would have always been free. Freedom didn't win WWI or WWII, or the Civil War, or any other war for that matter. Not merely American wars either, but every country on Earth, going back to the beginning of time.
<snip the rest of post, too long
If you can tell me how condescension adds anything to a debate that politeness doesn't already do, then I'm all ears. Otherwise, drop the attitude. BTW, I'm definitely NOT an anarchist, and I have a lot of problems with it ever being realistic (save perhaps for small tribal groups or groups of similar size).
Anyway, you seem to dismiss any moral and ethical considerations mainly, if not exclusively, based on power. That encourages people to trivialize objections to any unjust practice of the most powerful people or institutions. By doing so, it more or less invites "might makes right" rationales that would get an F in any Ethics 101 class, as by that standard there'd be no reason for anyone to object to our current US plutocratic democracy - or if you prefer, democratic plutocracy. Either way, it would make even anarchism pointless.
We're better off united. The problem is the wealthy bankers/globalists that run the system and their agenda to shuttle refugees all over our neighborhoods whether we like it or not. That makes them enemy number one.
There are a lot of countries that have no global influence and therefore little or no real freedom.
Global influence has nothing to do with real freedom.
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.
