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.
I find it perplexing that the those who advocate the right of secession have never attempted to establish that right within the context of the Constitution that would once-and-for-all put an end to the discussion; proffer an amendment to the Constitution to establish not only the right but the mechanism for secession. Would any pro-secessionist proffer a reason why that has been the case?
I find it perplexing that the those who advocate the right of secession have never attempted to establish that right within the context of the Constitution that would once-and-for-all put an end to the discussion; proffer an amendment to the Constitution to establish not only the right but the mechanism for secession. Would any pro-secessionist proffer a reason why that has been the case?
We don't believe our rights come from a piece of paper.
Again, a right is not something given to you by another person, or your government. It is something that exists completely separate from government and their forms... that is the whole point. Moderator cut: against Great Debates standards
We don't believe our rights come from a piece of paper.
Again, a right is not something given to you by another person, or your government. It is something that exists completely separate from government and their forms... that is the whole point. It is posts like this that show that you have NO concept of what a right is according to rights theory.
There are only two ways to establish what rights do or do not exist particularly when there are competing claims on such rights, one is by the ballot, the other is by the bullet.
Rights do not emanate from the ether, rights come from the minds of men. What I decide is right may only be a figment of my own ego, other rights may be derived from our collective cultures and traditions. So I agree rights do not come from a piece of paper....
We are tens of thousands of years away from an era where one group of humans seeking self-government could simply move to some unoccupied territory and establish a society where they are free to govern themselves. Since that long ago period in human history, any people seeking territory to exercise the right of self-government has come at the expense of the right of self-government for others. We need look no further than the establishment of our own nation, the independence of India, the founding of the nation of Israel and most recently, the annexation of Crimea where in each case the assertion of one set of rights violates the rights of others. Competing claims which are and have been resolved, if they have been resolved at all, at the barrel of a gun.
So how do we resolve competing claims over rights without having to resort to violence to resolve them? We set forth, through oral tradition of a piece of paper, just what those rights are. We craft treaties, and constitutions outlining what those rights are, how they are to be exercised and mechanisms for adjudicating those rights when they come into conflict with others. We do that through dialogue and mutual agreement, in other words the ballot.
So those are you choices, the ballot or the bullet.
There are only two ways to establish what rights do or do not exist particularly when there are competing claims on such rights, one is by the ballot, the other is by the bullet.
This is correct, though many have a romantic notion otherwise.
Rights are social constructs. That's why some people have them. Some people live in societies that have decided that X should be a right and some people do not live in such societies.
Seriously, who thinks that the right to habeas corpus, or the right to own a nine-millimeter (but not a surface-to-air missile), or myriad other rights, are somehow innate aspects of being born?
It's a bizarre thought process. And it's also dangerous. The right to vote isn't some fanciful intangible. It's the end-product of a tremendous amount of toil and suffering and sacrifice by, literally, millions of people who have toiled and in many cases died to establish a construct that is too precarious to pretend that it's some sort of cosmic given.
There are only two ways to establish what rights do or do not exist particularly when there are competing claims on such rights, one is by the ballot, the other is by the bullet.
Rights do not emanate from the ether, rights come from the minds of men. What I decide is right may only be a figment of my own ego, other rights may be derived from our collective cultures and traditions. So I agree rights do not come from a piece of paper....
We are tens of thousands of years away from an era where one group of humans seeking self-government could simply move to some unoccupied territory and establish a society where they are free to govern themselves. Since that long ago period in human history, any people seeking territory to exercise the right of self-government has come at the expense of the right of self-government for others. We need look no further than the establishment of our own nation, the independence of India, the founding of the nation of Israel and most recently, the annexation of Crimea where in each case the assertion of one set of rights violates the rights of others. Competing claims which are and have been resolved, if they have been resolved at all, at the barrel of a gun.
So how do we resolve competing claims over rights without having to resort to violence to resolve them? We set forth, through oral tradition of a piece of paper, just what those rights are. We craft treaties, and constitutions outlining what those rights are, how they are to be exercised and mechanisms for adjudicating those rights when they come into conflict with others. We do that through dialogue and mutual agreement, in other words the ballot.
So those are you choices, the ballot or the bullet.
Uh, "secessionists" movements (successful ones at that) have occurred in the past. These were not people seeking out "unoccupied" territories and setting up their own government. These were people saying, "This government does not represent me, I do not recognize it's authority over me." These were DIRECT violations of laws put in place by ballots and bullets both.... yes, even the formation of the United States of America.
That is the whole point of our discussion, what makes what your group wrote down on a piece of paper trump what another group writes on a piece of paper? The ballot? That is just mob rule, not freedom. The bullet? Straight up tyranny, again not freedom.
It is cool if you don't believe in freedom, I disagree, but it is up to you. I find it slightly annoying that you think freedom exists in a system in which the majority owns the minority....
Moderator cut: against Great Debates guidelines They can be enumerated in a document, but that does not make the document the source nor the security of the rights, heck, the document might not list off all of the rights a person legitimately has under the theory of rights. Rights are not just people saying "I have a right to do this so I can.", I do not know why you believe that to be so. According to rights theory, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to have a "right" that violates someone else's rights... this is not a "right" at all, but an act of aggression.
The whole idea of rights theory is to offer an alternative to the ballot and the bullet, the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment were very clear about this. Rights cannot survive in a society ruled by the ballot or the bullet, they are meant to be a system unto their own. May I ask, have you read a single book by any of the philosophers involved in the Scottish Enlightenment? (That is the source of rights theory.)
Seriously, who thinks that the right to habeas corpus, or the right to own a nine-millimeter (but not a surface-to-air missile), or myriad other rights, are somehow innate aspects of being born?
Uh, literally every liberty minded person in existence? It isn't so much that we were born with a right to specific objects... the point is that YOU were NOT born with the right to decide what object another human can own. No matter how many people agree with you. If people were born with a right to a specific object, that would mean that somebody or something would be obligated to provide it to them.
Again, read a book about the theory of rights before making outlandish claims about rights. Rights are NOT what a society allows you to do, like you said. Those are privileges.
Uh, "secessionists" movements (successful ones at that) have occurred in the past.
And in each and every case of secession in the course of human history, one's right to secede violates the rights of others to the same right.
Quote:
These were not people seeking out "unoccupied" territories and setting up their own government. These were people saying, "This government does not represent me, I do not recognize it's authority over me." These were DIRECT violations of laws put in place by ballots and bullets both.... yes, even the formation of the United States of America.
And therein lies the problem, because these lands assumed through secession were not unoccupied and as I pointed out above, in seeking self-government, the right of self-government of others was denied, and as you point out this was particularly true with the establishment of the United States. What choice right of self-government was applied to the native peoples by american colonist seeking their own right of self-government?
Quote:
That is the whole point of our discussion, what makes what your group wrote down on a piece of paper trump what another group writes on a piece of paper?
Absolutely nothing unless you intend to remain apart of that society, whether it is as basic as a family, a tribe or as complex as a city-state or nation. Which brings us to the problem of modern societies, there is no where for one group to physically leave and to go to some uninhabited area where and existing social order exists. So you are left with only a few choices, change the society that you live in, or learn to live with it.
Quote:
The ballot? That is just mob rule, not freedom. The bullet? Straight up tyranny, again not freedom.
So what is your solution to resolving conflicting claims? Do you have any other than stamping your feet and begging for others to respect your rights?
Moderator cut: Deleted quote and response
Quote:
Rights are not just people saying
No rights are not what people say, rights are what societies agree upon.
Quote:
According to rights theory, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to have a "right" that violates someone else's rights... this is not a "right" at all, but an act of aggression.
A lovely theorem so let us apply it to your unrelenting argument regarding the right of self-government. Absent the ability to establish a society in some uninhabited land, how does one group establish its right to self-government without denying the right of the existing inhabitants their right of self-government (see Israel and the Palestinians).
Quote:
The whole idea of rights theory is to offer an alternative to the ballot and the bullet, the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment were very clear about this. Rights cannot survive in a society ruled by the ballot or the bullet, they are meant to be a system unto their own.
Hume? Hutchenson? Carmichael? Whose work would you like to discuss? And in that discussion should we ignore Descartes, Locke, and Rousseau? And please don't make the foolish assumption about what I have read or need to read. So the ball is in your court, pick your source, provide proper citations and we'll go from there.
And in each and every case of secession in the course of human history, one's right to secede violates the rights of others to the same right.
And therein lies the problem, because these lands assumed through secession were not unoccupied and as I pointed out above, in seeking self-government, the right of self-government of others was denied, and as you point out this was particularly true with the establishment of the United States. What choice right of self-government was applied to the native peoples by american colonist seeking their own right of self-government?
Absolutely nothing unless you intend to remain apart of that society, whether it is as basic as a family, a tribe or as complex as a city-state or nation. Which brings us to the problem of modern societies, there is no where for one group to physically leave and to go to some uninhabited area where and existing social order exists. So you are left with only a few choices, change the society that you live in, or learn to live with it.
So what is your solution to resolving conflicting claims? Do you have any other than stamping your feet and begging for others to respect your rights?
Moderator cut: Deleted quote and response
No rights are not what people say, rights are what societies agree upon.
A lovely theorem so let us apply it to your unrelenting argument regarding the right of self-government. Absent the ability to establish a society in some uninhabited land, how does one group establish its right to self-government without denying the right of the existing inhabitants their right of self-government (see Israel and the Palestinians).
Hume? Hutchenson? Carmichael? Whose work would you like to discuss? And in that discussion should we ignore Descartes, Locke, and Rousseau? And please don't make the foolish assumption about what I have read or need to read. So the ball is in your court, pick your source, provide proper citations and we'll go from there.
No, let's explore what you just said. I am paraphrasing, but essentially, you do not think anyone has a right to self government. In fact, according to your post, nobody has "rights" of any kind. So do you prefer straight up mob rule, or what? Rights are something society decides on? That is weird, because the whole idea of rights is a set of rules that society isn't allowed to break that protect the individual... but society can just choose to take them away? That makes no sense.
So you don't believe in self-determination at all, you believe that whatever system in place on Earth when you are born is the only choice and you must submit.
Let's say that one secessionist group bought up a very large chunk of contiguous land... in .. let's say Idaho. They privately own all the land, would you let them secede? I know the federal government wouldn't allow them to without violence... would you support the violence? Keep in mind that all the land is privately owned and everyone who has pooled money to buy it wants out from the U.S. federal government. Would it be ok then?
I mean, we don't have to argue, if you believe that rights don't truly exist, and therefore neither does freedom... just say it.
Uh, if you were serious about your oath, you would NOT go to Iraq or Afghanistan, they have never been and are not a threat to the Constitution. If you actually gave a crap about your oath, you would march on D.C. and stop the open corruption that is ACTUALLY stripping Americans of their rights.
After calming down and several deletions...
I can not march on D.C. because I can no longer walk. I can no longer fly an airplane or helicopter. I am bedridden, on oxygen. I normally can't leave my bed for more than a couple hours a day due to pain because of the damage to my spine. I have already defied expectation living longer than expected but the odds are I will more than likely die before my youngest child turns 8. I am alive because of the generosity of my fellow man donating blood and my will to live to give my children a father.
So I dare say I have a little more knowledge about MY OATH to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies Foreign and Domestic, That I barred true faith and allegiance to the same and that I took the obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
It is the most important vow and act in all my life following only by my marriage and having kids.
I served so that everyone including people I may disagree with (such as yourself) do have the freedoms we enjoy here today.
When you are in the service you give up a lot of your rights for the people of the United States. Today, I am very active politically and agree that Corporate influence is now running the country and that we are losing our rights. While I can't march I am as active as I can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
So, the federal government thinks it has a right to remove all of the military equipment, when it was paid for by the states? The government does not have money, it only takes it from states and the people within. What you are saying is that the federal government has no qualms with using violence to obtain stuff that isn't theirs.... but we already know that is true.
Sorry, but you are misinformed. Most of the major equipment such as our Bombers, Fighters, Tanks, missiles, etc are not owned by the State nor were they bought and paid for by the state. They are Federal Assets bought and paid for by the Fed. (and we could discuss all day that the taxes for individuals from a state are going to the fed for purchase, nor am I talking about how far we are in debt and it was paid for on credit... that's a whole other discussion). That's not to say everything is Federal, but the big stuff is. Bottom line paid for and owned by Fed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
I am not talking about any specific region in the world, I am talking about people's rights to rule themselves... regardless of location or current government. Do you believe in freedom or not? If people do not have the right to cut ties with a government and create their own, or create an competing government, they are not free.
This is a classic monopoly... it is weird how people understand business monopolies but not monopolies on violence and coercion.
Where we disagree is that you haven't defined your terms. Are we talking about a state or an individual. If we are talking about a state, then who in that state determines that they want to. Is it the legislative body, a vote. You have to define this
Because if it is a vote, and even if it is a large majority, the Federal Government would still have a right to defend the rights of the American Citizens that are being forced to secede in that state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews
There is NOTHING to indicate that the new location would have less rights, in fact, look at history... the trend indicates that the new country would be MORE free. Not agreeing with your neighbors is not having your rights violated... being killed by a government because you said no to being ruled by them IS having your rights violated.
If your theory was correct, you should be using violence on the U.S. government, because a majority of the citizens in this country disapprove of the federal system. The difference is, the U.S. government violates rights constantly, every second. You are willing to use violence on a group of people because they *might* violate rights
What if the new country was freer than the U.S.? Business would flock there, they would require no passports, transportation would be fine, they might have MORE property rights after... All you are talking about are essentially sanctions handed down by the U.S., which is illegitimate violence.
I would rather face the unknown, than be violently ruled by the most tyrannical organization ever formed on Earth, does that make it "OK" to use violence on me and sanction my transactions? Sounds more and more like the pro-USA crowd likes freedom less and less.
No, wrong, incorrect! In a rights based system, you don't give up ANY rights for the greater good... otherwise, you are operating outside of rights theory and are not talking rights at all, you are talking privileges.
Democracy sucks, it is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner, it is mob rule, it is the anti-thesis of rights theory. Democracy ALWAYS leads to the smaller minorities and the smallest minority (the individual) getting screwed.
The whole idea of rights theory is to avoid what democracy leads to.
Regardless, I refuse to "give up" ANY of my rights, and based on rights theory, you nor anyone else can give them up for me. This means that my rights recognized (not given) by the constitution are being VIOLATED, not "given up".
Again, where is your oath to protect the constitution form all enemies foreign AND domestic, now? The greatest enemies of the constitution are not hidden in the sands of some far off land, they are wearing suits and passing legislation right here at home.
You won't protect us from them, because they are your bosses.
"The downfall of society will be brought on by those, just. doing. their. jobs." - Unknown
Public schools do suck... look at who runs them. A majority of human history was anarchy or spontaneous order, so yeah, it worked in the past, or we wouldn't be here. That is not what they tell you in public schools, they tell you government is god... heck, they have you pledge allegiance to a symbol of their authority every morning....
Again, this thread is not about southern racists who dislike Obama, re-read the thread. It is about people ANYWHERE that are trapped under a government that they do not recognize as legitimate, do they have the inherent human right to self-govern? If not, the whole concept of the USA can be thrown out the window.
BTW. Anarchy means "without rulers", not without society, nor without government. Government is fine under Anarchy, as long as nobody is FORCED to participate in said government like we are under the current system.
I'm going to bed, so my rebuttal will be terse.
1. You haven't defined your terms and mix/match them.
2. You don't know the outcome of setting up a new state. And you are incorrect about freedom in new states. There are 34 new countries since 1990, most with former soviet ties. The new states are normally taken over by organized crime, religion, and warlords. That is not even to mention the failed or ongoing efforts such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Sudan, Darfur, Lebanon, Nigeria, Yemen just off the top of my head.
3. When you are forced to live in a new state because of a majority vote, where people from all 50 states may have vested interests including owning property, businesses, etc. You are in fact taking away the freedoms afforded by the Constitution of the U.S. It doesn't matter what is planned.
4. No matter what type of Government, you do in fact give up some of your rights when it is established. For example you do not have any right that infringes upon the rights of others. You do not have the right to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater killing innocent people just for your pleasure... etc.
5. If you think this is one of the most tyrannical governments in tyrannical organization ever formed on Earth, then you are sadly mistaken. I have visited more than 30 countries in my tour in the U.S. NO WHERE else do you have what you have in the United States. Most, and I do mean most like 85-90% other countries would filter the internet so you could never see this much less post on it. You would be tracked down and imprisoned. No where else in the world can I wake up at 2am, get in my car, drive to an open store and pick up wheel bearings for a '57 Chevy, grab whatever food I want, pray whatever I want (which I don't but in most places you can't), go back to the house that I own and clean my guns.
6. Nobody can live in Anarchy. It has been tried an tried. The people with the most power will subjugate the weak. That is exactly what is going on around the world.
I would agree there are a lot of ways our country is going downhill. Clearly you feel angst against the U.S., but as my wife said to me when we got married and I had only other county I had been to was Canada, "You need to get out more". At least we have the freedom to openly disagree.
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
― Winston Churchill
No, let's explore what you just said. I am paraphrasing,
Please don't.
Quote:
you do not think anyone has a right to self government.
Let's start from scratch because I am getting the distinct idea that you are not being forth coming with us. For example, the right of self-government. By this do you mean the right to choose and freely participate in one's government or, the right of an individual to be free of all government and as a result define "self-government" as being the right to do whatever one wishes to do without interference from anyone?
If the real issue is the latter, as I suspect, then the entire thread has been a ruse because secession implies more than idea of secession was a ruse.
Quote:
In fact, according to your post, nobody has "rights" of any kind. So do you prefer straight up mob rule, or what? Rights are something society decides on? That is weird, because the whole idea of rights is a set of rules that society isn't allowed to break that protect the individual... but society can just choose to take them away? That makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. These libertarian arguments are so black/white, so zero sum, in short childish. Either I have the right to do everything or I don't have the right to do anything? No Xander, you have the right to do some things and you don't have the right to do others. In your mythical land of free will where the exercise of rights by definition can not possibly interfere with the rights of others is ludicrous because as Thomas Hobbes (one of those Enlightenment era rights philosophers that I posted earlier and will repost here) wrote:
"Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man's that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it. And thus much for the ill condition which man by mere nature is actually placed in; though with a possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the passions, partly in his reason."(Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I, Ch.13 ‘Of Man’, and Part II, Ch.17, ‘Of Commonwealth’)
Quote:
So you don't believe in self-determination at all, you believe that whatever system in place on Earth when you are born is the only choice and you must submit.
Here again, you present petulant zero sum game; without unlimited self-determination that can be no self-determination at all. That too is fallacious. Unlimited self-determination is what gives rise to worst form of tyranny and despotism. As for birthright citizenship, millions of people choose to remove themselves from the nation of their birth every year. So no, I don't believe that one has no choice but to "submit" themselves to the governance of their natural government.
Quote:
Let's say that one secessionist group bought up a very large chunk of contiguous land... in .. let's say Idaho. They privately own all the land, would you let them secede?
What does secede mean in this case, they bought land as many do, they develop their own set of laws and regulations, (sounds like a home owners association) and it is mutually agreed upon by county, the state of Idaho, and the people of the United States have at it (just my personal opinion).
Quote:
I know the federal government wouldn't allow them to without violence... would you support the violence?
I've answered this question repeatedly, I see no reason to repeat myself again.
Last edited by ovcatto; 05-15-2014 at 09:06 AM..
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.
