A strange question about secession. (weapons, regime, wisdom, military)

[texdav]

The way I looked at it who had one coup and then another split off from that coup. Each is trying to justify there position now with Russian and EU both having interest and US to a lessor extent.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

I answered your question and you didn't like the answer....not my problem.

Wrong answer.

Gag me with a dead elephant, I never thought I'd have to defend you.

The OP's entire premise is FUBAR.....and that is the reason you have no obligation to answer (which is the correct answer).

The premise is tantamount to this: Would you eat the Moon, if it were made of barbequed spare-ribs?

Do you see how incredibly stupid the premise is?

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

You keep talking about the US government as if you aren't a part of it. You keep pretending that you are in no way responsible for the actions of the US government. And that if the your dad tried to secede from the US government, that it would be the US government that killed your father, and that you would have no part in it.

A person cannot secede, so the question is moot and completely invalid.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I mean, your way of seeing things would be like saying that Hitler never killed anyone since he never actually pulled the trigger. Such a statement is completely idiotic. If Hitler is telling people to kill people, then he is killing them. If you are telling your government to kill people, then you are killing them. Stop trying to pretend that you aren't responsible.

I'll accept that is given, especially since I preach it.

That is the message that should be delivered every single Sunday from every Christian church in the United States.

Too bad there aren't any Christians in the US.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Imagine for a moment that your father, regardless of what you say to him, regardless of your pleas to him, has decided that he is going to secede from the United States and plans on taking his 100 acres with him. The question is, what should you do? What should the US government do?

The premise is nonsensical. A person cannot secede.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

You are deflecting the question. The question is a matter of principle, it is not about you. The world runs on principles. If there is no principle, then there are no rules. The foundation of our government is the constitution, which is simply a set of principles. Without principle, everything is arbitrary and meaningless. You must either agree to the principle or you must disagree with the principle.

There is no valid question. That is a fallacy predicated on a premise which is baseless.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Well, this discussion really wasn't intended to be a discussion about state or regional secession.

Then there is nothing to discuss, since only a State or a people may secede.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

If you look at the American revolution for reference...

There was no revolution.

Did the colonists invade England and attempt to over-throw the government of King George?

No.....so there was no revolution.

The US refers to it as a "revolution" for propaganda purposes, and is -- to my knowledge -- the only State that refers to it as a "revolution." Every other State on Earth correctly refers to it as a war of colonial independence, usually the American War of Colonial Independence, or simply the War of Independence.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

My only argument about state secession is, if state secession is "allowable". Then if you wanted to be consistent, you would have to allow county secession as well. And if you allowed county secession, you would have to allow city secession.

That is a major logic fail.

Obviously you cannot discern the differences between a State and a municipality.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

For instance, New York City alone has something like 8.3 million people. That is almost the size of Norway and Ireland put together. In fact, about 100 independent nations have a smaller population than New York City.

Not relevant.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I mean, there isn't a fundamental difference between a New York City and a Hong Kong or Singapore.

There is no fundamental difference that you can see.

Singapore executes drug-offenders.....does New York City?

Oooops.....

There are 500+ other differences. Either you refuse to recognize those differences, or you are ignorant of them.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

If you spent the time trying to find a universally consistent principle on secession. I think you would have a very difficult time.

Me? A difficult time?

I have a Master's in Political Science and a PhD in International Relations.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

What you will realize, is that all arguments for the validity of secession are completely subjective.

And your research included what, exactly? A Pukipedia article written by Timmy the Gen Y Turd living in mommy's basement and owing $60,000 in GSLs?

Read Cassese and get back to us.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Russia believes Crimea has the right to secession for a variety of reasons, while Ukraine(and America) does not. Many Americans support Crimean secession, many do not. Thus, on what principle would Crimea be allowed to secede?

The principles outlined in international law. You can start with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

And then when you're done with that, you can read the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

I mean....you did research this, right?

No, of course not.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

...Of course, the "intolerable cruelty" against Americans came in the form of "taxation without representation". More specifically, the tax which finally started the revolution, was a small tax on tea, which was actually being sold cheaper than market value to Americans because it was being subsidized by the British government.

Thus, in a sense, the "intolerable cruelty" against the Americans that led to the Boston Tea party, came from cheap, high-quality tea.

You are 100% wrong.

After you wipe the egg off of your face, go read the Declaration of Independence.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

My point is, the problem with using the term "intolerable cruelty" is that there is no real definition for intolerable cruelty.

For protecting [the King's soldiers], by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

Oooops...

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

If you really follow the logic of secession. You'll realize how you can start making an argument for basically every single case of secession. Whether it be the state, county, city, town, group, race, ethnicity, ancestry, religious group, all the way down to the individual.

No, that would be another false premise.

If one follows your illogical views on secession.

You have like a NASCAR understanding of Political Science.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

If that be the case, then you have to question the nature of government itself. Where does government get its authority? Most will argue that the only legitimate governments come from "the consent of the governed". The problem of course is, when exactly did you give your consent anyway?

When you recognized the government.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Basically, no where on Earth have all of the people ever given their consent to be governed.

Yes, they have......anyone who is not actively engaged in revolution has given consent.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I think you are making improper comparisons....

Like you?

You're comparing a municipality to a State? And even that wouldn't be so bad, except you don't even understand the differences.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Lets pretend that suddenly tomorrow, there was no government. In that case, would you own your TV?

Of course...notwithstanding the fact that you have made yet another improper comparison.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

The problem is, how do you apply that logic to governments in regards to land? Isn't land just property? Why is land so much different than a TV or a house?

Why are you incapable of distinguishing between real property and personal property?

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Does the government actually own the land, or do the people own the land?

If you really believe that the government owns the land, then couldn't you also say that the government owns your TV?

So....what....you're claiming that your TV is registered and deeded by the county registrar?

I'm sorry.....who issued the deed for your land?

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I would say the rational person....

...is obviously not you. When did you go off your meds?

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Many who believe in secession, will argue that states in the union should be allowed to secede, but that individuals shouldn't be allowed to secede. Of course, I must question whether they are applying a principle or simply giving an opinion.

They are applying a principle.....you don't understand that, because you don't understand secession.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

The Supreme Court has already stated that secession is illegal.

And the Supreme Court said slavery was legal.

And the Supreme Court said that the 14th Amendment permitted telephone wire-taps without a search warrant.

If you are referring to Texas v White, first you have misconstrued the very narrow application of the ruling, and second you are ignorant of the fact that White was overturned sub silentio by any number of Supreme Court rulings, including Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 662 (1952) and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld 542 U.S. 507 (2004) (the most recent).

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Thus there is no legal argument for secession outside of amending the constitution(which won't happen).

Legal arguments are not required.

If and when the time comes, and several States choose to secede, they will, and nobody will do a damn thing about it.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

If you still insist that a state should have the right to secede, but argue that an individual cannot secede, you cannot be arguing on a philosophical principle.

Yes, you can. This would be yet one more of your absurd improper comparisons.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

But maybe I'm wrong, or naive, or both?

Yes, very much so.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Obviously I haven't done a good enough job explaining myself.

That's because you do not understand the concepts.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

And Taiwan is far from the only unofficially recognized nation.

Um, they are Chinese.

Which part of Chiang Kai-shek fled mainland China and set up the ROC on the island of Taiwan do you not understand?

When the ROC dies off....which will be soon.....Taiwan will voluntarily merge with China.

Sucks to be a NASCAR Fascist.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

At Waco,...

Waco is a Red-Herring which has no bearing on secession.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Where did this country come from?

Recycled rock in the Earth's crust.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

The point is, the concept of consent of the governed doesn't make much sense. Because in no society on Earth has 100% of the people ever given their consent to be governed.

That is not a requirement, and for any State that is not in active revolution, 100% of the people have given their consent.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

I don't believe there is even such a thing as a nation-state.

Well, then you'd be wrong just like the entire premise of your thread.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Which is why I asked the question, would you as an individual actually be willing to grab a gun and kill anyone who tries to secede and refuses to surrender. If not, you are either a hypocrite or a coward.

That is a false dilemma predicated on a faulty premise.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

What does it matter if a state wants to secede or not? Would it even be legal for a state to secede? That was answered in "Texas v. White". And that answer is no. Otherwise the south would have seceded in 1861.

The South did secede in 1861.

Again, White is narrow in application, and was overturned sub silento by later rulings.

I won't even get into extra-constitutionality, since you can't even understand the legal concept of secession.

The fact that the US government is fickle about secession does not mean secession is illegal.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Trust me, I know all about history.

No, you do not.

You were already proven to have a very limited understanding and even less knowledge....you couldn't even get the Declaration of Independence right.

Answering....

Mircea

[texdav]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

My friend and I have been arguing quite a bit about Ukraine for the past few months. He didn't agree with Crimean secession then annexation by Russia. He says they should have been required to get the consent of the Ukrainian government since they were part of Ukraine. I said that I believed they should be allowed to secede because I thought it was kind of stupid to force a part of the country which was overwhelmingly Russian, and who overwhelmingly wanted to be part of Russia, to stay a part of Ukraine. In my view, it was nothing more than self-determination.


He remarked a little about how much of the southern United States is full of Mexicans. And that it seems silly to believe that if any part of a country which has a majority of a foreign population, that they should be allowed to suddenly break off and be their own country if the majority of them wanted to.

We talked a little about the legality of secession, and international law, and southern secession leading to the Civil War. And then we talked a lot about what the government would do today if Texas(or some other state) was to try to secede. He seems to believe that if Texas tried to secede that we would use force to keep them in the union.

I told him I didn't believe that we would. These days, the media is everywhere, and the sight of a government using force to even stop the illegal use of land by a rancher in Nevada is met with such resistance that the government is forced to back off. I just didn't see how anyone could imagine our government invading and killing thousands of "Texans" who wanted to secede. It just isn't going to happen.


So then he was trying to tease me the other day, because of all my secession talk. And he goes "Yeah man, I'm going to go buy 20 acres in the countryside and declare the land an independent nation."

At first I thought it sounded kind of ridiculous. I was just like "I guess you could try, but it probably isn't going to happen."

Then as I was sitting there I was thinking. Who exactly is going to stop him? And how?

In truth, if you wanted to stop someone or a group of people from seceding, and who were intent on seceding(especially a group who made the proper preparations). The only real way to prevent them, would be to kill them.


Thus the question then is, would you, the reader of this post, be willing to kill anyone who tried to secede from the United States? And why?

When they break a law ;it wouldn't be me who will be coming after them. It wouldn't even be the people wanting them .

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

No, it isn't like saying Hitler never killed anyone. It's more like saying some German shopkeeper who spent the whole war selling vegetables never killed anyone.

Yes, he did. He aided and abetted; was complicit; was an accessory before, during and after the fact; and was a conspirator.

The shopkeeper should have died fighting in a revolution to overthrow the National Socialists.

If not, then the shopkeeper should have fled Germany.

If not, then if the shopkeeper got fire-bombed in Dresden or Hamburg, or had a 155 mm arty shell land on him, that's just a damn shame.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

You can't compare some regular citizen with a dictator.

So, what super-powers did Hitler possess? Was he able to run faster than a speeding locomotive?

Maybe he had a Tantalus machine like the Evil Captain Kirk in Season 2 Episode 4 "Mirror, Mirror."

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

And being a citizen of a nation does not make you responsible for everything that nation does.

Yes, it does.

When 50+% of the people recognize or accept the government, then the government becomes both the de facto and de jure government.

Every de facto and de jure government is a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

Whether the government is a monarchy, republic or dictatorship makes no difference.....if the people accept the government, then they own it....it is their responsibility.

The government going to war is the people going to war, since all de facto and de jure governments are of the people, by the people, for the people.

And since governments cannot govern without the consent of the people.

Every single German was equally as guilty as Hitler, and equally responsible.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

Regardless of whether you support any given action taken by the government, there's not a whole lot a private individual can do about it.

And what was Hitler?

Was he a Corporation, or was Hitler a private individual?

He was a private individual who gained control of the government -- that completely refutes your argument.

Originally Posted by kidkaos2

You really have no means of either forcing the government to take some action or of preventing the government from taking some action.

Yes, you do.

In fact, people have even more opportunity now than they ever did in the past.

Originally Posted by Fancy-Schmancy

For instance, if Texas wants to go, I wish them well...but they can't keep anything with the Federal Gov't's name on it.

Says who?

You?

Doesn't the US pay rent to the Federal Republic of Germany for use of bases and facilities?

Ooooops......

Originally Posted by Fancy-Schmancy

Let 'em start from scratch. I give them 6 months before so many 'illegal Texans' are coming over the border back into the USA that they'll surrender the second we ask them to.

I give it 3 months before Americans are dying to get into Texas.

Suffice to say you're completely out-matched in any debate about the success of States wishing to secede......

....you can't even do simple high school math.

Should you ever hire a tutor to instruct you in 9th Grade Math, then you will understand how silly your arrogance is.

Fancier.....

Mircea

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by urbanlife78

You know, reading your posts, I don't buy this comment from you. Either that or your political ideologies have always been a bit wishy washy. What made you stop being a liberal if you ever were actually a liberal?

Now, that is a good question. You can actually see flickers of my more liberal self in my early postings on City-Data(just click my name, go to statistics, click "find all posts by Redshadowz, and go to the last page). Here is the first post I made on City-Data all the way back in August of 2009.

//www.city-data.com/forum/gener...l#post10529760

It was my post complaining about "Urban Sprawl". Which was my biggest issue of the time, and the reason I came to City-Data to begin with. I had been looking to move out of Oklahoma, and I had that "the grass is always greener" mentality. Especially about densely packed urban areas, with mass transit.

At that time, I would have considered myself to be quite an idealist. But more important, I was an idealist with a "planning" streak. Where I would enjoy making theoretical scenarios for my ideal world. Of course, my ideal world was more about playing "SimCity" than it was about actually understanding human nature.


I remember I would speak in conversations something of this nature, "Take where I live in Moore, Oklahoma. The average home in Moore has 2.7 residents. The average home sits on probably about 10,000 square feet or land or more(about 1/4th of an acre). Throw in the fact that nearly 1/3rd of all cities are covered by roads. That means the average person in Moore, just for their dwelling(not including all the farms and businesses from which their stuff comes), is taking up about 5,000 square feet. If you were to get rid of cars and install mass transit. And then if everyone lived in 20-story apartment buildings, with businesses on the bottom floor. Where each person had on average 300 square foot of space. Theoretically, you could pack the 316 times as many people in a given area than what we have now."

From that thought, I would begin to devise methods of how to "coerce" people into more dense housing. Since one of the primary factors involving urban sprawl has to do with the cost of transportation. It would be fairly simple to push people into cities by a drastic increase in the cost of gasoline. You could further reduce housing size by increasing the cost of electricity and heating.


Here is my third post on City-Data.

//www.city-data.com/forum/polit...l#post10532167

It was me giving my explanation why I was a liberal. Using the Bible as a reference(I figured it would be meaningful since Republicans tend to be Christians). Which interestingly, I remember I only was using that quote, because I had seen the quote used to mock Republicans on the "Colbert Report" not long before that.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FueZsdFzLg


I would say if there was ever a turning point in my ideology. I would say that it came from my difficulty in finding a stance on abortion that was philosophically consistent. And in my quest to try to reconcile all the ethical dilemmas that come with abortion. My idealistic/planning nature took me first down a path a practical absolute despotism(largely in the form of Eugenics, which btw, will make you a racist). It is true that you can eliminate much of the ills of the world through eugenics, but you would be trying to cure evil through the greatest evil imaginable.

On top of that, it would be an evil which would be even more evil than even what was intended. Because you would have to place in charge of that terrible evil, a flawed human-being. Whose rules would inevitably be completely arbitrary, and whose power would inevitably become corrupt.

Which brought me to the realization that in my ideal world, I wouldn't even exist.


So I decided to change course. Was there a way to "fix" the world which didn't require myself, or society, to behave like a tyrant? Well, the only way to not be a tyrant, is to follow something like the "non-aggression" principle, usually associated with libertarians. That led me to Milton Friedman. Listening to him for the first time, is the most amazing thing I think I ever did in my entire life. He effectively destroyed every idea I had about people and the government that I had been taught to believe all my life, but never questioned. Listening to him talk, then listening to people like Ron Paul talk, feels like you are waking up from some kind of nightmare. That your whole life was a blur of lies, and suddenly things are clear.


Of course, I don't believe libertarianism can ever excuse itself from the use of aggression. Since it would be impossible for any libertarian society to exist without aggression. Since it cannot exist without being able to collect taxes, and for most people in it, it would be on some level "involuntary". Thus libertarianism, as espoused by most libertarians is really just "minarchism". A position that government is inherently inept and corrupt, but still necessary. So keep it as small as possible.

Minarchism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even if my thought went in the direction of minarchism or libertarianism. I did have to wonder what exactly a libertarian society would actually look like. And whether or not such a society would actually be able to "fix" the world as I had hoped.

Which actually brought me to a new problem. The Westboro Baptist Church.

In my perfect world, they wouldn't be allowed to protest at a child's funeral who died in a public school from a tornado(I was raised in Moore, Oklahoma). But is there any way to prevent "jerks" from being jerks, without having a government which behaves like a tyrant? And that goes far beyond freedom of speech. Many have discussed the possibility of monopoly in a libertarian/minarchist government. And while I don't know if it would necessarily happen. I will acknowledge that minarchism doesn't fix the jerk problem. In fact, minarchism actually encourages jerks, because their behavior is actually protected "disproportionately".

As many have complained, in a minarchist society, people could potentially get as rich as they wanted, dominating resources. While other people were poor, suffered, and died. A reasonable reference could be made for the "Irish potato famine". Where wealthy planters were exporting crops out of Ireland, while the poor Irish farmers were starving to death.

In fact, the great irony of government is that people believe that government exists to protect them from jerks. But in its absence, there would actually be far fewer jerks(though the punishment for being a jerk is much harsher)

To explain, I'll use my friends saying about guns. "An armed society is a polite society". If you knew if you behaved like a jerk, someone would probably kill you, you would be very careful to not be a jerk. And those people who behaved like jerks, would just be killed, preventing them from repeating their behavior.

It always reminds me of my favorite comedian, George Carlin. Starts at 8:32 in the first video.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_zwB6GLpo4


But even if you argue that government encourages jerks, and that it is inept and corrupt. That doesn't mean there is a better alternative, right? I mean, even if government causes the inequality and hierarchy that encourages the resentment, jealousy, and materialism that leads to much of our crime and discontent. Doesn't it also bring people out of poverty and misery? Wouldn't we be living terrible lives if we woke up tomorrow and the government suddenly disappeared?


If you believe that, then you are left with only conclusion, "government is a necessary evil". And even if government has to do evil things, those evils are merely the "lesser of two evils". And since the original purpose of the "social contract" is to provide justice(which includes social justice). Then the arbitrary constraints of the constitution are actually unreasonable. If government creates inequality, then doesn't the government have an obligation to try to mitigate its effects? At that point, libertarian philosophy becomes completely untenable. Especially where there are the largest gaps in inequality, cities.

Even more, the execution of the "social contract" in respects to "social-justice" in libertarianism relies on charity. And while I admit, charity would be very effective in combating absolute poverty. It cannot go far enough in providing justice since it is merely voluntary.


Thus, I do not believe libertarianism is possible anywhere where diverse groups of people exist in close-quarters(including diversity in incomes). But from reading the works of Libertarian thinkers, you must inevitably become incredibly skeptical of the nature of government. It would seem that in most cases, the existence of any government always serves the interests of the wealthy and powerful. You can see this idea going all the way back to "Shay's rebellion" and the "Whiskey Rebellion", as well as Hamilton's policy of assumption. Even back then, it was government taking the side of bankers and business, instead of trying to help the people. It has always been that way, and it will always be that way as long as there is government.

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


All of this leaves you with a very difficult conundrum. If government is always untrustworthy and corrupt. And by giving government more power, you are just increasing the opportunities for abuse by "jerks". Then what do you do if you also recognize that a weak government will necessarily lack justice and create outright hostility? Especially in perpetuating ethnic, class, and religious division?


Well, that is when I decided to revisit the question about the necessity of government.

So, is government necessary? Would we be living in misery in the absence of government? Is what Thomas Hobbes said about the "state of nature" actually true? I mean, would life be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"?

I would concede that certain things would be very difficult if not impossible without government(IE, the internet). I would also concede that the development of technology in general would come to a relative halt. But does that mean we would be living in misery?


Well, let us go back then to the beginning. Why was I trying to fix the world anyway? For what purpose would anyone want to fix the world? Why does fixing the world matter? I mean, many environmentalists think fixing the world would be killing off all the people on Earth. Literally.

No, the reason why I wanted to fix the world, was because I wanted to make the world a better place. I know many think that technology or other "progress" is the very definition of making the world a better place. But is it?

A better question might then be, what is the purpose of life? What is it that we are all really trying to do? Is your goal to live to be 100? Why? If someone dies at 40, was their life worth less than someone who lived to be 100? If you hadn't been born yet, and you could ask for one thing. What would it be? A long life? To be rich? To be famous?

I know what I would ask for, I would ask to be happy. And I would wish the same for you, and everyone else. And when I speak of trying to fix the world, all I am really saying is, I want to make things better so people will be happy.

The question then is, does technology make us happy? For that matter, does government make us happy? What actually makes us happy? If lives are extending and technology is getting better, why aren't we getting any happier? I mean, just look at the Amish. Why are they so happy?

I actually went into quite a bit of depth about happiness in another thread...

//www.city-data.com/forum/34598304-post404.html

This video also explains it quite well.

Dan Gilbert: The surprising science of happiness | Talk Video | TED.com

The quote at the end of the video, at 19:30. Is a quote from Adam Smith, who is ironically the sort of inventor of modern capitalism.

“The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another.... Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquillity of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice.”

Quote by Adam Smith:

If that be true, then whether or not government or technology exists, it cannot increase happiness except in one case. To prevent the encroachments of other governments.

Rousseau's Theory of the State

"The existence of one sovereign, exclusionary State necessarily supposes the existence and, if need be, provokes the formation of other such States, since it is quite natural that individuals who find themselves outside it and are threatened by it in their existence and in their liberty, should, in their turn, associate themselves against it. We thus have humanity divided into an indefinite number of foreign states, all hostile and threatened by each other."

Which is why I say, while I recognize that all governments are evil. I think it might be unreasonable to believe that you can abolish all governments. And as long as a single government exists, then every habitable inch of the world must be ruled by them.


At this point in time, unless I find a more appropriate term. I would consider myself a Voluntaryist. Which I presume would be the best way to describe Amish communities. And for that matter, I wish the Amish could just be left alone.

Voluntaryism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Rapaport]

I usually avoid reading anything by this poster as his posts resemble more an act of public, intellectual masturbation than actual voice in a discussion, however this time our "village idiot" seems to make a valid point:

Originally Posted by Mircea

Wrong answer.
A person cannot secede, so the question is moot and completely invalid.
Then there is nothing to discuss, since only a State or a people may secede.

For some strange reason our village idiot got this one right: a person cannot secede. Case closed. He's right.


I was really hoping that he would make more good points until I came across this passus where he chose to voice his absurd opinion on the American Revolution:

Originally Posted by Mircea

There was no revolution.
Did the colonists invade England and attempt to over-throw the government of King George?
No.....so there was no revolution.

The US refers to it as a "revolution" for propaganda purposes, and is -- to my knowledge -- the only State that refers to it as a "revolution." Every other State on Earth correctly refers to it as a war of colonial independence, usually the American War of Colonial Independence, or simply the War of Independence.

Wow lol. Obviously this is not only wrong but plain stupid as first of all we do realize that the Revolutionary War was a war fought for independence hence the Declaration of Independence and Independence Day holiday but first of all because the colonists did in fact overthrow the government of King George and his representatives in America and replaced monarchy with a very progressive, democratic system which outright rejected British class system, abolishing noble titles and associated privileges. How can you not call this earth-shattering event a revolution?

I particularly don't see a reason why we would call the French uprising against monarchy and class system in 1789 a "revolution", while the American Revolution which was very similar in its social objectives, should be called an Independence War. Nope. We did much more than declare independence from Great Britain: we also rejected the old world social order, becoming the first modern day democracy in the world.

Last but not least, the American Revolution was an uprising protecting an ethnicity from the tyranny of another, in 1776 Americans were not a nation yet, did not have a distinct culture or language that has to be protected against foreign oppressors. No, it was an uprising of the British against the British and any nationalistic overtones were added much, much later.

The real reason European scholars avoid using the word "revolution" when describing the events that led to the birth of the United States is because the world "revolution" has many bad connotations in Europe, first because of the bloody,tyrannical side of the French Revolution and then because of even more tragical events of the Russian Revolution. On the flip side the American Revolution may as well be the only example of SUCCESSFUL revolution in modern history.

Again, too bad our "village idiot" had only one good moment yesterday. Try again? Lol

[Redshadowz]

Originally Posted by Mircea

For protecting [the King's soldiers], by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

I told myself I wouldn't respond to anything you had to say because you are seriously the most hateful person on these forums. I would call you a troll, but no troll makes this long of a post.

Anyway, I can't help but say a couple things.

First, you need to keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence came nearly a year and a half after the state of Massachusetts was declared to be in rebellion. Most of the things on that list were related to what the British government was doing in their effort to quell the rebellion.


With that said, the mock trial he is referring to, is probably the Boston Massacre. If that be the case, it was John Adams himself(our second president) that defended those British soldiers. Thus, some of the reasons for secession could actually be assumptions related to coincidences, not facts(I mean, you know how much secessionists love to create conspiracy theories about the government).

Secondly, the police kill hundreds of people every year in America, and receive the equivalent of mock trials through our corrupt legal system. And that is assuming they even go to trial, most of the time they just get "paid leave" then go back to work once people start to forget what they did.


For cutting off our trade with other parts of the world? Isn't that what Thomas Jefferson did with the Embargo act? Or for that matter, isn't every tariff in existence a form of deprivation of trade?

Embargo Act of 1807 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For depriving us of a trial by jury? Has that never happened in the United States or something? Aren't the lefties complaining because the president says he has the right to assassinate American citizens without trial? Hell, you can be locked up in jail for up to six months without a jury trial as we speak.

Juries in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I mean, if you are going to say that the actions the British government used to quell an uprising that had already been raging for more than a year should be acknowledged as the cause of the original uprising. Why don't you take a closer look at what Abraham Lincoln was doing during the Civil War? Or for that matter, look at what happened after the Civil War during the reconstruction.

New York City draft riots - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgA4...FjiDM_&index=2


If I was to make a list of every terrible thing this government has ever done. I could make a list ten times longer than the Declaration of Independence(and I'm sure you could as well).


Secondly, if you imagine the United States of today as sort of being like Texas, and Britain being the Federal government. Many of those things would apply. Let alone the "unconstitutional executive orders".

"He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance."

Originally Posted by Mircea

You're comparing a municipality to a State? And even that wouldn't be so bad, except you don't even understand the differences.

Look, there is about the same amount of difference between a county and a state, as there is between a state and the Federal government. Counties have their own courts, police, legislative body, taxes, and everything else that government's should have. The transition of certain large counties or cities to independence would be no more difficult than a state like Wyoming.

In fact, did you know that the councilmen for the city of Los Angeles are paid more than members of the House of Representatives? They make $178k a year to a Congressman's $174k a year.

United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

L.A. council's salaries are highest among 15 key cities, new study finds | L.A. NOW | Los Angeles Times


I think you are trying to make things more complicated than they really are.

Even if you were to take the entire Declaration of Independence at face value. The question is, which one of the items on the list gave the United States the right to secede? If we can't secede from just one of the items on that list, how many would it take?


When it really boils down to it, you recognize that we had the right to secede because you are American and you like the fact that America seceded. You wouldn't care what was on that list, or even if they were true. And even if your government was still doing many of those things today(which they are), you would overlook it because it serves your interests.

The question I have for you is, what country has ever regretted seceding? If Texas was to secede tomorrow, would it ever want to be part of the United States ever again? If any state was to secede tomorrow, would any state ever want to rejoin the Union? I mean, if even a county or a city in your state was allowed to secede, would it ever change its mind?


I think most people would prefer tiny governments to big governments. They are just too afraid of the unknown. And certainly aren't willing to risk their own lives or livelihoods for it.

[Redshadowz]

I feel like I've done a poor job expressing the evils of all governments. So I was trying to think up a scenario that would make more sense.


Ok, for a moment imagine that the world is largely the way it is today. With the same political parties, and political ideologies, philosophy,etc. But imagine for a moment that the United States was located in Europe(obviously Europe would have to be bigger). And for whatever reason, we hadn't yet explored the Western Hemisphere(we thought the world was flat or something).

So imagine all of the sudden we discover this whole new continent full of Native-Americans just as they were back in 1492 when Christopher Columbus first came over, and who were seemingly hostile to being "assimilated". What would the US government and other world governments do?

More specifically, in regards to our government. What would the Republicans want to do? What would the Democrats want to do? What would the Libertarians want to do? And what would the "Voluntaryists" or "anarchists" want to do?


Which of those groups would you find to be the most "ethical"? And why?

[urbanlife78]

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

Sensible.

However, if we had secessionists within my own state that had us teetering on the brink of secession, somebody has gotta go. I'm not living anywhere that breaks off from the United States and I'm willing to fight to make sure it doesn't happen.

You know I half agree with you, I would be okay with the Northwest seceding because I would be a part of that, but why secede when the northwest is stronger with the US behind it.

[Redshadowz]

In the above scenario, I can already tell you what would happen. And it wouldn't be much different than what happened in America to the Native-Americans. Even in our modern age.


The nations of the world would all want access to the land and resources of the new-found continent. Especially the wealthy business interests who would seek to exploit those resources. And since governments need economic power to further their political and military hegemony. Governments are necessarily "fascist" to some degree. They support business interests, because the business interests support the government.


The United States would want to bring as much of the new territory into our "sphere of influence" as possible. But we wouldn't want to risk war by trying to just take it. Instead, we would push to organize the new territory into new nation-states, with leaders who are effectively loyal to America, and who will hand US companies lucrative contracts for the exploitation of resources.


But what if the vast majority of the Native-Americans were opposed to assimilation and wanted no part in foreign relations and just wanted to be left alone? Well, we couldn't let an entire hemisphere sit effectively dormant. And we would constantly have to worry that our "enemies" will try to take the land before we could get it.


So one way or another, we are going to force open the new continent. We will find the most ruthless and greedy Native-American we can find. We will give him weapons and money and promise that he will become the new ruler of his new country(which he will declare the new borders). These actions will most likely lead to a Civil War, with the US-backed puppet leader coming out the victor. He will declare his new nation to be legitimate, we will acknowledge it as legitimate. And in return for our support, he will give American companies access to the new territory.


This will **** off the other Native-Americans(especially members of other tribes). Who will declare his government, and the nation itself as illegitimate. They will fight an insurgency against what they believe is an illegal government which seized power through force. But they won't be able to match the power of the US-backed regime. So they will become "guerilla fighters". Which their government will declare are illegal and criminal.

But it is even worse. To protect our interests, we will also declare those groups to be illegal, and we will send in our CIA and our special ops to help end the "insurgency". We will declare we are protecting that nations "territorial integrity". And this action will prompt every inch of the new continent to do exactly the same.



The question is, do you find this sequence of events to be a good thing or a bad thing? Would the Democrats or Republicans handle this situation any differently at all? Or are really both parties nothing but war parties, who will sell arms and support any regime that serves US interests? Why is it that the US military's job is now not only to protect America, but also to protect "America's interests"?



Now let us backtrack a bit and imagine a world without governments, and there was some person who just decided to go exploring and he found a new continent. Lets pretend that person was you, or really, that everyone in the world was you(but obviously different "you's"). What would the individual do in that case? How might an individual treat the Native-Americans differently than how governments treat them?

Wouldn't the individual treat the Native-Americans much more respectfully? Wouldn't the individual always seek mutually beneficial and "fair" arrangements with the Native-Americans(as to avoid violence)? Wouldn't the individual leave the Native-Americans alone if that was their wish?


Which is my point. It isn't that I trust or distrust government. Nor do I necessarily trust or distrust people. They are really one and the same. What actually concerns me is power. And what I mean by power is really a "disparity of force".


If you and I were of the same "strength"(power), then we are forced to be nice to each other. Otherwise you end up sort of in a state of "mutually assured destruction".

On the other hand, if you were much more powerful than me, then you could utilize force without much thought. And in many cases, you would. If you look at America's foreign policy, it changes drastically based on the "disparity of force" between America and the other country. The countries we are significantly more powerful than, we tend to bully without any concern. While "powerful" countries, we tend to tip-toe around and make concessions for.


Thus, you could make an argument that if all nations were equally powerful, there would never be war. Because the prospect of war, or even conflict would leave us with only two options, peace or death.

If you follow that logic, then to make people more peaceful, all you need to do is make people "equally powerful".


Which comes down to the real root of my argument. You can never make people equally powerful by entrusting in government(and their representatives) nearly unlimited power. It isn't that governments are evil, it isn't that people are evil, it is power which is evil. You must be aware that whomever you give power will always be corrupted by it. And those who tend to seek power, are the types of men who desire power, and are usually the least trustworthy of all.

Rousseau's Theory of the State


"Let us assume that, in an ideal society, in each period, there were a sufficient number of men both intelligent and virtuous to discharge the principal functions of the State worthily. Who would seek them out, select them, and place the reins of power in their hands? Would they themselves, aware of their intelligence and their virtue, take possession of the power? This was done by two sages of ancient Greece, Cleobulus and Periander; notwithstanding their supposed great wisdom, the Greeks applied to them the odious name of tyrants. But in what manner would such men seize power? By persuasion, or perhaps by force? If they used persuasion, we might remark that he can best persuade who is himself persuaded, and the best men are precisely those who are least persuaded of their own worth. Even when they are aware of it, they usually find it repugnant to press their claim upon others, while wicked and mediocre men, always satisfied with themselves, feel no repugnance in glorifying themselves. But let us even suppose that the desire to serve their country had overcome the natural modesty of truly worthy men and induced them to offer themselves as candidates for the suffrage of their fellow citizens. Would the people necessarily accept these in preference to ambitious, smooth-tongued, clever schemers?"


"In Switzerland, despite all the democratic revolutions that have taken place there, government is still in the hands of the well-off, the middle class, those privileged few who are rich, leisured, educated. The sovereignty of the people -- a term, incidentally, which we detest, since all sovereignty is to us detestable--the government of the masses by themselves, is here likewise a fiction. The people are sovereign in law, but not in fact; since they are necessarily occupied with their daily labour which leaves them no leisure, and since they are, if not totally ignorant, at least quite inferior in education to the propertied middle class, they are constrained to leave their alleged sovereignty in the hands of the middle class. The only advantage they derive from this situation, in Switzerland as well as in the United States of North America, is that the ambitious minorities, the seekers of political power, cannot attain power except by wooing the people, by pandering to their fleeting passions, which at times can be quite evil, and, in most cases, by deceiving them."

"Nothing is as dangerous for man's personal morality as the habit of commanding. The best of men, the most intelligent, unselfish, generous, and pure, will always and inevitably be corrupted in this pursuit. Two feelings inherent in the exercise of power never fail to produce this demoralisation: contempt for the masses, and, for the man in power, an exaggerated sense of his own worth.

"The masses, on admitting their own incapacity to govern themselves, have elected me as their head. By doing so, they have clearly proclaimed their own inferiority and my superiority. In this great crowd of men, among whom I hardly find any who are my equals, I alone am capable of administering public affairs. The people need me; they cannot get along without my services, while I am sufficient unto myself. They must therefore obey me for their own good, and I, by deigning to command them, create their happiness and well-being."