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.
Where did this country come from? Couldn't the British have told the colonists to "go find another country to call home"? For that matter, couldn't the Native-Americans have said the same thing?
For that matter, a lot of Mexicans think they are going to retake the American southwest(which they claim was stolen from Mexico). They call it "Aztlan", which means "Land of the Aztecs".
Why exactly do you have any more right to the land than anyone else? If I acquire land peacefully(unlike the constant wars that we got most of America with), and if I never step foot on "your land" ever again. Then what is the problem? Why do you think you have a perpetual right to land that you stole to begin with?
Because you have bigger guns?
Irrelevant. Nobody living today has any claim to separate the land they stay on from the US. The amount of resources that have been poured into securing, protecting, and building up land, from previous owners to current citizens, means no one has any stronger claim to any piece of territory than the US.
You find me a piece of land that has gone undeveloped and unprotected by the US and previous generations of Americans, and maybe you'd have an argument for that piece of land seceding. But good luck finding that plot.
Secession talk is the height of arrogance. Imagine if some tenant decided they had enough of their landlords "rules" and wanted to "secede" their apartment from the building... Absurd, right?
Secession [at least in this country] should always be looked at from the point of view that land=resources. In that respect, I am 99.9% sure that any serious effort brought forth by a town, county, state, etc. to secede from the U.S. would be met with military force. In essence, any locale that secedes from the U.S. is by definition declaring its sovereignty. Since the U.S. is not going to recognize this sovereignty, the seceding party will technically be viewed as an occupying force against the U.S. It's pretty much no different than a foreign nation setting up shop in any one of our states or territories uninvited. Wouldn't you expect the U.S. to react with military force in that scenario?
You keep talking of the United States as if it is an entity of itself. The United States in any real sense doesn't actually exist. And at some point in the future, it won't exist. Whether it comes apart or merges with other nations into a larger nation. One way or another, someday, there won't be a United States.
Furthermore, the United States cannot own anything because the United States doesn't exist. It is the people who own the territory which we call the United States. It cannot be any other way. And it is "the people" who have formed a union for specific purposes. And it is the people who will someday dissolve this union. Into what, I don't know.
The purpose of the union is laid out in the preamble of the US Constitution...
"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The key words here are, "the people" have joined together in a union for the sake of the benefits of such a union. Of course, the real question is what is a union anyway? Or more importantly, what is the nature of this union? For instance, before the union, who owned the territory of the United States? The government or the people individually? If the people owned the land, then did they cede their land to the United States when they adopted the constitution? Or did they simply cede certain powers to the government for the protection of the government?
If we did voluntarily join the union, are we not allowed to voluntarily leave the union? If there is a union which is only held together by military force, is it really worthy of the name "Union"?
During the Civil War, many in the north who were opposed to slavery, were also opposed to a union by force. They wrote.. "We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets."... "Coercion, in any event, is out of the question. A union held together by the bayonet would be nothing better than a military despotism."
In my view, if someone rightfully acquired a piece of land in which no other actual person has a rightful claim, and they decided they wanted to leave the union. The government must necessarily become the equivalent of a military despotism if they force them to remain in the union.
I know many have remarked about how someone can secede from America but they should not be allowed to take their land with them. I just want to say that that is complete idiocy. They cannot secede without land unless they are subsequently removed from the United States. Otherwise, they wouldn't be seceding at all. If no other nation was willing to take them, all you could do at that point would be to drop them in the ocean. Since dropping them in the ocean would cause them death shortly after. Then what you are really arguing is that anyone who attempts to secede from the United States deserves death.
Of course, if you begin to argue that the land is owned by the United States. We must ask the question, why does the United States own the land to begin with? If we recognize the fact that all land that exists has changed hands(and for that matter, governments) many many times since the beginning of human civilization. Then in reality, whoever owns the land now, owns the land. Whoever owns the land in the future, will own the land. It doesn't really even matter how they acquired it.
Ownership of land merely comes from the combination of an individual claim to the land, and the acknowledgement of others of your claim to the land. Basically, if you, your friend, or a nation claims they own a piece of land. They only own that land if others around them acknowledge their right to that land.
The concept of "territorial integrity" that seems to be repeated over and over again, is basically a system where America acknowledges the right of another nation to a piece of land. In return that nation recognizes America's right to a different piece of land. Such a system is actually very "fragile", because the moment one nation doesn't recognize the "territorial integrity" of another nation, then in a sense, nations no longer even exist.
The reason is, nations are exactly what they are, a bunch of lines drawn on a map by the people with the biggest sticks. It cannot be anything else. Just look at the history of the United States if you don't understand the concept.
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.
The Supreme Court has already stated that secession is illegal. It doesn't matter if it is one state or several states. It is illegal. Thus there is no legal argument for secession outside of amending the constitution(which won't happen).
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. You have to be arguing about practicality. Basically, you believe that a state is large or powerful enough to be capable of independence. But that an individual is not.
Which I suppose I can understand why people would feel that way. But what about a county? I remember when Pima county was talking of seceding from the state of Arizona. One of the arguments was that Pima County was bigger than four US states. And has a population larger than seven US states.
Thus, if individual states should be allowed to secede. Does it make sense that Vermont would have the right to secede(which has been proposed) but Pima county would not?
If you really start to look at the question of secession more logically. You'll realize that arguments about size or practicality are completely arbitrary. Such discussions rely on opinions, not principles. If you want to take a principled position, there are only two positions you can hold. Either you believe that everyone should be allowed to secede(anarchy/voluntarism), or that no one should be allowed to secede.
Many argue that secession should be allowed in the case of "intolerable oppression". Of course, secession from intolerable oppression is simply a right to revolution. There need not exist a right to revolution. It is a revolution, it is always illegal, and it will always be suppressed by those in power. If they didn't attempt to suppress it, there would be no reason for revolution to begin with.
Furthermore, the word "intolerable oppression" is a silly way of defining a "right". Since the definition of "intolerable oppression" is also completely arbitrary. What might be intolerable for me might not be intolerable for you. For instance, the colonists regularly called themselves "slaves" because they were forced to pay taxes without being able to vote on the taxes. They considered "taxation without representation" to be "intolerable oppression", thus giving them the right to secede.
Of course, that would mean anyone who had to pay taxes but wasn't allowed to vote, by the definition of the founding fathers, would be a slave. Thus, anyone denied the right to vote would necessarily have the right to secede(or at least to try).
If you can grasp the idea that territorial borders are imaginary. That the United States doesn't truly exist, only people exist. And that on some level, everyone believes in a right to secession(though some set the bar far lower than others). Then the only question about secession, isn't whether or not it is legal. It matters not whether it is legal, because not only do all governments declare secession to be illegal, but legality itself is a completely arbitrary construct.
The only question that matters, is whether or not you would be willing to kill someone who tried to secede from the United States.
And before you reply with some "Murica" patriotic, nationalist non-sense. I want you to imagine that it had to be you who actually picked up the gun to put down the revolution. And to imagine that the person who was trying to secede, was your own brother.
Because that is what it actually is. Brother against brother. Just like in the Civil War. And I want to find the evil bastard who would put down his own brother like a dog in the name of protecting the "territorial integrity" of his nation.
You find me a piece of land that has gone undeveloped and unprotected by the US and previous generations of Americans, and maybe you'd have an argument for that piece of land seceding. But good luck finding that plot.
First, there are plenty of pieces of land which have gone "undeveloped" by the US government. Outside of cities, most land in the United States has not been improved by the US government(isn't that what Cliven Bundy was complaining about?). You could argue that US citizens have improved the land. But they sell their improvements to the land when they sell the land.
As for protecting the land, that is completely irrelevant. I mean, did we compensate Britain for "protecting" the land for a couple hundred years before we decided we didn't want to be part of Britain anymore? Should we have compensated them more for the areas they "defended" the longest?
I have never even heard the argument for any nation, ever, to say that secession requires some kind of back pay for hundreds or thousands of years of military protection.
The reason is, the military is nothing more than an extension of the police. You pay the police now for the protection they provide now. You can't say that you deserve more when you sell your home because you paid the police to protect your house for the last 30 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieB.Good
Secession talk is the height of arrogance. Imagine if some tenant decided they had enough of their landlords "rules" and wanted to "secede" their apartment from the building... Absurd, right?
This is such a horrible example. The tenant doesn't own the land. If he tried to secede, it would be theft. Even in the absence of government, it is still theft(we are talking "natural law" here).
What we are really discussing is "rightful claims". Does the US government have a rightful claim to all territory within the borders of the United States? Or do people have a rightful claim to that territory, and simply hire government representatives to help manage the territory for their benefit?
When I discuss secession, I try to imagine it through the lens of a "state of nature". For instance, if I was the only person who had a "reasonable" claim to a piece of land. Then even in the absence of government, reasonable people would recognize that land to be mine. But if two people had a "reasonable" claim to a piece of land, then one party couldn't ignore the claim of the other party.
Thus if we look at your first point. If it is true that the US government "invested" in a piece of land by developing it. Then the US government does have a "rightful claim" to at least a percentage of that land. In such a situation where at least two parties have a claim on a piece of land. Those claims would have to be resolved.
Of course, in the absence of a court system(in regards to multiple governments), such a resolution is far more difficult. But as a general rule, reasonable people will try to come to reasonable solutions(as to avoid violence). Of course, maybe it is too much for me to expect people or governments to be reasonable?
And more weekend philosophers coming out.... It appears than for many people democracy is too much to swallow, they long for monarchy where the authority comes from God and there is no question of legitimacy....
Anyways, keep your day job: the United States of America exist and is very real. Lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
You keep talking of the United States as if it is an entity of itself. The United States in any real sense doesn't actually exist..
The Ukraine/Crimea situation is a perfect example of what would need to happen in order for a state to successfully secede from the U.S. Although the Crimean population is predominantly Russian, it doesn't mean that the people are are automatically within their rights to pull up stakes and slide over to Russia. The only reason that it was able to do so is because Ukraine cannot match Russia militarily. The bottom line is that Russia saw an opening with the weakening power structure of the Ukraine government and seized the moment by occupying a strategic area of a weaker country. Russia didn't annex Crimea because it wanted to bring home its fellow compatriots. Russia annexed Crimea because it gives them an important port in the Black Sea. Annexing Crimea increases the effectiveness of Russia's Navy while also giving them control of important shipping lanes. This goes back to my point that land=resources.
I somehow went on a massive rant when I was trying to reply to the entire post you made. And I decided it would be better to separate this response from that one.
Look, I understand that Russia wants Crimea for strategic reasons. But in all honesty, Russia would take any piece of land that you allowed them to have. For that matter, so would the United States.
The only reason Russia took Crimea when they did, was because they believed they could get away with. If they thought they would get away with it, they would take a hell of a lot more territory than they already have. They would definitely move into Odessa. They would take "Transnistria". Then huge chunks of Eastern Europe, especially in the Baltics. Most of the Caucasus, and parts of central Asia. Basically, everywhere that had a large Russian-speaking population.
Of course, this is a pretty idiotic conversation since all governments are trying to dominate each other, and the world. The United States through the CIA and other agencies does practically nothing all day every day other than finding ways for America to dominate the world.
And for what? National pride? How does the common man truly benefit from American domination of the world?
Even if you argue that governments for whatever reason need as much land as possible for "resources". You have to recognize that many of the richest countries in the world are absolutely tiny, and have few if any natural resources. Some are even land-locked. What actually makes most countries rich is not resources, it is trade.
And while I can understand the idea that you would rather a country like America dominate the world than a country like Russia or China. I would personally rather no country dominated the world. Because national domination of the world never serves the interests of the common people. It only serves the interests of big business. It is fascism. A corporate/government union looking out for the interests of the rich and powerful.
Every time I hear someone say that the job of the US military is not only to protect America, but to protect "American interests". It seriously makes me want to vomit. What is an American interest anyway? I'll tell you what it is, it is oil and other natural resources. As well as forcing open foreign markets for US goods.
When you talk about the US government needing to control trade routes. It is really an extension of wanting the government to control markets. Which is an extension of wanting the government to be actively involved in business. Or really, that the government should be ran "like a business", looking to "maximize profits" for the US economy.
But I personally don't see governments as businesses. And I don't believe that in the majority of cases when governments act like businesses, that it actually benefits the common people(go read about the history of mercantilism).
Look at it like this. There was a railroad line in New York City which closed down and sat dormant for decades. The city of New York City decided that, if they developed it into a park, that it should increase the property value of the area. Higher property values means greater property tax revenues. Thus the argument was that, the investment in the new "park" would ultimately raise more in tax revenues than the cost of re-purposing the rail-line.
Now, on the surface that sounds pretty reasonable. But if you start to look underneath. You'll realize that, for the city to raise more in property taxes, one of two things have to happen.
Either the people who already live in the area have to start paying more in rent. Or the people who currently live there will have to leave and be replaced by people with more money.
Who truly benefits? The wealthy people who actually own the property(and see an appreciation in value), government employees, and government contractors. The guy who has to move out of his now overpriced apartment not only doesn't benefit, but is actually harmed. And there is no reason to believe that somehow by raising the cost of housing that anyone is actually better off. It is just cities catering to rich people.
Look around the country, you see the same thing over and over again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EHCT
Because the U.S. is a military super power, I doubt that there is currently a scenario in which a portion of the U.S. would be occupied and/or annexed by a foreign country. By extension, I feel that there would never be a scenario [unless the U.S. for some reason ceases to remain a world power] in which a portion of the U.S. would be able to successfully secede for any reason. This includes areas in which the majority of the population does not identify themselves as citizens of the U.S. The U.S. government spent a great deal of time, money and effort in procuring the land/resources in its current possession. I fully believe that the government will do at least as much if not more to retain its land/resources. Even if this means that human rights will be trampled in the process.
I would agree that the United States would not "want" to allow secession. I am just not convinced that in the state of the world today, that the United States, with its obsession with "human-rights", could start killing Americans in any number even in the name of preventing secession. Look at what happened with Cliven Bundy in Nevada. How the government was forced to stand down, even to lawbreakers, for fear of someone being killed.
I think right now, if even a small number of people were killed by US troops, the something like 1,300 anti-government militias which already exist in this country, who are looking for a reason to fight against the government, would go absolutely nuts. And in a short period of time, there wouldn't even be a United States anymore.
Bundy has not declared independence from the US, he is still a tax dodger, but the government felt there was no need to get in a fire fight over it, it is better to let the excitement die down and then come in and arrest him.
This fantasy of secession is just that, fantasy. It isn't something that any of us will see in our lifetime because there is no groups that are actively seeking secession outside of the internet.
Bundy has not declared independence from the US, he is still a tax dodger, but the government felt there was no need to get in a fire fight over it, it is better to let the excitement die down and then come in and arrest him.
This fantasy of secession is just that, fantasy. It isn't something that any of us will see in our lifetime because there is no groups that are actively seeking secession outside of the internet.
I never said Bundy was declaring independence. Obviously he wasn't, but he did say he didn't recognize the authority of the US government. Isn't that sort of the equivalent of declaring independence?
Your argument seems to be that the government simply backed off because they were concerned that someone might be killed. I disagree. I believe that the government backed off because the militia showed up and the world was watching. If the government had to kill members of an anti-government militia because they were interfering with US government employees even in a "legal" action. The situation would spiral out of control, and not in the favor of the US government.
Look at it like this, the police and other government agencies already kill hundreds of people every year. Recently in New Mexico someone was killed for committing the high-crime of being homeless and "illegally camping" on public land.
Did the government not realize that someone was likely to die if they kept pushing the issue? If the government refuses to enforce petty laws if it risks someone's life. Then why didn't they just leave him alone? What if that man declared he didn't recognize the authority of the state over the land? That he was within his rights to sleep on that public land. And even more, what if the militia had shown up to defend him? Would the government have backed off then?
Look, the reality is, the government is going to do absolutely nothing about Cliven Bundy. What in the hell is the government going to do? If they can't take his cattle when the cattle aren't even on his property. They aren't going to be trying to take anything else either. If the militia stays there for 100 years, then the government won't do anything for 100 years. He and the militia have uncle Sam's nuts in a vice. And everyone knows it.
All that can really happen, is the government can try to sway public opinion heavily against Cliven Bundy, hoping to force the militia home and for Bundy to capitulate. Or they can just try to make his life miserable, starve him out, and/or wait for him to die(he is old). Otherwise, they would have to arrest every single member of the militia(assuming they would even be able to arrest them without a firefight).
If the government cannot arrest the militia without a firefight. And the government refuses to put anyone in harms way. Then the government cannot arrest the militia at all. In fact, if the government refuses to put anyone in harms way, they can't enforce a single law.
If the government decides that it can kill the militia since "they are breaking the law". Then what happens when there are suddenly 100 dead militiamen? How would that go over in the media? How would you feel about it? What would that do for the future "Timothy McVeigh's"?
I'm just saying, unless the government is willing to kill anyone who opposes its authority. Then there is no United States, there is no law, there is nothing. If there were even 1,000 people who refused to recognize the authority of the US government. The US government would be forced to kill every single one of them. It cannot be any other way.
Thus we must return to my question. Would you be willing to personally kill those people if that was the only way to "save" the United States. And even more, would you be willing to kill your own brother, father, or son if that was what was necessary to perpetuate your nation?
If not, do you not recognize yourself as either a hypocrite or the same as the "armchair commando" that you despise?
I never said Bundy was declaring independence. Obviously he wasn't, but he did say he didn't recognize the authority of the US government. Isn't that sort of the equivalent of declaring independence?
Your argument seems to be that the government simply backed off because they were concerned that someone might be killed. I disagree. I believe that the government backed off because the militia showed up and the world was watching. If the government had to kill members of an anti-government militia because they were interfering with US government employees even in a "legal" action. The situation would spiral out of control, and not in the favor of the US government.
Look at it like this, the police and other government agencies already kill hundreds of people every year. Recently in New Mexico someone was killed for committing the high-crime of being homeless and "illegally camping" on public land.
Did the government not realize that someone was likely to die if they kept pushing the issue? If the government refuses to enforce petty laws if it risks someone's life. Then why didn't they just leave him alone? What if that man declared he didn't recognize the authority of the state over the land? That he was within his rights to sleep on that public land. And even more, what if the militia had shown up to defend him? Would the government have backed off then?
Look, the reality is, the government is going to do absolutely nothing about Cliven Bundy. What in the hell is the government going to do? If they can't take his cattle when the cattle aren't even on his property. They aren't going to be trying to take anything else either. If the militia stays there for 100 years, then the government won't do anything for 100 years. He and the militia have uncle Sam's nuts in a vice. And everyone knows it.
All that can really happen, is the government can try to sway public opinion heavily against Cliven Bundy, hoping to force the militia home and for Bundy to capitulate. Or they can just try to make his life miserable, starve him out, and/or wait for him to die(he is old). Otherwise, they would have to arrest every single member of the militia(assuming they would even be able to arrest them without a firefight).
If the government cannot arrest the militia without a firefight. And the government refuses to put anyone in harms way. Then the government cannot arrest the militia at all. In fact, if the government refuses to put anyone in harms way, they can't enforce a single law.
If the government decides that it can kill the militia since "they are breaking the law". Then what happens when there are suddenly 100 dead militiamen? How would that go over in the media? How would you feel about it? What would that do for the future "Timothy McVeigh's"?
I'm just saying, unless the government is willing to kill anyone who opposes its authority. Then there is no United States, there is no law, there is nothing. If there were even 1,000 people who refused to recognize the authority of the US government. The US government would be forced to kill every single one of them. It cannot be any other way.
Thus we must return to my question. Would you be willing to personally kill those people if that was the only way to "save" the United States. And even more, would you be willing to kill your own brother, father, or son if that was what was necessary to perpetuate your nation?
If not, do you not recognize yourself as either a hypocrite or the same as the "armchair commando" that you despise?
I stopped reading about the first paragraph in. If you think that generally speaking in a hypothetical sense that people in the US could secede from the country, then that is what you think. But don't expect it to happen without any gun fire because that land they are trying to take doesn't belong to them once they secede their citizenship from the US.
And to answer your question, NO, I would not PERSONALLY kill someone for any reason, but that doesn't mean the US government won't kill someone trying to take American land. I don't have a brother, and my dad would laugh at anyone who wants to secede because it is a stupid idea.
I stopped reading about the first paragraph in. If you think that generally speaking in a hypothetical sense that people in the US could secede from the country, then that is what you think. But don't expect it to happen without any gun fire because that land they are trying to take doesn't belong to them once they secede their citizenship from the US.
And to answer your question, NO, I would not PERSONALLY kill someone for any reason, but that doesn't mean the US government won't kill someone trying to take American land. I don't have a brother, and my dad would laugh at anyone who wants to secede because it is a stupid idea.
Obviously I haven't done a good enough job explaining myself.
As I've tried to explain over and over and over again, no one owns any land. This idea that the US owns any land is stupidity. The US might lay claim to land, and other powerful countries might recognize their claim as valid. But the US does not own any land.
To understand what I mean, all you have to do is look at "Taiwan". It is not officially recognized as a nation by the United States. But it functions as an independent nation, and is recognized as a nation by many other countries. And for the most part, the United States treats Taiwan as an independent nation. When you buy a product made in "Taiwan", it doesn't say it is "Made in China".
And Taiwan is far from the only unofficially recognized nation.
There was a really interesting show called "Places that don't exist". You should really watch all five of them so you can understand what I'm saying. It talks about Taiwan, Transnistria, Somaliland, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. It is probably the most enlightening thing a person could ever watch in regards to how national borders actually work.
The truth is, the land is owned by the people who claim it and are willing to back up that claim with violence. It cannot be any other way.
Which is my point. If the United States is unwilling to back up its claim to land with violence, then it cannot own anything. In fact, as I mentioned in regards to Bundy. If the government refuses to enforce laws because they are afraid of someone being harmed. Then there are no laws. A law which goes unenforced does not exist.
Now, to your last point. You keep talking about the United States as if it is separate from you. But the United States is at least supposed to be a representative of the people. Thus, the United States is you(at least if you recognize it as valid). If the United States is killing people, then you are killing people, period. Whether or not you are actually pulling the trigger, you are still guilty. Stop pretending you aren't.
Either you believe it is right, or you don't. If you don't think it is right and you say nothing, then you are a hypocrite or a coward.
I am not saying you have to go out fighting the government every time you disagree with them(no one agrees all the time). But your apathy about something which you claim to oppose is pathetic.
At least come out and say it is wrong if you believe it is wrong. And if you believe it is right, say it is right. And give your reasons. Don't just pretend that you aren't responsible.
Obviously I haven't done a good enough job explaining myself.
As I've tried to explain over and over and over again, no one owns any land. This idea that the US owns any land is stupidity. The US might lay claim to land, and other powerful countries might recognize their claim as valid. But the US does not own any land.
To understand what I mean, all you have to do is look at "Taiwan". It is not officially recognized as a nation by the United States. But it functions as in independent nation, and is recognized as a nation by many other countries. And for the most part, the United States treats Taiwan as an independent nation. When you buy a product made in "Taiwan", it doesn't say it is "Made in China".
And Taiwan is far from the only unofficially recognized nation.
There was a really interesting show called "Places that don't exist". You should really watch all five of them so you can understand what I'm saying. It talks about Taiwan, Transnistria, Somaliland, South Ossetia, and Nagorno-Karabakh. It is probably the most enlightening thing a person could ever watch in regards to how national borders actually work.
The truth is, the land is owned by the people who claim it and are willing to back up that claim with violence. It cannot be any other way.
Which is my point. If the United States is unwilling to back up its claim to land with violence, then it cannot own anything. In fact, as I mentioned in regards to Bundy. If the government refuses to enforce laws because they are afraid of someone being harmed. Then there are no laws. A law which goes unenforced does not exist.
Now, to your last point. You keep talking about the United States as if it is separate from you. But the United States is at least supposed to be a representative of the people. Thus, the United States is you(at least if you recognize it as valid). If the United States is killing people, then you are killing people, period. Whether or not you are actually pulling the trigger, you are still guilty. Stop pretending you aren't.
Either you believe it is right, or you don't. If you don't think it is right and you say nothing, then you are a hypocrite or a coward.
I am not saying you have to go out fighting the government every time you disagree with them(no one agrees all the time). But your apathy about something which you claim to oppose is pathetic.
At least come out and say it is wrong if you believe it is wrong. And if you believe it is right, say it is right. And give your reasons. Don't just pretend that you aren't responsible.
Wrong about what? Your fictional idea of a peaceful secession from the US?
And to address your point, I have no problem with the US killing people who try to take American soil from the US.
You are free to secede from the US, you are not free to take any American land with you.
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.
