View Full Version : Is secession tyranny of the majority?
If a state decides to secede from the united states, even if the vast majority ofnthe people in the state support it there will still be many people who don't want to secede. Wouldn't seccesion violate the rights of those people?
If a state decides to secede from the united states, even if the vast majority ofnthe people in the state support it there will still be many people who don't want to secede. Wouldn't seccesion violate the rights of those people?
Succession is the withdrawal from tyranny. What do you think the American Revolution was all about? There were those back then that were perfectly content living under the thumb of the British Empire, they were called tories.
t0rnado
10-15-2009, 09:02 PM
People have the right to a federal government that wages war, steals, murders millions, and spies on it's citizens? How would seceding impede upon anyone's rights? What rights are being violated?
Vessol
10-15-2009, 09:12 PM
Succession is the withdrawal from tyranny. What do you think the American Revolution was all about? There were those back then that were perfectly content living under the thumb of the British Empire, they were called tories.
Have you ever read up on the American Revolution?
It was not only the British who committed atrocities, contrary to what hollywood will tell you.
The British Loyalists, even innocents, homes and fields burned down or confiscated, if they are lucky. Some were often times killed. Wives raped and murdered, families hung by the neck.
CCTelander
10-15-2009, 09:15 PM
MICROseccession isn't. It's actually a good idea, I think. Unfortunately, you'll have to google it since posting about it here may be verboten.
simple answer...NO! There is still a choice to move to where the State will coddle your hurt feelings.
tmosley
10-15-2009, 09:22 PM
Assuming for a moment that the new government does not act aggressively against loyalists (a libertarian one would not, unless they showed aggression first), there is nothing preventing those who wish to retain their citizenship in the old nation from paying their taxes to their former government. They might even get some benefit from their citizenship. Of course, they would no longer have access to many of the services that their tax dollars are paying for, so it wouldn't really matter.
Tyranny is the forcible deprivation of rights. Assuming secession by a libertarian government, there would be no tyranny involved, so it would not be tyranny of the majority. Those people who do not recognize the new government are free to continue being bled by their former government while receiving nothing in exchange, or they are free to leave.
Vessol
10-15-2009, 09:23 PM
simple answer...NO! There is still a choice to move to where the State will coddle your hurt feelings.
And what if the state closes the borders, and the U.S government arrests anyone leaving the state?
What happens if citizens of that state themselves go around and decide to lynch the "enemies of the state"?
james1906
10-15-2009, 09:28 PM
Most territories these days are only territories because of some economic benefit. Is it not tyranny to stay a territory because the mother country gives you welfare? Why should Americans subsidize Puerto Rico?
Vessol
10-15-2009, 09:34 PM
I'm not against state rights, I just think there are better options then actual secession..
And I fear what would happen in states that did secede as lawlessness takes over.
You a liberal/conservative!? You must love the Federal government! you must be a spy! Hang him and his family!
Succession is the withdrawal from tyranny.
That's your opinion, and I might agree, but I'm sure plenty of people don't feel that our country is tyrannical. Some people are quite happy with the current system and would object to secession. What about their rights?
tmosley
10-15-2009, 09:36 PM
And what if the state closes the borders, and the U.S government arrests anyone leaving the state?
What happens if citizens of that state themselves go around and decide to lynch the "enemies of the state"?
Those are all separate acts of aggression. In the same way that you can not judge all drug dealers by the actions of South American drug lords (think about those guys vs MJ cafes in Amsterdam), you can't judge the fundamentally anti-tyrannical act of separation from an oppressive central government by what some people (or the former government) do.
tmosley
10-15-2009, 09:39 PM
What about their rights?
Exactly which rights are being violated by the act of secession? EXACTLY?
klamath
10-15-2009, 09:39 PM
When a state secedes knowing full well the federal government will forcibly send armies to put the rebellion down the state is bringing a world of hell down on all citizens of the state whether or not those citizen wanted to secede or not. The only way to secede is to find you a place away from all neighbors and personally secede. When the government shoots you down like a dog at least you didn't impose the tyranny of war on all bystanders
tmosley
10-15-2009, 09:41 PM
When a state secedes knowing full well the federal government will forcibly send armies to put the rebellion down the state is bringing a world of hell down on all citizens of the state whether or not those citizen wanted to secede or not. The only way to secede is to find you a place away from all neighbors and personally secede. When the government shoots you down like a dog at least you didn't impose the tyranny of war on all bystanders
No man is responsible for the actions of another. There have been plenty of peaceable successions in history.
Exactly which rights are being violated by the act of secession? EXACTLY?
Certainly property rights. If someone wants their property to be part of the United States, they are SOL, because secession forces them to become a part of another country. Don't they have a right to do with their property what they wish?
MICROseccession isn't. It's actually a good idea, I think. Unfortunately, you'll have to google it since posting about it here may be verboten.
Is that like on the episode of Family Guy when Peter declared his house to be his own country, the nation of Petoria?
james1906
10-15-2009, 09:47 PM
Is that like on the episode of Family Guy when Peter declared his house to be his own country, the nation of Petoria?
And his country was ruthlessly put down because he liberated a swimming pool from the tyranny of Joe.
klamath
10-15-2009, 09:48 PM
No man is responsible for the actions of another. There have been plenty of peaceable successions in history.
Not in this country. We have proved that we are willing to commit a million men to to the soil to stop secession.
Those people that vote in the majority to secede will be responsible for the deaths of themselves as well and the minority.
james1906
10-15-2009, 09:48 PM
Certainly property rights. If someone wants their property to be part of the United States, they are SOL, because secession forces them to become a part of another country. Don't they have a right to do with their property what they wish?
Did the Browns face tyranny by the US gov't?
CCTelander
10-15-2009, 09:51 PM
Is that like on the episode of Family Guy when Peter declared his house to be his own country, the nation of Petoria?
LOLZ!
Something like that. But it's a little more involved, it's COMPLETELY voluntary, and it's unlikely to result in a major crackdown by TPTB until it's way too late for them to do much about it. I suggest you look into it. There's a good thread about it over on the Mises forums, which I ran across after I finally made my way over there just 2 days ago.
You could also look into seasteading, which is a form of miroseccession that also looks promising. There's a whole non-profit society devoted to the idea which just received a $500,000 grant from one of the founders of PayPal.
There are other ideas revolving around the concept too.
klamath
10-15-2009, 09:52 PM
Did the Browns face tyranny by the US gov't?
Yes they did but at least they kept the violence to themselves and not innocent bystanders.
james1906
10-15-2009, 09:55 PM
Yes they did but at least they kept the violence to themselves and not innocent bystanders.
What if some General Sherman wannabe left a trail of destruction on the way to the Browns' home?
jmdrake
10-15-2009, 09:56 PM
If a state decides to secede from the united states, even if the vast majority ofnthe people in the state support it there will still be many people who don't want to secede. Wouldn't seccesion violate the rights of those people?
Not if the minority is allowed to "vote with their feet". For example if the south had said "We want out and we're letting all of our slaves go free so they can go where they want if they don't wish to be part of the confederacy" then morally that wouldn't have been a problem.
Regards,
John M. Drake
klamath
10-15-2009, 09:59 PM
What if some General Sherman wannabe left a trail of destruction on the way to the Browns' home?
Not sure what your point is? They took the browns out and there wasn't any march to the Browns like Sherman.
Waco is another example of whether you can secede peacefully or not.
jmdrake
10-15-2009, 10:02 PM
Certainly property rights. If someone wants their property to be part of the United States, they are SOL, because secession forces them to become a part of another country. Don't they have a right to do with their property what they wish?
Not really. The current government can your property under any flimsy excuse as long as they pay you for it and give some pretext as to how it was for the "public good". And people get incorporated into cities all of they time without their personal express consent. If you bought land in the suburbs because you didn't want to be part of a particular city and they expand you are "SOL" too.
jmdrake
10-15-2009, 10:05 PM
What if some General Sherman wannabe left a trail of destruction on the way to the Browns' home?
That would have lessened the chance of the operation being a success for the government. They wanted to get the Browns, not tick off the whole state.
LOLZ!
There's a good thread about it over on the Mises forums, which I ran across after I finally made my way over there just 2 days ago.
This? http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5509.aspx
james1906
10-15-2009, 10:10 PM
Not sure what your point is? They took the browns out and there wasn't any march to the Browns like Sherman.
Waco is another example of whether you can secede peacefully or not.
The point is that you don't know how the other person responds. If a person or group declares independence, you don't know if the response will be heavy handed or indifference.
Austrian Econ Disciple
10-15-2009, 10:11 PM
Seems to me people are too afraid to confront tyranny. Karl Hess isolationism, doesn't work. Period. The State should give the people a one month advance notice to all persons wishing to stay citizens of the US to move to another State. If they don't want to, they can stay there, if they want to, they can leave.
It's not a violation of their rights. If anything, they'll be getting a lot more of their rights back, from the tyranny. Personally, I'd rather not have a State at all, however, this is the last resort we have, to remove ourselves from the Tyranny. I guess many of you guys here would rather "keep the peace at all costs" by being a slave. Good for you, I don't.
CCTelander
10-15-2009, 10:11 PM
This? http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5509.aspx
Yep, that's the one I saw. There may be more info on it over there too, I haven't had a chance to look around much yet.
Yep, that's the one I saw. There may be more info on it over there too, I haven't had a chance to look around much yet.
it sounds very similar to Agorism/counter economics/economic seccession
Agorism is a political philosophy founded by Samuel Edward Konkin III and developed with contributions by J. Neil Schulman that holds as its ultimate goal bringing about a society in which all "relations between people are voluntary exchanges – a free market."[1] The term comes from the Greek word "agora," referring to an open place for assembly and market in ancient Greek city-states. Ideologically, it is a term representing a revolutionary type of anarcho-capitalism or free-market anarchism.[2] Schulman integrated the idea of counter-economics into Konkin's libertarian philosophy[3], which is the advocacy of untaxed black market activity, which agorists say will lead to development of private defense force sufficient to protect private property and liberty from the state to the point where such protection is strong enough to overthrow the state.
And what if the state closes the borders, and the U.S government arrests anyone leaving the state?
What happens if citizens of that state themselves go around and decide to lynch the "enemies of the state"?
I wouldn't think that inplausible. If states start down this road, they won't be alone and the Feds will need all the help they can get. The individual state would want to secure their reasoning for a liberty minded revolt, and would let people pass without molestation. As far as internal state resistance. Minimal at best. As we all know the "blind", need only to be fed and entertained and an occasional mainstream screw-up to keep them in line.
axiomata
10-15-2009, 11:25 PM
Secession is the failure of a federated democratic republican system.
nobody's_hero
10-16-2009, 04:23 AM
Washington, D.C. already seceded from the form of government we once had.
klamath
10-16-2009, 07:08 AM
Seems to me people are too afraid to confront tyranny. Karl Hess isolationism, doesn't work. Period. The State should give the people a one month advance notice to all persons wishing to stay citizens of the US to move to another State. If they don't want to, they can stay there, if they want to, they can leave.
It's not a violation of their rights. If anything, they'll be getting a lot more of their rights back, from the tyranny. Personally, I'd rather not have a State at all, however, this is the last resort we have, to remove ourselves from the Tyranny. I guess many of you guys here would rather "keep the peace at all costs" by being a slave. Good for you, I don't.
That is what many a neocon says about the war on terror. Your cause to start a war may not be mine. At one time 80 percent of the public aproved and wanted a war in the middle east. What are we to say that we don't want to be involved.
this is exactly the same arguements I have heard over the last 8 years.
I am not a pacifist but I think far to many people are ready to try and solve their current problems by going to war. Our country has been far too ready to start wars or get involved in wars.
There is no secession without war at this time so any call for it is a call to war.
2young2vote
10-16-2009, 07:57 AM
I think just a few moral rights have been violated. I don't believe there is any constitutional right that has any meaning outside of the USA (because the constitution is part of the USA, not the state that has succeeding). But, i do think that some moral rights have been violated because I don't think anyone should be forced by another person/group of people to have their nationality changed without their consent. If the person wants to remain a part of the USA they will have to move, and it is the fault of the people who wanted to succeed. If the person wants to maintain their current lifestyle and home etc.. they will have to stay and become a different nationality. Either way, they were forced into something that they didn't agree with and are now suffering. Just because they have a choice between two negatives, doesn't mean they weren't controlled.
Have you ever read up on the American Revolution?
It was not only the British who committed atrocities, contrary to what hollywood will tell you.
The British Loyalists, even innocents, homes and fields burned down or confiscated, if they are lucky. Some were often times killed. Wives raped and murdered, families hung by the neck.
Really? I had no idea those kinds of things happened during times of war. I wonder if it ever got so bad that they actually stood across from each other and committed whole sale mass murders of the opposing side? Reckon I better get to do'n me some lernin.
Austrian Econ Disciple
10-16-2009, 10:18 AM
That is what many a neocon says about the war on terror. Your cause to start a war may not be mine. At one time 80 percent of the public aproved and wanted a war in the middle east. What are we to say that we don't want to be involved.
this is exactly the same arguements I have heard over the last 8 years.
I am not a pacifist but I think far to many people are ready to try and solve their current problems by going to war. Our country has been far too ready to start wars or get involved in wars.
There is no secession without war at this time so any call for it is a call to war.
Did I call for secession now? No. Will I call for and work towards secession if after 2012 nothing changes? Hell yes. If that means fighting whoever invades the new Sovereign Nations, then so be it. Secession is peaceful. How dare you call those who peacefully break bonds, as bad as those who invade Sovereign nations.
Why are you trying to make the people who want out of tyranny look like war-mongers? Your fighting your own side my god. You are a pacifist. I can tell you wouldn't fight for your rights, or anyone else's in any event. Thats ok, you have people like me willing to do that for you, myself, others, and my family. Right? Oh yes, I must be a neo-con, because if nothing changes I want to rid myself of the tyranny....:rolleyes:
Meatwasp
10-16-2009, 10:32 AM
Did I call for secession now? No. Will I call for and work towards secession if after 2012 nothing changes? Hell yes. If that means fighting whoever invades the new Sovereign Nations, then so be it. Secession is peaceful. How dare you call those who peacefully break bonds, as bad as those who invade Sovereign nations.
Why are you trying to make the people who want out of tyranny look like war-mongers? Your fighting your own side my god. You are a pacifist. I can tell you wouldn't fight for your rights, or anyone else's in any event. Thats ok, you have people like me willing to do that for you, myself, others, and my family. Right? Oh yes, I must be a neo-con, because if nothing changes I want to rid myself of the tyranny....:rolleyes:
Oh shit! the dogs of anarchy are let lose again. You don't get it I am afraid. Read Russian history.
Austrian Econ Disciple
10-16-2009, 10:40 AM
Oh shit! the dogs of anarchy are let lose again. You don't get it I am afraid. Read Russian history.
Read American History. There was this little thing called the War of Southern Independance. (Which, the South should have won, if they would have marched on DC after Manassas, but they chose not to. They only wanted to defend themselves.)
Meatwasp
10-16-2009, 10:47 AM
Read American History. There was this little thing called the War of Southern Independance. (Which, the South should have won, if they would have marched on DC after Manassas, but they chose not to. They only wanted to defend themselves.)
Yes I have seen the bodies. What good did it do. It was not going to happen. I wonder if you have ever been in war? Are you an arm chair warrior or a born man to fight to get rid of all your anger that you carry.?
tmosley
10-16-2009, 10:49 AM
Certainly property rights. If someone wants their property to be part of the United States, they are SOL, because secession forces them to become a part of another country. Don't they have a right to do with their property what they wish?
That isn't a form of property rights. I want my property to be part of downtown Manhattan, but that doesn't make it so. They still own their property. In fact, they REALLY own it now, as the new libertarian government doesn't impose property taxes.
So try again.
klamath
10-16-2009, 10:59 AM
Did I call for secession now? No. Will I call for and work towards secession if after 2012 nothing changes? Hell yes. If that means fighting whoever invades the new Sovereign Nations, then so be it. Secession is peaceful. How dare you call those who peacefully break bonds, as bad as those who invade Sovereign nations.
Why are you trying to make the people who want out of tyranny look like war-mongers? Your fighting your own side my god. You are a pacifist. I can tell you wouldn't fight for your rights, or anyone else's in any event. Thats ok, you have people like me willing to do that for you, myself, others, and my family. Right? Oh yes, I must be a neo-con, because if nothing changes I want to rid myself of the tyranny....:rolleyes:
If you want to secede why don't you do it as an individual? Why do you have to take a whole state along with you? Almost every state in the union has the same amount of tyranny as the others so to secede isn't getting you away from tyranny.
No you are wrong about me being a pacifist. I don't know about you but I have been involved in 3 wars that were sold to me as a fight against tyranny. I have taken gunfire, under the ideal I was fighting for my family, yours and freedom. Don't assume the war you would fight would turn out to be a fight against tyranny and not just exchanging one for another. Please don't imply I am a coward.
tmosley
10-16-2009, 11:11 AM
If you want to secede why don't you do it as an individual? Why do you have to take a whole state along with you? Almost every state in the union has the same amount of tyranny as the others so to secede isn't getting you away from tyranny.
If you "secede" as an individual, you'll only wind up in jail, or living like a hobo. Men with guns want to take the fruits of your labor. The only way to avoid them is to live in poverty, which doesn't make sense for most people.
Also, no there are many states with far less tyranny than others. If Texas seceded tomorrow, it would be within striking distance of a libertarian paradise, what with no state income tax or statewide property tax, and a government almost entirely composed of part timers (in the legislature, at least). I'm sure Montana is similar.
Jeremy
10-16-2009, 11:14 AM
Virginia secedes from U.S. West Virginia secedes from Virginia to stay with U.S.
klamath
10-16-2009, 11:16 AM
If you "secede" as an individual, you'll only wind up in jail, or living like a hobo. Men with guns want to take the fruits of your labor. The only way to avoid them is to live in poverty, which doesn't make sense for most people.
Also, no there are many states with far less tyranny than others. If Texas seceded tomorrow, it would be within striking distance of a libertarian paradise, what with no state income tax or statewide property tax, and a government almost entirely composed of part timers (in the legislature, at least). I'm sure Montana is similar.
Texas as a whole gave us George Bush, Lyndon Johnson, one small corner gave us RP. Montana gave us the guy that is raming national healthcare down the nations throat. The amount added freedom you would get by seceding would not be worth the war dead.
Icymudpuppy
10-16-2009, 11:18 AM
If a state secedes, it should recognize that if it has the right to secede from the Feds, so each county has the right to secede from the state, and each individual has the right to secede from the county. I would support any state seceding in order to establish the legal precedent that a free people may secede, and that it logically follows to each successive level of autonomy. Once that state secedes, any person not wishing to be part of that state should have the legal right to secede from the state, and if they choose to repatriate to the federal government.
Austrian Econ Disciple
10-16-2009, 12:05 PM
If you want to secede why don't you do it as an individual? Why do you have to take a whole state along with you? Almost every state in the union has the same amount of tyranny as the others so to secede isn't getting you away from tyranny.
No you are wrong about me being a pacifist. I don't know about you but I have been involved in 3 wars that were sold to me as a fight against tyranny. I have taken gunfire, under the ideal I was fighting for my family, yours and freedom. Don't assume the war you would fight would turn out to be a fight against tyranny and not just exchanging one for another. Please don't imply I am a coward.
Have you heard of Irwin Schiff? :rolleyes:
Thought this was a movement for liberty. If you are unwilling to fight at some point then you have no business if you ask me. If it was up to you guys we would all still be under the Queen and King of England. There comes a time when you have to fight or you make peace with being a State slave. I'll die before I become a slave. They better put me in the Gulog. Of course, we should exhaust all political means first, and the last measure of that is secession. Am I crazy enough to believe that Obama would actually let a State seceede? Ha, *locks and loads*.
To the other poster. I'm currently in the Military. I am an Oath Keeper. Seems to me there are quite a few anti-any military. Anti-any force people here. When I get out I intend to join the local militia, wherever I end up. Hopefully, I have some knowledge I can pass on to others if the time would ever arise (God willing it won't).
So, you might as well learn to bow down in case the two party system doesn't let us get our mitts on any power. What happens if all our candidates lose in 2010 and 2012? It's certainly a possibility. Will you just lay down, or continue the same until you eventually have no rights left? Just curious.
tmosley
10-16-2009, 12:06 PM
Texas as a whole gave us George Bush, Lyndon Johnson, one small corner gave us RP. Montana gave us the guy that is raming national healthcare down the nations throat. The amount added freedom you would get by seceding would not be worth the war dead.
Collectivist much?
The fact that some politicians came from here doesn't change the fact that Texas has a small state government, and would likely maintain the small size of it's government were it to declare independence.
And what, are you going to use war dead as a bludgeon in every conversation? I guess we should all just roll over and present our anuses to our great and mighty overlords because they might kill us if we don't? You asked someone not to imply that you are a coward. Others wouldn't call you that if you stopped talking like one. The fear of death is NOT a legitimate reason to submit to tyranny.
Austrian Econ Disciple
10-16-2009, 12:11 PM
Collectivist much?
The fact that some politicians came from here doesn't change the fact that Texas has a small state government, and would likely maintain the small size of it's government were it to declare independence.
And what, are you going to use war dead as a bludgeon in every conversation? I guess we should all just roll over and present our anuses to our great and mighty overlords because they might kill us if we don't? You asked someone not to imply that you are a coward. Others wouldn't call you that if you stopped talking like one. The fear of death is NOT a legitimate reason to submit to tyranny.
Amen. Gun and Ammo for everyone, for last resort. I'd move to Texas in a heartbeat if you guys seceeded. Texas of course supplies much of the Nation's military force. I'd imagine they would all come back cheerily, and fight if needed to stave off the nefarious Federal Government. Who would be the next Robert E. Lee to lead the Army of the Potomac *Cough* Army of the Colorado.
What some people don't understand is the act of Secession is peaceful. I guess you don't believe in Self-Defense? (Not you Mos, but Klamath)
Meatwasp
10-16-2009, 12:31 PM
yep get your big guns and chop as many as you can. RON PAUL WOULD ADVOCATE THIS RIGHT?
Austrian Econ Disciple
10-16-2009, 12:36 PM
yep get your big guns and chop as many as you can. RON PAUL WOULD ADVOCATE THIS RIGHT?
We were a nation of rifleman.....Thought Ron Paul was a strict Constitutionalist? He would advocate getting to know your community. Working with your community. Training for the worst case scenarios. Supporting your local militia's. Getting involved locally.
I'm waiting for someone to answer this: What happens if all of our Liberty candidates loses in 2010 and 2012? Are you going to continue and try to break the two party system, or are you going to try locally, and work on getting your State a liberty-haven? Once States start to use Nullification you can be sure as hell, they won't allow it. You going to open your ass wide and wait for the pounding?
What is up with the mocking of Self-Defense...? Some liberty movement we have here.
Meatwasp
10-16-2009, 12:48 PM
We were a nation of rifleman.....Thought Ron Paul was a strict Constitutionality? He would advocate getting to know your community. Working with your community. Training for the worst case scenarios. Supporting your local militia's. Getting involved locally.
I'm waiting for someone to answer this: What happens if all of our Liberty candidates loses in 2010 and 2012? Are you going to continue and try to break the two party system, or are you going to try locally, and work on getting your State a liberty-haven? Once States start to use Nullification you can be sure as hell, they won't allow it. You going to open your ass wide and wait for the pounding?
What is up with the mocking of Self-Defense...? Some liberty movement we have here.
I am not mocking it. I agree on working to change the system. I donate money when I can. We will wait and see what happens after this.This too will pass without violence even if our guys lose. Things always settle back again. You are stirring up the gestalt and this is not good. It will become crazy if it happens. I heard many tales from my mother who fled Czechoslovakia during the Bolshevik revolution and I don't want any part of it. If they came for me and my family I can shoot a rifle as well as any man and wouldn't be scared to but until that happens. I will wait.
NYgs23
10-16-2009, 12:54 PM
"Is secession tyranny of the majority?"
Yes! BUT prohibition of that secession would by tyranny of the minority. The only way to not have one group imposing its will on another group is to have total individual liberty: if states can secede from the federal govt, then localities can secede from states, and if localities can secede from states, then individuals can SECEDE from localities. That's individual freedom.
Austrian Econ Disciple
10-16-2009, 12:55 PM
I am not mocking it. I agree on working to change the system. I donate money when I can. We will wait and see what happens after this.This too will pass without violence even if our guys lose. Things always settle back again. You are stirring up the gestalt and this is not good. It will become crazy if it happens. I heard many tales from my mother who fled Czechoslovakia during the Bolshevik revolution and I don't want any part of it. If they came for me and my family I can shoot a rifle as well as any man and wouldn't be scared to but until that happens. I will wait.
Secession is not the same as Revolution, or insurrection, what have you. You associate the two, but they couldn't be different more than night and day is.
Remember Patrick Henry: Give me liberty or give me death? This is America, not the Czech Republic.
I too believe in working in the system, that is until it becomes abundantly clear that no change can be accomplished within the system (Nationally). Then we work on locally, and start to get people in the State Legislatures who have integrity, value liberty, and are uncompromising. Then we'll work from there. Nullification, to enforcement, and then if so happens, Secession. You on the other hand if we keep losing and over and over, and more and more liberty, will still do the same shit over and over. There's a saying, the ending is "insanity".
What do you think they are going to do? Let the States just peacefully nullify everything they do? Deny the IRS "their money"? Have you listened to Ray McBerry's speech on the november 5th website? WE ARE AMERICANS, NOT CZECHASLAVIKIANS. We know what it means to fight for liberty, we've done it before, and if we have to once again then we'll do it once again.
I will not be a slave. Seriously, if Obama wins a second term and we get no one elected, WE NEED to focus LOCALLY. I'm advocating peaceful seperation and self-defense if we fail in our current goals. What part of that don't you agree with?
Expatriate
10-16-2009, 01:00 PM
Perhaps the solution is to let individuals secede. ;) Then those who like tyranny can keep it.
Oh, but I forgot. There's no benefit to a tyrannical modern government without oppressed classes to steal from.
Meatwasp
10-16-2009, 01:00 PM
No this is not Czechoslovakia but, and A big but it could happen here as well.
I said my piece and I am out of here.
Austrian Econ Disciple
10-16-2009, 01:06 PM
Perhaps the solution is to let individuals secede. ;) Then those who like tyranny can keep it.
Oh, but I forgot. There's no benefit to a tyrannical modern government without oppressed classes to steal from.
This is the best course of action, but in reality will never be allowed.
Vessol
10-16-2009, 01:21 PM
I'm still convinced that if a state succeted, you'd have lynch gangs wandering around killing those who were say, known to have voted for Obama.
Hell, what if the new state government advocates this?
And what's to stop the state from becomming a similar tyranical government? If you think the state house is any less corrupt then the white house, I want what you're on.
Austrian Econ Disciple
10-16-2009, 01:36 PM
No this is not Czechoslovakia but, and A big but it could happen here as well.
I said my piece and I am out of here.
That's why I said, if our current goals fail, we should look towards the States. Start working locally, from State Senators, to Representatives, to Governor. The State's have a tremendous amount of leverage and power that can be used.
It seems to me, idiotic if we can't in one of the best prime years for liberty candidates, that if we don't even win one, or even, two seats, to continue the same policy over and over. In what environment do you believe that we have a shot at even taking a bit of the House or Senate, let alone the Presidency if we fail in 2010 and 2012?
I'm looking past 2012 in this thread. To the what if's. What if that happens. It's always good to have backup plans, and plans for the worst case scenarios. If you want to be a pacifist or only minimally help, thats fine. Your right. However, I'm going to take a different tact, and hopefully other's will join. I urge everyone now though to start training for the worst case scenario. Self-Defense is crucial.
Austrian Econ Disciple
10-16-2009, 01:37 PM
I'm still convinced that if a state succeted, you'd have lynch gangs wandering around killing those who were say, known to have voted for Obama.
Hell, what if the new state government advocates this?
And what's to stop the state from becomming a similar tyranical government? If you think the state house is any less corrupt then the white house, I want what you're on.
Well I could imagine the boogeyman in my dreams also, but I don't buy into the politics of fear.
:rolleyes:
klamath
10-16-2009, 02:39 PM
Collectivist much?
The fact that some politicians came from here doesn't change the fact that Texas has a small state government, and would likely maintain the small size of it's government were it to declare independence.
And what, are you going to use war dead as a bludgeon in every conversation? I guess we should all just roll over and present our anuses to our great and mighty overlords because they might kill us if we don't? You asked someone not to imply that you are a coward. Others wouldn't call you that if you stopped talking like one. The fear of death is NOT a legitimate reason to submit to tyranny.
The point is the electorate of texas is very little better than the rest of the country. What, RP got 3% there. They will give you the virtually the same laws as the rest of the country. What are you going to do run those other 97% out? When RP is elected as governor of texas and has the state houses filled with RP like politicians then talk to me about getting a different kind of government.
I do not fear my own death but I fear that loose canons will bring death to a lot of innocent people and still get not advance freedom.
You will not secede yourself because you fear arrest and the force of the federal government or the state government yet you want to drag many others along in a secession?
Do you think a private person taking his house and a little farm and withdrawing from government is going to bring a less violent reaction that a state taking all the infrastruture and federal military bases? If you really think dying is going to bring freedom, secede as an individual and barracade yourself into a building set up a solid communication system to the outside world and let the feds kill you without you firing a shot. This will awaken more people to tyranny and bring more change than your little militia action. When you have 97% of the population voting against freedom, taking you little militia unit and trying to engage tyranny will accomplish a net loss of freedom for everyone because you will be crushed and turn public opinion against you demanding more laws against militias. What created more anger against an opressive government, Ruby ridge or OK city bombing? I can tell you it wasn't OK City bombing as that turned public opinion against the militias that were forming in the 90's after Waco and ruby ridge.
The south seceded once and I can tell you they sure as hell didn't just rely on the pro secession people to fight the war. A lot of backcountry rural people that didn't give a damn about states rights were drafted and died for the glorious cause.
denison
10-16-2009, 02:46 PM
That's your opinion, and I might agree, but I'm sure plenty of people don't feel that our country is tyrannical.
I'm sure the one million Iraqi civilians murdered by the US mercenary war machine, might consider us tyrants.
Vessol
10-16-2009, 07:56 PM
Well I could imagine the boogeyman in my dreams also, but I don't buy into the politics of fear.
:rolleyes:
I more prefer reading history. Read the history of any revolution . During the American Revolution, American Revolutionaries would confiscate the property or even kill those who were British Loyalists. During the U.S Civil War, those in both the South and North would find individuals they knew who leaned towards the other side and they would often times burn them out of their house or they would kill them. Read the history of any other revolution and then come back to this thread and say that I am using "poltitics of fear".
Stop thinking that just because you think it is a good thing that it would go absolutely fucking perfectly and that there would be no problems.
If history has EVER taught us ANYTHING, the only way to have a successful change is peaceful. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. have taught us this constantly.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.