PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul on secession




ShaneEnochs
11-13-2012, 05:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhQ31b_dbnM&feature=g-u-u

EDIT - Apparently this is a few years old.

ShaneEnochs
11-13-2012, 05:09 PM
This is some good stuff for people talking about secession.

MRoCkEd
11-13-2012, 05:10 PM
He made that 3.5 years ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvliy8rEJDQ) but that non-official channel decided to reupload it today.

Origanalist
11-13-2012, 05:11 PM
"They don't know their history very well."

Or they do and lie through their teeth.

Anti Federalist
11-13-2012, 05:13 PM
I do so love "Radical" Ron much more.

ShaneEnochs
11-13-2012, 05:14 PM
He made that 3.5 years ago (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvliy8rEJDQ) but that non-official channel decided to reupload it today.

Oh, damn. With all the talk about the petitions, I thought for sure it was new.

lx43
11-13-2012, 08:54 PM
I do so love "Radical" Ron much more.


I wish they'd let me succeed from the federal/state union I've been enslaved by.

Odin
11-13-2012, 09:26 PM
It would be great if we could just give each state its sovereignty back, and have us loosely connected at the Federal Level. But let each state collect taxes as it sees fit and provide for its people as it sees fit, and let people move freely between states and have no trade barriers between states, and we will all get what we want somewhere - and we can see whose model works. All the morons can move to California and have 25% unemployment and live in misery and everyone who cherishes freedom can go to a different state and live in prosperity and liberty.

John F Kennedy III
11-13-2012, 09:36 PM
I wish they'd let me succeed from the federal/state union I've been enslaved by.

I want to succeed too.

nobody's_hero
11-14-2012, 04:18 AM
Much more compelling than Cenk's argument against secession.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fWtJU6fYZk

GunnyFreedom
11-14-2012, 04:50 AM
Re: takers v makers

Has anybody ever thought that the reason many 'red states' take more federal tax money than they give is because that money goes to implement federal programs that the local states are not really cooperating with, and therefore cost significantly more money in materiel labor and bribery?

GunnyFreedom
11-14-2012, 04:50 AM
// double post (silly forum reset)

GunnyFreedom
11-14-2012, 05:05 AM
// triple post (silly forum reset)

tod evans
11-14-2012, 05:10 AM
Re: takers v makers

Has anybody ever thought that the reason many 'red states' take more federal tax money than they give is because that money goes to implement federal programs that the local states are not really cooperating with, and therefore cost significantly more money in materiel labor and bribery?

Living in a "red" state I would like nothing more than for every person receiving a check from the US Treasury to up and move to a "blue" state today.

GunnyFreedom
11-14-2012, 05:20 AM
Living in a "red" state I would like nothing more than for every person receiving a check from the US Treasury to up and move to a "blue" state today.

Or, farm subsidies to NOT grow, trying to control interstate market pricing and demand. So the state secedes, farm subsidies stop. Farmer decides to sell the land or start growing to sell the product.

I'm having a hard time seeing who gets hurt here...

Seems to me even the farmer will be better off without this 'red state payola.'

donnay
11-14-2012, 08:32 AM
I think each state need to use the 10th amendment nullification to start, before jumping to total succession.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5jVQNc56j0



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_rXwKtH08c&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CR3hXRwrlA&feature=related


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ch_7Vs13E8&feature=related

Occam's Banana
11-14-2012, 09:17 AM
I think each state need to use the 10th amendment nullification to start, before jumping to total succession.

Exactly. We need more nullifiers in statehouses. This should be one of our biggest priorities.

donnay
11-14-2012, 10:54 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGFvlTT3zek&feature=related


Haste makes waste. The 10th Amendment Nullification is the best way to go--Sovereignty is not the same as succession.

We have the power! We just need the knowledge!

Peace&Freedom
11-14-2012, 11:09 AM
Here's a magnificent post about secession from the LRC blog today:

3 Myths About Secession
Posted by Ryan W. McMaken on November 14, 2012 12:18 AM

I have no illusions about this latest secession petition phenomenon. Nothing will directly come of this, and the people who are behind it are mostly people who would be singing "God Bless America" at the tops of their lungs had Mitt Romney been elected. On the other hand, it sure has a lot of people talking about secession, which shows that the idea of it remains an important part of the American political consciousness.

But, in response, most of the comments coming from political hacks display a deep, deep ignorance of the history of secession and the Constitutional realities behind it.

In response, I thought I'd list some retorts to the basic myths which most of the anti-secession screeds are intent on perpetuating.

1. The Constitution does not prohibit secession. The legal argument boils down to this: 1. The Constitution does not mention secession. In any way. 2. The Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Now I don't have a Ph.D. in logic, but even I can figure out that if something is not mentioned, then, according to the 10th Amendment, it isn't prohibited to the states. In fact, it is the opposite of prohibited. Now I know that the Supreme Court says no secession allowed, which means the federal government has declared that you can't escape the federal government. Gee, that's no shocker. So, sure, if you believe that the federal government should be the last word on what the federal government can and cannot do, then that's fine. Just don't pretend that we have constitutional government. If the federal government gets to decide what the Constitution says, then the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion box for the feds.

2. The Civil War did not "settle" the issue. Well, it settled the issue in the way that I settled the matter of ownership of that Steve Garvey baseball card when I beat up that other kid and took it. (OK, that never happened, but you get my point.) Secession was never settled beyond the federal government's assertion that it has the right to kill people who try to exercise their rights protected by the Tenth Amendment.

3. Secession is treason/unAmerican/craaaazy/for slavers only. Prior to the confederacy, there were some slaveowners who got together and seceded from their government. They were called Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. If you're opposed to the secession of 1776, then that's fine, you might be consistent on this issue, but if you're one of these right-wing pundits who thinks the Declaration of Independence should be read aloud every July 4, and then says that secession is nutso, you might try actually reading that document you profess to love.

The Declaration makes a simple argument:
1. Humans have rights from the Creator
2. Governments exist to secure those rights (a debatable assertion but we'll roll with it.)
3. When the government fails to secure those rights, we can ditch it and start our own government.

That's pretty much all it says. If you thought that was true in 1776, when tax rates were 1% and there was no such thing as a the EPA or the FBI or the IRS, why is it not true now? Because we're so much more free now? And, no, the Declaration did not say that the government is free to violate rights as long as people get to vote on it.

The Declaration establishes that there's no such thing as treason, and a free government requires the assumption of just secession. Lysander Spooner explains (in No Treason #1):

Thus the whole Revolution [of 1775–1783] turned upon, asserted, and, in theory, established, the right of each and every man, at his discretion, to release himself from the support of the government under which he had lived. And this principle was asserted, not as a right peculiar to themselves, or to that time, or as applicable only to the government then existing; but as a universal right of all men, at all times, and under all circumstances.