Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 210 of 310

Thread: Is Secession a Good Idea?

  1. #181

    Default

    Travlyr, the reason I asked you about withdrawing from the UN is that it's an interesting comparison when discussing secession of the states.

    Here's something I found that is really highlights the similarities between the two.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I received a phone call this week regarding my last column. That column dealt with the issue of displaying flags associated with the Confederate States of America.

    The main point of the last column was fairly simple - the flags of the South hold different messages for different people. Some see slavery and racism. Others see the last stand of Jefforsonian self-government.

    Anyway, the caller and I are friends but do not always see eye-to-eye on every issue (he is a lot nicer than me).

    His first point was simply that the War Between the States was ancient history and better left buried in all ways.

    Obviously I do not agree. First and foremost I disagree because all of history should be studied and talked about, both from the standpoints of those we favor and those we dislike.

    It should be studied continuously by all, because in the pages of history we can often find our future - or better yet maybe we can avoid our future.

    The disagreements that brought our ancestors into a war that cost at least half a million lives is worth studying and debating, if for no other reason than avoiding a repeat.

    The core issues of the War Between the States are issues we deal with everyday in modern America - taxation, redistribution of wealth, governmental spending, and the ratio of power between individuals, the states and the federal government.

    The end of the war did not bury these disagreements.

    My friend’s second point was this: “The South committed treason when it seceded from the union. Treason negates any supposedly noble principles the southern states claimed.”

    In short, he said that the southern states had no legal right to leave the Union.

    Now, I enjoy a good fight, and verbal jousting is a great pastime as far as I am concerned.

    “You cannot see it, but I’m smiling,” I said.

    “Why?”

    “Because you just lost this argument but you do not know it yet,” I chuckled.

    “Now, I know you have read the Constitution as it was written before the war, right?” I asked.

    “Of course.”

    “Okay, then tell me where it says that a state cannot leave the union that it voluntarily joined?”

    “You know it does not say that,” my friend said. “You also know that by signing the Constitution the states gave up any right to later leave, simply by implication. A country where any state could leave, whenever it felt like it, is not a country at all. The Constitution neither prohibits or allows for secession,” he said.

    “I’ll give you that point for the moment,” I said. “If I understand what you are saying, it is that the states gave up their right to leave the union when they signed the Constitution - simply because it would not make sense to form such a union if the states could leave whenever they did not like the way things were going? Am I correct?”

    “Yes. It would defy common sense for the states to be able to come and go as they please,” he said.

    Now, I also know that my Republican friend is no great fan of the United Nations. When our new ambassador was quoted as saying we should shove the U. N. building off into the ocean, he cheered (we agree on that point, by the way).

    “So,” I said, “you have given up your hope that one day the United States will walk out of the United Nations?”

    “No. What has that got to do with the Civil War?” he asked.

    “Well, if you read the constitution of the United Nations you will find that it neither allows for, nor prohibits, a member nation from leaving,” I said. “By your logic, now that we have signed that charter, we cannot leave. We have given up our status as a sovereign nation and become one of the states of the U. N.”

    “By your own argument, if the United States left the U. N. the U. N. would have the legal right to send bands of blue-bereted Germans and Italians and Brazilians to invade and force us back into the United Nations.”

    “That is not the same thing and you know it,” my friend said. “The U.N. is made up of sovereign nations, not states.”

    “Well, weren’t the original 13 states sovereign nations after the American Revolution? When they came together to rebel and commit treason against their English countrymen, they came together as separate, sovereign nations. None had power over the other, and no other country had power over them or claimed any after the war was over.”

    “It is not the same thing,” my friend said.

    “If you think about it, it really is. After the war those 13 sovereign nations came together and first formed a union under the Articles of Confederation. Later some members withdrew from that confederation and it was scrapped. Those 13 nations tried again with the Constitution. Signing was voluntary and no state had to sign, even if all the other states signed. If South Carolina or Rhode Island had not signed the Constitution, there would now be a separate little nation where that state exists today.”

    “They were sovereign nations that entered into an agreement - just like the United States entered into the U. N. charter - and there is no mention of a right to leave in either the charter or our Constitution.”

    “By your argument we cannot leave and if we attempt to, the U. N. has the legal right to invade and kick us back into the U. N.,” I said.

    The phone line was very quiet.

    “Look,” I said. “You’ve studied the development of the Constitution. Ask yourself this, ‘Would the Constitution have been ratified if there had been a 11th Amendment that read as follows: Amendment XI (imaginary)

    Section 1. Notwithstanding the Guarantee Clause and the 9th and 10th Amendments, no State may ever secede from the Union for any reason.

    Section 2. If any State attempts to secede without authorization by the Federal Government, the Federal Government shall invade such State with military force and suppress the attempted secession.

    Section 3. The Federal Government may require the militias of all States to join in the use of force against the seceding State.

    Section 4. After suppressing the secession the Federal Government shall rule said State with martial law until that State accepts permanent federal supremacy.

    Section 5. After suppressing the secession, the Federal Government shall force said State to ratify a new Constitutional Amendment which gives the federal government the right to police the States whenever it believes those States are violating the rights of their citizens.

    Section 6. The President may, of his own authority, suspend the operation of the Bill of Rights and the writ of habeas corpus, in a seceding State, or a loyal State, if in his sole judgment such is necessary to preserve the Union.’”

    “Do you think the 13 states would have ratified the Constitution if that had been the 11th Amendment?” I asked.

    “Tell me you did not just make that up,” my friend said. “If you did you are bigger geek than I ever suspected.” It was his term to laugh.

    “No, I stole it from an essay I read in law school by a guy named James Ostrowski,” I confided.

    My friend eventually agreed that no, the states would never have agreed to such an Amendment and the Constitution and the United States would never have come into being.

    And, no intellectually honest historian could say different. The guy proposing such an amendment would have been lucky to escape the Constitutional Convention with his life.

    But, that hypothetical 11th Amendment would be the only way the North could have legally justified its actions regarding the states that left the Union. And, such an amendment would be the only way the U.N. could legally attempt to block the United States’ secession.

    The U. S. obviously has the right to leave the U. N.

    And, the Southern States, no matter how you feel about the South, had the legal right to leave the Union as well.


    http://www.pecos.net/news/belt/021706o.htm
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    The United Nations were never ratified. They are an illegitimate government. There is no reason to withdraw. There is every reason in the world to stop funding them.

    What I was looking for was your definition of seceding from the legitimate union of the United States and the State where you live. How are you going to do that?
    Legitimate Union? I will quote Lysander Spooner at length here from The Constitution of No Authority.

    Ok, I won't, but check out the link: http://praxeology.net/LS-NT-6.htm#no.6
    The gist: only a few men, without the authority, bound many people to an agreement without their knowledge or consent. They also bound their decedents to this "contract" which was legally void from the outset. It is a short read, and a very interesting one. Interestingly Lysander Spooner was a Northern Abolitionist who wrote this in 1867.

    To be clear in this discussion be careful with tags like legitimate, because if that foundation is brought into question then nothing that logically follows it will hold up.
    Also you have changed your request in mid sentence, you first begin to ask for a definition of seceding from a legitimate union, implying actually that you seek a moral justification, or at least a logical one even legal one, but then you ask "how are you going to do that?" So are you actually asking how it could be practically or pragmatically done? your question is multi-facited and confusingly constructed.

  4. #183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    If, and only if, you want to get the shit kicked out of you.
    Therefore, the signers of the DoI were fools only wanting to get the shit kicked out of themselves.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  5. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Therefore, the signers of the DoI were fools only wanting to get the shit kicked out of themselves.
    I did not say that the signers of the Declaration were fools. Those are your words. Nonetheless, they got the shit kicked out of them. I claim they were men not boys ... they were certainly not hugging type heavenly boys of the 21st century.

    THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE -- THE SIGNERS

    Have you ever wondered what happened to the fifty-six men who signed the Declaration of Independence? This is the price they paid:

    Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the revolutionary army, another had two sons captured. Nine of the fifty-six fought and died from wounds or hardships resulting from the Revolutionary War. More at link.
    Last edited by Travlyr; 10-20-2012 at 10:01 PM.

  6. #185

    Default

    The States created the Union. It is beyond absurd to think that the Creation should have supremacy over the Creator.
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  7. #186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay_dub View Post
    The States created the Union. It is beyond absurd to think that the Creation should have supremacy over the Creator.
    It doesn't have. That is what is absurd. The TV, radio, and MSM shills make that claim. Most people buy it. Read the Constitution for yourself and learn that the States and the People have the power.

  8. #187

    Default

    Below is a portrait of one of my uncles, Stephen Pittman. It was done around 1910.

    You can see that he had lost his right leg in the war. An old man by this time, he was still proud of The Cause. He is holding a Battle Flag with the names of his brothers and cousins that were killed in the war, along with the dates. I have a reproduction of this flag.

    The Cause these men fought for was one of self-determination, just as our Founders had fought for. That the Confederates have been discredited by popular history only serves those that profit from imposing their will on a free people. In that regard, the cause of Liberty is the same today, just as it was in 1776 and 1861.


    Stephen Pittman
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  9. #188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Can we discuss your belief about what the Declaration and the Constitution imply about secession? Are you for or against?

    Secession is silly. It is more important to understand freedom than it is to succumb to tyranny. I am for secession philosophically and against it in reality. Hold secession dear and fight against tyranny anyway. Do not pretend that hiding behind Mama's skirt will make you free.
    Secession, self-determination, declaring independence, political separation, divorce, is the most fundamental Natural Right that free people have and to call it silly makes me question your understanding of what freedom and liberty are really about. Secession is freedom. I don't care about the Civil War. The Civil War came and went and ignites a lot of racial and regional tensions that have nothing to do with secession. When I talk about secession I talk about the American Revolution, the collapse of the Soviets, and other international examples which are much easier for Americans to understand without sounding like a white supremacist.

    If we are going to speak of the Civil War I will say this: There were 4 million slaves in the United States before the Civil War. After the Civil War there were 33.2 million. Prior to the war you could see the slaves, you could identify them by their skin color, their education, and their possessions. After the Civil War you couldn't see the slaves anymore. The slaves were in name free but in practice they were slaves to a, at the time, tame master. But as both the master and slave realized the nature of their relationship the master has became more assertive and aggressive pushing the slaves to see how far they can go. At this point, many slaves have woken up but there are many who still believe themselves to be free when no American since 1865 could truly claim that status.

    "A government that can at pleasure accuse, shoot, and hang men, as traitors, for the one general offence of refusing to surrender themselves and their property unreservedly to its arbitrary will, can practice any and all special and particular oppressions it pleases. The result -- and a natural one -- has been that we have had governments, State and national, devoted to nearly every grade and species of crime that governments have ever practised upon their victims; and these crimes have culminated in a war that has cost a million of lives; a war carried on, upon one side, for chattel slavery, and on the other for political slavery; upon neither for liberty, justice, or truth. And these crimes have been committed, and this war waged, by men, and the descendants of men, who, less than a hundred years ago, said that all men were equal, and could owe neither service to individuals, nor allegiance to governments, except with their own consent."
    - Lysander Spooner, abolitionist on the civil war and the governments involved
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds" - Sam Adams

  10. #189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    It doesn't have. That is what is absurd. The TV, radio, and MSM shills make that claim. Most people buy it. Read the Constitution for yourself and learn that the States and the People have the power.
    That right was taken away by the Supreme Court in 1869 (Texas v White). It was a convoluted decision, but is the 'law of the land'.

    From the decision:

    "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States".
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  11. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gumba of Liberty View Post
    Secession, self-determination, declaring independence, political separation, divorce, is the most fundamental Natural Right that free people have and to call it silly makes me question your understanding of what freedom and liberty are really about. Secession is freedom. I don't care about the Civil War. The Civil War came and went and ignites a lot of racial and regional tensions that have nothing to do with secession. When I talk about secession I talk about the American Revolution, the collapse of the Soviets, and other international examples which are much easier for Americans to understand without sounding like a white supremacist.

    If we are going to speak of the Civil War I will say this: There were 4 million slaves in the United States before the Civil War. After the Civil War there were 33.2 million. Prior to the war you could see the slaves, you could identify them by their skin color, their education, and their possessions. After the Civil War you couldn't see the slaves anymore. The slaves were in name free but in practice they were slaves to a, at the time, tame master. But as both the master and slave realized the nature of their relationship the master has became more assertive and aggressive pushing the slaves to see how far they can go. At this point, many slaves have woken up but there are many who still believe themselves to be free when no American since 1865 could truly claim that status.
    Abe Lincoln...the original Big Brother.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

    "We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a [the Republican] party better than he loves his country.... [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction." ~ The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

    "If this result follows – and follow civil war it must – the memory of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and his infatuated advisors will only be preserved with that of other destroyers to the scorned and execrated.... And if the historian who preserves the record of his fatal administration needs any motto descriptive of the president who destroyed the institutions which he swore to protect, it will probably be some such as this: Here is the record of one who feared more to have it said that he deserted his party than that he ruined the country, who had a greater solicitude for his consistency as a partisan than for his wisdom as a Statesman or his courage and virtue as a patriot, and who destroyed by his weakness the fairest experiment of man in self-government that the world ever witnessed." ~ The American Standard, New Jersey, April 12, 1861, the very day the South moved to reclaim Fort Sumter.

    "The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

    "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it. ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

    Foreign Commentary:

    "Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms." ~ The London Times.

    "With what pretence of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

    "The struggle of today is on the one side for empire and on the other for independence." ~ Wigan Examiner (UK) May, 1861.
    Last edited by jay_dub; 10-20-2012 at 10:38 PM.
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  12. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gumba of Liberty View Post
    Secession, self-determination, declaring independence, political separation, divorce, is the most fundamental Natural Right that free people have and to call it silly makes me question your understanding of what freedom and liberty are really about. Secession is freedom. I don't care about the Civil War. The Civil War came and went and ignites a lot of racial and regional tensions that have nothing to do with secession. When I talk about secession I talk about the American Revolution, the collapse of the Soviets, and other international examples which are much easier for Americans to understand without sounding like a white supremacist.

    If we are going to speak of the Civil War I will say this: There were 4 million slaves in the United States before the Civil War. After the Civil War there were 33.2 million. Prior to the war you could see the slaves, you could identify them by their skin color, their education, and their possessions. After the Civil War you couldn't see the slaves anymore. The slaves were in name free but in practice they were slaves to a, at the time, tame master. But as both the master and slave realized the nature of their relationship the master has became more assertive and aggressive pushing the slaves to see how far they can go. At this point, many slaves have woken up but there are many who still believe themselves to be free when no American since 1865 could truly claim that status.
    +mega rep
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  13. #192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I did not say that the signers of the Declaration were fools. Those are your words.
    No, but you said something equally foolish:
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    If, and only if, you want to get the shit kicked out of you.
    BTW, why did you take me off your precious "ignore" list? I was proud to have exposed your folly so thoroughly that you were forced to ignore me rather than actually deal with me.

    Thank you also for the very immature -rep. I'm sure your mother would be proud of your tact and eloquence:

    (1970 point(s) total)

    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 10-20-2012 at 11:18 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  14. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    No, but you said something equally foolish:

    BTW, why did you take me off your precious "ignore" list? I was proud to have exposed your folly so thoroughly that you were forced to ignore me rather than actually deal with me.

    Thank you also for the very immature -rep. I'm sure your mother would be proud of your tact and eloquence:

    (1970 point(s) total)

    Exposed my folly? I took you off my ignore list because I thought you might be done attacking me personally. I took nearly everyone off my ignore list. Dude you are an idiot. You did not even know that Lincoln was an abolitionist. You are a shallow thinker and a girly man.

    So, in your twisted world your -rep was mature and my -rep in retaliation was immature? Maybe you should stop attacking me both in the forums and privately. Add something to the discussion rather than always working to discredit me.

    Actually, those men were the type to hug and weren't so insecure in their sexuality as you are. -rep from HB34
    Last edited by Travlyr; 10-20-2012 at 11:58 PM.

  15. #194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    That's the kind of pussy shit attitude that got us in this mess.

    Grow some balls.
    Show me a time when secession did not result in failure.

  16. #195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Show me a time when secession did not result in failure.
    The American Revolution would be the most obvious.

    Texas seceding from Mexico is another.

    The satellite republics of the Soviet Union gaining independence were acts of secession.

    More recent is South Sudan seceding from Sudan in 2011.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The United States formally recognized the Republic of South Sudan on July 9 and pledged steadfast partnership as the South Sudanese begin building a new country after decades of civil war.

    President Obama issued the formal recognition of the world’s newest nation in Washington as independence ceremonies and celebrations were being held in the new country’s capital, Juba, and across South Sudan.

    “Today is the reminder that after the darkness of war, the light of a new dawn is possible,” Obama said. “A proud flag flies over Juba and the map of the world has been redrawn.”

    “These symbols speak to the blood that has been spilled, the tears that have been shed, the ballots that have been cast, and the hopes that have been realized by so many millions of people,” he added.

    Obama said that July 9 marks the creation of two new neighbors — South Sudan and Sudan, from which the south separated. The people of South Sudan voted in a weeklong national referendum for independence in balloting that began January 9. That vote was called for by the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended two decades of civil war.

    http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/e...#axzz29uVCNIUh
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  17. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay_dub View Post
    The American Revolution would be the most obvious.

    Texas seceding from Mexico is another.

    The satellite republics of the Soviet Union gaining independence were acts of secession.

    More recent is South Sudan seceding from Sudan in 2011.
    I'll take the first two even though Texas paid a heavy penalty at the Alamo.

    The Soviet Union were not so much acts of secession as it was the failure of the USSR, so I do not agree to those.

    South Sudan from Sudan is a situation I am not familiar with so you win that one by default.

    Thanks for the honest discussion.

  18. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I'll take the first two even though Texas paid a heavy penalty at the Alamo.

    The Soviet Union were not so much acts of secession as it was the failure of the USSR, so I do not agree to those.

    South Sudan from Sudan is a situation I am not familiar with so you win that one by default.

    Thanks for the honest discussion.
    The Soviet Constitution (yep, they had one) explicitly grants the republics the right to secession, so secession would be the correct term.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Article 70. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is an integral, federal, multinational state formed on the principle of socialist federalism as a result of the free self-determination of nations and the voluntary association of equal Soviet Socialist Republics.
    The USSR embodies the state unity of the Soviet people and draws all its nations and nationalities together for the purpose of jointly building communism.

    Article 71. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics unites:
    the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic
    the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Azerbeijan Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Moldovian Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Kirghiz Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Tajik Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic,
    the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic.

    Article 72. Each Union Republic shall retain the right freely to secede from the USSR.


    http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/.../77cons03.html

    And thank you. I have enjoyed the discussion, too.
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  19. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jay_dub View Post
    Abe Lincoln...the original Big Brother.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    "Mr. Lincoln saw an opportunity to inaugurate civil war without appearing in the character of an aggressor." ~ Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

    "We are to have civil war, if at all, because Abraham Lincoln loves a [the Republican] party better than he loves his country.... [He] clings to his party creed, and allows the nation to drift into the whirlpool of destruction." ~ The Providence Daily Post, April 13 1861

    "If this result follows – and follow civil war it must – the memory of ABRAHAM LINCOLN and his infatuated advisors will only be preserved with that of other destroyers to the scorned and execrated.... And if the historian who preserves the record of his fatal administration needs any motto descriptive of the president who destroyed the institutions which he swore to protect, it will probably be some such as this: Here is the record of one who feared more to have it said that he deserted his party than that he ruined the country, who had a greater solicitude for his consistency as a partisan than for his wisdom as a Statesman or his courage and virtue as a patriot, and who destroyed by his weakness the fairest experiment of man in self-government that the world ever witnessed." ~ The American Standard, New Jersey, April 12, 1861, the very day the South moved to reclaim Fort Sumter.

    "The affair at Fort Sumter, it seems to us, has been planned as a means by which the war feeling at the North should be intensified, and the administration thus receive popular support for its policy.... If the armament which lay outside the harbor, while the fort was being battered to pieces [the US ship The Harriet Lane, and seven other reinforcement ships], had been designed for the relief of Major Anderson, it certainly would have made a show of fulfilling its mission. But it seems plain to us that no such design was had. The administration, virtually, to use a homely illustration, stood at Sumter like a boy with a chip on his shoulder, daring his antagonist to knock it off. The Carolinians have knocked off the chip. War is inaugurated, and the design of the administration accomplished." ~ The Buffalo Daily Courier, April 16, 1861.

    "We have no doubt, and all the circumstances prove, that it was a cunningly devised scheme, contrived with all due attention to scenic display and intended to arouse, and, if possible, exasperate the northern people against the South.... We venture to say a more gigantic conspiracy against the principles of human liberty and freedom has never been concocted. Who but a fiend could have thought of sacrificing the gallant Major Anderson and his little band in order to carry out a political game? Yet there he was compelled to stand for thirty-six hours amid a torrent of fire and shell, while the fleet sent to assist him, coolly looked at his flag of distress and moved not to his assistance! Why did they not? Perhaps the archives in Washington will yet tell the tale of this strange proceeding.... Pause then, and consider before you endorse these mad men who are now, under pretense of preserving the Union, doing the very thing that must forever divide it. ~ The New York Evening Day-Book, April 17, 1861.

    Foreign Commentary:

    "Democracy broke down, not when the Union ceased to be agreeable to all its constituent States, but when it was upheld, like any other Empire, by force of arms." ~ The London Times.

    "With what pretence of fairness, it is said, can you Americans object to the secession of the Southern States when your nation was founded on secession from the British Empire?" ~ Cornhill Magazine (London) 1861.

    "The struggle of today is on the one side for empire and on the other for independence." ~ Wigan Examiner (UK) May, 1861.
    Interesting quotes. Abe Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861 and planned the Civil War within a month? That is pretty fast planning even today.

    I do see how the South would be proud of their right to secession and independence. I do not see how the South is proud of fighting for their right to keep slaves.
    Last edited by Travlyr; 10-21-2012 at 02:31 AM.

  20. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gumba of Liberty View Post
    Secession, self-determination, declaring independence, political separation, divorce, is the most fundamental Natural Right that free people have and to call it silly makes me question your understanding of what freedom and liberty are really about. Secession is freedom. I don't care about the Civil War. The Civil War came and went and ignites a lot of racial and regional tensions that have nothing to do with secession. When I talk about secession I talk about the American Revolution, the collapse of the Soviets, and other international examples which are much easier for Americans to understand without sounding like a white supremacist.

    If we are going to speak of the Civil War I will say this: There were 4 million slaves in the United States before the Civil War. After the Civil War there were 33.2 million. Prior to the war you could see the slaves, you could identify them by their skin color, their education, and their possessions. After the Civil War you couldn't see the slaves anymore. The slaves were in name free but in practice they were slaves to a, at the time, tame master. But as both the master and slave realized the nature of their relationship the master has became more assertive and aggressive pushing the slaves to see how far they can go. At this point, many slaves have woken up but there are many who still believe themselves to be free when no American since 1865 could truly claim that status.
    You do not have the right to beat your girlfriend, keep slaves, or be judge, jury, and executioner. If secession is desired to retain perceived rights to violate the rights of others, then justice prevails by not allowing secession.

  21. #200

    Default

    The way some men here seem to express themselves is pretty poor. "girly man". Do you realise Arnold the former governor of california back at the 2004 national convention used those words about the Democrats? That ultra macho pathetic low life, racist, sexist, sexual harrasser moron that he is.

    I didn't even know the SU even had such a clause, phony socialists, lying communists. The one thing that socialism, communism, and Libertarianism have in common they are useless with no economic grow or a low energy society. So arguing over these beliefs and even liberty is a waste of time. None of it will even matter years from now.

  22. #201
    Member bxm042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Land of the Free
    Posts
    6,551

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    You do not have the right to beat your girlfriend, keep slaves, or be judge, jury, and executioner. If secession is desired to retain perceived rights to violate the rights of others, then justice prevails by not allowing secession.
    If a state seceded because it wanted to beat its girlfriends, would you go to war to prevent its secession?

    (Going to war to free slaves I 100% agree. Slavery itself is a violation of the right of secession, and I support volunteer-based humanitarian wars that protect the right of secession)
    Last edited by bxm042; 10-21-2012 at 07:17 AM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

  23. #202
    Member osan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Right here
    Posts
    7,947
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    There are definite advantages to federalism, but all of those vanish unceremoniously when the citizens are too weak-minded, corrupt, and lazy to keep it honest. This is true of ANY system of governance. The ONLY reason ancient tribal anarchic "nations" succeeded was because the rise of a tyrant was quickly put to rest by the utter intolerance of those over whom he presumed to rule. That is what we need now. We have been conditioned to accept violence as "not the solution", when in fact it is THE solution for tyranny. One takes the tyrants in question to a public place and then very brutally does one kill them before the entire community. This serves several purposes. Firstly, it removes the source of the problem. Secondly, it provides an object lesson to the rest about the virtues of respecting boundaries with one's fellows. Thirdly, it puts everything out in the open such that everyone knows what was done was righteously conducted.

    We have been sold an incredibly lousy bill of goods that has been wrapped in the bullshit language of "civility". Working within the "system" is fine, so long as you have a proper system. We so very apparently do not have one, and yet we sit mostly idly and let it all unfold and then have the temerity to complain about it. HELLO.

    We have been taught "tolerance", as if that were something new. The only new thing about it is WHAT we have been taught to tolerate, which is just about any outrage imaginable. There are those things that ought to and must be tolerated and those that must not. People have been so effectively lead astray that is boggles the mind to think that a race of beings so hopelessly stupid could have set examples of their kind upon the face of the moon. And the most interesting aspect of all of this has been the realization of just how simple the solution is. We suffer from a cognitive psychological condition I will now term as premisitis. Premisitis is the acceptance of a set of false premises that leads one's thinking down dangerously false paths. The acceptance of such premises serves as the foundation for the evolution of entire worlds of fallacious belief. Once a given false premise is accepted, the individual does almost all of the rest of the work himself, needing but the least guidance and help from those who would see him waltz his way to auto-ruin.

    Removing acceptance of false premises is the solution - it is simplicity itself, and yet attainment of the goal appears to be just this side of impossible with most people. Once a fundamental belief is accepted as true, it appears that no amount of logical and factual TNT will dislodge it. Once people find comfort in a belief, getting them to reject it becomes a task of monumental proportions. Seeing the solutions so clearly yet being unable to affect them is a truly frustrating circumstance akin to "so close, yet so far."

    Secession per se is not a solution. We have witnesses secession in Europe in the Balkans, Czech Republic from Slovakia... and it is their right to secede, but what fruit has it born? As far as I can tell, circumstances are not fundamentally better in any of these places than they were prior. Same phony baloney governmental bullshit serving up its petty or grand oppression as may serve the tyrant's whim.

    Until people become willing and ready to physically neutralize by whatever means necessary those who violate our rights nothing is going to change. This notion chafes against everything we have been taught about what it means to be "civil" and I assert that what we have been taught in these regards is fundamentally and unequivocally false. So as always has been the case, the choice stands before us: do the same old things yet again in expectation of different results or get some clue and make changes that will mean something.

    I'll not be holding my breath in wait.
    --

    http://freedomisobvious.blogspot.com
    http://turnyourbackonthem.wordpress.com

    ignominia et contemptum tyrannis

    Habeo excelsum artem; afflixerim cum crudelitate illis qui laedas me

    Shelley's thinly veiled warning to tyrants:

    The monster saw my determination in my face and gnashed his teeth in the impotence of anger. "Shall each man," cried he, "find a wife for his bosom, and each beast have his mate, and I be alone? I had feelings of affection, and they were requited by detestation and scorn. Man! You may hate, but beware! Your hours will pass in dread and misery, and soon the bolt will fall which must ravish from you your happiness forever. Are you to be happy while I grovel in the intensity of my wretchedness? You can blast my other passions, but revenge remains--revenge, henceforth dearer than light or food! I may die, but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery. Beware, for I am fearless and therefore powerful. I will watch with the wiliness of a snake, that I may sting with its venom. Man, you shall repent of the injuries you inflict.”

  24. #203

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    If a state seceded because it wanted to beat its girlfriends, would you go to war to prevent its secession?

    (Going to war to free slaves I 100% agree. Slavery itself is a violation of the right of secession, and I support volunteer-based humanitarian wars that protect the right of secession)
    This is a great, nuanced observation: I would totally agree with both: going to war to prevent secession is completely wrong. Individuals going to fight to free slaves, rescue hostages, fight alongside freedom fighters etc. is totally legitimate. I actually think that the US government should never prevent its citizens from joining any foreign efforts that they feel personally called to, as I also think the US government should almost never commit us troops (volunteer or drafted) to fight on foreign soil.

  25. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    There are definite advantages to federalism, but all of those vanish unceremoniously when the citizens are too weak-minded, corrupt, and lazy to keep it honest. This is true of ANY system of governance. The ONLY reason ancient tribal anarchic "nations" succeeded was because the rise of a tyrant was quickly put to rest by the utter intolerance of those over whom he presumed to rule. That is what we need now. We have been conditioned to accept violence as "not the solution", when in fact it is THE solution for tyranny. One takes the tyrants in question to a public place and then very brutally does one kill them before the entire community. This serves several purposes. Firstly, it removes the source of the problem. Secondly, it provides an object lesson to the rest about the virtues of respecting boundaries with one's fellows. Thirdly, it puts everything out in the open such that everyone knows what was done was righteously conducted.

    ....

    Until people become willing and ready to physically neutralize by whatever means necessary those who violate our rights nothing is going to change. This notion chafes against everything we have been taught about what it means to be "civil" and I assert that what we have been taught in these regards is fundamentally and unequivocally false. So as always has been the case, the choice stands before us: do the same old things yet again in expectation of different results or get some clue and make changes that will mean something.

    I'll not be holding my breath in wait.
    One key issue we face today is that no people in power are ever fully culpable. In fact while credit is always assigned or claimed personally, blame is always ascribed to the System, the nameless Bureaucracy. This is the number one power of bureaucracy: no one ever can be held accountable, and so Tyranny is really the fault of the populous. (I totally disagree that it IS the fault of the electorate. This lie is perpetrated in part by this very bureaucracy; the lie that we are ultimately holding the power through our vote and thus the blame for what ever government does falls squarely on us.)

    Only secession weakens these Bureaucratic chains in an orderly manner. (revolution quickly deteriorates into chaos and strong men easily take the power, but secession allows perhaps for a preservation of what did work, and society and community are not torn apart necessarily, though there are no guarantees.) The amazing thing about Secession is that no matter where it happens it makes thing better for the rest of the world since it makes the position of comfortable bureaucrats everywhere a little less secure. I will always support secession no matter where it is or why it is being proposed because of this fact. The reasons, motivations and personalities involved are irrelevant distractions from the overarching use that the threat of actual, not just theoretical, secession poses.

  26. #205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Interesting quotes. Abe Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861 and planned the Civil War within a month? That is pretty fast planning even today.

    I do see how the South would be proud of their right to secession and independence. I do not see how the South is proud of fighting for their right to keep slaves.
    What Lincoln did after Fort Sumter was call for 75,000 troops. The war did not start as some 'shock and awe' event we have grown used to. The first major battle of the war wasn't until July of 1861 (First Battle of Bull Run).

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Monday, April 15, 1861

    The proclamation calling for 75,000 militia troops, drawn up the previous evening by President Lincoln, was published on this morning. Aside from calling for the troops and an extra session of Congress, it ordered “treasonable combinations” to disperse within twenty days.

    Each state would be asked for a specific quota of militia troops to fill in order to “repossess the forts and places seized from the Union.” So far, this would mostly focus on Charleston, South Carolina, some areas of Texas and bits of Florida.1

    Secretary of War Simon Cameron wrote to the governors of each eastern state still true to the Union, even Arkansas, North Carolina and Virginia. Some states, like Maine, Wisconsin and Iowa, were charged with raising one regiment (described in Cameron’s letter as 743 men). Others, like Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York, were to raise 13, 16 and 17, respectively.

    Then there were the southern states. Knowing that raising Federal volunteers in places like Arkansas, North Carolina and Virginia would be difficult, the requirements were lessened to numbers much easier to fill (1, 2 and 3 regiments, respectively).

    Some governors, like Indiana’s Governor Morton, promised 10,000 men (he would eventually muster in not quite half that many), while Governor Magoffin of Kentucky responded “emphatically” that “Kentucky will furnish no troops for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern states.” North Carolina’s governor doubted that the request was genuine, and probably not even constitutional. He, like Kentucky, would be sending no troops.

    The troops were expected in Washington by the 20th of May.

    http://civilwardailygazette.com/2011...rginia-secede/

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I don't think any Southerner is proud of fighting to retain slavery and that is not what they were fighting for.. Most did not even own slaves. I think slavery was only an issue with most non-slave owners due to the fear of slave uprisings, which was real given the John Brown raid and the Abolitionists efforts at inciting slave rebellion.

    I like using quotes from the era as they give a perspective that has often been filtered out in history books. What people were thinking and saying at the time can be very revealing.

    For instance, here's one of Lincoln commenting on the South's secession and the tariff issue.

    "But what am I to do in the meantime with those men at Montgomery [meaning the Confederate constitutional convention]? Am I to let them go on... [a]nd open Charleston, etc., as ports of entry, with their ten-percent tariff. What, then, would become of my tariff?" ~ Lincoln to Colonel John B. Baldwin, deputized by the Virginian Commissioners to determine whether Lincoln would use force, April 4, 1861.

    Here are a few snippets from newspapers at the time.

    "Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils....The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel"....Charles Dickens in a London periodical in December 1861

    "Slavery is not the cause of the rebellion ....Slavery is the pretext on which the leaders of the rebellion rely, 'to fire the Southern Heart' and through which the greatest degree of unanimity can be produced....Mr. Calhoun, after finding that the South could not be brought into sufficient unanimity by a clamor about the tariff, selected slavery as the better subject for agitation"..... North American Review (Boston October 1862)

    "They [the South] know that it is their import trade that draws from the people's pockets sixty or seventy millions of dollars per annum, in the shape of duties, to be expended mainly in the North, and in the protection and encouragement of Northern interests....These are the reasons why these people [the North] do not wish the South to secede from the Union." ..... New Orleans Daily Crescent 21 January 1861

    "In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." .... Chicago Daily Times December 1860

    "At once shut down every Southern port, destroy its commerce and bring utter ruin on the Confederate States." ..... NY Times 22 March 1861

    "the mask has been thrown off and it is apparent that the people of the principal seceding states are now for commercial independence. They dream that the centres of traffic can be changed from Northern to Southern ports....by a revenue system verging on free trade." .... Boston Transcript 18 March 1861
    "The principle for which we contend is bound to reassert itself, though it may be at another time and in another form"..... Jefferson Davis

    "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle".
    .....Edmund Burke

    "A corrupt electoral process can only lead to corrupt Government."
    ......jay_dub

  27. #206
    Member bxm042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Land of the Free
    Posts
    6,551

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Secession per se is not a solution. We have witnesses secession in Europe in the Balkans, Czech Republic from Slovakia... and it is their right to secede, but what fruit has it born? As far as I can tell, circumstances are not fundamentally better in any of these places than they were prior. Same phony baloney governmental bullshit serving up its petty or grand oppression as may serve the tyrant's whim.
    Secession and sound money go hand in hand for freedom to prosper. Without one, or the other, you will eventually have neither, and tyranny will take the day.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

  28. #207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Exposed my folly? I took you off my ignore list because I thought you might be done attacking me personally.
    I didn't attack you personally. I attacked your posts and general style. You, however, have no qualms with attacking me and a number of others personally.

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I took nearly everyone off my ignore list. Dude you are an idiot. You did not even know that Lincoln was an abolitionist. You are a shallow thinker and a girly man.
    And back to personal insults. Hypocrite. I did know that Lincoln was an abolitionist (had you been paying attention), but clearly stated that was not his intent in the War Between The States.

    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    So, in your twisted world your -rep was mature and my -rep in retaliation was immature? Maybe you should stop attacking me both in the forums and privately. Add something to the discussion rather than always working to discredit me.
    An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. As I said before, I don't initiate personal attacks. To the extent I do, that is a personal failing I assume responsibility for. I try to avoid it. I don't work to discredit you. I simply challenge you. Rational people rarely accept a claim out of hand. If you ever go to publish something, you'll find your work eviscerated and attacked during peer reviews far more than what you'll get here. Some people resort to drinking to cope with the stress of the peer review process, you know.


    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Actually, those men were the type to hug and weren't so insecure in their sexuality as you are. -rep from HB34
    And it's true.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 10-21-2012 at 11:57 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    The government is incapable of doing what it's supposed to do. A job like the provision of security is something best left to private institutions.
    My music/art page is here"government is the enemy of liberty"-RP
    That which doesn't kill me has made a grave tactical error
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    This whole board is a thoughtcrime in progress.
    Quote Originally Posted by danke View Post
    I carry my man purse for fashion, not function.

  29. #208

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stallheim View Post
    This is a great, nuanced observation: I would totally agree with both: going to war to prevent secession is completely wrong. Individuals going to fight to free slaves, rescue hostages, fight alongside freedom fighters etc. is totally legitimate. I actually think that the US government should never prevent its citizens from joining any foreign efforts that they feel personally called to, as I also think the US government should almost never commit us troops (volunteer or drafted) to fight on foreign soil.
    That would make a great movie to advance liberty. A tale of alternative history. If Lincoln allowed the South to secede and instead of looking to the government to free the slaves, the freemen of the North became abolitionist guerrillas and ignited revolution John Brown style. I would go see that movie.
    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." - Thomas Jefferson

    "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds" - Sam Adams

  30. #209
    Member bxm042's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Land of the Free
    Posts
    6,551

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gumba of Liberty View Post
    That would make a great movie to advance liberty. A tale of alternative history. If Lincoln allowed the South to secede and instead of looking to the government to free the slaves, the freemen of the North became abolitionist guerrillas and ignited revolution John Brown style. I would go see that movie.
    That'd be a great movie
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

  31. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gumba of Liberty View Post
    That would make a great movie to advance liberty. A tale of alternative history. If Lincoln allowed the South to secede and instead of looking to the government to free the slaves, the freemen of the North became abolitionist guerrillas and ignited revolution John Brown style. I would go see that movie.
    The great heroic stories everybody loves are when individuals go beyond the orders, sign up for the cause because they want to fight the good fight for the freedom of others who are less fortunate. We are not particularly moved by the Navy captain who comes into town, impresses a bunch of men into service and then goes out hunting the pirates... unless we are cheering for the pirates. The soldiers who are motivated by love for their invaded home and people, or the POW who sacrifices so much to help others escape, those are the great stories. There are great stories of US pilots who moved to England and renounced their US Citizenship to fight against the Germans before the USA entered the war. These are heroes. If a war is just, then a draft robs all those heroes of the potential to choose on their own, a key source of personal conviction and motivation is taken away from them. No one is required to step up, the bureaucratic war managers sap the cause of it's inspiration and it's heart.
    This is much the same, in my opinion as institutionalized state run welfare programs compared with those of churches and mutual aid societies. Sadly the state programs eventually sap these other offerings of their necessity.

Page 7 of 11 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast




« Previous Thread | Next Thread »


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •