Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 310

Thread: Is Secession a Good Idea?

  1. #31
    Hmm,

    I consider New York city, many large towns in California, and quite a few larger cities not a part of my USA...

    As I'm sure residents of those places don't consider my backwoods home part of theirs..


    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    The mighty USSR, which looked pretty solid for a long time, disintegrated into separate states almost overnight. It is a matter of timing. When the perfect moment arises - the kyros - things can change quickly that seemed unmovable moments before.

    I don't want to draw too close a comparison with the USSR because there are some big differences. The USSR had numerous ethnic and cultural groups that were geographically separate and did not consider themselves "Russian". It was relatively easy for them to separate. The USA, by contrast, is far more homogenous. Even people as different as New York bankers and Nebraska farmers regard themselves as belonging to the USA. A spilt will require things to be uglier here than in the USSR. But it still might happen without a bloody civil war if the Federal power is weak enough. And I think that is really the key - a fiscal collapse that weakens the Federal power so much that it is unable and unwilling to try and reign in distant regions that want to leave.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by LoneStarLocke View Post
    I agree that the 10th solution is a good possible solution. However, I also wonder if we're too large for a proper representative form of government to function properly or to accomplish proper restrain.
    No we are not too large. The problem is in the message. The message we get from TV, Hollywood, Radio, MSM newsprint and the educational institutions are obfuscations of truth. Republics are strong local governance, weaker State governance, and very weak Federal governance. It can be enforced. The tools are all in place. Simply force elected officials to obey their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution as they swear to do.

    Somehow, somewhere, along the line elected officials got it into their head that they are supposed to "protect" us and claim immunity for themselves. That is not true. The protection designed in the Constitution is the law not security forces. Security protection is not the job of government unless it is legitimate defense against an aggressor.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    How would that work? States don't have to obey Federal law? Counties don't have to obey State law? Cities don't have to obey County law? Land owners do not have to obey any law? Who enforces trespassing, theft, and assault laws?
    Excellent question. So here is how I see it:

    If a state decides (by whatever method it chooses) that the federal government is more trouble than it is worth, it simply announces that it is seceeding. It would then be relieved of the obligation to follow Federal law or pay taxes, and in turn would not get anybenefits from the Federal goernment including no defense. The people within the state that seceeds would also automatically be outside Federal law. The state could remain on its own or join another Federation.

    Now suppose a county within the state decided it didn't want to be part of the state, it could announce its secession. It would then not be bound by State law nor get the benefits provided by the state. It could join another state or remain on its own. Same for a city or neighborhood.

    Even an individual could simply say "My property is no longer part of the state (county, city, or whatever)". the result would be that they no longer follow the law or pay taxes to the jurisdiction they withdraw from. But they also get none of the benefits - no access to courts, no law enforcement, etc. If a person seceeded from every community, he would essentially be what was once called an outlaw - not protected by any law.

    So it is likely that MOST people would find that the benefits of joining together with others for mutual defense of property etc. would be worth paying a small fee. But if the fee got too large or the government got too intrusive, they could opt out and join another community. This might be difficult for an individual located right in the middle of a large community, but it would be easy for folks on the border and as soon as those people started leaving, the community would probably fix the problem.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    The absolute right of secession at every level is the only way to have government by consensus. Everything else is just a form of slavery.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    Beautifully put.
    Agreed. Agreed.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    'Excuse us, we'll be leaving now. Oh, and you don't mind if we just steal this Constitution before we go? You @#$%s aren't using it anyway...'
    If you read the CSA constitution, this is precisely what happened here 150 years ago.
    And then 600,000 people died.

    Secession is as much a fantasy as assuming that we can get back to a constitutional system. As long as we're all living in fantasyland, my fantasyland is the one where the state simply doesn't exist.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    If you read the CSA constitution, this is precisely what happened here 150 years ago.
    And then 600,000 people died.

    Secession is as much a fantasy as assuming that we can get back to a constitutional system. As long as we're all living in fantasyland, my fantasyland is the one where the state simply doesn't exist.
    All we have to do, if we want to self-govern, is enforce this: Article VI. Clause 3.
    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
    What is so difficult about that? They swear their allegiance to the Constitution. Our job is to hold their feet to the fire. It can be accomplished with bonds.

  9. #37
    Do you think the UN will protect the state or region that secedes from the US? Protect it from being invaded or bombed by the US government.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by alucard13mmfmj View Post
    Do you think the UN will protect the state or region that secedes from the US? Protect it from being invaded or bombed by the US government.
    My personal take on the UN is that they are an illegitimate world government. They were not formed by representatives of the people, nations, or states, and a ratification process. They are more like the Mafia who simply claim authority they don't have because they have big bad weapons and an IMF.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    All we have to do, if we want to self-govern, is enforce this: Article VI. Clause 3.


    What is so difficult about that? They swear their allegiance to the Constitution. Our job is to hold their feet to the fire. It can be accomplished with bonds.
    I do see your logic here. If Americans don't have enough fortitude to uphold the Constitution (and subsequently our representatives to it), then how the heck can we form a new nation?

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Republics are strong local governance, weaker State governance, and very weak Federal governance.
    Why have any federal government at all though? What good can it do?



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Why have any federal government at all though? What good can it do?
    Why have State government?
    Why have County government?

    Land Laws, Protection of Property Rights, Natural Rights, Standards, & Justice if, and only if, governments are legitimate.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Why have State government?
    Why have County government?

    Land Laws, Protection of Property Rights, Natural Rights, Standards, & Justice if, and only if, governments are legitimate.
    If you have state and local governments that accomplish those things, then why a federal also?

    And if a federal one is necessary, why not a global one?

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    If you have state and local governments that accomplish those things, then why a federal also?

    And if a federal one is necessary, why not a global one?
    A legitimate global government is desirable and preferable to the United Nations. The UN simply claims power because they have big weapons and an IMF. As you should be able to plainly see government is going to exist whether you like it or not.

    Your choices are: Are they going to be legitimate government and respect the property rights and natural rights of people, or are they going to go around the world trampling on the rights of the people?

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Your choices are: Are they going to be legitimate government and respect the property rights and natural rights of people, or are they going to go around the world trampling on the rights of the people?
    I thought you didn't believe in natural rights.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I thought you didn't believe in natural rights.
    Where did you get that idea? Did Paul or Nothing II tell you that?

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Where did you get that idea? Did Paul or Nothing II tell you that?

    I thought I remembered you saying it a long time ago. It would be too far back for me to try and find it. But if I was wrong about that, I'm glad to hear it.

    So, if you do believe in natural rights, I take it that when you talk about "legitimate government" you're talking about something that is based on these natural rights?

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    I thought I remembered you saying it a long time ago. It would be too far back for me to try and find it. But if I was wrong about that, I'm glad to hear it.

    So, if you do believe in natural rights, I take it that when you talk about "legitimate government" you're talking about something that is based on these natural rights?
    I have never said anything of the sort. Mises wrote,
    "This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.
    I agree with Mises.

    I would probably prefer a government like this over the U.S. Constitution, but the Constitution is what we have and not the monster many people claim it is. The Federalists lost in 1787. They didn't get the powers they wanted. For sure the Supreme Court, the Administration, and Congress all assume power they don't have. But then they are not a legitimate government when they do that. That is why the original intent of the Constitution ought to be enforced.

    A DECLARATION OF RIGHTS made by the representatives of the good people of Virginia, assembled in full and free convention which rights do pertain to them and their posterity, as the basis and foundation of government .

    Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.

    Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants and at all times amenable to them.

    Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration. And that, when any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community has an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

    Section 4. That no man, or set of men, is entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, nor being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge to be hereditary.

    Section 5. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judiciary; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burdens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part, of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.

    Section 6. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people, in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community, have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assembled for the public good.

    Section 7. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority, without consent of the representatives of the people, is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.

    Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man has a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

    Section 9. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

    Section 10. That general warrants, whereby an officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.

    Section 11. That in controversies respecting property, and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.

    Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments.

    Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

    Section 14. That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from or independent of the government of Virginia ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

    Section 15. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

    Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by erowe1 View Post
    Why have any federal government at all though? What good can it do?
    In order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

    Or, in other words, to ensure that the states do not fight and/or undermine each other, that the coastal state militias do not have to bear the burden of guarding our coasts and national waters alone, and that there is an ultimate arbiter accessible to citizens and states.

    And if that was all it did, I'd be its greatest supporter and proponent. Because this nation is stronger united than any of the several states could possibly be alone.
    Last edited by acptulsa; 10-19-2012 at 01:28 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    How would that work? States don't have to obey Federal law? Counties don't have to obey State law? Cities don't have to obey County law? Land owners do not have to obey any law? Who enforces trespassing, theft, and assault laws?
    You.
    "The Patriarch"

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    You.
    Exactly. That is ultimately our responsibility. Nonetheless, laws are needed to protect the innocent from false testimony. Trespassing laws are needed to protect the rights of land owner. Standards are needed for contract law. Contract law is needed for commerce. Legitimate government is benign.

    John Locke
    4.4 The Function Of Civil Government

    Locke is now in a position to explain the function of a legitimate government and distinguish it from illegitimate government. The aim of such a legitimate government is to preserve, so far as possible, the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its citizens, and to prosecute and punish those of its citizens who violate the rights of others and to pursue the public good even where this may conflict with the rights of individuals. In doing this it provides something unavailable in the state of nature, an impartial judge to determine the severity of the crime, and to set a punishment proportionate to the crime. This is one of the main reasons why civil society is an improvement on the state of nature. An illegitimate government will fail to protect the rights to life, liberty, health and property of its subjects, and in the worst cases, such an illegitimate government will claim to be able to violate the rights of its subjects, that is it will claim to have despotic power over its subjects.
    Illegitimate government is what we endure today because no one is forcing our elected officials to obey the Constitutions.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    Exactly. That is ultimately our responsibility. Nonetheless, laws are needed to protect the innocent from false testimony. Trespassing laws are needed to protect the rights of land owner. Standards are needed for contract law. Contract law is needed for commerce. Legitimate government is benign.



    Illegitimate government is what we endure today because no one is forcing our elected officials to obey the Constitutions.
    I am not an anarchist and I agree with you. It just seems as though a rubicon has been crossed and we can't get back without something drastic happening.
    "The Patriarch"

  26. #52
    Getting out of a bad idea is always a good idea. The power to leave is an all powerfull human action.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    I am not an anarchist and I agree with you. It just seems as though a rubicon has been crossed and we can't get back without something drastic happening.
    I know it seems that way. Hegelian Dialect is everywhere. Ron Paul is the exception. Ron Paul's message today is the same message it was 40 years ago with few exceptions. Stefan muddies the waters. Lew Rockwell muddies the waters too. Certainly the TV, Hollywood, MSM and our educational systems are muddying the waters. Heck, the schools still are not teaching the virtues of sound money.

    If we can get enough people to understand what sound money is, how it works, and why we must force our leaders to obey the rule of law, then we finally win our liberty, peace, and once again ... prosperity.
    "Everyone who believes in freedom must work diligently for sound money, fully redeemable. Nothing else is compatible with the humanitarian goals of peace and prosperity." -- Ron Paul

    Brother Jonathan

  28. #54
    I subscribe to the Jeffersonian principle, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That idea, when taken seriously, leads inevitably to the radical right of each individual and group of individuals to seceed from any government to which they do not consent. The only way to escape that result, arising from our own central founding principles, is to postulate some dishonest surrogate for consent.
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  29. #55
    It is the ones currently in office who are not following the guidelines of the Constitution. The Constitution is not an instrument to restrain the people, it is an instrument to restrain the government. It is our duty to make sure that we hold them accountable. The people always had the power, they have been deliberately side tracked so while they were busy worrying what the Jones' have, and what sports game is on and other selfish things, these bastards hijacked our government.

    It all took place while we were sleeping. It is time to wake up and take back what is ours.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

  30. #56
    It all took place while we were sleeping. It is time to wake up and take back what is ours.
    It's actually way past time, and they aren't going to give it back willingly.
    "The Patriarch"



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Acala View Post
    I subscribe to the Jeffersonian principle, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That idea, when taken seriously, leads inevitably to the radical right of each individual and group of individuals to seceed from any government to which they do not consent. The only way to escape that result, arising from our own central founding principles, is to postulate some dishonest surrogate for consent.
    I know I am going to take a verbal beating from all the Lincoln haters here; nonetheless, the truth must be told. Lincoln was arguing the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence to justify putting an end to the expansion of slavery.

  33. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Travlyr View Post
    I know I am going to take a verbal beating from all the Lincoln haters here; nonetheless, the truth must be told. Lincoln was arguing the principles articulated in the Declaration of Independence to justify putting an end to the expansion of slavery.
    Not to derail the thread, but wasn't part of the problem that the south wanted a place for the slaves to go, instead of just dumping them into the ditch just outside the property line? And wasn't that fought against by the northern states, as in "Let the slaves go free, but keep them in your own yard"?
    "When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed." - Bastiat : The Law

    "nothing evil grows in alcohol" ~ @presence

    "I mean can you imagine what it would be like if firemen acted like police officers? They would only go into a burning house only if there's a 100% chance they won't get any burns. I mean, you've got to fully protect thy self first." ~ juleswin

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by ClydeCoulter View Post
    Not to derail the thread, but wasn't part of the problem that the south wanted a place for the slaves to go, instead of just dumping them into the ditch just outside the property line? And wasn't that fought against by the northern states, as in "Let the slaves go free, but keep them in your own yard"?
    I think that is pretty much right on. It is my understanding that some people in the South bought one way train tickets for the slaves to Chicago.

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    It's actually way past time, and they aren't going to give it back willingly.
    Of course they will not. However, there is more of us than there are of them. and they know it.
    “The spirits of darkness are now among us. We have to be on guard so that we may realize what is happening when we encounter them and gain a real idea of where they are to be found. The most dangerous thing you can do in the immediate future will be to give yourself up unconsciously to the influences which are definitely present.” ~ Rudolf Steiner

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Ron Paul: Good News !! Secession is happening
    By Dianne in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-20-2015, 01:07 PM
  2. Ron Paul: Good News !! Secession is happening
    By Dianne in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-19-2015, 07:45 PM
  3. Replies: 121
    Last Post: 12-31-2009, 09:10 AM
  4. Alaska a good candidate for Secession.
    By Chosen in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-04-2009, 11:55 AM
  5. Youtube Questions Project Phase 1 - good idea, bad idea?
    By chinaCat in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 03:18 PM

Posting Permissions

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