Is Secession a Good Idea?

[Travlyr]

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 bull$#@! 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 bull$#@! 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.

"Secession per se is not a solution."

This is an excellent post.

Unfortunately, secession is not the right solution. It is our right but it never really accomplishes what is necessary. We know what needs to be done. The problem is getting enough people to understand what needs to be done and do it. Article VI. Clause 3. requires elected officials to obey their oath to the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review... that power belongs to the People and the States. What needs to be done is force each one of our elected officials to buy the Penal Bond that has been required since 1792. These guys are trying that in New Mexico. They do not get much support, but it is the way to fix the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

[Stallheim]

"Secession per se is not a solution."

This is an excellent post.

Unfortunately, secession is not the right solution. It is our right but it never really accomplishes what is necessary. We know what needs to be done. The problem is getting enough people to understand what needs to be done and do it. Article VI. Clause 3. requires elected officials to obey their oath to the Constitution. The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review... that power belongs to the People and the States. What needs to be done is force each one of our elected officials to buy the Penal Bond that has been required since 1792. These guys are trying that in New Mexico. They do not get much support, but it is the way to fix the dilemma in which we find ourselves.

Travlyr, I am unclear what you you mean by power. This is a crucial concept, clearly. If the Supreme Court does something which no one else is doing and no one else has prevented them from doing, it seems worthlessly academic to suggest that they "don't have the power."

[GuerrillaXXI]

+rep to osan's post above (#202). People, pay attention to what he wrote. He understands.

Travlyr, I am unclear what you you mean by power. This is a crucial concept, clearly. If the Supreme Court does something which no one else is doing and no one else has prevented them from doing, it seems worthlessly academic to suggest that they "don't have the power."

I'd like to butt in and comment on that, though you seem to have already hit upon the answer. The only kind of power that actually exists is physical power. Laws on paper mean nothing if they can't be enforced. That goes just as well for the Constitution, or for ten thousand constitutions.

Consider two parties, A and B. If party A is willing to use force against party B, but party B is unwilling or afraid to use force against party A, then it follows that there are NO limits to the power of A over B. No other considerations matter. Thus, the federal government can do exactly as it pleases, regardless of what laws are written, as long as its leaders and enforcers don't have to fear retaliation. It is an absurd notion that people can have freedom without backing up their rights with force or the credible threat of force. If I am unwilling to use force to defend my rights, then I can NEVER be free. The best I can hope for in that case is a decent master who doesn't abuse me.

Americans DO have the power to force the government to obey the Constitution, largely through the advantage of massive numbers spread out across a huge amount of territory. A fight against even 2% of the US population would make the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan seem like a cakewalk. But the power of the American people is diminishing. The government continues to develop new weapons, better body armor, sensors, UAVs, combat robots, etc. Most freedom-loving Americans probably don't even own armor-piercing ammo for their rifles. Most don't bother to study the capabilities of current US military and police technology or what's under development, and they don't ponder possible countermeasures. Most don't read about how to make explosives, shaped charges, etc. Too many don't stay in physical shape. Worst of all, most Americans are more afraid of death than of subjugation to other men. This makes no sense at all, since death is ultimately unavoidable but subjugation is most certainly avoidable.

[Travlyr]

Travlyr, I am unclear what you you mean by power. This is a crucial concept, clearly. If the Supreme Court does something which no one else is doing and no one else has prevented them from doing, it seems worthlessly academic to suggest that they "don't have the power."

Power is gained either by rule of law or rule by weapon. The Constituiton was designed to be a rule by law document. Article I designed the House and the Senate and expressly stated their powers. Article II designed the Executive Branch of government and expressly stated the power granted to the President. Article III defined the Judicial Branch and expressly stated their powers. That is all the legitimate powers they have unless an Amendment changes that. All the rest of the powers are reserved to the States or the People. Article III, nor any Amendment since, has granted the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. They simply assumed that power after promising the States during the ratification process that they would not assume that power.

The Supreme Court and Judicial Review

Thomas Jefferson wrote, in 1823:

"At the establishment of our constitutions, the judiciary bodies were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the most dangerous; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions, nevertheless, become law by precedent, sapping, by little and little, the foundations of the constitution, and working its change by construction, before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life, if secured against all liability to account."

The power of judicial review is great power and when the Supreme Court assumed that power they undermined the Original Intent of the Constituion.

[GuerrillaXXI]

Power is gained either by rule of law or rule by weapon.

"Rule of law" is merely another form of rule by weapon. As stated above, all political power is ultimately physical power. Like all laws, the Constitution is utterly meaningless and impotent unless someone enforces it with weapons. Right now no one is enforcing the US Constitution.

[Travlyr]

"Rule of law" is merely another form of rule by weapon. As stated above, all political power is ultimately physical power. Like all laws, the Constitution is utterly meaningless and impotent unless someone enforces it with weapons. Right now no one is enforcing the US Constitution.

I don't agree that physical force is necessary to enforce the Constitution. Article VI. Clause 3 specifically states that "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Since the Supreme Court does not have legitimate authority of judicial review then the People make that decision through their State representatives. Politicians want to get re-elected, so they will listen to the People if the people force their hand.

[osan]

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.

I agree so far as your statement goes, but is falls short of completion. Look to your own signature quotation; it is all right there. The "system" in question is NOT the system of government per se. There is a more fundamental system than that: human belief. When that system is rotten, nothing good can be realized. It is only through the purification of the mind that even the thinnest sliver of hope remains and that sliver whittles down daily. I do not even have the words sufficient to describe just how lost most people are in their thinking. I can see it and feel it in my mind - the pitch black depths of delusion under which most people pass through their days, yet I am at a loss to articulate it with enough effect that people see and realize the truth.

It is the oddest thing to witness even the cases where it seems the light goes on above a person's head. They seem to get it, yet do nothing to change their lives. I am beginning to suspect that the normalcy bias in the average human being is so strong that they would rather die than make changes for the better. We see this in alcoholics, drug addicts, and generally loused up people all the time. They see the light and yet they refuse to put one foot before the other and make their way toward it. Is this a death wish deal? Perhaps people are just hopelessly addicted to low-rent drama and would sooner die than give it up.

[osan]

That'd be a great movie

Anyone interested in doing a screenplay? I've done one already.

[TheTexan]

I agree so far as your statement goes, but is falls short of completion. Look to your own signature quotation; it is all right there. The "system" in question is NOT the system of government per se. There is a more fundamental system than that: human belief. When that system is rotten, nothing good can be realized. It is only through the purification of the mind that even the thinnest sliver of hope remains and that sliver whittles down daily. I do not even have the words sufficient to describe just how lost most people are in their thinking. I can see it and feel it in my mind - the pitch black depths of delusion under which most people pass through their days, yet I am at a loss to articulate it with enough effect that people see and realize the truth.

I don't think there's a chance in hell we're going to change the fundamental system you're referring to, not in our lifetimes. Which is why I advocate so strongly for the FSP and other similar movements to concentrate our efforts.

Some people here accuse me of "giving up".. and in one respect, I have given up. I have given up trying to give freedom to people who don't want it. We need to focus on taking freedom for ourselves. And if they decide to join along later, more power to them, if not, that's fine too.

It is the oddest thing to witness even the cases where it seems the light goes on above a person's head. They seem to get it, yet do nothing to change their lives. I am beginning to suspect that the normalcy bias in the average human being is so strong that they would rather die than make changes for the better. We see this in alcoholics, drug addicts, and generally loused up people all the time. They see the light and yet they refuse to put one foot before the other and make their way toward it. Is this a death wish deal? Perhaps people are just hopelessly addicted to low-rent drama and would sooner die than give it up.

Some of it is a fear of change. I suspect the greatest culprit is the desire to control, and be controlled. People want most of their decisions made for them. The few decisions that they do make for themselves, they have an inherent need to force on others.

All their needs are met. They are told what to do, where to go, what to eat, and they like it this way. Making decisions is work they would rather not do. As long as they are fed, entertained, and have a roof over their head, they will never see their chains - nor would they want to.

[osan]

Travlyr, I am unclear what you you mean by power. This is a crucial concept, clearly. If the Supreme Court does something which no one else is doing and no one else has prevented them from doing, it seems worthlessly academic to suggest that they "don't have the power."

It may be academic, but it is hardly worthless. If we have no rationally principled basis for action, then nihilism is the order of the day and those with the greater net material power at any given moment set the rules. That there exists such a principled basis for rebuffing the court's usurpation is important because if we are going to fight them we should know why we are doing it and what the proper circumstance should be. That nobody is taking the SCOTUS et al to task in a materially substantial way, it does not follow that the principled argument is not valid or important. I think it is very important because it is part of our moral compass. It is part of the frame of reference by which we navigate the issues that arise in human relations. Without such a frame of reference, life becomes a free-for-all, the strong crushing the weak, then becoming weak themselves and in turn being crushed. What kind of ridiculous way of life is that?

[osan]

Power is gained either by rule of law or rule by weapon.

I would once again offer the suggestion that we dispense with the term "rule of law" because law, as Jefferson pointed out, is often the tyrant's whim. I greatly prefer and tend to use "rule of principle". It carries with it implications of a fundamentally different timbre.

We need principles before we need law, for if we have them and accept that law must be based on them such that no violation occurs, then we have a basis for just governance and codified locks upon the tyrant's hand.

[osan]

I don't think there's a chance in hell we're going to change the fundamental system you're referring to, not in our lifetimes. Which is why I advocate so strongly for the FSP and other similar movements to concentrate our efforts.

Agreed. But we should nevertheless understand what is true v. what is not. Without truth we are certainly lost. With it... well, who knows. Perhaps five generations down the road our greatest grandchildren may have some better prospects if we preserve and hand down to them that which is right.

Some people here accuse me of "giving up".. and in one respect, I have given up. I have given up trying to give freedom to people who don't want it. We need to focus on taking freedom for ourselves. And if they decide to join along later, more power to them, if not, that's fine too.

I applaud the sentiment here, but am at a loss as to how one takes freedom for oneself in and environment that grows more hostile to it by the day. FSP is a great idea IMO but living up to the pledge is not easy. I was one of the first people to so pledge and my life has gone completely $#@!ing haywire and at this point I doubt I will ever be able to move there for reasons I will not address. What does one do? This was supposed to be a free nation. Given the true meaning behind our founding documents, I see no reason why I or anyone should have to run away from their beloved homes to escape tyranny. This is sacrilege to which I take great exception as do many others.

Some of it is a fear of change. I suspect the greatest culprit is the desire to control, and be controlled. People want most of their decisions made for them. The few decisions that they do make for themselves, they have an inherent need to force on others.

On the money.

All their needs are met. They are told what to do, where to go, what to eat, and they like it this way. Making decisions is work they would rather not do. As long as they are fed, entertained, and have a roof over their head, they will never see their chains - nor would they want to.

Yes, and such people outnumber the rest of us by at least one full order of magnitude and I suspect two and then some.

When one thinks of it, mean humanity is a profoundly scary thing, most particularly when taken in large numbers.

[Anti Federalist]

The problem is getting enough people to understand what needs to be done and do it.

And we keep coming back to this.

But here's the fundamental problem: people understand, they understand perfectly what is going on, for the most part.

We think, that all we need to do is "educate" enough people, and a point of critical mass will be reached, and we'll turn this whole thing around.

We are dead wrong.

People do not want freedom.

They never have wanted freedom.

They want what people since the beginning of time have wanted: to be fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

We are the minority, and always will be the minority, and the only time that freedom briefly flourishes, are the times when we have asserted our right to be free and dragged the rest of wretched humanity along for the ride, kicking and screaming the whole time.

This is the only point that I disagree with Ron Paul: freedom is not popular.

It must be seized, and vigorously protected, by force, to last.

A remnant that lacks the will to do that will almost certainly be subjected to slavery and oppression.

[Czolgosz]

And we keep coming back to this.

But here's the fundamental problem: people understand, they understand perfectly what is going on, for the most part.

We think, that all we need to do is "educate" enough people, and a point of critical mass will be reached, and we'll turn this whole thing around.

We are dead wrong.

People do not want freedom.

They never have wanted freedom.

They want what people since the beginning of time have wanted: to be fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

We are the minority, and always will be the minority, and the only time that freedom briefly flourishes, are the times when we have asserted our right to be free and dragged the rest of wretched humanity along for the ride, kicking and screaming the whole time.

This is the only point that I disagree with Ron Paul: freedom is not popular.

It must be seized, and vigorously protected, by force, to last.

A remnant that lacks the will to do that will almost certainly be subjected to slavery and oppression.

+7.62x39

[osan]

If a state seceded because it wanted to beat its girlfriends, would you go to war to prevent its secession?

The implication here being that your position is "no"...

(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)

Interesting contradiction. What is your basis justifying the diametric shift in position between the circumstances? How does slavery have anything inherent to do with one's right to secede? What if instead of "slavery" being offered as the reason for secession, it was the right to walk naked down the avenues but slavery just happened to also be somewhere on the agenda? Your position here is making little sense to me because thus far the basis for the shift appears to be arbitrary. You do not like slavery and neither do I. But if Mississippi or Rhode island were to say "Screw you guys, I'm going home" and secede, I see no basis for interference even if they claim the desire to reinstate slavery.

Imagine Texas secedes and establishes its own nation. It is large and powerful and it reestablishes slavery. Many of the people of Oklahoma are incensed by this and rage against the very thought of such an evil circumstance. Let is assume OK is also a seceded state. Do the volunteers to which you refer hold a morally justifiable position in coming together and crossing an international border to teach TX a lesson? Were I the rest of the OK population I would tell them that if they do this, they MUST satisfy two conditions first: they must renounce their OK citizenship and they must launch their campaign from a location outside of OK because when TX beats them down as surely they would, nobody in OK wants their homeland turned into a larger version of Dresden when TX makes its displeasure felt. TX SHOULD have the sense not to overgeneralize about the nature of the attack and the makeup of the invading force, but to assume they would is stupid past the point of suicidal.

For those in doubt I invite you to lessons in recent history where a tiny cadre of ostensibly Muslim $#@!s flew commercial aircraft into our buildings and the USA went to Iraq and murdered what... a million innocent civilians in response? We could go on with examples stretching as far back as human memory goes. "Kill them all, God will know his own" is the standard operating procedure in the manual of human empire operations.

I hold the right to assume ANY level of risk for myself. I do not, however, hold ANY right to assume such risk on your behalf without your explicit consent.

Seriously now, consider the location of the boundary or yea and nay on that last issue. If I am not entitled to assume risks for YOU personally without your consent but I am, as you assert, entitled to do so singly or as a member of a group for a large population, where exactly does nay turn to yea? At what point are we OK with running an invading force into another land and exposing our brethren to the risk of retaliation?

If you have not considered this question, as one who has given it deep thought I can tell you up front that things can become very messy the moment one accepts certain premises. Premisitis can be a fatal mental disorder leading to inconsistencies and the adoption of beliefs that lead to action that in turn leads to other people getting REALLY pissed off with you... enough to want to hurt you, your family, your friends, your neighbors, and people in your general proximity whom you have never met. It is a ubiquitous, pandemic disease nearly impossible to cure; is rampaging across the face of the earth as we speak (has been for millennia), and threatens our very survival on a minute by minute basis. People need to stick this in their pipes and give it a good smoke.

[TheTexan]

Interesting contradiction. What is your basis justifying the diametric shift in position between the circumstances? How does slavery have anything inherent to do with one's right to secede? What if instead of "slavery" being offered as the reason for secession, it was the right to walk naked down the avenues but slavery just happened to also be somewhere on the agenda? Your position here is making little sense to me because thus far the basis for the shift appears to be arbitrary.

No contradiction and nothing arbitrary about it. I'm off to work or I'd respond fully, but secession is the severance of ties with an organization, union, or in this case, a plantation.

Secession is a basic human right. The fundamental and first human right on which all other rights rely upon. All states have a right to secede - for whatever reason (slavery included) - and all individuals have a right to secede (slaves included).

And more than just upholding this basic right as a sense of moral duty, doing so protects our own right of secession. If the right of secession isn't protected, the world will end up as tyrannical mega-states and our own right of secession is under threat at that point.

If a state were to secede because of slavery, I would happily donate to any volunteer efforts to use force to uphold the slave's rights of secession, freeing the slaves.

Likewise if a state wanted to secede because of slavery and walking naked, I would support their claim of secession, but I would donate or volunteer my own time to free slaves in that state. Secession is the only cause I support going to (volunteer-based) wars for.

I didn't read your post fully as I'm in a hurry, but this seems pretty clear to me.

Seriously now, consider the location of the boundary or yea and nay on that last issue. If I am not entitled to assume risks for YOU personally without your consent but I am, as you assert, entitled to do so singly or as a member of a group for a large population, where exactly does nay turn to yea? At what point are we OK with running an invading force into another land and exposing our brethren to the risk of retaliation?

Your argument is if I go South to protect innocent people who are being attacked [enslaved], they may come North and attack innocent people [you]?

Sorry, your life isn't somehow more valuable than the slaves in the South. I am not responsible for what they choose to do to you in retaliation should we fail.

[Travlyr]

I'm not sure when the last American war was fought for humanitarian reasons but I'm pretty sure it was 150 years ago, or so.

[Origanalist]

I'm not sure when the last American war was fought for humanitarian reasons but I'm pretty sure it was 150 years ago, or so.

And there are people that will dispute that premise as well.

[Travlyr]

And there are that will dispute that premise as well.

Yeah, that is just my opinion. Fighting against slavery can certainly be seen as humanitarian reason to fight. The later wars are a lot tougher to prove they were being fought for humanitarian reasons. Does any one really believe that we went to Iraq to free slaves, or for any other humanitarian reason?

[Stallheim]

I'm not sure when the last American war was fought for humanitarian reasons but I'm pretty sure it was 150 years ago, or so.

I would posit that no wars involving governments are ever truely fought for "humanitarian" reasons, unless your definition of humanitarian is so broad that all wars are really "humanitarian" ones.

[Travlyr]

I would posit that no wars involving governments are ever truely fought for "humanitarian" reasons, unless your definition of humanitarian is so broad that all wars are really "humanitarian" ones.

Chattel slavery is a violation of human rights. Fighting against slavery is a humanitarian fight.

[Stallheim]

Yeah, that is just my opinion. Fighting against slavery can certainly be seen as humanitarian reason to fight. The later wars are a lot tougher to prove they were being fought for humanitarian reasons. Does any one really believe that we went to Iraq to free slaves, or for any other humanitarian reason?

You yourself suggested several times on this thread that the Civil War was not fought to free the slaves, that was the good twist Lincoln added to try and salvage some semblance of legitimacy for a conflict he had no control over.

[Origanalist]

Chattel slavery is a violation of human rights. Fighting against slavery is a humanitarian fight.

Was there not a draft on both sides?

[Travlyr]

You yourself suggested several times on this thread that the Civil War was not fought to free the slaves, that was the good twist Lincoln added to try and salvage some semblance of legitimacy for a conflict he had no control over.

I do not know the true purpose in fighting the Civil War. There were likely multiple reasons and perhaps chattel slavery could have ended peacefully which would have been the right thing to do. I do believe that War Is A Racket.

Nonetheless, a couple of facts about the Civil War that we know are true.

• Abraham Lincoln was an abolitionist as evidenced by his speeches throughout Illinois in the 1850s.
• Chattel slavery ended in America after the Civil War.

[Travlyr]

Was there not a draft on both sides?

Not at first.

[Stallheim]

I do not know the true purpose in fighting the Civil War. There were likely multiple reasons and perhaps chattel slavery could have ended peacefully which would have been the right thing to do. I do believe that War Is A Racket.

Nonetheless, a couple of facts about the Civil War that we know are true.

• Abraham Lincoln was an abolitionist as evidenced by his speeches throughout Illinois in the 1850s.
• Chattel slavery ended in America after the Civil War.

So this war was "humanitarian" because of the eventual result of slavery ending. You make no claim about intentions and clearly this disregards any sum totaling of other less humanitarian results. From this I am concluding that your definition of humanitarian is of the really loose or really broad variety; more suitable for propaganda than thoughtful analysis.

[osan]

And we keep coming back to this.

But here's the fundamental problem: people understand, they understand perfectly what is going on, for the most part.

We think, that all we need to do is "educate" enough people, and a point of critical mass will be reached, and we'll turn this whole thing around.

We are dead wrong.

People do not want freedom.

They never have wanted freedom.

They want what people since the beginning of time have wanted: to be fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

We are the minority, and always will be the minority, and the only time that freedom briefly flourishes, are the times when we have asserted our right to be free and dragged the rest of wretched humanity along for the ride, kicking and screaming the whole time.

This is the only point that I disagree with Ron Paul: freedom is not popular.

It must be seized, and vigorously protected, by force, to last.

A remnant that lacks the will to do that will almost certainly be subjected to slavery and oppression.

I agree with you 100% on all points, but one thing is missing: context. Context is needed to properly qualify the statement and in this case the context is that of Empire. People of Empire are precisely as you describe - the qualities you list are conditioned into them and that conditioning takes advantage of all that is the lousiest in humanity. In the context of tribal anarchy, your assertions do not generally apply as far as my studies of such social groups has indicated thus far. I mention this for the sake of better completeness and clarity, both of which are essential to proper communication and understanding of ideas. It is particularly important in cases such as this because it is very much the human proclivity to generalize too broadly.

Human beings are NOT hopeless per se, but they ARE hopeless within certain contexts. The context of Empire, particularly with large populations and strong technological bases such as we have today, damns humanity and relegates it to abject doom. The momentum of all the qualities you cite is now so great that the chances of freedom surviving the juggernaut of almost universally supported authoritarianism reduces to vanishing proportions. The lies that make up the entitlement delusion are so perfected and broadly and profoundly accepted that the piss-ant minorities made up of people such as ourselves do not amount to a small hill of beans and now stand a near-zero chance of being able to live their lives apart from the unwashed and stinking hordes of blue-pillers.

Good post. Thanks.

[Travlyr]

So this war was "humanitarian" because of the eventual result of slavery ending. You make no claim about intentions and clearly this disregards any sum totaling of other less humanitarian results. From this I am concluding that your definition of humanitarian is of the really loose or really broad variety; more suitable for propaganda than thoughtful analysis.

Wrong. You do not get to define me or my intentions.

I clearly stated earlier that humanitarian reasons are violations of human rights. Chattel slavery is a violation of human rights.

[osan]

Chattel slavery is a violation of human rights. Fighting against slavery is a humanitarian fight.

That argument is singularly unconvincing. More atrocities have been committed in the name of "humanitarianism" in the past 20 years than by any other cause. And humanitarianism has been used as the basis for decidedly non-humanitarian acts. Murdering hundreds of thousands of Eye_Rack_Eez to "save" them... yeah, hello...

More to the point, pressing men into military service for "humanitarian" causes is another grand example of valuing one man's rights over those of another. "Our cause is just. Therefore, we are morally entitled to violate your rights." Holy $#@!... people actually buy such reasoning. It is astonishing.

[Stallheim]

Wrong. You do not get to define me or my intentions.

I clearly stated earlier that humanitarian reasons are violations of human rights. Chattel slavery is a violation of human rights.

Read a little closer, I never defined you or your intentions. I attempted to identify what definition you were using, and critiqued the usefulness of that definition. Could you explain your second sentence, I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say, as I havn't made any particular statement about whether humanitarian reasons are or are not violations of human rights. And in what context; war?