# News & Current Events > World News & Affairs >  Is Secession a Good Idea?

## Origanalist

Daniel J. Mitchell


I’m not talking about secession in the United States, (*Why not?*)where the issue is linked to the ugliness of slavery (though at least Walter Williams can write about the issue without the risk of being accused of closet racism).

But what about Europe? I have a hard time understanding why nations on the other side of the Atlantic should not be allowed to split up if there are fundamental differences between regions. Who can be against the concept of self-determination?

Heck, tiny Liechtenstein explicitly gives villages the right to secede if two-thirds of voters agree. Shouldn’t people in other nations have the same freedom?

This is not just a hypothetical issue. Secession has become hot in several countries, with Catalonia threatening to leave Spain and Scotland threatening to leave the United Kingdom.

But because of recent election results, Belgium may be the country where an internal divorce is most likely. Here are some excerpts from a report in the UK-based Financial Times.

Flemish nationalists made sweeping gains across northern Belgium in local elections on Sunday, a success that will bolster separatists’ hopes for a break-up of the country. Bart De Wever, leader of the New Flemish Alliance (NVA), is set to become mayor of the northern city of Antwerp, Belgium’s economic heartland, after his party emerged as the largest one, ending about 90 years of socialist rule. …The strong result recorded by the Flemish nationalist is likely to have an impact across Europe, where the sovereign debt crisis, which has seen rich countries bail out poor ones, has revived separatist sentiment throughout the continent. Flanders, which is the most economically prosperous region of Belgium, has long resented financing the ailing economy of French-speaking Wallonia, and Sunday’s victory will strengthen its demand for self-rule. Lieven De Winter, a political scientist at Université Catholique de Louvain, said that Mr De Wever’s victory was a clear step forward for separatists who had long been campaigning for secession from the southern part of the country.

Purely as a matter of political drama, this is an interesting development. We saw the peaceful split of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia about 20 years ago. But we also saw a very painful breakup of Yugoslavia shortly thereafter.



Belgium’s divorce, if it happened, would be tranquil. But it would still be remarkable, particularly since it might encourage peaceful separatist movements in other regions of other nations.

I think this would be a welcome development for reasons I wrote about last month. Simply stated, the cause of liberty is best advanced by having a a large number of competing jurisdictions.

I’ve opined about this issue many times, usually from a fiscal policy perspective, explaining that governments are less likely to be oppressive when they know that people (or their money) can cross national borders.

Belgium definitely could use a big dose of economic liberalization. The burden of government spending is enormous, consuming 53.5 percent of economic output – worse than all other European nations besides Denmark, France, and Finland. The top tax rate on personal income is a crippling 53.7 percent, second only the Sweden. And with a 34 percent rate, the corporate tax rate is very uncompetitive, behind only France.

Sadly, there’s little chance of reform under the status quo since the people in Wallonia view high tax rates as a tool for extracting money from their neighbors in Flanders. But if Belgium split up, it’s quite likely that both new nations would adopt better policy as a signal to international investors and entrepreneurs. Or maybe the new nations would implement better policy as part of a friendly rivalry with each other.

So three cheers for peaceful secession and divorce in Belgium. At least we know things can’t get worse.

P.S. Brussels is the capital of Belgium, but it is also the capital of the European Union. Don’t be surprised if it becomes some sort of independent federal city if Flanders and Wallonia become independent. Sort of like Washington, but worse. Why worse? Because even though Washington is akin to a city of parasites feasting off the productive energy of the rest of America, Brussels and the European Union are an even more odious cesspool of harmonization, bureaucratization, and centralization, richly deserving of attacks from right, left, and center.

http://finance.townhall.com/columnis...dea/page/full/

----------


## acptulsa

Yes.  But the idea to me isn't divorcing oneself from one's neighbors, but divorcing oneself from the political muscle bought and paid for by banksters and other corporations.

If we can't get Washington cleaned out electorally, then this would certainly be a way to make it irrelevant.  '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...'

----------


## phill4paul

I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.

----------


## Travlyr

> I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.


Absolutely agree.

----------


## Origanalist

> I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." *Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.*


 That doesn't seem to be working out so well.......

----------


## Origanalist

> Yes.  But the idea to me isn't divorcing oneself from one's neighbors, but divorcing oneself from the political muscle bought and paid for by banksters and other corporations.
> 
> If we can't get Washington cleaned out electorally, then this would certainly be a way to make it irrelevant.  *'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...'*


+ rep

----------


## Travlyr

> That doesn't seem to be working out so well.......


There are too few people who actually understand how to do it at the moment. We are working on educating enough people but it takes a while.

----------


## phill4paul

> That doesn't seem to be working out so well.......


http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/

----------


## Origanalist

> There are too few people who actually understand how to do it at the moment. We are working on educating enough people but it takes a while.






> http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/


I am for all of the above, but the threat of States actually seceding could only help. And the thought of States seceding in reality bothers me not one bit.

----------


## Acala

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.

----------


## Origanalist

> 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.


Beautifully put.

----------


## phill4paul

> I am for all of the above, but the threat of States actually seceding could only help. And the thought of States seceding in reality bothers me not one bit.


  No doubt. Don't get me wrong. If a state were to succeed I would move myself there in a heartbeat. I just feel that it would ultimately end in failure. The rest of America would collectively sigh as the federal troops rolled in. However, as states make incremental changes asserting their rights other states tend to follow suit.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Daniel J. Mitchell
> 
> 
> Im not talking about secession in the United States, (*Why not?*)where the issue is linked to the ugliness of slavery (though at least Walter Williams can write about the issue without the risk of being accused of closet racism).


That's racist! If Person-X accuses a white-sucessionist of racism & not a black-secessionist then that's as racist as one can get because Person-X is presuming the motives & thought-processes of people based on the color of their skin!




> I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.


You don't just give up on something because of one-time failure, may be this time the sucessionists will win!

Seriously, how long do you think it will take to libertanize the whole nation? Or will it EVER occur? Nobody, in all honesty, can offer definitive answers to these questions.

The most of the WHOLE WORLD believes in socialist-thievery, it has been that way for a long time, that's why we see it everywhere & not a lot is likely to change in the immediate future so the best option for liberty-minded people could be to flood a State (or more) & separate themselves from non-libertarians!

If there are no taxes & complete freedom for everyone then capital will literally flood such newly formed country (or countries) & it will become prosperous very quickly, & buying nukes for self-defense will soon be on the cards as well!




> 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.


True!

----------


## NewRightLibertarian

> I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.


Join the 10th Amendment Center if you think nullification is such a grand idea!

----------


## donnay

> http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/


Phill, I cannot give you anymore +rep.  You are spot on!  Tenth amendment is the way to go.

----------


## Czolgosz

I figure about 20% of Humans are individualistic enough to want freedom, even fewer are activists, and fewer than that are warriors.  A single State seceeding would be significant enough to draw a supportive free thinking base to its lands.


Secession is one of the better alternatives for freedom in our lifetime.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I figure about 20% of Humans are individualistic enough to want freedom, even fewer are activists, and fewer than that are warriors.  A single State seceeding would be significant enough to draw a supportive free thinking base to its lands.
> 
> 
> Secession is one of the better alternatives for freedom in our lifetime.


I don't know how the figure of 20% was arrived at but yes, I agree with the essence of the post that secession may be the best chance of acquiring true freedom in our lifetime, & then keep the non-libertarians out of this new country otherwise it will soon turn into a democratic-socialist hellhole too!

----------


## Origanalist

> I don't know how the figure of 20% was arrived at but yes, I agree with the essence of the post that secession may be the best chance of acquiring true freedom in our lifetime, & *then keep the non-libertarians out of this new country otherwise it will soon turn into a democratic-socialist hellhole too!*


There's the rub, how?

----------


## tod evans

I have heard several supposedly libertarian minded folks argue for more intrusive government so long as it's their agenda being pushed.

Of course I personally don't subscribe to any popular political labels so folks like me would be kept out?




> I don't know how the figure of 20% was arrived at but yes, I agree with the essence of the post that secession may be the best chance of acquiring true freedom in our lifetime, & then keep the non-libertarians out of this new country otherwise it will soon turn into a democratic-socialist hellhole too!

----------


## Matthew5

They forgot to add Venice, Italy to the secession movement.

Secession is much more difficult in America due to indoctrination and consumerism. But, that could all change in ten or twenty years as more people wake up. Or the economy collapses. My money (no pun) is on the latter.

I do however think a small group could get away with it in a remote region. Say Alaska for example. If 10,000 people decided to occupy a remote area and declare independence, the federal government would probably ignore it for quite some time. Entire states, of course, are a whole 'nother deal. Oklahoma recently declared state sovereignty and look how they voted in the primary. People are a lot of talk but are fundamentally uneducated. They ironically mistake flag waving, having crying eagle decals, eating apple pie, and baseball tossing as a sign of patriotic independence. Their allegiance to the Union still runs deep.

I wish their was a non-violent solution to secession. But we know how that worked out for the Confederate nation.

----------


## Travlyr

What is stopping secessionist movement?

Is anyone really trying?

----------


## Travlyr

> I have heard several supposedly libertarian minded folks argue for more intrusive government so long as it's their agenda being pushed.
> 
> Of course I personally don't subscribe to any popular political labels so folks like me would be kept out?


I noticed that too. Many of the supposedly anarchist folks arguing for intrusive laws against spanking. It's a crazy mixed up world. They would keep me out for sure.

----------


## Origanalist

> I noticed that too. Many of the supposedly anarchist folks arguing for intrusive laws against spanking. It's a crazy mixed up world. They would keep me out for sure.


Probably myself also, Ironies abound.

----------


## Matthew5

> What is stopping secessionist movement?
> 
> Is anyone really trying?


In America? Not yet...but people's minds may be slowly changing. Just this week I over heard our UPS driver talking to three of my co-workers. He said, "You know, I'm not sure if I want to vote for either candidate. And it seems like nothing is changing. It may be time...you know, don't get me wrong...but it may be time to call it quits and start all over again. Didn't Thomas Jefferson say we should redo everything at least every twenty years?" 

Perhaps people are afraid to discuss openly the possibility lest they be branded as tin-foilers or terrorists?

----------


## Travlyr

I don't see secession as the right solution. The U.S. Constitution is one of enumerated powers. The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. If the States and the people would force the Federal government to obey the Constitution, then they would have very little power.

----------


## Acala

> I don't know how the figure of 20% was arrived at but yes, I agree with the essence of the post that secession may be the best chance of acquiring true freedom in our lifetime, & then keep the non-libertarians out of this new country otherwise it will soon turn into a democratic-socialist hellhole too!


I think the answer is that you don't stop with state secession.  Allow counties to seceed from states and cities to seceed from counties and even individual land owners to seceed from ALL governments.  In this way when any government begins to provide more burdens than benefits on any district or individual, that district or individual leaves.  You can't have socliaism if the people you want to pay for it can just reject the jurisdiction.  Pretty soon, competition among the political subdivisions results in a stabilized balance of benefits and burdens in most jurisdictions.  Some might lean a little one way or the other, but if they go too far, they start to shrink as people seceed.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 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.





> I think the answer is that you don't stop with state secession. Allow counties to seceed from states and cities to seceed from counties and even individual land owners to seceed from ALL governments. In this way when any government begins to provide more burdens than benefits on any district or individual, that district or individual leaves. You can't have socliaism if the people you want to pay for it can just reject the jurisdiction. Pretty soon, competition among the political subdivisions results in a stabilized balance of benefits and burdens in most jurisdictions. Some might lean a little one way or the other, but if they go too far, they start to shrink as people seceed.



Tie for thread winner.  Mises would be proud.

----------


## Acala

> What is stopping secessionist movement?
> 
> Is anyone really trying?


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 kairos - 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.

----------


## Matthew5

> I don't see secession as the right solution. The U.S. Constitution is one of enumerated powers. The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. If the States and the people would force the Federal government to obey the Constitution, then they would have very little power.


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.

----------


## Travlyr

> I think the answer is that you don't stop with state secession.  Allow counties to seceed from states and cities to seceed from counties and even individual land owners to seceed from ALL governments.  In this way when any government begins to provide more burdens than benefits on any district or individual, that district or individual leaves.  You can't have socliaism if the people you want to pay for it can just reject the jurisdiction.  Pretty soon, competition among the political subdivisions results in a stabilized balance of benefits and burdens in most jurisdictions.  Some might lean a little one way or the other, but if they go too far, they start to shrink as people seceed.


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?

----------


## tod evans

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.. 





> 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.

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## Acala

> 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.

----------


## Uriah

> 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.





> Beautifully put.


Agreed. Agreed.

----------


## fisharmor

> '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.

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## alucard13mmfmj

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.

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## Matthew5

> 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?

----------


## erowe1

> 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?

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## erowe1

> 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?

----------


## Travlyr

> 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?

----------


## erowe1

> 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.

----------


## Travlyr

> I thought you didn't believe in natural rights.


Where did you get that idea? Did Paul or Nothing II tell you that?

----------


## erowe1

> 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?

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.
> ...

----------


## acptulsa

> 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.

----------


## Origanalist

> 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.

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## Origanalist

> 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.

----------


## awake

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

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## Acala

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.

----------


## donnay

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.

----------


## Origanalist

> 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.

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> 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"?

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## donnay

> 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.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> 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.


We (mankind) seem to always wait until the basement is knee deep in water before fixing the plumbing.

But, it's still doable.  I really like listening to Ron Paul speeches from time to time, it reminds me that if we continue to work with others, in a civil manner, we might help with educating the public about freedom.  (I just finished watching his UVU speech from yesterday)

----------


## Travlyr

> We (mankind) seem to always wait until the basement is knee deep in water before fixing the plumbing.
> 
> But, it's still doable.  I really like listening to Ron Paul speeches from time to time, it reminds me that if we continue to work with others, in a civil manner, we might help with educating the public about freedom.  (I just finished watching his UVU speech from yesterday)


I do not think it is too late either. It is late, yet Dr. Edwin Vieira Jr. shows us how to do it in "The Purse and The Sword" and "Constitutional Homeland Security"

----------


## Acala

> 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.


Lots of people were arguing lots of different things.  Robert E. Lee is on record as being anti-slavery, but believed that it was not within the the express Federal powers to do anything about it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 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.


lulz.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."          
~Lincoln

Lincoln wanted to prevent Southerners from exercising their rights, not "arguing the principles articulated in the Declaration Of Independence".  He could have bought the slaves if he really wanted to accomplish ending the expansion of slavery.  A whole lot cheaper than a $#@!ing war.

----------


## Travlyr

> lulz.
> 
> "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."          
> ~Lincoln
> 
> Lincoln wanted to prevent Southerners from exercising their rights, not "arguing the principles articulated in the Declaration Of Independence".  He could have bought the slaves if he really wanted to accomplish ending the expansion of slavery.  A whole lot cheaper than a $#@!ing war.


Perhaps you missed his earlier speeches.

*Abraham Lincoln's Peoria speech*

Abraham Lincoln's Peoria speech was made in Peoria, Illinois on October 16, 1854. The speech, with its specific arguments against slavery, was an important step in Abraham Lincoln's political ascension.

...


Lincoln was compelled to argue his case against the Kansas-Nebraska Act in three public speeches during September and October 1854, all in direct response to Douglas.[2] The most comprehensive address was given by Lincoln in Peoria, Illinois, on October 16.[3] The three hour speech,[4] transcribed after the fact by Lincoln himself, presented thorough moral, legal and economic arguments against slavery, and set the stage for Lincoln’s political future.

----------


## Matthew5

Did Lincoln flip-flop? lol

----------


## Travlyr

> Did Lincoln flip-flop? lol


The war was already set-up when Lincoln was elected. The war began within one month after his inauguration. He was killed shortly after the war ended. Reconstruction would have likely been quite different if Lincoln had lived. His ancestors came to America in 1637.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> I think the answer is that you don't stop with state secession.  Allow counties to seceed from states and cities to seceed from counties and even individual land owners to seceed from ALL governments.  In this way when any government begins to provide more burdens than benefits on any district or individual, that district or individual leaves.  You can't have socliaism if the people you want to pay for it can just reject the jurisdiction.  Pretty soon, competition among the political subdivisions results in a stabilized balance of benefits and burdens in most jurisdictions.  Some might lean a little one way or the other, but if they go too far, they start to shrink as people seceed.


This. Until the day when you can divorce yourself from your government you are a slave. If the people were educated on the ideas of secession and the decentralized pyramiding federalism with the individual holding the ultimate veto card then we might actually stand a fighting chance in this battle. Someone needs to step up and articulate secession in a way that will excite libertarians and human-scale liberals and light the brush-fires of freedom in the minds of men. We need a Thomas Paine and we need him now.

----------


## acptulsa

> Did Lincoln flip-flop? lol


He pandered.

He was an abolitionist.  A famous one.  His election was seen as a mandate to end slavery.  It sparked the war.  Then he was a president of a war-torn country which would rather not have been at war.  So, he felt the need to reassure the abolitionists, the pro-slavery people, and those who didn't much care that he, first and foremost, was working for the day when a union would be back at peace--and with just as many states as it started with.

Presumably it sounded good at the time.  And I have little doubt that he was distressed to be part of the cause of a war.  But the war would likely have come with or without him.  Many people wanted an end to slavery, and the union united.  They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.


The way I see it, nullification should be tried first, and if not then secession if it absolutely must come to that.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

*The Road to Civil War*It is here that we must split our analysis of the ’causes of the Civil War’; for, while this analysis leads, in my view, to a ‘pro-Northern’ position in the slavery-in-the-territories struggles of the 1850s, it leads, paradoxically, to a ‘pro-Southern’ position in the Civil War itself. For secession need not, and should not, have been combated by the North; and so we must pin the blame on the North for aggressive war against the seceding South. The war was launched in the shift from the original Northern position (by Garrison included) to ‘let our erring sisters depart in peace’ to the determination to crush the South to save that mythical abstraction known as the ‘Union’ — and in this shift, we must put a large portion of the blame upon the maneuvering of Lincoln to induce the Southerners to fire the first shot on Fort Sumter — after which point, flag-waving could and did take over.

-Murray Rothbard

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This. Until the day when you can divorce yourself from your government you are a slave. If the people were educated on the ideas of secession and the decentralized pyramiding federalism with the individual holding the ultimate veto card then we might actually stand a fighting chance in this battle. Someone needs to step up and articulate secession in a way that will excite libertarians and human-scale liberals and light the brush-fires of freedom in the minds of men. We need a Thomas Paine and we need him now.


 +rep

----------


## ifthenwouldi

> 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.


Absolutely we're too large, and it's one of the most important questions that rarely gets asked on this forum. Brutus & the anti-federalists have some interesting things to say about the issue, and I'm convinced they were right.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Absolutely we're too large, and it's one of the most important questions that rarely gets asked on this forum. Brutus & the anti-federalists have some interesting things to say about the issue, and I'm convinced they were right.


 +rep

----------


## paulbot24

> '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...'


The parting shot heard around the world.

----------


## Anti Federalist

Declaration of Independence > The Constitution




> That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.


This government is illegitimate. Obviously the constitution did not foresee the ways in which it could be subverted, or it was deliberately written to allow the expansion of power and control. 

I believe the latter, since the Anti Federalists warned everybody *exactly*, to the letter, what was going to happen.

Thus, as written, the constitution is a failure.




> But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security


This is where we are now.

Secession and dissolution is must.

Trying to resuscitate this perambulating walking dead called Amerika is a fools' errand at this point.

At least that's how I see it.

----------


## Henry Rogue

Optimal size of a community between 100 and 230. 150 commonly used as Dundar's Number. Robin Dunbar anthropologist.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Declaration of Independence > The Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> This government is illegitimate. Obviously the constitution did not foresee the ways in which it could be subverted, or it was deliberately written to allow the expansion of power and control. 
> 
> I believe the latter, since the Anti Federalists warned everybody *exactly*, to the letter, what was going to happen.
> 
> Thus, as written, the constitution is a failure.
> ...


Thread WINNARRR!! +rep

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Secession is experiencing a rise in popularity:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...atist-Strategy

----------


## GeorgiaAvenger

> Declaration of Independence > The Constitution
> 
> 
> 
> This government is illegitimate. Obviously the constitution did not foresee the ways in which it could be subverted, or it was deliberately written to allow the expansion of power and control. 
> 
> I believe the latter, since the Anti Federalists warned everybody *exactly*, to the letter, what was going to happen.
> 
> Thus, as written, the constitution is a failure.
> ...


While the Constitution could have been written better, it was written by men. Bear in mind that phrases and such have changed over time in meaning, distorting the intent of the Constitution.

Even if it was written perfectly, there would still be those that would lie that "The Founders did not want us to be bound by their ideas" or "The Constitution is elastic as determined by the courts" and the courts would allow the Constitution to be completely ignored as it is today.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> While the Constitution could have been written better, it was written by men. Bear in mind that phrases and such have changed over time in meaning, distorting the intent of the Constitution.
> 
> Even if it was written perfectly, there would still be those that would lie that "The Founders did not want us to be bound by their ideas" or "The Constitution is elastic as determined by the courts" and the courts would allow the Constitution to be completely ignored as it is today.


Yes, and the Anti Feds specifically warned about that, and they were ignored.

The solution would have been to not invest anywhere near the power that they did in the federal government.

But that's spilled milk at this point.

We're at the end of the road as far as I'm concerned.

People have a human and natural right to throw off oppressive governments and form whatever government they want.

Now, most people would opt for even more control and socialism.

But a minority would not.

Let the socialists go their way and let us go ours.

----------


## Origanalist

> Yes, and the Anti Feds specifically warned about that, and they were ignored.
> 
> The solution would have been to not invest anywhere near the power that they did in the federal government.
> 
> But that's spilled milk at this point.
> 
> We're at the end of the road as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> People have a human and natural right to throw off oppressive governments and form whatever government they want.
> ...


We're willing, they are not.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> We're willing, they are not.


Which is why, ultimately, this will come to a fight.

----------


## Stallheim

The same way these things are accomplished between various nation states, or between international corporations: arbitration, treaty actual agreements. You don't need to come to the table when you can just pick up the phone and get the guys with the guns to do it for you. It is actually the quiet way things have been done throughout history before the rise of super-nationalist states. The tension between competing regions is what allows for the greatest freedom of sovereign individuals according to Jefferson. This concept of 'jurisdictional competition' is key to several important topics studying liberty. For many it satisfactorily cuts the gordian knot of the One World Government vs. no government dichotomy.  


> 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?

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

*Nullification* will be tried first and I hope it succeeds in the short to medium term but in the long term it is not healthy for any union. Nullification is an effective tool when left with little alternative but it is not an ideal; it is a practical method of preventing oppression and in our current situation should be used liberally. *Secession*, if established as a principle, is a much more powerful and clear method of dissenting against an authoritarian government. As a member or league of States it is healthy to judge the Constitutionality of the laws for yourself but in the process you are weakening the relationship between the member States and the strength that comes from said union. If as a spouse you decide to simple refuse to comply with the wishes of your partner but you stay in the relationship, the relationship with deteriorate until either conflict or divorce (secession) results. If the government is not following the Constitution, like any contract, it is null and void and all powers return to the principles of the contract with all agents terminated. If your State believes the government is violating the Constitution or the Natural Rights of the individual your State should separate, or divorce itself from, the union. If a county believes the State is violating their Constitution, or their Natural Rights, it should separate it from the State. If a town believes the County is violating their Natural Rights _it_ should separate. If a neighborhood believe the town is violating their Natural Rights _it_ should separate. If a family believes the neighborhood is violating their Rights _they_ should separate. Finally, the individual, as the origin of all Rights and the arbiter of his or her own destiny, has the Right to separate from any and all of the above. The Declaration of Independence is the greatest secessionist document in human history making secession the most American principle of all. Americans need to remember that.

----------


## Republicanguy

Indepence doesn't work because nations are inter connected and not all can go it alone.

Only a few years ago via the campaign for Liberty, I emailed a man who was an advocate for the tenth amendment, I asked him on a constitutional question regarding Ireland's constitution and perception of the President McAleese's lack of say on sovereignty for Ireland concerning the EU. He never gave me his opinion.

I said that America wasn't always fifty states why must America be a constitutional fifty state union, he was arrogant about it. This guy sounded like a fascist, and some Americans are like that about whether they live in a fifty state union or a forty nine.

I once brought this subject up also a few years ago with an American from New York state, on whether New york would be better out of the union for peaceful reasons, i.e. no war foreign policy. He just said, a state being an independent state would mean having a passport and not having as much money, who would want to live there was his conclusion. I also brought this up with the subject of the Principality of Wales, he said he met somebody who was Welsh and that this welsh man was adament about his identity and being from a state bordering England.

Here in the UK Unionists who are Scottish who were a part of the previous UK government are trying to convince the Scottish that Scotland is better being in Union with England than going it alone, it is possible ofcourse for the state to go alone. But the Scottish are socialist leaning, and some unionists will that they won't have enough money for their country's welfare bill.

I think they could go it alone, it won't be a simple walk in the park, their will be challenges. But ultimately into the future they should have it better being able to steer their own ship.

----------


## Czolgosz

> ...
> 
> But the Scottish are socialist leaning, and some unionists will that they won't have enough money for their country's welfare bill.
> 
> I think they could go it alone, it won't be a simple walk in the park, their will be challenges. But ultimately into the future they should have it better being able to steer their own ship.


And *that* is the fundamental difference.

One sees forced participation into a union as paramount to their success, while the other relies on independence.  The former can exist in the latter, but not vice versa as forced participation is incompatible to the core.


The latter needs to continually fight and rid itself of the statist plague, lest it be consumed.

----------


## bolil

Meh. I'm all for union, but never for binders.

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes, and the Anti Feds specifically warned about that, and they were ignored.
> 
> The solution would have been to not invest anywhere near the power that they did in the federal government.
> 
> But that's spilled milk at this point.
> 
> We're at the end of the road as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> People have a human and natural right to throw off oppressive governments and form whatever government they want.
> ...


Actually the Federal government does not have that much power. They are assuming power they don't have and neither the People or the States are forcing them to obey the law.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

To really explore this issue, the other side should also be explored. Is consolidation a good idea?

----------


## Travlyr

> To really explore this issue, the other side should also be explored. Is consolidation a good idea?


Certainly, consolidation is a good idea against enemies of liberty and peace. Strength in numbers.

----------


## Origanalist

> To really explore this issue, the other side should also be explored. Is consolidation a good idea?


It seems to me we have to much consolidation already. Consolidation leads to ever more brutal war.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Nullification* will be tried first and I hope it succeeds in the short to medium term but in the long term it is not healthy for any union. Nullification is an effective tool when left with little alternative but it is not an ideal; it is a practical method of preventing oppression and in our current situation should be used liberally. *Secession*, if established as a principle, is a much more powerful and clear method of dissenting against an authoritarian government. As a member or league of States it is healthy to judge the Constitutionality of the laws for yourself but in the process you are weakening the relationship between the member States and the strength that comes from said union. If as a spouse you decide to simple refuse to comply with the wishes of your partner but you stay in the relationship, the relationship with deteriorate until either conflict or divorce (secession) results. If the government is not following the Constitution, like any contract, it is null and void and all powers return to the principles of the contract with all agents terminated. If your State believes the government is violating the Constitution or the Natural Rights of the individual your State should separate, or divorce itself from, the union. If a county believes the State is violating their Constitution, or their Natural Rights, it should separate it from the State. If a town believes the County is violating their Natural Rights _it_ should separate. If a neighborhood believe the town is violating their Natural Rights _it_ should separate. If a family believes the neighborhood is violating their Rights _they_ should separate. Finally, the individual, as the origin of all Rights and the arbiter of his or her own destiny, has the Right to separate from any and all of the above. The Declaration of Independence is the greatest secessionist document in human history making secession the most American principle of all. Americans need to remember that.


You sir, are a winner.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Certainly, consolidation is a good idea against enemies of liberty and peace. Strength in numbers.


I am thinking more in terms of nations merging into larger Unions. A lot of consolidation in history has been achieved at the point of a gun.

European Union? North American Union?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> It seems to me we have to much consolidation already. Consolidation leads to ever more brutal war.


And a lot of war to achieve that consolidation. The bigger the Union, the less representation for the mundanes.

Of course everything is fine and happy as long as you pay your taxes to the central authority, and follow all of the rules set forth for you.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I am thinking more in terms of nations merging into larger Unions. A lot of consolidation in history has been achieved at the point of gun.
> *
> European Union? North American Union?*


Soviet Union, German Empire, etc

----------


## Travlyr

> I am thinking more in terms of nations merging into larger Unions. A lot of consolidation in history has been achieved at the point of gun.
> 
> European Union? North American Union?


The European Union and the North American Union are not legitimate states because their primary goal is not the protection of individual rights to life, liberty, health and property. They have a completely different agenda. Agenda 21.

Consolidation of the legitimate state (Rule by Law) is required in order to quell the illegitimate states (Rule by Weapon) as defined by 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.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *The European Union and the North American Union are not legitimate states because their primary goal is not the protection of individual rights to life, liberty, health and property.* They have a completely different agenda. Agenda 21.
> 
> Consolidation of the legitimate state (Rule by Law) is required in order to quell the illegitimate states (Rule by Weapon) as defined by John Locke.


Incorrect.  The EU constitution says this explicitly.

Article I-2
The Union's values
The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the
rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.
These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination,
tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.
Article I-3
The Union's objectives
1. The Union's aim is to promote peace, its values and the well-being of its peoples.
2. The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal
frontiers, and an internal market where competition is free and undistorted.
3. The Union shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic
growth and price stability, a highly competitive social market economy, aiming at full employment
and social progress, and a high level of protection and improvement of the quality of the
environment. It shall promote scientific and technological advance.
It shall combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection,
equality between women and men, solidarity between generations and protection of the rights of the
child.
It shall promote economic, social and territorial cohesion, and solidarity among Member States.
It shall respect its rich cultural and linguistic diversity, and shall ensure that Europe's cultural heritage
is safeguarded and enhanced.
4. In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and
interests. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity
and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of
human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the
development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.
5. The Union shall pursue its objectives by appropriate means commensurate with the competences
which are conferred upon it in the Constitution.


You might argue that the authors' intentions are not sincere-and you'd probably be right.  But the same argument can accurately be leveled against the US Constitution and its authors.

----------


## Travlyr

> Incorrect.  The EU constitution says this explicitly.
> 
> Article I-2
> The Union's values
> *The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the
> rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities.
> These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination,
> tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.*
> Article I-3
> ...


Individual rights =/= Collective rights.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Individual rights =/= Collective rights.


The language is flowery, but it clearly aims to be about individual rights.  I encourage you to read the rest of the EU constitution before commenting on it further.

----------


## Travlyr

Equality?!? HB? 

I don't need to read any further. I suggest you learn the difference between individualism and collectivism before you comment further.

----------


## tod evans

Obviously what we have ain't workin'........

I'm for trying something different.

----------


## Travlyr

> Obviously what we have ain't workin'........
> 
> I'm for trying something different.


Enforcing the Constitutions is actually pretty easy.

These guys are doing their damnest... they could use our support.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4616286

----------


## Stallheim

This is a load of Hooie Travlyr. The flaws in the system from the very beginning has guaranteed that the Federal Government has all the power it wants: instead of the states through the open threat of nullification and then secession trumping Federal Government power grabs, the Supreme Court was put in charge of determining Constitutionality, but the Supreme Court is Federal through and through. In all cases the Federal government decides all cases involving itself. It then enforces all decisions, this is supreme power without check. Unfortunately it has always been unchecked in potential from the ratification of the Constitution but the potential became actual, the nakedness of Federal power fully revealed with the civil war. There is no "going back" from within the system since the system is continuously re-stacked in favor of the central government, by itself. No power will ever be relinquished willingly. Hyperinflation and a withering away is the best we can hope for. Neither the States nor the People are collectives, they are simply people who will always be seduced, divided and conquered. Until the Federal Government loses its power through a runaway economic disaster that robs it of its ability to buy off everyone and systematically marginalize and destroy all opposition. Once Pandora's box of socialism is open, there is no education effort that will convince the majority of it's failing; close the steam-valve of the secessionary solution and disaster is the only possible outcome.   


> Actually the Federal government does not have that much power. They are assuming power they don't have and neither the People or the States are forcing them to obey the law.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is a load of Hooie Travlyr. The flaws in the system from the very beginning has guaranteed that the Federal Government has all the power it wants: instead of the states through the open threat of nullification and then secession trumping Federal Government power grabs, the Supreme Court was put in charge of determining Constitutionality, but the Supreme Court is Federal through and through. In all cases the Federal government decides all cases involving itself. It then enforces all decisions, this is supreme power without check. Unfortunately it has always been unchecked in potential from the ratification of the Constitution but the potential became actual, the nakedness of Federal power fully revealed with the civil war. There is no "going back" from within the system since the system is continuously re-stacked in favor of the central government, by itself. No power will ever be relinquished willingly. Hyperinflation and a withering away is the best we can hope for. Neither the States nor the People are collectives, they are simply people who will always be seduced, divided and conquered. Until the Federal Government loses its power through a runaway economic disaster that robs it of its ability to buy off everyone and systematically marginalize and destroy all opposition. Once Pandora's box of socialism is open, there is no education effort that will convince the majority of it's failing; close the steam-valve of the secessionary solution and disaster is the only possible outcome.


Truth +rep

----------


## Stallheim

Don't you mean Hobbs's Leviathan instead of Locke? ;o) 


> The European Union and the North American Union are not legitimate states because their primary goal is not the protection of individual rights to life, liberty, health and property. They have a completely different agenda. Agenda 21.
> 
> Consolidation of the legitimate state (Rule by Law) is required in order to quell the illegitimate states (Rule by Weapon) as defined by John Locke.

----------


## Travlyr

> This is a load of Hooie Travlyr. The flaws in the system from the very beginning has guaranteed that the Federal Government has all the power it wants: instead of the states through the open threat of nullification and then secession trumping Federal Government power grabs, *the Supreme Court was put in charge of determining Constitutionality*, but the Supreme Court is Federal through and through. In all cases the Federal government decides all cases involving itself. It then enforces all decisions, this is supreme power without check. Unfortunately it has always been unchecked in potential from the ratification of the Constitution but the potential became actual, the nakedness of Federal power fully revealed with the civil war. There is no "going back" from within the system since the system is continuously re-stacked in favor of the central government, by itself. No power will ever be relinquished willingly. Hyperinflation and a withering away is the best we can hope for. Neither the States nor the People are collectives, they are simply people who will always be seduced, divided and conquered. Until the Federal Government loses its power through a runaway economic disaster that robs it of its ability to buy off everyone and systematically marginalize and destroy all opposition. Once Pandora's box of socialism is open, there is no education effort that will convince the majority of it's failing; close the steam-valve of the secessionary solution and disaster is the only possible outcome.


Ah... No. 

The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. 

There are two ways to get that power. The first is through the Constitution itself. The second is by Amendment. The Supreme Court has neither.

See, the Nationalists lost in 1787. They wanted to win but they lost. George Mason was the most influential statesman the world has ever known. He won. He did not sign on to the Constitution. The ratifying process did not allow for the Supreme Court to have the power reserved to the States and the People.

----------


## Travlyr

> Truth +rep


Cute...  _"Rah ... Rah... Shish Boom Bah..._ "

No matter what information is being presented... Cheerlead for the Oligarchy.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Ah... No. 
> 
> The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. 
> 
> There are two ways to get that power. The first is through the Constitution itself. The second is by Amendment. The Supreme Court has neither.
> 
> See, the Nationalists lost in 1787. They wanted to win but they lost. George Mason was the most influential statesman the world has ever known. He won. He did not sign on to the Constitution. The ratifying process did not allow for the Supreme Court to have the power reserved to the States and the People.


And SCOTUS cases are supposed to be heard before a jury (thus allowing the possibility of jury nullification).  So?  The regime is never going to follow the rules.  The Anti-federalists were right.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Cute...  _"Rah ... Rah... Shish Boom Bah..._ "
> 
> No matter what information is being presented... Cheerlead for the Oligarchy.


 Spouting more BS, I see.  To be expected from you.  You seem to have difficulty deciding whether to slander me as a supposed anarchist or "oligarchy sympathizer".  Which is it?  You can't tell both lies at once.

----------


## Travlyr

> Spouting more BS, I see.  To be expected from you.  You seem to have difficulty deciding whether to slander me as a supposed anarchist or "oligarchy sympathizer".  Which is it?  You can't tell both lies at once.


I have never said anything of the sort. Quote me if you will.

----------


## Stallheim

At this point the Constitution, I might argue is even worse than useless. It has long ago been proven to fail as any check on runaway Federal power grabs, look at our system without it and people might well say we have a mild tyranny bordering on fascism. But now they have the Consitution which they can point to as a sacred foundation for the stuff they can twist it into justifying while ignoring any possible restraint that it blatantly demands in its worn and abused literal wording. I am suspecting that the definition of power that you are using is fundamentally toothless.    


> Ah... No. 
> The Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review. 
> 
> There are two ways to get that power. The first is through the Constitution itself. The second is by Amendment. The Supreme Court has neither.
> 
> See, the Nationalists lost in 1787. They wanted to win but they lost. George Mason was the most influential statesman the world has ever known. He won. He did not sign on to the Constitution. The ratifying process did not allow for the Supreme Court to have the power reserved to the States and the People.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I have never said anything of the sort. Quote me if you will.





> Cute...  _"Rah ... Rah... Shish Boom Bah..._ "
> 
> No matter what information is being presented... Cheerlead for the Oligarchy.


Here you lie about me "cheerleading for the Oligarchy"^^



> I don't need anymore reading assignments from you  guys. Answer me this: "What is micro-secession?"


With this last quote^ you lumped me in with anarchists in this thread.  There are others, I just don't have time to dig them up.  

Please pick which way you want to lie about me so people can keep track.

----------


## Travlyr

> At this point the Constitution, I might argue is even worse than useless. It has long ago been proven to fail as any check on runaway Federal power grabs, look at our system without it and people might well say we have a mild tyranny bordering on fascism. But now they have the Consitution which they can point to as a sacred foundation for the stuff they can twist it into justifying while ignoring any possible restraint that it blatantly demands in its worn and abused literal wording. I am suspecting that the definition of power that you are using is fundamentally toothless.


No, the Constitution is not worthless. Read Ron Paul,



> On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives
> September 23, 2004
> 
> Remarks on the Constitution by U.S. Congressman Ron Paul
> 
> "The U.S. Constitution is the most unique and best contract ever drawn up between a people and their government in history. Though flawed from the beginning, because all men are flawed, it nevertheless has served us well and set an example for the entire world. Yet no matter how hard the authors tried, the corrupting influence of power was not thwarted by the Constitution.
> 
> The notion of separate state and local government, championed by the followers of Jefferson, was challenged by the Hamiltonians almost immediately following the ratification of the Constitution. Early on, the supporters of strong, centralized government promoted central banking, easy credit, protectionism/mercantilism, and subsidies for corporate interests.
> 
> ...


"I believe it's worthwhile for all of us to tirelessly pursue the preservation of the elegant Constitution with which we have been so blessed." Ron Paul

----------


## Travlyr

Are you a Ron Paul supporter or do you support the Oligarchy?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

I say we cut Alaska and Hawaii loose...

----------


## Travlyr

> Here you lie about me "cheerleading for the Oligarchy"^^
> 
> With this last quote^ you lumped me in with anarchists in this thread.  There are others, I just don't have time to dig them up.  
> 
> Please pick which way you want to lie about me so people can keep track.


This is verging on pathetic. I have supported Ron Paul's position every day since Dec 2009. HB has opposed me since day one. He is in effect opposing Ron Paul's position on Ron Paul's Forum for years upon years.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This is verging on pathetic. I have supported Ron Paul's position every day since Dec 2009. HB has opposed me since day one. He is in effect opposing Ron Paul's position on Ron Paul's Forum for years upon years.


LMFAO!!!  Speaking of PATHETIC...You're either a comedian, a liar, or a fool. (or perhaps all the above) I donated time, energy, and money to RP's campaign.  Anyone who's been here any significant amount of time knows that I don't oppose Ron's position generally speaking.  Ron's solution is a temporary and short term one, that's all.

Nice trolling, though.

----------


## Stallheim

Persue it, yes. Trust it's power to turn back the forces of tyranny just by believing? I think not. Ron Paul is the greatest and most effective educator for liberty to walk this earth in the past 30 years, his quest for public federal office and the Constitution are his chosen podium and his text respectively. He has been incredibly effective, after all Travlyr, hooked you didn't he? I have visited with him in person on 3 occasions over the last 10 years: and liberty, not the Constitution, is his driving motivation. The Constitution is a compelling tool.

----------


## Travlyr

> LMFAO!!!  You're either a comedian, a liar, or a fool. (or perhaps all the above) I donated time, energy, and money to RP's campaign.  Anyone who's been here any significant amount of time knows that I don't oppose Ron's position generally speaking.  Ron's solution is a temporary and short term one, that's all.
> 
> Nice trolling, though.


So, you are telling us that you are a strict Constitutionalist?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wcuw1nzxQ7Y

----------


## Travlyr

> Persue it, yes. Trust it's power to turn back the forces of tyranny just by believing? I think not. *Ron Paul is the greatest and most effective educator for liberty to walk this earth in the past 30 years*, his quest for public federal office and the Constitution are his chosen podium and his text respectively. He has been incredibly effective, after all Travlyr, hooked you didn't he? I have visited with him in person on 3 occasions over the last 10 years: and liberty, not the Constitution, is his driving motivation. The Constitution is a compelling tool.


And he himself claims to be a strict Constitutionalist.

----------


## Stallheim

> Are you a Ron Paul supporter or do you support the Oligarchy?


I would ask you about this Oligarchy but I don't want to derail your train of thought.

----------


## Travlyr

> I would ask you about this Oligarchy but I don't want to derail your train of thought.


You have to study that on your own time. Let me direct you to some truth. 

Some History.

----------


## Tudo

Is Secession a Good Idea? 

The founders of what became the longest running most free society ever created in the history of the world thoughts so! And until a slick lawyer from the midwest bastardized the Constitution and oversaw the killing of over 600,000 Americans to keep power and control centralized in Washington DC , that freedom would have been assured. But alas history tells us otherwise.
Without that way of disengaging from that central power, the possibility of empire became a reality.

I mean if we had a choice we'd be studying more of what the intent was more than the absolute letter.

----------


## Travlyr

> Is Secession a Good Idea? 
> 
> The founders of what became the longest running most free society ever created in the history of the world thoughts so! *And until a slick lawyer from the midwest bastardized the Constitution and oversaw the killing of over 600,000 Americans to keep power and control centralized in Washington DC* , that freedom would have been assured. But alas history tells us otherwise.
> Without that way of disengaging from that central power, the possibility of empire became a reality.
> 
> I mean if we had a choice we'd be studying more of what the intent was more than the absolute letter.


That is NOT what happened in 1861! That is false history.

----------


## Stallheim

> And he himself claims to be a strict Constitutionalist.


As well he should in his chosen occupation as the premier liberty statesman. It is not a religion, "strict constitutionalist" is how he gets the job done.

----------


## Travlyr

> As well he should in his chosen occupation as the premier liberty statesman. It is not a religion, "strict constitutionalist" is how he gets the job done.


Just like George Mason. It sucked for him... but he did it anyway.

----------


## jay_dub

> That is NOT what happened in 1861! That is false history.


How is it false? 

It's highly abbreviated.....but false?...NO.

----------


## Travlyr

> How is it false? 
> 
> It's highly abbreviated.....but false?...NO.


It is a very false understanding of true history. It is not abbreviated at all. It is simply false. Abraham Lincoln presided over nothing more than war which he knew nothing about. As an abolitionist he found himself at war less than one month after taking office. He presided over the war... more likely the shadow government presided over that... and he was killed right after the war ended. The Civil War was NOT Lincoln's WAR. He was a patsy just like Oswald.

----------


## jay_dub

The issue of secession only came before the SCOTUS once, in 1869. The case was Texas v White and was a case over ownership of bonds. Chief Justice Salmon Chase made an ex post facto ruling in deciding that secession was not possible and that the confederate states did not seced, but were rather in rebellion.

From the majority ruling (remember this was about ownership of bonds):

*Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation".
*
Chase had earlier, in 1867, said this about secession, in regards to bringing Jefferson Davis to trial.

*In his critically acclaimed The Civil War: A Narrative (Volume 3) Shelby Foote, Jr. wrote: By that time [seven months after Davis' capture and incarceration awaiting trial], prominent Northerners  especially those in the legal profession  had seen the weakness of the governments case against Davis and the handful of Confederates yet being held. One who saw it was the Chief Justice [Salmon P. Chase] who would rule on their appeal in the event one was needed, which he doubted. If you bring these leaders to trial it will condemn the North, Chase had warned his former Cabinet colleagues in July, for by the Constitution secession is not rebellion. As for the rebel chieftain, the authorities would have done better not to apprehend him. Lincoln wanted Jefferson Davis to escape, and he was right. His capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason. Secession is settled. Let it stay settled.*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Just like George Mason. It sucked for him... but he did it anyway.


 Did what?  Mason was a leading opponent of the Constitution, co-author of _The Anti-Federalist Papers_.

----------


## jay_dub

> It is a very false understanding of true history. It is not abbreviated at all. It is simply false. Abraham Lincoln presided over nothing more than war which he knew nothing about. As an abolitionist he found himself at war less than one month after taking office. He presided over the war... more likely the shadow government presided over that... and he was killed right after the war ended. The Civil War was NOT Lincoln's WAR. He was a patsy just like Oswald.


On the contrary. Lincoln was intimately involved in both the pretext and prosecution of the war. It is absurd to say it wasn't Lincoln's war.

In a letter to Gustavus Fox, dated May 1, 1861, Lincoln wrote:

*"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."*

----------


## Travlyr

> Did what?  Mason was a leading opponent of the Constitution, co-author of _The Anti-Federalist Papers_.


I truly do wish you would study history rather than promote lies. George Mason did not want to do what he did. He did it out of devotion. George Mason was a true statesman.

----------


## Travlyr

> On the contrary. Lincoln was intimately involved in both the pretext and prosecution of the war. It is absurd to say it wasn't Lincoln's war.
> 
> In a letter to Gustavus Fox, dated May 1, 1861, Lincoln wrote:
> 
> *"You and I both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail ; and it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by the result."*


Shallow History.

----------


## jay_dub

> Shallow History.


Cop-out reply. Wanna go deeper into it? I'm game.

----------


## Travlyr

> Cop-out reply. Wanna go deeper into it? I'm game.


Sure. Let's go. Abraham Lincoln spoke against slavery in 1854. He grew up in an abolitionist home. What do you think his election meant in 1860?

----------


## jay_dub

> Sure. Let's go. Abraham Lincoln spoke against slavery in 1854. He grew up in an abolitionist home. What do you think his election meant in 1860?


None of your above post speaks to Lincoln's own involvement in the WBTS. Is that not what we are discussing?

Besides, the WBTS was not fought over slavery, so Lincoln's views on that subject mean nothing.

Care to start over, and this time base your post on reality?

----------


## Travlyr

> None of your above post speaks to Lincoln's own involvement in the WBTS. Is that not what we are discussing?
> 
> Besides, the WBTS was not fought over slavery, so Lincoln's views on that subject mean nothing.
> 
> Care to start over, and this time base your post on reality?


What is WBTS?

----------


## Travlyr

> What is WBTS?


I ask for honest debate. Please debate honesty. What the $#@! is WBTS?

----------


## jay_dub

> I ask for honest debate. Please debate honesty. What the $#@! is WBTS?


War Between The States. 

I am perfectly willing to make this an honest debate.

----------


## Travlyr

> War Between The States. 
> 
> I am perfectly willing to make this an honest debate.


Then say what you mean and mean what you say. I do not like games.

Abraham Lincoln was against slavery all his life. When he became president he eliminated slavery in America. Personally, I do not agree how he did it, but I have the beauty of 20/20 hindsight. President Lincoln did not have that luxury.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I truly do wish you would study history rather than promote lies. George Mason did not want to do what he did. He did it out of devotion. George Mason was a true statesman.


I haven't promoted a single lie, sir.  The piece I linked to contains loads of citations if you bother to read it.

Mason was indeed a true statesman, and correctly opposed the Constitution.  Were it not for him and others like him, we wouldn't have what few rights we have left.

You also forgot to answer the question I posed to you:



> *Did what?* Mason was a leading opponent of the Constitution, co-author of _The Anti-Federalist Papers_.


Care to answer?

----------


## Stallheim

> None of your above post speaks to Lincoln's own involvement in the WBTS. Is that not what we are discussing?
> 
> Besides, the WBTS was not fought over slavery, so Lincoln's views on that subject mean nothing.
> 
> Care to start over, and this time base your post on reality?


Windows-Based Terminal Server? Web Browser Testing System? Wide Billed Tube Snake? Come on Jay-Dub, this is a pretty shady way to start a debate. Clarity in terms please.

----------


## Travlyr

> I haven't promoted a single lie, sir.  The piece I linked to contains loads of citations if you bother to read it.
> 
> Mason was indeed a true statesman, and correctly opposed the Constitution.  Were it not for him and others like him, we wouldn't have what few rights we have left.


I would appreciate it HB if you would not post in any of the threads which I participate. Post in other threads. You are nothing but a distraction.

----------


## Travlyr

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Stallheim again.

Thank you. Well said.

----------


## jay_dub

> Then say what you mean and mean what you say. I do not like games.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln was against slavery all his life. When he became president he eliminated slavery in America. Personally, I do not agree how he did it, but I have the beauty of 20/20 hindsight. President Lincoln did not have that luxury.


I meant what i said. I do not call that war a 'Civil War' as it was nothing of the sort. WBTS is a common acronym that most anybody that has studied is aware of. 

Are you contending that Lincoln initiated the war to free the slaves? let's start with that point.

----------


## jay_dub

> Windows-Based Terminal Server? Web Browser Testing System? Wide Billed Tube Snake? Come on Jay-Dub, this is a pretty shady way to start a debate. Clarity in terms please.


Really, is what I said so hard to understand, especially seeing the context in which the acronym was used?

Here's what I said:

*"Besides, the WBTS was not fought over slavery, so Lincoln's views on that subject mean nothing."
*

----------


## Stallheim

> Then say what you mean and mean what you say. I do not like games.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln was against slavery all his life. When he became president he eliminated slavery in America. Personally, I do not agree how he did it, but I have the beauty of 20/20 hindsight. President Lincoln did not have that luxury.


Just to quibble a bit, but how can you say that on the one hand Lincoln was the Oswald or stooge of the shadow government on the one hand (when it comes, I suspect, to something you find uncomfortable like starting a war) and then credit him with eliminating slavery? Have you not read Lincoln's own words? He sure wrote as if he knew what he was doing. And in terms of slavery he was also gravely inconsistent in that he oversaw a military draft, a form of slavery that not only puts the slave at risk of death and bodily harm, but also compels him to kill other men against his own conscience. As a devout Christian I suspect Lincoln has some serious reckoning to do on this point alone when he is brought to account before his creator.

----------


## Travlyr

Screw the acronims dude. Clarity is paramount. Say what you mean, in English, and mean what you say.

No. Abraham Lincoln's intentions were not to end slavery in the Civil War. That was icing on the cake. The war was pre-planned. If slavery was to be condemned, then the Southern plantation owners would have denounced slavery on their own. Slavery is a total violation of natural rights... after all.




> *Article II.*
> *Section. 2.*The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


Lincoln was blindsided and then shot dead.

----------


## Stallheim

> Really, is what I said so hard to understand, especially seeing the context in which the acronym was used?
> 
> Here's what I said:
> 
> *"Besides, the WBTS was not fought over slavery, so Lincoln's views on that subject mean nothing."
> *


No, no just joking with you, I got it. Though fighting the Tube Snake over slavery would be a sight to see!

----------


## Travlyr

> Just to quibble a bit, but how can you say that on the one hand Lincoln was the Oswald or stooge of the shadow government on the one hand (when it comes, I suspect, to something you find uncomfortable *like starting a war*) and then credit him with eliminating slavery? Have you not read Lincoln's own words? He sure wrote as if he knew what he was doing. And in terms of slavery he was also gravely inconsistent in that he oversaw a military draft, a form of slavery that not only puts the slave at risk of death and bodily harm, but also compels him to kill other men against his own conscience. As a devout Christian I suspect Lincoln has some serious reckoning to do on this point alone when he is brought to account before his creator.


Lincoln did not start the war.

----------


## Travlyr

_when he is brought to account before his creator._
Abraham Lincoln is sleeping in peace.

----------


## Travlyr

..

----------


## Travlyr

> Just to quibble a bit, but how can you say that on the one hand Lincoln was the Oswald or stooge of the shadow government on the one hand (when it comes, I suspect, to something you find uncomfortable like starting a war) and then credit him with eliminating slavery? Have you not read Lincoln's own words? He sure wrote as if he knew what he was doing. And in terms of slavery he was also gravely inconsistent in that he oversaw a military draft, a form of slavery that not only puts the slave at risk of death and bodily harm, but also compels him to kill other men against his own conscience. As a devout Christian I suspect Lincoln has some serious reckoning to do on this point alone when he is brought to account before his creator.


You, on the other hand, need to study "real" history.

----------


## Stallheim

> _when he is brought to account before his creator._
> Abraham Lincoln is sleeping in peace.


Resting in Peace is what we are all hoping for anyway. I suspect there are no guarantees.

----------


## Travlyr

> Resting in Peace is what we are all hoping for anyway. I suspect there are no guarantees.


There are no guarantees. But being on the right side of history is valuable. Lincoln was on the right side of history because he stood up "Proudly" for the "Declaration of Independence"

----------


## jay_dub

> Screw the acronims dude. Clarity is paramount. Say what you mean, in English, and mean what you say.
> 
> No. Abraham Lincoln's intentions were not to end slavery in the Civil War. That was icing on the cake. The war was pre-planned. If slavery was to be condemned, then the Southern plantation owners would have denounced slavery on their own. Slavery is a total violation of natural rights... after all.
> 
> 
> 
> Lincoln was blindsided and then shot dead.


Ok....so what is the debate point? I mean, you've brought up slavery in every post.

Lincoln was likely assassinated for issuing greenbacks. It wasn't due to a pissed-off Southerner. The war was over and Lincoln's assassination only made the Reconstruction Era a Retribution Era instead.

----------


## Travlyr

> Ok....so what is the debate point? I mean, you've brought up slavery in every post.
> 
> Lincoln was likely assassinated for issuing greenbacks. It wasn't due to a pissed-off Southerner. The war was over and Lincoln's assassination only made the Reconstruction Era a Retribution Era instead.


No, Lincoln was, imo, assassinated because he was a strict Constitutionalist who actually believed that the Declaration of Independence was the founding document for free people for the first time in the history of the world.

----------


## Travlyr

> Ok....so what is the debate point? I mean, you've brought up slavery in every post.
> 
> Lincoln was likely assassinated for issuing greenbacks. It wasn't due to a pissed-off Southerner. The war was over and Lincoln's assassination only made the Reconstruction Era a Retribution Era instead.


The debate point is: Was Lincoln a mad tyrant, or was he a patriot who was taken advantage of to control the people?

----------


## jay_dub

> No, Lincoln was, imo, assassinated because he was a strict Constitutionalist who actually believed that the Declaration of Independence was the founding document for free people for the first time in the history of the world.


From the Declaration of Independence:

*That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.* 

Abraham Lincoln, in an 1848 speech:

*.Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world..."*

Somehow he changed his mind between 1848 and 1861. As President, he provoked and prosecuted a war against a People that had declared their Independence just as the colonists had some 80 years earlier. In prosecuting that war, he sanctioned total war against a civilian population, suspended habeas corpus and locked up thousands of Northerners (including many prominent newsmen and politicians) for nothing more than speaking out against the war.

Yeah, sounds like a real champion of Liberty to me.

----------


## Travlyr

> From the Declaration of Independence:
> 
> *That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.* 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln, in an 1848 speech:
> 
> *.Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better-- This is a most valuable, -- a most sacred right -- a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world..."*
> 
> Somehow he changed his mind between 1848 and 1861. *As President, he provoked and prosecuted a war* against a People that had declared their Independence just as the colonists had some 80 years earlier. In prosecuting that war, he sanctioned total war against a civilian population, suspended habeas corpus and locked up thousands of Northerners (including many prominent newsmen and politicians) for nothing more than speaking out against the war.
> ...


No he didn't. To believe this is to ignore the shadow government in control. The reason that nothing changes from one administration to another is because the shadow government controls the masses. Central bankers who debase currency since the times of Babylon control the people.

----------


## jay_dub

> The debate point is: Was Lincoln a mad tyrant, or was he a patriot who was taken advantage of to control the people?


A real Patriot would not initiate a war to consolidate power of the Federal Government at the expense of over 600,000 people.

Here's a bit with Ron Paul and his view.

----------


## Stallheim

> The debate point is: Was Lincoln a mad tyrant, or was he a patriot who was taken advantage of to control the people?


I actually thought this was about secession and Lincoln's part if any in the issue. If Lincoln really had nothing to do with the war to preserve the Union, and was just into freeing slaves, preserving the Constitution and championing the Declaration and everything else that happened was do to the nefarious puppet masters behind the throne, then I love this guy. Slavery IS in direct opposition to natural law, civilization and the libertarian NAP (Non-Agression Principle, don't get your knickers in a twist). My big beef is with people invoking LINCOLN and slavery when the subject of secession comes up, this should have no bearing at all on a theoretical discussion of secession unless Lincoln's policies and decisions related to the preservation of the Union and War are being examined APART from slavery. Slavery is crucial to understanding Lincoln, and it is key to dissecting the tensions between the states and the Federal Government at that time, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the appropriateness of ether secession or the Constitutionally/Declarationally appropriate response to it.

----------


## Travlyr

> A real Patriot would not initiate a war to consolidate power of the Federal Government at the expense of over 600,000 people.
> 
> Here's a bit with Ron Paul and his view.


Ron Paul is right again!

The Civil War was not fought for slavery. It was fought because the South was denied their rights to export their products without tariffs. Ending slavery was simply the icing on the cake for Abraham Lincoln.

----------


## jay_dub

> No he didn't. To believe this is to ignore the shadow government in control. The reason that nothing changes from one administration to another is because the shadow government controls the masses. Central bankers who debase currency since the times of Babylon control the people.


So we should just give everybody a 'pass' on atrocities, 'cause....you know, they're not really in control.

Here's one that shows just how (un)involved Lincoln was in the war.

*In April, 1862 Union General John Basil Turchin unleashed his troops on Athens, Alabama. Turchin told his troops, "I shut mine eyes for two hours. I see nothing". What followed was a spree of looting, raping and pillaging. When news of this brutality reached General Don Carlos Buell in June, he launched an investigation and had Turchin relieved of his command on July 2. Charges stemmed from not only the brutal behavior but also from Turchin's having his wife accompany him in the field. Turchin was court-marshaled, found guilty and sentenced to dismissal from the Army in August, 1862.

President Lincoln set the order aside and promoted Turchin to Brigadier General, retroactive to July 17.
*
From ...Encyclopedia of the American Civil War P. 1984

----------


## Travlyr

> I actually thought this was about secession and Lincoln's part if any in the issue. If Lincoln really had nothing to do with the war to preserve the Union, and was just into freeing slaves, preserving the Constitution and championing the Declaration and everything else that happened was do to the nefarious puppet masters behind the throne, then I love this guy. Slavery IS in direct opposition to natural law, civilization and the libertarian NAP (Non-Agression Principle, don't get your knickers in a twist). My big beef is with people invoking LINCOLN and slavery when the subject of secession comes up, this should have no bearing at all on a theoretical discussion of secession unless Lincoln's policies and decisions related to the preservation of the Union and War are being examined APART from slavery. Slavery is crucial to understanding Lincoln, and it is key to dissecting the tensions between the states and the Federal Government at that time, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the appropriateness of ether secession or the Constitutionally/Declarationally appropriate response to it.


Oh No, do not mistake the fact that President Abraham Lincoln did not value the Union over secession. Lincoln, imo, was wrong on secession, but he was right to come to the aid of slaves. Brazil did not end slavery until what? 1888?

----------


## Stallheim

> Ron Paul is right again!
> 
> The Civil War was not fought for slavery. It was fought because the South was denied their rights to export their products without tariffs. Ending slavery was simply the icing on the cake for Abraham Lincoln.


Ok, I'm following you, and Lincoln had no part in this war to keep the South from Seceding, that was the shadow government, the bankers and the Hamiltonians. Back to Secession then, as far as Lincoln was concerned being the champion of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, the South should have been allowed to leave and had he had the power to stop the wheels that were set in motion by Warmongers and Merchants of Death he would have let them go? If this is your take, I am satisfied to let it stand. I have absolutely no interest in tearing down people's heroes.

Can we discuss your belief about what the Declaration and the Constitution imply about secession? Are you for or against?

----------


## Travlyr

> So we should just give everybody a 'pass' on atrocities, 'cause....you know, they're not really in control.
> 
> Here's one that shows just how (un)involved Lincoln was in the war.
> 
> *In April, 1862 Union General John Basil Turchin unleashed his troops on Athens, Alabama. Turchin told his troops, "I shut mine eyes for two hours. I see nothing". What followed was a spree of looting, raping and pillaging. When news of this brutality reached General Don Carlos Buell in June, he launched an investigation and had Turchin relieved of his command on July 2. Charges stemmed from not only the brutal behavior but also from Turchin's having his wife accompany him in the field. Turchin was court-marshaled, found guilty and sentenced to dismissal from the Army in August, 1862.
> 
> President Lincoln set the order aside and promoted Turchin to Brigadier General, retroactive to July 17.
> *
> From ...Encyclopedia of the American Civil War P. 1984


NO. They are the enemy of Liberty! Do not give up. Aim directly at the right target to end the tyranny. End The Fed.

----------


## jay_dub

> I actually thought this was about secession and Lincoln's part if any in the issue. If Lincoln really had nothing to do with the war to preserve the Union, and was just into freeing slaves, preserving the Constitution and championing the Declaration and everything else that happened was do to the nefarious puppet masters behind the throne, then I love this guy. Slavery IS in direct opposition to natural law, civilization and the libertarian NAP (Non-Agression Principle, don't get your knickers in a twist). My big beef is with people invoking LINCOLN and slavery when the subject of secession comes up, this should have no bearing at all on a theoretical discussion of secession unless Lincoln's policies and decisions related to the preservation of the Union and War are being examined APART from slavery. Slavery is crucial to understanding Lincoln, and it is key to dissecting the tensions between the states and the Federal Government at that time, but it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the appropriateness of ether secession or the Constitutionally/Declarationally appropriate response to it.


I agree, and Lincoln's own words show that slavery wasn't the cause for the war. One only need look at his First Inaugural address and see this. If the war was truly over slavery, all the South needed to do was to stay in the Union. But the secession of the Southern states was over tariffs much more than slavery.

This debate should probably have its own thread, but I won't let a Lincoln apologist go unchallenged. He was a cruel bastard that has the blood of a nation on his hands.

From the First Inaugural:

*Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

  Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.*

Yet within 6 weeks of making this speech, the nation was at war.

----------


## Travlyr

> Ok, I'm following you, and Lincoln had no part in this war to keep the South from Seceding, that was the shadow government, the bankers and the Hamiltonians. Back to Secession then, as far as Lincoln was concerned being the champion of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, the South should have been allowed to leave and had he had the power to stop the wheels that were set in motion by Warmongers and Merchants of Death he would have let them go? If this is your take, I am satisfied to let it stand. I have absolutely no interest in tearing down people's heroes.


*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.

----------


## jay_dub

> Ron Paul is right again!
> 
> The Civil War was not fought for slavery. It was fought because the South was denied their rights to export their products without tariffs. Ending slavery was simply the icing on the cake for Abraham Lincoln.


And who do you think it was denying the South its rights? BTW, it was tariffs on imports that caused the problem.

----------


## jay_dub

> *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.


Reality is that this country was founded on secession from the Crown. I can only infer from your comment that you wish to be a loyal British subject.

----------


## Travlyr

> Reality is that this country was founded on secession from the Crown. I can only infer from your comment that you wish to be a loyal British subject.


Define secession.

----------


## jay_dub

> Define secession.


Huh?? 

*se·ces·sion/səˈseSHən/
Noun:	

    The action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, esp. a political state: "secession from the union".*

Here's a question for you. Do we have the right to withdraw from the United Nations?

----------


## Stallheim

I am not sure I understand all of what you have written here, could I ask for some clarification? 

*You wrote: Secession is silly.... I am for secession philosophically, and against it in reality.* 
Silly or not, would you support government actions taken to thwart secession, or do you mean you just wouldn't stick your neck out personally to accomplish it?

*You wrote: It is more important to understand freedom than it is to succumb to tyranny.*
I don't see the connection to your comment about secession being silly here. I think perhaps you see a causal relationship and have left out a few logical steps for the sake of brevity but I am having trouble connecting the dots. Like your inference that I was an apologist some sort of Olagarchy I am not sure what you are trying to say. Could you lay it out a little more clearly? 

*You Wrote: Hold secession dear and fight against tyranny anyway.* 
Yeah! I totally get and agree with this statement! (even if it is silly, right ;o)

*You wrote: Do not pretend that hiding behind Mama's skirt will make you free.*
Not sure what you were implying by this. I thought by Mama you might be illustrating the Nanny state, hiding from the unknown. That we must be couragous to face the  danger of starting fresh, and trailblazing a new, freer frontier, Declaration style. Something compatible with "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." But maybe you were saying something very different.

----------


## Travlyr

> Huh?? 
> 
> *se·ces·sion/səˈseSHən/
> Noun:	
> 
>     The action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, esp. a political state: "secession from the union".*
> 
> Here's a question for you. Do we have the right to withdraw from the United Nations?


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?

----------


## jay_dub

> 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?


The Union you speak of was a voluntary union on sovereign nations, which the colonies were after gaining their independence from England. The colonists did not give up their sovereignty by signing the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution. 

Why do I need to justify asserting a right that was never relinquished?

Edit: The UN charter has been ratified.

*In 1945, representatives of 50 countries met in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference on International Organization to draw up the United Nations Charter. Those delegates deliberated on the basis of proposals worked out by the representatives of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States at Dumbarton Oaks, United States in August-October 1944. The Charter was signed on 26 June 1945 by the representatives of the 50 countries. Poland, which was not represented at the Conference, signed it later and became one of the original 51 Member States.

The United Nations officially came into existence on 24 October 1945, when the Charter had been ratified by China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and by a majority of other signatories. United Nations Day is celebrated on 24 October each year.*

http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/history/

----------


## TheTexan

> Is Secession a Good Idea?


Yes, it is

----------


## Travlyr

> Yes, it is


If, and only if, you want to get the $#@! kicked out of you.

----------


## TheTexan

> If, and only if, you want to get the $#@! kicked out of you.


That's the kind of pussy $#@! attitude that got us in this mess.

Grow some balls.

----------


## jay_dub

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

----------


## Stallheim

> 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.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> If, and only if, you want to get the $#@! kicked out of you.


Therefore, the signers of the DoI were fools only wanting to get the $#@! kicked out of themselves.

----------


## Travlyr

> Therefore, the signers of the DoI were fools only wanting to get the $#@! kicked out of themselves.


I did not say that the signers of the Declaration were fools. Those are your words. Nonetheless, they got the $#@! 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.

----------


## jay_dub

The States created the Union. It is beyond absurd to think that the Creation should have supremacy over the Creator.

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## jay_dub

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*

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> *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

----------


## jay_dub

> 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".*

----------


## jay_dub

> 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.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 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

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I did not say that the signers of the Declaration were fools. Those are your words.


No, but you said something equally foolish: 


> If, and only if, you want to get the $#@! 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)*10-20-2012 10:12 PM
Travlyr
*Thread: Is Secession a Good Idea?*
Leave me alone you $#@!ing dumbass. You are $#@!ing moron.

----------


## Travlyr

> 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)*10-20-2012 10:12 PM
> Travlyr
> *Thread: Is Secession a Good Idea?*
> Leave me alone you $#@!ing dumbass. You are $#@!ing moron.


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

----------


## Travlyr

> That's the kind of pussy $#@! attitude that got us in this mess.
> 
> Grow some balls.


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

----------


## jay_dub

> 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

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## jay_dub

> 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.

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.
> ...


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.

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.

----------


## Republicanguy

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.

----------


## TheTexan

> 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)

----------


## osan

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.

----------


## Stallheim

> 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.

----------


## Stallheim

> 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.

----------


## jay_dub

> 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

----------


## TheTexan

> 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.


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.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 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.




> 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.  




> 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.





> _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.

----------


## Gumba of Liberty

> 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.

----------


## TheTexan

> 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

----------


## Stallheim

> 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.

----------


## 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.
> ...


"_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.
> ...


+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.
> ...


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?

----------


## osan

> 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.


OK, you need to make yourself clear because judging by your writing thus far, and of a number of conclusions may be reached regarding your exact position in all of this.

You state above that both humanitarian bases for pressing men into military service and slavery are violations of human rights.  That would make them both wrong, would it not?  Yet in another post did you not argue in favor of such humanitarian action, or do I have you confused with someone else?

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.


Do you really believe that we are fighting wars for humanitarian reasons today? Just because the media tells you something does not mean it is true. OTOH, chattel slavery is a true violation of human rights of which we know was true. I'll bet real money that many slaves were very happy that some people believed strongly enough in ending slavery to set them free.

----------


## Travlyr

> OK, you need to make yourself clear because judging by your writing thus far, and of a number of conclusions may be reached regarding your exact position in all of this.
> 
> You state above that both humanitarian bases for *pressing men into military service* and slavery are violations of human rights.  That would make them both wrong, would it not?  Yet in another post did you not argue in favor of such humanitarian action, or do I have you confused with someone else?


Where did I make that statement in bold?

----------


## Stallheim

> I'll bet real money that many slaves were very happy that some people believed strongly enough in ending slavery to set them free.


I would bet real money that some arms manufactures were very happy that some people believed strongly enough in ending slavery to set them free by means of a war instead of some other more surgical and discerning an approach. But what does this prove in the end?

----------


## Travlyr

> 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?


Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.

Do not make the assumption that war is necessary to correct human rights violations unless all other peaceful avenues fail.

----------


## Stallheim

> Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.
> 
> Do not make the assumption that war is necessary to correct human rights violations unless all other peaceful avenues fail.


 These two sentences don't seem to have any connection to the quote you are responding to. Could you clarify the points you are trying to make here?

----------


## Travlyr

> 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.


Second sentence in bold.




> Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.
> 
> Do not make the assumption that war is necessary to correct human rights violations unless all other peaceful avenues fail.


I clearly stated earlier that humanitarian reasons are violations of human rights. = Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.

It is a simple statement of fact.

You make the assumption that I want to go to war to correct human rights violations. That is not true. However, I am willing to stand up for my rights and the rights of others with force IF NECESSARY.

----------


## TheTexan

> Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.


There's a $#@!load of human rights, and it's different everywhere, depending on your culture, upbringing, philosophy, community.

The only human right that matters is secession.  

For example you have implied that a girlfriend has a right to not be beaten.  As long as she has the ability to leave that relationship, or force the boyfriend to leave that relationship (if the home belongs to her), then her right to not be beaten remains protected.  If she continues to be beaten, it is by her choice.  Like it or not, its not your place to go riding in on your white horse to save the day.

(Assuming she is outside of your jurisdiction...  if she's your neighbor, and your community outlaws beating girlfriends... then its a different story)

----------


## Stallheim

> Second sentence in bold.
> 
> 
> 
> I clearly stated earlier that humanitarian reasons are violations of human rights. = Violations of human rights is a humanitarian event.
> 
> It is a simple statement of fact.
> 
> You make the assumption that I want to go to war to correct human rights violations. That is not true. However, I am willing to stand up for my rights and the rights of others with force IF NECESSARY.


I do not make that assumption that you want to got to war to correct human rights violations, but I am pleased to hear of your conviction in opposing that very common point of view. Standing up for the rights of others is what sets the courageous man truly apart. When it comes to this whole humanitarian discussion, I was simply questioning why you differentiated the Civil War as a humanitarian war compared with others like WWII. I just don't think that any war should be labeled as humanitarian since this might lead to a falsely emotional justification or at least a sympathetic appeal to side with the aggressors. That is all. You were not making a strong case for the Civil War being Humanitarian, you said perhaps, I don't want to hold you too firmly to a loose inference that you made.

----------


## Travlyr

> Like it or not, its not your place to go riding in on your white horse to save the day.


That is easy to say if you are not the one getting beaten. 

We tolerate millions of non-violent offenders behind bars in America because too few people are standing up for the rights of others. We tolerate predator drones in the skies because too few people want to get involved and save the day. We tolerate a police state because too few want to enforce their rights until it is too late. We tolerate a monetary system of counterfeiting theft for the same reasons.

Freedom is not free. If we are not willing to stand up for our rights and the rights of others, then who is going to join you in standing up for your rights when they are being violated?

----------


## TheTexan

> That is easy to say if you are not the one getting beaten.


If a person is being beaten but does not want to leave the relationship there's not much you can do.  You can force her to leave the relationship, but a) that's wrong, and b) would probably do more harm than good




> We tolerate millions of non-violent offenders behind bars in America because too few people are standing up for the rights others.


Violates the right of secession.  Save them.  Give me a call I'll stand by your side.




> We tolerate predator drones in the skies because too few people want to get involved and save the day. We tolerate a police state because too few want to enforce their rights until it is too late. We tolerate a monetary system of counterfeiting theft for the same reasons.


Wars of this nature are a violation of the right of secession.  The arabs don't have the freedom to disassociate themselves from our country's interventions.  Additionally, this is all funded because our right of secession is being violated.  Stand up for yourself, and these people, give me a call, and I'll be by your side.




> Freedom is not free. If we are not willing to stand up for our rights and the rights of others, then who is going to join you in standing up for your rights when they are being violated?


I'm willing to stand up for the right of freedom.  The right of secession IS freedom.  Where it is being violated (and given the state of the world... that's pretty much everywhere)... I support 100% any efforts to fight for that right.

I do not support overthrowing dictators.  I support seceding from dictators.  I do not support forcing our rule of law on others.  I support giving people the freedom to follow their own rule of law.

----------


## Stallheim

> There's a $#@!load of human rights, and it's different everywhere, depending on your culture, upbringing, philosophy, community.
> 
> The only human right that matters is secession.  
> 
> For example you have implied that a girlfriend has a right to not be beaten.  As long as she has the ability to leave that relationship, or force the boyfriend to leave that relationship (if the home belongs to her), then her right to not be beaten remains protected.  If she continues to be beaten, it is by her choice.  Like it or not, its not your place to go riding in on your white horse to save the day.
> 
> (Assuming she is outside of your jurisdiction...  if she's your neighbor, and your community outlaws beating girlfriends... then its a different story)


I really disagree with this. Coming to the aid of a person threatened with force is well within classical liberal, Libertarian or even Anarchist logical boundaries. The non-aggression principle relates to the initiation of violence (or the overt threat thereof) once this threat has emerged then anyone can aid that person without violating NAP. There are extensive discussions of this on mises.org, in Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty, over at Reason, and with the Cato and FEE people, as well as in Hoppe's Democracy the God that Failed. By all means go ride in on you white horse. 

Now that being said, you are afforded no special protections for riding in and saving someone. Also there is nothing here to suggest that individual decision makers have any justification for forcing anyone else to do this white horse rescuing on their behalf. Even worse, a state initiating a war to do this liberating, renders the electorate complicit in the invasion (whether individuals agree specifically with it or not) and by extension the argument can be logically made that they are all then subject to retaliation, pre-emptive strikes and the like for their aquessence to and participation in the system they subserviate themselves to. This was why the founders were so vehement about a reactionary, non-entangling foreign policy.

----------


## TheTexan

> I really disagree with this. Coming to the aid of a person threatened with force is well within classical liberal, Libertarian or even Anarchist logical boundaries.


There's a Communist state known for police brutality.  The political rhetoric is the police brutality keeps everyone safe.  I, with no money or property, decide to enter their country, and they gladly welcome me.

I'm living near the border to your country, living in my small apartment building.  Smoking cigarettes is illegal.  I know it's illegal.  But I enjoy a smoke every now and then.  I go outside, sit on a bench, don't see anyone around, and I light up a cigarette.

Police see me on their cameras, and beat the $#@! out of me.  They won't kill me, and there's no permanent damage... this happens all the time in this country.

You're sitting across the border, and you see it happen.

Do you intervene?  Do you want to intervene?  Should you intervene?  Is it morally right to intervene?

----------


## Stallheim

> There's a Communist state known for police brutality.  The political rhetoric is the police brutality keeps everyone safe.  I, with no money or property, decide to enter their country, and they gladly welcome me.
> 
> I'm living near the border to your country, living in my small apartment building.  Smoking cigarettes is illegal.  I know it's illegal.  But I enjoy a smoke every now and then.  I go outside, sit on a bench, don't see anyone around, and I light up a cigarette.
> 
> Police see me on their cameras, and beat the $#@! out of me.  They won't kill me, and there's no permanent damage... this happens all the time in this country.
> 
> You're sitting across the border, and you see it happen.
> 
> Do you intervene?  Do you want to intervene?  Should you intervene?  Is it morally right to intervene?


Ok, Nope, I do not want to risk my life, property or freedom to help you. Do I want to? Not particularly, I think it is terrible for them to do this to you but that is part of the reason I live where I do, but I also think it is foolish for you to live where you do if you really like to smoke so much. I just don't feel that moral urge to intervene, and there are plenty of moral justifications I can come up with for not doing it, morality is intensely personal or it has no value. It would be wrong to force me to intervene as well. Did I pass the test? I think I need a harder one! If you want to leave (personal secession) and they try to prevent you from going I would still weigh my personal commitment to you against my concern for myself and others  I care more about.

----------


## jmdrake

> He pandered.
> 
> He was an abolitionist.  A famous one.  His election was seen as a mandate to end slavery.  It sparked the war.  Then he was a president of a war-torn country which would rather not have been at war.  So, he felt the need to reassure the abolitionists, the pro-slavery people, and those who didn't much care that he, first and foremost, was working for the day when a union would be back at peace--and with just as many states as it started with.
> 
> Presumably it sounded good at the time.  And I have little doubt that he was distressed to be part of the cause of a war.  But the war would likely have come with or without him.  Many people wanted an end to slavery, and the union united.  They wanted to have their cake and eat it too.


_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again_

Sometimes I feel like the lone ranger for keeping a balanced view on Lincoln.  He was neither the vampire nor the vampire slayer.

----------


## jmdrake

> I believe nullification > secession. As the writer pointed out secession has a negative connotation. Then there is always the argument that 'We'll we know how THAT worked out last time." Stay in the Union and let the Union know that it is limited in what it may do on a federal level.






Edit:  And a funny introduction to the "tariff of abominations".




> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVu...eature=related

----------


## TheTexan

> Ok, Nope, I do not want to risk my life, property or freedom to help you. Do I want to? Not particularly, I think it is terrible for them to do this to you but that is part of the reason I live where I do, but I also think it is foolish for you to live where you do if you really like to smoke so much. I just don't feel that moral urge to intervene, and there are plenty of moral justifications I can come up with for not doing it, morality is intensely personal or it has no value. It would be wrong to force me to intervene as well. Did I pass the test? I think I need a harder one! If you want to leave (personal secession) and they try to prevent you from going I would still weigh my personal commitment to you against my concern for myself and others  I care more about.


You personally would not intervene.  Would you have any objections if someone else wanted to intervene?

----------


## Travlyr

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnTlmznJTXo
> 
> Edit:  And a funny introduction to the "tariff of abominations".


Excellent video. Nullification before Secession.

----------


## jmdrake

> 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"?


Ummm....no.  If that were true then the south wouldn't have been bitching about the north not enforcing "fugitive slave laws".

----------


## Anti Federalist

My outlook is equally grim, especially as I watch millions upon millions of people willingly accept and pay for their own shackles by immersing themselves in the latest gadgets and technologies.





> 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.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My outlook is equally grim, especially as I watch millions upon millions of people willingly accept and pay for their own shackles by immersing themselves in the latest gadgets and technologies.


Indeed.  Part of our modern Bread And Circuses routine.

----------


## Stallheim

> You personally would not intervene.  Would you have any objections if someone else wanted to intervene?


Tell me some details about this intervening person. Do I know them? Have they claimed any authority over me? what is our relationship? After all I live right on the border, I don't want this coming back to bite me.

----------


## TheTexan

> Tell me some details about this intervening person. Do I know them? Have they claimed any authority over me? what is our relationship? After all I live right on the border, I don't want this coming back to bite me.


Just some guy you don't know.  He feels very strongly about police brutality and feels morally compelled to intervene.

Would you object to his intervention, and if so, is blowback on you your only objection to his intervention?

----------


## Stallheim

> Just some guy you don't know.  He feels very strongly about police brutality and feels morally compelled to intervene.
> 
> Would you object to his intervention, and if so, is blowback on you your only objection to his intervention?


No and Yes

----------


## TheTexan

> No and Yes


I for one do object.  That Communist community is entirely voluntary, and they believe that police brutality is "for the greater good."  I, as a citizen of that Communist state, agree with that, and voluntarily moved there knowing there would be a high likelihood I would become a victim of police brutality.  Even after it happens to me, I still believe the police brutality is good policy.

For someone to intervene, is to tell me that I am not allowed to live my life the way I like it.  I object to that completely.  

That kind of thinking has ramifications far and above simple police brutality.  You are in effect saying, that if someone believes that they know how I should live my life, and they are willing to invade my land, my community, to make that happen, you do not object to it.

I couldn't disagree more.

----------


## osan

> Do you really believe that we are fighting wars for humanitarian reasons today?


I do not recall either saying or implying such a thing.  But to be explicit, no.  And even if I did, I would consider them immoral if engaging in such a war exposed innocent people at home to retaliation or other related dangers and if men were forced to fight.




> Just because the media tells you something does not mean it is true. OTOH, chattel slavery is a true violation of human rights of which we know was true. I'll bet real money that many slaves were very happy that some people believed strongly enough in ending slavery to set them free.


That may be so, but it still was not the North's business to interfere.  Slavery would have lasted perhaps another 10 or 15 years.  The moment machinery such as the cotton gin came into widespread use, the need for slaves would have rapidly evaporated.  Chattel slavery is a costly proposition for the owners.  It is, in fact, more costly than simply hiring labor.  You do not have to feed hires, nor clothe, not doctor, nor house them.  Given this, I am not even quite sure why slaves were used, other than it was a cultural momentum phenomenon that was on the wane in any event.

----------


## jay_dub

> I do not recall either saying or implying such a thing.  But to be explicit, no.  And even if I did, I would consider them immoral if engaging in such a war exposed innocent people at home to retaliation or other related dangers and if men were forced to fight.
> 
> 
> 
> That may be so, but it still was not the North's business to interfere.  Slavery would have lasted perhaps another 10 or 15 years.  The moment machinery such as the cotton gin came into widespread use, the need for slaves would have rapidly evaporated.  Chattel slavery is a costly proposition for the owners.  It is, in fact, more costly than simply hiring labor.  You do not have to feed hires, nor clothe, not doctor, nor house them.  Given this, I am not even quite sure why slaves were used, other than it was a cultural momentum phenomenon that was on the wane in any event.


Just a point of correction. The cotton gin, with its ability to process more cotton, actually created a need for more slaves.

I agree that slavery, though, would have died a natural death on its own. 

Slavery had been around in the American colonies since the 1600's. At first, slaves were very cheap. The Dutch offered free slaves to people in order to settle New Amsterdam (New York City). The importation of slaves was outlawed as of 1808. After that, the cost of slaves went up drastically. 

As to the whole morality of slavery, it cannot be looked at in isolation through a modern lens. There were, in fact, people being treated worse in America than the typical slave. Their maltreatment continued long after slavery was abolished.

While the Southern economy was powered by slave labor, Northern factories were often powered by child labor. 

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

*Theophilus Fisk, a Connecticut publisher and Jackson Democrat is ranked as one of the major leaders of the early U.S. labor movement. Fisk denounced wealthy White campaigners for negro rights and in 1836 gave what has been described as a fierce anti-abolitionist speech in South Carolina. Fisks anger derived from his observation that White slavery had been ignored. Fisk found that Americas slaves had pale faces and as abolitionism grew in Boston, called for an end to indulging sympathies for Blacks in the South and for immediate emancipation of the White (factory) slaves of the North..

Charles Douglass, president of the New England Association of Farmers, Mechanics and Other Working Men, described the four thousand White children and women at work in the factories of Lowell, Massachusetts in the 1860s as dragging out a life of slavery and wretchedness... These establishments (New Englands factories) are the present abode of wretchedness, disease and misery...

Ruth Holland, commenting on the participation of New England factory owners in the cause of abolitionism and rights for negroes in the south, observed, Its a little difficult to believe that northern mill owners, who were mercilessly abusing (White) children for profit, felt such pure moral indignation at (negro) slavery.* 

http://www.whattheproblemis.com/docu...ere-slaves.pdf

----------


## Stallheim

> I for one do object.  That Communist community is entirely voluntary, and they believe that police brutality is "for the greater good."  I, as a citizen of that Communist state, agree with that, and voluntarily moved there knowing there would be a high likelihood I would become a victim of police brutality.  Even after it happens to me, I still believe the police brutality is good policy.
> 
> For someone to intervene, is to tell me that I am not allowed to live my life the way I like it.  I object to that completely.  
> 
> That kind of thinking has ramifications far and above simple police brutality.  You are in effect saying, that if someone believes that they know how I should live my life, and they are willing to invade my land, my community, to make that happen, you do not object to it.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more.


Not my community, not my fight, not even my country!  I am not an officer of the law, I am not an elected official, he isn't my kid, he isn't even my neighbor. Feel free to kick his ass, but he isn't my responsibility as a complete stranger. You can object but you can't convince me to even break a sweat over your strange commitments to your foreign police state. Don't get me wrong, I support you fully in objecting until you are blue in the face.

----------


## Stallheim

> As to the whole morality of slavery, it cannot be looked at in isolation through a modern lens. There were, in fact, people being treated worse in America than the typical slave. Their maltreatment continued long after slavery was abolished.
> 
> While the Southern economy was powered by slave labor, Northern factories were often powered by child labor.


No, certain moral judgments can be made for all time; slavery is always bad, denying the very fundamental of ownership of one's own self, and hence self determination. No justification of conditions is acceptable here, since the fundamental is unchanged. Child labor sounds bad, conditions sound worse? but is it voluntarily chosen? Then it is not worse than slavery, if the children are held against their will or forced to work, then it IS slavery anyway. The modern income tax and the military draft are also forms of partial slavery too. I object to them all fundamentally to the degree of total enslavement that they represent. Perhaps one can make a case that certain slaves were allowed to do certain things, earn money, have some free time; well in this case they were not a total slave then, just mostly enslaved. If you must pay 50% of your income to the government under threat of imprisonment then as far as the labor that you expend to earn that taxed income you are 50% enslaved, no matter how nice the IRS agent you deal with is, or how much time and leniency they give you to cough it all up. 

My quibble might be unjustified if you are simply saying that there were children and white slaves in the North as well. But slavery can be looked at as theoretically bad for all time, in my opinion. See Rothbard, especially Ethics of Liberty and Hoppe DTGTF

----------


## Stallheim

> I for one do object.  That Communist community is entirely voluntary, and they believe that police brutality is "for the greater good."  I, as a citizen of that Communist state, agree with that, and voluntarily moved there knowing there would be a high likelihood I would become a victim of police brutality.  Even after it happens to me, I still believe the police brutality is good policy.
> 
> For someone to intervene, is to tell me that I am not allowed to live my life the way I like it.  I object to that completely.  
> 
> That kind of thinking has ramifications far and above simple police brutality.  You are in effect saying, that if someone believes that they know how I should live my life, and they are willing to invade my land, my community, to make that happen, you do not object to it.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more.


Also I see absolutely no moral requirement to support any foreign governmental system of coercion, no matter who likes and supports it. I have no horse in that race.

----------


## jay_dub

> No, certain moral judgments can be made for all time; slavery is always bad, denying the very fundamental of ownership of one's own self, and hence self determination. No justification of conditions is acceptable here, since the fundamental is unchanged. Child labor sounds bad, conditions sound worse? but is it voluntarily chosen? Then it is not worse than slavery, if the children are held against their will or forced to work, then it IS slavery anyway. The modern income tax and the military draft are also forms of partial slavery too. I object to them all fundamentally to the degree of total enslavement that they represent. Perhaps one can make a case that certain slaves were allowed to do certain things, earn money, have some free time; well in this case they were not a total slave then, just mostly enslaved. If you must pay 50% of your income to the government under threat of imprisonment then as far as the labor that you expend to earn that taxed income you are 50% enslaved, no matter how nice the IRS agent you deal with is, or how much time and leniency they give you to cough it all up. 
> 
> My quibble might be unjustified if you are simply saying that there were children and white slaves in the North as well. But slavery can be looked at as theoretically bad for all time, in my opinion. See Rothbard, especially Ethics of Liberty and Hoppe DTGTF


Nothing in my post in any way justified slavery. I only said you can't look at in isolation.

At the time, we were not that far removed from burning and drowning witches. Following a slave riot in New York in 1741, slaves were burned at the stake. This was not a 21st century society. 

My post was just to offer context to the human condition in Colonial and Antebellum America. 

We are talking about secession and all mostly agree that yes, the ability to secede is essential to a free people. The problem is, in America the discussion always goes back to our own example of secession. In that slavery always comes up. It is a red herring that discredits the notion of secession and justifies the essential liberties that were given up in a war that popular history has justified largely by invoking the slavery issue. While the US applauds secession globally, our own ability to secede has been taken us; from supposedly the most free people on Earth. 

Providing context and looking at the whole cloth of that era is critical in changing the collective consciousness. Otherwise, we will continue to use the South and slavery as the scapegoat for turning the Constitution on its head.

----------


## Stallheim

> Nothing in my post in any way justified slavery. I only said you can't look at in isolation.
> 
> At the time, we were not that far removed from burning and drowning witches. Following a slave riot in New York in 1741, slaves were burned at the stake. This was not a 21st century society. 
> 
> My post was just to offer context to the human condition in Colonial and Antebellum America. 
> 
> We are talking about secession and all mostly agree that yes, the ability to secede is essential to a free people. The problem is, in America the discussion always goes back to our own example of secession. In that slavery always comes up. It is a red herring that discredits the notion of secession and justifies the essential liberties that were given up in a war that popular history has justified largely by invoking the slavery issue. While the US applauds secession globally, our own ability to secede has been taken us; from supposedly the most free people on Earth. 
> 
> Providing context and looking at the whole cloth of that era is critical in changing the collective consciousness. Otherwise, we will continue to use the South and slavery as the scapegoat for turning the Constitution on its head.


I completely agree with this. Thank you for the clarification. I have really enjoyed the depth of historical knowledge and the interesting quotes from a wide range of sources that you keep bringing to this discussion. I am learning a lot.

----------


## TheTexan

> Also I see absolutely no moral requirement to support any foreign governmental system of coercion, no matter who likes and supports it. I have no horse in that race.


That may be, but I would hope you would at least have a moral objection to someone interfering with their governmental system.

----------


## Stallheim

> That may be, but I would hope you would at least have a moral objection to someone interfering with their governmental system.


 Certainly not. I have no objection to an individual interfering with a foreign governmental system(I would oppose state interference though). There is nothing sacred about a governmental system per se, if it is a system of extreme coersion and repression it is the great enemy of civilization. Thankfully in our scenario it is not my governmental system so I have no difficult soul searching to do. In this scenario your acceptance or even embracing of this system doesn't simply harm you, your alliance and submission is instrumental in enslaving your fellow countrymen. Of the two of you, the "liberating foreign adventurer" and you, the opressed submissive, I have the most sympathy for the liberating foreigner. He cares more for your neighbors then you do. But if he gets caught and punished because all of you don't want help, then it ends there. He knew the risks and simply over estimated your hunger for freedom. Morally I side with him since you are complicit in oppressing your fellow countrymen.

Now I know this is a devil's advocate thought experiment, so don't worry that I am suspecting you personally of any similar motivations: after all you are a porc and have passed through this intelectual liberty fire already I am sure.

----------


## jay_dub

> I completely agree with this. Thank you for the clarification. I have really enjoyed the depth of historical knowledge and the interesting quotes from a wide range of sources that you keep bringing to this discussion. I am learning a lot.


I'm unapologetic in my defense of the Confederate cause. My efforts are to delink that cause from slavery, which tarnishes it and, by extension, tarnishes the whole concept of secession.

Slavery, as reprehensible as it is, was legal at the time. For a state to be engaging in a legal activity is no excuse for our POTUS to suspend habeas corpus and lock up literally thousands of Northern newspaper editors, police chiefs, mayors, judges and other assorted malcontents in an effort to mute opposition to a war that Ron Paul has correctly called a war to consolidate power in the Central Government. It is no justification for the deaths of over 600,000 Americans nor of dividing the South up into military departments following the war until absolute obedience was achieved. 

A glaring example of this is the arrest of Francis Key Howard, grandson of Francis Scott Key.

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

The grandson of Francis Scott Key, Francis Key Howard, the editor of the Baltimore Exchange, was arrested as well as others who wrote against Lincoln. While he was imprisoned at Fort McHenry, he wrote the following words. The date was September 13, 1861...... 47 years to the day!

*"When I looked out in the morning, I could not help being struck by an odd and not pleasant coincidence. On that day, forty-seven years before, my grandfather, Mr. F. S. Key, the prisoner on a British ship, had witnessed the bombardment of Ft. McHenry. When on the following morning the hospital fleet drew off, defeated, he wrote the song so long popular throughout the country, the Star Spangled Banner. As I stood upon the very scene of that conflict, I could not but contrast my position with his, forty-seven years before. The flag which he had then so proudly hailed, I saw waving at the same place over the victims of as vulgar and brutal a despotism as modern times have witnessed."*

When he was finally released on November 27, 1862 he wrote:

*"We came out of prison just as we had gone in, holding the same just scorn and detestation [for] the despotism under which the country was prostrate, and with a stronger resolution that ever to oppose it by every means to which, as American freemen, we had the right to resort."
*
From......*"Fourteen Months In the American Bastiles"* by Francis Key Howard 

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

Notice how, when other countries have gained their freedom through secession, we applaud the effort but don't use the word 'secession'. That shows just how taboo the concept has become in America. The breakup of the Soviet Union was brought about through secession, a right explicit in its Constitution. We instead subscribe to an indivisible, more perfect union at any cost. After all, we are the land of the free and the home of the brave. WTF??

On the issue of slavery in America, the best resource I've found on the web is this. You'll find it well sourced and offers a view ranging beyond slavery as a Southern only institution.

http://www.slavenorth.com/

----------


## TheTexan

> Certainly not. I have no objection to an individual interfering with a foreign governmental system(I would oppose state interference though). There is nothing sacred about a governmental system per se, if it is a system of extreme coersion and repression it is the great enemy of civilization. Thankfully in our scenario it is not my governmental system so I have no difficult soul searching to do. In this scenario your acceptance or even embracing of this system doesn't simply harm you, your alliance and submission is instrumental in enslaving your fellow countrymen. Of the two of you, the "liberating foreign adventurer" and you, the opressed submissive, I have the most sympathy for the liberating foreigner. He cares more for your neighbors then you do. But if he gets caught and punished because all of you don't want help, then it ends there. He knew the risks and simply over estimated your hunger for freedom. Morally I side with him since you are complicit in oppressing your fellow countrymen.


Would you have any objections to someone intervening in a couple's violent BDSM session?

If so, how is a voluntary Communist police-state society really much different from that?

----------


## Stallheim

I support all secession anywhere and for any reason. It is worth advocating for no mater what the mixed or even corrupt motivations of its specific advocates since each successful one makes the world just a little safer and easier for liberty to be established everywhere. Keep up the good work reading, researching and communicating. Lysander Spooner, as a Northern Abolitionist cuts the Gordian Knot for me. 


> I'm unapologetic in my defense of the Confederate cause. My efforts are to delink that cause from slavery, which tarnishes it and, by extension, tarnishes the whole concept of secession.
> 
> Slavery, as reprehensible as it is, was legal at the time. For a state to be engaging in a legal activity is no excuse for our POTUS to suspend habeas corpus and lock up literally thousands of Northern newspaper editors, police chiefs, mayors, judges and other assorted malcontents in an effort to mute opposition to a war that Ron Paul has correctly called a war to consolidate power in the Central Government. It is no justification for the deaths of over 600,000 Americans nor of dividing the South up into military departments following the war until absolute obedience was achieved. 
> 
> A glaring example of this is the arrest of Francis Key Howard, grandson of Francis Scott Key.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> The grandson of Francis Scott Key, Francis Key Howard, the editor of the Baltimore Exchange, was arrested as well as others who wrote against Lincoln. While he was imprisoned at Fort McHenry, he wrote the following words. The date was September 13, 1861...... 47 years to the day!
> ...

----------


## jay_dub

Secession is the ultimate defense against tyranny. 

*When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.* 

Though the above Jefferson quote is often associated with the 2nd Amendment, it must apply equally to secession as well. In the modern day, we have no chance at forcibly defeating a corrupt government through arms. What is left to us is secession as a last resort.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

There is a case to be made that the vast majority of laws should be local, to coincide with the standards of the community. On the other hand, it also makes sense for there to be international standards for the convenience of trade and travel. Of course this is the essential basis of the US Constitution, it's just too bad that people don't follow it, especially our "leaders".

----------


## erowe1

> Would you have any objections to someone intervening in a couple's violent BDSM session?
> 
> If so, how is a voluntary Communist police-state society really much different from that?


I'm jumping in late and haven't followed the thread.

But if it's a violent Communist police-state, doesn't that mean it's not voluntary?

----------


## Stallheim

> Secession is the ultimate defense against tyranny. 
> 
> *“When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is liberty.”* 
> 
> Though the above Jefferson quote is often associated with the 2nd Amendment, it must apply equally to secession as well. In the modern day, we have no chance at forcibly defeating a corrupt government through arms. What is left to us is secession as a last resort.


 And actually defeating a government by force of arms has always been less effective ultimately for liberty, paving the way for other strong men and tyrants. I tyrannical government works hard to isolate and marginalize ideological threats to its benevolent dictatorial perception among the majority of the populous. Secession requires them to choose between being the bad guy (invading rather than their preferred method of suppression) or being the weak guy (failing to bring the straying sheep back into the fold). The State which faces an imminent secession is weakened in both cases, receiving a powerful blow to widely precised legitimacy either way in the end.

----------


## osan

> Where did I make that statement in bold?


I inferred it, perhaps in error, based on what I perceived you to have been saying elsewhere.  If that was incorrect, mea culpa.

----------


## Stallheim

> There is a case to be made that the vast majority of laws should be local, to coincide with the standards of the community. On the other hand, it also makes sense for there to be international standards for the convenience of trade and travel. Of course this is the essential basis of the US Constitution, it's just too bad that people don't follow it, especially our "leaders".


 Functional international standards which have helped not hurt trade have been developed throughout history by merchants and traders and the associations they have formed. Governments have adopted some of these conventions as treaties, usurping what they want, but basically allowing an effective system to remain in place since it enriches them at no substantial cost through duties and taxes. When actual international government bodies have been formed to aggressively interfere and 'manage' trade all but the most connected special interests and the politicians who serve/rule them benefit at the expense of everyone less powerful and connected. The international law which does the least damage has always been that of treaty or private maintenance.

----------


## Stallheim

> Would you have any objections to someone intervening in a couple's violent BDSM session?
> 
> If so, how is a voluntary Communist police-state society really much different from that?


 Do you see any difference?! ;o) If not I sincerely hope you are not in a position of authority or enforcement!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Functional international standards which have helped not hurt trade have been developed throughout history by merchants and traders and the associations they have formed. Governments have adopted some of these conventions as treaties, usurping what they want, but basically allowing an effective system to remain in place since it enriches them at no substantial cost through duties and taxes. When actual international government bodies have been formed to aggressively interfere and 'manage' trade all but the most connected special interests and the politicians who serve/rule them benefit at the expense of everyone less powerful and connected. The international law which does the least damage has always been that of treaty or private maintenance.


Yep.

The minimalist approach is best. And the definition of "regulate" has been distorted to the point that it is hardly the same word any more.




> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be *uniform* throughout the United States;
> 
> To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
> 
> To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
> 
> To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
> 
> To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and *fix the Standard of Weights and Measures*;

----------


## Travlyr

> I inferred it, perhaps in error, based on what I perceived you to have been saying elsewhere.  If that was incorrect, mea culpa.


Conscription is not always a human rights violation. 

Sometimes, history has proved, that women and children need to be defended against an enemy attack. 

Slavery is always a human rights violation.

----------


## Stallheim

> Conscription is not always a human rights violation. 
> 
> Sometimes, history has proved, that women and children need to be defended against an enemy attack. 
> 
> Slavery is always a human rights violation.


 I can't accept this without a clear definition of what you mean by human rights violation. Especially since you claim that slavery is always a human rights violation but then claim that conscription is not. Without some sort of careful clarification that is beyond me, I must conclude that you don't consider conscription to be slavery. How is conscription NOT slavery? I am baffled. If you can come up with a justification for conscription than you are also justifying a specific case of slavery, and according to you, indicating a human rights violation that you find acceptable. I suspect that this would be a clearer discussion without loaded terms like "human rights violation" but if you feel it helps make your point clearly, then I am fine with it.

----------


## Travlyr

> I can't accept this without a clear definition of what you mean by human rights violation. Especially since you claim that slavery is always a human rights violation but then claim that conscription is not. Without some sort of careful clarification that is beyond me, I must conclude that you don't consider conscription to be slavery. How is conscription NOT slavery? I am baffled. If you can come up with a justification for conscription than you are also justifying a specific case of slavery, and according to you, indicating a human rights violation that you find acceptable. I suspect that this would be a clearer discussion without loaded terms like "human rights violation" but if you feel it helps make your point clearly, then I am fine with it.


Women and children are the future generations. It is up to men to protect them. Defense is necessary conscription. You may want to categorize it as slavery. I don't. It is the duty of men to protect women and children.

----------


## TheTexan

> Do you see any difference?! ;o) If not I sincerely hope you are not in a position of authority or enforcement!


No please enlighten me

----------


## erowe1

> Conscription is not always a human rights violation. 
> 
> Sometimes, history has proved, that women and children need to be defended against an enemy attack. 
> 
> Slavery is always a human rights violation.


What is slavery?

----------


## Travlyr

> What is slavery?


Definition of SLAVERY

1
: drudgery, toil
2
: submission to a dominating influence
3
a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another
b : the practice of slaveholding

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Women and children are the future generations. It is up to men to protect them. Defense is necessary conscription. You may want to categorize it as slavery. I don't. *It is the duty of men to protect women and children*.


If this is true, then they will do it on their own volition.  No conscription necessary.

----------


## erowe1

> Definition of SLAVERY
> 
> 1
> : drudgery, toil
> 2
> : submission to a dominating influence
> 3
> a : the state of a person who is a chattel of another
> b : the practice of slaveholding


Doesn't that definition apply to conscription?

----------


## Stallheim

> No please enlighten me


Ok, the two strange fetishists, according to the scenario have freely chosen to engage in an activity that doesn't harm anyone else. 

The Communist Police State is voluntary according to you, one of it's citizens. Lets say that you, blood dripping down your face, assure the "liberating adventurer" that you deserve what you got, and actually welcome this treatment and wouldn't change a thing if you could; and you can leave any time you wish. The Stasi agent who has helped you stand, and the three others standing around toking on cigarettes (they are allowed to of course due to the stress of the special job they perform) all agree that every citizen really believes that they are completely free and will tell you no differently if you ask. Do you consider that it is even possible that there is no coercion in this system? (just because you can leave doesn't mean that a serious cost has not been imposed: remember that some people who might want to leave have connections, friends, children etc. Also they have property that they would lose if they left. The only way that your scenario could be even theoretically possible: a state without coercion that looks like you have described it, would be if all members of society recognize no legitimacy to property ownership even including determination of how another treats one's own body.) I believe this is absurd, but perhaps you do not? 

You cannot make a scenario involving other self-willed human beings who are being treated the way you describe that they are being treated, and make a convincing argument that they really prefer the situation to freedom (even claiming they are free) even if they say so, provided that the police state you describe still holds some form of leverage over them. Remove the leverage and the threats and they still agree that they embrace their situation and you have almost made your case, but in the absence of the leverage and the threats you no longer have the police state you describe so it is a self contradictory claim that you are making.

----------


## Travlyr

> Doesn't that definition apply to conscription?


I guess it does, but still I do not consider defending women and children against aggressors as slavery. I consider it the duty of men.

----------


## TheTexan

> Ok, the two strange fetishists, according to the scenario have freely chosen to engage in an activity that doesn't harm anyone else. 
> 
> The Communist Police State is voluntary according to you, one of it's citizens. Lets say that you, blood dripping down your face, assure the "liberating adventurer" that you deserve what you got, and actually welcome this treatment and wouldn't change a thing if you could; and you can leave any time you wish. The Stasi agent who has helped you stand, and the three others standing around toking on cigarettes (they are allowed to of course due to the stress of the special job they perform) all agree that every citizen really believes that they are completely free and will tell you no differently if you ask. Do you consider that it is even possible that there is no coercion in this system?


If my right of secession is protected, then no, there isn't any coercion I'm not voluntarily subjecting myself to.




> (just because you can leave doesn't mean that a serious cost has not been imposed: remember that some people who might want to leave have connections, friends, children etc. Also they have property that they would lose if they left. The only way that your scenario could be even theoretically possible: a state without coercion that looks like you have described it, would be if all members of society recognize no legitimacy to property ownership even including determination of how another treats one's own body.) I believe this is absurd, but perhaps you do not?


I support all volunteer based efforts to uphold the right of secession.  Internal to this political system, people do not have property.  Externally, volunteering individuals may see things differently.  If a man in this Communist state lived on a farm, and he and his family built that farm with their own work, and developed the land with their own work, I would generally consider that to be his land.  If he chose to secede from that Communist state, and chose to take his land with him, I would support him in that.

If a man had no property he called his own, his right of secession would still be upheld.  He could leave.  If his family wanted to stay, well.. that's their choice.




> You cannot make a scenario involving other self-willed human beings who are being treated the way you describe that they are being treated, and make a convincing argument that they really prefer the situation to freedom (even claiming they are free) even if they say so, provided that the police state you describe still holds some form of leverage over them. Remove the leverage and the threats and they still agree that they embrace their situation and you have almost made your case, but in the absence of the leverage and the threats you no longer have the police state you describe so it is a self contradictory claim that you are making.


If a person is free to secede, free to leave and take his property with him, and is there by choice... it doesn't matter whether or not you approve of how he chooses to live his life, he is in fact free.  If it's simply ignorance that prevents him to leave... educate him.  But using force to "free him" from his own ignorance I strongly disapprove of. (not that you would.  but it sounds like you would not object to that)

----------


## osan

> Conscription is not always a human rights violation.


By what standard does this hold true?  The conscription (by definition an act of initiated force against ostensibly peaceable people) of free men against their wills is most certainly a violation of their rights.  You are attempting to employ the just-cause fallacy.  I am surprised at this.

----------


## osan

> I guess it does, but still I do not consider defending women and children against aggressors as slavery. _I consider it the duty of men._


Fair enough... for you.  Some will not agree.  By the very same token some may believe your duty is to defend a foreign nation against aggression regardless of what YOU think.  See the problem?  Who gets to decide that a cause is justly fought by all, like it or not?  Why are _they_ authorized to make this determination?  By what authority are they chosen to make it?  The list of questions of this sort is literally endless because it is provably the case that no matter what answer one gives to any of the questions it will not be sufficient to prevent the rise of a consequent and perfectly valid next question.

Force is almost always bull$#@!.

----------


## KingRobbStark

Its not about a good or bad idea. It's about freedom of association.

----------


## Travlyr

> Fair enough... for you.  Some will not agree.  By the very same token some may believe your duty is to defend a foreign nation against aggression regardless of what YOU think.  See the problem?  Who gets to decide that a cause is justly fought by all, like it or not?  Why are _they_ authorized to make this determination?  By what authority are they chosen to make it?  The list of questions of this sort is literally endless because it is provably the case that no matter what answer one gives to any of the questions it will not be sufficient to prevent the rise of a consequent and perfectly valid next question.
> 
> Force is almost always bull$#@!.


Defense is necessary against aggressors. Right now the aggressors claim to have authority to make kill lists, imprison without due process, police the travel, and patrol the skies with predator drones. John Locke called this an illegitimate government. The illegitimate government must cease and desist their immoral activities ASAP. If the people do not figure out how to force them to stop their shenanigans peacefully, then some brave warriors may have to resort to force to get them to stop. Men need to stand up for their rights and the rights of others. Some of us are not going to give up until we win our freedom.

----------


## Stallheim

> I guess it does, but still I do not consider defending women and children against aggressors as slavery. I consider it the duty of men.


 That is fair enough, as do I. There are other means than conscription that would need to be exhausted first, for me. I suspect that if the Central government (and to some extent State governments) didn't demand that they hold the monopoly on legal violence, there would be other far more appealing and creative defense options, with committed private citizens stepping up and doing their duty. The funny thing about duty is that ultimately it must be chosen not imposed. Consider social welfare for an intriguing comparison.

----------


## Stallheim

> If my right of secession is protected, then no, there isn't any coercion I'm not voluntarily subjecting myself to. I support all volunteer based efforts to uphold the right of secession.  Internal to this political system, people do not have property.  Externally, volunteering individuals may see things differently.  If a man in this Communist state lived on a farm, and he and his family built that farm with their own work, and developed the land with their own work, I would generally consider that to be his land.  If he chose to secede from that Communist state, and chose to take his land with him, I would support him in that.
> If a man had no property he called his own, his right of secession would still be upheld.  He could leave.  If his family wanted to stay, well.. that's their choice.
> If a person is free to secede, free to leave and take his property with him, and is there by choice... it doesn't matter whether or not you approve of how he chooses to live his life, he is in fact free.  If it's simply ignorance that prevents him to leave... educate him.  But using force to "free him" from his own ignorance I strongly disapprove of. (not that you would.  but it sounds like you would not object to that)


 I thought that the original "adventurer" was stepping in and protecting you from the Stasi goons, not forcibly removing you against your will. I was not imagining this Good Samaritan using force against you, though he might be busting up your abusers with extreme prejudiced. It has been compellingly theorized by Austrian Economists that an actual propertyless society is impossible; property might be minimal but there is always something that persons of a culture recognize as inviolate, something they want to keep so bad that they will agree to not take a similar thing from someone else if it secures their claims. (This could be put far better, but I am currently at a loss for the words.) You mentioned the farm, the mixing of ones labor with the natural resources to stake his claim. If you recognize this property right than what about a person's body? Rothbard put it very cleverly when he said that some might contest that you own your own body, many would say that Nature or God does, but when it comes to other men it is recognized that no one else at least has a greater claim to it than you do. From this follows all conceptions of property. The next step is to recognize that the unowned space that a person occupies belongs to no one else more than it does to the person standing there. If another person hurts you, they violate your person. If another person shoves you off of a spot where you are standing they are violating this extended claim of your person (you could say you mixed your labor with that spot of ground). Finally, if you are intimidated or coerced to leave a case could be made that a property violation has been imposed upon you. I don't think that secession can be thought of divorced completely from property, however limited that property might be.

Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty is a short and fascinating read, with a lot to offer this topic. There are some good archived discussions on Mises.org regarding the impossibility of enslaving yourself irrevocably as well, a related discussion. Ethics of Liberty is available as a free PDF on Mises.org. I found the concept of the definition of property being relative to the culture or societal consensus, very disconcerting but Rothard argues it out quite convincingly with far reaching implications. He also makes a very compelling case, in the context of homesteading and stolen property, that government does not legitimately own anything, as it either stole it, received stolen property, or owes it as restitution to those who it has victimized. If you get a chance, check it out, it is fun reading!

----------


## TheTexan

> I thought that the original "adventurer" was stepping in and protecting you from the Stasi goons, not forcibly removing you against your will.


He may not be forcibly removing me against my will, but he is using force to prevent me from living my life the way I would like to.  This hypothetical version of myself would prefer to live in a rule of law, and your friend came up and beat up Bill (the friendly neighborhood cop) for simply doing the job I asked him to.  Without the rule of law, we have nothing, and your friend seems intent on making sure our laws won't be upheld.  Bill spent the next week in the hospital, too.  Not cool.




> Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty


Been meaning to read that for a while now I should probably get to it

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Originally Posted by Paul Or Nothing II
> 
> 
> I don't know how the figure of 20% was arrived at but yes, I agree with the essence of the post that secession may be the best chance of acquiring true freedom in our lifetime, & then keep the non-libertarians out of this new country otherwise it will soon turn into a democratic-socialist hellhole too!
> 
> 
> There's the rub, how?


What do you mean by how? The same way property owners are to defend their property!




> I have heard several supposedly libertarian minded folks argue for more intrusive government so long as it's their agenda being pushed.
> 
> Of course I personally don't subscribe to any popular political labels so folks like me would be kept out?


I used the word "libertarian" because that seems to be more popular & palatable but a truly free society will be one where all interactions are voluntary, anything that's not voluntary would be deemed a crime, & once it is proven in court, the citizenship should be revoked, even advocating coercion should be enough to get it revoked, so I suppose as long as one accepts voluntaryism & does not engage in or advocate coercion, it should be fine even if one doesn't call oneself "libertarian".

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> I think the answer is that you don't stop with state secession.  Allow counties to seceed from states and cities to seceed from counties and even individual land owners to seceed from ALL governments.  In this way when any government begins to provide more burdens than benefits on any district or individual, that district or individual leaves.  You can't have socliaism if the people you want to pay for it can just reject the jurisdiction.  Pretty soon, competition among the political subdivisions results in a stabilized balance of benefits and burdens in most jurisdictions.  Some might lean a little one way or the other, but if they go too far, they start to shrink as people seceed.


Well, I'm talking about a voluntary society here. I mean if we could have our own country, a TRULY free society, then the government wouldn't have any coercive powers because that'd be anti-freedom & anti-equality. Anti-freedom because you're not really free if government can rob & coerce you, & anti-equality because coercive government means that people in government have rights (right to rob & coerce) that rest of the population don't have, that's NOT equality in any way.

We ought to learn from history, Founders created a great country but they made mistakes too, like giving coercive powers to government, which over time has grown into the leviathon we see today, because once it has coercive powers, it's only a matter of time before various individuals & groups bribe government through money, votes & whatever to use its coercive power to benefit themselves.
Secondly, rather unchecked immigration was one of the major reasons to transform the political attitudes within the country, we must realize that _"people are born with socialism while libertarianism has to be taught"_ (in general) so keeping the "non-libertarians" out would be essential to sustain the free, voluntaryist attitudes within the country.

So if we get a chance to form a new free nation then we must realize the mistakes of the past, remember not to repeat them.

Of course, I'm for secession at any level possible but that's kind of beside the point I was trying to make because a government with no coercive powers can't "burden" its people or start socialism all of a sudden, so long as "non-libertarians" are kept out of the country & the aroma of voluntaryism pervades the air!

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> 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.
> ...


+1

Yes, we can't libertanize the whole country, we've moved way past that now, too many stupid, socialist freeloaders, that's how majority tends to be so we need a place of our own, where liberty can truly prosper

----------


## Pauls' Revere

This Sunday the people of Catalonia will vote to secede from Spain. It doesnt sound binding but if it passes a referendum will soon follow.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...nst-Spain.html

[I]_On Sunday Catalans go to the polls to choose a new parliament but in so doing it will be with the expectation that a referendum on independence for the region will be swift to follow.[/_

----------


## Pauls' Revere

Get this!

Scotland votes for Independence in 2014!

_For the Catalans, like the Scots who will vote on independence in 2014, it's unchartered territory._

----------


## Pauls' Revere

Texas should lead the way here in the USA. Hell Texas has it's own separate power grid from the rest of the country too.

----------


## osan

> Defense is necessary against aggressors.


Once again you assert without substantiation.  For some it is necessary.  What about passivists?  They refuse to fight no matter who or what is taking over.  In their minds, better to be a slave than to commit the sin of violence.  Would you suggest we drag the Mennonites away, shove rifles in their hands, and force them to go out and kill people?  That is the logic of your position.




> Some of us are not going to give up until we win our freedom.


How do you propose to win YOUR freedom when you deny that of others?

----------

