Secession: Sign of Crazy or American Right

You mean when you said "rights ARE subjective" you weren't saying anything about the subjectivity of rights?



None of which mean "people don't always agree"

Agreement has nothing to do with subjectivity.



You mean the assessment you didn't "say anything for or against"?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The founders believed that rights derive from god, or nature, not from personal opinion or prejudice. They apply to all people, in all places, at all times. They are not created by government. Nor by popularity. Nor by whether you like them or not, nor whether the king likes them or not. They are not created by virtue of the fact people believe in them, or by their usefulness. In a word, they are objective truths of reality.

Now you may not like that they believed these things. You may disagree, and worship the totalitarian state. But to deny that the founders believed such things is idiocy.
 
Based on the US Constitution's 9th and 10th amendment, and the 17 enumerated powers given the federal govenment by that same document, an objective observer can only conclude that state and individual rights are nearly non-exsistant when compared to our original founding as a nation.

The federal govt. was created to be an agent of the states, not the other way around. Now the feRAB give more money to the states than the states collect in state income, sales and property taxes, making the feRAB the master over the states.




An elementary lesson in Government and US History would show Lincoln's ruthlessness and hypocrisy, and how historians have covered it up. The Founding Fathers saw state sovereignty as a protection. That's why they gave us the Ninth and 10th Amendments. They saw secession as the ultimate protection against Washington tyranny.

It's funny how you made reference to "another" Communist country doing it. Implying, (justifiably I might add), that we are communist as well. OK we're not communist.... yet.

Pragmatically speaking "Lincoln winning" may have been a good thing, but it was not in keeping with state's right to self govern as it was supposed to be guarenteed by the constitution they ratified.
 
I already explained the context of that statement.
Furthermore, I clearly did NOT say that rights were "not" subjective... :rolleyes:



I never claimed it did.
I said it was a sign of subjectivity.



Stop misquoting me to avoid substantiating your claim.
YOU made a claim regarding the Founding Fathers' views on the issue of rights being non-subjective.
You repeatedly refuse to substantiate your claim.

At this stage, it's obvious that you didn't have any basis for your claim, and you just want to obfuscate the issue.



:rolleyes:
Okay.
What does "liberty" mean?
Are the boundaries of "liberty" an "objective truth"?

Can you prove, objectively, where "liberty" begins and enRAB?
Of course you can't.
These are worRAB subject to INTERPRETATION, and that is my point.

Anybody can say "I am denied liberty".
Do you think the founding fathers would have agreed with ANY claim of denial of liberty? :emb:

The courts in the United States have examined the boundaries of "liberty" since their creation.
How you think it is an "objective truth" is amazing!
 
I chose C but all choices are pretty much true. If a state wanted to it could revolt and secede (legality aside), but I believe that it would be crazy to do so.
 
You didn't. And it isn't. People disagree about EVERYTHING, whether objective or subjective.



Some of those interpretations will be right, some will be wrong. Just because something can be interpreted many ways, doesn't mean all interpretations are equally valid.



Fortunately I believe anyone can secede, whether they have been "denied liberty" or not, so I don't require a convoluted series of hoops to try and work it out.



The founders did, and you claim to base your beliefs on theirs "These values aren't something I made up on my own. I am quoting FOUNDING FATHERS documents on the issue." - when its obvious you've never even read the first few lines of the declaration of independence.

It may be "amazing" to you, but that's only because you're entirely ignorant of the philosophy it's grounded in.
 
I gave the definition of subjectivity, to which personal interpretation disputes would obviously be important.
As with most things in this thread, you have failed to respond to what I actually said.



And this is a classic avoidance of the argument.
You demand that YOUR interpretation be treated as "objective" and completely valid.
:xdonno:



:frazzled:
By its very nature, secession is about an absence of a "series of hoops".
People just go to revolutionary war, giving their own personal SUBJECTIVE explanation for why.

Can you show any semblance of any reason why the founding fathers would have believed that "anyone can secede"?
Cause the worRAB of the Declaration of Independence CLEARLY indicate a situation where a denial of life/liberty/pursuit of happiness is PREREQUISITE to the secession...



It's obvious you don't even recognize the meaning of "objective truth".
Nothing they said demonstrates they think it was an OBJECTIVE truth.
They saw their worRAB as truth, but any rational person would recognize it as SUBJECTIVE truth, shaped by their experiences.

YOU have improperly inserted "objective" into the situation, with absolutely no justification.
 
I think that it is an interesting consideration in this discussion that Texas is the only state that actually has the right to secede. Texas was never a territory or possession of the U.S., but a sovereign nation when it joined the union. As a result, Texas can secede, or split into smaller states, if that is the wish of the people of Texas.

Funny that the Governor of Texas should talk about secession in a fit of pique over the election of a democrat. Interesting, since there at least 15 U.S. military installations in Texas. While these bases are "in" Texas, they are not part of Texas.

I'm sure that Perry was just venting and understanRAB that upon secession Texas would quickly sink to the status of a third world nation.

However, I am convinced that the vast majority of the people of Texas have no wish to secede. I think that they regard the comments of the Governor's remarks, as well as the Governor himself, as a joke.
 
I agree that there a very few people in Texas actually adovcated secession. But the governor did not say he thought that Texas should secede, nor did he say it was a good idea at at all. He only stated that it was possible.
Here is an article that discusses his speech at one of the Tea Parties:
Gov. Rick Perry: Texas Could Secede, Leave Union

What he stated was true. Because Texas has that right to secede, we don't know what people in Texas might do in the future. He never advocated secession.
 
That is obviously up to the American people to decide...
Today, is there any intelligent argument that can be wagered regarding the United States?
I say no.



Logically, the abuse should be systematic.
After all, we're talking about abandoning the existing governing system.



Yeah. The capability to disagree without any legitimate foundation for your opinion.
You've got that right too...



Nobody said our rights are absolute, without limits.
To demand such would be virtual anarchy in some areas.
"Taser" should be used as a method to subdue. The system has existing mechanisms to address abuse, and it also has existing methoRAB to LEGISLATE NEW LAWS defining abuse.

You put forth arguments for why you think you are not "free", but how many people truly share your opinion?
Like I said earlier, some people use "secession" as an excuse to try to avoid the rightfully democratically elected people. To try to have a minority enact control in an anarchical way.

Quite frankly, if a group cannot even gain a majority to request "secession", the invalid nature of the move is a lot more fundamental...



You would be rather limitd in the number of people who share that belief.
Such an attitude ignores the democratically elected system. It insists on a capability to ignore the government, with NO BOUNDARIES upon that desire.
It's virtual anarchy!

That is your belief, but having it enacted would be chaos!



Oh. That's brilliant.
Talk about a poisoning the well analogy...
Furthermore, it's obviously a false one at that. Slaves had many of their declaration of independence rights (as humans) denied them. If anybody had a valid case to secede, it was the slaves and I happily admit that.

Actually, I think you should THINK about that analogy, considering "slavery" was partially an issue the LAST TIME a group of people (the south) wanted to secede.
The South wanted to secede in order to maintain their slavery ways.
Secession, not as a means of PRESERVING rights, but rather of MAINTAINING SUBJUGATION of rights.

You obviously haven't thought your position through very well...
 
I wasn't aware of this talk, so I chose the no opinion option. However, I think secession will only hurt our country, and it's already weak.
 
Back
Top