Secession: Sign of Crazy or American Right

R

Ripp

New member
There has been much talk of "secession" recently, predominantly amongst Republicans.

What do you think?

Is secession an "American Right" in this country, something practiced in the Revolutionary War and viable today?

Or did Lincoln have it right? The United States is not something that should be split. States shouldn't just pack their ball and go home if they don't get their way. The Civil War was won by the correct side, preventing the Southern states from seceding?

What say you?
 
And there we have it. Thanks for illustrating that your criteria for just seccession are so bendable as to be useless.

At first, you claim that if rights are being violated, that's grounRAB for secession. Press you further, and it turns out that for American secession to be justified, we require that.

1) Rights are being systematically violated, the definition of "systematically" being intentionally fluid.

2) The "American people" need to agree that rights are being systematically denied, whatever that's supposed to mean.

3) Some systematic rights violations, even if agreed upon as being systematic rights violations by "the American people", are not grounRAB for secession, because "rights are not absolute" - why if we allowed secession every time government was oppressive, and acknowledged as oppressive, there'd be "virtual anarchy"!

4) Democratic elections override the right of secession, oppression by democratically elected leaders is "rightful".

The pretence that you have some kind of objective standard to measure legitimate secession by is a joke, all these principles amount to are a way to weasel out of ever conceding it could be just to secede in America.

I doubt any secession that has ever occurred in the history of the world has met these absurd criteria, and I have no doubt that were such criteria to be met in America, that you would once again raise the bar. Perhaps American secession is only justified if foretold by a witchdoctor under the light of a red moon.
 
Secession is a fundamentally just defensive measure.

Americans love secession in principle, most notably when it took place in the Soviet bloc - I didn't hear anyone calling the secessionists there traitors; telling the countries that left they should respect the (Soviet) Union. Most feel it's fine for Taiwan to secede from China. Misplaced patriotism often prevents them from applying the same principles at home.
 
:rolleyes:
Give the obfuscation and propaganda a rest Archie.
The subsidizing of the federal debt came long before Obama.
Bush escalated the national debt to an unheard of level, and yet Republicans were typically silent.

To use an analogy...
The reality of the situation is that for years, Bush was wasting the water and letting it run down the gutter...
... and then when Obama comes along and has to put out an economic forest fire, THEN Republicans want to get picky about how the water is used...



ALL states are getting federal money.

And to put this into context, maybe you should take a trip down memory lane when BUSH was handing out money under the guise of helping STATES to protect themselves against terrorism.
But if somebody were to look at his list, he was giving heavily to CONSERVATIVE states which had little to no threat of terrorism, while LIBERAL states which have been REPEATED TARGETS of terrorism (i.e. New York) got incredibly little.

This money is about helping to keep the NATION afloat.
And don't give me this "economically responsible States/taxpayers". This has little to do with "economic irresponsibility".
It's about states getting NAILED by the ECONOMY.
Take California for example, in 2007 California had a SURPLUS.
But in 2008, thanks to the bad economy, California taxes pulled in LESS money, creating a high deficit.
 
And as for your standarRAB, would they have allowed the South to secede in order to keep slavery?
Oh wait. You don't want to talk about that, do you... :xbanghead

You know, one hilarious aspect of your "so bendable as to be useless" claim is how absurdly false it is AT FACE VALUE.
These values aren't something I made up on my own. I am quoting FOUNDING FATHERS documents on the issue.
They obviously DID see a "criteria for secession" that wasn't so "bendable" that they actually APPLIED IT AND SECEDED.
But you keep on telling yourself these standarRAB are "useless"... The ultimate reason for that claim is that you disagree, and you want MORE LAX standarRAB, that YOU refuse to quantify or elaborate upon...



:confused:
I think such a distinction is valid regardless of the country.



:rolleyes:
You complain repeatedly about my standarRAB, but offer none of your own.
Do you have any standarRAB by which secession is invalid?



I guess I assumed too much in thinking you would understand the concept of a majority.
Texas has 20% wanting to secede.
Should it?
Should the VAST MAJORITY who don't want secession be over-ruled by those who do?



It's interesting to watch you pick bits and phrases out of my posts, and then try to glue them together into a pointless strawman argument.



You aren't even really addressing what I'm saying.
I am talking about IF THE ISSUE can be brought up democratically, and the minority opinion fails, then obviously secession is little more than an extreme way for the minority to get their way in violation of the democratic process.

However, if the issue CANNOT be brought up democratically due to oppressive nature of the government, then that's another situation entirely. The government would be demonstrating ACTIVE SUPPRESSION of rights, which is obviously a sign of the systematic violation of rights.



And your criticism of my stance is a weasely way to pretend your stance has validity, even though you fail to ever truly defend your stance.
"Rights", and what they are, is by its very nature SUBJECTIVE in defining the list.

DEMOCRACY is subjective to the will of the people.
Your complaints mean precious little in the big picture of things.


Just out of curiousity, how far does your "secession" ideals go.
If a family owned some land and wanted to secede from the United States and from their very state, should they be allowed to?
 
"I am quoting FOUNDING FATHERS documents on the issue."

Yes, you're quoting them, but show no sign of understanding them, or applying their insights.

For example, you claim ""Rights", and what they are, is by its very nature SUBJECTIVE ", and therefore you can make up whatever criteria you feel like as you go along. The founders claimed the reverse.

They weren't right about everything, but they were right about that, where you are wrong.

You wish to amend "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these enRAB, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

to "whenever any Form of Government becomes systematically destructive of these enRAB, and this destruction is acknowledge by the majority of people, it is sort of the Right of the People (not an absolute right, as that would be anarchic - more like a child's right to sleep over at a friend's house, conditional on whether or not your dad thinks you've behaved well enough) to alter or to abolish it, except where that government is democratic, in which case the people may only abolish it by obtaining a popular vote and the consent of their rightful democratic rulers. If the seceding party wishes to do something immoral, such as maintain slavery or permit gay marriage, it is the right of the non-seceding party to massacre their people until they submit"*

*Terms and conditions subject to revision as the need arises, they are after all, subjective.
 
To me, that's where "and their rights are protected" is key...
If the rights are not being protected? That's something to complain about.
If you are a Republican not happy with the Democrats running the country as they campaigned for, and won that election? That's something else entirely...



Declaration of Independence.


Americans love secession when another Communist country is doing it.
The last time it was tried in America, it lead to a bloody civil war. And from what I can tell, most people tend to think that Lincoln winning and KEEPING the U.S. united was a good thing....
 
I find it amusing how you make this claim, but TO DATE you have failed to offer any real explanation or substantiation OF YOUR OWN position.
You blindly attack mine, while you insist that yours is superior WITH NO EVIDENCE of your claims.



Quote them.
Quote WHERE they made this claim.

Quite frankly, I AM talking common sense here.
Rights ARE subjective in that people don't always agree what they are.
That's just a fact.
There is no "objective" list of rights.



You employ an annoyingly redundant replaying of strawman approaches, by picking and choosing comments out of context.
First of all, our founding fathers QUALIFIED HOW "secession" was valid.
They talked about a violation of rights by the government.

Secession wasn't a right, in and of itself without any precursors.

And your rant goes off into looney bin land with this "If the seceding party wishes to do something immoral, such as maintain slavery or permit gay marriage, it is the right of the non-seceding party to massacre their people until they submit".
This is just your cowardly way to AVOID MY QUESTIONS while pretending that I am somehow false in my position.

I will repeat my questions.
  • Do you have any standarRAB by which secession is invalid?
  • Texas has 20% wanting to secede. Should it? Should the VAST MAJORITY who don't want secession be over-ruled by those who do?
  • If a family owned some land and wanted to secede from the United States and from their very state, should they be allowed to?

You can mock me if you choose, but ultimately I think it's easy to recognize that you mocking a strawman argument is simply about your own refusal to answer simple questions about your own position... :rolleyes:
 
My position is superior to yours because it is consistent and can be defined. Your "position" changes with each post, as you add and change the "conditions" with each passing breath, claiming this to be justified by the fact that the right is "subjective" to begin with. I have no need to get down to the merits of one set of standarRAB over another, when only one of them is adequately defined to begin with.



Have you actually read the declaration of independence?



That's not what the word subjective means, so I don't follow what you are trying to say. Please don't make me spend pages attempting to get you to pick up a dictionary while you insist that "subjective" means "people disagree about it". Something can be subjective, and have people all agree (eg "what tastes better, chocolate or rotting whale meat), or can be objective and have people disagree (eg the answer to a difficult equation).

It's entirely futile to go into the details of why 1 set of standarRAB is more correct than another with someone who believes that all of them are simply a matter of personal prejudice anyway.

Can you explain why 2 x 8 = 16, not 17 to someone who refuses to accept that the multiples of two numbers are logically connected to what those 2 numbers are, and simply claims, in turn that the answer is 17, 21, 257, because it's "subjective"?

If in fact you believe rights are subjective, then you believe the answer to the question you posed is entirely a matter of opinion anyway.
 
To me this seems like a copout used to justify American exceptionalism. American federal rule today is certainly more tyrannical than British rule over Australia (or indeed, America) was. Should we have yearned for the British to slaughter Australians in order to preserve the unity of the empire?



And undoubtedly had he lost, most people would think that was a good thing too...
 
I honestly have no idea what you are referring to with "American exceptionalism".
I don't know what you are trying to parallel with this analogy of "British to slaughter Australians".

And as far as "tyrannical", what rights of yours are being violated?
You can pass an amendment to restrict the federal government, IF you have that support from the people.
But if you're just part of the minority whining about non-existent rights, it's a waste of time...



For refutation of that, I point to the Berlin wall.
All that time it stood standing, and people still wanted it torn down. It was never seen as a good thing by "most people".

I have no doubt some people would think it a good thing. But some people think slavery wasn't such a bad idea either... :xbanghead
 
Well clearly, you believe America to be an exceptional case. It's fine for Australia to secede from Britain, but it is abhorrent for Hawaii to secede from the US, apparently...



Freedom of speech, right to keep and bear arms, freedom of association, actually let's just go with all of them. Actually, any state that does not allow people to secede from it is by definition tyrannical.



Winners write the history books. Regardless of the unpopularity of the berlin wall, it's rare for winners to have any real opposition. How many times have we heard the "lincoln fought the war to flee the slaves" lie? as just one example of how historical fact is obscured by state propaganda.
 
I'd quote you at length and bore the hell out of everyone here, but I really just want to focus on the more interesting things you are saying.

You first claim



I think here you are saying rights are subjective, admittedly it's hard to tell because of the terrible grammar.

You apparently agree





But...




Ah so rights aren't subjective, just what they think are rights is subjective, but "rights ARE subjective". It makes more and more sense.

And now you want me to show you where the founding fathers believe rights are objective, a claim you agree with, except when you disagree with it? (which you don't, but do)

My position is quite clear, given it, any rational person should be able to answer those questions for themselves.

Do you have any standarRAB by which secession is invalid? No. That's what a "right" is, something that you have a "right" to, not something you have to satisfy things to obtain.
* Texas has 20% wanting to secede. Should it? Should the VAST MAJORITY who don't want secession be over-ruled by those who do? No, but see below.
* If a family owned some land and wanted to secede from the United States and from their very state, should they be allowed to? Yes, and if 20% of texan families own some land and wish to secede, they should be allowed to.

These questions shouldn't need explaining, that's what it means for secession to be a "right", not a "subjective pseudo right subject to a long list of ever-changing terms and conditions".
 
:xdonno:

You know, it's a bad sign when within the first few posts, another poster tries to tell you what you believe... :wow:

I never said anything about Australia or Britain.
I never said anything about Hawaii and the U.S.

On the flip side, I have said some pretty concrete CIRCUMSTANTIAL comments that give a clear distinguishing line.
If you want to comment on what I have said, then be my guest.

Otherwise, this is pointless.
My dividing line is not based on WHO is involved, but on the NATURE of the dispute.
If individual (or a group of individuals) have their rights violated, then the Declaration of Independence (yeah, a UNITED STATES document so obviously I think it applies to the UNITED STATES as well, huh) gives some guidance.



So your freedom of speech is being violated?
Your right to keep and bear arms is being violated?
Your freedom of association is being violated?

Please. Elaborate.

As for right to secede, the Declaration of Independence describes such acts as CONDITIONAL upon other rights violations.
In no way does it try to establish secession as a right unto itself...



Really?
So FDR's "New Deal", everybody accepts that as being helpful then, huh...
Bush's actions in Iraq? Since he was our president that must mean everybody will think it's good? Cause I mean, Iraq HAS its democracy, right...

I'm sorry, but no.
I understand that "winners" have a leg up, but we still have freedom of speech, expression, AND DISSENT.
We beat Saddam, but that doesn't mean everybody thinks it's a great thing.



I have heard that lie.
I have also heard A VARIETY OF OTHER explanations on the situation.

The problem here is that you confuse the issue of the PRESENCE of an altered story with DOMINATING history.
That's false.
Ask any history expert why Lincoln fought the war (a real one) and I'll be surprised if "to free the slaves" is anywhere near 15%.

The truth is out there.
The presence of non-truths doesn't automatically mean that one side has "won".
There are still people who like the Confederate flag and the separation it stood for.

And with that example, if you SERIOUSLY think that the Confederacy would have MAINTAINED slavery as legal, you are kidding yourself.
The confederacy was denying the inevitable. Just look at what happens with TODAY's countries that violate civil rights.
Do you think "Dixie" would have been able to keep up their racist slavery in today's environment?
They would have either devolved into Mexico's big brother, and/or abolish slavery on their own and recognize how stupid it was to secede on an issue they recognized the truth on later...
 
Yeah. Heaven forbid you actually look at WHAT I AM SAYING when you can avoid most of what I say and strawman the rest...



Except for the fact that in NONE OF THAT did I say rights were not subjective... :rolleyes:
You claim a contradiction, but I never said the first part of the supposed contradiction... :rolleyes:



You obviously have no clue as to what I am saying.
"a claim I agree with"?
Quote me.

I think the truth is that you KNOW you can't quote the founding fathers saying what you CLAIM they said, so instead you pretend that I agree with your statement when you never showed any such thing.



No. It's not.
You have yet to answer ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT your position.

Amazingly enough, you're about to change that here...



So to put this in perspective, if one person wants to secede, then there exists a right to secede... :rolleyes:



Great.
So you just reduced the state of Texas to Swiss cheese!
A couple acres here. A hundred acres there.

And of course if these people secede, they need to get passports stamped if they want to go to the grocery store, if it didn't secede or if they have to cross non-secession land to get there...
Yeah. That's brilliant! :xagree:



No. It's what YOU mean by the term "right".
For some reason, you believe what you think should automatically be known... :rolleyes:
 
Your dividing line is so malleable that it will inevitably divide whoever you feel it should. Who will decide whether rights are being violated or not? you?

How many people's rights need to be violated before secession is legitimate? 1 person's? 100? 1 million?



So you say. I disagree. Who will decide who is right? We have free speech "zones", hate speech laws, government regulated airwaves (if there's free speech, what's the FCC for?) and police with the power to torture (I'm sorry, "taser") and beat you for "non-compliance". But you say we're free, so I guess secession is bad.

I believe secession is a fundamental right, it falls under freedom of association, and it is not dependent on the absurdity of convincing you or anyone else I have been wronged. It is demanding a slave prove he has been "wronged" by his master (to who?) before allowing him to end his servitude.
 
I do not endorse secession; that isn't why I'm posting here. But let me show you why States like Texas keep bringing it up. Click on this link: Breaking News | Latest News | Current News - FOXNews.com and then click on Glenn Beck's photo in the video section. Once there, click on the video "too big to fail, could we see the federalization of States"? Top row, 3rd video from the left. PLEASE WATCH THE WHOLE VIDEO SEGMENT And if you feel really courageous, watch the video next it called Shell Game for the lowdown on Acorn from an insider.

Then answer the question they ask. Why is our government moving towarRAB forcing the economically responsible States/taxpayers to finance the government bailouts he is planning on giving to the progressive states which are out of control and failing at every turn as they attempt to tax themselves out of a recession which only kills jobs, demotivates productivity and increases both the poverty level and misery index?
 
hey if you don't know, I don't know how anyone else is supposed to.



Except where, when accused of saying rights were subjective, you exclaimed that instead





Even if ZERO people want to secede, there exists a right to secede. That's what a "right" means.



Well you did claim to be familiar with the works of the founding fathers..
 
I didn't say I didn't know.
:rolleyes:
Again you demonstrate fundamental failures in reading comprehension.



[/quote]
Wow. Talk about a melt-down in logic.

Suppose I say the barn is red.
You turn around and pretend I said the car is red.
I point out that it was the BARN I was saying was red.

That doesn't mean I said anything for or against the color of the car... :rolleyes:

The issue of "subjective rights" has multiple layers, involving the DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS of "subjective"...
We could talk about THIS as well...
http://books.google.com/books?id=4G1U8JMSJDcC&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=rights+are+subjective&source=bl&ots=mScPt9pn8R&sig=XX-8zGKfGHmIJMPDXNNkiMnG_k0&hl=en&ei=6BUWSpyyMKK8tAOczsmSDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3#PPA111,M1



And again, Symbiote fails the challenge... :rolleyes:
Quote the founding fathers agreeing with your earlier assessment.
 
Back
Top