Hello

[asaratis]

Autonomous communities offer little in the way of unencumbered intra-community and international commerce...

How do you figure? They do business in the same way that soverign nations or different US states do. You do realize that the states of the US were intended to be semi-autonomous states much like those I've referred to, right? The main difference being that the US was envisioned as a federation, rather than a confederation.

It also does not enable national defense or infrastructure.

Define the nation. Also, just as the colonies sent their armies to fight together or the national guard sends troops when needed, a common defense can be mounted when needed (standing armies can even be maintained, if needed). You're basically saying that we have no national defense because New York and Chicago operate independently.

IIRC, one or more of the original colonies wanted the forming states to have the right to secede. That would not have worked. A nation (to me) is a bounded area of land inhabited by a significant number of peoples joined together with essentially common goals, a common defense of their sovereignty, a common interest in the continual improvement of their lot and some sense of pride in being a citizen thereof. Autonomous communities lack the bonding necessary to strive for common goals...unless we redefine autonomy. I think that a nation built of autonomous communities would lead to village warfare, pillaging and wars within the nation, as it did here when the Confederate States tried to secede. Praise Abraham for stopping it.

I meant to say semi-autonomous; I'm too lazy to proofread anything that doesn't get underlined in red.

We are that, I think. Powers not specifically granted to the federal government are granted to the states. Similarly, within states, county laws differ, city laws differ, household rules differ and so on. If there is a clear definition of semi-autonomous, I'd like to see it. You may have coined a new word.

ogleundefined

Advanced Search
Preferences
Web



No definitions were found for semi-Autonomous.

Suggestions:

- Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
- Search the Web for documents that contain "semi-Autonomous"

It is good to know that you proofread.

Maybe we should take this to the political forum lest we invoke the wrath of the gods.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/introduce-yourself/80227-hello-from-912er-in-danville-il.html

 

[mal]

What?... Did somebody say something?...



peace...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

]IIRC, one or more of the original colonies wanted the forming states to have the right to secede.

You mean to revoke the consent of the governed. There was a war about that a while back...

That would not have worked.

Because freedom is evil and you mustn't be allowed to determine for yourself how you wish to be ruled? Good to know we're all slaves to the Fed with no right to govern ourselves I wonder how we're to justify breaking awar from the British Crown, then...
\

Autonomous communities lack the bonding necessary to strive for common goals...

Do you not realize that such communities would exist specifically as unions striving towards common goals?

unless we redefine autonomy. I think that a nation built of autonomous communities

As I said, I meant semi-autonomous and didn't proofread. Autonomous communities would not be of a singular nation (though they could form a union or pact)

would lead to village warfare,

New york and Chicago are at war? They operate independently and their leaders are all in it for themselves.

pillaging and wars within the nation, as it did here when the Confederate States tried to secede. Praise Abraham for stopping it.

The only violence and war in the confederacy was the violence ensuing from the Union''s refusal to recognize their sovereignty and attempt to prevent them from perusing self-determination and the ideals of the Founding Fathers.

If there is a clear definition of semi-autonomous, I'd like to see it. You may have coined a new word.

._.;;

are you that illiterate?
Definitions of semiautonomous on the Web:

* Partially, but not fully, autonomous
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/semiautonomous

define: semiautonomous - Google Search

sem·i·au·ton·o·mous
(sm-ô-tn-ms, sm-)
adj.
1. Partially self-governing.
2. Having the powers of self-government within a larger organization or structure.
semiautonomous - definition of semiautonomous by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

semi·au·tono·mous (-ô tän′ə məs)

adjective
granted autonomy with regard to internal affairs only, by a controlling nation, organization, etc.
semiautonomous - Definition of semiautonomous at YourDictionary.com
adj.

1. Partially self-governing.
2. Having the powers of self-government within a larger organization or structure.
semiautonomous: Definition from Answers.com


Ever heard of the 50 states?

 

[adeel_sami]

Welcome to the board

 

[asaratis]

................

The only violence and war in the confederacy was the violence ensuing from the Union''s refusal to recognize their sovereignty and attempt to prevent them from perusing self-determination and the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
..............

Read much? The ideals of the Founding Fathers wisely included a united (indivisible) group of states.

...and the rebels fired first.



Where The American Civil War Began
Decades of growing strife between North and South erupted in civil war on April 12, 1861, when Confederate artillery opened fire on this Federal fort in Charleston Harbor. Fort Sumter surrendered 34 hours later. Union forces would try for nearly four years to take it back.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The FF spoke of the 'consent of the governed'. This means that the government ceased to have any valid role ruling over them when it was revoked. The same justifications for the American War for Independence necessarily justify the Confederate War for Independence.

The Confederates fired because the Union wouldn't leave a fort on territories claimed by the Confederacy and because it was clear the Union planned to attack (they had too many economic interests to allow the Confederacy to exist as a sovereign nation)

 

[Ringel05]

The FF spoke of the 'consent of the governed'. This means that the government ceased to have any valid role ruling over them when it was revoked. The same justifications for the American War for Independence necessarily justify the Confederate War for Independence.

The Confederates fired because the Union wouldn't leave a fort on territories claimed by the Confederacy and because it was clear the Union planned to attack (they had too many economic interests to allow the Confederacy to exist as a sovereign nation)

Someone who does indeed understand why the north went to war.
Asaratis, the provisions were in place to allow for secession so in reality it was not a civil war, the north invaded and conquered a sovereign nation.

 

[asaratis]

The FF spoke of the 'consent of the governed'. This means that the government ceased to have any valid role ruling over them when it was revoked. The same justifications for the American War for Independence necessarily justify the Confederate War for Independence.

The Confederates fired because the Union wouldn't leave a fort on territories claimed by the Confederacy and because it was clear the Union planned to attack (they had too many economic interests to allow the Confederacy to exist as a sovereign nation)

Someone who does indeed understand why the north went to war.
Asaratis, the provisions were in place to allow for secession so in reality it was not a civil war, the north invaded and conquered a sovereign nation.

Well, bust my chops!

I knew it wasn't really a civil war because the South wasn't trying to take over the government...the South wanted to secede. Lincoln wouldn't allow it. I don't know what provisions were in place, but I'm glad they were ignored.

Had the South succeeded in seceding we'd have plenty of slaves to pick cotton, tend to our kids and whistle Dixie while they bring fresh biscuits to the dinner table. The South would have died on the vine.

Now we buy cotton clothes from China and Bangladesh, send our kids to Day Care and get biscuits at a drive through. Life is great.

 

[Ringel05]

The FF spoke of the 'consent of the governed'. This means that the government ceased to have any valid role ruling over them when it was revoked. The same justifications for the American War for Independence necessarily justify the Confederate War for Independence.

The Confederates fired because the Union wouldn't leave a fort on territories claimed by the Confederacy and because it was clear the Union planned to attack (they had too many economic interests to allow the Confederacy to exist as a sovereign nation)

Someone who does indeed understand why the north went to war.
Asaratis, the provisions were in place to allow for secession so in reality it was not a civil war, the north invaded and conquered a sovereign nation.

Well, bust my chops!

I knew it wasn't really a civil war because the South wasn't trying to take over the government...the South wanted to secede. Lincoln wouldn't allow it. I don't know what provisions were in place, but I'm glad they were ignored.

Had the South succeeded in seceding we'd have plenty of slaves to pick cotton, tend to our kids and whistle Dixie while they bring fresh biscuits to the dinner table. The South would have died on the vine.

Now we buy cotton clothes from China and Bangladesh, send our kids to Day Care and get biscuits at a drive through. Life is great.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Had the South succeeded in seceding we'd have plenty of slaves to pick cotton, tend to our kids and whistle Dixie while they bring fresh biscuits to the dinner table. The South would have died on the vine.

WikiAnswers - What were the slave states that stayed in the union


The slaves were freed in the hopes that they would help the Union destroy the Confederacy. There were slave states in the Union and abolitionists in the South. If you really believe that the war was fought over slavery, you've been thoroughly brainwashed.

 

[rightwinger]

Good luck proleterian....you will need it

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Were you joking when you said you were an Austrian, or is your name simply meant to be ironic? I can't make heads or tails of you lol. Welcome to the board nonetheless. You seem to have a genuine understanding of the Civil War at least.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Were you joking when you said you were an Austrian, or is your name simply meant to be ironic? I can't make heads or tails of you lol. Welcome to the board nonetheless. You seem to have a genuine understanding of the Civil War at least.

Social Democracy is not mutually exclusive with Austrian Business Cycle Theory, nor is advocating social reform mutually exclusive with opposing the central bank.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Were you joking when you said you were an Austrian, or is your name simply meant to be ironic? I can't make heads or tails of you lol. Welcome to the board nonetheless. You seem to have a genuine understanding of the Civil War at least.

Social Democracy is not mutually exclusive with Austrian Business Cycle Theory, nor is advocating social reform mutually exclusive with opposing the central bank.

So choosing to remain enigmatic? That's alright.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Were you joking when you said you were an Austrian, or is your name simply meant to be ironic? I can't make heads or tails of you lol. Welcome to the board nonetheless. You seem to have a genuine understanding of the Civil War at least.

Social Democracy is not mutually exclusive with Austrian Business Cycle Theory, nor is advocating social reform mutually exclusive with opposing the central bank.

So choosing to remain enigmatic? That's alright.

How am I being enigmatic?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Social Democracy is not mutually exclusive with Austrian Business Cycle Theory, nor is advocating social reform mutually exclusive with opposing the central bank.

So choosing to remain enigmatic? That's alright.

How am I being enigmatic?

You didn't answer the question.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I answered the question. The answer is neither; I adhere to the Austrian school while supporting much of Marxian social theory, Social Democratic principles, and Socio-Liberal principles. I oppose much of Capito-liberal ideology, as it is largely empty rhetoric the Bourgeois uses to justify its exploitation of the lower classes.