Is secession as stupid as it seems?

[spectrumc01]

This is such a great issue and it seems to come up every four years. Depending on who wins the election as to who is leaving. The liberals were great with their,"If GWB is re-elected I'm leaving. I'll move to Canada or anywhere but here." Now Obama got his second term and the shoe is on the other foot, except they want to leave and take their neighbors with them. State Secession.

State secession is a dumb ass idea. If you don't like it here and wish to move, please do, exercise your freedom. No one is stopping you, and it's legal.

Here is what you can't do. Stay and make everyone else leave, and you can't make your neighbor secede with you.

The very idea of secession flies in the face of why they want to secede in the first place.

 

[PredFan]

Is the OP as stupid as his posts? yes or no.

 

[Sallow]

Secessionists should unite and start their own state.

Islands for Sale Worldwide - Private Islands Online

 

[S.J.]

This country became great because of secession. Our founding fathers were considered traitors in the beginning and are now considered heroes. Secession may be the only way to get our country back to what made it great in the first place. There's nothing patriotic about succumbing to tyranny.

 

[bripat9643]

This is such a great issue and it seems to come up every four years. Depending on who wins the election as to who is leaving. The liberals were great with their,"If GWB is re-elected I'm leaving. I'll move to Canada or anywhere but here." Now Obama got his second term and the shoe is on the other foot, except they want to leave and take their neighbors with them. State Secession.

State secession is a dumb ass idea. If you don't like it here and wish to move, please do, exercise your freedom. No one is stopping you, and it's legal.

Here is what you can't do. Stay and make everyone else leave, and you can't make your neighbor secede with you.

The very idea of secession flies in the face of why they want to secede in the first place.

Tell the Founding Fathers that secession is a bad idea.

You're a dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

Secessionists should unite and start their own state.

Islands for Sale Worldwide - Private Islands Online

That wouldn't be secesion, dumbass. You should get a brain transplant.

 

[PratchettFan]

This is such a great issue and it seems to come up every four years. Depending on who wins the election as to who is leaving. The liberals were great with their,"If GWB is re-elected I'm leaving. I'll move to Canada or anywhere but here." Now Obama got his second term and the shoe is on the other foot, except they want to leave and take their neighbors with them. State Secession.

State secession is a dumb ass idea. If you don't like it here and wish to move, please do, exercise your freedom. No one is stopping you, and it's legal.

Here is what you can't do. Stay and make everyone else leave, and you can't make your neighbor secede with you.

The very idea of secession flies in the face of why they want to secede in the first place.

There is no secession movement. It is a tempest in a teapot, and the teapot is about the size of a thimble. No state is even exploring the idea.

 

[Old Rocks]

Just numbnutz like a few on this board.

 

[Votto]

This is such a great issue and it seems to come up every four years. Depending on who wins the election as to who is leaving. The liberals were great with their,"If GWB is re-elected I'm leaving. I'll move to Canada or anywhere but here." Now Obama got his second term and the shoe is on the other foot, except they want to leave and take their neighbors with them. State Secession.

State secession is a dumb ass idea. If you don't like it here and wish to move, please do, exercise your freedom. No one is stopping you, and it's legal.

Here is what you can't do. Stay and make everyone else leave, and you can't make your neighbor secede with you.

The very idea of secession flies in the face of why they want to secede in the first place.

Would you like to hear more dumb arse ideas? How about giving the purse strings to the federal Congress, like they did at the turn of the 20th century, so that we can enjoy a 13% national approval rating for them? How about a fiscal crisis 100% manufactured by that Congress?

The idea that a state would be allowed to secede is niave as thinking that these entrinched hated politicians in Congress can be elected out of office. Then, if by some odd chance a state was allowed to secede, we would have another Lincoln send in the troops to kill off another 600,000 or so thousand Americans to put down the rebellion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nothing would make globalists happier than splitting our nation.

 

[Katzndogz]

The nation is splitting. Secession might formalize what is already happening but that's about all. We already have two Americas. The nation is not joined culturally, socially or economically. Not only are the people divided, but they have less and less interaction with one another. Whether or not a state secedes is a minor formality that doesn't even need to occur. The people have already seceded in their day to day dealings with one another.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Nothing would make globalists happier than splitting our nation.

Well, nothing would make the Globalists happier that to see the Secession Movement fizzle.

Globalists HATE the Constitution and would LOVE to see us rip it up all by ourselves instead of doing it piecemeal through Free Not Fair Trade Agreements and signing on the the UN agenda.

Re-Establishing the Republic would drive a stake right through their little black hearts.

 

[Votto]

Nothing would make globalists happier than splitting our nation.

Well, nothing would make the Globalists happier that to see the Secession Movement fizzle.

Globalists HATE the Constitution and would LOVE to see us rip it up all by ourselves instead of doing it piecemeal through Free Not Fair Trade Agreements and signing on the the UN agenda.

Re-Establishing the Republic would drive a stake right through their little black hearts.

I disagree. The collectivists continue to defile the Constitution to the point of it being a worthless document. They will continue to do what it is they do, which is centralize power. The centralization will continue towards a global regime of some sort. That is why the EU was formed, to further centralize things. Now they are stuck in baling each other out with no end in sight. Soon, the US federal government will have to start bailing out the likes of California.

Trust me, the last thing globalists want is a strong independent state in the world. Those that are are targeted for destruction.

 

[S.J.]

The subject of secession scares the hell out of liberals because their free ride depends on working people. If Texas secedes, that's 25 million less people to support their lazy asses.

 

[elvis]

Pretty sure the Supreme Court ruled states may not secede. Tough to get around that.

 

[Votto]

Pretty sure the Supreme Court ruled states may not secede. Tough to get around that.

Yea, and they also ruled Dred Scott to be Constitutional at one time as well.

Who really cares what they have to say? I know I don't. It all boils down to power and control. Whatever or whoever is the political flavor of the month owns SCOTUS. Just as judge Roberts.

 

[whitehall]

Yeah, it's stupid and it didn't work the first time it was tried. My guess is that the alleged secession movement is fueled mostly by the Ron Paul junkie libertards and the Hussein dirty tricks brigade.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Whether or not one believes it is "dumb" (oh, the irony), we still have to discuss whether or not it is relevant. If the declaration of Independents is relevant, and if not, why.
I read this during my morning "news" session and i think it poses some good questions and insight on secession.

Is Secession a Right? - David Gordon - Mises Daily

Indeed, the right of secession follows at once from the basic rights defended by classical liberalism. As even Macaulay's schoolboy knows, classical liberalism begins with the principle of self-ownership: each person is the rightful owner of his or her own body. Together with this right, according to classical liberals from Locke to Rothbard, goes the right to appropriate unowned property.

In this view, government occupies a strictly ancillary role. It exists to protect the rights that individuals possess independently — it is not the source of these rights. As the Declaration of Independence puts it, "to secure these rights [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from consent of the governed."

But what has all this to do with secession? The connection, I suggest, is obvious: if government does not protect the rights of individuals, then individuals may end their allegiance to it. And one form this renunciation may take is secession — a group may renounce its allegiance to its government and form a new government. (It is not, of course, the only form. A group can overthrow its government altogether, rather than merely abjure its authority over them.)

The Declaration of Independence adopts just this position: whenever a government "becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." But the American colonists did not attempt to abolish the British government; rather, they "altered" it by withdrawal of the colonies from its authority. In brief, they seceded from Britain. As such, the right of secession lies at the heart of our country's legitimacy. Deny it, and you must reject the American founding.

..Regardless of one's opinion of Jefferson and the Continental Congress, is it not consistent to accept natural rights, as conceived of by classical liberals, but refuse to recognize a right of secession?

First, the position might hold that even if the government violates the rights it was established to secure, its subjects may not depart from it. But this is a strange contention: government exists for certain purposes, but it may continue unabated even if it acts against these very aims.

....those who deny the right of secession have the burden of advancing a rationale for their view. Why should supporters of natural rights reject the right of secession?

Does not the Declaration itself say that governments should not be changed for "Light and transient causes"?

This position no doubt is stronger than the utter repudiation of secession, but we must once more inquire: What is its justification? Prima facie, it appears that to hold that a group may remove itself from a government's authority whenever it pleases is more in line with classical liberalism's purely functional view of government. To deny this insinuates that the state is something other than a tool to secure rights. Just as an individual need not retain the services of a business, but may change to another, why may not a group switch protective agencies?

Further, the Declaration of Independence need not be read to endorse only a limited right of secession. The passage that refers to light and transient causes forms part of a discussion of when change of government is prudent, but the issue that concerns us here is not prudence, but rights. Many exercises of one's rights are imprudent — I may have the "right" to walk into oncoming traffic, if the signal is in my favor — but I have these rights regardless. Thus, a group may secede imprudently, but act within its rights. Once more: If not, why not?

Allen Buchanan, whose Secession is the most influential discussion of our topic in contemporary American philosophy, rejects the legitimacy of Southern secession in 1861 on the grounds just suggested.[1] Since slavery violated rights, no slaveholding state had the right to leave the Union. But why does this follow? (Incidentally, Buchanan holds that Southern secession, absent slavery, would have been justifiable.) Clearly, Buchanan's discussion of the Southern case would have gained from close attention to the contemporary arguments of the Southern secessionists.

Suppose that a group which violates individual rights secedes. May the government formerly in authority interfere only to the extent necessary to secure the rights of those put at risk by the secession?

Some have held that the Southern states acted "undemocratically" in refusing to accept the results of the election of 1860. Lincoln, after all, received a plurality of the country's popular vote.

To a Misesian, the answer is obvious: so what? A majority (much less a plurality) has no right to coerce dissenters. Further, the argument fails on its own terms. It was not undemocratic to secede. The Southern states did not deny that Lincoln was in fact the rightfully elected president. Rather, they wanted out just because he was. Democracy would oblige them only to acknowledge Lincoln's authority had they chosen to remain in the Union.

The rest at the link

 

[Freemason9]

The subject of secession scares the hell out of liberals because their free ride depends on working people. If Texas secedes, that's 25 million less people to support their lazy asses.

Untrue. You would undoubtedly consider me as a "liberal" (whatever that means), but I don't personally believe that large nations (250+ million in population) can survive long as democracies. Look what's happening here--we have become a police and security state, all because certain elements (primarily right wingers such as yourself) have decided to overfund the military, security, intelligence, and policing elements of the country. Now, we have a police/military state so big that we cannot move against it.

But I believe that functional, humane democracies function much better with smaller populations.

 

[S.J.]

The subject of secession scares the hell out of liberals because their free ride depends on working people. If Texas secedes, that's 25 million less people to support their lazy asses.

Untrue. You would undoubtedly consider me as a "liberal" (whatever that means), but I don't personally believe that large nations (250+ million in population) can survive long as democracies. Look what's happening here--we have become a police and security state, all because certain elements (primarily right wingers such as yourself) have decided to overfund the military, security, intelligence, and policing elements of the country. Now, we have a police/military state so big that we cannot move against it.

But I believe that functional, humane democracies function much better with smaller populations.

I agree with part of that. We DO have a police state right now, but let's not mix the military and law enforcement, they're two different things altogether. I want the strongest military in the world, and I'm sure our founding fathers did as well, but I DON'T want a police state, and I'm not sure which party is worse when it comes to that.
What I DO know is that we have let government grow way beyond what we should have. People don't realize that governments are by nature the enemy of freedom. We need it but we need it to remain small, and when we start depending on government for our every need, we're asking for trouble and now we have it.
You have a valid point about smaller populations but I think more importantly we need smaller government.