The Difference Between Our Founding Fathers and Today's "Revolutionaries"

[martybegan]

The difference is........you can VOTE to change those rules

Our founding fathers couldnt

You can't vote to stop unconstitutional acts as they are already illegal but yet the government commits these acts daily.

If a majority agrees with your assessment, then the offenders can be voted out of office

The whole concept of a consitutional right is that it is immune to a vote short of the vote required to repeal or pass a new amendment. Rights are something that shouldnt be subject to the whim of the majority.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Switzerland (and some others) could be good examples of how it may work well. The Balkans are another example (IMHO) of how this is fraught with danger. I don't see how one comparison is any more compelling than the other.

I see both examples as distinct possibilities.

But no matter how much we debate the possibilities in the abstract, it doesn't change the reality. If a state or a region of the U.S. wants independence, they are going to have to fight for it. And in that fight they are going to have to go "all in" and risk it all. That's just the reality.

And the parent governing body will not be held under any obligation to help.

A previous poster hit upon a key element (imho) in that I just don't believe that there are very many people who believe that they have it so bad in the United States of America in 2013 that they will risk everything to bring about the changes they would like to see. Differences aside, we do live in a society that is probably the best mix of power, prosperity, and tolerance that this planet has ever seen. And I also believe that our system includes an adaptability to the will of the people that make insurrection unecessary.

Switzerland is a better example than the Balkans because the states are politically and economically more similar to Switzerland than they are the Balkans.

The portion I bolded is exactly the question, however. Why? Why does it have to be that way? Even if they go off and turn into the Balkans, why should that affect you? If California decided to secede today I can't imagine how that would possibly affect me in any way, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to kill them to force them to stay. I'm just trying to understand the mindset that essentially says, as far as I can tell, we have to kill you for your own good.

I simply think insurrection is a dumb idea. I've yet to see a revolution that ever made things better.

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

I admit to not particularly caring about how formidable the U.S. has been in wars, as I can't really think of any war that the U.S. realistically should have been involved in. The Revolutionary War perhaps, but after that it's all downhill. I need more clarification of the portion I bolded, however, before I can really respond to it in detail. Not sure what you mean exactly. As for trade, I see no reason why several American confederacies couldn't maintain free trade with each other. Whether they would or not being another matter. The fact is they could.

Your last point is something I've been giving thought to lately. How long is a system of governance really meant to last? The longer it goes the more corrupt and less responsive it becomes, as far as I can tell. A right to peaceful secession would be one way of combating that problem. Now I don't deny that there likely would be bloodshed, but I'm merely arguing that there should not be.

 

[Katzndogz]

A violation of one's rights no matter how small you perceive it to be is still a big deal.

The difference is........you can VOTE to change those rules

Our founding fathers couldnt

But what if you lose in the voting ........


I think that's the real bone of contention for many here.

And as you point out - that's a whole lot different. There is a big difference between having no voice and having your voice ignored.

What if you WIN in the vote and the government comes along and takes the results of the vote away?

 

[rightwinger]

The difference is........you can VOTE to change those rules

Our founding fathers couldnt

But what if you lose in the voting ........


I think that's the real bone of contention for many here.

And as you point out - that's a whole lot different. There is a big difference between having no voice and having your voice ignored.

What if you WIN in the vote and the government comes along and takes the results of the vote away?

Let's not bring up Al Gore again

It it what it is

 

[bripat9643]

Switzerland (and some others) could be good examples of how it may work well. The Balkans are another example (IMHO) of how this is fraught with danger. I don't see how one comparison is any more compelling than the other.

I see both examples as distinct possibilities.

But no matter how much we debate the possibilities in the abstract, it doesn't change the reality. If a state or a region of the U.S. wants independence, they are going to have to fight for it. And in that fight they are going to have to go "all in" and risk it all. That's just the reality.

And the parent governing body will not be held under any obligation to help.

A previous poster hit upon a key element (imho) in that I just don't believe that there are very many people who believe that they have it so bad in the United States of America in 2013 that they will risk everything to bring about the changes they would like to see. Differences aside, we do live in a society that is probably the best mix of power, prosperity, and tolerance that this planet has ever seen. And I also believe that our system includes an adaptability to the will of the people that make insurrection unecessary.

Switzerland is a better example than the Balkans because the states are politically and economically more similar to Switzerland than they are the Balkans.

The portion I bolded is exactly the question, however. Why? Why does it have to be that way? Even if they go off and turn into the Balkans, why should that affect you? If California decided to secede today I can't imagine how that would possibly affect me in any way, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to kill them to force them to stay. I'm just trying to understand the mindset that essentially says, as far as I can tell, we have to kill you for your own good.

I simply think insurrection is a dumb idea. I've yet to see a revolution that ever made things better.

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

If the South would have been allowed to secede peacefully, then we would never have entered WW I. The waring factions would had to arrive at an equitable settlement rather than the atrocity that the allies imposed on Germany and Austria. That would have made WW II highly unlikely.

I don't see the downside of secession. It seems to me it de-fangs the schemes of power hungry tyrants like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

 

[martybegan]

Switzerland is a better example than the Balkans because the states are politically and economically more similar to Switzerland than they are the Balkans.

The portion I bolded is exactly the question, however. Why? Why does it have to be that way? Even if they go off and turn into the Balkans, why should that affect you? If California decided to secede today I can't imagine how that would possibly affect me in any way, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to kill them to force them to stay. I'm just trying to understand the mindset that essentially says, as far as I can tell, we have to kill you for your own good.

I simply think insurrection is a dumb idea. I've yet to see a revolution that ever made things better.

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

If the South would have been allowed to secede peacefully, then we would never have entered WW I. The waring factions would had to arrive at an equitable settlement rather than the atrocity that the allies imposed on Germany and Austria. That would have made WW II highly unlikely.

I don't see the downside of secession. It seems to me it de-fangs the schemes of power hungry tyrants like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

This doesnt take into account the south seceeding peacefully, but it is something to consider.

Southern Victory Series - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rightwinger]

Switzerland is a better example than the Balkans because the states are politically and economically more similar to Switzerland than they are the Balkans.

The portion I bolded is exactly the question, however. Why? Why does it have to be that way? Even if they go off and turn into the Balkans, why should that affect you? If California decided to secede today I can't imagine how that would possibly affect me in any way, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to kill them to force them to stay. I'm just trying to understand the mindset that essentially says, as far as I can tell, we have to kill you for your own good.

I simply think insurrection is a dumb idea. I've yet to see a revolution that ever made things better.

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

If the South would have been allowed to secede peacefully, then we would never have entered WW I. The waring factions would had to arrive at an equitable settlement rather than the atrocity that the allies imposed on Germany and Austria. That would have made WW II highly unlikely.

I don't see the downside of secession. It seems to me it de-fangs the schemes of power hungry tyrants like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Not only that ...".you could still own slaves

Freakn civil war

 

[bripat9643]

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

If the South would have been allowed to secede peacefully, then we would never have entered WW I. The waring factions would had to arrive at an equitable settlement rather than the atrocity that the allies imposed on Germany and Austria. That would have made WW II highly unlikely.

I don't see the downside of secession. It seems to me it de-fangs the schemes of power hungry tyrants like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Not only that ...".you could still own slaves

Freakn civil war

Slavery would have ended quite shortly as it did in every other civilized country, and without the death of 850,000 people.

 

[nodoginnafight]

You can't vote to stop unconstitutional acts as they are already illegal but yet the government commits these acts daily.

If a majority agrees with your assessment, then the offenders can be voted out of office

The whole concept of a consitutional right is that it is immune to a vote short of the vote required to repeal or pass a new amendment. Rights are something that shouldnt be subject to the whim of the majority.

Those rights were secured by a vote. And they can be amended by vote. And if a majority of people believe that our elected officials are in violation of the law, they can vote them out of office.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If the South would have been allowed to secede peacefully, then we would never have entered WW I. The waring factions would had to arrive at an equitable settlement rather than the atrocity that the allies imposed on Germany and Austria. That would have made WW II highly unlikely.

I don't see the downside of secession. It seems to me it de-fangs the schemes of power hungry tyrants like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Not only that ...".you could still own slaves

Freakn civil war

Slavery would have ended quite shortly as it did in every other civilized country, and without the death of 850,000 people.

What evidence do you have to support that theory?

 

[bripat9643]

If a majority agrees with your assessment, then the offenders can be voted out of office

The whole concept of a consitutional right is that it is immune to a vote short of the vote required to repeal or pass a new amendment. Rights are something that shouldnt be subject to the whim of the majority.

Those rights were secured by a vote. And they can be amended by vote. And if a majority of people believe that our elected officials are in violation of the law, they can vote them out of office.

It hasn't worked so far.

 

[Katzndogz]

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

If the South would have been allowed to secede peacefully, then we would never have entered WW I. The waring factions would had to arrive at an equitable settlement rather than the atrocity that the allies imposed on Germany and Austria. That would have made WW II highly unlikely.

I don't see the downside of secession. It seems to me it de-fangs the schemes of power hungry tyrants like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Not only that ...".you could still own slaves

Freakn civil war

You couldn't own black slaves, but since we still have mexican slaves, what would have changed? The color of the slave perhaps?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Switzerland is a better example than the Balkans because the states are politically and economically more similar to Switzerland than they are the Balkans.

The portion I bolded is exactly the question, however. Why? Why does it have to be that way? Even if they go off and turn into the Balkans, why should that affect you? If California decided to secede today I can't imagine how that would possibly affect me in any way, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to kill them to force them to stay. I'm just trying to understand the mindset that essentially says, as far as I can tell, we have to kill you for your own good.

I simply think insurrection is a dumb idea. I've yet to see a revolution that ever made things better.

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

If the South would have been allowed to secede peacefully, then we would never have entered WW I. The waring factions would had to arrive at an equitable settlement rather than the atrocity that the allies imposed on Germany and Austria. That would have made WW II highly unlikely.

That's a lot of speculation. Do you have some evidence to support it?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Switzerland is a better example than the Balkans because the states are politically and economically more similar to Switzerland than they are the Balkans.

The portion I bolded is exactly the question, however. Why? Why does it have to be that way? Even if they go off and turn into the Balkans, why should that affect you? If California decided to secede today I can't imagine how that would possibly affect me in any way, and I certainly wouldn't be willing to kill them to force them to stay. I'm just trying to understand the mindset that essentially says, as far as I can tell, we have to kill you for your own good.

I simply think insurrection is a dumb idea. I've yet to see a revolution that ever made things better.

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

I admit to not particularly caring about how formidable the U.S. has been in wars, as I can't really think of any war that the U.S. realistically should have been involved in. The Revolutionary War perhaps, but after that it's all downhill. I need more clarification of the portion I bolded, however, before I can really respond to it in detail. Not sure what you mean exactly. As for trade, I see no reason why several American confederacies couldn't maintain free trade with each other. Whether they would or not being another matter. The fact is they could.

Your last point is something I've been giving thought to lately. How long is a system of governance really meant to last? The longer it goes the more corrupt and less responsive it becomes, as far as I can tell. A right to peaceful secession would be one way of combating that problem. Now I don't deny that there likely would be bloodshed, but I'm merely arguing that there should not be.

Some good points. My point that you ask for clarification is that I think those who remain in the union are weakened by succession. And they are strengthen by being a part of a bigger, stronger union.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The whole concept of a consitutional right is that it is immune to a vote short of the vote required to repeal or pass a new amendment. Rights are something that shouldnt be subject to the whim of the majority.

Those rights were secured by a vote. And they can be amended by vote. And if a majority of people believe that our elected officials are in violation of the law, they can vote them out of office.

It hasn't worked so far.

That depends on who you ask.

 

[bripat9643]

OK, fair enough.
IMHO: Maintaining the Union not only helps stabalize those who would bail, it helps stabalize the rest who remain as well.
For example - I believe that the fact that southerners fought alongside the rest of the United States in all wars (except the American Civil War) made the U.S. more formidible. I think a uniform (more or less) code of intrastate trade helps make all of us more prosperous.

Empires don't last forever (Or at least we haven't seen one do it yet). So the U.S. may fracture at some point. But I believe that if we do - there will be bloodshed. Lot's of it.

If the South would have been allowed to secede peacefully, then we would never have entered WW I. The waring factions would had to arrive at an equitable settlement rather than the atrocity that the allies imposed on Germany and Austria. That would have made WW II highly unlikely.

That's a lot of speculation. Do you have some evidence to support it?

One of your comrades just admitted that the United States wouldn't have been powerful enough to intervene in WW I. That's a good thing in my book. Nothing good came of our meddling in that affair.

 

[9thIDdoc]

"The revolution is only necessary in a representative democracy when a minority wants to impose their will on the majority because they are so convinced they know better."

Disagree. It may also become necessary if a majority (especially a slight majority) imposes intolerable rule on the minority because they are so convinced they know better. Ask a German Jew. An alternative is succession which is intended to avoid mortal conflict with former friends.

 

[martybegan]

If a majority agrees with your assessment, then the offenders can be voted out of office

The whole concept of a consitutional right is that it is immune to a vote short of the vote required to repeal or pass a new amendment. Rights are something that shouldnt be subject to the whim of the majority.

Those rights were secured by a vote. And they can be amended by vote. And if a majority of people believe that our elected officials are in violation of the law, they can vote them out of office.

Secured by a 2/3 vote, followed by a 3/4 state level vote, which is what SHOULD be required to get rid of them.

I shouldnt have to worry about getting rid of an elected offical who violates my rights, even if a majority supports the position, because it is a constituitonal right, and is above and beyond the will of the majority.

 

[nodoginnafight]

If the South would have been allowed to secede peacefully, then we would never have entered WW I. The waring factions would had to arrive at an equitable settlement rather than the atrocity that the allies imposed on Germany and Austria. That would have made WW II highly unlikely.

That's a lot of speculation. Do you have some evidence to support it?

One of your comrades just admitted that the United States wouldn't have been powerful enough to intervene in WW I. That's a good thing in my book. Nothing good came of our meddling in that affair.

So one person's opinion is all you base that on?

 

[nodoginnafight]

The whole concept of a consitutional right is that it is immune to a vote short of the vote required to repeal or pass a new amendment. Rights are something that shouldnt be subject to the whim of the majority.

Those rights were secured by a vote. And they can be amended by vote. And if a majority of people believe that our elected officials are in violation of the law, they can vote them out of office.

Secured by a 2/3 vote, followed by a 3/4 state level vote, which is what SHOULD be required to get rid of them.

I shouldnt have to worry about getting rid of an elected offical who violates my rights, even if a majority supports the position, because it is a constituitonal right, and is above and beyond the will of the majority.

No, elected officials are retained or are cast out of office by a simple majority (and in some cases it only takes a plurality).

And if your Constitutional rights have been violated you have an avenue of peaceful redress of that grievance as well.

Are you suggesting that succession or insurrection is (or should be) an easier way to address your grievances?