cos we're inept and incompetent and too diverse to have a singular vision. that's the trouble with accepting others' way of life... not so easy to get consensus. so much easier when yuo have one book telling you the way everyone has to live and the arrogance and fanaticism to vote en masse to enforce it
So you're saying that liberalism can only fail because of its inherent diversity? Spectacular!
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
So you're saying that liberalism can only fail because of its inherent diversity? Spectacular!
im saying liberalism will inevitably seem less "productive" becos consensus is harder to find and thus takes more time and thought and discussion. progress is slow. but ill take that over wrong-headed action any day. better not to move at all than to move backwards into the medieval (called, appropriately, the dark ages) society where churches rule our lives.
I, for one, am glad to see that Vermont is starting to cry for secession. I completely agree with their reasoning: "The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable -- it's too big, it's too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens. Congress and the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war."
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. My only fear is that the US would bully its way back into the state and reconquer it.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
I, for one, am glad to see that Vermont is starting to cry for secession. I completely agree with their reasoning: "The argument for secession is that the U.S. has become an empire that is essentially ungovernable -- it's too big, it's too corrupt and it no longer serves the needs of its citizens. Congress and the executive branch are being run by the multinationals. We have electoral fraud, rampant corporate corruption, a culture of militarism and war."
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. My only fear is that the US would bully its way back into the state and reconquer it.
might be enough to unravel it though. michigan and montana wouldn't be far behind if the feds invaded vermont. they'd have mass exodus. texas would bolt cos they never liked being part of anything but texas anyway.
I think it might be good to have states without the government as an entity on the federal level. I mean, the dollar's time is coming rapidly, and economy is the only reason I can see to have a federal government. I'm in favor of a (dare I say) confederation of independent, sovereign, autonomous states.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
I think it might be good to have states without the government as an entity on the federal level. I mean, the dollar's time is coming rapidly, and economy is the only reason I can see to have a federal government. I'm in favor of a (dare I say) confederation of independent, sovereign, autonomous states.
as am i. the only people benefitting from the federal government anymore are monolithic multinationals.
It starts off with a hugely intriguing thought about US state secession, and a reply that offers us a glimpse of it in action in Vermont, and then all hell breaks loose and several big posters here start a conversation that increasingly loses sense, not to mention an inkling of the main thought.
And then, just as I start to completely lose interest and my right finger literally itches to click my mouse on the "Back" button, the thread takes a complete turnaround via U-turn and starts to make sense again.
So now that we're all back to secession as a NEW thought, in TODAY'S times and with TODAY'S circumstances...
Economically, not a whole lot would change if states seceded. If they built tarriff walls though, that might hurt trade.
If the non-seceding states refused to buy goods from the seceded state, the seceded state would have a difficult time surviving...imagine their huge trade deficit!
Also, the seceded state would bear economic hardships due to the fact that it would be difficult to attain economies of scale. They would have to start their own army!
Imagine the high income tax rates that would be necessary to start-up the new systems, etc. After a while, people would emigrate back to the USA!
I think it might be good to have states without the government as an entity on the federal level. I mean, the dollar's time is coming rapidly, and economy is the only reason I can see to have a federal government. I'm in favor of a (dare I say) confederation of independent, sovereign, autonomous states.
The Articles of Confederation did not work real well the first.....and the South did think that the confederation idea as you described it was both legal and possible.....true, that it did not work real well during war.....with each state sending soldiers that fought in units by state...and each state printing their own currency. But your description was how the Confederate States of America was supposed to work.
I suspect that a move toward secession today would be declared illegal before a trial. Even if the Feds allowed such a move, imagine the monies that they would demand from the soon to be departed. Federal highway dollars.....federal facilities built in the state......federal grants to schools and cities....and probably even down to federal student loan monies. It adds up fast.
Vermont can leave only if they continue to export that fine Woodchuck Hard Apple Cider.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
The Articles of Confederation did not work real well the first.....and the South did think that the confederation idea as you described it was both legal and possible.....true, that it did not work real well during war.....with each state sending soldiers that fought in units by state...and each state printing their own currency. But your description was how the Confederate States of America was supposed to work.
I suspect that a move toward secession today would be declared illegal before a trial. Even if the Feds allowed such a move, imagine the monies that they would demand from the soon to be departed. Federal highway dollars.....federal facilities built in the state......federal grants to schools and cities....and probably even down to federal student loan monies. It adds up fast.
Vermont can leave only if they continue to export that fine Woodchuck Hard Apple Cider.
An interesting thought, though (I hope): Vermont is not a large state. I would hope that if it were to seceed (did I spell that right?) it would form its own government and plan its own budgets for highways, schools, etc.
I did say that I'm naive....but I also believe that Vermont residents are one of a kind. Why would they need Federal grants?
An interesting thought, though (I hope): Vermont is not a large state. I would hope that if it were to seceed (did I spell that right?) it would form its own government and plan its own budgets for highways, schools, etc.
I did say that I'm naive....but I also believe that Vermont residents are one of a kind. Why would they need Federal grants?
I was actually saying that they would want money back from past expenditures.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
I was actually saying that they would want money back from past expenditures.
but I don't follow....if a state were to cut itself off from the Union, it should be prepared to pay its own way. Why would they care about money from past expenditures?
Let's say my father was a wealthy bastard who demanded all my freedoms and I decided to leave home. Would I demand that he pay me anything?
Word to that. I've always liked the way Vermont has done their own thing. From everything to civil rights to awesome firearms laws, they've got it going on. Sucks about the New England winters, though :-/
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
but I don't follow....if a state were to cut itself off from the Union, it should be prepared to pay its own way. Why would they care about money from past expenditures?
Let's say my father was a wealthy bastard who demanded all my freedoms and I decided to leave home. Would I demand that he pay me anything?
I don't think that I am explaining it correctly. The monies that the feds pour into a state or district tend to amount to a piece of capital that has value.....a road....a bridge........a building........an army base, etc. If a state were to be allowed to leave....the federal government would want the value for said pieces of capital..........we built a billion dollars worth of roads in your state....they're worth this many hundreds of million dollars, and we want some of our money back if they're not our roads anymore. If you want these federal buildings that we built in your "free" state, it will cost you x amount per building. Our Army Corps of Engineering built this waterway in your state, we want x amount of our money back for that waterway. That's part of the beauty of the federal system post-civil war, its tentacles are intertwined deeply in every state.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
I don't think that I am explaining it correctly. The monies that the feds pour into a state or district tend to amount to a piece of capital that has value.....a road....a bridge........a building........an army base, etc. If a state were to be allowed to leave....the federal government would want the value for said pieces of capital..........we built a billion dollars worth of roads in your state....they're worth this many hundreds of million dollars, and we want some of our money back if they're not our roads anymore. If you want these federal buildings that we built in your "free" state, it will cost you x amount per building. Our Army Corps of Engineering built this waterway in your state, we want x amount of our money back for that waterway. That's part of the beauty of the federal system post-civil war, its tentacles are intertwined deeply in every state.
I see where you're going with this... I'm sure the government would hang on to Vermont tenaciously. So what do you think the federal government's recourse would be if Vermont decided to do a clean break? Brand them as terrorists and enemy combatants, then have an illegal occupation for years as they try to "restore democracy" in Vermont? Haha, I can only imagine the vast amount of lies we'd be fed.
In all seriousness, though, if Vermont did want to secede, what would the federal government do about it? I can't even imagine what would happen if there were any sort of civil war within our country.
Also, why didn't the articles of confederation work? I think it's a great idea; tear down the corrupt federal government and rebuild a confederation that would only be symbolically united for border purposes. Each state constitution protects civil rights more than the federal one does (in most cases.)
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
You need a federal government for the common defense. Of course, you could just have an army for each state.
im cool with that. i feel no need to have common defense. we'd be much less of a target if we weren't known worldwide for unilateral, self-serving imperial practices.
im cool with that. i feel no need to have common defense. we'd be much less of a target if we weren't known worldwide for unilateral, self-serving imperial practices.
I don't know if I'd say there's no need for a defense program. I am very much against our involvement in conflicts we should have nothing to do with, which is pretty much anything and everything since world war 2.
I mean, having NO army would make us a bigger target, IMO. I think we should have enough military so that if anyone attempts to invade us, we annihilate them.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."
I see where you're going with this... I'm sure the government would hang on to Vermont tenaciously. So what do you think the federal government's recourse would be if Vermont decided to do a clean break? Brand them as terrorists and enemy combatants, then have an illegal occupation for years as they try to "restore democracy" in Vermont? Haha, I can only imagine the vast amount of lies we'd be fed.
In all seriousness, though, if Vermont did want to secede, what would the federal government do about it? I can't even imagine what would happen if there were any sort of civil war within our country.
Also, why didn't the articles of confederation work? I think it's a great idea; tear down the corrupt federal government and rebuild a confederation that would only be symbolically united for border purposes. Each state constitution protects civil rights more than the federal one does (in most cases.)
I guess that would be one option....federal occupation. It's happened before, and the feds suck at it. The other would be to make it too expensive to leave......llike I was saying. Look around and just see how much federal money is floating around where you live.
As to the Articles of Confederation, I would have to look it up......long time since I studied that period of history....I do remember that interstate transportation was chaos which meant that interstate commerce was also a disaster. Disputes between the states also proved a sticking point.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
...and we would have been far better if we had not been "reconstructed" by the Federal government and its business cronies following the "War of Northern Agression" Seriously, the South would be a far better place if we had not experienced Reconstruction or had gone through the process with Lincoln still alive. Thanks to that nasty business.....the largest landholders in the South tend to be northern corporations who carpet-bagged their way to that distinction.
The question of secession has never been tried in a real court nor has it ever been brought before one.
reconstruction wasn't completely bad, was it? the freedmen's bureau set up schools and reunited families that were split during slavery.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Also, why didn't the articles of confederation work? I think it's a great idea; tear down the corrupt federal government and rebuild a confederation that would only be symbolically united for border purposes. Each state constitution protects civil rights more than the federal one does (in most cases.)
i think one reason it didn't work was that this was before the great compromise and large states were treated the same as small states regarding votes. also i think taxes were a problem. i don't think a tax system was really in place and the fed gov had to ask the states for money. which may not sound bad, but could be a problem when some states are paying and some aren't, and how much based on size, etc.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
History has shown that their is no secession without war. If you're serious about something like that, then you better be prepared to fight for it...because the government sure will.
MOSSAD NATO Alphabet Stations (E10)
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
reconstruction wasn't completely bad, was it? the freedmen's bureau set up schools and reunited families that were split during slavery.
It had some limited success....it mostly helped companies from the north move in and buy up most of the land. It helped foster the sharecropping system that was basically slavery by another name......but under sharecropping the poor whites suffered just like the blacks.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
History has shown that their is no secession without war. If you're serious about something like that, then you better be prepared to fight for it...because the government sure will.
You might have something there.....I am wracking my brain to come up with an example.....and I can't think one outside of maybe the break-up of the Soviet Union.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
It had some limited success....it mostly helped companies from the north move in and buy up most of the land. It helped foster the sharecropping system that was basically slavery by another name......but under sharecropping the poor whites suffered just like the blacks.
oh sure. i'm not saying reconstruction was the most awesome thing. i was just looking for some positives, of which, sharecropping was not one. but that wasn't forced by the fed govt was it? isn't that what the plantation owners thought to do for money?
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
You might have something there.....I am wracking my brain to come up with an example.....and I can't think one outside of maybe the break-up of the Soviet Union.
yugoslavia
> serbia and montenegro? i don't know.
if you wanna be a friend of mine
cross the river to the eastside
Generally, secession is only talked about by hardcore rednecks from Montana. But, it's a topic that interests me (i.e. hardcore redneck from Virginia) because I enjoy reading civil war history.
Did Lincoln have the constitutional authority to keep the states from seceding? Does the constitution grant the federal government the right to force states to remain in the union?
In my view, it doesn't. Nothing in the constitution expressly says that the states cannot secede from the union and since our federal government has ENUMERATED powers, that means the power of secession is left to the states or the people, respectively (article 9). I believe that the southern states did have the right to secede from the union. Granted, their reasons for doing so were not optimal. But, when we talk about states' rights, isn't the right to not be a part of the union the most important one?
I also think the southern states would've eventually given up slavery. It may have taken longer, but most individuals in the South did not own slaves.
We see in other countries that secession is spoken about surprisingly frequently in modern times. Look at Quebec in Canada, Northern Ireland in Britain, Scotland in Britain, and the Balkan states. Those are just western nations too.
Secession sort of received a black eye from the Civil War, but it should be considered a more fundamental right of states than it is. Perhaps that might keep a wayward federal government in check.
Hey you motherfucker! We have two things in common! I was born and raised in Virginia (No wonder you are a corporate whore)! We also have in common the idea that a state should be able to decide to separate from the union!
I also believe that a President should not be able to cite "executive privilege" as there is no constitutional backbone for the court ruling. Thoughts?
No......not really...simply because they fought everybody else who left Yugoslavia. Originally, the powers that be in Serbia wanted to keep the old Yugo borders intact.
All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a thousand enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed.
Comments
So you're saying that liberalism can only fail because of its inherent diversity? Spectacular!
-Enoch Powell
Hey Rush. The reason we can't get good people into Washington is because of the inherent dishonesty people like you love to espouse.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
im saying liberalism will inevitably seem less "productive" becos consensus is harder to find and thus takes more time and thought and discussion. progress is slow. but ill take that over wrong-headed action any day. better not to move at all than to move backwards into the medieval (called, appropriately, the dark ages) society where churches rule our lives.
I don't think anyone disagrees with that. My only fear is that the US would bully its way back into the state and reconquer it.
http://www.myspace.com/jonjenkins
http://thelandofoz.us
might be enough to unravel it though. michigan and montana wouldn't be far behind if the feds invaded vermont. they'd have mass exodus. texas would bolt cos they never liked being part of anything but texas anyway.
http://www.myspace.com/jonjenkins
http://thelandofoz.us
as am i. the only people benefitting from the federal government anymore are monolithic multinationals.
You need a federal government for the common defense. Of course, you could just have an army for each state.
-Enoch Powell
And then, just as I start to completely lose interest and my right finger literally itches to click my mouse on the "Back" button, the thread takes a complete turnaround via U-turn and starts to make sense again.
So now that we're all back to secession as a NEW thought, in TODAY'S times and with TODAY'S circumstances...
....I'm thinking of moving to Vermont, pronto.
If the non-seceding states refused to buy goods from the seceded state, the seceded state would have a difficult time surviving...imagine their huge trade deficit!
Also, the seceded state would bear economic hardships due to the fact that it would be difficult to attain economies of scale. They would have to start their own army!
Imagine the high income tax rates that would be necessary to start-up the new systems, etc. After a while, people would emigrate back to the USA!
I suspect that a move toward secession today would be declared illegal before a trial. Even if the Feds allowed such a move, imagine the monies that they would demand from the soon to be departed. Federal highway dollars.....federal facilities built in the state......federal grants to schools and cities....and probably even down to federal student loan monies. It adds up fast.
Vermont can leave only if they continue to export that fine Woodchuck Hard Apple Cider.
An interesting thought, though (I hope): Vermont is not a large state. I would hope that if it were to seceed (did I spell that right?) it would form its own government and plan its own budgets for highways, schools, etc.
I did say that I'm naive....but I also believe that Vermont residents are one of a kind. Why would they need Federal grants?
but I don't follow....if a state were to cut itself off from the Union, it should be prepared to pay its own way. Why would they care about money from past expenditures?
Let's say my father was a wealthy bastard who demanded all my freedoms and I decided to leave home. Would I demand that he pay me anything?
http://www.myspace.com/jonjenkins
http://thelandofoz.us
In all seriousness, though, if Vermont did want to secede, what would the federal government do about it? I can't even imagine what would happen if there were any sort of civil war within our country.
Also, why didn't the articles of confederation work? I think it's a great idea; tear down the corrupt federal government and rebuild a confederation that would only be symbolically united for border purposes. Each state constitution protects civil rights more than the federal one does (in most cases.)
http://www.myspace.com/jonjenkins
http://thelandofoz.us
im cool with that. i feel no need to have common defense. we'd be much less of a target if we weren't known worldwide for unilateral, self-serving imperial practices.
I mean, having NO army would make us a bigger target, IMO. I think we should have enough military so that if anyone attempts to invade us, we annihilate them.
http://www.myspace.com/jonjenkins
http://thelandofoz.us
As to the Articles of Confederation, I would have to look it up......long time since I studied that period of history....I do remember that interstate transportation was chaos which meant that interstate commerce was also a disaster. Disputes between the states also proved a sticking point.
reconstruction wasn't completely bad, was it? the freedmen's bureau set up schools and reunited families that were split during slavery.
cross the river to the eastside
i think one reason it didn't work was that this was before the great compromise and large states were treated the same as small states regarding votes. also i think taxes were a problem. i don't think a tax system was really in place and the fed gov had to ask the states for money. which may not sound bad, but could be a problem when some states are paying and some aren't, and how much based on size, etc.
cross the river to the eastside
High Traffic ART EZI FTJ JSR KPA PCD SYN ULX VLB YHF
Low Traffic CIO MIW
Non Traffic ABC BAY FDU GBZ HNC NDP OEM ROV TMS ZWL
oh sure. i'm not saying reconstruction was the most awesome thing. i was just looking for some positives, of which, sharecropping was not one. but that wasn't forced by the fed govt was it? isn't that what the plantation owners thought to do for money?
cross the river to the eastside
yugoslavia
> serbia and montenegro? i don't know.
cross the river to the eastside
Hey you motherfucker! We have two things in common! I was born and raised in Virginia (No wonder you are a corporate whore)! We also have in common the idea that a state should be able to decide to separate from the union!
I also believe that a President should not be able to cite "executive privilege" as there is no constitutional backbone for the court ruling. Thoughts?