Why Obama is going to get 4 more years.

[Chrisgunfighter]

I'm gladly waiting from something better to rise to dominance, but I'm a clock watcher and so far it has anything but laughable.

I agree complete... Bu just like with everything in history something better will eventually come. Well once people that realize it get together and call for real change

 

[88GT]

Secession is about the security and preservation of Liberty. It is, by definition, not about the preservation of a nation.

Which is of greater importance to you?

No, secession is the national equivalent of "I'm taking my ball and going home." People can secede for reasons that have nothing to do with liberty. Though the expansion of liberty is often the stimulus, or one of them, it is not a definition of secession.

And I think you will find that you cannot so easily separate liberty from the nation-state. Moreover, I think that the end result of an attempted secession would only result in more tyranny, not less.

There isn't a state in this union capable of holding its own against the republic it would be leaving. Not even a handful would be sufficient. The dissolution of this union will be the death of liberty because I do not think it can be resurrected in any meaningful way from the ashes of secession.

 

[J_Wales]

There isn't a state in this union capable of holding its own against the republic it would be leaving. Not even a handful would be sufficient. The dissolution of this union will be the death of liberty because I do not think it can be resurrected in any meaningful way from the ashes of secession.

Clearly, you are entitled to your opion.

I absolutely disagree.

Further, what do you mean by "hold its own against the republic it would be leaving" mean?

Are you suggesting that the republic would take physical action against those member States that chose to secede?

Clearly, that is completely counter to the position that Jefferson, one of the republic's Founding Fathers, took.

 

[Stschil]

Clearly, you are entitled to your opion.

I absolutely disagree.

Further, what do you mean by "hold its own against the republic it would be leaving" mean?

Are you suggesting that the republic would take physical action against those member States that chose to secede?

Clearly, that is completely counter to the position that Jefferson, one of the republic's Founding Fathers, took.

The republic has a pretty strong track record where is comes to taking action against those who choose not to take part in its games. I think the assumption is that it would as it has in the past.

 

[level.eleven]

Before arguing against secession, folks should visit both Anchorage and New York City. One thing I've learned from traveling and living all over the country is that we are too diverse in terms of culture, daily life, problems, needs, wants, and so forth for a single government to ever be adequate to the task of governing all of us.

So, balkanization as opposed to secession. This is a topic I have sided with for quite some time based on the reasons you laid out.

 

[hornadylnl]

Clearly, you are entitled to your opion.

I absolutely disagree.

Further, what do you mean by "hold its own against the republic it would be leaving" mean?

Are you suggesting that the republic would take physical action against those member States that chose to secede?

Clearly, that is completely counter to the position that Jefferson, one of the republic's Founding Fathers, took.

There was a little dust up about 150 years ago involving succession. I think it was called the Civil War.

 

[J_Wales]

The republic has a pretty strong track record where is comes to taking action against those who choose not to take part in its games. I think the assumption is that it would as it has in the past.

IE: holding member States captive against their will such as was done by Lincoln.

Holding citizens by force against their will would fit well under the very definition of tyranny.

88GT may be well be correct in some manner. It may well be that very few would be willing to stand for Liberty against a tyrannical state choosing instead a perceived safety.

If that is the case, then Liberty may well be already dead.

 

[ATM]

I'd like to see a lot more nullification happening before I consider any thoughts of secession.

 

[J_Wales]

I'd like to see a lot more nullification happening before I consider any thoughts of secession.

Agreed... if the States and the citizens of the States would actually stand behind the nullifications.

 

[88GT]

Clearly, you are entitled to your opion.

I absolutely disagree.

Then which of the 50 "sovereign" states can and would make a successful go of it? Edit to avoid ruffling feathers: Serious question. This is not meant as a "gotcha." I took it from your post that you believe I am wrong. I am interested in hearing your opinion on it.

Further, what do you mean by "hold its own against the republic it would be leaving" mean?

Unfortunately, this is applicable on several levels. The most immediate is that no state will ever successfully severe itself from the union without the use of force being used against it to prevent it from doing so. But even assuming it could, no state has the resources to maintain the sovereignty it would need to exist independently indefinitely. Landlocked states would wither and die from isolation almost immediately. States with ports might be able to make a go of it. Some might even succeed. But I think eventually, most would find it impossible to operate independently without some patronage from another nation. Even the large and resource-rich American colonies required the assistance of France to seal the deal.

Are you suggesting that the republic would take physical action against those member States that chose to secede?

That is exactly what I am suggesting. With all due respect, duh!

Clearly, that is completely counter to the position that Jefferson, one of the republic's Founding Fathers, took.

No kidding. But if the federal government and states had been operating according to the intent of the founding members of this nation, we wouldn't need to be talking about secession like we are, would we?

 

[.45 Dave]

IMHO secession is a last resort, although I certainly agree we are getting closer to it all the time, especially if the Feds keep putting the hammerlock on the states. But if the states keep getting more and more money from the Feds then they are going to develop the entitlement mentality that many individuals already have.
Secession would work if you had enough states in close proximity to yours that also seceded and together you formed a confederacy--even a loose one. Left alone, the south could have succeeded.

Going back to the subject of the thread, my main disgust is that people whine a lot about the government and politicians in general, but then either throw up their hands and give up, or pout and refuse to vote, not understanding that what the government does WILL effect them whether they like it or not. There is no option to not participate where the Feds are concerned!
I say get involved and shout loud and clear and get others to join you. If that doesn't work, then there is grounds for secession.

 

[Pocketman]

Who would govern this new confederacy?

 

[hornadylnl]

IMHO secession is a last resort, although I certainly agree we are getting closer to it all the time, especially if the Feds keep putting the hammerlock on the states. But if the states keep getting more and more money from the Feds then they are going to develop the entitlement mentality that many individuals already have.
Secession would work if you had enough states in close proximity to yours that also seceded and together you formed a confederacy--even a loose one. Left alone, the south could have succeeded.

Going back to the subject of the thread, my main disgust is that people whine a lot about the government and politicians in general, but then either throw up their hands and give up, or pout and refuse to vote, not understanding that what the government does WILL effect them whether they like it or not. There is no option to not participate where the Feds are concerned!
I say get involved and shout loud and clear and get others to join you. If that doesn't work, then there is grounds for secession.

Vote for more of the same. That'll show those statist who is boss.

 

[.45 Dave]

Who would govern this new confederacy?

Sorry, I'm not wanting to discuss what is essentially a fantasy on this thread. I mean, that's sort of like discussing what football team would win the Super Bowl if you could pick all the players, the coach and design the plays.

If you want to start a thread and ask that I'll reply, but then again I'm sure all of us would gladly govern and would be only the best of beneficial dictators.

 

[J_Wales]

Then which of the 50 "sovereign" states can and would make a successful go of it? Edit to avoid ruffling feathers: Serious question. This is not meant as a "gotcha." I took it from your post that you believe I am wrong. I am interested in hearing your opinion on it.?

Which of the 50 States do I believe could make a successful go of it?

Alaska is one.
Texas is one.
Washington is one.
Oregon is one.
Louisiana is one
Mississippi is one.

If several States opted to secede as a group and form a new republic the current list would be capped at about 49.

Unfortunately, this is applicable on several levels. The most immediate is that no state will ever successfully severe itself from the union without the use of force being used against it to prevent it from doing so. But even assuming it could, no state has the resources to maintain the sovereignty it would need to exist independently indefinitely. Landlocked states would wither and die from isolation almost immediately. States with ports might be able to make a go of it. Some might even succeed. But I think eventually, most would find it impossible to operate independently without some patronage from another nation. Even the large and resource-rich American colonies required the assistance of France to seal the deal. .

I don't recall where I stated secession was the end of trade. In fact, it may well open new trade.

That is exactly what I am suggesting. With all due respect, duh! .

Doesn't have to be. Certainly, that was not the view of Jefferson and other Founding Fathers.

Will none defend Liberty against tyranny?

Would you?

No kidding. But if the federal government and states had been operating according to the intent of the founding members of this nation, we wouldn't need to be talking about secession like we are, would we?

Indeed... but where we are today hardly negates the validity of the original plan.

 

[.45 Dave]

On the topic of secession I will say that it is going to take time to reverse all the brainwashing that's happened in the last 147 years that has made the idea of secession seem untenable. J_Wales is right in that it might open new trade to these states. There are many countries (And I don't necessarily mean rabid enemies of America) that don't like US policy very much and might see the break off states as a potential new trade partner. A mutually beneficial deal with them could create international recognition as a new country and an opportunity.

Like I said, we have a lot to unlearn before we get there though.

 

[churchmouse]

In this perceived scenario what would we as a country end up looking like as in travel etc. I see Europe. State lines as borders Etc. Security and the like would be a logistical nightmare for a good while.
Big brother will not go for this I guarantee.

 

[.45 Dave]

In this perceived scenario what would we as a country end up looking like as in travel etc. I see Europe. State lines as borders Etc. Security and the like would be a logistical nightmare for a good while.
Big brother will not go for this I guarantee.

No BB wouldn't, but if the states could make some quick deals with foreign countries, and get recognition, then international opinion would have a big impact on what the former US does. No one would want it to evolve into WW III.

Of course, all of it depends on what states seceded and how quickly they could organize, secure their borders, get foreign interests involved---a whole huge list of "what-ifs". That is why I say this is like discussing fantasy football at the moment.

 

[hornadylnl]

Of course, all of it depends on what states seceded and how quickly they could organize, secure their borders, get foreign interests involved---a whole huge list of "what-ifs". That is why I say this is like discussing fantasy football at the moment.

Do you think the states could do all of that without the feds renditioning all the key actors to a prison that doesn't exist in an undisclosed country?

 

[Lex Concord]

I was literally just talking about this with my mom. I don't like Romney one bit, but I like him more than that thing we call POTUS. I want to vote for Ron Paul, but since I know he wont get elected, Im not going to take the chance of wasting my vote and taking one away form the lesser of two evils.

Just so you realize that Barack Obama is not on the Indiana Republican Primary ballot.

There's no "wasting of votes" by voting for Ron in May.