I don’t think that has much to do with it. I heard similar secession and “moving to Canada” complaints back when Fascist Bush won his second term. I think people are so sure that their view points are Right that they are dismayed when someone else wins the election. BabaBooey’s assumed candidate (Johnson) barely made a scratch. The emotional response is that everybody else is a moron (or doesn’t care about freedom) and they must be excised from the electorate. The libertarian way to do that is to secede.
It’s easy to move from one state to another because they’re all parts of the same country. Even in the most optimistic secession scenarios, moving between states that are still part of the US, and states that have seceded, will be substantially more difficult, if not de facto impossible. Oppressive governments are not well known for making it easy for their citizens to leave. East Germany didn’t build the Berlin Wall to keep people out.
That aside, it’s interesting that you endorse the right to secession over the election of a moderate centrist president, but your response to what would without questions be a vastly more violent and intolerant environment towards minority groups in those regions is, “Well, they can just move somewhere else.” Double standard, much?
We’ve had this discussion in other threads and I don’t want to hijack this one, but I wouldn’t agree with that.
Lots of people think that way, yes. I don’t remember much of that in 2000 or 2004, but thanks to Google I can see at least a few people were spouting that kind of nonsense at the time. There was much more “I’m out of here” than “let’s secede.”
It’s a little strange that this requires so much explaining.
That’s the kind of life I want: engulfed in an experiment in a splintering country. Sounds great. Seriously, the biggest reason “why not” is the fact that nobody wants it. That much should be obvious. Am I supposed to treat this as a serious issue because a few people online signed a petition? Nobody’s putting his money where his mouth is, and nobody will. No states have actually put forth this idea, and none will.
You’re still ducking the question. You’ve said this proposal would bring about more freedom. It’s possible it would bring about more economic and personal freedom; even if we take the economic part for granted it appears like the result would actually be substantially less freedom for a lot of people in your “country” (not you, though!). But they could move, maybe… or if not, let’s criticize the federal government again instead of dealing with what looks like a major flaw in your own idea.
I’m against secession because I think the framework provided by the Constitution as it was originally intended was pretty damn good. The compromise on slavery was the only major flaw I can find with it. With the addition of the 13-15 amendment, i think we have a pretty good document. There is no reason for the federal government to usurp more power than is expressly granted by the Constitution in its present form, but it continues to do so. ( please don’t argue the court has validated all of the fed govt’s usurpations because its BS)
Those calling for secession have keenly recognized that the US Constitution has failed. In my opinion the best redress is nullification of any and all extraconstitutional laws. Secession in the Civil War allowed for the Union to use patriotism to fight the “rebels”. Most people, even critics of secession, can recognize that the people of a state have a right to govern themselves. Secession is a much tougher sell than nullification.
But they do have the right to govern themselves. We govern ourselves through the Federal government.
The federal government has enumerated powers.
And? We still govern ourselves via the Federal government. The enumerated powers are part of that self-government.
I’m just trying to figure out how a weak Federal government in the proposed reformed USA where states can enact any law they want as long as they let anyone who wants to leave, leave, can enforce this policy of making sure anyone who’s been enslaved can leave the state.
Would you need an office in every town in the slave states with a Federal official who goes door to door and interviews slaves to find out if any of them feel like leaving, and if they do, provides them transportation?
Without Federal taxes, how do you pay these officials enough to keep them from being coopted by the slaveowners? I don’t think it even seems possible.
I do remember a lot of loose “moving to Canada” talk, but zero secession talk from that election. YMMV.
Word.
Maybe. But one thing we’ve learned time and again is that it’s easy to stand on high principle when you’re so far outside the majority you have no chance of winning.
It’s when you’re close, when you can smell a victory, that the temptation to shift just enough to tip the balance rises and rises until it becomes overwhelming.
And then, once you’ve given something up to get within reach of victory, it would be a damned shame to have given that up and still lose. So now you’re invested in victory, at a small price, and a little more compromise would ensure it wasn’t wasted.
And thus does “a small price” become “at any price.”
Certainly Ron Paul (or any other apparently committed person) might never do that. But he’s never scented victory. I don’t think we know – I don’t think Ron Paul knows – how far he’d go if he did.
Oooook…what makes you think I have a problem with all citizens of the US having a say in how the powers enumerated to the federal government are carried out?
You do realize he won like a dozen congressional races, right?
I’m a bit fuzzy on my US history, but I seem to recall the United States of America made something called the Louisiana Purchase. When did the state of Louisiana buy its offshore oil from the USA?
I’m sorry, I thought we were discussing the presidency. Do you in turn, realize that congressional districts can be gerrymandered to permit victory by relatively extremist positions? With a good computer, a couple of sharp interns, and a case of Red Bull, you can probably redistrict a moon hoaxer into Congress after a few nights of intense work.
Even if you don’t admit that, a Congresscritter is (at most) 1/435th of a US President.
You don’t remember the Jesusland maps?
Don’t be so sure about that. There’s a reason why the states you’re talking about were at the heart of the Confederacy.
Of course I realize the districts can be gerrymandered. Do you realize it would have been easier for him to compromise his principles when party leadership attempted to oust him in the mid 90s by backing a moderate opponent?
Of course I realize the districts can be gerrymandered. Do you realize it would have been easier for him to compromise his principles when party leadership attempted to oust him in the mid 90s by backing a moderate opponent?
Also, if you think a man is some sort of fraction of another man, you would have been a good compromiser at the founding and secession should be within your purview.
Apologies if it’s been linked to before, but This Cracked article explains the matter more clearly than anything i could write.
Summary: Nothing is happening. Well, OK, a few people are venting, but that’s it.
To paraphrase a man whom you probably don’t like: “The 1860s called. They want their logic back.”