Rooster Cogburn said:
But aren't we blaming the victim now? Assuming states do have a right to secede at their own discretion, is a federal government that attempts to thwart that right by invasion not responsible for senseless deaths?
And- just for the sake of freedom? What do we value more than our freedom? Liberty is the highest virtue; riches and even life are nothing without it. This is not to say that people would not be wise to weigh the human cost of war. But if that cost is ever justified, it must be in the defense of freedom.
If most people agree that the right of another to choose his government relies on the subjective whim of others, I am not surprised. That is the condition of almost all societies. They do not know liberty or do not want it, and we should shun their example. There are lots of reasons why secession is not currently a political reality, but this does not make it wrong in principle.
Sometimes opinions are, and should be, dictated by principle. The founding principles of the United States include the right of the people to choose their own government- indeed, they are centered around it. You do the best you can in this world, and the United States should not make its realities more difficult to bear by denying its member states their freedom.
Well first of all, when I said "
just freedom" I meant that in comparison to war and death. As I said I believe that freedom is probably the most important thing in a person's life, but still, it's
in a person's life. There are many people who would gladly die for what they believe in, but there are also many people who would rather make some concessions in exchange for a peaceful, enjoyable life and to enjoy the trauma that war brings. I wouldn't consider myself to be at either extreme of that argument, and while sure sometimes it's necessary to fight for your freedom you must also know when to make concessions for the sake of peace and avoid creating conflict everywhere you're unhappy with something. And don't say something along the lines of "No one should ever have to give up their freedom for anything" because I agree with that, but freedom is just one issue where violence may be acceptable. You can't start wars over every little thing that bothers you. When considering things like taxes, sometimes concessions are necessary and acceptable.
And I still don't think that people should unconditionally be able to start their own government just because they want to. What if all the Neo-Nazis got together in one state and decided they wanted to secede, create their own Nazi nation and start another Holocaust? Obviously that's an extreme case, but sometimes people's actions do need to be controlled by a more sensible, experienced, and professional outside force...like a government. That's what they're there for right? Because they're professionals at controlling society and setting up laws regarding what people can and can't do. And when someone opposes those laws, they have the freedom to appeal to the Courts, which is the correct peaceful method in this country, as opposed to a secession. And as I said and I think we agreed, it is when the government refuses to correct the issue after the legal methods were fully pursued that a secession becomes an acceptable prospect.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On to my little historical innacuracy... (Seperated from my above discussion for clearer reading)
avidabey said:
ElephantGuts said:
Alright now I'm confused: are we still talking about Texas or some hypothetical state? Because considering Texas's situation yes the majority of Texans may support a sucession but they are the minority out of all the people in the country, as opposed to 1776 when the majority of people throughout all the Colonies were against the British.
But yes, whether we're talking about a hypothetical state or Texas, the majority of the people actually rebelling do support it.
Ooooh, oooh, history buff here! Well, minor history buff anyway.
Only like, forty percent of Americans wanted to part from Britain. Not exactly the majority (although they did have a plurality). I...I...uh...don't really know what that lends to the conversation, but there you have it.
Rooster Cogburn said:
avidabey said:
Ooooh, oooh, history buff here! Well, minor history buff anyway.
Only like, forty percent of Americans wanted to part from Britain. Not exactly the majority (although they did have a plurality). I...I...uh...don't really know what that lends to the conversation, but there you have it.
I didn't mention it because it didn't contribute to my argument, but I'm glad you mentioned it. The more you know... There are a range of estimates, and its impossible to know exactly how many favored independence, but it was far from unanimous especially in the North.
As I typed that I did realize that I didn't think it was true that the majority of American colonists supported the revolution, and I'll admit that I sort of hoped no one called me on it. But I decided it wasn't worth correcting because it really didn't pertain to the point I was making (thank you Rooster for recognizing this).
What I really was saying was that enough of the population of the effected area was willing to rebel that it was atleast a valid and relatively widespread notion. It doesn't really matter exactly what percentage, but it was enough for the revolution to succeed wasn't it?
I was saying this in contrast to Texas's situation, where it is only 1 state out of 50 who are all treated the same. So it's roughly 1/50th of the nation compared to the around 40% of colonists supporting the revolution as you said. In 1776 Texas's current situation would be about equivalent to, what, maybe a few counties wanting to secede? I highly doubt that
that revolution would have succeeded.