Texas wants to secede from the Union?
- Thread starter SilentHunter7
- Start date
SECEDE.Seekster said:Oh Texas has the guts, we just have no reason to succeed at this time.Typecast said:This thread made my day. I hope they do, it would be interesting to see if Texas really had the guts. Then they'd probably be classified as a rogue state XD
It's not about success, its about seceding from the Union.
Sorry, just a pet peeve. I may have even spelled it wrong somewhere in this thread, too. lolz
And now I'm curious to see why Guts thinks that the majority of Texas wants to secede from the US, since the group is largely a minority in the state. I think people are getting confused (perhaps by the media) that the Texas Secession Party is bigger than it is. It's a small, extremely vocal group, and the fact that it is vocal probably puts it on the radar more often, making it seem big.
But it's not. Presently, it only has about two thousand members in it.
Ah, but we do disagree. Before we can talk about the merits of Southern or Texan secession specifically, we must first establish that the right to secession depends on merit.ElephantGuts said:
If liberty is only granted in cases deemed to have merit, how does this apply to other rights like freedom of the press or freedom of speech? Should Neo-Nazis be denied public assembly because their message is not reasonable? And who does the deeming? What body could be trusted to fairly weigh the merits of each petition? And if such a body can exist, why does it not govern each and every action of each and every man?
No, rights are not subject to censorship by a subjective authority. Or we cannot claim to have the right.
True, but in that case what gives secessionists the right to secede and cause warfare and death just for the sake of their freedoms?Rooster Cogburn said:
Sometimes you just have to trust people's general opinions. I think most people would agree with me in drawing the line somewhere between the denial of human rights and high taxes. The fact that even most Texans talking about secession do so jokingly attests to this; few people are serious about it.
But it's true that eventually this subject becomes one of those matters of opinion which have no true answer. In those cases, you just do your best to satisfy as many people as possible and avoid death and destruction except for when completely necessary.
Look at the population of Texas.
Now look at the amount of agricultural capacity in Texas.
Even if you assume that it will all be equally and efficiently distributed (oh, that darn communism!) with no waste whatsoever, there would be a whole lotta starved Texans within a couple months of secession.
Buy the food for elsewhere? With what? Any funds held in American banks by Texans who left the Union would be forfeit, and it'd be kinda hard to trade oil when your ports are blockaded.
Finally, on the subject of whether or not Texas has the right to secede, it comes down to a simple, unpalatable fact of national rights: you have the right to do what you can militarily back up, no more. Anything else is granted at the indulgence of those more powerful than you. Contrary to what your mother may have told you, violence solves everything, and usually does. Ask those pirates who got sniped.
Now look at the amount of agricultural capacity in Texas.
Even if you assume that it will all be equally and efficiently distributed (oh, that darn communism!) with no waste whatsoever, there would be a whole lotta starved Texans within a couple months of secession.
Buy the food for elsewhere? With what? Any funds held in American banks by Texans who left the Union would be forfeit, and it'd be kinda hard to trade oil when your ports are blockaded.
Finally, on the subject of whether or not Texas has the right to secede, it comes down to a simple, unpalatable fact of national rights: you have the right to do what you can militarily back up, no more. Anything else is granted at the indulgence of those more powerful than you. Contrary to what your mother may have told you, violence solves everything, and usually does. Ask those pirates who got sniped.
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?ElephantGuts said:
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.
Darth Mobius said:
Please sir, read what you are complaining about BEFORE you thrash it....
"Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday with his stance against the federal government and for states' rights as some in his
U.S. flag-waving
audience shouted, "Secede!"
Clearly you missed something before claiming another's ignorance
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.avidabey said:
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.Rooster Cogburn said:
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:
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).Rooster Cogburn said:
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.
Oh noes my cancer wants to leave my body and go somewhere else. Whatever shall I do?*
*should probably be noted that my only experience with Texans were two people but they were REALLY justify the above.
*should probably be noted that my only experience with Texans were two people but they were REALLY justify the above.
Legally, Texas still has the right constitutionally to secede. Not only that, but I believe that all states should have that right simply because that is the foundation that our government is founded on.
EDIT: OK, I might have been wrong about Texas legally having the right to secede. But I will stand strong on my opinion that all states should be able to secede regardless. If the people are not happy w/ their government, then reform is needed. However, I do not believe that reform such as secession should occur unless, say, 75% of people are in strong agreement on the matter.
EDIT: OK, I might have been wrong about Texas legally having the right to secede. But I will stand strong on my opinion that all states should be able to secede regardless. If the people are not happy w/ their government, then reform is needed. However, I do not believe that reform such as secession should occur unless, say, 75% of people are in strong agreement on the matter.
I only quoted this portion to avoid huge quote towers, but I mean to address your entire post.ElephantGuts said:
Whether secession is prudent or the right thing in any given case considering factors like war, death and taxes is not what I mean to debate at this point. Before we can consider extraneous factors, we must first decide the underlying issue. We must differentiate between being right about something, and having the right to something. I believe Neo-Nazis are wrong to promote the ideology of white supremacy. Likely, most would agree. This is a hateful ideology that would do society harm. Why does the government not stop them from assembling, then? Why does the government not tell everyone what to think and how to act, in every case? Wouldn't society function better if all of us submitted to one central authority with unlimited power over us?
The answer is yes- society would function better. Efficiency is the mark of every totalitarian regime.
But the American ideal is liberty- for its own sake. Neo-Nazis have the right to assemble even when they are wrong to do so. We do not deny them this because we consider it a right, and a right cannot be denied by subjectivity or the will of others.
Your question about Neo-Nazis making a new Holocaust is not without merit. But that is a Just War issue, not a secession issue. We should not permit the Holocaust to begin again, but it would be the Holocaust, not the act of secession, that we would be fighting. It is like asking, should we not stop a man who exercises his right to free speech and then punches a baby? Of course we should stop the baby punching, not the free speech.
It is true that men must be governed. And you could use this principle to justify any and all government authority. But the Washingtonian imperative is small government. Shrink it as much as possible, leaving only what skeletal structure of a government is necessary to secure liberty. The purpose of state and federal authorities existing parallel to each other is to create a union of willing partners for the benefit of all. If those partners are not willing, the word "union" hardly applies.
Controlling people's actions is a necessary evil, not a principle. It is to be reviled and feared. We limit freedom only when the freedoms of one person impose on the freedoms of another. If a federal government is telling a state what union they must belong to, that state's rights are being usurped.
