We talk about self determination as being important. At the same time we take about Union being important. So here's my question. If a state decided to succeed from the Union do you think we should let them, due to self determination or stop them for the Union? Please explain.

If Union is more important then self determination then why not force other country's into our Union like Canada? If self determination is more important then Union then was it wrong of us to stop the South from succeeding from the Union? Please explain.

At 11/13/12 04:52 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: We talk about self determination as being important. At the same time we take about Union being important. So here's my question. If a state decided to succeed from the Union do you think we should let them, due to self determination or stop them for the Union? Please explain.

If Union is more important then self determination then why not force other country's into our Union like Canada? If self determination is more important then Union then was it wrong of us to stop the South from succeeding from the Union? Please explain.

It's no longer about US anymore it is now about the US coming to grips with the fact that it can not bully other countries any more. US has to learn how to work with all other countries as an equal and not as a dictator.

At 11/13/12 04:52 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: We talk about self determination as being important. At the same time we take about Union being important. So here's my question. If a state decided to succeed from the Union do you think we should let them, due to self determination or stop them for the Union? Please explain.

First of all: SECEDE. The word is SECEDE, not 'succeed'. Please learn and understand the difference and account for it in future posts. Thank you.

Secondly, I see no reason not to favor self-determination. If a people decide they can better govern themselves as a sovereign nation than their current superior government, then it's their right to exercise that decision as they see fit.

Oh, but seceding from the Union is illegal, you say? So was seceding from the British Crown; that's why we fought an eight year long war over it. The legality of the matter is irrelevant, and it's laughable that we forbid for our states what we claimed for ourselves as a country because it's "against the law."

That said: secession is not a matter to be taken lightly, and the reasons for secession should be a solid foundation for doing so. The Declaration of Independence didn't just say the colonies were forming a new country; it said WHY they were doing it, and stated that no entity should secede without making its reasons clear. If the only reason for seceding is "our guy didn't win the election this time," where will your cause be when the next election comes?

If Union is more important then self determination then why not force other country's into our Union like Canada? If self determination is more important then Union then was it wrong of us to stop the South from succeeding from the Union? Please explain.

Even if union were more important, forcing the expansion of that union is an exhaustive process. There are 35 million people in Canada, one for every nine in the US; it's also a first-world country with an educated populace, a fully operational army, navy and air force within striking distance of American soil, and a government that ranks eighth on the Economist's Democracy Index (US is 19th). By the time we conquered Canada, our economy and military would be so depleted that it would take decades to recover.

As for whether it was wrong to stop the Southern states from seceding, I think it was wrong. Mind you, that doesn't automatically make the South right to have seceded. But what did we really gain by holding on to them? Reinforcement of our sense of unity? Obviously not, if the same people are petitioning to secede again over 150 years later. Equality for all races? We're still working on it. The end of slavery? Odds are it would have happened anyway. A singular location to get all our textbooks for every school in the country? ...True, but I wouldn't exactly call that a benefit.

At 11/13/12 05:42 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's no longer about US anymore it is now about the US coming to grips with the fact that it can not bully other countries any more. US has to learn how to work with all other countries as an equal and not as a dictator.

So if a state wanted to leave the union then should we let them or stop them?

At 11/13/12 10:07 PM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 11/13/12 05:42 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: It's no longer about US anymore it is now about the US coming to grips with the fact that it can not bully other countries any more. US has to learn how to work with all other countries as an equal and not as a dictator.

So if a state wanted to leave the union then should we let them or stop them?

I don't see how that ideal would lead to maximum efficiency and oneness on a global level.

I agree with Dawnslayer.

To Dawnslayer

You said before " secession is not a matter to be taken lightly, and the reasons for secession should be a solid foundation for doing so. If the only reason for seceding is "our guy didn't win the election this time," where will your cause be when the next election comes?"

When you think about it though the south really didn't give a good reason. There main reason was that they did not like who won the election. I say this for 3 reasons. 1.) Lincoln did not say that he was going to end slavery. All he said was that he was going to stop the spread of slavery so the south could keep its slaves. 2.) They could have tried to fight any bills Lincoln tried to pass in congress and if they failed at that then the supreme court but they didn't, they just seceded. 3.) Its clear the south wanted war. Before the attack on fort Sumter the north did not send any army's into the south and many northerners were for letting the south leave the union. The south could have tried getting other country's to recognize them as being independent and they could have continued negotiations with the north to try to let them leave. Instead they attack fort Sumter.

So it is clear the south wanted war and only seceded because they did not like who won the election.

At 11/13/12 10:13 PM, WhitePowerUSA wrote: This is a moot argument. Any nations run by a conspiracy of jews and a Muslim, who isn't even an American citizen is illegitimate. It is our duty as patriots and defenders of our families to secede and bring back old fashion values and morality to the nation. A white nation.

I can't tell if you actually believe what you are saying, or if you are just here to provide some comic relief. First off, considering that America has and has always had a secular government, the religiosity of our leaders is a moot point when it comes to determining the legitimacy of the American government. Our President and Congressional leaders could be atheists, Christians, Jews, Muslims or Satanists, it doesn't matter, as long as their actions reflect the will of the popular vote of the people.

Secondly, if you honestly believe the birther bullshit, please educate yourself. If you don't read the facts and you continue spouting this birther nonsense, then we know you've been on a meth binge since election day. It's time to put down the crank, brush your tooth and seek help. Obamacare will help you out.

At 11/13/12 04:52 PM, Jmayer20 wrote: We talk about self determination as being important. At the same time we take about Union being important. So here's my question. If a state decided to succeed from the Union do you think we should let them, due to self determination or stop them for the Union? Please explain.

We already discussed 150 years ago whether the States could secede from the Union.

The answer was no.

At 11/15/12 10:44 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: To Dawnslayer

You said "secession is not a matter to be taken lightly, and the reasons for secession should be a solid foundation for doing so"...When you think about it though the south really didn't give a good reason...the south wanted war and only seceded because they did not like who won the election.

Not sure I agree, but I also said that the North being wrong didn't make the South right. People CAN secede for stupid reasons; I never said otherwise.

At 11/15/12 01:39 PM, theburningliberal wrote:

I can't tell if you actually believe what you are saying, or if you are just here to provide some comic relief.

its the second part.

To Dawnslayer

How far do you think self determination should go? Should it just be for our states and other country's or could I declare my house to be a independent country? If you are not for letting my house be independent then please tell me were you think we should draw the line for self determination?

At 11/15/12 02:28 PM, BarryLyndonIII wrote: We already discussed 150 years ago whether the States could secede from the Union.

The answer was no.

Do you mind explaining to us what you think the reasons were for the answer to be no? Please go into more detail.

At 11/16/12 11:34 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 11/15/12 02:28 PM, BarryLyndonIII wrote: We already discussed 150 years ago whether the States could secede from the Union.

The answer was no.

Do you mind explaining to us what you think the reasons were for the answer to be no? Please go into more detail.

The constitution mandates that every state in the union will have a republican form of governmentry so I find it hard to believe that the beloved "Constitution" would have the states all separating from the union. Also it would be massively counter productive to separate and rather stupid. Dam does US love conflict as it can't even get along with itself.

At 11/16/12 11:41 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

The constitution mandates that every state in the union will have a republican form of governmentry so I find it hard to believe that the beloved "Constitution" would have the states all separating from the union.

You really should read more about the founding of our nation, including the Federalist papers. states thought it unnecessary to include secession clauses since the Constitution did not forbid secession and because it was believed that statesâEUTM rights were preserved wherever the Constitution did not expressly transfer statesâEUTM powers to the new federal government. (On December 15, 1791, this idea was incorporated into the Constitution as the Tenth Amendment which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") The belief of the ConstitutionâEUTMs ratifiers was that the states were entering into a voluntary association and not giving up their sovereignty. One of the Federalist Papers expressing the ideas that were persuasive in convincing states to join the Union is Federalist Paper #45. That publication, addressed to the âEUoePeople of the State of New York,âEU said, âEUoeThe powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.âEU

Also, several writings of the founders referred to the formation of the Union under the Constitution as an experiment. Although many people clearly hoped the new Union of states would long endure, very few people expressed great confidence that it would. More widespread were expectations that states would withdraw from the Union if the arrangement were found to be unsatisfactory.

And for nearly seven decades, from the ratification of the Constitution to shortly before the Civil War, very few people questioned the right of states to secede from the Union. Most people took the right to secede for granted, and secession had occasionally been considered by states in different regions of the country. After all, the country had been formed largely through secession from British rule. Secession has not incorrectly been called, âEUoeas American as apple pie.âEU

Also it would be massively counter productive to separate and rather stupid.

I'll agree, the whole idea of secession in 2012 is coming from a bunch of cry-babies who are upset that Obama won a 2nd term. Even if states did secede, chances are the rest of the world would still hold them responsible for a share of our national debt. Not to mention the damage it would do to the US reputation, and the lack of reputation that the new countr(y/ies) would have.

Dam does US love conflict as it can't even get along with itself.

No, we just have a bunch of crybabies who don't know how to handle butthurt.

At 11/16/12 11:20 AM, Jmayer20 wrote: To Dawnslayer

How far do you think self determination should go? Should it just be for our states and other country's or could I declare my house to be a independent country? If you are not for letting my house be independent then please tell me were you think we should draw the line for self determination?

Are you familiar with the Montevideo Convention? It is an international agreement stating what in the eyes of the international community can constitute a sovereign state. Given the power a nation wields, this compact is surprisingly flexible.

"Article 1 - The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Article 2 - The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law."

As long as there is one person claiming citizenship in your house, it has a permanent population. Does your house have a defined territory? This is a bit more complicated, because the house itself is not a territory, but the land it is built on is. So as long as you own the property, you're okay. Government can be simple as "Jmayer makes all the rules," so you have that. Capacity to enter relations is purposely ambiguous; if the police come to reclaim the house, you can call it an invasion, which constitutes foreign relations. Your state will be short lived, but you'll have a valid argument for its sovereignty. And Article 3 says international recognition isn't necessary to be sovereign, so you can even legitimately take your case to court.

Note also that Article 1 says these are conditions a sovereign state SHOULD meet, as opposed to MUST. In theory, you could declare your rented ninth-floor apartment a sovereign state, and the bills you pay as foreign trade agreements; then when you move, you can say you're annexing one territory and ceding another. And if you get robbed, you can call for "allied intervention" from the local police force. The extent to which self-determination is viable can quite easily delve into the realm of silliness.

But in the end, that is the point of self-determination - there is no limit to it. Silly or not, wise or foolish, it is our right as individuals to live as we see fit for ourselves. Whatever decision we make to that endeavor, we also accept and undertake the consequences of those decisions. It may not be a perfect solution, but in the interest of liberty, I believe that it is the correct one.

At 11/16/12 11:34 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:

At 11/15/12 02:28 PM, BarryLyndonIII wrote: We already discussed 150 years ago whether the States could secede from the Union.

The answer was no.

Do you mind explaining to us what you think the reasons were for the answer to be no? Please go into more detail.

The sole fact that they South had to resort to violent war in order to attempt to achieve its goal of secession pretty much says that the answer is no.

I think Lincoln said it well with the Gettyburg address.

At 11/21/12 12:00 AM, Austerity wrote: The future of self determination in America took a mortal blow with the re-election of obama.

Clearly you don't know what self determination is. The fact that Obama won clearly shows that the majority of American's are for him.

To Austerity

Again I say you do not know what self determination is. Self determination does not refer to the ability or the willingness to support your self. Self determination refers to the will of the people in an area or country. In this case the will of our country was to have Obama be remain President for 4 more years.

Now you can argue if that was a wise or foolish thing to do but that's for a different topic.

Morons should be fired and replaced with people who actually want jobs. Why are Walmart losers complaining how much they get paid? They don't even do anything except stock, move carts around, and use registers. How much money do they want to do simple jobs like that? Aren't they already being overpaid and making more than fast food employees even tho they're doing the same exact fucking jobs!

At 11/21/12 04:05 PM, TheKlown wrote: Morons should be fired and replaced with people who actually want jobs. Why are Walmart losers complaining how much they get paid? They don't even do anything except stock, move carts around, and use registers. How much money do they want to do simple jobs like that? Aren't they already being overpaid and making more than fast food employees even tho they're doing the same exact fucking jobs!

The specific issue for Wal-Mart employees is that they are being asked to work crazy weird hours over the Thanksgiving holiday... But the larger issue is that many companies barely page wages that are enough to get by, let alone support a family with. And now with Obamacare, many companies are reacting by lowering the amount of hours that employees work, expecting more work from less employees who are already overstressed and underpaid. And your analysis of job descriptions is grossly generalized and doesn't reflect the true nature of the jobs that they do.

Anyone who thinks they can support a family off being a fast food employee or Walmart employee is an idiot. Stop having kids if you can't take care of them, god damn Americans are dumb as fuck.

At 11/21/12 09:26 PM, TheKlown wrote: Anyone who thinks they can support a family off being a fast food employee or Walmart employee is an idiot. Stop having kids if you can't take care of them, god damn Americans are dumb as fuck.

So sad but so true !

At 11/21/12 09:26 PM, TheKlown wrote: Anyone who thinks they can support a family off being a fast food employee or Walmart employee is an idiot. Stop having kids if you can't take care of them, god damn Americans are dumb as fuck.

It's not even that - I work in a full-service restaurant and I can't even support myself on the hours I get and the wages I make. No kids, nothing else. I live with my mom and stepdad who are both elderly and on social security, and between the three of us we still struggle at the end of the month. So do I support wal-mart workers? Hell yeah I do. You do raise a valid point - those who can't afford kids should endeavor not to have them, but it ignores the larger issue. Wages at many jobs just aren't high enough for many Americans to live on.

At 11/21/12 04:05 PM, TheKlown wrote: Morons should be fired and replaced with people who actually want jobs. Why are Walmart losers complaining how much they get paid? They don't even do anything except stock, move carts around, and use registers. How much money do they want to do simple jobs like that? Aren't they already being overpaid and making more than fast food employees even tho they're doing the same exact fucking jobs!

I do not see what that has to do with this topic. If you want to talk about Walmart workers bitching then make your own topic.

The illegality of secession is a red herring.

Legality in the real-world sense, especially when we're dealing with secession, is based entirely on whether or not the "Union" state is both willing and capable of using violent force to prevent the seceding state from seceding.

To quote Thane from Mass Effect 2: "The law is only a protection when everyone agrees to be bound by it. We Don't"

It doesn't matter if the constitution explicitly permitted any state from seceding at will in the United states, or explicitly prevented it. What matters is whether those who command the military chose to allow or disallow the

It only matters to the extent that citizens of that state project legitimacy onto agencies that adhere to written laws, Citizens and soldiers. So if Texas seceded and Obama wanted to firebomb Dallas as punishment for some sort of treason, but every pilot in the air force refused to man the bombers to carry out the order, then in effect Obama can no longer be said to function as a 'commander' of the military.

The unpopularity of trying to suppress a secession could in theory be strong enough to prevent a central government from doing it.

Practical limitations on actions by others are the substance from which laws arise; the normative attitudes people hold in their head about inherent notions of right and wrong, as well as legally prescribed notions of right and wrong, are forces which push practical limitations in one direction or another.

________________

Now if you're confused over the apparent conflict between notions of self determination on one side and the notion of unity on the other; those two only conflict if you adhere to notions of universal moral absolutes.

At 11/21/12 09:35 PM, theburningliberal wrote:

At 11/21/12 09:26 PM, TheKlown wrote: Anyone who thinks they can support a family off being a fast food employee or Walmart employee is an idiot. Stop having kids if you can't take care of them, god damn Americans are dumb as fuck.

So do I support wal-mart workers? Hell yeah I do.

Why support Wal Mart when it supports the hardships you previously denoted ? If a Wal Mart employee complains about there shitty job when it's there own apathetic stupidity and laziness that keeps them there so they have no rights to bitch about the career they have chosen to work at as there are better opportunities than Wal Mart.

To SmilezRoyale

Lets say you were the president. If a state decided to secede would you try to stop them or just let them go?

At 11/21/12 09:53 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

Why support Wal Mart when it supports the hardships you previously denoted ?

Read my post before making silly comments.

If a Wal Mart employee complains about there shitty job when it's there own apathetic stupidity and laziness that keeps them there

I was going to correct your grammar, but it is so bad that I don't even know where to start. So I will just address your point.

Have you ever lived in the real world? At all? Apparently not, since you display zero understanding of what life is like for low-income Americans. You can't just walk away from a job just because you don't like it, and even with the striking wal-mart workers, they are not walking away, they are just demanding better compensation for the jobs that they do.

And many people working at walmart-like jobs don't have a choice. Many are college students, making extra cash while studying to get a better job. Others are people who use it as fallback position, trying to keep some kind of income coming in while they search for a real job using the skill sets that they were trained for.

so they have no rights to bitch about the career they have chosen to work at as there are better opportunities than Wal Mart.

Opportunities like that are hard to come by, especially when it takes some kind of college degree anymore just to find your way out of poverty. Most people trying to get out of poverty (myself included) need some kind of break in order to be able to make it through college. Even then, at many jobs, it takes years to build up to a point where you are making a decent wage, and some people just don't have that kind of time.