Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.
  • Less Advertisements! Members see fewer ads and have the option to upgrade their account to ad free!

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Should Secession be an option?

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by Creech, Dec 9, 2012.

  1. Archaeopteryx

    Archaeopteryx Wanderer

    Messages:
    22,032
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,371
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Humanist
    I didn't claim that government was equivalent to organised society, but it certainly is part of it. You dodged the question: how does one go about not receiving the benefits of living in an organised society?
     
  2. Nilloc

    Nilloc Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    4,155
    Ratings:
    +484
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian
    Perhaps I didn't communicate well enough. People have every right to not associate with whomever they want. They can live as a hermit if they like. Though that's not what I'm advocating (personally), nor is it something I recommend. Rather, I believe in voluntary association with others. Thus, no one in society should have to be assocaited with anyone else if they don't want to. So if I don't want to pay the U.S. government for its "services" I should be allowed to find another party and/or parites to pay for those services. That's secession. To use an analogy, I "secede" from a store that has crappy service and I don't want their product anymore.
     
  3. Archaeopteryx

    Archaeopteryx Wanderer

    Messages:
    22,032
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,371
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Humanist
    That doesn't really address the question though. Recall that you secede from the state, not the government, and in doing so become your own state with its own government. How do you go about no longer receiving the benefits of the state that your household just seceded from? Do you stop using their roads? They aren't your roads anymore. If so, how do you conduct trade? Presumably trade would be important in a small landlocked state like yours (I'm assuming you don't have your own port). What about defence? You are no longer entitled to police protection, but if you live in a safe neighbourhood your state is still likely to benefit from the safety provided by the police (whose services you are no longer paying for). How do you go about ensuring that you no longer receive that benefit?
     
  4. Nilloc

    Nilloc Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    4,155
    Ratings:
    +484
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian
    It's not as if I'd be the only one seceding (assuiming that the government wouldn't kill me first). Plenty of others who don't want to be part of the U.S. government would secede too. And, if people came to the moral belief of voluntaryism, they would know that the U.S. government is a criminal organization that forces people to pay it. Thus, the roads and such do not belong them.

    Recall that I said I don't see secession happening any time soon. That's because people still think that you have the right to kill and steal as long as you con enough people into voting for you. The voluntary society I'd like to see can't come about without a paradigm change, much like it was with seeing women and blacks as equals. Or how the Enlightenment brought an end to old superstitions when people started thinking for themselves.
     
  5. Archaeopteryx

    Archaeopteryx Wanderer

    Messages:
    22,032
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +2,371
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Humanist
    They wouldn't be seceding from the government, they'd be seceding from the state, thereby forming their own state to govern how they desire.

    Once you have seceded, you no longer have a right to the roads because they are not part of your newly created state. You have to build and maintain your own roads.

    From context, I presume by "steal" you mean taxes. Not everyone thinks that taxes are the moral equivalent of theft.
     
  6. Nilloc

    Nilloc Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    4,155
    Ratings:
    +484
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Christian
    I have no desire to create another state (here I am defining 'state' as a territorial monopoly of violence). The governments in the U.S. have no right to things like roads, since they paid for those with stolen money. Now if they would change, using only voluntary payments (thus downsizing themselves), they could hold legitimate property.

    Not everyone thought that having women and blacks as property was immoral. Not everyone thought that killing heretics and people of different religions was immoral. To this day there are people who deny that Selective Service is slavery, that collateral damage is murder, that eminent domain is theft, etc. Thankfully, most recognize my first two examples for what they are. I'm confident that one day, probably long after I'm gone, people will see the state for what it is too.
     
  7. usexpat97

    usexpat97 kewlness

    Messages:
    1,032
    Ratings:
    +38
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Presbyterian
    IMO, the point at which taxes become stolen money is when the money taken from the people, meant for the people, is used for something other than the people. Roads IMO don't usually fit that category. Now--if you hand that money over to a private company to build those roads, who then turn around and charge toll to the people who just paid for them--now THAT'S theft.
     
  8. praying

    praying Snazzy Title Goes Here Supporter

    Messages:
    32,636
    Ratings:
    +1,533
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Democrat
    Faith:
    Agnostic
    the bottom line. ^^
     
  9. usexpat97

    usexpat97 kewlness

    Messages:
    1,032
    Ratings:
    +38
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Presbyterian
    You mean the same states that are ALREADY underwriting unemployment, workers' comp, their own health insurance, and medicaid could not also underwrite Medicare and SS if their citizens did not also have to pay 35% of their income to out of the state? What about Texas, who has already repeatedly wanted to do just that, but keeps getting denied because the Feds won't release funds? Or Alaska, who annually pays $1000 to all of their residents--just because they are residents? I'm calling baloney on that one. No only could the states take it over--they would actually be competent at it. Which is more than the Feds can say.
     
  10. SoldierOfTheKing

    SoldierOfTheKing Christian Spenglerian

    Messages:
    4,521
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +887
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Presbyterian
    The way the federal governments fiscal policy is going SS and Medicare are going to go bust eventually. I'm never going receive those benefits, because by the time I'm 65, the money won't be there. Many of my generation understand this. This day and age, only fools rely on the government to support them after retirement.
     
  11. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    Messages:
    19,382
    Ratings:
    +1,014
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Oriental Orthodox
    What states can seceede from the UNION, can local towns within the state secede from the State as well? What about local communities secedding from rule by a certain area?
     
  12. SoldierOfTheKing

    SoldierOfTheKing Christian Spenglerian

    Messages:
    4,521
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +887
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Presbyterian
    Good question. IMO no. Nilloc seems to think so though.
     
  13. USincognito

    USincognito Stop QWERTYface! Supporter

    Messages:
    29,930
    Ratings:
    +4,510
    Faith:
    Atheist
    Actually that's not true. There has been a large number of people in the Intelligence community that realized the Soviet model was unsustainable and was likely to come crashing down at some point. That was in the 70s.
     
  14. Redac

    Redac Regular Member

    Messages:
    3,426
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +462
    Faith:
    Seeker
    Heck, I could have told you it'd fall at some point. Socialism In One Country isn't a model that most on the left even think can work.
     
  15. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    Messages:
    19,382
    Ratings:
    +1,014
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Oriental Orthodox
    Some of the best models for countries to work are barter and trade systems...
     
  16. MachZer0

    MachZer0 Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

    Messages:
    61,058
    Ratings:
    +1,506
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Christian
    You being born in 1992 and the Soviet Union having collapsed in 1991, I somehow doubt you could have told us it would fall at some point
     
  17. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    Messages:
    19,382
    Ratings:
    +1,014
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Oriental Orthodox

    Interesting..
     
  18. SoldierOfTheKing

    SoldierOfTheKing Christian Spenglerian

    Messages:
    4,521
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +887
    Marital Status:
    In Relationship
    Faith:
    Presbyterian
    How many people expected it to fall when it did, though?

    How sustainable is a model that has involves the government borrowing almost half the money it spends? This what is so ridiculous about these arguments that succession would never work because the states need federal money. First, there's no such thing as federal money, because Washington gets its money from sources that lie inside the states. Second, because the way things are going, Washington is not going to have all that money at some point, it can't keep borrowing forever. So the very reasons given why succession is impossible, are in fact why it's inevitable. It's not imminent, but give it another twenty or thirty years and it won't seem farfetched at all.
     
  19. Redac

    Redac Regular Member

    Messages:
    3,426
    Gender:
    Male
    Ratings:
    +462
    Faith:
    Seeker
    I can't tell if you're making a point about theory or if you're just unfamiliar with the English language.
     
  20. Gxg (G²)

    Gxg (G²) Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7) Supporter CF Senior Ambassador

    Messages:
    19,382
    Ratings:
    +1,014
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Politics:
    US-Others
    Faith:
    Oriental Orthodox
    Perhaps an anarchist model could work for secession?