Seceeding from the Union

[GEddie]

Why can’t we choose our governments? Why does government in essence own our property?

One could argue that those revolts were due to corruption of governments and not poverty. Besides, SS was instituted as an income tax, for proof, see how well funded the system is.

Modern nation states have became far more authoritarian. This trend needs to be reversed and we should go back to subsidiarity.

I am not sure anything preceding the national state is any better. Feudalism, empire, tribalism etc. all have associated evils.

ICXC NIKA

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I am not sure anything preceding the national state is any better. Feudalism, empire, tribalism etc. all have associated evils.

ICXC NIKA

We still have empire. At least feudalism didn’t pretend that it could micromanage every detail of your life, and it didn’t have total war like we have today.

 

[GEddie]

We still have empire. At least feudalism didn’t pretend that it could micromanage every detail of your life, and it didn’t have total war like we have today.

Because in feudal times your life would have far fewer “details” to care about.

And your dead body wouldn’t care if you died in a total war, or a minor war to gain the Duke some more square miles, that you were conscripted into.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Reep]

Here’s one from the ol’ rail-splitter himself:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.

This is a most valuable–a most sacred right–a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it.

Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

~ Abraham Lincoln to Congress, January 12, 1848
(Link to his Speech regarding Mexican War)​

 

[migueltojose]

Here’s one from the ol’ rail-splitter himself:

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.

This is a most valuable–a most sacred right–a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it.

Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

~ Abraham Lincoln to Congress, January 12, 1848
(Link to his Speech regarding Mexican War)​

Right on. Jefferson expected a revolution every 50-80 years. He thought it was necessary to flush out the “lifers”… parasites and leaches living off politics, both in and around politics. While I always thought that was extreme, it certainly seems plausible in terms of intent. Fortunattely the constitution is flexible and strong enough to weather the storms but the current structure is essentially inoperable because we need tough and hard decisions and politicians can’t get or remain in office agreeing to those terms… so we are left with a situation where, for them, doing nothing is better than doing something… because doing something means losing your job, because the somethings are all bad. It’s quite a conundrem. You can’t really even blame them. What can they do. If they do the right thing, they are ostracized by their party and constituents which means they are gonesville. So, they do nothing but blame the other guys.

 

[Reep]

Right on. Jefferson expected a revolution every 50-80 years. He thought it was necessary to flush out the “lifers”… parasites and leaches living off politics, both in and around politics. While I always thought that was extreme, it certainly seems plausible in terms of intent. Fortunattely the constitution is flexible and strong enough to weather the storms but the current structure is essentially inoperable because we need tough and hard decisions and politicians can’t get or remain in office agreeing to those terms…

I hear you migueltojose. And for years I argued as you do: If only we could get the right guys in office; guys who would follow the Constitution.

It seems, however, we are only dealing with men whom the constitution cannot control. Limited government is a dead letter to Democrats. Republicans pay it homage only in election years (and never when in office). Government grows no matter who rides it. In the 19th century, Lysander Spooner noted the indisputable failure of the U.S. Constitution:

“[T]his much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason: No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority (1870) 59.​

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

Because in feudal times your life would have far fewer “details” to care about.

Taxes were lower and the executive had far less power.

And your dead body wouldn’t care if you died in a total war, or a minor war to gain the Duke some more square miles, that you were conscripted into.

ICXC NIKA

Death per capita in feudal times was nowhere near what it is today with the rise of modern nation states. The death toll is unprecedented.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

I hear you migueltojose. And for years I argued as you do: If only we could get the right guys in office; guys who would follow the Constitution.

It seems, however, we are only dealing with men whom the constitution cannot control. Limited government is a dead letter to Democrats. Republicans pay it homage only in election years (and never when in office). Government grows no matter who rides it. In the 19th century, Lysander Spooner noted the indisputable failure of the U.S. Constitution:

“[T]his much is certain—that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason: No. VI, The Constitution of No Authority (1870) 59.​

I enjoyed the work of Hans Hermann-Hoppe:

“What is true, just, and beautiful is not determined by popular vote. The masses everywhere are ignorant, short-sighted, motivated by envy, and easy to fool. Democratic politicians must appeal to these masses in order to be elected. Whoever is the best demagogue will win. Almost by necessity, then, democracy will lead to the perversion of truth, justice and beauty.”

And as Catholics, since we reject the world, having the world decide who will rule us seems like a pretty bad plan.

 

[stevegravy]

Here’s one from the ol’ rail-splitter himself:
"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.

This is a most valuable–a most sacred right–a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it.

Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

​

~ Abraham Lincoln to Congress, January 12, 1848

(Link to his Speech regarding Mexican War)​

What a hypocrite, 12 years later he sics a 1/2 million man army out to murder a whole bunch of southerners who wanted to be left alone.

 

[smndtupidisaftr]

What a hypocrite, 12 years later he sics a 1/2 million man army out to murder a whole bunch of southerners who wanted to be left alone.

Yeah I’m not a fan of Lincoln either.

 

[stevegravy]

I guess I was too harsh on the guy, must be the weather. I think his story is that words mean nothing to a politician. Like a wild animal, when a government or nation gets backed into a corner it will do anything and everything necessary to survive, l.