mainstream political rant #35 - The Cult of Barack Obama

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

In any case, it is not a Declaration that grants a new or separatist political faction any legal authority or even the right to exist. Only by successfully convincing those who would destroy them can they secure that right. So the CSA never had the right to secede, precisely because they lost the Civil War.

I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc. They lost that right when they lost the war, but they did have it to begin with (or else how did they secede in the first place?). Is that the same as never having had that right?

If they lost the right, by losing the war... then does might make right?

[Requia ☣]

Though south had an option to propose a bill to secede, or a constitutional amendment,  They simply decided to leave, and did so quite violently, before the union had any chance to respond.

[Chairman Risus]

That's pretty much how we still do things to this day.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc.

Yeah, except that I already showed that the US "government" is empowered to resist insurrection.

For those of you who "didn't catch it", article I, sec 9, clause 2.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

Might in some cases does make right, and the creation of a new nation is one of those cases. It isn't because I'm a big Ragnar Redbeard fan or anything, but it's never really in the immediate best interests of any nation for part of it (let alone an entire half) to declare independence from the whole, so no nation can really be expected to just "let it happen," regardless of its philosophical foundation.

In these cases, it is up to the newly created State to declare its own existence - not just on paper but in every means that becomes necessary. If a people truly believe themselves to be free, then they will fight for that freedom. If they fail, then they obviously are not actually free. If they succeed, then they have a foundation of actual events on which they can base the authority of their own laws.

[Roo]

I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc.

Yeah, except that I already showed that the US "government" is empowered to resist insurrection.

For those of you who "didn't catch it", article I, sec 9, clause 2.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

oh goody. guess that's why they need the FEMA camps.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc.

Yeah, except that I already showed that the US "government" is empowered to resist insurrection.

For those of you who "didn't catch it", article I, sec 9, clause 2.

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

oh goody. guess that's why they need the FEMA camps.

And now all they need is a legal means of calling dissenters "terrorists", "insurgents", or "radicals".

Oh, yeah, S1959.

I CALL DIBS ON THE SHOWERS!

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I know "Habeas Corpus" isn't in English, but I'm not sure it translates to "Everything this country has ever stood for"

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I know "Habeas Corpus" isn't in English, but I'm not sure it translates to "Everything this country has ever stood for"

Close.  It stands for:  "The thing a far better generation fought a tyrant for, so you could piss it away in a fit of cowardice."

[tyrannosaurus vex]

at least that leaves the door open to a future far better generation.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

at least that leaves the door open to a future far better generation.

Past events are no indication of future performance.

In all the 10,000 years since we learned to plant crops, how many republican eras have their been?

Oh, yeah.  Two.

But, hey, there's a bus along every 1500 years or so.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

something tells me that the 20th century's infusion of easy new technology has been the only thing keeping america from slipping into outright totalitarianism anyway. easier to keep people obedient by entertaining them than by the Jackboot Method, for now.

the great tragedy is that a movement borne of the Enlightenment, which was noble enough in its time, is on a 100% Bullshit Drip life support system these days.

[Cain]

In any case, it is not a Declaration that grants a new or separatist political faction any legal authority or even the right to exist. Only by successfully convincing those who would destroy them can they secure that right. So the CSA never had the right to secede, precisely because they lost the Civil War.

I think that's a sloppy argument. The CSA had the right to secede. There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it, iirc. They lost that right when they lost the war, but they did have it to begin with (or else how did they secede in the first place?). Is that the same as never having had that right?

If they lost the right, by losing the war... then does might make right?

Historically, that has been the major political analysis.

Classical or Neorealism are the names of the theories you wish to peruse.  Generally, Liberal Realism tries to create institutions to avoid such situations, or manage them more effectively.

Its hard to link up inter-state/international theories with general political theory as well.  Realism can be Henry Kissinger...or it can be Hans Morgenthau (who was spied on for his comments about the futility of the Vietnam War). Equally, Liberalism in international relations can produce a Václav Havel, or a Francis Fukuyama.  I wont even get into Marxism....where Stalin and all the leaders who followed him were Realists of one sort of another.

None of this is to say that might makes right is in fact right.  I dont think it is.  But international relations, especially up to the Cold War, were dominated by Classical or Neorealist thought.  Only the collapse of the Cold War, via peaceful methods, and the claims of the NeoCons that economic liberalisms inherent rightness would alone topple the Soviet Union, brought liberalism to a prominent position.  In short, historically, might has been seen as right and events have been interpretated through that lense.  Along with the strange divide between internal politics and external (one I believe is partially abritrary and a result of bad understanding of political philosophy, more than any actual difference) has made analysis in this area tricky, to say the least.

I personally think we should rethink political philosophy entirely, taking into account foreign policy standards and internal policies and try to find links and groupings between them.  Its not a very popular theory however, since it pretty much undermines the existence of my entire degree as a stand-alone course and discipline.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think I got sidetracked and somehow fubar'd my argument. Apologies all around.

Rather than restating it and debating over my poor choice of argument, I would like to discuss the documents that I was drawing a lot of those ideas from (poorly as I may have done). So, rather than arguing with everyone here, could we discuss the merits and flaws of the series of essays by Lysander Spooner entitled "No Treason"? I find these a very compelling argument, though my implementation was, apparently, flawed.

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm#no1

The entire series is available at the link. I'd like opinions etc.

I ran across Spooner while taking RAW's class on Non-Euclidean Politics and found the argument fascinating. However, I am certianly willing to accept that the argument is wrong or broken. That's why I'm asking for a discussion of it here.

If people are interested, then YAY, if not then tell me to fnord off and I'll just shut up on this thread.

[Cain]

I havent read Spooner's arguments (although I'm about to) but I just wanted to point out much of the analysis by minarchists and anarchists generally holds that the north should have allowed the south to leave, and then slaves and workers in both should have overthown the governments and dissolved the state (or devolved it as far as possible).

This is the general position, among anarchist circles.  Some disagree, naturally, but it seems to be consensus, and I just wanted to point out some of the thinking behind that analysis.