States wanting to Secede from the USA

Why are you asking as if you don't know? Bal has explained that to you in this thread.

 

How about you restating it in your own words?

 

Indie

Hell man shouldn’t that be the driving principle of any political philosophy?

Do you really want a political philosophy whose aim is to make the world a worse place to live in?

You really don’t read other people’s posts do you. Do you really remember nothing of our long discussions (or is this another one of your evasive con-games?) How about balance, the heightening of potential, proportional representation, Keynesianesque economic thinking, etc etc etc?

Anyway I’ll begin a new thread on the subject, something like - What is ‘good governance’?

 

Lafin

This quote can be found in Henry David Thoreau's essay entitled Civil Disobedience published in 1849. It is often attributed to Thomas Jefferson, but there seems to be no evidence that Jefferson actually said it. Thoreau was paraphrasing the motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review: "The best government is that which governs least.". Thoreau goes on to say “That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have”. Interestingly Karl Marx seems to have thought something similar believing that communism would lead - when people were prepared - to a withering away of the need for government.

Anyway to me the problem with slogans is that they are great to shout but nearly always fall flat on their face when looked at.

So I’ll as you what is meant by ‘least’ in this context? I mean historically those ‘governments’ with little power have mainly resulted in a few gaining power of the many (of to the detriment of the many).

 

Bal,

I don't remember claiming to want to make the world a worse place to live in, only accused of such as I disagree with the methods you feel that government should be free to exercise in accomplishing the ends you seem to feel would bring about greater equality.

 

Bal,

I don't remember claiming to want to make the world a worse place to live in, only accused of such as I disagree with the methods you feel that government should be free to exercise in accomplishing the ends you seem to feel would bring about greater equality.

 

Indie

Oh for what seems like the millionth time.

I – Many of the ideas you have put forward would make a lot of peoples lives worse while vastly increasing the wealth of a few - a criticism you have so far been unable to address let alone refute.

II – I know you disagree but you have so far been unable to produce any rational or reasonable arguments and instead just say you disagree because you don’t like it.

 

oops! I thought we were in the welfare thread.

"Bal has explained that to you in the welfare thread." --fixed

I don't think he's here for honest debate.

 

I - I recognize that to be your opinion, and I've seen nothing you've presented which would have any effect whatsoever in 'decreasing' the wealth of a few, or diminishing the power available to those who make up the category of persons who are the wealthiest.

II - No, I disagree because you have presented nothing at all which produces a rational or reasonable explanation in accomplishing the goals which you claim you would like to accomplish.

 

Indie

Yes but it is very easy to not see something if you choose not to see it, as anyone whose read your post for any time soon realises you persistently ‘don’t see’ things that you find inconvenient or unable to address.

As pointed out several times this is one of the reasons why you are a dishonest debater.

But I’m always willing to give someone the benefit of the doubt – what things have I presented which you feel wouldn’t be effective and why?

If you are honest then you will produce them and your criticisms and we can debate.

If you are dishonest you’ll make another one of your excuses for not doing so.

As I’ve explained many, many times to me wealth is not just rich individuals but wealthy corporations, institutions and groups.

This raises a number of questions.

I – I see the power and influence of wealth as a corrupting factor in US politics (and have explained many times why) do you?

II – If not why not?

III – If yes what is your answer to the problem?

 

Bal,

To answer your questions I, II, and III, yes, n/a, and reduce the power of the Centralized Federal government, returning much of it to the States and local levels of government, and return to the original method of taxation and representation of the people and States to what is was prior to passage of the 16th and 17th amendments.

 

Indie

Oh hell – Why do you continue to restate stuff you know perfectly well has already been covered and you have been unable to defend from criticism?

Once again yours is an ideology for all the banging on about federal it covers all governance.

The rest seems to be about getting a tax cut and curtailing the democratic process.

 

Indie

I notice you choose to take the dishonest route - you make claimed and accusation that you know to be untrue and so are never able to back them up - frankly you are a liar and a cheat.

 

I won't begin to post what you are, after all you've made it clear that you are a moderator and have the power to ban those who respond in kind to you. But I imagine you probably know what I think of you and that may be the source of the anger you seem to vent so naturally. I can only assume you must have had a very unhappy childhood, or Parents who showed you little or no love. If they were good people they obviously failed to raise you properly.

 

Indie

But you do lie, you do make accusation for which you seem to have no evidence (because there isn’t any) – time and again I have given you the chance to defend yourself against the charge – you never have been able to do so.

I’ve explained many times why such behaviour is dishonest and asked you to stop, but you continue to act that way.

Oh and yes your behaviour is all because of my horrible childhood I mean “I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us and dance about on our graves singing Hallelujah.”*

*Monty Python the Four Yorkshire men sketch - transcript
http://www.phespirit.info/montypython/four_yorkshiremen.htm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo"]Monty Python - Four Yorkshiremen - YouTube

 

Bal,

Won't say much as I have to go find some tissue to wipe the tears from my eyes.

 

You guys should just fuck and get this all over with.

:hide:

 

.

 

It seems to me that this is a few Americans (in relative terms) who after the election didn't want to be part of the type of America that votes in a black (at least half black) and liberal (although still right wing) president (many of whom seem to think he’s isn't even an American away).

As to the suggestion of the US splitting alone political lines that’s just a fantasy based on the US’s disjointed and dysfunctional two party political system.

While the reality might be that there are basically only two parties to vote for at election time I think the other reality is that those voting have a wide range of political ideas, they are not two blocks.

In my view what is needed is a break up of the two party system so that secessionist have there own political party catering to there own political ideas, they, the rest of America and the world then might see just how isolated they are.

 

Bal,

Now you feel it necessary to play the race card? The division between Left and Right has nothing at all to do with race. I would gladly accept Obama being replaced by Thomas Sowell as President.

If you see Obama as Right wing, then you have provided yet another proof of just how far to the Left you are.

You are right in that those who are voting have a wide range of political ideas, and that is why the Federal government has become such a major problem, there is no one or even no few issues which lead people to vote for a common candidate, therefore seldom does anyone win an election with a mandate to do anything other than spend a term in office. The people are ignored when it comes to individual issues government acts upon, which may differ greatly from the issues which allowed them to win the election.

I think the intent of the secession petitions is only to send a message to Washington that a large number of persons are dissatisfied with the direction the Federal government is leading us, and diminishing our individual freedoms without our consent.

It would be taken more seriously if States were to present it as a plebiscite for their citizens to determine.