History

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

MacFall — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 04:30:37 GMT

It's creepy. Most people haven't even heard of Hobbes, yet they believe in the Hobbesian idea of the man's natural state. Thus the wierd notion that if the government does something, it is then impossible for that thing to be done through voluntary cooperation. Like Rothbard's saying that if the government made shoes, people would assume that the private sector would be incapable of making shoes. Insane.

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

EotS — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 01:57:17 GMT

Anarchy and chaos may as well be synonyms in our state-worshipping society. People just can't fathom the idea that people can live without a strong central government.

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

Charles Anthony — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 17:05:37 GMT

My recommendation is harsh: give up on discussing this with your dad. I do not think your father has any hope.

I mean that seriously because his point of view (chaos = anarchy ???) is wilfully ignorant and he seems to embrace coercion.

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

Len Budney — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:06:31 GMT

Yes, makes you wonder what the Union man thinks about divorce, doesn't it?

My favorite analogy! "Sure, I imprisoned my wife in the cellar and beat her until she lost all hope of escape. But don't you see I had to do it? I saved our marriage!"

--Len.

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

scineram — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 01:06:53 GMT

Better tell him Hitler won the election.

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

shazam — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:12:31 GMT

Zgoalie18:

another thing he wrote: Furthermore-part of the impetus for the American Revolution was England's
imposition of taxes on the colonies where the colonies had NO vote or right to
vote or be heard on the taxes. - The South did vote and participate in a fair
election and were simply sore losers.

Not to leave you hanging, but why not buy him a copy of Tom Dilorenzo's Lincoln Unmasked? He probably makes better points in that book than any of us could come up with.

If that doesn't work, try explaining how Hitler and Lenin rose to power only after previous leaders eroded the right of secession.

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

JAlanKatz — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 00:04:09 GMT

Zgoalie18:
another thing he wrote: Furthermore-part of the impetus for the American Revolution was England's
imposition of taxes on the colonies where the colonies had NO vote or right to
vote or be heard on the taxes. - The South did vote and participate in a fair
election and were simply sore losers.

And the sheep did get to vote on what the wolves would have for dinner. It just turned out that there were more wolves than sheep, so they have no cause for complaint.

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

Zgoalie18 — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 17:18:38 GMT

another thing he wrote: Furthermore-part of the impetus for the American Revolution was England's
imposition of taxes on the colonies where the colonies had NO vote or right to
vote or be heard on the taxes. - The South did vote and participate in a fair
election and were simply sore losers.

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

DBratton — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 23:56:55 GMT

Zgoalie18:
my father wrote back...

Your dad is avoiding the question. There was and is no national election process to determine if a state may secede. Each state individually elected to join the union and each state could individually decide to leave it. And yes, they could do it just because they didn't like the way a presidential election went, though there was a great deal more to it than that.

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

shazam — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 21:52:55 GMT

Zgoalie18:

Byzantine:
Zgoalie18:

he says we'll have chaos because we'll just have all these areas secceding and seperating from the union.

On the contrary, it is the heavy-handed process of centralization of governance over irreconcilably diverse polities that leads to violence. As I sometimes put it, let the US break up peacably now rather than violently later.

He also says the South lost the vote and tough thats democracy.

Lost the vote? The clear electoral majorities of the Southern states favored secession. Or does he believe there's such a thing as "too much" democracy?

my father wrote back: ABSURD! HOW INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST-THAT IS NOT THE PROPER VOTE-THE VOTE WAS A NATIONAL VOTE NOT A VOTE OF EACH SEPARATE STATE TO DECIDE BY ITSELF WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT-IT IS THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES THAT DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. ABSURD-THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY AT ALL LET ALONE "TOO MUCH". IT IS ANARCHY IF A DISGRUNTLED LOSER OF AN ELECTION CAN SIMPLY QUIT THE POLITICAL ENTITY TO WHICH IT BELONGS

So, I suppose your father would have supported the "right" of Nazi Germany to kill Jewish citizens, since the *** were elected with a clear majority, right?

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

JAlanKatz — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:26:25 GMT

Zgoalie18:
my father wrote back: ABSURD! HOW INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST-THAT IS NOT THE PROPER VOTE-THE VOTE WAS A NATIONAL VOTE NOT A VOTE OF EACH SEPARATE STATE TO DECIDE BY ITSELF WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT-IT IS THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES THAT DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. ABSURD-THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY AT ALL LET ALONE "TOO MUCH". IT IS ANARCHY IF A DISGRUNTLED LOSER OF AN ELECTION CAN SIMPLY QUIT THE POLITICAL ENTITY TO WHICH IT BELONGS

So if a majority vote to abuse a minority, the minority should have absolutely no recourse to protect its rights? Say, if half the country were involved in agriculture, and half were engaged in industry, and the industrial half outvoted the agricultural half - and voted that a stiff tariff should be placed, so that they could charge more for finished goods without fearing international competition...

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

Zgoalie18 — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:09:57 GMT

Byzantine:
Zgoalie18:

he says we'll have chaos because we'll just have all these areas secceding and seperating from the union.

On the contrary, it is the heavy-handed process of centralization of governance over irreconcilably diverse polities that leads to violence. As I sometimes put it, let the US break up peacably now rather than violently later.

He also says the South lost the vote and tough thats democracy.

Lost the vote? The clear electoral majorities of the Southern states favored secession. Or does he believe there's such a thing as "too much" democracy?

my father wrote back: ABSURD! HOW INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST-THAT IS NOT THE PROPER VOTE-THE VOTE WAS A NATIONAL VOTE NOT A VOTE OF EACH SEPARATE STATE TO DECIDE BY ITSELF WHO SHOULD BE PRESIDENT-IT IS THE MAJORITY OF THE STATES THAT DETERMINE THE PRESIDENT BY THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE. ABSURD-THAT IS NOT DEMOCRACY AT ALL LET ALONE "TOO MUCH". IT IS ANARCHY IF A DISGRUNTLED LOSER OF AN ELECTION CAN SIMPLY QUIT THE POLITICAL ENTITY TO WHICH IT BELONGS

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

DBratton — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 01:31:11 GMT

JimS:
John Locke debunked Hobbes' notion of the social need for such a supreme power (essentially justification for Monarchy) two centuries ago.

Agreed. And FYI Johannes Althusius' 1603 work Politica essentially debunked Leviathan four centuries ago - 48 years before Leviathan was even written. Althusius attacked egalitarianism, which is essential to Hobbes war of all against all scenario, with the observation that all men are born, not as equals, but as helpless infants. They are born into families and societies (and authority relationships) that already exist to receive and support them. Natural (which implies legitimate) authority is only the authority within the family and that which derives from family authority. Legitimate village authority is delegated by cooperating families, provincial authority by cooperating villages, etc. Althusius' theory does not suppose an initial contract or starting point for political authority (apart from eden), but rather asserts that natural authority has always existed as long as there have been men.

Re: seccession leads to anarchy

elbita — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:40:53 GMT

ask your father whether large countries or small countries have done more harm to their own people and to the world. does he think it has been a good thing to concentrate all the power in china, japan, north korea, russia/USSR, yugoslavia, germany, vietnam, burma, any number of african countries, the USA (the list goes on)? i believe the creation of large countries has been disastrous for humanity. if prussia fought bavaria over and over, it couldn't possibly be as bad as two world wars. if mongolia fought tibet, surely it wouldn't be as bad as the number killed by mao.