Should States be able to leave the Union?

[Duddha]

So, now you're adding clauses to the idea of popular soverignty. Interesting.

No, I'm affirming the intrisic value of universal liberty.

It takes a big wad of Minnesota funds too.

My real point was the question "Is [the good] a justification in itself?", after having given an example of the "good" by your definition.

But the U.S. doesn't allow them to be independant. Should they be allowed it?

A bunch of nuts that want to abuse children has very little to do with the real question of states seceding.

'cause we built up big military bases, we get tons of soldiers from california it would weaken the ability of the U.S. to fight insurgants

I didn't realize democracy, freedom, and liberty required the eternal existance of a military industrial complex against the will of popular sovereignty.

The loss of economic stability threatens freedom because it gives rise to fascist movements, the loss of the ability to combat foriegn troops threatens our ability to defend ourselves and our values.

Again, your anwser is an example of a perverse Hoddesian dyspotic view of the world.

Transitions always threaten economies. Plus it's unlikely it would be a happy divorce, even if peaceful so the economic ties will be strained. Tariffs may emerge, that would be pretty nasty.

So when the EU puts tariffs on American products it is an economic threat to democracy, freedom, and liberty justifying a war?

 

[WillJ]

As long as there is free trade, migration/labor, and a military alliance between them, the more localized democracies are, the better, in my opinion. Thus, at the base of it, secession should be legal.

Except it's not quite that simple. For one thing, as I mentioned in insurgent's thread, if one individual could seceed from a country, he'd almost certainly still be receiving many of the benefits of that country without paying for them. And while it might be easy to imagine, say, Texas seceeding from the U.S. and everything going smoothly (see first sentence of this post), if this is allowed, who's to stop the U.S. from breaking into 3 million sovereign nations? That'd be chaos, and so there needs to be some unification. Also, if all it requires is the will of the majority for a geographical area to seceed, the inconvenience for everyone in the minority will probably be much greater than the happiness of everyone in the majority, and thus it probably should require a supermajority. It's hard to say where exactly the line should be drawn.

 

[Archer 007]

My say in California means proportionally less in the Electoral College and far less in the Senate than people from other states. California has a larger population than Canada. Why does it get the exact same number of senators as Rhode Island?

The Senate was designed as a body of equal views, to keep the large states from lording over the smaller ones.

 

[Duddha]

Sorry to bump an old thread but I found a fun blog article over at Slate. It doesn't really deserve its own thread, so I thought I would put it here.

The New Federalism, The Confederate States of California:http://slate.msn.com/id/2103736/
http://geoffland.blogspot.com/2004/07/reimagining-federalism.html#comments

 

[Perfection]

No, I'm affirming the intrisic value of universal liberty.

1. So was Lincoln wrong to fightthe south in the beginning before he decided to go ahead with the emacipation proclaimation
2. If your increase in liberty causes the liberty of others to decrease (just like in the south) doesn't the other side deserve a right to say things about it

My real point was the question "Is [the good] a justification in itself?", after having given an example of the "good" by your definition.

In my opnion, yes.

A bunch of nuts that want to abuse children has very little to do with the real question of states seceding.

I never said they abuse children, don't use the stawman fallacy on me!

I didn't realize democracy, freedom, and liberty required the eternal existance of a military industrial complex against the will of popular sovereignty.

Well it is very much situational, hypothetically in wartime it could be an issue.

Again, your anwser is an example of a perverse Hoddesian dyspotic view of the world.

And that would be???

So when the EU puts tariffs on American products it is an economic threat to democracy, freedom, and liberty justifying a war?

Strawman fallacy again, I said denying independance not war. Those two things are not always the same. One could say negotiate a bipartite solution.

Of course, dealing with California is quite absurd for the following reasons
1. The independance movement has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming popular.
2. No major attempts were made by California to resolve these issues


My key point which you are missing is that the Popular soverignty of the group must be considered before allowing independance of a smaller group.

 

[Duddha]

1. So was Lincoln wrong to fightthe south in the beginning before he decided to go ahead with the emacipation proclaimation
2. If your increase in liberty causes the liberty of others to decrease (just like in the south) doesn't the other side deserve a right to say things about it

The South started a war, but if they hadn't I would say Lincoln was wrong. Lincoln knew a war would be unjustafiable and unpopular in the north if it was the Union that had fired the first shot, so he waited until the South did. I'll get to your second point at the end.

I never said they abuse children, don't use the stawman fallacy on me!

I thought you were the one trying to pull a strawman on me.

Well it is very much situational, hypothetically in wartime it could be an issue.

I would agree with you that timing an independance movement in the middle of some large scale conflict would be unwise, but not theoreticly wrong.

And that would be???

Your argument was resting on the beleif that America is constantly under threat from a diabolical foe. This situation will never cease, so to advocate secession, and thereby weaken the fighting power of the US is to give into the Enemy and undercut the US, undercut the greater good.

Strawman fallacy again, I said denying independance not war. Those two things are not always the same. One could say negotiate a bipartite solution.

Ok, not a rationale for war, but a rationale for not regonizing the soveriegnty and independance of Canada and Mexico, or any other independant nation on earth that in anyway hinders the social/political/economic structure of the US. Why can't the US negiotate with a state that has seceded just as it does with other nations?

Of course, dealing with California is quite absurd for the following reasons
1. The independance movement has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming popular.
2. No major attempts were made by California to resolve these issues

Well being that there is not a popular secession movement in any of the states right now, any example[state] is as good as the next.

My key point which you are missing is that the Popular soverignty of the group must be considered before allowing independance of a smaller group.

Your agrument, as I understand it, is that secession could possibly threaten democracy, freedom, and liberty in the US by undercuting the national economy by allowing the existance of tariffs(or other such things) because without the same economic base the US is more prone the outside danger (from a degraded military industrial complex) and inward chaos(unemployment?), hence degrading democracy, freedom and liberty(the good).

I find several problems with this argument.

1. Using that rationale we can say that all soveriegn nations on earth are a threat to the "good" of America, ofcourse speaking nothing of their condition.
2. You assume that outside soveriengty automaticly poses a threat to the American economy.
3. Your connection between democracy, freedom, and liberty and the economic base is not exactly clear or self explanatory.
4. Your placing of the American "good" above all else reeks of American exceptionalism.

 

[Perfection]

Your argument was resting on the beleif that America is constantly under threat from a diabolical foe. This situation will never cease, so to advocate secession, and thereby weaken the fighting power of the US is to give into the Enemy and undercut the US, undercut the greater good.

That's one of the possible cases where it would be problematic

Ok, not a rationale for war, but a rationale for not regonizing the soveriegnty and independance of Canada and Mexico, or any other independant nation on earth that in anyway hinders the social/political/economic structure of the US.

The key is independant, California ain't independant

Well being that there is not a popular secession movement in any of the states right now, any example[state] is as good as the next.

That's because there is no valid reason.

Your agrument, as I understand it, is that secession could possibly threaten democracy, freedom, and liberty in the US by undercuting the national economy by allowing the existance of tariffs(or other such things) because without the same economic base the US is more prone the outside danger (from a degraded military industrial complex) and inward chaos(unemployment?), hence degrading democracy, freedom and liberty(the good).

I find several problems with this argument.

1. Using that rationale we can say that all soveriegn nations on earth are a threat to the "good" of America, ofcourse speaking nothing of their condition.
2. You assume that outside soveriengty automaticly poses a threat to the American economy.
3. Your connection between democracy, freedom, and liberty and the economic base is not exactly clear or self explanatory.
4. Your placing of the American "good" above all else reeks of American exceptionalism.

Counterarguements four your four problems

1. Ummm, that's not seccesion. A nation that is not yet indpendant should not be confused with an independant one. As for threats, of course they can be threats, but not nearly as much as internal states that we rely heavily upon. Foriegn nations can easily threaten democracy.

2. No, I find it very likely that seccession would have a devestating effect in political transitions changes in regulation and restructuruing of infastructure

3. Economic problems often (but not always) trigger fascist movements. When people are in fear they'll often go fascist.

4. No, it's true with all seccessions that the nation independance is wanted from deserves a major say in what should occur. Saying "51% of us want to be an independant nation" is simply not enough, a government should reserve a veto on seccessions.