View Poll Results: Texas secession?

Voters
115. You may not vote on this poll
  • Anytime they want

    69 60.00%
  • Bad times only

    2 1.74%
  • No way

    41 35.65%
  • I don't know

    0 0%
  • Other

    3 2.61%
Page 105 of 124 FirstFirst ... 55595103104105106107115 ... LastLast
Results 1,041 to 1,050 of 1234

Thread: Texas secession?

  1. #1041
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    The point made here is that this was known by the north. Was allowed to take place. The north was not allowing the South protection under the Constitution. When you are not protected by the laws of the land, you have no choice but leave.

    Quantrill
    Except the protection that the South wanted was to continue and even expand the territory of the institution of racial slavery.

    The South wanted protection to continue to violate the human rights of other people. Which is inherently immoral. So the protection they wanted was illegitimate, and therefore their secession was unjustifiable.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  2. #1042
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,689

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    No, that's not necessarily true. Because people have human rights under natural law. And any government that does not abide by those human rights is inherently illegal.

    The question then becomes whether or not the right of secession is a human right under natural law.

    And the answer it that secession is when the government violates human rights and the political process refuses to address those violations.

    In this case, the Southern states did not have the right to secede because they seceded in order to perpetuate human rights abuses. Therefore, their secession in order to continue the institution of slavery violates natural law, and therefore illegal.
    Sorry Sam but I view natural law and other such fictions as the result of dilettantes having far too much time on their hands.

    My view of rights is a rather pragmatic and practical one: when enough folks believe they want something as a right and make their collective will known to their government and they are able to get their idea enacted or protected, then they have a right.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  3. #1043
    Educator Quantrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    07-08-12 @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,004

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    Except the protection that the South wanted was to continue and even expand the territory of the institution of racial slavery.

    The South wanted protection to continue to violate the human rights of other people. Which is inherently immoral. So the protection they wanted was illegitimate, and therefore their secession was unjustifiable.
    The South didn't have to want anything. It was already protected under the Constitution. The South wanted the North to uphold the Constitution. Which they didn't do. Because they come under a 'higher law'. As you agree.

    Quantrill

  4. #1044
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    Im asking who determines it? You? Should everyone ask you what the 'higher law' says?

    Quantrill
    I told you before - natural law is codified by a rational understanding of the world. It has been codified in a number of documents, such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    These human rights are inherent and become understood as our greater understanding of nature via science is revealed to us. Of this natural law is that no man should be enslaved by another without just recompense, or from cruel and unusual treatment by others. These are rights inherent to humanity and cannot be given up even if people chose to waive them. And any act of a government or its constitution that attempts to is inherently illegal under natural law.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  5. #1045
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    The South didn't have to want anything. It was already protected under the Constitution. The South wanted the North to uphold the Constitution. Which they didn't do. Because they come under a 'higher law'. As you agree.

    Quantrill
    Right. But the South was unjustifiable in its secession because it seceded in order to perpetuate the institution of slavery which violates human rights and natural law.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  6. #1046
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Sorry Sam but I view natural law and other such fictions as the result of dilettantes having far too much time on their hands.

    My view of rights is a rather pragmatic and practical one: when enough folks believe they want something as a right and make their collective will known to their government and they are able to get their idea enacted or protected, then they have a right.
    Well, you're wrong, because I don't think that just because a majority of one group wishes to violate the rights and liberties of another group does not justify those violations of their human rights and civil liberties.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  7. #1047
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Sorry Sam but I view natural law and other such fictions as the result of dilettantes having far too much time on their hands.

    My view of rights is a rather pragmatic and practical one: when enough folks believe they want something as a right and make their collective will known to their government and they are able to get their idea enacted or protected, then they have a right.

    Its called looking at the world around them. Something you refuse to do so you can back up your own belief system that the government can dictate whatever they want.

  8. #1048
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:39 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,689

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    Its called looking at the world around them. Something you refuse to do so you can back up your own belief system that the government can dictate whatever they want.
    What belief system do I have that I am trying to back up by refusing to look at the world around me? My view of where rights come from comes exactly and specifically from looking at the world around me - both in the present and from a study of political science and history.

    Rights come from the power of people insisting that government recognize and protect what they see as a right. That is the lesson of history.

    I have no idea where you get the perverted frankenstein monster versions of what you think my beliefs are but you are really off base on this one. I DO NOT believe the government can do whatever it wants. Just the opposite.
    Last edited by haymarket; 05-28-12 at 10:07 AM.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  9. #1049
    Whoa, daddy!
    MadLib's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,224

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quantrill View Post
    The point made here is that this was known by the north. Was allowed to take place. The north was not allowing the South protection under the Constitution. When you are not protected by the laws of the land, you have no choice but leave.

    Quantrill
    But didn't the evil North suppress the rebellion and execute Brown?
    Quote Originally Posted by ecofarm View Post
    Hah. If someone put me in their sig, I'd never know. I have sigs off.

  10. #1050
    Educator Quantrill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    07-08-12 @ 09:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,004

    Re: Texas secession?

    Quote Originally Posted by samsmart View Post
    I told you before - natural law is codified by a rational understanding of the world. It has been codified in a number of documents, such as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

    These human rights are inherent and become understood as our greater understanding of nature via science is revealed to us. Of this natural law is that no man should be enslaved by another without just recompense, or from cruel and unusual treatment by others. These are rights inherent to humanity and cannot be given up even if people chose to waive them. And any act of a government or its constitution that attempts to is inherently illegal under natural law.
    And this is what the South was facing. A refusal by the North of the Constitution and resorting to this 'natural or higher law'.

    Thus the South had no recourse but secede because it was not protected by the laws of the land.

    Quantrill

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •