I do get your gist, Thrilla.
The idea of the governors existing at the consent of the governed should be a vital concept with every nation (even though we know many don't believe in that concept). And we have to assume that within a given society, which subscribes to such a concept, there will be conflicts between people and between those who govern - about how this concept can be made into a reality.
well, sure... conflicts will arise to be handled.
I'm not sure how "consent of the governed" can be strengthened , or even said to be respected, with the position of " you are not allowed ot leave, we will kill you if you try, no matter what you reason are".
I mean, really.. can anyone even pretend to support self-determination when there entire argument consists of denying it when it is sought?
We can't ignore our history.
sure we can.. we do it all the time.
we haven't become a near welfare/police state by paying attention to history, that's for goddman sure.
The "Perpetual Union" part was established for a reason. Statehood was a greatly respected institution then - as it is now. But the union of states formed a nation. The union has become enmeshed. It's works much like the saying, "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts". And it also reminds me of the saying, "no man is an island unto himself."
There was a social contract made ...along with a commitment...when it union was formed.
no argument here... well, except for the notion that Statehood is greatly respected.... it's perfectly obvious it's not.
If the people of the union are unhappy with its state and/or central government - then there already exist a system to change it. The frustration among many is: Factions of people aren't coming together to effectively change it in a way that forms a more perfect union (based on the opinion of a majority faction). That is entirely on We The People. And we already know that our central government will resist any efforts to forcefully overthrow it. The same would be within any given state government.
factions today have very good cause not to come together with other factions to enact social change...there will be no kumbayah monuments in our future.. not with the vast ideological divides within our borders.
I mean ,really, one of the major factions is actively marching us towards a one government welfare state where the people are mere subjects to the crown.. the other, a police state where it's citizens are mere cattle to be controlled in all aspects..
no major faction in this country has the desire or ability to " live and let be":.. not... one.
To break the thread that binds us as a nation is a very risky ploy. Our interdependence is embedded in all of our social affairs. Self-determination can't happen when "self" become divided.
and this is further proof Statehood is utterly disrespected.
but yes.. it is a risky ploy... History is replete with risky ploys geared towards benefiting those whom take he helm.
this nation of ours was born from the very principles folks in here vehemently oppose.... hell, it seems , by the poll, that we are split roughly in half... with one half being loyalists to the crown.
And again, we just have a different perspective on how to evoke social change. Succession is a drastic measure, in my opinion. And again, just my opinion, but I really believe that it could well damage self-determination given the length of time of the relationship between states and a central government.
well, yes.. it is a drastic measure.. and not one I would consent to at this time.
I don't see how exercising self determination can be seen as damaging self-determination... additionally, I don't feel a change of political blocs should inherently harm any relationship between the many governments, or the people.
it seems to me that those most opposed to even the idea of secession are getting pissy because they would lose control over the people of a state trying to secede... which ,oddly enough, is a pretty good reason for the people of said state to bail out.