• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would you support the right of Texas to secede?

Would you support the decision of Texas to peacefully and democratically secede, if voted upon


  • Total voters
    133
I would imagine you would take the share of the US population made up by Texans in the latest census count and figure out a percentage of the debt that way.

But your inability to provide answers to a couple of rather simple questions indicates that the problems that would arise are not assemble as session supporters would lead us to believe.

I wonder how many Texans would support secession if they were informed it meant not getting social security as well as paying their share of the debt?

Actually, I'd let Texas go without even requiring them to pay their share of the debt - they just can't keep any nukes. Why? Because the moment Texas starts down the path of truly seceding - and especially once they did secede - there would be freaking millions of conservatives (hopefully including the Koch brothers) flocking to the new conservative utopia of government small enough to drown in the bathtub, REALLY low taxes for the rich, and none of those pesky job-killin' regulations, mm-hmm. Heck, they might even build a new city and call it "Aynrandia", and make her birthday a national holiday. Y'know, we might even be able to scare them into going - all we gotta do is say..."Jade Helm is coming soon to your neck of the woods!"

And what happens when so many rich and powerful conservatives go there to escape oh-so-tyrannical America? Finally, we get some sensible things done in Washington.

Let Texas go, I say, and don't let the barn door hit 'em in the kiester on the way out!
 
Actually, I'd let Texas go without even requiring them to pay their share of the debt - they just can't keep any nukes. Why? Because the moment Texas starts down the path of truly seceding - and especially once they did secede - there would be freaking millions of conservatives (hopefully including the Koch brothers) flocking to the new conservative utopia of government small enough to drown in the bathtub, REALLY low taxes for the rich, and none of those pesky job-killin' regulations, mm-hmm. Heck, they might even build a new city and call it "Aynrandia", and make her birthday a national holiday. Y'know, we might even be able to scare them into going - all we gotta do is say..."Jade Helm is coming soon to your neck of the woods!"

And what happens when so many rich and powerful conservatives go there to escape oh-so-tyrannical America? Finally, we get some sensible things done in Washington.

Let Texas go, I say, and don't let the barn door hit 'em in the kiester on the way out!

well, that was dumb.

carry on.
 
I'm unclear what you mean by saying natural rights are "man made"... can you explain that?

rights are not natural and we just call them natural rights when they are just made up by people
 
wrong...in the constitution there are natural rights and privileges...only

privileges today are called civil rights/legal rights...these are created by man, and called positive law.

natural rights are not created by man, but only recognized by man, and are not positive law.

privileges are created in statute law..no were in statute will you find a natural right for speech, prayer., protest, firearm, privacy.

when a right is recognized all that means is some one thinks you should have that right its made up
 
that's the only thing I can think of as well.... and it's an especially weak argument.

how?

because im really not seeing the reason in saying that people 1 day just stumbled upon rights as they were observing nature

seems like people just came up with rules that matched how the felt people should be treated

and that's fine but its not natural
 
how?

because im really not seeing the reason in saying that people 1 day just stumbled upon rights as they were observing nature

seems like people just came up with rules that matched how the felt people should be treated

and that's fine but its not natural

so you have over 2000 years of various philosophers saying " hey, I feel we should be treated this way or that way... so that's the way it's gonna be and we're gonna give it a name."


you've basically taken the entire field of philosophy, with it's sub-fields, and turned it on it's head.

not cool ,dude... not cool.
 
so you have over 2000 years of various philosophers saying " hey, I feel we should be treated this way or that way... so that's the way it's gonna be and we're gonna give it a name."


you've basically taken the entire field of philosophy, with it's sub-fields, and turned it on it's head.

not cool ,dude... not cool.

that's your argument here.

did not know philosophy is only 2000 years old or was only about the concept of rights

but when it was yes that's how it worked

sure those rules and feelings were backed up and shaped by observations of the world but that's still not natural or if it is contrary things can also be considered natural
 
did not know philosophy is only 2000 years old or was only about the concept of rights

but when it was yes that's how it worked

sure those rules and feelings were backed up and shaped by observations of the world but that's still not natural or if it is contrary things can also be considered natural

wow.....
 

what now?

because so far im seeing either artificial rights or natural opinion both of which can change fairly easily and nether of which are universal
 
Last edited:
don't talk about things you are unfamiliar with.

It would be nice if one day you woke up and decided to actually engage in debate instead of looking for cheap opportunities to throw insults.
 
is that how the debt was incurred in the first place?.. by counting warm bodies and dividing up money equally to spend?

There is no "first place" in a scenario where a state leaves the union with the blessing of both sides and we have to then decide what to do with their portion of various obligations incurred on the behalf of those citizens. This would be new territory for all concerned.
 
Actually, I'd let Texas go without even requiring them to pay their share of the debt - they just can't keep any nukes. Why? Because the moment Texas starts down the path of truly seceding - and especially once they did secede - there would be freaking millions of conservatives (hopefully including the Koch brothers) flocking to the new conservative utopia of government small enough to drown in the bathtub, REALLY low taxes for the rich, and none of those pesky job-killin' regulations, mm-hmm. Heck, they might even build a new city and call it "Aynrandia", and make her birthday a national holiday. Y'know, we might even be able to scare them into going - all we gotta do is say..."Jade Helm is coming soon to your neck of the woods!"

And what happens when so many rich and powerful conservatives go there to escape oh-so-tyrannical America? Finally, we get some sensible things done in Washington.

Let Texas go, I say, and don't let the barn door hit 'em in the kiester on the way out!

Your post made me chuckle. I love the name Aynrandia - its just perfection.

But I still want them to pay what they would owe and there is that pesky social security question.
 
my friend..you will no idea what constitution even is.

Are we talking about the real Constitution or the imaginary one you pretend you know about? Many of your posts remind me of a gentleman I met at a Tea Party rally at the Michigan state capitol when I was working there. He said he personally accepts no changes to the Constitution after the adoption of the 12th Amendment. I asked him how that denial of reality impacted his own life and he looked at me with a deer in the headlights look on his face.
 
Last edited:
Without a system of government to protect the citizens rights, no one really has any rights. Naturally speaking the only rights one has is applied by force and opinion.
 
Your post made me chuckle. I love the name Aynrandia - its just perfection.

But I still want them to pay what they would owe and there is that pesky social security question.

I think I might've OD'd on my ADD meds before I wrote that. But thanks. ADD can be a lot of fun...if one's wife is very, very patient and understanding. Which sorta gives credence to John Carrey's quip (and I think he has ADHD) that "Behind every successful man is a woman rolling her eyes."

You've got a good point on the SS - but we'd just have them that we'll continue paying what they're owed out of the SS trust fund - it is their money after all - and we could forgive their entire part of the national debt in return for us moving all our military and space program personnel and equipment out of their new nation. And if Texas needs oil, we'll tell them that we don't want to mess with Texas, but that Texas can certainly go frack itself!

Sorry - couldn't resist....
 
what now?

because so far im seeing either artificial rights or natural opinion both of which can change fairly easily and nether of which are universal

from the Stoics of late antiquity until now, natural rights have stood rather firm.... a few laymen here and there might not believe in them, but that's based in their own personal political ideology rather than in any philosophical argument.

I'm not confused as to why anyone would question them, but it still boggles my mind why any modern man would outright deny their existence... at the very root of being a free man is our natural rights....they provide the very foundation for our society, our culture, and our governments ( not just in the US).... and for some odd reason, we still run into laymen who will argue against them, as if everything we are and do is bereft of philosophical underpinnings.

I can understand Haymarket making a stink about them... he possesses an irrational fear of anything libertarian( acute liberphobia :cool:)... it's a knee jerk reaction of his to deny anything a libertarian might believe in, even if that belief is beneficial to him and to mankind in total.
I haven't pegged why you feel the need to disbelieve them yet... but i'm not surprised either of you fail to provide argumentation beyond " I'm not seeing...."
 
Without a system of government to protect the citizens rights, no one really has any rights. Naturally speaking the only rights one has is applied by force and opinion.

it's not that no one has any rights in the absence of that government, it's that we would lack a protection mechanism ( which you allude to in your first sentence)... without systemic protections, it simply become easier to violate those rights that are possessed.

of course, government , itself, can violate those rights... and government, if illegitimately and incorrectly instituted, can utterly fail in serving to protects rights ( such as North Korea)
 
Your post made me chuckle. I love the name Aynrandia - its just perfection.

But I still want them to pay what they would owe and there is that pesky social security question.

hmm... the fantasy-city of Aynrandia versus the reality of Detroit.

not a lot of room for y'all to trash talk there.
 
There is no "first place" in a scenario where a state leaves the union with the blessing of both sides and we have to then decide what to do with their portion of various obligations incurred on the behalf of those citizens. This would be new territory for all concerned.

that's true, it would be new territory...that has nothing to do with calculating their share of national debt, though... or even if the issue of national debt would be negotiated at all.

there would be a lot to negotiate... welfare benefits and social security might be among them... but it's doubtful they would be paramount in the negotiations.
 
Back
Top Bottom