• 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
roguenuke said:
But that is the point. You don't have a natural right to do so. It is dependent on society recognizing those things as rights. Anything/everything you do affects others, even living. In living, you use resources that means less resources for others.
Click to expand...

You're fundamentally incorrect. Human beings are productive (well, most of us anyway). We produce more than we consume.

It's no accident that as the world population has ballooned, so has our standard of living.

To think of the world in terms of finite resources to be shared among more and more people is flawed in that you don't consider the fact that production requires people
 
roguenuke said:
But that is the point. You don't have a natural right to do so. It is dependent on society recognizing those things as rights. Anything/everything you do affects others, even living. In living, you use resources that means less resources for others. The reason that you are able to live is because either a) society recognizes you have a right to use the resources too or b) you are able to defend the resources you are using against those who would take them away.
Click to expand...

Who is "society?"

I believe society is an abstraction, and the concept of "society" doesn't have a singular consciousness
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am sorry you and your understanding of rights, in america no person has the RIGHT to food, water or shelter, those things have to be created.
Click to expand...

location and acceptance matter now?
 
Peter Grimm said:
Who is "society?"

I believe society is an abstraction, and the concept of "society" doesn't have a singular consciousness
Click to expand...

As are rights unless referring to rights in a legal standpoint which would make them relative to each society.
 
Peter Grimm said:
You're fundamentally incorrect. Human beings are productive (well, most of us anyway). We produce more than we consume.

It's no accident that as the world population has ballooned, so has our standard of living.

To think of the world in terms of finite resources to be shared among more and more people is flawed in that you don't consider the fact that production requires people
Click to expand...

I am correct. We use many more resources than we produce. Making new things for ourselves or to better our lives does not increase the overall resources on our planet. In fact it does just the opposite, expends those resources.
 
roguenuke said:
You are failing to grasp that you cannot claim that we have natural rights because our laws say we do. That is convoluted logic.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The same could be said for offering a law which mentions GOD and saying that proves GOD exists. Pretending that the Declaration or some other document or law was written by people who believed in something does NOT make that belief real in the first place. Its still a belief no matter how you cut it.
 
ernst barkmann said:
very true!

i am just pointing at to those who say that if a state were to leave the union it violates the constitution, and it does not according to the actions of congress.
Click to expand...

and, you've made your point well. Now, let's examine this issue. It appears to be simply an academic issue, as no state has actually tried to secede or even discussed secession, since about 1864. At that time, the issue was slavery.

Now, what issue today is divisive enough to spark an attempt at secession? If it did, what would be the response of the federal government?

Issue of 1864: the Emancipation Proclamation (executive order?)
Issues of today that could be divisive enough to spark secession: (fill in the blank)
 
Dittohead not! said:
and, you've made your point well. Now, let's examine this issue. It appears to be simply an academic issue, as no state has actually tried to secede or even discussed secession, since about 1864. At that time, the issue was slavery.

Now, what issue today is divisive enough to spark an attempt at secession? If it did, what would be the response of the federal government?

Issue of 1864: the Emancipation Proclamation (executive order?)
Issues of today that could be divisive enough to spark secession: (fill in the blank)
Click to expand...

today it would have to be a total disregard for constitutional law, the federal government taking over parts of states, taking away rights of the people, killing americans, the federal government making demands of states to do or not do things, which would be a rightful power of state to decide and not the federal government.
 
My guess is the Second Amendment.
 
ernst barkmann said:
today it would have to be a total disregard for constitutional law, the federal government taking over parts of states, taking away rights of the people, killing americans, the federal government making demands of states to do or not do things, which would be a rightful power of state to decide and not the federal government.
Click to expand...

Outside of the more rabid FOX TV viewers and right libertarians and people who want to turn back the clock a full century - there just is not any widespread sympathy for that sort of discontented feeling.
 
ernst barkmann said:
today it would have to be a total disregard for constitutional law, the federal government taking over parts of states, taking away rights of the people, killing americans, the federal government making demands of states to do or not do things, which would be a rightful power of state to decide and not the federal government.
Click to expand...
You mean things like giving the president the power to declare war, spying on citizens, indefinite detention without trial, asset forfeiture without due process, not allowing the states to enforce immigration laws, taking over the education system, things like that?

Oh, that'll never happen, right?
 
haymarket said:
Outside of the more rabid FOX TV viewers and right libertarians and people who want to turn back the clock a full century - there just is not any widespread sympathy for that sort of discontented feeling.
Click to expand...

please read correctly

"today it would have to be "
 
nota bene said:
My guess is the Second Amendment.
Click to expand...

How so? There is no effort today to repeal or deny Second Amendment rights so why would that suddenly become a huge issue which could spark secession?

I mean - lets face it and be really frank and open about this - the pendulum has tilted so far in favor of the NRA position on guns that it would take a Sandy Hook type event every couple of weeks before public opinion forced Congress or state legislatures to do something which more extreme gun people became angry at. And I do not anticipate either on the radar.
 
Dittohead not! said:
You mean things like giving the president the power to declare war, spying on citizens, indefinite detention without trial, asset forfeiture without due process, not allowing the states to enforce immigration laws, taking over the education system, things like that?

Oh, that'll never happen, right?
Click to expand...

no i don't think that is enough of a driving issue to cause secession.
 
haymarket said:
How so? There is no effort today to repeal or deny Second Amendment rights so why would that suddenly become a huge issue which could spark secession?
Click to expand...

I was answering Dittohead not!'s question: "Now, what issue today is divisive enough to spark an attempt at secession?"

My answer was, "My guess is the Second Amendment."

Don't read into this anything other than an answer to a rhetorical question.
 
nota bene said:
I was answering Dittohead not!'s question: "Now, what issue today is divisive enough to spark an attempt at secession?"

My answer was, "My guess is the Second Amendment."

Don't read into this anything other than an answer to a rhetorical question.
Click to expand...
The second amendment isn't divisive enough until and unless the federal government were to issue a decree confiscating all guns. Such a thing is so unlikely it need not be considered.

Abortion is a highly divisive issue, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of motivating states to secede.

Marriage equality is quickly fading as a divisive issue.

Americans are divided along party lines moreso than in the past, but still, it just doesn't seem at all likely that any red state will secede due to a Democratic majority in Washington, or vice versa. No, I think the union is safe for the foreseeable future, and the question of whether a state could secede is merely rhetorical.
 
haymarket said:
Outside of the more rabid FOX TV viewers and right libertarians and people who want to turn back the clock a full century - there just is not any widespread sympathy for that sort of discontented feeling.
Click to expand...

It's very ironic that "the party of Lincoln" would support secession.
 
LeoVlaming said:
I believe every nation has the right to self-determination.
Click to expand...

This, really. It's always been my understanding that the U.S. is a federation of sovereign states, bound together by common values and the choice to be bound together. While I think it would be impossible for any single state in the Union to survive as an independent sovereign power in today's global arena, I believe that technically any one of them should be allowed to do so if it were voted upon by that state's population. They have to vote to join the Union, why shouldn't they be able to vote to leave the Union?

EDIT:

rocket88 said:
It's very ironic that "the party of Lincoln" would support secession.
Click to expand...
Of course, we all realize that Lincoln's Republican Party and today's Republican Party are two very different animals.
 
Ernest Ross said:
This, really. It's always been my understanding that the U.S. is a federation of sovereign states, bound together by common values and the choice to be bound together. While I think it would be impossible for any single state in the Union to survive as an independent sovereign power in today's global arena, I believe that technically any one of them should be allowed to do so if it were voted upon by that state's population. They have to vote to join the Union, why shouldn't they be able to vote to leave the Union?

EDIT:


Of course, we all realize that Lincoln's Republican Party and today's Republican Party are two very different animals.
Click to expand...

you are correct, even all the southern states left the union by consent of the people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom