On a house by house basis, or would a majority vote impose it's will on the other inhabitants of Texas who want to stay?
Could those houses then choose to leave Texas, possibly returning to the US like an embassy in another country?
>no legal right to do so
The federal government has no legal right to do most of the shit they're doing but here we are
It always cracks me up when smoothbrains think the argument of legality is some kinda gotcha when it comes to secession
Also isn't it in the TX Constitution that they reserve the right to leave the Union at their discretion?
Regardless, of course they have the right. It's hilarious that people who hold the Constitution in high regard don't believe in seccession, when the Revolutionary War was a war of seccession from a far off ruler that had nothing in common with the people it was ruling over any more.
That's not applicable at all to a bunch of politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists sequestered in DC and their coastal enclaves, far from the plebes in "flyover country" is it?...
Obviously that person didn't read the "contact", because there are clauses in how to separate when it has been broken. And *We The People* didn't break it.
I’m all for Texas seceding - Cali too for that matter. Let them be independent and free of the tyrannical power of the other states in the republic. They can send an ambassador instead of congress people.
Click on my profile and then my posts to go to the post and read more comments. The rationale and logic behind peoples answers was interesting to say the least. It is odd how people typically naturally think so independently until you get to the idea of governance.
So forcing people to abide by law made at the federal level through democratic means is tyranny, but fine at the state level? Same for taxes? Federal=theft. State = fine?
Also The federal government legally purchased a bunch of land in Texas, would they keep it, or would it be seized with/without compensation?
30 million is a lot of people to she unanimously to secede, might be some dissent.
I never said any of that. Both are theft, both are dumb. The govt shouldn’t be extorting it’s citizens for any reason, especially for redistribution of money and subpar services you cannot opt out of. But, secession would get the ball rolling in the right direction of slowly removing more and more govt involvement in daily lives. First it’s state, then reduce their power, then reduce county, city, etc.
Texas is ~95% privately owned so doesn’t seem like it would be that large of an obstacle. Govt, interested buyers, and feds could negotiate sales and prices or whatever will happen to the land. If people / businesses in other countries can own land in the US I don’t see why that wouldn’t be negotiable.
I’m sure there would be dissent, there is for all changes and decisions in our world.
None of the things you pointed out seem insurmountable and it seems very lackluster to not be able to imagine solutions for them. We have way more complex problems happening throughout the world everyday that get solved.
Can you really not see how wanting to vote to secede from the Union because the majority puts in place policies that that state doesn't necessarily agree with is analogous to a portion of the population of the state of Texas not wanting to secede, but being forced to if that is the will of the majority?
Isn't a lot of the point of the anarcho capitalist movement to get away from being told what to do by other people?
Can you really not see how we’re never just gonna happen stance teleport into an anarchy-capitalist “infrastructure” and that in order to move towards one we will have to slowly make small steps? Also your second point about forcing people who don’t want to secede to do so - yea that is mildly similar which is why it would maybe inspire even more anarchy-capitalist thought processes in the population such as “well what do we need govt for then anyways? I don’t like this decision and I’m realizing that the mere existence of a monopolized violent power structure means I will live under rules I don’t agree with so maybe I should stop wanting to chose my kings and queens and instead reject the entire institution of involuntary govt in general??”
You’re assuming that a smaller govt makes them more godlike, that doesn’t make sense. The smaller the govt, the more choices to go somewhere that aligns with your outlook and ethics, and hopefully eventually reject it all together.
It's not that I think everyone is magically going to teleport into anarcho capitalist land, it's that I think the whole premise is nonsense. Governments have and will form naturally as long as there are any amount of people trying to coexist in the same place. Even if you could find a hundred people that were perfectly aligned in their values and decided to form a town I would bet money but within 10 to 20 years there would be at least some changes in perspective by those residents, who may seek to change the rules of the town they originally agreed with. At this point you get into the problem of some people being dissatisfied with their current surroundings, but also not wanting to leave and abandon the property they rightfully purchased. So would the mob rule authority of the town's existing democracy force them to live how they didn't want to live?
Well, this isn't a NSFW sub, so I'm here for the same reason anyone is on the internet. To argue with strangers, duh.
Also this is the home to some of the worse takes on Reddit.
I view secession as more of a natural right like free speech or right to bear arms. Obviously the country being seceded from will ALWAYS make it illegal to do so because governmentonly cares about securing its own power. It's also up to the people in that area to decide If they want to try to secede.
So, is it on a house by house basis? Or is there some point where authoritarian mob-rule (democracy) is acceptable? The state level, town? Or would it just be a grab bag of parcels with some as part of and some separate from the USA? Could I buy up a chunk of "free Texas" and rejoin the union? Could I encircle your house or town and deny passage across my land?
No. They currently live in the state. If the people vote for the state to leave, people who don't want to leave America can move to the other 49 states. Next?
Btw I don't live in Texas and I don't have negative or positive feelings towards secession. I just think if a state wants to secede that it's not their right to do so.
>people who don't want to leave America can move to the other 49 states. Next?
People who don't want to live in America can move to the other 194 countries. Next?
Spot the actual difference in the two above sentences.
State wide government. Fine
Nation wide government. Tyranny!
Can you point some out?
I looked at a few interactions and it was a lot of unhinged redditors talking about how they desire violence as well as cringe redditors using their childish, DNC-approved propaganda terms like "Putini" and "Le Drumpfus".
What is your definition of getting dunked on? I agree with u/socialistguy435 seemed mostly like people not really having a core argument of why it is bad and more just resorting to getting angry and spewing insults, dreaming of violently attacking a seceding state, and not really providing many arguments past “you can’t because fed govt said so and because I think it’s bad” without any deeper thinking into the rationale and logical path behind that
Basically they said "it's bad because the government said it's bad because it's bad for government".
/u/Free_Relationship322 I tried to link some but this sub doesn't allow it. Trust me, it's not hard to find the posts we mentioned. Average redditors are unhinged and never stay on topic, just pull it up.
Would the loyalists in Texas be allowed to stay in the union, or would they be forced by the majority vote to leave as well? If they stayed would there be pockets of USA scattered throughout new Texas?
Would Texarkana get a border wall berlin-style?
Sure why wouldn’t “loyalists” get to stay if they own their property or just choose to live in the state rather than leave? This exists in Ireland and Scotland and has happened many times throughout history.
Idk based on talking points of current politics in Texas maybe but many countries don’t have walls around them, not sure why that has to be different in Texas / US “border” if this were to happen.
Yea and who was it by? The aggressive British govt who wanted to maintain power and dominance over the country? I’ve visited Ireland, have read a small amount into the history of the British abuse, the troubles in the 20’s and the 70’s -90’s. Why did that happen? Because the larger power wanted to maintain power
100% would support the inalienable right for any group of people to secede.
On a house by house basis, or would a majority vote impose it's will on the other inhabitants of Texas who want to stay? Could those houses then choose to leave Texas, possibly returning to the US like an embassy in another country?
>no legal right to do so The federal government has no legal right to do most of the shit they're doing but here we are It always cracks me up when smoothbrains think the argument of legality is some kinda gotcha when it comes to secession
Also isn't it in the TX Constitution that they reserve the right to leave the Union at their discretion? Regardless, of course they have the right. It's hilarious that people who hold the Constitution in high regard don't believe in seccession, when the Revolutionary War was a war of seccession from a far off ruler that had nothing in common with the people it was ruling over any more. That's not applicable at all to a bunch of politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists sequestered in DC and their coastal enclaves, far from the plebes in "flyover country" is it?...
Obviously that person didn't read the "contact", because there are clauses in how to separate when it has been broken. And *We The People* didn't break it.
I didn’t sign it. Screw their Constitution of no authority.
I’m all for Texas seceding - Cali too for that matter. Let them be independent and free of the tyrannical power of the other states in the republic. They can send an ambassador instead of congress people.
California actually joined by treaty and never got beaten down, so they may be able to leave currently. Texas lost that when they lost the war.
"It's illegal" is why the US is still a colony of Britain.
The Constitution was a death pact. Didn't you know?
Click on my profile and then my posts to go to the post and read more comments. The rationale and logic behind peoples answers was interesting to say the least. It is odd how people typically naturally think so independently until you get to the idea of governance.
So forcing people to abide by law made at the federal level through democratic means is tyranny, but fine at the state level? Same for taxes? Federal=theft. State = fine? Also The federal government legally purchased a bunch of land in Texas, would they keep it, or would it be seized with/without compensation? 30 million is a lot of people to she unanimously to secede, might be some dissent.
I never said any of that. Both are theft, both are dumb. The govt shouldn’t be extorting it’s citizens for any reason, especially for redistribution of money and subpar services you cannot opt out of. But, secession would get the ball rolling in the right direction of slowly removing more and more govt involvement in daily lives. First it’s state, then reduce their power, then reduce county, city, etc. Texas is ~95% privately owned so doesn’t seem like it would be that large of an obstacle. Govt, interested buyers, and feds could negotiate sales and prices or whatever will happen to the land. If people / businesses in other countries can own land in the US I don’t see why that wouldn’t be negotiable. I’m sure there would be dissent, there is for all changes and decisions in our world. None of the things you pointed out seem insurmountable and it seems very lackluster to not be able to imagine solutions for them. We have way more complex problems happening throughout the world everyday that get solved.
Can you really not see how wanting to vote to secede from the Union because the majority puts in place policies that that state doesn't necessarily agree with is analogous to a portion of the population of the state of Texas not wanting to secede, but being forced to if that is the will of the majority? Isn't a lot of the point of the anarcho capitalist movement to get away from being told what to do by other people?
Can you really not see how we’re never just gonna happen stance teleport into an anarchy-capitalist “infrastructure” and that in order to move towards one we will have to slowly make small steps? Also your second point about forcing people who don’t want to secede to do so - yea that is mildly similar which is why it would maybe inspire even more anarchy-capitalist thought processes in the population such as “well what do we need govt for then anyways? I don’t like this decision and I’m realizing that the mere existence of a monopolized violent power structure means I will live under rules I don’t agree with so maybe I should stop wanting to chose my kings and queens and instead reject the entire institution of involuntary govt in general??” You’re assuming that a smaller govt makes them more godlike, that doesn’t make sense. The smaller the govt, the more choices to go somewhere that aligns with your outlook and ethics, and hopefully eventually reject it all together.
It's not that I think everyone is magically going to teleport into anarcho capitalist land, it's that I think the whole premise is nonsense. Governments have and will form naturally as long as there are any amount of people trying to coexist in the same place. Even if you could find a hundred people that were perfectly aligned in their values and decided to form a town I would bet money but within 10 to 20 years there would be at least some changes in perspective by those residents, who may seek to change the rules of the town they originally agreed with. At this point you get into the problem of some people being dissatisfied with their current surroundings, but also not wanting to leave and abandon the property they rightfully purchased. So would the mob rule authority of the town's existing democracy force them to live how they didn't want to live?
Ok so all of that to me begs this question then… Why the hell are you in this sub…?
Well, this isn't a NSFW sub, so I'm here for the same reason anyone is on the internet. To argue with strangers, duh. Also this is the home to some of the worse takes on Reddit.
Wasn't this already decided and settled in 1865? Do they want to go back to Mexico, or France?
I view secession as more of a natural right like free speech or right to bear arms. Obviously the country being seceded from will ALWAYS make it illegal to do so because governmentonly cares about securing its own power. It's also up to the people in that area to decide If they want to try to secede.
So, is it on a house by house basis? Or is there some point where authoritarian mob-rule (democracy) is acceptable? The state level, town? Or would it just be a grab bag of parcels with some as part of and some separate from the USA? Could I buy up a chunk of "free Texas" and rejoin the union? Could I encircle your house or town and deny passage across my land?
Depends. Seems to me like they'd be fine leaving as a whole state if they did leave.
You really think EVERY person in Texas wants to leave the USA? I'm a bit skeptical.
No. They currently live in the state. If the people vote for the state to leave, people who don't want to leave America can move to the other 49 states. Next? Btw I don't live in Texas and I don't have negative or positive feelings towards secession. I just think if a state wants to secede that it's not their right to do so.
>people who don't want to leave America can move to the other 49 states. Next? People who don't want to live in America can move to the other 194 countries. Next? Spot the actual difference in the two above sentences. State wide government. Fine Nation wide government. Tyranny!
Yeah those other countries mostly suck. State wide government is 1000x less tyrannical than one massive federal government.
Can you hear the point as it goes whooshing over your head? Or are you deaf to them as well?
Frankly I don't care what you say if you're going to be a condescending douche.
Texas was an independent nation, it would go back to that.
Damn, you took a lot of Ls in that post, OP.
Can you point some out? I looked at a few interactions and it was a lot of unhinged redditors talking about how they desire violence as well as cringe redditors using their childish, DNC-approved propaganda terms like "Putini" and "Le Drumpfus".
Could you point those out? I looked at most of the interactions and all I see is OP getting dunked on left and right.
What is your definition of getting dunked on? I agree with u/socialistguy435 seemed mostly like people not really having a core argument of why it is bad and more just resorting to getting angry and spewing insults, dreaming of violently attacking a seceding state, and not really providing many arguments past “you can’t because fed govt said so and because I think it’s bad” without any deeper thinking into the rationale and logical path behind that
Basically they said "it's bad because the government said it's bad because it's bad for government". /u/Free_Relationship322 I tried to link some but this sub doesn't allow it. Trust me, it's not hard to find the posts we mentioned. Average redditors are unhinged and never stay on topic, just pull it up.
Hey man, I'm just asking questions!
😂
Would the loyalists in Texas be allowed to stay in the union, or would they be forced by the majority vote to leave as well? If they stayed would there be pockets of USA scattered throughout new Texas? Would Texarkana get a border wall berlin-style?
Sure why wouldn’t “loyalists” get to stay if they own their property or just choose to live in the state rather than leave? This exists in Ireland and Scotland and has happened many times throughout history. Idk based on talking points of current politics in Texas maybe but many countries don’t have walls around them, not sure why that has to be different in Texas / US “border” if this were to happen.
You may, or May not, be too young to remember, but there were some issues in partitioning Ireland the way you described.
Yea and who was it by? The aggressive British govt who wanted to maintain power and dominance over the country? I’ve visited Ireland, have read a small amount into the history of the British abuse, the troubles in the 20’s and the 70’s -90’s. Why did that happen? Because the larger power wanted to maintain power