Secession: an academic discussion

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • CampingJosh

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Dec 16, 2010
    3,298
    99
    As you print more money the existing money has less value. Inflation then starts to kick in and can quickly spiral into hyper-inflation.
    This is only part of the story.

    As more value is created in the world (gold mined, dishwashers manufactured, cheeseburgers grilled, etc.), the total value of everything goes up. If the value of everything increases and the money supply stays fixed, we get deflation.

    That's a much worse problem than slight inflation.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    You guys are doing great keeping this within the rules, THANK YOU!

    I'm enjoying the discussion and the civility. On the point of inflation, I have in my safe, 200 trillion dollars. That is to say, two paper notes for 100 trillion dollars each, drawn on the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. I'm not bragging to say that; the two of them together ran me maybe 4 bucks USD on eBay a few years ago. The shipping cost me more than the cost of the items. That's where inflation can go.

    Good points all around, folks, keep it up!

    Blessings,
    Bill
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 23, 2009
    1,822
    113
    Brainardland
    Are you positing that the admission into the union of several red states was flawed and that associated Senate seats shouldn't exist?
    Nope. But I am stating that negotiations that included trading away lands that rightfully belonged to the citizens of those future states in exchange for statehood was unconstitutional.
     

    CampingJosh

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Dec 16, 2010
    3,298
    99
    Nope. But I am stating that negotiations that included trading away lands that rightfully belonged to the citizens of those future states in exchange for statehood was unconstitutional.
    Not sure that's how that would work. Voiding the agreement seems like it would void the agreement.

    Anyway, what in the Constitution prohibits a state from agreeing to leave parts of the included land owned by another government?
     

    CampingJosh

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    18   0   0
    Dec 16, 2010
    3,298
    99
    Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 17.
    :scratch:

    "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings"
     

    BigRed

    Banned More Than You
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Dec 29, 2017
    18,920
    149
    1,000 yards out
    Nearly 4 "pages" into a discussion of secession without mention of one of the best written seccessionist documents in years.




    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    -Excerpt by Jefferson
     

    rooster

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Mar 4, 2010
    3,306
    113
    Indianapolis
    Nearly 4 "pages" into a discussion of secession without mention of one of the best written seccessionist documents in years.




    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

    -Excerpt by Jefferson
    Someone should read this to the senate and Congress as a warning for their continued actions against the people.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 17.
    Liberty, that might work for precedent, but IIRC, that refers specifically to the District of Columbia, which was to remove the seat of government from any single state, intended to prevent a "first among equals" scenario.

    In any event, this would be the purpose of approaching this as a treaty, not a fight, to iron out such differences as "You've got our stuff!" or "Your roads are on our land!" (but excluding "Your peanut butter's on my chocolate/your chocolate's in my peanut butter!" and "You sunk my battleship!" ;) )
     

    NKBJ

    at the ark
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 21, 2010
    6,240
    149
    It took huge effort from Europe, time, money and resources to get secession to happen last time. Not gonna happen again.
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 23, 2009
    1,822
    113
    Brainardland
    Liberty, that might work for precedent, but IIRC, that refers specifically to the District of Columbia, which was to remove the seat of government from any single state, intended to prevent a "first among equals" scenario.

    In any event, this would be the purpose of approaching this as a treaty, not a fight, to iron out such differences as "You've got our stuff!" or "Your roads are on our land!" (but excluding "Your peanut butter's on my chocolate/your chocolate's in my peanut butter!" and "You sunk my battleship!" ;) )
    The first half refers to DC. The second half refers to the circumstances under which the feds can hold land within the states.
     

    ditcherman

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Dec 18, 2018
    7,606
    113
    In the country, hopefully.
    Liberty, that might work for precedent, but IIRC, that refers specifically to the District of Columbia, which was to remove the seat of government from any single state, intended to prevent a "first among equals" scenario.

    In any event, this would be the purpose of approaching this as a treaty, not a fight, to iron out such differences as "You've got our stuff!" or "Your roads are on our land!" (but excluding "Your peanut butter's on my chocolate/your chocolate's in my peanut butter!" and "You sunk my battleship!" ;) )
    Interesting thread.

    I was accused of “perfecting newspeak” on another thread. I don’t want to be that guy, I really don’t. But...

    The physical division of property and resources will never go very well. To ‘solve’ that, let’s think in terms of a virtual division. Physically together but two different nations, respecting each other at borders and interactions. This is pretty pie in the sky stuff but with tech where it is today I wonder if it would be possible? I hope not, but the overlords may see it as a way to keep the peace among the individual, while making them think that their contribution goes to the country/values that they stand for and still collect all the taxes.

    Actually, think about how divided we already are, and most of it is from a virtual perspective. When’s the last time you went to CNN’s site to get news? We just don’t do that here, right? (Ok I listen to some npr, know thy enemy etc) We are already divided online (thought life) but I bet most of us choose to get along with the people we daily interact with.
    For years politicians have tickled our ears with what they know we want to hear, but then go do what they want. I don’t really see this as that much different, they have been priming the pump for us to think one thing and accepting different behavior. We have the capacity, for better or worse, to ‘get along’ without holding others accountable, this idea might not be so far fetched.
    Definitely not advocating it, in fact I’d fight against it but we’re not talking about that here are we now.
     

    ditcherman

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    22   0   0
    Dec 18, 2018
    7,606
    113
    In the country, hopefully.
    The answer to the problem would be to go back to having much less federal control of everything, with the states being more autonomous.
    This!
    The only downside is that it would put so many politicians and lobbyists out of work. They have boat payments too, you know!
    Not that them being out of work is a problem, it’s that with all of our support systems in place they would not starve to death.
     

    IndyDave1776

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Jan 12, 2012
    27,286
    113
    It took huge effort from Europe, time, money and resources to get secession to happen last time. Not gonna happen again.
    You are overlooking the fact that in 1861 the vast majority of wealth in this country was in hard money, not fiat, and it was concentrated in the northeast.

    Today the wealth is far more distributed. For instance, there is a fantastic amount of wealth in Texas, which I feel safe in predicting to be part of Team Secession if push comes to shove.
     
    Top Bottom