# Secession from the US? Didn't work out so well the first time...



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

Saw this article on Yahoo and found it interesting.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

The League of the South, whether you agree with their political positions or not, is not 'white supremacist'. I know Michael Hill and he's a good man.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

Didn't the Supreme Court say you can't suceed?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

crazyquik said:


> Didn't the Supreme Court say you can't suceed?


Nah, the rule is that if you succeed they just tax you to the point where you wish you hadn't. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

tripreed said:


> Saw this article on Yahoo and found it interesting.


I read it as well. For me, the most interesting part is that groups that are fundamentally ideologically opposed can agree that they feel the Federal government no longer represents their interests.

I suppose this was why the Framers tried so hard to create a limited Federal government: the more the Feds try and force a uniform system on a non-uniform people, the more the people will be alienated by that Federal government.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

We've done quite a bit of research on the Second Vermont Republic and its links to the neo-confederate League of the South. Here is a link to a lot of the information: https://vermontsecession.blogspot.com/

Here's an article about the League of the South:

Here are some quotes from J. Michael Hill in that article:

"It is time for us, as Southern whites, to look to our own well being and defense against these thugs," the one-time college professor wrote on AlaReb, an invitation-only, neo-Confederate discussion group on the Internet.

"Moreover, it is time we demand that respectable members of the 'minority community' control their debased 'brothers and sisters.' If they refuse, then we can only believe that they secretly condone such behavior. Let us not flinch when our enemies call us 'racists'; rather, just reply with, 'So, what's your point?'"

. . .

Hill, according to the book Confederates in the Attic, declared it was "open season" on anyone who dared to question "the illicit rights bestowed on a compliant and deadly underclass that now fulfills a role similar to that of Hitler's brown-shirted street thugs of the 1930s."

He was referring to black people.

Since then, the tone of the League has grown consistently more hard line. Its ideologues now openly reject the notion of egalitarianism, opting instead for the idea that society is composed of a God-given hierarchy of groups that should not necessarily have the same rights and privileges as one another. Hill now publicly decries racial intermarriage under any circumstances.

He says people other than white Christians would be allowed to live in his South, but only if they bow to "the cultural dominance of the Anglo-Celtic people and their institutions." Where the goal of secession was once largely rhetorical, it is now a seriously stated aim.

And, in a June posting on AlaReb, Hill called slavery a "God-ordained" institution.

This radicalization is also reflected in an e-mail signed by Hill last April, right after the events in Biloxi. 'WE MUST NOT WAIT AND REACT TO THE ENEMY," Hill wrote. "Let us be bold and take the fight to him. He (the NAACP, Chamber of Commerce, and most elected officials) is well funded and determined to wipe out any vestige of Confederate heritage and culture. ...

"We must not compromise with evil."

Rather than attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center, which publised the above-quoted article, could someone explain how a speaker who refers to slavery as a "God-ordained" institution can be considered a good man?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

When asked if he would be interested in being the first president of the Republic of Vermont, the former Gov. and POTUS candidate Howard Dean, replied thusly: "ARRRGGGHHHHHYEEEEEE"


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You make some good points, Jack.

If Vermont secedes, can we still come to visit?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I hope they do not institute a foliage tariff.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> You make some good points, Jack.
> 
> If Vermont secedes, can we still come to visit?


Of course. We'll issue you your Birkenstocks on your way through customs.

I don't see it happening. The Second Vermont Republic people have been pretty quiet lately, and I think they grossly overstate their level of support.

An interesting twist on secession in Vermont is that one of the towns with a ski area (Killington) has voted to secede and join New Hampshire. Of course, since town government is a subdivision of state government, all they can do is ask the state government, which isn't going to say yes.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Interesting thing about Vermont, as this seems to have broken out into a racially oriented thread: it's 96.9% white! Blacks make up .6% of the population!

https://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html

Sort of seems funny such a liberal state, with "diversity" being a major plank of liberalism, is so..well...white. Things that make me wonder.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Interesting thing about Vermont, as this seems to have broken out into a racially oriented thread: it's 96.9% white! Blacks make up .6% of the population!
> 
> https://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/50000.html
> 
> Sort of seems funny such a liberal state, with "diversity" being a major plank of liberalism, is so..well...white. Things that make me wonder.


https://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/


----------



## The Wife (Feb 4, 2006)

*A Slice of Life in the Red State's Green Mountains*

I used to ski at Killington, Vermont, when I lived in Manhattan. I stayed several times at a bed-and-breakfast until I realised my room was in a hotbed of communism--the owners were ex-New Yorkers who easily talked the talk, but didn't have to "walk the walk". As each consecutive winter produced less snow and ever-icier slopes, as the cold-heartedness towards their other guests' needs was more in evidence year after year, and the political haranguing peaked, I became enlightened, ceasing the ski-trips.


----------



## super k (Feb 12, 2004)

secession in Vermont .............would anyone notice??


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> You make some good points, Jack.
> 
> If Vermont secedes, can we still come to visit?


You'll need a passport to return to the US of A


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

jackmccullough said:


> Rather than attacking the Southern Poverty Law Center, which publised the above-quoted article, could someone explain how a speaker who refers to slavery as a "God-ordained" institution can be considered a good man?


First, if the SPLC said the sun was going to rise in the East I'd have a hard time believing it.

Second, from a strictly theological stand point, the Bible does not condemn the institution of slavery, but rather regulates the relationship between master and slave, as it does many others, in both Old and New Testaments. I don't know that I would say that slavery was God ordained so much as something that was the accepted norm for centuries. We live in a historically anomalous time in that slavery is not common, although it does exist in other parts of the world even today. To recognize those facts is not the same as endorsing slavery as a good idea or advocating a return to it. I would also add that historically slavery does not necessarily carry an overt racial component.

It's amazing how much wisdom on race relations is found in areas that are so racially homogenous.


----------



## flylot74 (Jul 26, 2007)

Years ago I was dead heading back from DC and made a comment to the gentleman sitting next to me reading about a fringe bunch of Kooks calling themselves the Republic of Texas. The feds wanted them for tax evasion among other things. The gentleman replied with "It's a shame their such kooks because they legally are correct."

I was stunned and asked how so. It seems this guy was a constitutional lawyer and stated that when Texas entered the union, there was a proviso for the then republic to secede. It seems the federal government broke the original contract, in fact, they never made the contract whole to begin with. Texas could in fact sue for secession and win anytime the state so chose. A fascinating concept, I dare say!

Just thought I would toss that tidbit in to stir the pot some.....


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Would it just be Texas, or would it include the parts of other states that were taken away from Texas after Texas was annexed?


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Would it just be Texas, or would it include the parts of other states that were taken away from Texas after Texas was annexed?


Were I to argue it, I'd say it'd be for the original metes and bounds of the Republic of Texas.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

JRR said:


> https://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/05/the_downside_of_diversity/


I am not sure why this was a surprise. I completed my Econ degree in the mid-90s, and it was already well known that socialist economic policies only work amongst homogenous populations. The greater the percieved diversity of the group, the less willing the members were to make sacrifices for other members. It was an underpinning of the economic rationalization of the moderate success of socialism in Scandinavian societiesm, and the failure in more diverse ones. It was also considered a threat to those Scandinavian countries, because growing diversity (in the 90s) was leading to a backlash against the transfer payments.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

AlanC said:


> The League of the South, whether you agree with their political positions or not, is not 'white supremacist'. I know Michael Hill and he's a good man.


Don't they or least Hill promote Kinism?


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

I do not understand the existence of these fringe groups. There's no realistic chance of them ever succeeding from the U.S, reminds me of those Black revolutionaries from the 70's whose goal was the my the "Black belt" into a self governed region.


----------



## flylot74 (Jul 26, 2007)

yachtie said:


> Were I to argue it, I'd say it'd be for the original metes and bounds of the Republic of Texas.


Good question of which I haven't a clue to the answer but logic would dictate the original metes and bounds of the original Republic of Texas. On a side note (I realize I'm kind of hijacking this thread and I apologize), there is a Latino contingent in these parts that is not only actively promoting illegal immigration but also promoting large Latino families(not that it really need promoting) on the premise that eventually they will outnumber the gringos(they have in Houston, I am a minority in my town being anglo) and force the secession and then rejoin Mexico. They are deadly serious and in your face about it.

Sobering thought.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I have this recurring nightmare. I'm at a campground trying to get away from it all. Suddenly I hear the regimental band of a civil war reenactment group on one side and the spittle filled screams of 'seig heil, ***********' and jack boot stomping of skinheads on the other with a cheap boombox playing old Kriegsmarine songs ordered out of a WW2 history magazine. The union skirmishers spot a Stars and Bars flag and within minutes a solid line of blue marches past my sleeping bag, directs a massive volley of enfield musket mini balls, 36 Navys and a Napoleonic cannon at the skinheads desperate to fit poorly modified polystyrene snail drum magazines into chicom SKS carbines with marshmellow skewer bayonets- prefered weapon of choice for all contemporary true patriots. Meanwhile, I'm crawling off into the treeline, to join up with my true compatriates; remembering John Muir's comment " In the next race war I'm siding with the bears." Any notice seccesionists are usually people you wish would on some meaningfull level?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

flylot74 said:


> Good question of which I haven't a clue to the answer but logic would dictate the original metes and bounds of the original Republic of Texas. On a side note (I realize I'm kind of hijacking this thread and I apologize), there is a Latino contingent in these parts that is not only actively promoting illegal immigration but also promoting large Latino families(not that it really need promoting) on the premise that eventually they will outnumber the gringos(they have in Houston, I am a minority in my town being anglo) and force the secession and then rejoin Mexico. They are deadly serious and in your face about it.
> 
> Sobering thought.


I believe the term is the _reconquista_. I hear it in Arizona too and the term for this mythical country is Aztlan or something similar. I give them pretty good odds at being successful on many levels. Look at Quebec.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I have this recurring nightmare. I'm at a campground trying to get away from it all. Suddenly I hear the regimental band of a civil war reenactment group on one side and the spittle filled screams of 'seig heil, ***********' and jack boot stomping of skinheads on the other with a cheap boombox playing old Kriegsmarine songs ordered out of a WW2 history magazine. The union skirmishers spot a Stars and Bars flag and within minutes a solid line of blue marches past my sleeping bag, directs a massive volley of enfield musket mini balls, 36 Navys and a Napoleonic cannon at the skinheads desperate to fit poorly modified polystyrene snail drum magazines into chicom SKS carbines with marshmellow skewer bayonets- prefered weapon of choice for all contemporary true patriots. Meanwhile, I'm crawling off into the treeline to join up with my true compatriates; remembering John Muir's comment " In the next race war I'm siding with the bears." Anyone notice seccesionists are usually people you wish would on some meaningfull level?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> I do not understand the existence of these fringe groups. There's no realistic chance of them ever succeeding from the U.S, reminds me of those Black revolutionaries from the 70's whose goal was the my the "Black belt" into a self governed region.


It is the lunatic fringe that dominates the Rebuplican and Democratic parties. It gives them power beyond their numbers.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> Don't they or least Hill promote Kinism?


I had to look up Kinism. From kinism.net:

Kinism is the belief that the ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than imperial and universal. Mankind was designed by God to live in extended family groups.

If you take the word God out of that last sentence, you get the gist of what many anthropologists have been saying for decades. Funny, because when coming from anthropologists quoting for the left, it is a reason to reject our modern way of life, and to get back to a more family and community-oriented society.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

agnash said:


> It is the lunatic fringe that dominates the Rebuplican and Democratic parties. It gives them power beyond their numbers.


That's one way to look at it. Another is to say that history awards the spoils to them that show up. The tepid middle rarely gets worked up about much that they'll actually go out and work for. It's the activists that pick the leaders because the activists are...well...active. :teacha: Who ever heard of a middle-of-the-road activist?

The founding fathers had the state legislatures pick the Senate and the electors who pick the President just to avoid the type of rabble-fest we find ourselves in today. But we knew better. Unbridled democracy is what we wanted and so it is ultimately what we got. This is what it looks like.


----------



## Bob Loblaw (Mar 9, 2006)

If at first you don't secede. . .


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Didn't the Supreme Court say you can't secede?


No. Maybe it did after the Second War of Independence, but that wouldn't count anyway.

Lincoln was the one who said it. And then he used soldiers to shut down pro-secessionist newspapers. And, when told by a Supreme Court justice that he did not have the power to suspend habeas corpus, issued an arrest warrant for that Supreme Court justice. He then invaded and made war on civilians to prove his point.



> when Texas entered the union, there was a proviso for the then republic to secede


Three of the original 13 states expressly reserved the right to secede in their acts of ratification of the Constitution -- Virginia, New York and Rhode Island.

It seems strange that a nation that itself seceded could then deny the right of secession.

It also seems strange that the people who rather aggressively rejected the right of secession were the same people who ratified or otherwise tolerated the secession of West Virginia from Virginia. It seems that the suppressors of independence are not always consistent.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well, as a member in good standing of SOPA ( Society of Professional Archaeologists) I can argue the tribe and ethnicity thing. What are those terms? When I walked the streets of Oakland with friend Jo Jo, Sui Tuitasi and Bruce Shimizu our 'tribe' was the USCG and ethnicity this patois of detroit black, samoan, japanese american and socal slang. Jo Jo hated California n- er blacks, Tui prefered to stay on base housing, Bruce was always mistaken for a chinaman by tourists and I was checking out girls. Tribalism and ethnicity are terms for associations. Those associations are subject to change like everything else. Waves my AAAC pocket square and gives a Maori tongue out, facial expression at the unreconstructed rebels rigid and patinated by time like those civil war statues and covered with white acidic refuse.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

flylot74 said:


> Years ago I was dead heading back from DC and made a comment to the gentleman sitting next to me reading about a fringe bunch of Kooks calling themselves the Republic of Texas. The feds wanted them for tax evasion among other things. The gentleman replied with "It's a shame their such kooks because they legally are correct."
> 
> I was stunned and asked how so. It seems this guy was a constitutional lawyer and stated that when Texas entered the union, there was a proviso for the then republic to secede. It seems the federal government broke the original contract, in fact, they never made the contract whole to begin with. Texas could in fact sue for secession and win anytime the state so chose. A fascinating concept, I dare say!
> 
> Just thought I would toss that tidbit in to stir the pot some.....


Not quite true, although the joint resolution approving the admission of Texas to the union did contain a provision for potentially dividing it into four states in the future. No unilateral right of secession, however.

https://www.snopes.com/history/american/texas.asp


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

AlanC said:


> First, if the SPLC said the sun was going to rise in the East I'd have a hard time believing it.
> 
> Second, from a strictly theological stand point, the Bible does not condemn the institution of slavery, but rather regulates the relationship between master and slave, as it does many others, in both Old and New Testaments. I don't know that I would say that slavery was God ordained so much as something that was the accepted norm for centuries. We live in a historically anomalous time in that slavery is not common, although it does exist in other parts of the world even today. To recognize those facts is not the same as endorsing slavery as a good idea or advocating a return to it. I would also add that historically slavery does not necessarily carry an overt racial component.
> 
> It's amazing how much wisdom on race relations is found in areas that are so racially homogenous.


Okay, you'd question whether the sun would rise in the East, then you'd go outside and confirm that it did, and you'd have to conclude the SPLC was correct.

Are you saying that Hill didn't say what SPLC says he said, or are you approving of what he said, or do you want to reconsider your blanket statement that he is a "good man"? Whether you would say that slavery is God ordained, if he did, what is your opinion of that statement?


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

jackmccullough said:


> ... do you want to reconsider your blanket statement that he is a "good man"?


No.

..


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

On second look a series of secessions from the union or 3 state partition proposed for Iraq may work. Think about it. Texas will invade Mexico and finish the job. It will be poignant finding a dead, sockless Vicente Fox missing the boots gifted by his amigo Jorge. A greater Utah encompassing a Arizona border town, Idaho and holdings in Las Vegas will call home Romney and his brave sons to assume temporal leadership under the guidance of Spencer W. Kimball. California under the Governator will look good briefly with it's 6th greatest economy in the world, but ultimately fragment over issues of immigration as first the People's Republic of Santa Monica breaks away in defense of Barbra Streisand being allowed amnestia but not LAPD Chief Bratten.New York will declare the first of many interminable and countless wars after Woody Allen is found shot to death in his Central Park Apartment and a incoherent Phil Spector is found mumbling " I think I shot that guy who makes the anti California remarks." The South will rise again, excepting a still flooded New Orleans but face currency counterfeiting from novelty toy stores. The fun part is all these examples and the others will have their regional share of - THE BOMB. If you think the breakup of the USSR is scary wait till we follow in suit, er flip flops and jeans. This will teach those french.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Do the math from the census link...Vermont has approximately 3744 black people in the entire state and a few hundred more hispanics. I have to tell you, if I was a white supremacist, Vermont would look like a pretty attractive place to live.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Wait until the Latinos claim tapping trees for maple syrup is a yob lazy americanos won't do and start vandalising the black owned groves. Men heavy in L.L. Bean safety orange hunting coats and gum boots will be marching in the streets with hunting rifles and shotguns when they only have California made Knott's boysenberrry jam for their hotcakes.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Do the math from the census link...Vermont has approximately 3744 black people in the entire state and a few hundred more hispanics. I have to tell you, if I was a white supremacist, Vermont would look like a pretty attractive place to live.


Doesn't mean they are as apt as Southerners to accept White supremacist rhetoric.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Well isn't that a social observation worthy of Margaret Meade! Every time a celebrity afro american is involved in any crime the colour blindness of an enlightened city is cured and we see them as black, black and dangerous. And now I learn white southerners have this mutative gene waiting to be triggered into producing pasty faced hillbillies right out of Deliverance playing banjos. I better buy DRIVING MISS DAISY in an audio book format and see if my old Beta tape of To kill A Mockingbird has one showing left in it. I found a restaurant yesterday that serves grits. I hear tell large quantities can ignite hormonal changes subdued only by collard greens.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Kav said:


> Well isn't that a social observation worthy of Margaret Meade! Every time a celebrity afro american is involved in any crime the colour blindness of an enlightened city is cured and we see them as black, black and dangerous. And now I learn white southerners have this mutative gene waiting to be triggered into producing pasty faced hillbillies right out of Deliverance playing banjos. I better buy DRIVING MISS DAISY in an audio book format and see if my old Beta tape of To kill A Mockingbird has one showing left in it. I found a restaurant yesterday that serves grits. I hear tell large quantities can ignite hormonal changes subdued only by collard greens.


I don't recall saying it was genetic its cultural, not to every Southerner but likely at a higher rate than anywhere else in the U.S. Even the "good guys" subscibe to it to a degree.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Who are these "good guys" of which you speak?


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

jpeirpont said:


> I don't recall saying it was genetic its cultural, not to every Southerner but likely at a higher rate than anywhere else in the U.S. Even the "good guys" subscibe to it to a degree.


Yes. Archie Bunkers exist in greater numbers in Atlanta than in Queens.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> Doesn't mean they are as apt as Southerners to accept White supremacist rhetoric.


Not what I said in the least. Follow me now:

1) One could expect that white supremacists would prefer to be in an area that was almost exclusively white.

2) Virginia, according to the census, has an astonishingly homogenously white population.

3) Ergo, one could reasonably expect this would be a state any white supremacist would be happy to live in.

Nothing was said about the current (almost exclusively white) population of Vermont. Comprende amigo?


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> I don't recall saying it was genetic its cultural, not to every Southerner but likely at a higher rate than anywhere else in the U.S. Even the "good guys" subscibe to it to a degree.


Where were the worst race riots in U.S. history? Philadelphia (1964), Harlem (1943 and 1964), Watts (1965), Cleveland (1966), Detroit (1943 and 1967), Newark (1967), Chicago (1919 and 1964), Tulsa (1921), Atlanta (1906), St. Louis, Illinois (1917), Los Angeles (1992), Baltimore (1968).

My geography may not be that great, but I believe most of these occurred outside of the Southern States, and after the Great Migration of African Americans to the Northern States.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

america and americans are going to have enough problems in the coming decades with the ascent of the indian and chinese markets, not to mention possible wars with the middle east. the idea that we should take our only real strength - the size and power of our market, and throw that away so some hillbillies can feel good about themselves seems beyond ludicrous to me.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> the size and power of our market, and throw that away so some hillbillies can feel good about themselves seems beyond ludicrous to me


The size and power of "our" market would be _*even greater*_ if the U.S. government, particularly its economic regulation, were more decentralized. One of the largest, most broad-based economic expansions in U.S. history occurred from 1845-1860 (just before you-know-what happened and the taxes, tariff barriers, regulations and subsidies that came with it.)

(Is "our" market anything like "our" property?)


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> The size and power of "our" market would be _*even greater*_ if the U.S. government, particularly its economic regulation, were more decentralized. One of the largest, most broad-based economic expansions in U.S. history occurred from 1845-1860 (just before you-know-what happened and the taxes, tariff barriers, regulations and subsidies that came with it.)
> 
> (Is "our" market anything like "our" property?)


while debatable, lets assume that is correct. that still assumes a single market, and not a hogpodge of small states, that each have a flag and a postal stamp but have no real economy to speak of.


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> america and americans are going to have enough problems in the coming decades with the ascent of the indian and chinese markets, not to mention possible wars with the middle east. the idea that we should take our only real strength - the size and power of our market, and throw that away so some hillbillies can feel good about themselves seems beyond ludicrous to me.


I will grant that their is strength in numbers, but I have a few quibbles with the rest. There are multiple active secessionist movements throughout the United States. Are they all fringe groups? Yes, according to my definition of fringe. Are they all "hillbillies"? No, again, according to my definition of hillbillie. Probably the strongest of the secssionist groups is the Aztalan group in the south-west.

As for India and China, they have internal secssionist movements much stronger than our own. India has, at the very least, the Sikh and the Kashmir issues. China has the Tibetans, the Muslims in the west of their country, and a few other ethnic groups that feel alienated by the Chinese majority.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> lets assume that is correct. that still assumes a single market, and not a hogpodge of small states, that each have a flag and a postal stamp but have no real economy to speak of.


Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. If we assume that a decentralization of the government of a particular territory increases economic vitality, then each of the smaller sub-territories cannot have "no real economy to speak of." After all, we already assumed that their economy has improved.

It's not as though the decentralization of a governmental entity causes the people and economic life that exists there to suddenly vanish into thin air.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Phinn said:


> Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. If we assume that a decentralization of the government of a particular territory increases economic vitality, then each of the smaller sub-territories cannot have "no real economy to speak of." After all, we already assumed that their economy has improved.
> 
> It's not as though the decentralization of a governmental entity causes the people and economic life that exists there to suddenly vanish into thin air.


Well...yes and no. Interstate commerce is now conducted using currency backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. If I sell product into Vermont, must I now consider the quality of Vermont's new state currency before making a sale, or must my customer's buy the new Texas Lone Star currency before buying from me? Who's to say that a new republic with a population of less than 1 million would have an adequately liquid currency market to make that even possible.

It also depends on the border restrictions imposed by the individual states. How many folks live in Connecticut and commute to NY or live in New Hampshire and commute to Boston. During the next economic downturn, suppose Massechusetts decides to implement border restrictions to prevent "undocumented workers" from entering its state to take jobs from hard working Massechusettssssites.

Must every state now conduct trade and tariff negotiations with every other state?

Does decentralization cause it to vanish? Not necessarily, but the federal regulation of interstate commerce combined with a single currency backed by federal faith and credit has been what has allowed it to grow with minimal consideration of boundries.

Of course I could be completely mistaken. :teacha:


----------



## ceaton (Feb 15, 2006)

A few points...and I'm not an American, let alone an American historian (I'm a Canadian one), so these might be dumb thoughts...

A) Could the 10th amendment not be read to say, that since the power for a state to leave the union is not delegated to the US by the constitution, nor prohibited to be held by the states, that the states themselves still retain the power to leave? 

B) Rationally, if a state had the assumed power to - by legislative action or referendum - join the union (which one has to assume they do have, lest the union have no legitimacy); one would think it also has the same power to leave by the same action. What gives a legislature a right to bind its successors? This same logic is why the "constitutional convention" is still available to amend the US constitution - becuase it was a constitutional convention that approved it in the first place, and that convention had no right to bind a successor convention (although it's never been done, congress and states voting on specific amendments are viewed as preferably as a convention could, in theory, change the entire US constitution). 

These arguements becomes more complex when it comes to states other than the original 13 mind you, as they were admitted by both their own actions and by congressional enabling acts.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Your second sentence contradicts your first sentence. If we assume that a decentralization of the government of a particular territory increases economic vitality, then each of the smaller sub-territories cannot have "no real economy to speak of." After all, we already assumed that their economy has improved.
> 
> It's not as though the decentralization of a governmental entity causes the people and economic life that exists there to suddenly vanish into thin air.


I'm sorry - why are we assuming that the decentralization of a government entity increases economic vitality? that is sort of like assuming that a vasectomy increases fertility.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Interstate commerce is now conducted using currency backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. If I sell product into Vermont, must I now consider the quality of Vermont's new state currency before making a sale, or must my customer's buy the new Texas Lone Star currency before buying from me? Who's to say that a new republic with a population of less than 1 million would have an adequately liquid currency market to make that even possible.


The inability of smaller governments to inflate currency quite as easily as larger ones is one of the primary reasons why decentralized government leads to a healthier economy in the first place.

But, if you insist on using a currency that is created out of nothing but paper, one that is constantly devalued by the issuance of more and more unbacked paper, then go right ahead. There's no law of God or physics that prevents the Republic of Vermont from allowing you to use US currency in transactions inside Vermont. You can use US currency as money in all sorts of places around the world today. A bank in Switzerland will accept payment and deposits denominated in Euros or dollars. If not, then I am sure that there would be some business in Vermont that would be glad to sell you Vermont dollars for your US dollars. How do you think every single international transaction takes place all over the world every single day?



> It also depends on the border restrictions imposed by the individual states.


I agree. The more decentralized the government is, the less economic power each individual sub-unit has to impose those kinds of border restrictions.

That was one of the major points of contention leading up to the Second War of Independence. The Confederacy was basically going to be a free trade zone, particularly with regard to the sale of cotton to Europe (and the sale of finished textiles back to the Confederacy). The North wanted a high tariff. They only got one because they shot their way into a highly centralized US government.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Of course. We'll issue you your Birkenstocks on your way through customs.
> 
> I don't see it happening. The Second Vermont Republic people have been pretty quiet lately, and I think they grossly overstate their level of support.
> 
> An interesting twist on secession in Vermont is that one of the towns with a ski area (Killington) has voted to secede and join New Hampshire. Of course, since town government is a subdivision of state government, all they can do is ask the state government, which isn't going to say yes.


I still say we should go ahead and give Killington to NH. Just let them come an get it!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I'm sorry - why are we assuming that the decentralization of a government entity increases economic vitality?


You said so. Your exact word were, "lets assume that is correct."



> that is sort of like assuming that a vasectomy increases fertility.


Uh, no, it isn't.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

The Wife said:


> I used to ski at Killington, Vermont, when I lived in Manhattan. I stayed several times at a bed-and-breakfast until I realised my room was in a hotbed of communism--the owners were ex-New Yorkers who easily talked the talk, but didn't have to "walk the walk". As each consecutive winter produced less snow and ever-icier slopes, as the cold-heartedness towards their other guests' needs was more in evidence year after year, and the political haranguing peaked, I became enlightened, ceasing the ski-trips.


Thats why many of us want NH to come and take Killington. Try Mad River Glen instead, much more oriented towars sking if that is what you are looking for (good sking too).


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

ceaton said:


> A few points...and I'm not an American, let alone an American historian (I'm a Canadian one), so these might be dumb thoughts...
> 
> A) Could the 10th amendment not be read to say, that since the power for a state to leave the union is not delegated to the US by the constitution, nor prohibited to be held by the states, that the states themselves still retain the power to leave?
> 
> ...


The problems with your arguments (as I see it) is that they are based on logic.  Unfortunately, interpretation of the constitution using this arcane device ended nearly as soon as the constitution was ratified.

Today, the constitution means what 9 old men and women say it means. I think that in the real world the issue of whether or not states can secede was settled not by logic buy by grapeshot and miniball in 1865. Theoretically, I suppose that a state could secede if Congress and the President bid it good riddence. Otherwise it seems to be a death pact.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

agnash said:


> As for India and China, they have internal secssionist movements much stronger than our own. India has, at the very least, the Sikh and the Kashmir issues. China has the Tibetans, the Muslims in the west of their country, and a few other ethnic groups that feel alienated by the Chinese majority.


but for the most part, they are crackpots.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> You said so. Your exact word were, "lets assume that is correct."


actually, I was refering to your statement

"The size and power of "our" market would be even greater if the U.S. government, particularly its economic regulation, were more decentralized. One of the largest, most broad-based economic expansions in U.S. history occurred from 1845-1860 (just before you-know-what happened and the taxes, tariff barriers, regulations and subsidies that came with it.) "

and I assumed that you meant that the market, taken as a whole, would grow. while not terribly credible, it is possible if the larger industrial parts of the north east and midwest grow due to not having to support the weaker parts of the Us economy. but I wouldn't assume that the fringe "nations" would have heatlhy economies - I have taken economics courses.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Do the math from the census link...Vermont has approximately 3744 black people in the entire state and a few hundred more hispanics. I have to tell you, if I was a white supremacist, Vermont would look like a pretty attractive place to live.


You keep mentioning Vermont's population. What is your point? Should we force people to move here to change our diversity before we become politically liberal?

Actually in VT, it is not your color that really matters (although racism is as prevelant here as in many other places) it is where you, your parents, and your grandparents were born. If they do not all answer that they were born in VT you are a flatlander (no matter if you come from the Rockies or other real mountaiins). If you live in eastern VT and were born in NH becasue that is the location of the closest/only hospital, you may be a Vermonter but you are suspect. About 15-20 years ago, someone tried to introduce legislation stating that these people were actual Vermonters.

We are starting to see more "minorities" in VT with a number of immigration policies bringing in people from Africa and southeast Asia. We are also seeing a large (for us anyway) influx of hispanics woprking for the Dairy industry (as it is getting harder to find young Vermonter's willing to put in the long hours of hard work for little pay).

The real minority however is the French Canadian population! In the northern part of the state it used to be the population discriminated against and not really accepted into the upper levels of Vermont Society. (In the town of Derby line, the library straddles the US Canadian border and Canadians have to walk into the US to take out a book. There also used to be a bar that straddled the line where you could drink at 18 in one part of the bar and had to be 21 in the other part of the bar).


----------



## agnash (Jul 24, 2006)

globetrotter said:


> but for the most part, they are crackpots.


So are ours:icon_smile_big:, however, our secessionists haven't been the cause of any wars or assassinations of prime ministers/presidents in say the last 100 years or so. I do not believe the same can be said of China, and I definitely know it cannot be said of India.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> Actually in VT, it is not your color that really matters (although racism is as prevelant here as in many other places) it is where you, your parents, and your grandparents were born. If they do not all answer that they were born in VT you are a flatlander (no matter if you come from the Rockies or other real mountaiins).
> 
> 
> > Yes, I remember seeing a letter to the editor referring to our then-governor, Madeleine Kunin, as a flatlander. The flatlands she comes from are commonly referred to as the Alps.
> ...


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> The inability of smaller governments to inflate currency quite as easily as larger ones is one of the primary reasons why decentralized government leads to a healthier economy in the first place.
> 
> But, if you insist on using a currency that is created out of nothing but paper, one that is constantly devalued by the issuance of more and more unbacked paper, then go right ahead. There's no law of God or physics that prevents the Republic of Vermont from allowing you to use US currency in transactions inside Vermont. You can use US currency as money in all sorts of places around the world today. A bank in Switzerland will accept payment and deposits denominated in Euros or dollars. If not, then I am sure that there would be some business in Vermont that would be glad to sell you Vermont dollars for your US dollars. How do you think every single international transaction takes place all over the world every single day?
> 
> ...


Phinn,

can you think of any examples at all of a market that has broken off from a larger market and has done better? the only one I can think of is slovenia, and that is for very specific reasons. there are a lot of reasons a person would want to make his geopolitical unit smaller, but none of them have to do with the economy.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

globetrotter said:


> Phinn,
> 
> can you think of any examples at all of a market that has broken off from a larger market and has done better?


Do colonies count?


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Not what I said in the least. Follow me now:
> 
> 1) One could expect that white supremacists would prefer to be in an area that was almost exclusively white.
> 
> ...


White supremist do not simply want to live around whites they want to live around whites like them, which Vermont would have relatively few of in comparison to the South.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Who are these "good guys" of which you speak?


The gentlemen from The League of the South who are involved with racialist sects of religion.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

jbmcb said:


> Do colonies count?


in all fairness, sure.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> White supremist do not simply want to live around whites they want to live around whites like them, which Vermont would have relatively few of in comparison to the South.


So then they're white, "white" supremists? Man, I learn something new every day!


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

So far from dismembering the USA, of late I have thought it would be kind of cool to expand it to include Canada and Mexico. As far as I am concerned, "MexAmerica" is so much of a reality that attempting to "secure the borders" is a lost cause. So, let's merge with Mexico. Actually, exporting American notions of "clean government" and American economic development might well result in more Mexicans staying in Old Mexico instead of migrating north. It will be much easier to secure the southern border through a comparatively narrow strip of jungle next to Guatemala. Then, if we incorporate Canada, how many terrorists and other undesirables are going to be able border jump across the Bering Straits or the Beaufort Sea? We could make English, French and Spanish the three official languages and make sure our kids will be fluent in all three--I just think it would be sort of neat!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Jan, great idea. Then I could get poutine and my favorite brand of whisky down here.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> So then they're white, "white" supremists? Man, I learn something new every day!


Your welcome.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

JLibourel said:


> So far from dismembering the USA, of late I have thought it would be kind of cool to expand it to include Canada and Mexico. As far as I am concerned, "MexAmerica" is so much of a reality that attempting to "secure the borders" is a lost cause. So, let's merge with Mexico. Actually, exporting American notions of "clean government" and American economic development might well result in more Mexicans staying in Old Mexico instead of migrating north.


I'm not saying no, but I have concerns:
1. Where would I go for a relatively cheap weekend vacation where I can also buy Cuban cigars?
2. Do I immediately have to give my yardman and maid a raise?
3. Will Tequila and Dos X taste as good now that they're "domestic"?

On the upside, does this mean I can finally convince my boss to implement the siesta I've been lobbying for?



JLibourel said:


> It will be much easier to secure the southern border through a comparatively narrow strip of jungle next to Guatemala. Then, if we incorporate Canada, how many terrorists and other undesirables are going to be able border jump across the Bering Straits or the Beaufort Sea?


This is actually one of my favorite strategies when playing Risk, so I'm thinking it could work.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> can you think of any examples at all of a market that has broken off from a larger market and has done better?


The United States of America
Hong Kong
Taiwan
Australia
Ireland (aka, the Celtic Tiger)
Estonia (aka, the Baltic Tiger)
Luxembourg
Dubai


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

Phinn said:


> The United States of America
> Hong Kong
> Taiwan
> Australia
> ...


USA: was pretty stagnant for a long time, then expanded its wealth greatly due to massive availability of natural resources (natives previously possessing it were a minor distraction) and a novel economic model that happened to work beautifully.

Hong Kong: was doing pretty well before. Besides, how can you be separated from something that was 10,000 miles away to begin with...it was always separate.

Taiwan: yeah, but look what you're comparing it to.

Australia: See Hong Kong.

Ireland: Just getting back to zero after hundreds of years with a boot on its throat.

Estonia: Can't intelligently comment on this one, my knowledge of Balkan history is a bit rusty. My best guess is: See Taiwan.

Luxembourg: OK. This one was a joke, right? You threw this one in just to see if we were awake. Plano has a larger economy than Luxembourg. Where's Plano, you ask? Exactly. Actually this isn't exactly true. I believe that a more precise comparison would be Collin County (where Plano rests) which has nearly the exact same population, per capita income and GDP as Luxembourg. In a word, who cares?

Dubai: I dare you to take any country consisting of less than 15 people place it directly on top of a pool of the most valuable and marketable natural resource on the planet and have them fail. It's socialogically, economically and mathematically impossible.

How was that? Did I do good? :aportnoy: Don't taze me, bro!


----------



## Sweetness (Aug 25, 2005)

MichaelS said:


> Try Mad River Glen instead, much more oriented towars sking if that is what you are looking for (good sking too).


Good thinking. I'm very racist against snowboarders.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Mark from Plano said:


> Estonia: Can't intelligently comment on this one, my knowledge of Balkan history is a bit rusty.


Hey Mark, you're a good guy and I like you a lot, and usually we are on the same page, but, FYI, Estonia is a Baltic, not Balkan, state.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> You keep mentioning Vermont's population. What is your point? Should we force people to move here to change our diversity before we become politically liberal?


Well, forcing people to go places to create artificial diversity was the premise behind things like school bussing, was it not? And I have to say, your description of Vermonters is anything but people that desire "diversity". I can see why it is so lily white.

BTW Michael, nice to see you pop in again. I was afraid I had mortally wounded your psyche after seeing you needed to start a whole thread to show me how smart you are! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't worry about Vermont. I think the latest spanish named community in Arkansas pimped by Eric Estrada is bigger. Maple syrup is one of our national treasures, but like real creme it's not easily found and the last time I looked at 12 pieces of candy a pink diamond from the Kimberly mines was cheaper. Calling outsiders 'flatlanders' is nothing unique. All peoples have a name for themselves, usually a translation renders it into 'the people.' There will be given names for their immediate nieghbors; Dine' and Hopis for the Apaches and a general name for everyone else new or unknown; Sioux, Pawnee, Irish. And again that name will usually mean 'the enemy who smell bad.' In Alaska everything and everyone is refered to as 'The Outside' and the state motto 'To hell with how they do it Outside.' I tell you who I do loath- Delaware. I think 99% of our finance is located there. I get a barrage of credit and financing offers from Delaware. I bit once, and when one payment went missing they upped the interest rate without so much as one friendly note with pretty logos and personally signed messages from the president. No, All of a sudden someone in Sioux Falls South Dakota was sending me nasty collection notices without so much as an introduction or signed name. Why should I trustingly send a money order, or prefered instant cash to a stranger in South Dakota? At least the Barristers in Nigeria call me 'Dear Friend' before explaining the latest military coup, plane crash or death of a tourist with my last name from crocodile attack.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> The United States of America
> Hong Kong
> Taiwan
> Australia
> ...


reasonable list - the only one that I would consider a really good example of your post is estonia - like slovenia, the baltic countries did very well in the past 10 plus years after becoming independent, for a variety of demographic reasons more than anything else.

US and Australia are poor examples, in my opinion, because they were both examples of huge pools of natural resources that were just waiting to be exploited - the fact that this happened after they recieved independence from a colonial master is incedental.

Ireland is a pretty good example too, actually.

luxemburg and dubai are countries (actually, Dubai isn't really a country, it is part of the United Arab Emirates, but lets leave that) that have made excellent nieches for themselves - luxemburg in banking, dubai in being in an excellent location as a hub, and of course oil.

but these are a small handfull against maybe 80-100 examples of the opposite effect.


----------



## gregp (Aug 11, 2005)

Phinn said:


> The inability of smaller governments to inflate currency quite as easily as larger ones ....


Is a laughable contention.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Well, forcing people to go places to create artificial diversity was the premise behind things like school bussing, was it not? And I have to say, your description of Vermonters is anything but people that desire "diversity". I can see why it is so lily white.
> 
> BTW Michael, nice to see you pop in again. I was afraid I had mortally wounded your psyche after seeing you needed to start a whole thread to show me how smart you are! :icon_smile_big:


First response erased, not worth the negative energy.

A real conversation would be nice but it apparently isn't going to happen with you.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> First response erased, not worth the negative energy.
> 
> A real conversation would be nice but it apparently isn't going to happen with you.


Much easier to dismiss than engage and deal with the facts? Figure out the difference between Medicare and Medicaid yet? Or is it different in Vermont?


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Much easier to dismiss than engage and deal with the facts? Figure out the difference between Medicare and Medicaid yet? Or is it different in Vermont?


As I already said, much to your unwillingness to admit, I was wrong about Medicare. The question in discussion however was whether or not government paid long term care was means based. While I was wrong about Medicare as I said, Medicaid does pay for long term care once you have no funds and is therefore means based. You as usual, look only at small things and never really address the question as a whole. While during that exchange you hit on several things I was incorrect about, you did not admit to the things where you were wrong. As usual.

I am glad to engage with people, but I'd rather "engage" without repeated personal attacks. I'd rather address the issue. When I am wrong, I like to know so I can learn unlike you who has only one response wrong or right, no matter what.

The real question to me however after a number of exchanges with you, is that do you act in real person at all like you act on this forum? If so, that explains why you spend so much time on this forum. It allows you to "hear" yourself quack on and spout your diatribes in a way you can never do face to face and still have people who will "engage" with you.

Enjoy and have fun coming up with more insults. Anything to show yourself how smart you are, at least in your own mind.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> As I already said, much to your unwillingness to admit, I was wrong about Medicare. The question in discussion however was whether or not government paid long term care was means based. While I was wrong about Medicare as I said, Medicaid does pay for long term care once you have no funds and is therefore means based.


No, you did not admit you were wrong. The statement was something to the affect of, "Or maybe it's Medicaid". Not what I would call a strong statement of admission. The impact of your rather egregious error was that you told us of "easy fixes" and then refused to enumerate them. You came off as having all the answers and gave nothing but errors and vague generalities while at the same time inferring your intellectual superiority as a "scientist".



MichaelS said:


> You as usual, look only at small things and never really address the question as a whole. While during that exchange you hit on several things I was incorrect about, you did not admit to the things where you were wrong. As usual.


Please go back and point out, with proof, just one instance of me being incorrect in that thread.



MichaelS said:


> I am glad to engage with people, but I'd rather "engage" without repeated personal attacks. I'd rather address the issue. When I am wrong, I like to know so I can learn unlike you who has only one response wrong or right, no matter what.


You have yet to demonstrate this. I repeatedly asked you to engage by proffering even one "simple fix" and you waffled right out of the conversation.



MichaelS said:


> The real question to me however after a number of exchanges with you, is that do you act in real person at all like you act on this forum? If so, that explains why you spend so much time on this forum. It allows you to "hear" yourself quack on and spout your diatribes in a way you can never do face to face and still have people who will "engage" with you.
> 
> Enjoy and have fun coming up with more insults. Anything to show yourself how smart you are, at least in your own mind.


And you speak to me of personal insults? Look in the mirror pal. And I have yet to start a thread merely to demonstrate to a specific poster how qualified and smart I am in a given area. That honour belongs solely to you.

EDIT: Oh yes, I forgot where you became an ITG and intimated that if we were face to face you would attempt physical violence against me:



MichaelS said:


> I would reply to you correctly if you were in front of me instead of behind a computer screen.


Cheers!


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

And you speak to me of personal insults? Look in the mirror pal. And I have yet to start a thread merely to demonstrate to a specific poster how qualified and smart I am in a given area. That honour belongs solely to you.
EDIT: Oh yes said:


> That was not a threat of physical violence. If you read it that way, it says something about you.
> 
> As to creating a thread to demonstrate how smart I am, I have no idea what yu are talking about. If you are mentioning the post about global warming, I gave my qualifications so someone to show that I do know a little about global wartming and the science being used to describe it. Only you who apparently must try prove to yourself your greatness with every discussion and every statement would read it that way.
> 
> Enjoy and cheers


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

MichaelS said:


> That was not a threat of physical violence. If you read it that way, it says something about you.


Oh come now. You were mad at me I said your wife was a felon if she was doing what you said she did (and thankfully she was not doing what you said she was). How else can you read that as any response you can give orally can be put in writing. What then would us being face to face add to the "correct" answer?



MichaelS said:


> As to creating a thread to demonstrate how smart I am, I have no idea what yu are talking about. If you are mentioning the post about global warming, I gave my qualifications so someone to show that I do know a little about global wartming and the science being used to describe it. Only you who apparently must try prove to yourself your greatness with every discussion and every statement would read it that way.


Again, let me use your own words.



MichaelS said:


> Please note that for anyone who doubts my ability to discuss global warming from an informed background or knowledge base *(this discussion is sort of given for "wayfarer"), *although I work as a hydrogeologist (with numerous publications in refereed journals and presentations at national and international conferences of which I will be glad to provide references to in private messages), I also have a graduate degree in climatology (primarily based on water budget issues but also when combined with my hydrogeological modeling schooling and modeling work) and reading of appropriate scientific journals has allowed me to keep up with the science and speak from an informed position.


Keep in mind, I had yet to post in that thread! You started that thread and the post I quote from was your first reply (or second post) in that thread, and you felt compelled to list your accomplishments, *even though no one had challenged them*. You are as transparent as a freshly cleaned window.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> Doesn't mean they are as apt as Southerners to accept White supremacist rhetoric.


You know - really this is just bunk. I'm not a native southerner - but I tire of the anti-Southern slurs. I've lived in CA, NJ, PA, VA, IA, SD, NE and now GA and if you think southerners are dispropotionately racist, you're misinformed. They exist in the same proportions just about everywhere. It's kinda' odd that Southerners are allegedly more prone to racism, yet blacks are leaving the north for the south out of proportion to their numbers - they must be finding something pretty attractive down here to risk living with all the racists down here:

www.frey-demographer.org/reports/rr01-473.pdf

https://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m4021/is_2001_July_1/ai_76574308

https://www.inmotionaame.org/migrations/topic.cfm?migration=11&topic=1

If you haven't been down South in a while, maybe you should come for a visit and put your stereotypes behind you; Unlike the great enlightened up there in New York, we've managed to avoid Bensonhurst and Crown Heights types of problems in the last several decades here in Atlanta. I've never been aware of so much racial tension as when I lived in New Jersey as a teenager and watched the evening news from the New York City affiliates in the 1980s.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Rocker said:


> You know - really this is just bunk. I'm not a native southerner - but I tire of the anti-Southern slurs. I've lived in CA, NJ, PA, VA, IA, SD, NE and now GA and if you think southerners are dispropotionately racist, you're misinformed. They exist in the same proportions just about everywhere. It's kinda' odd that Southerners are allegedly more prone to racism, yet blacks are leaving the north for the south out of proportion to their numbers - they must be finding something pretty attractive down here to risk living with all the racists down here:
> 
> www.frey-demographer.org/reports/rr01-473.pdf
> 
> ...


Yes and David Duke would win the majority of white voters where in the North East? Black moving South doesn't mean it less racist than the north and Atlanta is hardly a good example of the South.


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

"If you haven't been down South in a while, maybe you should come for a visit and put your stereotypes behind you..."

Please don't invite the JackMcCulloughs of the world down here. I would prefer to send Morris Dees north.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Murrah said:


> "If you haven't been down South in a while, maybe you should come for a visit and put your stereotypes behind you..."
> 
> Please don't invite the JackMcCulloughs of the world down here. I would prefer to send Morris Dees north.


Isn't Morris a terrible person.



> Dees' most famous cases have involved landmark damage awards that have driven several prominent neo-Nazi groups into bankruptcy, effectively causing them to disband and re-organize under different names and different leaders. In 1981, Dees successfully sued the Ku Klux Klan and won a seven million dollar settlement.[4] In a 1987 case against the United Klans of America, he won a $ 7 million judgment for the mother of Michael Donald, a black lynching victim in Alabama.[4] This was topped a decade later, when in 1991 he won a judgment of $12 million against Tom Metzger's White Aryan Resistance.[4] He was also instrumental in the rewarding of a $6.5 million judgment against Aryan Nations in 2001, which splintered that group as well.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> US and Australia are poor examples, in my opinion, because they were both examples of huge pools of natural resources that were just waiting to be exploited - the fact that this happened after they recieved independence from a colonial master is incedental.


What are the natural resources of, say, Africa? Mexico? India?

The mere existence of natural resources is not the source of wealth and long-term economic prosperity.



> Ireland is a pretty good example too, actually.


Thank you.



> luxemburg and dubai are countries (actually, Dubai isn't really a country, it is part of the United Arab Emirates, but lets leave that) that have made excellent nieches for themselves - luxemburg in banking, dubai in being in an excellent location as a hub, and of course oil.


Dubai derives something on the order of 3% of its gross revenue from oil and gas, far less than other countries in the region whose economies are nowhere near as vibrant. The economically decentralized structure of the UAE (dare I say, its confederate system), and the free market that follows, is what separates it from the rest of the middle east. Compare it to socialist Iraq -- even prior to the military state under which it currently operates, it was (and is) pretty much a giant ghetto.



> but these are a small handfull against maybe 80-100 examples of the opposite effect.


By "opposite," do you mean countries where decentralization contributed to economic decline, or where centralization contributed to economic prosperity?


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> The inability of smaller governments to inflate currency quite as easily as larger ones ....
> 
> Is a laughable contention.


I expressed this idea very poorly.

What I was trying to say was that the effects of inflation arising from the free-wheeling printing of paper money (and other anti-free-market measures) are more easily seen in smaller countries, their harmful effects more obvious and immediate.

The impetus for centralization typically arises from the desire to avoid the direct and predictable consequences of bad policies, like centralized banking, import/export regulations, and the other kind of harmful restrictions that Mark from Plano referenced upthread. When a small jurisdiction imposes these kinds of anti-free-market restrictions, which it usually does for the benefit of some well-connected political beneficiary and/or sponsor, the effects are bad, economic opportunity declines, and people suffer. Rather than repeal the harmful measure (i.e., the smart thing to do), the cronies and their political whores usually try to expand the restriction to a broader territory, in an effort to hide the costs by distributing them to a larger group of people.



> Must every state now conduct trade and tariff negotiations with every other state?


I do not understand why anyone would think that a larger, more centralized government is somehow immune from the harmful effects of this kind of trade and tariff restriction than a smaller one. If its bad for Vermont, why is it not (proportionally) bad for the entire US with regard to its trade with the rest of the world? Instead of only Vermonters and its trading partners being affected, a larger, more centralized government extends the harm to the hundreds of millions of people inside its larger territory. Everything that's bad is simply bad on a larger scale, harming a larger group of people.

Let's say that you are in favor of free trade, and you dislike this kind of trade restriction and border regulations. Good. Me, too. Unlike me, however, you promote and support the existence of some centralized government to provide that for you. You want there to be an economic free zone inside the territory, whatever size that may be, and you think that a powerful central government is the only way to provide that.

Here's the problem -- the government that is powerful enough to provide the low internal trade barriers is also powerful enough to impose all sorts of OTHER economic regulations that you don't want. It is silly to expect this powerful centralized government, which you helped create, to do only the things you want, and restrain itself from doing the things you don't want. By giving it more and more centralized power, you are guaranteeing that others will use that power in new and creative ways. You and your political opponents become symbionts, each feeding off of the power that the other one gives the central government, each side using the status quo as a starting point and then using it as a justification for expanding its powers.

You can't set up an powerful central government and then expect people will not gravitate toward it and try to use it for their own purposes.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> Yes and David Duke would win the majority of white voters where in the North East? Black moving South doesn't mean it less racist than the north and Atlanta is hardly a good example of the South.


Potentially a decent point - but then again - Louisianna (as we've all seen very recently) is an abhorrently run state filled with incomptence and corruption and has been that way for as long as its been run by Democrats (hint, forever) - I mean, when Mississippi is recovering faster than Louisiana, you know something is wrong. Could be voters preferred him not for his racist views but because he was a protest vote and broke from the mold of LA machine politics - could've been out of a state of frustration. I don't know - could've been pure racism. What I do know, is I've met people with racist attitudes in every state I've lived and the numbers don't seem to vary widley - some people have been socilaized to keep them quieter. What I do know is that up north where there are sizeable black populations, it's hardly all peace and harmony among people and my subjective view is that those tensions are more pronounced up north (or on the W. Coast) than down here.

That's probably exactly why blacks are moving back to the south - it's growing, it's proseprous, and it's doubtful racial relations are worse down here than in the north or west coast.

BTW, you don't have to just look at Atlanta - go to any major metro area in the South.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Rocker said:


> Potentially a decent point - but then again - Louisianna (as we've all seen very recently) is an abhorrently run state filled with incomptence and corruption and has been that way for as long as its been run by Democrats (hint, forever) - I mean, when Mississippi is recovering faster than Louisiana, you know something is wrong. Could be voters preferred him not for his racist views but because he was a protest vote and broke from the mold of LA machine politics - could've been out of a state of frustration. I don't know - could've been pure racism. What I do know, is I've met people with racist attitudes in every state I've lived and the numbers don't seem to vary widley - some people have been socilaized to keep them quieter. What I do know is that up north where there are sizeable black populations, it's hardly all peace and harmony among people and my subjective view is that those tensions are more pronounced up north (or on the W. Coast) than down here.
> 
> That's probably exactly why blacks are moving back to the south - it's growing, it's proseprous, and it's doubtful racial relations are worse down here than in the north or west coast.
> 
> BTW, you don't have to just look at Atlanta - go to any major metro area in the South.


That's like saying because there were Blacks who were wealthy in 1920's NYC there wasn't any racism. They move back in spite of racism and this is something I have direct experience in, being Black from a city where a good percentage of folk, family and friends, have migrated South to Atlanta, and Houston.
There is a reason why the South has that reputation, just because you do not see doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

jpeirpont said:


> There is a reason why the South has that reputation, just because you do not see doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


Just because you keep repeating your bigotry doesn't make it true.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Mark from Plano said:


> Just because you keep repeating your bigotry doesn't make it true.


LOL, good one.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> That's like saying because there were Blacks who were wealthy in 1920's NYC there wasn't any racism. They move back in spite of racism and this is something I have direct experience in, being Black from a city where a good percentage of folk, family and friends, have migrated South to Atlanta, and Houston.
> There is a reason why the South has that reputation, just because you do not see doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


So, be it - we're all entitled to opinions - I didn't say it didn't exist, I just said that nowadays it was not more prevalent here than anywhere else. And yes, there is a reason the South has that reputation - it lies in the south's history. Times change and people change - and they change at an increasingly rapid rate. I understand, Southerners remain fair game for bias in this country. When's the last time you ever saw a Southerner portrayed as an intellectual or actually kind with no implication of menace/degeneracy behind a facade of manners - it's tiresome. So, please continue to watch riots in New York and Los Angeles over race issues and comfort yourself with the fact that you don't live with racists becasue you don't live in the South. Now, excuse me while I look for my banjo and find someone with a pretty mouth.....


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Rocker said:


> So, be it - we're all entitled to opinions - I didn't say it didn't exist, I just said that nowadays it was not more prevalent here than anywhere else. And yes, there is a reason the South has that reputation - it lies in the south's history. Times change and people change - and they change at an increasingly rapid rate. I understand, Southerners remain fair game for bias in this country. When's the last time you ever saw a Southerner portrayed as an intellectual or actually kind with no implication of menace/degeneracy behind a facade of manners - it's tiresome. So, please continue to watch riots in New York and Los Angeles over race issues and comfort yourself with the fact that you don't live with racists becasue you don't live in the South. Now, excuse me while I look for my banjo and find someone with a pretty mouth.....


The South has the most Klan members, fly the flag used to fight for the preservation of slavery and lets not forget are nostalgic for the days before the Civil War. What about the Southern strategy? Even in this thread Southerners have said Michael Hill was a good man. You may follow such belief thus they don't come across as racist to you but I have not come across this up here. In any event your not Black I seriously doubt you would knowor care if racism were directed towards us or not.


----------



## globetrotter (Dec 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> What are the natural resources of, say, Africa? Mexico? India?
> 
> The mere existence of natural resources is not the source of wealth and long-term economic prosperity.


well, it would be hard to find a good example of a country in africa that has had economic prosperity after leaving a larger market.

india is intersting - because the economy took a downturn for almost 50 years after leaving the empire, and then, as it took steps to allow better access to global markets, it economy took an upturn - but that upturn is a direct result in india's opening up to global markets. and, indias natural resource is its huge force of educated people willing to work cheaply.



> Dubai derives something on the order of 3% of its gross revenue from oil and gas, far less than other countries in the region whose economies are nowhere near as vibrant. The economically decentralized structure of the UAE (dare I say, its confederate system), and the free market that follows, is what separates it from the rest of the middle east. Compare it to socialist Iraq -- even prior to the military state under which it currently operates, it was (and is) pretty much a giant ghetto.


Dubai is an interesting and complex case - I would say that the short answer is that it took almost 20 years after independence for its economy to develop to where it is today after independence. a longer answwer would be that dubai owes its position to its unique geographical location (there are more people within range of a single flight from dubai than any other airport in the world, apperently) and to a few specific individuals who chose to invest oil and gas money wisly, as well as build up the airport and commerical centers.



> By "opposite," do you mean countries where decentralization contributed to economic decline, or where centralization contributed to economic prosperity?


both, although I was thinking about the first.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> The South has the most Klan members, fly the flag used to fight for the preservation of slavery and lets not forget are nostalgic for the days before the Civil War. What about the Southern strategy? Even in this thread Southerners have said Michael Hill was a good man. You may follow such belief thus they don't come across as racist to you but I have not come across this up here. In any event your not Black I seriously doubt you would knowor care if racism were directed towards us or not.


The Klan has what, like 3000 members? That's like saying that California is a racist state because they have the largest group of the Aryan Brotherhood, 15,000 members.


----------



## Rocker (Oct 29, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> You may follow such belief thus they don't come across as racist to you but I have not come across this up here. In any event your not Black I seriously doubt you would knowor care if racism were directed towards us or not.


How's the above not a racist statement? You've made a quite a few assumptions - haven't you (i.e., I'm white and I live in a southern state, hence racist or indifferent to it?)

BTW,:

https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullp...nce/Times Topics/Organizations/K/Ku Klux Klan


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Here's some more examples from the non-racist North:

Aryan Nation: The original ultimate goal of the Aryan Nation is to forcibly take five northwestern states - Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Montana from the United States government in order to establish an Aryan homeland. This particular ideology is known throughout the *********** movement as the Northwest Territorial Imperative.

The National Socialist Movement: HQ in Minneapolis, MN. 
Units Claimed by NSM:
Alabama
Alaska
California (2)
Florida (2)
Georgia
Idaho 
Illinois
Indiana (2)
Iowa
Kansas (4)
Louisiana
Maryland
Michigan (4)
Minnesota (2)
Missouri (4)
Montana (3)
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York (2)
North Carolina (2)
Ohio (5)
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina (2)
Tennessee (2)
Texas (2)
Virginia (3)
Washington (4)
West Virginia
Wisconsin

There are racists in every state in the U.S., not just the South.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

JLibourel said:


> Hey Mark, you're a good guy and I like you a lot, and usually we are on the same page, but, FYI, Estonia is a Baltic, not Balkan, state.


See how up on it I am!!


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> fly the flag used to fight for the preservation of slavery...


OK, I am not even from the south originally and I find this kind of sentiment pretty silly. I think its pretty well established that most southerners at the time were fighting for state's rights, and not to "keep slavery" or some other narrow, ridiculous notion that the politicians of the day used to demonize the south. We all recognize slavery as horrible and just plain wrong, but I find it really over-simplifying to say that the south was fighting for the sole purpose of keeping their slaves. I mean, most of the volunteer confederate army was too poor to even afford slaves.

I guess my point here is by stating that all the confederate soldiers who wore the uniform, wore that uniform solely for the purpose of maintaining the institution of slavery is a little insulting to those who wore that uniform for other reasons.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Rocker said:


> How's the above not a racist statement? You've made a quite a few assumptions - haven't you (i.e., I'm white and I live in a southern state, hence racist or indifferent to it?)
> 
> BTW,:
> 
> https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullp...nce/Times Topics/Organizations/K/Ku Klux Klan


I forgot all about this thread. Honestly gong back and forth with you is useless. I am Black and a plurality of my family moved South. Some American, others Jamaican a few Nigerian. The American weren't shocked by the more blatant racism, The others were surprised, coming from NY & New England. The benefits of staying outweighs the negatives from racism.

I'm not sure why people who gather their knowledge from superficial statistics pawn themselves off as experts on things.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

gnatty8 said:


> OK, I am not even from the south originally and I find this kind of sentiment pretty silly. I think its pretty well established that most southerners at the time were fighting for state's rights, and not to "keep slavery" or some other narrow, ridiculous notion that the politicians of the day used to demonize the south. We all recognize slavery as horrible and just plain wrong, but I find it really over-simplifying to say that the south was fighting for the sole purpose of keeping their slaves. I mean, most of the volunteer confederate army was too poor to even afford slaves.
> 
> I guess my point here is by stating that all the confederate soldiers who wore the uniform, wore that uniform solely for the purpose of maintaining the institution of slavery is a little insulting to those who wore that uniform for other reasons.


Yes the state's right to maintain slaves.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Here's some more examples from the non-racist North:
> 
> Aryan Nation: The original ultimate goal of the Aryan Nation is to forcibly take five northwestern states - Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, Washington and Montana from the United States government in order to establish an Aryan homeland. This particular ideology is known throughout the *********** movement as the Northwest Territorial Imperative.
> 
> ...


What was the point of this post? No one said there were only racist in the South.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> Doesn't mean they are as apt as Southerners to accept White supremacist rhetoric.





jpeirpont said:


> I don't recall saying it was genetic its cultural, not to every Southerner but likely at a higher rate than anywhere else in the U.S. Even the "good guys" subscibe to it to a degree.





jpeirpont said:


> White supremist do not simply want to live around whites they want to live around whites like them, which Vermont would have relatively few of in comparison to the South.





jpeirpont said:


> Yes and David Duke would win the majority of white voters where in the North East? Black moving South doesn't mean it less racist than the north and Atlanta is hardly a good example of the South.





jpeirpont said:


> That's like saying because there were Blacks who were wealthy in 1920's NYC there wasn't any racism. They move back in spite of racism and this is something I have direct experience in, being Black from a city where a good percentage of folk, family and friends, have migrated South to Atlanta, and Houston.
> There is a reason why the South has that reputation, just because you do not see doesn't mean it doesn't exist.





jpeirpont said:


> The South has the most Klan members, fly the flag used to fight for the preservation of slavery and lets not forget are nostalgic for the days before the Civil War. What about the Southern strategy? Even in this thread Southerners have said Michael Hill was a good man. You may follow such belief thus they don't come across as racist to you but I have not come across this up here. In any event your not Black I seriously doubt you would knowor care if racism were directed towards us or not.





jpeirpont said:


> I forgot all about this thread. Honestly gong back and forth with you is useless. I am Black and a plurality of my family moved South. Some American, others Jamaican a few Nigerian. The American weren't shocked by the more blatant racism, The others were surprised, coming from NY & New England. The benefits of staying outweighs the negatives from racism.
> 
> I'm not sure why people who gather their knowledge from superficial statistics pawn themselves off as experts on things.





jpeirpont said:


> *What was the point of this post? No one said there were only racist in the South.*


Nice try.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Nice try.


Huh? I said more racism in the South. Again where did I say there was no racism in the North? And racism only existed in the South.
You put alot of effort into that post. So I'll ask again what exactly is your point?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

jpeirpont said:


> Yes the state's right to maintain slaves.


Secession ordinances and related proclamations were generally quite explicit on the importance of slavery in states' decisions to leave the Union:

https://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Alabama, Texas, Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky floated ordinances that specifically mentioned slavery or "property" as a main motivator. Georgia, Missouri, and South Carolina expanded on this in their declarations of causes. (Of course, not all of these resolutions effected secession. Missouri and Kentucky remained in the Union, however tenuously.)

It is worth noting, however, that by the end of the Civil War the Confederacy was putting out feelers to the North to the effect that they might be permitted to remain out of the Union if they abolished slavery. By that time, feelings were pretty well bruised.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

Should the US invade and conquer every foreign country around the world where slavery is practiced TODAY? 

There are several I could identify for you.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Phinn said:


> Should the US invade and conquer every foreign country around the world where slavery is practiced TODAY?
> 
> There are several I could identify for you.


If they were at anytime a state in our union , yes they should.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> Huh? I said more racism in the South. Again where did I say there was no racism in the North? And racism only existed in the South.
> You put alot of effort into that post. So I'll ask again what exactly is your point?


You didn't. However, you strongly implied that the South is more racist than the North. You can pretend that this wasn't your intention if you want. I was just showing that racism is present in all areas of the country, not just the southern states. I don't live in the South, and I don't care enough about this subject to discuss it further.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> If they were at anytime a state in our union , yes they should.


Why does that make a difference? Why does the fact that they were once a member of the United States justify a war against them, when the existence of slavery in some other non-member state does not? Why is slavery in former US member states any more or less morally objectionable than slavery anywhere else?


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Why does that make a difference? Why does the fact that they were once a member of the United States justify a war against them, when the existence of slavery in some other non-member state does not? Why is slavery in former US member states any more or less morally objectionable than slavery anywhere else?


You make an excellent point here. Slavery is still surprisingly widespread in much of Africa. Here's the wikipedia. Repugnant, immoral, and unjustified; particularly since it involves children in many instances. However I am quite sure that if the US Army showed up in Ghana or Chad to end the practice, its actions would be thoroughly trashed by most of the world.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

gnatty8 said:


> You make an excellent point here. Slavery is still surprisingly widespread in much of Africa. Here's the wikipedia. Repugnant, immoral, and unjustified; particularly since it involves children in many instances. However I am quite sure that if the US Army showed up in Ghana or Chad to end the practice, its actions would be thoroughly trashed by most of the world.


I believe if there was to be no conceivable benefit for the US in such an intervention, and only expense, that the rest of the world would be quite supportive.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> I believe if there was to be no conceivable benefit for the US in such an intervention, and only expense, that the rest of the world would be quite supportive.


Then you are terribly naive I am sorry to say.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> You didn't. However, you strongly implied that the South is more racist than the North. You can pretend that this wasn't your intention if you want. I was just showing that racism is present in all areas of the country, not just the southern states. I don't live in the South, and I don't care enough about this subject to discuss it further.


Yes, the South is, yet you attempted to presented information which implied I said there was no racism in the North. In any event you silly little stats, which didn't prove anything, versus my real world experience, which is valid?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

gnatty8 said:


> Then you are terribly naive I am sorry to say.


I imagine that you misread what I wrote. Otherwise, your attitude between this post and your last is inconsistent.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Let me try to restate what I think your point is. If the US was to intervene in one of these areas, say on the premise of eliminating afforementioned slavery, *and* there was no way in hell one could ascribe an ulterior motive (like the old oil and Iraq argument) to the action; then you seem to have implied that the much of the world would support the action. Isn't that what your point was?

If so, I must restate, that is horribly naive.

If I misunderstood your point, please feel free to clarify.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

jpeirpont said:


> Yes, the South is, yet you attempted to presented information which implied I said there was no racism in the North. In any event you silly little stats, which didn't prove anything, versus my real world experience, which is valid?


Again, I don't live in the South, and I don't care enough about this subject to discuss it further.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

gnatty8 said:


> Let me try to restate what I think your point is. If the US was to intervene in one of these areas, say on the premise of eliminating afforementioned slavery, *and* there was no way in hell one could ascribe an ulterior motive (like the old oil and Iraq argument) to the action; then you seem to have implied that the much of the world would support the action. Isn't that what your point was?
> 
> If so, I must restate, that is horribly naive.
> 
> If I misunderstood your point, please feel free to clarify.


Well, you got my point. I fail to see what's naive about it.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

gnatty8 said:


> If so, I must restate, that is horribly naive.


Yet, there are recent examples. Kosovo or Somalia come to mind. Interventions that nobody could construe as unjustified or for ulterior motives, and indeed interventions with practically no international opposition. Of course Somalia was still a complete failure, but that was not the point.


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

I don't think either of these examples are particularly relevant to the discussion here. Those were disaster relief/peacekeeping missions.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Interventions that nobody could construe as unjustified or for ulterior motives, and indeed interventions with practically no international opposition. Of course Somalia was still a complete failure, but that was not the point.


Nobody?

How about opposition from people who accurately predicted that they were going to be complete failures?

People who accurately predicted that the US military intervention in the Balkans would result in the very evil -- "ethnic cleansing" -- that it purported to prevent, only with the roles reversed?

People who accurately predicted that the presence of the US military in Somalia would provide an even greater incentive to the warring factions to fight, since the military presence offered them the promise of ultimate victory: US sponsorship as the official ruling clan?

Saying "nobody thinks X" strikes me as a particularly smug attitude.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

gnatty8 said:


> Those were disaster relief/peacekeeping missions.


Not really. Kosovo, at least, was a real full-fledged military intervention against a sovereign country. Exactly the type of things we are discussing here.



Phinn said:


> Saying "nobody thinks X" strikes me as a particularly smug attitude.


If you want to counter my use of examples, I would very kindly ask that you do so in good faith. We were discussing international opposition. As far as I remember, there was no international opposition to speak of. No disagreement at the UN, etc.

If I am wrong, as might very well be the case since I am speaking from memory here, I welcome your references.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> If you want to counter my use of examples, I would very kindly ask that you do so in good faith. We were discussing international opposition. As far as I remember, there was no international opposition to speak of. No disagreement at the UN, etc.


Etienne:

Thank you for providing me with two excellent examples of why the UN should not be trusted to make sound decisions in these types of things.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Thank you for providing me with two excellent examples of why the UN should not be trusted to make sound decisions in these types of things.


I fail to see how those two cases might be considered supporting your point. In the case of Kosovo, at least, the UN did not make the actual decision (it was a NATO intervention), I merely said that there was no real opposition from other countries, at the UN or elsewhere.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Étienne said:


> I fail to see how those two cases might be considered supporting your point. In the case of Kosovo, at least, the UN did not make the actual decision (it was a NATO intervention), I merely said that there was no real opposition from other countries, at the UN or elsewhere.


And another reason to disband NATO too! Excellent, thanks.

P.S. Pretty sure the UN was in Kosovo.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Pretty sure the UN was in Kosovo.


Years later, yes. After the NATO intervention, Kosovo became some sort of international protectorate. The local government is supported by an international, UN-appointed, administration. On the ground, international police and military forces provide the security services (there are at least a NATO mision and a EU one that I know of).


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

You would like examples of what, exactly?

You said that nobody _*could*_ construe US military action in Kosovo and Somalia as unjustified. I disagree.

Your larger point as to the naivety that gnatty8 and hopkins_student were discussing remains unclear.


----------



## Étienne (Sep 3, 2005)

Phinn said:


> Your larger point as to the naivety that gnatty8 and hopkins_student were discussing remains unclear.


To sum up: you are not adressing my point, which you claim is not clear enough, but are content in nitpicking and attacking my formulation. I had forgotten that such was the standard of discussion here...

Anyway, if you genuinely believe that my point was not clear enough, let me restate it.

The point made earlier in the discussion was that if the US engaged in a military intervention with no obvious ulterior motives or misinformation, they would not encounter the kind of international opposition they have encountered in the past few years. That point was deemed (with no further justification) "naïve".

My claim: there are enough recent examples of what Hopkins Student said, i.e., examples of military interventions where no ulterior motives were present (or at least, none obivous) and where indeed what HS claimed should happen happened. That is, those interventions did not, in actual fact, create any wide international opposition.

The examples I was thinking of where Somalia and Kosovo, but Afghanistan could be considered as well. Notice I only said that those two (or three) interventions where not opposed on the international scene. I never said they were good ideas, or a success. That last point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand anyway.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

That all seems very reasonable, given the caveats and parameters you provided. 

I'm more curious, however, about the question that sparked that part of the discussion -- Is the existence of slavery in a foreign territory an independent justification for war? 

If not, why should the US invade and forcibly annex a slave state merely because it was once a member of the United States, when the existence of slavery in some other non-member state does not justify a war of conquest and annexation?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> If not, why should the US invade and forcibly annex a slave state merely because it was once a member of the United States, when the existence of slavery in some other non-member state does not justify a war of conquest and annexation?


Your question contains at least one erroneous assumption.

The Confederate states largely seceded because of the slavery issue. There were no non-slaveholding states ever to try to secede. The rebellion was put down by the Federal government primarily to preserve the Union. Eradication of slavery was a bonus.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I made no assumptions, erroneous or otherwise. I understand the history of how it happened in 1861, and agree wholeheartedly that the actual motivation of those in charge of the US government at the time was to "preserve the Union," which is a euphemism for "preventing independence." 

I was asking about the general principle of justification for war. Can we take it from your classification of the abolition of slavery as a "bonus" that your position is that the existence of slavery in a foreign territory is not an independent justification for invasion and annexation?


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Phinn said:


> I made no assumptions, erroneous or otherwise. I understand the history of how it happened in 1861, and agree wholeheartedly that the actual motivation of those in charge of the US government at the time was to "preserve the Union," which is a euphemism for "preventing independence."
> 
> I was asking about the general principle of justification for war. Can we take it from your classification of the abolition of slavery as a "bonus" that your position is that the existence of slavery in a foreign territory is not an independent justification for invasion and annexation?


I am not sure that any discussion of the American Civil War offers insight into that problem, as it was not fought in or against a foreign territory. Perhaps it might be better to start a new thread?


----------

