NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think that secession is justified, and if so, by how large a group of people?

Do you think that secession is justified, and if so, by how large a group of people?
Well, if you're trying to suceed from NSG I think the Mods might get cranky if you advertise your new forum here, but if you want to take off...

Nope.

Yes. In certain cases, such as when a population has a vested interest that is completely different and incompatable with the rest of the government that rules them.

An example: the Kurds in Iraq and Turkey.

Justification is rhetorical masturbation. If you manage to do it, then you're justified. If not, you're a traitor.

If the state will let you go, go ahead if you think you must.

If it will not let you go, you are still obligated to obey it so far as it obeys God's Law.

I believe (and millions will disagree...) that if a community agrees, as a whole, to scede from a greater political entity, then they must have the right to do so. But a single person scedeing? That's just delusional; you can't have a functioning state with one person. A village though would be justified; also I doubt their lifes would fare nicely given that they'll be cut off from electricity, water, etc etc...

Justification is rhetorical masturbation. If you manage to do it, then you're justified. If not, you're a traitor.

Quite right. Will your attempt be televised? I'd like to make sure I don't miss it.

Yes, secession should be legal. If i don't want to live under the US, i should be able to take over neighboring towns, and start the nation of Zilam :p

Absolutely. If Quebeckers decide they don't want Quebec to be Canadian, it's not worth fighting them to keep it.

Do you think that secession is justified, and if so, by how large a group of people?

Well, if it's just one person seceding, they may as well just immigrate. Emmigrate?

Justification is rhetorical masturbation. If you manage to do it, then you're justified. If not, you're a traitor.

Do you think dirty thoughts when you justify yourself?

Well, if it's just one person seceding, they may as well just immigrate. Emmigrate?

Emigrate, if you mean leaving the country. Why should they emigrate, if they A.) Like where they are, and B.) Feel that they do not need govt. services? This could be applicable for people living self-sufficiently, such as in isolated areas.

Do you think dirty thoughts when you justify yourself?
If by justify you mean straighten, then certainly it helps. ;)

Emigrate, if you mean leaving the country. Why should they emigrate, if they A.) Like where they are, and B.) Feel that they do not need govt. services? This could be applicable for people living self-sufficiently, such as in isolated areas.
I've never seen anyone actually live self-suffciently, but you can always try.

If it’s perfectly justifiable then yes they can secede. If not then they should be ignored. If people that speak the same language, share the same culture, religion and history and yet they still want to secede, then you tell them "Ok, you still want to leave, then leave, leave my country and go somewhere else :D" Our northern coastal people want to secede from my nation but speaking for the majority of my people, this would be what the president would tell them behind close doors, “Either you can live here with us or there’s the ocean over there :D” The same goes for the Taiwan/China issue, I don't understand why the Chinese people in Taiwan don't want to live with their own people in the Chinese mainland.

The same goes for the Taiwan/China issue, I don't understand why the Chinese people in Taiwan don't want to live with their own people in the Chinese mainland.Ah, yes, that's SOOO difficult to figure out...

People have the right to form their own government as they wish.

People have the right to secede, but that doesn't mean I'd let them if I were in charge of the country. They could try all they want, but I'm still sending in the tanks and soldiers to convince them otherwise.

In most cases, yes - both individuals and groups.

Not when it serves as an excuse for the continuation of gross violations of human rights, however.

In most cases, yes - both individuals and groups.

Not when it serves as an excuse for the continuation of gross violations of human rights, however.

How would exercising one's right of voluntary association be a violation of human rights?

Let them secede. Then let them see what life is like trying to live without American assistance. Then watch them come crawling back. They'll learn their lesson.

How would exercising one's right of voluntary association be a violation of human rights?

In and of itself, it wouldn't be - unless perhaps it involved the reckless abandonment of people in need.

When it's used to avoid some central authority that would interfere with one's violation of human rights, then it serves merely as a cover for those violations, and is not a tolerable excuse.

In and of itself, it wouldn't be - unless perhaps it involved the reckless abandonment of people in need.

When it's used to avoid some central authority that would interfere with one's violation of human rights, then it serves merely as a cover for those violations, and is not a tolerable excuse.

Hm. That seems to be like you're saying that you can disassociate from people, but you can't disassociate from some objective law (which is basically what is necessary for any system of enforceable human rights.) And you seem to be saying that one should not be able to freely default on one's contracts, judging from the first part. We'd probably interpret what this ultimately means quite differently, but I find it agreeable enough.

People have the right to secede, but that doesn't mean I'd let them if I were in charge of the country. They could try all they want, but I'm still sending in the tanks and soldiers to convince them otherwise.

Why is that?

In and of itself, it wouldn't be - unless perhaps it involved the reckless abandonment of people in need.

When it's used to avoid some central authority that would interfere with one's violation of human rights, then it serves merely as a cover for those violations, and is not a tolerable excuse.
I take it you mean evasion from punishment for a crime? Yes, that wouldn't be too good an excuse for a secession.

Aside from that though, I am completely for the idea.

Why is that?

The British did it to us.

The British did it to us.

Vetalia has always struck me as a more rational person than that.

I take it you mean evasion from punishment for a crime? Yes, that wouldn't be too good an excuse for a secession.

he means "because those mean old northerners don't like our glorious southern 'peculiar institution'"

he means "because those mean old northerners don't like our glorious southern 'peculiar institution'"

You have it.

I firmly support the right of secession. My dream is to see an independent Republic of Minnesota, free of the decadence, corruption, jingoism, etc. that pervade the U.S. government. A Minnesota with a minarchist, centrist government, a non-aligned foreign policy, and equal rights for all, special privileges for none.

They could try all they want, but I'm still sending in the tanks and soldiers to convince them otherwise.

really? you'd bomb, for example, madison, wi if they declared independence?

he means "because those mean old northerners don't like our glorious southern 'peculiar institution'"

The southern states didn't secede over slavery. In fact, Lincoln supported a proposed constitutional amendment that would have forbidden the federal government from ever interfering with the right to own slaves. And while the north was a lot less sympathetic toward slavery than the south, they were every bit as racist. In fact, when Toqueville (sp?) visited the U.S., he said the racism he witnessed was worse in the north than in the south. Not that I'm defending the Confederacy (if I'd been alive then, I'd have fought for the Union - yay Minnesota! :D), but the idea that the south had a monopoly on racism is false. The Republicans, for example, did not oppose slavery per se; they opposed the extension of slavery into new territories, so they could reserve them for whites. The Republican Party were bigoted assholes from their very inception.

he means "because those mean old northerners don't like our glorious southern 'peculiar institution'"
I was under the impression that that wasn't the reason for which the North hindered the South's secession.

The southern states didn't secede over slavery.

that's not what they said when they did it. they were all really quite explicit about it in their declarations.

I was under the impression that that wasn't the reason for which the North hindered the South's secession.

It wasn't. The north couldn't give less of a shit about slavery.

that's not what they said when they did it. they were all really quite explicit about it in their declarations.

Why would they secede over slavery? They knew that the institution was in no danger from the federal government. They mainly seceded because Lincoln planned to double tariffs when elected, which would have hurt the South economically (since the South depended so much on foreign trade); the South would have paid the lion's share of the tariffs, while Northern corporations (not surprisingly, allies of Lincoln) received all the benefits.

Why would they secede over slavery? They knew that the institution was in no danger from the federal government. They mainly seceded because Lincoln planned to double tariffs when elected, which would have hurt the South economically (since the South depended so much on foreign trade); the South would have paid the lion's share of the tariffs, while Northern corporations (not surprisingly, allies of Lincoln) received all the benefits.

Exactly. Not to mention that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the 'rebel' territories.

They knew that the institution was in no danger from the federal government.

To the contrary, it was; not in the South, but in the West.

The South, rather reasonably, assumed that if slavery was stopped in the territories, that would ultimately lead to its decline and ultimate eradication elsewhere as well.

They mainly seceded because Lincoln planned to double tariffs when elected

Mostly a side-issue; the major political question was slavery in the territories, not tariffs.

Exactly. Not to mention that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the 'rebel' territories.

Yup.

Why would they secede over slavery?

if it makes things easier, we can assume it's 'cause they were racist southern fucktards.

seriously, type 'declaration of secession' into google and take a look.

if it makes things easier, we can assume it's 'cause they are racist southern fucktards.

seriously, type 'declaration of secession' into google and take a look.

I mean why as in, what was there to fear? Most Northern politicians (also racist fucktards) couldn't give less than a shit about slavery.

And I'll do so.

The north couldn't give less of a shit about slavery.

Yes, they could... and they did. There is no other reasonable way to read history.

Not out of sympathy for the slaves necessarily, but out of opposition towards the Southern slave-holding elite ("Slave Power") and out of concern for slaves competing with free labor.

Why would they secede over slavery? They knew that the institution was in no danger from the federal government. They mainly seceded because Lincoln planned to double tariffs when elected, which would have hurt the South economically (since the South depended so much on foreign trade); the South would have paid the lion's share of the tariffs, while Northern corporations (not surprisingly, allies of Lincoln) received all the benefits.

I see the slavery justification by the South as being quite similar to the argument that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. It doesn't make any sense, but it definately gets Joe Six Pack riled up and makes him think the coming war is about something besides money.

Exactly. Not to mention that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the 'rebel' territories.

And the Thirteenth Amendment came out of nowhere?

And the Thirteenth Amendment came out of nowhere?

IIRC, that was after the war. And after Lincoln's death.

And I'll do so.

Did so.

Point conceded, Free Soviets.

I see the slavery justification by the South as being quite similar to the argument that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

Hardly - considering that, in terms of justification of the war, it was the South, not the North, that brought up slavery at the time.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

Hardly - considering that, in terms of justification of the war, it was the South, not the North, that brought up slavery at the time.

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. The Southern leaders weren't going to say "Hey, we should secede because we don't want to get fucked with tariffs" they said "the Northerners want to destroy this central part of our culture!". As with any war over money (which is pretty much all of them) they needed to dress it up to sell to the public.

IIRC, that was after the war. And after Lincoln's death.

And it still didn't come out of nowhere.

If the North really "couldn't give less than a shit" about slavery, why bother?

Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. The Southern leaders weren't going to say "Hey, we should secede because we don't want to get fucked with tariffs" they said "the Northerners want to destroy this central part of our culture!". As with any war over money (which is pretty much all of them) they needed to dress it up to sell to the public.

Accusing the North of trying to destroy them with tariffs would have been better for PR purposes, because tariffs would hurt the ordinary farmer (as abolishing slavery would not) and the cause would have been a better sell in Europe.

And it still didn't come out of nowhere.

If the North really "couldn't give less than a shit" about slavery, why bother?

I wouldn't say that the North couldn't give less than a shit about slavery, but it was not the most important issue. Rather, it was a political tool used by both North and South- Lincoln really only pronounced the Emancipation Proclamation to get foreign support and try and resucitate the morale of the North. The tariff was a more important issue, but no one wants to talk about money as the cause of a war. And you'll notice that the blacks were dumped when it became politically expedient to do so (see Rutherford B. Hayes.)

The Union must be preserved whatever the cost.

Abe Lincoln
who most fools think was the greatest President in US history. If people knew the dictatorial things he had done however.........

The Union must be preserved whatever the cost.

Abe Lincoln
who most fools think was the greatest President in US history. If people knew the dictatorial things he had done however.........

*cough*Suspensionofhabeascorpus*cough*

The tariff was a more important issue

People say this all the time... I've yet to see a convincing argument for why I should believe it.

And you'll notice that the blacks were dumped when it became politically expedient to do so (see Rutherford B. Hayes.)

Did I say anywhere that the Northern establishment gave a damn about the welfare of Blacks?

Do you think that secession is justified, and if so, by how large a group of people?

Circumstantial.....Circumstantial.... I mean come on mate, you don't even have a hypothetical situation too go off of!

IIRC, that was after the war. And after Lincoln's death.

It was proposed in January of 1865. By the time of Lincolns death on April 15th, 21 states had ratified it. Ratification completed in December.

Tangent: The last state to ratify it was Mississippi in 1995. Go figure.

Accusing the North of trying to destroy them with tariffs would have been better for PR purposes, because tariffs would hurt the ordinary farmer (as abolishing slavery would not) and the cause would have been a better sell in Europe.

I'm not sure that the average Southern farmer knew enough about economics to have understood how the North was economically abusing them. It would have required far less explanation to blame it on slavery. I'm willing to bet that people in the 1860s were much like the people of today, in being far more easily swayed by emotional rhetoric about how the enemy is going to destroy your society rather than an economic analysis.

As for selling the cause in Europe, from what I've read most people on both sides believed that any war would be over in a couple of battles once the other side knew they meant business.

Why would they secede over slavery? They knew that the institution was in no danger from the federal government. They mainly seceded because Lincoln planned to double tariffs when elected, which would have hurt the South economically (since the South depended so much on foreign trade); the South would have paid the lion's share of the tariffs, while Northern corporations (not surprisingly, allies of Lincoln) received all the benefits.

You left out the anger over the admission of slave states vs non-slave states.

*cough*Suspensionofhabeascorpus*cough*

*cough* USConstitutionArticleOneSection9 *Cough*

-edit-
For those that don't want to look it up

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

*cough* USConstitutionArticleOneSection9 *Cough*

-edit-
For those that don't want to look it up

"The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
I hate to tell you this though, Article 1 is about the powers and limits of Congress, not the President. Congress can suspend the writ in case of rebilion, but the President cannot just suspend it by fiat.

I hate to tell you this though, Article 1 is about the powers and limits of Congress, not the President. Congress can suspend the writ in case of rebilion, but the President cannot just suspend it by fiat.

Unfortunately, it's a matter of interpretation. It was suspended in a rebellion.

What is interesting is that more then a few Lincoln haters don't see any issue with the fact the Shrub did the same exact thing.

Unfortunately, it's a matter of interpretation. It was suspended in a rebellion.
How so? Article 1 Sec 9 is talking about the Congress and the powers and limits thereof. Congress has the power to suspend the writ. Of course when Lincoln did so, Congress did not object, which could be intruprited as granting permission after the fact, but Lincoln did exceed his bounds by doing so.

What is interesting is that more then a few Lincoln haters don't see any issue with the fact the Shrub did the same exact thing.
Don't remind me.

*I wonder if my thread on that has finally died.*

Exactly. Not to mention that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the 'rebel' territories.Not all the slave states even seceded.

How so? Article 1 Sec 9 is talking about the Congress and the powers and limits thereof. Congress has the power to suspend the writ. Of course when Lincoln did so, Congress did not object, which could be intruprited as granting permission after the fact, but Lincoln did exceed his bounds by doing so.


Don't remind me.

*I wonder if my thread on that has finally died.*

Well?

Lincoln as command in chief of the US military used powers granted to him in a time of war.

Lincoln could argue invasion or even the claim of public safety. He did after all respond to the Merryman incident.

The suspension only applied to people held in military prisons.

His decision did happen in the face of dire circumstances. Now it being a valid act remains open to debate.

Tangent: The last state to ratify it was Mississippi in 1995. Go figure.

Somehow, I'm not surprised. x.x

it is hierarchy, not the individual, that the burden of justification naturaly and moraly falls upon. to immagine otherwise is a measure of just how brainwashed the dominant culture has made us.

=^^=
.../\...

Did so.

Point conceded, Free Soviets.

pretty bad, isn't it?

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm
"They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

how dare they!

pretty bad, isn't it?

Yes.

Secession by a group or individual is acceptable in most cases, as long as the person/people seceeding don't think they still retain the rights and protections that they had before they seceeded.

I firmly support the right of secession. My dream is to see an independent Republic of Minnesota, free of the decadence, corruption, jingoism, etc. that pervade the U.S. government. A Minnesota with a minarchist, centrist government, a non-aligned foreign policy, and equal rights for all, special privileges for none.No special privileges? You'd have no private property rights, then? (Yes, this is off-topic, so you don't have to answer.) ;)

What is interesting is that more then a few Lincoln haters don't see any issue with the fact the Shrub did the same exact thing.

anyone that has ever supported any of shrub's tyrannical moves can't really be expected to hold up well against principles of consistency, logic, or basic humanity.

anyone that has ever supported any of shrub's tyrannical moves can't really be expected to hold up well against principles of consistency, logic, or basic humanity.

QFT.

Unfortunately, it's a matter of interpretation. It was suspended in a rebellion.

NERVUN showed you how it is Congress that does this, not the President. And quite frankly, I don't care what an old piece of paper says about which way our rights can be arbitrarily abrogated.

What is interesting is that more then a few Lincoln haters don't see any issue with the fact the Shrub did the same exact thing.

Er, when were all Lincoln haters supporters of Bush? I think the Republicans are quite pathetic, to be honest.

Not all the slave states even seceded.

I never said otherwise. I'm saying that it was through and through a political ploy- take vengeance on those who are not a political danger, and avoid raising the ire of those who are a political danger.

really? you'd bomb, for example, madison, wi if they declared independence?

Bomb them? No, but occupy the city and imprison the leaders of the secessionist movement. Martial law would be imposed in the rebel areas until order was restored, and if necessary violence would be used to subdue the people who refuse to conform to the law.

NERVUN showed you how it is Congress that does this, not the President. And quite frankly, I don't care what an old piece of paper says about which way our rights can be arbitrarily abrogated.

If you don't care about the paper, then you shouldn't care what Lincoln did.

Lincoln only removed the writ in Maryland and a few spots in the mid-west states. It wasn't a full suspension. Congress did suspend it later.....

Bomb them? No, but occupy the city and imprison the leaders of the secessionist movement. Martial law would be imposed in the rebel areas until order was restored, and if necessary violence would be used to subdue the people who refuse to conform to the law.

so not a big fan of government by consent of the governed then?

If you don't care about the paper, then you shouldn't care what Lincoln did.

Why do I have to believe in a document that allows for the suspension of human rights in order to care about human rights? That makes no sense.

Lincoln only removed the writ in Maryland and a few spots in the mid-west states. It wasn't a full suspension. Congress did suspend it later.....

He still suspended people's human rights regardless. Wrong is wrong, no matter the scale.

NI never said otherwise. I'm saying that it was through and through a political ploy- take vengeance on those who are not a political danger, and avoid raising the ire of those who are a political danger.
I was just adding to your comment.:)

so not a big fan of government by consent of the governed then?

I'm sure it's been said already, but that little issue, secession, got worked out in the US during the early 1860s.

Hasn't Greill seceeded yet?

I'm sure it's been said already, but that little issue, secession, got worked out in the US during the early 1860s.

no matter how many times it gets said, it is still fundamentally silly to say.

no matter how many times it gets said, it is still fundamentally silly to say.

If one feels so strongly about it, one is certainly welcome to try. I think it's also been said in this thread that if you get away with it, it's legitimate and you've just become the founder of a new nation, and if you don't, you're a rebel and end up in irons or worse. Greill, who started this thread, doesn't really want to seceed, he just doesn't want to pay taxes.

If one feels so strongly about it, one is certainly welcome to try. I think it's also been said in this thread that if you get away with it, it's legitimate and you've just become the founder of a new nation, and if you don't, you're a rebel and end up in irons or worse. Greill, who started this thread, doesn't really want to seceed, he just doesn't want to pay taxes.

success or failure have nothing to do with it. if you believe in the principle of government by consent of the governed, then you are required by logic to support secession on general principle.

success or failure have nothing to do with it. if you believe in the principle of government by consent of the governed, then you are required by logic to support secession on general principle.
So if I don’t believe in that principle I don’t have to support secession?
Good. Because I support the opposite. Annexation until we’re all one big happy globe.

success or failure have nothing to do with it. if you believe in the principle of government by consent of the governed, then you are required by logic to support secession on general principle.

Theoretically, yes, I suppose "consent of the governed" does lead to secession being the ultimate solution to dissent, that is, disagreement with the way the government is governing. But in practical terms, you are breaking up the nation you wish to reform, which hardly seems reasonable. If the way the government treats you is so important, stay and change it, don't take your bat and glove and run away.

So if I don’t believe in that principle I don’t have to support secession?

maybe, maybe not. it depends on what you would hold instead as making for legitimate and good government. clearly there are some principles that get you out of it. their main problem is that they are uniformly evil, as far as i can see.

Theoretically, yes, I suppose "consent of the governed" does lead to secession being the ultimate solution to dissent, that is, disagreement with the way the government is governing. But in practical terms, you are breaking up the nation you wish to reform, which hardly seems reasonable. If the way the government treats you is so important, stay and change it, don't take your bat and glove and run away.

nothing about accepting the principle of secession requires that mere disagreement always lead to splitting up, any more than a single fight must break up other types of relationships. it is just undeniably a perfectly just option that can be used should people feel like doing so.

maybe, maybe not. it depends on what you would hold instead as making for legitimate and good government. clearly there are some principles that get you out of it. their main problem is that they are uniformly evil, as far as i can see.
I believe that the ultimate destiny of humanity is to either destroy each other in war or become one culture, and I believe what makes good government is what works towards the latter end and provides for the most happiness and equality reasonably possible.

I don’t think that’s evil.

maybe, maybe not. it depends on what you would hold instead as making for legitimate and good government. clearly there are some principles that get you out of it. their main problem is that they are uniformly evil, as far as i can see.

You think all governments are uniformly evil? I'm sorry, really, but that's just plain silly. (Of course, if I've misinterpreted your post, please disregard the foregoing comment.)

So if I don’t believe in that principle I don’t have to support secession?
Good. Because I support the opposite. Annexation until we’re all one big happy globe.
No thanks.

If one feels so strongly about it, one is certainly welcome to try. I think it's also been said in this thread that if you get away with it, it's legitimate and you've just become the founder of a new nation, and if you don't, you're a rebel and end up in irons or worse. Greill, who started this thread, doesn't really want to seceed, he just doesn't want to pay taxes.

I don't want to pay taxes, yes, but I do want to secede. I don't like having to necessarily have the same leaders as people who'd likely elect Vin Diesel as President if given half the chance, or have to deal with eminent domain, or bear the burden of quickly rising debt, or face the looming insolvency of various expensive social programs, or any number of things. It just happens that I'm not particularly interested in being shot to death by the ATF or sharing a prison cell with Big Bubba, which would be the most likely outcomes of secession.

sharing a prison cell with Big Bubba, which would be the most likely outcomes of secession.
But think of all the life-experience you'd acquire!

You think all governments are uniformly evil? I'm sorry, really, but that's just plain silly. (Of course, if I've misinterpreted your post, please disregard the foregoing comment.)

my post was actually about underlying principles of legitimate government. if you don't hold 'the consent of the governed', you must hold something else, like 'divine right of kings', or 'kick the crap out of them until they submit', or 'exterminate the mud peoples', or something.

But think of all the life-experience you'd acquire!

Prison Experience #148: Use soft-soap.

It can be.

Take, for example, America and Great Britain.

East Timor and Indonesia.

Prison Experience #148: Use soft-soap.

Liquid soap.

Liquid soap.

Isn't it soft soap too?

I believe that the ultimate destiny of humanity is to either destroy each other in war or become one culture, and I believe what makes good government is what works towards the latter end and provides for the most happiness and equality reasonably possible.

I don’t think that’s evil.

since it necessitates the idea of rule without consent, i think it is.

Well, that depends entirely on whether or not government without consent of the governed is, in fact, an evil. I personally agree with you, but the point could certainly be argued.

since it necessitates the idea of rule without consent, i think it is.
For once we agree. :p

Well, that depends entirely on whether or not government without consent of the governed is, in fact, an evil. I personally agree with you, but the point could certainly be argued.

i just find it hard to contemplate the justness of any theory of government that says it is right and good to bomb people into submission for the crime of collectively not wanting to be ruled by you.