South's declining relevence on the federal level

[DontSayBanana]

Lettow, what is it that you do want? I understand you want Southern independence, but then what kind of Southern nation do you envision? I'm assuming a govt that has much less central control? Along with other issues you speak of here, like getting back to religion, more equality for Southerners, though I don't see how Southerners aren't equal.

I fear that the US is about the last place of lower govt controlled and run nations, though we're not far behind with govt, and catching up rapidly anyway. So sadly, I don't know where anyone could go anymore to be in a nation of low govt control and activity.

It's hard to be sure if he really is a fan of small government, considering he's citing League of the South, who are advocating Christianity as a state religion (just ask England, Germany, and Italy how well that's worked out for them).

[Lettow77]

 Kronn, I want the South to have a government based on the principles of the Southern people, which is primarily small government. I incline heavily that way myself.

Banana- your wrong about the League. I am not a Christian myself, you know. Part of their plan for the South, detailed in the grey book, is unregulated airwaves on television and radio, including the decensoring of obscene language. It is true that the League recognises that most Southerners are Christians and Christianity is ain inextricable part of the Southern tradition and culture, but it isnt in the business of legislating it, nor does it asire to.

Ultimately, though, small government isnt the reason I want Southern independence, it would just be one of its happy boons. I want a South for the Southerners- I want the self-determination every nation-state deserves for my people, and I want to validate the efforts of the brave men of 1776 and 1861 by securing the freedom they fought for. Independence, to me, is not a means to an end, but is the end itself.

as for the South I envision, though? Very low taxes, very minimal government programs, without any tariffs or income tax, armed and independent state militias, with defended borders that -legal- immigrants may enter, private enterprise taking hold of many current government services today (Such as the postal service), armed neutrality, and a criminal code that focuses on malum en se rather than malum prohibitum.

[Berkut]

Would you be ok then with smaller portions of the south seceding in turn? Like, what if some country in Alabama decides you all suck, and wants to form the Free State of Humboldt or something.

Does your vision of "independence" have any consistency?

[Lettow77]

 I'd be unhappy about it personally, and legally it'd untenable, as states have the right to secede from the union as they are sovereign states, but counties are not. However, I support revision of that- I think counties should have the right to self-determination, even if they do not at this present time. Tennessee in particular is sort of an artificial marriage of counties- i've long since wished for its abolition or border revisions. Memphis is the only legitimate capital of Mississippi, you know. 

I'd be happy with the South free, even if, using that freedom, it fragmented upon itself.

[Berkut]

Well, if you are going with the "right" to secede, ie the legal right - that has been decided already. States do not have any legal right to unilateral secession, as stated by the USSC. So you have no grounds on any kind of legal justification.

So counties should have the right to self-determination. How about towns? Villages? My house? What if some part of say, Georgia, secedes from your nation, and wants to rejoin the USA. Is that ok?

Where does this "right" stop in a practical sense, and why should it stop at THAT point, rather than some other point, if it is in fact so fundamental? After all, all of these "things" you claim have "rights" are just political constructs - states, towns, counties - none of them have any profound identity.

You might consider reading the US Constitution some time, btw. States don't have rights. People have rights.

[Lettow77]

 the U.S constitution is a document for loaning some powers to the federal government and reserving the rest. It does not, to my mind, restrict the power of the states- who are free to infringe the 'rights' you say citizens have, even if the federal government cannot.  As a paper to coerce the states, it must by necessity be a powerless one.

I've thought about the self determination thing here. Your goal, should it be to point the ludicrousness of secession if it cannot be universally extended, doesnt make much sense. You know full well your house cannot secede.

But, here you go: I think the conditions for forming new counties rests in the hands of the state legislature. My home county has a secessionist element in its eastern half, actually- they want to form the county of Nashoba, and I suppose they have the right, but our state constitution says counties have a certain amount of landmass, which this one would not, and so it is opposed. Whether the state legislature is just or not in their ruling, that is the law, and would have to be changed for the eastern half of this county to form a county, and then secede.

A county can operate autonomously, although realistically any secession of a county would be on the basis of joining with other counties and forming a state, inside or outside of the Southern confederacy. So, a county is the absolute furthest point at which secession is feasible. Demands for anything below that are ridiculous, as I am sure you knew anyway.

Also, the USSC is a mistake the confederacy will never repeat, fortunately enough.

[Faeelin]

It does not, to my mind, restrict the power of the states- who are free to infringe the 'rights' you say citizens have,

Oh, so now we see the violence inherent in the system.

[Berkut]

I think the argument that a "state" is some kind of special construct that has rights while other constructs do not have those rights is ridiculous - my argument from absurdity is in fact deisnged to point that out. You cannot use the US Constitution to make an argument that a state is some kind of special political construct that has special "rights", while at the same time rejecting the US Constitution as being the body capable of defining those powers in order to turn around and claim there is a "right" to secede.

If the right to secede exists outside the US Constitution, then that right should exist regardless of the size of the political construct, at least by the logic you are applying. Why is there a land-size restriction? What is that land-size, and how is it that a political grouping a square meter smaller loses what you seem to be arguing is a fundamental right?

the U.S constitution is a document for loaning some powers to the federal government and reserving the rest...to the people[/n]

Fixed the part you left off. States do not have rights.

[Berkut]

who are free to infringe the 'rights' you say citizens have, even if the federal government cannot.

:boggle:

gee, I wonder what "citizens" would have their rights infringed by Lettows fantasy state?

[garbon]

So counties should have the right to self-determination. How about towns? Villages? My house? What if some part of say, Georgia, secedes from your nation, and wants to rejoin the USA. Is that ok?

Why stop there? I think my penis is going to apply for British citizenship.

[garbon]

A county can operate autonomously, although realistically any secession of a county would be on the basis of joining with other counties and forming a state, inside or outside of the Southern confederacy. So, a county is the absolute furthest point at which secession is feasible. Demands for anything below that are ridiculous, as I am sure you knew anyway.

Cities can operate independently.

Oh and San Francisco is both a county and a city. If it were to secede, that's basically a city seceding.

[Lettow77]

 the U.S Constitution is not at all the basis for the states being special entities. That'd be weird, wouldent it, as the U.S constitution was called into being by special entities, the states?

Garbon- alright. The same is true of many counties, I imagine?

Anyhow,  re: the constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  'Of the people' is interpreted to me as being the states, as the states are the sovereign political bodies and voices of the people. The Confederate constitution, that sublime document, further clarifies the matter which was an unfortunate source of contention with the yankees.

[KRonn]

Kronn, I want the South to have a government based on the principles of the Southern people, which is primarily small government. I incline heavily that way myself.

as for the South I envision, though? Very low taxes, very minimal government programs, without any tariffs or income tax, armed and independent state militias, with defended borders that -legal- immigrants may enter, private enterprise taking hold of many current government services today (Such as the postal service), armed neutrality, and a criminal code that focuses on malum en se rather than malum prohibitum.

I think I can understand some of what you want here, especially limited and less obtrusive government, probably a weaker central govt. Heck, I think a lot of people want a lot of that too, and that's part of the political struggles we have today. Though the big govt types are in greater number in politics, even if not among the populace, regardless of party. I do think we've turned that corner a long time ago, to the ways of big govt. I don't see it changing, and even if a Southern nation did come about I think it would still have a lot of the current mind sets of larger government. Kind of hard to put that away.

[Lettow77]

 Southerners are much more in favour of small government than the rest of the nation. Besides that, a country with seperate state militias capable of challenging the 'national' army on something approaching even terms lends itself to decentralisation and devolvement of power.

[grumbler]

the U.S constitution is a document for loaning some powers to the federal government and reserving the rest. It does not, to my mind, restrict the power of the states- who are free to infringe the 'rights' you say citizens have, even if the federal government cannot.  As a paper to coerce the states, it must by necessity be a powerless one.

I've thought about the self determination thing here. Your goal, should it be to point the ludicrousness of secession if it cannot be universally extended, doesnt make much sense. You know full well your house cannot secede.

But, here you go: I think the conditions for forming new counties rests in the hands of the state legislature. My home county has a secessionist element in its eastern half, actually- they want to form the county of Nashoba, and I suppose they have the right, but our state constitution says counties have a certain amount of landmass, which this one would not, and so it is opposed. Whether the state legislature is just or not in their ruling, that is the law, and would have to be changed for the eastern half of this county to form a county, and then secede.

A county can operate autonomously, although realistically any secession of a county would be on the basis of joining with other counties and forming a state, inside or outside of the Southern confederacy. So, a county is the absolute furthest point at which secession is feasible. Demands for anything below that are ridiculous, as I am sure you knew anyway.

Also, the USSC is a mistake the confederacy will never repeat, fortunately enough.

It is interesting how your argument for your position is that it is self-evidently correct, and your argument against Berkut's is that it is self-evidently ridiculous!