Has the time come for a revived CSA?

[Theben]

It's still quite versatile. Nothing enables pseudo-intellectual ****-fighting like quotes without context.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You think that state governments are better than the feds?
Did I ever tell you about the time when the state government threatened to take away my license when I refused to continue treating a patient who I caught trying to steal my signature stamp which she was using to forge bogus disability forms? Shheeeessssshhhhhhh. Give me a break.

I'm not saying states are champions of liberty. But in this fantasy world where the federal government respected its constitution, then perhaps the states would respect their state constitutions.

But if not, then we'd have more variety in the states, and those who want to live in a statist area can move to New York or Maryland (damn this place sucks). Or if they are looking for more room to breath, they can try New Hampshire or Idaho. Sure they can do that now, but the degree of difference would be more possible.

Plus some things would be more difficult for states to do, like big welfare and social security stuff. I'm sure they would, but smaller states might wise up and realize it wasn't feasible. But who knows.

Thats the beauty of our country as originally formed. We could have a quasi-fascist Maryland, a quasi-libertarian New Hampshire, and a quasi-socialist Massachusetts all in the same country.

[David Floyd]

A libertarian dictatorship? I'm not quite sure how to classify that. Would it be anarcho-fascism? Wasn't that a Giancarlo fantasy at one time? Or was it coined by EVC? You've been hanging around with the wrong crowd DF. You're really really close to the edge now.

The problem with majority rule is obviously that it is too easy to restrict the rights of the minority. The solution, then, is to set up a system where even a super-majority cannot impose, say, slavery on others. Or are you telling me that your support for democracy extends to supporting the ability of the majority to impose slavery on others?

If not, then you don't really support democracy, either. I'm just honest about it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The problem with majority rule is obviously that it is too easy to restrict the rights of the minority. The solution, then, is to set up a system where even a super-majority cannot impose, say, slavery on others. Or are you telling me that your support for democracy extends to supporting the ability of the majority to impose slavery on others?

But your minority rights are by far greater in number than Doc's. You have so many minority rights that it would be fair to say you don't believe in democracy. However, Doc only has a few minority rights to be protected, so he still supports democracy.

It's like saying you don't support the free market if you are for copyright law. That's a silly argument, but technically copyrights do restrict the free market, it is just a restriction that is actually better for that market. Just because you believe it doesn't mean you are against the free market.

[David Floyd]

But your minority rights are by far greater in number than Doc's. You have so many minority rights that it would be fair to say you don't believe in democracy. However, Doc only has a few minority rights to be protected, so he still supports democracy.

He supports democracy, with qualifications. I suppose I WOULD support democracy, with qualifications, but quite frankly, as long as individual liberty is being protected, and cannot be violated, I'm not really picky what you call the system of government.

It's like saying you don't support the free market if you are for copyright law. That's a silly argument, but technically copyrights do restrict the free market, it is just a restriction that is actually better for that market. Just because you believe it doesn't mean you are against the free market.

Sorry, that isn't true. You believe in a mostly free market, unless you are unaware of what the word "free" means.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I suppose I WOULD support democracy, with qualifications, but quite frankly, as long as individual liberty is being protected, and cannot be violated, I'm not really picky what you call the system of government.

Exactly! You don't care for the system of government. You wouldn't mind if people couldn't vote for all as long as individual liberty is being protected and cannot be violated. Contrast to Doc, who would protect certain things, but would care deeply for the fact that people should vote.

You believe in a mostly free market, unless you are unaware of what the word "free" means.

So you go around saying 'I believe in the mostly free market'? Come on! Who talks that way?

[Theben]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
One more question: Who gets West Virginia?

Whichever side loses.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Whichever side loses.

Hey, the North took it last time, so they are stuck with it .

[Brent]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


It's pretty clear to me. When the United States decided to send troops to Utah to quash the practice of polygamy no southerner took a stand in defense of the right of the people of Utah to determine whether or not polygamy shopuld be legal in Utah. Why? Good heavens man, everyone knew that polygamy was immoral, and the people of the US had the right to crush this offense against God! Yet the issue of the possibility that slaves might have rights on the other hand was the moral equivalent of sales taxes, not to be subject to the intercession of the same federal troops sent to Utah? Do you see the hypocrisy there?

Yet, incredibley, the existence of slavery in the South was not under attack. The issue that really cheesed off the secessionist was the fact that new states being admitted to the Union were rejecting slavery. Did southerners rise to defend the rights of these new states to decide on whether or not slavery would be permitted in their own states? You better believe that they did not! Time and time again they demanded they bargained against the rights of the new states. Frankly I don't think that what really bothered them was that they were being shut out of new opportunities in the developing states. After all, if the south had been so crowded that slave owners had streamed westward in search of new farm land then surely they would have achieved a majority in some of the new states. No, I think that the real problem was that they knew they were loosing the race for moral approval. They knew that public opinion everywhere else was gradually turning against them. In reaction they created entire branches of phony science and distorted religion to justify their way of life. The real motive for secession wasn't states rights, or the preservation of slavery. The real motive was the need of the southern slave owner to fence himself off from the disapproving eyes of the rest of the world.

Id that what's happening today?

Was the polygamy of Abraham and Jacob an offense against God? Is it worse to be married to more than one person than to behave as if you are when you are not? Please answer with tolerance.

[Imran Siddiqui]

What does that have to do with anything?

[Drake Tungsten]

Whichever side loses.

A Solomon-esque decision.

[Cyclotron]

When did that matter?

[OzzyKP]

Well its less a matter of crafting the perfect system, but more a matter of finding a system people will respect and stick with.

On paper I think the US Constitution is as great and perfect a system as one can get. Seperation of powers, checks and balances, federalism, and a difficult (though not impossible) system of amendments. Plus a bill of rights to protect everything from free speech to gun rights to state rights.

Now, as we have seen it doesn't work out so perfectly in practice. Because everything is open to interpretation, even things seemingly explicitly worded.

I support democracy. I support minority rights. I think there needs to be a balance between the two. I think the United States, on paper, has that balance. How to get back to that balance in practice is not something that a few laws can do. It takes a shift in how people think and what they expect from life and government.

That shift takes a lot of work.

[OzzyKP]

To ensure a paper system stays a practical system, it depends on the views of the people within the state. This creates a conflict. At some point it becomes perversely necessary for a liberty-minded state to indoctrinate its citizens in liberty. Thus to perserve liberty a state must take decidedly anti-liberty steps.

In this way free speech is the greatest threat to free speech.

Without a true focus on promoting and instilling the benefits of liberty on the public, they are too easily swayed, over time, to anti-liberty positions. Like today. With neo-cons and socialists pulling in either direction, both towards their seperate statist visions.

*sigh* I'm tired. I'm going to bed. I hope what I just said makes sense in the morning.

[David Floyd]

Exactly! You don't care for the system of government. You wouldn't mind if people couldn't vote for all as long as individual liberty is being protected and cannot be violated. Contrast to Doc, who would protect certain things, but would care deeply for the fact that people should vote.

In a system where the central government has extremely limited and precisely defined powers - and those powers don't include the ability to create wealth transfer programs - I wonder how important voting really is?

The only way I can imagine voting to be important is in the realm of foreign policy, especially with regards to the war making power. Free trade vs. tariffs wouldn't be an issue, for obvious reasons, so really people would be voting on how aggressive or passive the foreign policy should be. But even THAT wouldn't be a major issue, because the government would have no way to coercively fund or force people to fight in major wars to begin with.

With this in mind, I have no problem with the democratic institution of voting, I just question how important it is.

So you go around saying 'I believe in the mostly free market'? Come on! Who talks that way?

I guess people who are precise in their speech.

Really, though, I'm arguing a nitpick to prove a point. The point was that fundamentally, DS does not favor true democracy any more than I do. On the other hand, with your philosophy of "might makes right", and your belief that if society wills it, it can't be wrong, I can easily see you supporting a system of a majority dictatorship