www.ditl.org

Lt. Staplic wrote:

Tsukiyumi wrote:To be fair to the looney tune, Texas does have the right to secede; it was in the original charter when we joined the union. We were the only state that was an actual country first.

Texas doesn't have the right to secede. This is a bit of folklore, most of which I've seen attributed to Perry. Everything I've seen has pointed out that there was no provision for succession written into the Texas Constitution, nor the treaty of annexation. (http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/quest ... ted-states)

I also found a source, here, that has a Supreme Court Ruling that Texas is once and for all a member of the union and as such has no legal right to secede.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_Texas_sec ... _the_union

That's not... quite accurate. We joined voluntarily, and can leave the same way. http://www.texassecede.com/faq.htm#txconst

It would be a ridiculous decision, and one that we'd regret pretty quickly when Mexico invaded us, but it is still a possibility.

So then what your saying is that Texas has the right to secede, just as much as any state has the right to secede. Since there is no specific legal framework established by which Texas can just back out, you're argument rests on the fact that there is no explicit legal framework preventing any state from leaving, which is the same argument used by the Confederation at the time of the Civil War. Your ability to secede will be as legal as the then current administration allows it to be.

No, Texas has no framework in place. I don't see how that applies to other states, which were largely created by the US government.

"Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option."

No other state but Hawaii joined voluntarily.

Tsukiyumi wrote:No, Texas has no framework in place. I don't see how that applies to other states, which were largely created by the US government.

"Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option."

No other state but Hawaii joined voluntarily.

Its still only as lawful as the Fed decides. Also since the Fed owns a large number of military basis in Texas (along with some federal offices), Texas would be stealing that land if it left the Union.

Tsukiyumi wrote:No, Texas has no framework in place. I don't see how that applies to other states, which were largely created by the US government.

"Joining the "Union" was ever and always voluntary, rendering voluntary withdrawal an equally lawful and viable option."

No other state but Hawaii joined voluntarily.

Without an explicit framework detailing the lawfulness of seceding, Texas is still just another state, weather they joined voluntarily or not, they are a part of the Union now. That is at the heart of the SC case decision I linked to earlier. Thus the legality of Texas seceding will be as legal as the administration at the time considers it. In the case of the 1861 secession attempt it would appear that the Union didn't quite agree on Texas' legal right to secede.

Okay then. I guess my Texas History class was wrong. No huge surprise there. I guess my grandfather was also wrong, and that is a huge surprise. I'll have to do more research on this when I have the time.

Anything to contribute to the current conversation, or was that it?

Yes, that is exactly the point I'm making. In the example, my choice has invalidated yours. Now your choice is limited to either leaving (which invalidate your choice altogether), or attacking me (in which case one or both of us would likely be killed - therefore invalidating the choice). A third option would be to try and negotiate, but the point made by the example is simple: other people's choices do invalidate or co-opt your own, and people with more power make larger choices that co-opt the choices of everyone else in vast quantities.

So you're not really pissed at capitalism, you're pissed that other people share this planet and your rights don't supersede theirs? Got it.

In some circumstances, you can try to do something about it, and then be sent to prison or killed; in both scenarios, free will goes out the window in any appreciable sense. Either way, choice is nullified by other people's choices.

On behalf of the rest of the human race I apologize that the rest of us existing is such an imposition on you.

Yeah, that sums it up. As far as Texas' right (or lack thereof) of secession... who friggin' cares? Honestly, we're talking about secession. That is, you know, seceding. If somehow a Texan referendum came down in favor of secession, would anyone in the Texan government suddenly think, "Well, we wanted to leave the United States, but doing so would be against the law... of the United States which we were planning on leaving, so I guess our hands are tied."

Tyyr wrote:So you're not really pissed at capitalism, you're pissed that other people share this planet and your rights don't supersede theirs? Got it.

Hey, you figured it out! You win the flying cross of douchebaggery, and a heaping bowl of sarcasm!

The point is that other people's rights supersede ours, based on their level of power, influence and money; I think said situation is unacceptable. Is that fucking clear enough?

Tsukiyumi wrote:In some circumstances, you can try to do something about it, and then be sent to prison or killed; in both scenarios, free will goes out the window in any appreciable sense. Either way, choice is nullified by other people's choices.

Free will is never nullified. That's just simply an excuse from people looking for reasons to give up. If you fight and die, then you died protecting your free will. If you go to prison then you are still alive and that means you can continue to fight for your free will. Anything else is just a cowards way out.

Tsukiyumi wrote:

Tyyr wrote:So you're not really pissed at capitalism, you're pissed that other people share this planet and your rights don't supersede theirs? Got it.

Hey, you figured it out! You win the flying cross of douchebaggery, and a heaping bowl of sarcasm!

The point is that other people's rights supersede ours, based on their level of power, influence and money; I think said situation is unacceptable. Is that fucking clear enough?

Then fight against it, work within the system or simply accept your lot in life. Life is war, people are weak and the world will continue to turn. Its a matter of effort.

Deepcrush wrote:Free will is never nullified. That's just simply an excuse from people looking for reasons to give up. If you fight and die, then you died protecting your free will. If you go to prison then you are still alive and that means you can continue to fight for your free will. Anything else is just a cowards way out.

Either of those choices take away your ability to make other choices; I agree wholeheartedly that people should fight for their free will and right to choose their own destiny. My end of this conversation hasn't been "boo hoo, my choices have been taken", it's been "people are trying to choose my life for me, fuck them".

By even discussing this, we are fighting the system. Changing people's minds through discourse is an effective means of combating tyrannical systems.

It isn't that they take away your ability to make other choices, its simply they've made them harder. But harder doesn't equal taken away. If it did then no one would have ever heard of Martin Luther King Jr, Nelson Mandela, Ghandi or Hitler. All of them changed the world, for better or worse, by the application of effort towards their own free will regardless of what others tried in order to take said free will.

Though I have to admit I haven't a clue as to what system you think we are supposed to be fighting.

What if martin Luther King, jr. had wanted to be a stockbroker, or say, president of the united states? He couldn't. Because he was black in the 1960's. The system had taken that choice from him, and so he spent his life fighting for free will and the right to self-determine. Thanks for pointing out a great example. Purposely making people's choices so much harder as to be highly improbable is still injustice.

That would be the system I'm fighting against. The one that makes people sacrifice their personal goals and dreams to fight injustice, or just choose to "accept their lot in life". Either way, they don't get to even try to do what they wanted to unless they're very lucky.

BTW, "work hard and you'll get ahead" may have been a true statement in 1960, but it is no longer the case. Now, it's "work hard and you'll maybe pull even" or "work hard and then the company moves your job to Mexico, and cancels the pension you just spent 30 years earning".