Aside from the fact that the Constitution actually isn't silent on secession and gets many other constitutional facts wrong and more or less completely strawman's lincolns position and 'word-putting-in-mouth' disease as well.
More reasons why you should never vote for a Randian.
Also I must point out that the ACW didn't actually really have a cost to it for the US, the ACW pretty much cemented the America as a enevitable superpower and was a period of phenominal economic growth and stimulus as well ass a huge beacon for immigration at the time, in just about everyway the US benefited from it.
IP: Logged |
posted
Guess what, if you dilute the word "slavery" until it has absolutely no meaning, we're all slaves!!!! That's right we are all slaves!!! At the whim of our masters, out children and love ones can be sold away from us forever. At the whim of our masters, we can be beaten, raped, mutilated, starved and even killed. It's illegal for us to walk even a few miles from our places of residence, to own any property or even to profit in any way from our own labor. Every modicum of work I do, belongs 100% to the master who tortures me. We are forbidden to gather, to even speak about how we are oppressed. If we do, that takes us back to beating, raping, starving . . . . If I try to escape, the law will hunt me down and bring me back to this retched nation to which I am enslaved!!
Why have I never noticed this???? How could I have been so blind??? Thank you Ron Paul for awakening me to my awful state.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's a "Randian"? And where exactly does it say anything about secession in the Constitution? Other than the 10th amendment, I mean.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Aside from the fact that the Constitution actually isn't silent on secession
Yo, Blayne, I really would like you to back this up. I mean, maybe they don't have proper copies of the US Constitution up in the northern provinces, but if you say something, you really should either substantiate it or retract it. That's simple honesty.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Specifically the Northwest Ordinance and I quote
"Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto."
Also according to the Supreme Court
"Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits ... to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states ... to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them."
Meaning that the original states, being on equal footing, are also not allowed to secede according to the NW Ordinance.
So maybe not specifically the Constitution but to saw that the NW Ordinance is not just about on the same level of importance or not ratified by the constitution would be ignorance.
Or this:
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Specifically the Northwest Ordinance and I quote
"Art. 4. The said territory, and the States which may be formed therein, shall forever remain a part of this Confederacy of the United States of America, subject to the Articles of Confederation, and to such alterations therein as shall be constitutionally made; and to all the acts and ordinances of the United States in Congress assembled, conformable thereto."
Also according to the Supreme Court
"Alabama is, therefore, entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits ... to maintain any other doctrine, is to deny that Alabama has been admitted into the union on an equal footing with the original states ... to Alabama belong the navigable waters and soils under them."
Meaning that the original states, being on equal footing, are also not allowed to secede according to the NW Ordinance.
So maybe not specifically the Constitution but to saw that the NW Ordinance is not just about on the same level of importance or not ratified by the constitution would be ignorance.
Or this:
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?"
Dude, you said the Constitution speaks about secession. Not the Northwest Ordinance, not the Declaration of Independance, and not the Magna Carta. Either show where it does, or have the grace to acknowledge that you were mistaken.
And no, the Northwest Ordinance is absolutely not on a level with the Constitution. Not even slightly.
And your quote beginning with "The Union of the States" lacks any indication of who said it. It's simply a bald claim, with nothing to substantiate it. "Perpetual union" doesn't appear in the Constitution. The idea of the Union was a Union of sovereign states. Just because we've all become accustomed to thinking of "states" as the equivalent of administrative districts doesn't change the fact that what they really are, are nations. The US was supposed to be a union of sovereign nations, where the purpose of the federal government was to present a united foreign policy, and to prevent conflict between the several states which comprised it.
"The United States" was plural; not singular. "The United States were at war with Great Britain"; not "the United States was at war with Great Britain".
And "more perfect union" means that the union was to be made better; not made into a prison.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And "more perfect union" means that the union was to be made better; not made into a prison.
Since when is the US a prison? People can leave anytime they want. In fact, I'm living outside the US right now, as I type. There is nothing preventing you or any US citizen from leaving. I've been in and out of the US dozens of times. So have you, unless you're lying about having lived in Israel.
It's rather silly to anthropomorphize states. States aren't people, they are political units. States have been granted certain rights by the constitution, but they don't and couldn't have natural or unalienable rights because they aren't "real" in the same way that people are real. States are total artificial man made creations. They only exist because people recognize their existence. They are what we collectively define them to be, no more, no less.
If the US is a prison because states can't secede, then states are prisons because counties can't secede, counties are prisons because cities and towns can't secede, and all cities and towns are prisons because the individuals in them can't secede.
[ December 02, 2010, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I seem to remember that there were certain treaties made under the Articles of Confederation which were grandfathered in (i.e ratified) by the Constitution. But this is at any rate irrelevant to the discussion at hand since the Northwest Ordinance was not "ratified" by the constitution. It was however passed again by the US congress 5 months after the ratification of the constitution, so it is reasonable to presume that the statements in it reflect of attitudes that were wide spread at the time the constitution was ratified.
I am certainly no constitutional scholar, but what I do know contradicts any claims that the founding fathers had a unified vision of the federal government or that they had produced a perfect document which should be followed to the letter for centuries. Many issues, among them the question of secession, are never mentioned (or left deliberately vague) in the constitution because they were too controversial. Making any explicit statement, one way or the other, about secession would almost certainly have made it unratifiable. As such, it's pointless to claim that the constitution either "allowed" or "disallowed" secession. It intentional left the subject open for debate.
Those people who claim otherwise are either haven't adequately studied the issue and are thus parroting claims made by others which suit their predisposition or they are deliberately distorting the truth to advance an agenda. I'm confident that nearly all T-partiers, states rates advocates, pro-confederacy whack jobs, and people involved in this thread fall into the first category but I'm pretty sure that a few, Rand Paul included, fall into the second.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Of course it did. Here's the relevant section of Article 6:
quote:All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: But that site is an Objectivist site. Not a Randian one.
That's kind of like saying "OSC's an LDS writer, not a Mormon one.
You know what Randian means. You've seen it used here before and made the same comment. You don't like the term because it has derogatory connotations. It certainly does to a certain group of people but that group of people would find your Philosophy (and that of Ayn Rand) to stink by any name.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Of course it did. Here's the relevant section of Article 6:
quote:All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
That statement accepts obligations that were incurred by the previous government. It isn't relevant in this case.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You know what Randian means. You've seen it used here before and made the same comment. You don't like the term because it has derogatory connotations.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You don't like the term because it has derogatory connotations.
And... you find that problematic? I bet that if I was calling Muslims "Mohammedans" and a Muslim were to complain, you wouldn't dismiss it the same way. Yet it's exactly the same thing. A deliberate slur, intended to irk. And I'm the one with the problem for actually being irked?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And... you find that problematic? I bet that if I was calling Muslims "Mohammedans" and a Muslim were to complain, you wouldn't dismiss it the same way. Yet it's exactly the same thing. A deliberate slur, intended to irk. And I'm the one with the problem for actually being irked?
Meh, I find the comparison to be absurd.
Political philosophies don't merit the kind of respect/tolerance as major religions.
You have no problem calling people you disagree with "statists" and other clearly derogatory terms. Why exactly do you think you deserve more respect from those you disagree with than you are willing to give?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I find Objectivism a juvenile philosophy and I've never met someone that believed in it who I could respect, but calling it Randian is pretty clearly a deliberate and inaccurate slur. To me, this is not a worthy thing to do.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Political philosophies don't merit the kind of respect/tolerance as major religions.
Heh, "major" religions.
In my opinion, "major" religions deserve a different level of tolerance because they are, for the most part, inseparable from ethnic and cultural heritage. Attacks on major religious groups are forms of ethnic / racial hatred. When was the last time you heard a Muslim slur that was founded on a reasoned argument against the Koran? I haven't, ever.
Political philosophies (whether they are motivated by Ayn Rand, Oral Roberts or the Ayatollah Homenii), aren't culture. For the most part, they are things we consciously choose as adults independent of our cultural heritage and then try to force on other people. Tea-Baggers, Randians, and Islamofacists all fall into that category and I don't see any reason to give them even a modicum of respect. They are all trying to use governments to force their philosophy on me, and I will fight back.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the same reason calling left leaning people "Libtards" and "Dumbasscrats" is not needed. Agree or not, you can still use a little restraint.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... In my opinion, "major" religions deserve a different level of tolerance because they are, for the most part, inseparable from ethnic and cultural heritage. Attacks on major religious groups are forms of ethnic / racial hatred.
If the line is ethnic/racial, then perhaps that is a better place to draw the line than major vs. minor. I don't see the goal in drawing the line to exclude any number of small folk religions that exist among minority groups in China for example when they too have significant cultural/racial aspects.
Not that I personally draw a line, period. (Although I kinda see the appeal in a line that allows me to tolerate Mormons less than other religions )
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You know, I find Objectivism a juvenile philosophy and I've never met someone that believed in it who I could respect, but calling it Randian is pretty clearly a deliberate and inaccurate slur. To me, this is not a worthy thing to do.
No. Randian objectivism is a very real term and you can find plenty of people who self-identify by that exact terminology. It is also used frequently as a neutral term to describe most objectivism, in effect the type which is heavily focused on the personality cult/teachings of Ayn Rand.
If you want a deliberate slur, try 'randroid.'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The idea of the Union was a Union of sovereign states. Just because we've all become accustomed to thinking of "states" as the equivalent of administrative districts doesn't change the fact that what they really are, are nations. The US was supposed to be a union of sovereign nations
Point of order: You are using 'nation' as an explanatory synonym for 'state', and thus screwing up an already confused situation even more. A nation is a set of people who recognise themselves as having a common ethnic identity; thus Norwegians are a nation, Poles are a nation, Russians are a nation but citizens of the USSR were not a nation, and Americans are not a nation. A state is a sovereign governing organisation; Norway, Poland, the USSR and now the Russian federation, and the US are all states. A nation-state is a state whose citizens are all (or most) of the same nationality, and comprise a large majority of the world's supply of that nationality. Norway and Poland are nation-states, the Russian Federation is arguably one but the USSR wasn't, and the US is not a nation-state.
A union of sovereign states is a contradiction in terms; either they are sovereign or not. If they have a unified foreign policy they are no longer sovereign, having handed over that part of their autonomy to the federal organisation. I note in passing that even the original constitution, unamended, reserves to Congress and not the states the powers of declaring war, making treaties, and issuing letters of mark and reprisal; these are all functions of sovereigns, and entities that don't have them are not properly considered states.
Now, if you want to argue that the original constitution was intended to give the states a much higher degree of internal autonomy than they actually have, that's perfectly reasonable. But that does not make them sovereign states, any more than the Grand Duchy of Finland was a sovereign state under the Czars.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: For the same reason calling left leaning people "Libtards" and "Dumbasscrats" is not needed. Agree or not, you can still use a little restraint.
I guess I see a difference because, unlike "Libtads" and "Dumbasscrats", "Tea-bagger" isn't intrinsically insulting. In fact, I can imagine scenarios where the Tea Party might have chosen that name themselves. It's only offensive because members of the Tea party have come to associate it's use with people who disagree are making fun of their movement.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if I'm missing something: but why is 'Randian' a pejorative, but not 'Kantian' or 'Humean'?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Um... Yes, tea-baggers is indeed intrinsically insulting. The entire point, which you have missed, is that the term is a kind of sexual position, and was used to refer to tea-partiers specifically because of that. The reason the term exists is the sexual innuendo, and the mental image it us intended to give. It's actually incredibly crass.
Also, a suggestion: how about we all make the distinction between disagreeing an ideology and religion, and actively insulting them? Name-calling doesn't help anyone, and if one really has legitimate concerns or criticism of a religious or philosophical position, couching them in derogatory or insulting language only has the effect of giving an excuse to dismiss valid criticism. At the same time, this is a two way street. A person shouldn't take offense just because someone DOES disagree with their position of choice. We should be civil about all this. Isn't that the whole idea of what discourse should be like?
As an example: if someone said to me that Christianity was right, and I am a fool and a servant of Satan and an enemy of America for disagreeing, then that's a problem. Calling me some slur would be a problem. Saying, on the other hand, that they feel the Bible is true, that the world is so perfect for life and so beautiful that some being must have created it, and the salvation Christ gives is something worth having, and something real, because they feel the evidence shows he rose from the dead, that's fine. There'sxno insult implicit, even if i disagree. And, right or wrong, discussing the differences of opinion can be worthwhile.
In real life, of course, disagreements easily turn into fights. That's just how we are. But we don't have to exacerbate the situation by being inflammatory or rude. Saying someone is wrong isn't rude. Saying they're a tea-bagger, a God-hater, or a blind religious sheep, however, is.
Let's all work harder to not do that. That's my only request, here.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The entire point, which you have missed, is that the term is a kind of sexual position, and was used to refer to tea-partiers specifically because of that.
Well, to be fair, the first "Tea Partiers" I ever met -- my mother included -- actually referred to themselves as "tea baggers" until someone explained the innuendo (or at least that there was innuendo to be perceived.) If I formed a pro-Atkins Diet group called (in all innocence) the Salad Tossers, with a motto that said "Toss Your Salad" and a gimmick that asked members to bring small side salads (for throwing) to meetings, people might be forgiven if, even two or three years later, even after I have done my best to ensure that everyone involved now calls themselves "Salad Throwers," vegetarians still call us "Salad Tossers" with a smirk.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by 0Megabyte: ... the term is a kind of sexual position, and was used to refer to tea-partiers specifically because of that. The reason the term exists is the sexual innuendo, and the mental image it us intended to give.
No, its not.
The term is a sexual practice. Objectively, it was used specifically by tea-partiers to refer to themselves but was largely dropped after others noticed the double meaning and started using it too.
In fact, there are conservatives right now who use the term right now regardless of the sexual meaning and with full knowledge of it.
Whether you refer to it as a sexual practice or position, it still carries a sexual meaning.
I think most people would find it offensive regardless if someone was calling themselves by the name. It doesn't make it ok.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, and in addition I'd like people to stop making fun of Mormons by calling them missionaries, it's childish, and I'm sure they don't just restrict themselves to that position.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright, I'm stupid. I just ran this passed by husband and realized that Randian sounds like a sexual slur. Sorry, it never occurred to me. It seems that a good half the words in the English language have a sexual connotation. Gzeezz. Please don't tell me there is a sexual connotation to Teabag or I will have to revert to communicating only in German.
How about "Randite" or Aynian? Do those seem sexual?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
