The Coalition of the very Rich and the Very poor are not slaves. It is only those people who carry the burden that have the fruits of their labor deprived of them for the benefit of others.
I'm sure that deep down inside you oppose slavery, too. I'll never understand why you insist on advancing positions that are historically burdened by the baggage of slavery.
Because when you put forth the concept that states have a right to leave the United States if they wish to do so, Every Union Apologist will come out of the woodwork and make themselves hoarse from screaming about how much they hate slavery more than anyone else.
They will simply not allow the topic to be discussed on it's own merits. They have not the wit or intelligence to comprehend the larger question outside of the topic of slavery.
In other words, nobody chooses to advance positions that are historically burdened by the baggage of slavery, it's just that it is virtually impossible to discuss the concept of "freedom to leave" without some slack witted cheerleader bringing the topic up.
The discussion generally goes like this:
People have a right to leave the United States.
"Why do you support Slavery?"
Nobody is supporting Slavery, I'm simply pointing out that our Central Government is abusive and out of control, no longer serves our interests, is empowering the lazy and the wicked and collapsing our currency. "
"Why are you supporting Slavery?"
I am not supporting Slavery, i'm supporting Independence."
"Well the last time people were talking about Independence, they supported Slavery, so therefore you must be supporting slavery."
And So on ad infinitum ad nauseum.
Certainly, one can argue for more personal liberty without trying to also prove that secession or division is some kind of legitimate solution.
My understanding of the Principles involved in the founding of this nation shows secession or division is indeed a legitimate solution. In fact, I fail to see how you can support the founding of this country while opposing the founding of another and from appeal to the very same foundational principle.
As a matter of fact, Many of our early population left Europe because they had differences of opinions that could not be reconciled with the existing civil or religious structure. They in effect, left to create a different country where their opinions and ideas were accepted.
Nearly everyone wishes that the blood shed by Americans in the early 1860's had not happened, but the vast majority of Americans (including those living in the South) are grateful for the outcome.
Because they are ignorant of any other possible outcome. People are biased towards what they regard as "normal", and do not give much thought to a potentially better version of "normal."
This also ignores a salient point. One might argue that a drug addict wife is much better off staying with her abusive husband, but it completely ignores the fact that what is in her best interest is not for anyone else to decide but her.
This is freedom of will at it's basest level. That people can decide rightly or wrongly upon the course they wish to take in their lives.
You can say that the United States is a lot better off for Keeping the South as part of it, You can even say the South is better off for remaining in the United States, but what you cannot say is that because they would be better off, they must not be allowed to do what they want.
The South made the exact same argument with slaves. "They are better off by remaining under our control."
Why is it that you can recognize the fallacy of this argument when applied to slaves, but cannot recognize the same fallacy as applied to nations?
I agree with you about that. The concept of "secession" by states has become hopelessly tangled up with slavery and the 1860's. And, that raises the question, "Can you accept that reality?" Can you accept that it is now fruitless to advocate in favor of any kind of state secession? There isn't a state in this country that is prepared to give up the USA.
My understanding of the Principles involved in the founding of this nation shows secession or division is indeed a legitimate solution. In fact, I fail to see how you can support the founding of this country while opposing the founding of another and from appeal to the very same foundational principle.
None of our Founding Fathers suggested that the overthrow of an existing government in a geographical area was a matter to be taken lightly or that it should be considered by folks who weren't prepared to fight and perhaps lose everything, including their lives, their property and their sacred honor. Ordinarily, existing governments don't give up their powers without a fight. No one is saying that you cannot overthrow an existing government. But, you must expect a fight.
As a matter of fact, Many of our early population left Europe because they had differences of opinions that could not be reconciled with the existing civil or religious structure. They in effect, left to create a different country where their opinions and ideas were accepted.
Except for people who are incarcerated, every American retains a right to leave this country. No one is challenging that right.
This is freedom of will at it's basest level. That people can decide rightly or wrongly upon the course they wish to take in their lives.
With all due respect, I think it is you who is challenging the right of people to decide "rightly or wrongly the course they wish to take in their lives." If you accept your own argument, then the people of the United States have an inherent God-given right to maintain a huge, bloated government if that's what they want.
You seem to suggest that if you, you personally do not agree with some of the current, existing policies of our government, then you retain some sort of God-given right to leave without really leaving in any geographical sense and that it doesn't really matter what your neighbors might want. That doesn't seem workable to me.
Believe me, I understand your desire for less government and more personal liberty. I don't think you're going to get any of that by reliance upon ugly memories of state secession or by an individual's right to leave without really leaving.