Replies

Not to get side tracked, but would you agree to secesstion if we changed the date to 2002? Looking at where freedom is now versus 140 years ago, has it gotten bad enough, and if not, just what would make the Great Walt finally allow his countrymen the right to self-determination?

From an earlier quote:

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Are we currently under a system of Despotism? Here's what Merriam-Webster says "Despotism" is:

1 a : rule by a despot b : despotic exercise of power 2 a : a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power : ABSOLUTISM b : a despotic state

Does our ruler (Dubya) have "unlimited power"? Certianly not. Despite things that have happened politically and domestically that you might not agree with, were they done out of a design to further Despotism? Since we still have a two-party system with virtually equal power to send representatives to government, that would be no. So there is certainly no moral prerogative to secede today, as there was none to secede in 1860.

So there is certainly no moral prerogative to secede today

I disagree completely. The colonists revolted over a level of excise taxation you and I would pay without batting an eye. They were free to purchase, without restriction, opium, tobacco, alcohol, and whatever arms they desired. There were no government schools, no subsidies to business, no welfare transfer payments, no forced participation in socialist Ponzi schemes. Colonial money was, literally, "as good as gold."

Our government purports to justify itself by assuming that a majority of the electorate can legitimately shift the burden of public largesse to the minority. This premise is false--our current government is morally bankrupt. As Dr. Williams says, "It's time to part company."