2024 ELECTION THREAD

I imagine the city tax would go up a lot having to pay for military , judicial system, and all other services and needs a federal or state government provides….

Maybe a one person could declare himself independent too and dissociate the land from the country his house is build on too.

As usual, a ridiculous comparison. Wartime internment is not slavery.

if we go to war with china are you willing to intern 4.7 chinese americans

what do you do when they have non-chinese spouses?

what about their kids who are half of chinese descent, half of something else?

I don’t think saying wartime internment is different from slavery is the same as saying “I support wartime internment”, so idk why you are asking him this question.

that's not my intention at all to draw the comparison between the two

it's very common for people to attack others without providing an alternative

in the work place, this gets you passed over or even fired, but online it tends to get rewarded where people can swipe freely at others without risking themselves to any personal exposure

if he going to go out and attack someone for referencing wartime internment in a discussion of slavery, then the onus is upon them to define what their own position on wartime internment - otherwise it's just a cheap and cowardly attack and not an actual discussion

our goal here is fruitful discussion, many tend to forget that

I guess. My interpretation of it was that he was just saying that slavery and wartime internment are not the same thing and the only normativity being evoked was that he thinks words ought to be used to mean the things that we all understand them to mean. That’s a point I generally agree with and it’s an area that Luciom oftentimes fails at.

On the other hand if someone says “the civil war was fought over slavery” and then someone goes “heh, technically it was about state’s rights, moron”, then reading in some normativity about their opinion on the civil war is valid. So I could see where someone might want to know more about their position there.

What has the war to do with it, it was citizens lol not foreigners (who might lose rights fast in war if they are linked to enemies). Citizens.

Imprisoning someone who did nothing wrong for your gain is very very very very very similar to slavery.

What does "practical" have to do with right or wrong, and we are talking less than 100 years into a federation. And we aren't talking random patches of ground rather states which existed in some cases for longer as separated polities than the federation itself existed.

If you want to deny self-determination to people you can do that by bringing up examples of random people wanting to secede.

But in general if you EVER want to use that argument in ANY case you cannot say it doesn't apply to Virginia in 1861. So you either fully deny that any group of people ever has the right to self gover of an area no matter how long their ancestors lived there (which is what i claimed the USA did), or you allow it can be used for the Virginia in 1861.

There is the general principle that you can't voluntarily give up your unalienable rights no matter what you vote or sign (or what your ancestors did).

You are not bound to a decision of giving up unalienable rights by your grandparents , if a self determination right exists, it is unalienable, and any writing or contract to the contrary is void and null.

So, as i said, everything you mention is good and proper if you FULLY DENY any existence of any right of self determination of a population.

I have no idea where from any of my posts you got the notion that I believe in an inalienable right to self-determination or that I agree with the concept of inalienable rights in general. I went to read back where this conversation started just so I can track it and I guess I am just confused why someone would be so mad that I don’t believe in an inalienable right to self-determination when they also don’t believe in that right. Are you just starting arguments just to start them?

I believe in a very limited right for self-determination as determined by international law for groups of people that are currently nationless. I also believe in the right to overturn colonial rule if desired by a country. I don’t believe in inalienable rights period and believe that rights are primarily instrumentalist and pro-social.

I didn't, I wrote very clearly from the beginning: the treason was secession because the USA deny any existence of any right of self determination of people.

you can defend that same as rococo as long as you deny the existence of that right.

BUT for some reasons I don't believe you think the English would be fully morally justified to massacre without limits the scots if the scots vote 60-40 to leave the UK and try to secede, and the English disagree.

do you?

To be honest I recognize a special right of the United States to maintain its union so I’m not sure how I would feel about the scots voting to secede from the brits. The southern states had equal rights as any other state in the union, my understanding is scottish parliament does not have equal rights to british parliament. It’s a quite different arrangement from what we have.

Spain didn't give Catalonians their own country before the EU came into existence either.

Also, you are delusional (or have a profound misunderstanding of the United States) if you think that Nebraska is to the United States as Spain is to the EU.

Don't IQ tests have a bunch questions of the format "x is to y as z is to [?]"?

Also it’s a federation of states, but not all states have the same sway or rights as other states, from my understanding. The UK’s involvement was quite different from other countries, iirc.

And generally the reason why people don’t vote to leave the EU is because they know they would be incredibly stupid to do so. They only have to give up a modicum of sovereignty in exchange to access to a gigantic economic network, one of the largest and most prosperous in world history. Who would be stupid enough to leave except the Brits who got royally screwed by that decision?

Maybe that’s why the college electorate , giving so much over representing power in election for some states , was created to appease those separatist ambitions ….?

They always have a higher voice then what their actual population represent in the U.S. .
Would be dumb wanting to separate from the « greatest, freest, strongest, richest » country in the world and maybe « history » ….

But yeah taking into account how smart the people down there are , maybe even that isn’t enough for them….

And given the context of what we’re talking about here, slavery, you have to also take into account that the only thing the North and Republicans were really gunning for at the time was lack of expansion into new territories and not allowing the South to circumvent laws against slavery in other states. The abolition movement really gained popularity during the civil war. If anything, they precipitated the abolition of slavery quite a bit when they seceded.

I see the South also as I would see an attempted formation of a white ethnostate within the borders of America. I have heard a lot of delusional liberals argue we should let all the white nationalists move to Alabama and become their own white ethnostate. That would be a disgusting moral horror and should never be allowed. Secession is bad enough, but to do so for immoral reasons makes it so that a large amount of force to overturn the secession is justified.

I don't know. Ask David.

Everything, considering war is literally in the definition of the word:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment

en

Internment - Wikipedia

Only in your imagination.

What does your question have to do with whether war interment is the same as America's slavery of blacks?

I think most people are making an emotional argument when they say the South didn't have the "right" to secede but the 13 colonies, or Vietnam, or China, or India, or African independence movements did. We all hate slavery, and you'd be hard pressed to find a person who wished the South won, but saying one is legal because you agree with the cause and one isn't because you hate the cause is a simple double standard.

There are no such thing as rights, only force. If the South had won the Civil War or been recognized as a sovereign government by England and France (which nearly happened multiple times in 1862-3), there would be no debate about the legality of secession. Force determines the law, and the winners write the history.

There’s a huge problem that happens in political discussions where we try to compare two things without understanding how the two things are disanalogous. I’m not saying you shouldn’t compare the American revolution to the Civil War, but you have to understand particularly why those two things diverge and why they aren’t the same thing.

If someone was to say that the South had no right to secede because no one should ever be able to leave a country they are under the control of, that would be hypocritical. No one ever makes that argument though.

The huge difference that I have drawn throughout this discussion is that the South was seceding from a country in which they were equal if not disproportionately powerful in because they didn’t like that they weren’t able to impose the institution of slavery on the rest of the country. They wanted every single state to allow people to have slaves and every new territory that turned into a state to be a slave state. They were also mad that the compromise had been for many years to not allow imports of new slaves, and they wanted to be able to expand their slaveholding capabilities.

All of this they weren’t willing to go through the legal processes to codify, and when Lincoln came into power it gave them a great excuse to codify this grievance into a separatist movement without establishing any legal process over which to secede.

The big difference between that and what happened during the Revolutionary War is that the colonies went from having relatively large amount of political freedom to being cracked down on and having relatively little political freedom. They wanted representation in Parliament and they wanted to have political autonomy. This was a liberal rebellion against a monarchy that wanted to impose obedience by force and rule by fiat.

The huge difference is between the political rights afforded. If the confederacy was allowed to secede it would go against everything that the constitutional convention had established They realized states could not have such high degrees of autonomy or the country could not survive. They also realized that there needed to be ways to quell insurrection and treason, which they took care to include in the law.

There is no hypocrisy between upholding liberal order and rebelling against illiberal monarchy.

Not so much, actually. It was more of naming two different things and asking how they are alike to an escalating degree of difficulty.

Like how is a slug like a tree? They are both alive. Etc

Your formula is more found in the sat format.