Why shouldn't states be allowed to unilaterally secede from the union?

Why shouldn't states be allowed to unilaterally secede from the union?

>inb4 muh national integrity
Not an argument. If the people within a state don't want to be part of the US any more it's more than a bit tyrannical to force them to stay.

Because the states are the federal government's bitch and must answer to it, not the other way around.

Clearly.

But /should/ it be that way?

Would they be free to ally with whoever they wanted?

Yes. Otherwise you would fracture the US as a major world player. Not that any state but Texas in the south us worth anything. It's more about preventing the undermining of the federal system.

Why not?

They'd be free countries.

>Otherwise you would fracture the US as a major world player.
Yeah, but clearly they don't care about the US anymore so it's okay.

Yes, but only after the federal government reposseses all infrastructure paid for woth federal dollars, to be redistributed among member states.

What about giving them the option to unilaterally secede but only upon paying for all federal property within the state adjusted for inflation?

No take backs. You agreed to join and now you're staying.

That sounds like the exact opposite of freedom.

No, because whatever currency that state prints up will be worth less than raw, possibly recyclable material.

I say adjusted for inflation. It's most fair that the federal government be compensated for their investment whilst the economy of the state continues uninterrupted.

>freedom
States are not people. They do not have the same rights as people. If people do not want to live in the US, they can renounce their citizenship and leave. If they don't want their state to be part of the US, then too bad.

>Butthurt Dixiefags making 5+ threads in which they repeatedly get BTFO in each one

Give it a rest, the American civil was has been discussed to death.

Because that's terrible reasoning that, if applied to the whole globe, would result in the world being divided into thousands of irrelevant little micro nations that are constantly at war with one another.

Then why is US a union of states rather than union of people?

>We the People...

States aren't people, you're right. But they are an organized collaboration of people.

"States" and "governments" ultimately aren't real, they're just people co-operating with each other. And for that reason the wishes of the people in the state as to how that state should behave ought to be respected by the federal government.

I'm not American nor do I support the south in the civil war. I just think the fact that states aren't allowed to unilaterally secede is very unfair.

But maybe the world should be divided into thousands of irrelevant micronations.

Not to mention just because something has the potential to happen doesn't mean it will happen. At present most people don't actually want their states to leave the union, like wise for people in subregions of most countries, but nonetheless it's just for them to have the option.

While they are not real, the federal State has a greater claim to legitimacy than states, as they control the monopoly on violence. States derive their legitimacy through their affiliation and cooperation with the federal government. Secession is based on an unwarranted self legitimacy. It is a move to terminate itself. The wishes of the people only influence government through set terms and thus have no right to vote for succession any more than they do for the termination of the US as a whole.

>legitimacy
wew, getting spooky in here. There's no such thing as "legitimacy" either.

> The wishes of the people only influence government through set terms and thus have no right to vote for succession any more than they do for the termination of the US as a whole.
Of course they don't have that right. But the point of the thread is that they should, that's the more just and fair relationship.

You're gonna keep circling these stupid arguments till the end of time, aren't you?

What do you mean?

Legitimacy is given to that which can establish and maintain it. That is why I subscribe to the monopoly on violence theory. States cannot maintain their legitimacy without the federal government.
>But the point of the thread is that they should, that's the more just and fair relationship
More fair and just between whom? You agree with me that states have less legitimacy than the federal government, so why does allotting them the freedom of voting themselves into ruin make it any more fair?

>Legitimacy is given to that which can establish and maintain it
It's not real though. It's just an abstract concept states use the justify themselves. If you're not actually welcome there it shouldn't really matter how legitimate you declare yourself to be.

>More fair and just between whom?
Between the people within the state and the people within the broader national borders. As ultimately both are just people.

> You agree with me that states have less legitimacy than the federal government
Actually I don't. I think legitimacy is a totally meaningless concept and that no entity can truly claim any more or less legitimacy than another.

>so why does allotting them the freedom of voting themselves into ruin make it any more fair?
Because it's what they want to do and it's not any business of people on the other side of the continent.

As far as any concept is true, legitimacy is true when backed with overwhelming force. Administrative states own a monopoly on violence; they are legitimate because they can maintain themselves in war and exercise violence to maintain their legitimacy towards the governed through police forces and military intervention if necessary. You can declare yourself a free nation, but unless you have sufficient means of violence to back it up, you are just going to be thrown in jail or shot. This is what happened in the Civil War; the seceding states could not assert or maintain their legitimacy whereas the federal government reasserted its authority.
>Between the people within the state and the people within the broader national borders. As ultimately both are just people.
One group of people is a governing elite. The current system is the most efficient way to balance the governed with those who govern while preventing tyranny of the mob.
>Because it's what they want to do and it's not any business of people on the other side of the continent.
My town's business is not the same as a city on the other side of the state. My block isn't the same as the town, yet they cannot vote to be separated. The government established the affiliation between states and its national borders, and protects them with armed force. A vote of secession carriers no weight when it has no means of being recognized. There are limits to freedom to protect others; that is why there are laws in this country.

>This is what happened in the Civil War; the seceding states could not assert or maintain their legitimacy whereas the federal government reasserted its authority.
You see that's just naked brute force, it doesn't actually endow you with a mystical quality of legitimacy. Of course it efficiently quells all opposition so you can claim whatever esoteric properties you like and no one can say otherwise, but it doesn't make them real.

And more importantly part of my point is that we shouldn't behave like that. We should respect each other by letting other people live their lives and organize their communities as they wish.

>One group of people is a governing elite. The current system is the most efficient way to balance the governed with those who govern while preventing tyranny of the mob.
Ah but you see it's really just thinly veiled tyranny of the elite reinforced with the boogeyman of mob rule. What it certainly is, is the most efficient way to preserve this tyranny, but we must question whether or not that's desirable.

>yet they cannot vote to be separated
So they cannot, but they should.

>A vote of secession carriers no weight when it has no means of being recognized.
This is true. My point is that federal governments should provide their subdivisions with paths to unilateral independence.

>There are limits to freedom to protect others
This is true. But this limit of freedom doesn't actually seem to be protecting anyone other than abstract concepts and the elite few who rule.

>mystical quality
>esoteric properties

>Don't make fun of my spooks

If you're argument is going to boil down to "it sucks so it should be different" then yes, it does suck, but anything different is going to be worse. It's the real world, man.

It's not "mystical". It's a description of power. Government are legitimate because they have power. You can test it by glassing a police officer. Is power a spook now, too?

>secede because muh state rights
>immediately join a confederation under a federal system

lol. what am i missing?

Who knows what goes on in rednecks heads sometimes.

>anything different is going to be worse.

Self determination generally works out pretty good until the federal government throws an autism fit. Which I'm saying is what they shouldn't do. Part of my argument is that this way would just be better for everyone.

Brute force is not mystical at all, I never said it is.

But any concept of "legitimacy" is spooky as fuck. It's a meaningless concept that you're only using to make "brute force" sound more palatable.

Serial killers have power too.

Self determination is not "better for everyone". I am sure it would not have been better for slaves, and it would not have been better for those who wished not to succeed. Those who wish to leave the US can do so, but to vote to expel other natural born US citizens is ridiculous. That's freedom to you, right? That's a funny kind of freedom. States rights is a weak concept that was proven null; just look at the Articles of Confederation, if the debate in the 19th century didn't end it for you.
>But any concept of "legitimacy" is spooky as fuck. Brute force is not mystical at all
It defines the monopoly on brute force. That is what I originally defined legitimacy as, and I didn't say it was anything different. Multiple state-like entities vying for power are not legitimate.
And then they are caught and killed or jailed by the state, which has a monopoly on violence. Why? Because they decreed people don't have the freedom to kill one another, which is a freedom reserved to those that have asserted the monopoly on violence. That is why I said monopoly.

If blacks were allowed to vote I'm fairly sure zero of those states would've chosen to secede.

As it stands several white populations of states already voted against, only to be occupied by the Confederate army.

>And then they are caught and killed or jailed by the state
Something like half of murders are unsolved in the US while prisons are filled with drug dealers.

Hiding from the government does not mean you have more power than the government.

They should be able to. Recognizing a disconnect between a ruling government and it's people and breaking that union is literally why we fought the Revolution and wrote the Declaration of Independence...

"No Treason" by Lysander Spooner

>Government are legitimate because they have power

> I am sure it would not have been better for slaves,
Actually self-determination would be great for the slaves. If they got a choice in being slaves clearly they wouldn't choose to remain as slaves.

This is the hypocrisy of the CSA. They wanted self-determination for states but not for people. I acknowledge this and as said earlier I don't support the south, but nonetheless I also see the US's hypocrisy is refusing to allow a unilateral withdrawal from the US and think this should be addressed as well.

>but to vote to expel other natural born US citizens is ridiculous.
If they don't agree with the majority opinion in that state then, as you suggest for successionists, maybe they should leave. Or alternatively if there's enough of them in a certain area maybe they can withdraw from that state and return to the US as a new state like West Virginia did.

>Multiple state-like entities vying for power are not legitimate.
You mean like the world? In which I agree, no government is truly legitimate.

Not to mention you seem to be insisting that governments be defined by their ability to brutalize their fellow man. I'm saying that maybe, we should be nice instead.

>"We the people…"
>100 or so wealthy farmers, lawyers, and businessmen
>representative of each individual in the country

sure

If somehow every state in the union voted to leave and this was ratified by congress what would happen to the remaining federal properties like DC?

Would it transform into somekind of bizarre city state? Would it be totally dissolved? Would the last state to leave get all of it?

>I also see the US's hypocrisy is refusing to allow a unilateral withdrawal from the US
Again, this loops back around into states rights. States have limited rights, and are funded and supported by the federal government. If you are advocating anarchy, with total self-determination for every individual, then this discussion is over because you would be insane. It would never work, as states would naturally develop and exercise control because it is only through state regulation of violence that rights can be defined and protected. I don't even need to get into why anarchy itself would be much worse than the way we live now.
>You mean like the world?
States set up control over a "homeland", hence fucking borders. Rebellions within borders are put down, and if they are not and are indeed successful, then the resulting government is legitimate because they have seized the monopoly on violence. There is no ruler of the planet, because no state has arisen with enough means to gain legitimacy over the planet.
>I'm saying that maybe, we should be nice instead.
"Nice" is just a concept. I agree, though, we should be nice to each-other, but human nature isn't one thing. Humans can be nice, but we are not all nice all the time. Government, though yes it is often times shitty, keeps people in check.
>governments be defined by their ability to brutalize their fellow man
Yes. That's the way the world works and has always worked.

The only way of getting independence is how the us did it from the uk, with violence.

Christianity conquered the Roman emperor without it. Broke him like a dog.

The fuck?

He literally got on his knees for us.

Christianity isn't a government???

God is the government and He does a much better job.

Well we can't all be God, jeez lay off my case

Of course We can.

>Its not real though
So what right do states have to secede if legitimacy doesn't exist?
Given your parameters, the answer is "Because the federal government says so" which is good enough because "legitamacy" doesn't exist.

> It would never work
Why not? As said earlier just because something has the potential to happen doesn't mean it will happen, as evidenced in the fact that most people don't want to leave the US let alone form their own government centred on their house.

>States set up control over a "homeland"
"Homeland" is a spook.

> There is no ruler of the planet, because no state has arisen with enough means to gain legitimacy over the planet.
So do you withdraw what you said about many state-like entities vying for power being inherently "less" "legitimate"?

> but we are not all nice all the time.
Precisely, which is why we need governments to stop bullies.

And when the government starts being the bully, then it's time to stop the government.

>Yes. That's the way the world works and has always worked.
Well, maybe we should change that.

Hey guys, I want my little plot of land to secede from [insert country]. It's totally justified because the state was mean to me!

You see the slippery slope?

>So what right do states have to secede if legitimacy doesn't exist?
If it's what the people in the state want why stop them?

Why shouldn't sovereign citizens be allowed to unilaterally secede from the state?

>inb4 muh statist ideology
Not an argument. If anarchists within a state don't want to be part of the state any more it's more than a bit tyrannical to force them to stay.

Self-deternmination in the civil war's context would have been horrible for slaves. You're trying to attach abstract ideas like jurisdiction to the thoughts of individuals.
Are you talking about self determination of individuals? Are you talking about self determination of jurisdictions?

Citizens of the states paid for this infrastucture when they had to give their taxes to the feds. Why should they pay again?

>Veeky Forums TELL ME WHAT'S 2+2 BUT DON'T SAY 4 THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT LMAO

The the entire United States is a jurisdiction, and the Union, with more people, gets to decide shit.

>Self-deternmination in the civil war's context would have been horrible for slaves
Except that would have been no self-determination at all because the slaves didn't have it. If the slaves actually had self-determination they wouldn't be slaves.

This is the point I'm making, it's hypocrisy on the part of the CSA to claim self-determination for states whilst denying it to individuals.

National integrity isn't an argument. It's an apex spook.

>spookposting
I'm not sure you want to go that way since muh freedumz and muh tyranny is baseless bullshit as well.

Also, it's our national right to allow Russia to put nuclear missiles in our country. We're right next to Wasington D.C. btw :^)

>Why not?
Without a state to define and maintain human rights, human rights no longer need to be acknowledged and people could murder and pillage as much as they want.
>"Homeland" is a spook.
I put it in quotations. Also, saying "hurr spook" doesn't negate the fact that it is there. Ask an American where he's from, he will say America. Nationality has be naturalized. Taxes are a spook, but I bet you still pay them. Why? Because the State can through you in jail if you don't and no-one will bat an eyelash.
>So do you withdraw what you said about many state-like entities vying for power being inherently "less" "legitimate"?
No. The US is legitimate within the borders of the US. If the US wanted to arrest a guy in Russia, for instance, they would need to cooperate with Russian authorities because Russian power is legitimate within the borders of Russia.
>And when the government starts being the bully, then it's time to stop the government.
The government will always "buly". But people can stop them if they wish. That is called a rebellion, and will only work, lo and behold, if they have sufficient means to exercising violence, more so than the state from which they are rebelling.
>Well, maybe we should change that.
Every attempt to change it has failed. Good luck, though.
I am done posting, as this argument is just circling back around.

It's not really though. "National integrity" is totally irrelevant to everyone. "Tyranny" actually negatively impacts my life.

Freedom is a spook, it's not even desirable.

It would never work because in order to have a society you need organization and that just becomes some sort of state...which then impedes on an individual's right to self-determination.
You didn't answer my question and you keep moving goalposts.

>Without a state to define and maintain human rights, human rights no longer need to be acknowledged and people could murder and pillage as much as they want.
That was a rhetorical question. You were supposed to read the actual argument in the following sentence.

> Also, saying "hurr spook" doesn't negate the fact that it is there
You're right, the fact that it is a spook is what negates the fact that it's there. Because it never was, it was always a spook.

>Ask an American where he's from, he will say America. Nationality has be naturalized.
I'm not sure where you're going with this argument.

>but I bet you still pay them. Why? Because the State can through you in jail if you don't and no-one will bat an eyelash.
But taxes aren't a spook. Sure, they're a fancy way of saying stealing. But nonetheless that actually is happening, it's not imagined, the state actually is taking my money (which however is a spook).

>No. The US is legitimate within the borders of the US. If the US wanted to arrest a guy in Russia, for instance, they would need to cooperate with Russian authorities because Russian power is legitimate within the borders of Russia.
I think you're starting to lose track of your own flimsy arguments because if the US actually were to balkanize into a bunch of state like entities that would still need to happen in contrast to what you said earlier.

"Multiple state-like entities vying for power are not legitimate."

>The government will always "buly".
No, just put non-bullies in the government, retard.

>I am done posting, as this argument is just circling back around.
That's your own fault, man.
>

It would be enormously retarded for the US government to allow the Union to disintegrate. Nobody cares about your feelings.

>The well-being of the affairs of the state is a spook
kill yourself

What rights do people have? None. Your calling states a spook and personal rights are just natural? no, fuck off

On the contrary freedom is the natural state of existence and one of the few things that's not a spook.

That is an answer to the question. They have the right to do so because they want to.

If you're trying to bait me into discussing rights as if they're not spooks that will not happen.

>It would never work because in order to have a society you need organization and that just becomes some sort of state...which then impedes on an individual's right to self-determination.
Except I never said that every individual should declare themselves independent. As a matter of fact that's what I'm saying is ridiculously unlikely.

But I am suggesting that they should have the option.

>nation is not stable
>this doesn't have a negative impact
>a single person makes decisions and imposes their will
>but this DOES negatively impact someone's life
:/

>It would be enormously retarded for the US government to allow the Union to disintegrate
Why?

Are they that autistically invested in >relevance

Yep, the state is a spook. So "the well being of the affairs of the state" is a giga-spook.

I agree, rights are a spook.

When did I say or imply they weren't?

You're using spook selectively.
By your definition, taxes are a spook because the necessity for them, and the imposition of them, is because of the existence of the state and its authority, which is also a spook. taxes are a spook.

>a nation is not stable
How wouldn't it be?

If a state peacefully withdrew from the union why would that be so awful?

That's just silly logic.

The state is by all means a spook. But the cop who comes to shoot me if I try to tell him this is no spook at all.

Just because the people doing it are spooked doesn't make everything they do a spook.

You implied they weren't when you said
"If it's what the people in the state want why stop them?" What gives those people the "right" to secede in the first place? More spooks.

Because if you're not unified you get your ass kicked by people that are.

You're either retarded or a troll. How is integrity a spook? My body has a certain "integrity" value attached to it, its called my health. If I'm not healthy I could die and my cells could die. If the state isn't healthy, the economy could collapse, a foreign nation could invade....whatever it may be, people could die. The integrity of the state is not a spook, however it is conditional, it really depends on the ingenuousness of whoever uses the word "integrity"

The state absolutely exists, just because the idea behind it is a spook, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Authority isn't derived from rhetoric, its derived from power.

>Just because the people doing it are spooked doesn't make everything they do a spook
Now apply that statement to a government you retard.

>What gives those people the "right" to secede in the first place?
Actually you make a good point.

Natural rights aren't spooks at all. As a matter of fact the natural state of existence is unhindered and absolute rights for everyone to do everything. What complicates things is that the state enters the picture to take some of these away in exchange for some degree of protection. E.g you no longer have the right to murder but you don't have to worry about getting murdered.

What we must consider them, is if the state should be allowed to infringe on the right to secede when this doesn't actually seem to benefit those involved.

Okay fuck it last one for clarification
>Because it never was, it was always a spook.
Right, so government is a spook, as you said, so I am giving my taxes, which are not a spook according to you, to nothing for no reason. Got it.
>I'm not sure where you're going with this argument.
Saying nationality and nations are spooks doesn't negate the fact that a large majority -if not everyone - recognizes nations as real and identifies themselves in relation to a nation/nationality.
>I think you're starting to lose track of your own flimsy arguments because if the US actually were to balkanize into a bunch of state like entities
I didn't say that in that specific context so I don't understand what you mean by this
>that would still need to happen in contrast to what you said earlier.
Yes, but it would instead be the Atlantic Confederacy, for instance, cooperating with Russian authorities, which could easily deny their request. The alternative to this exchange is to assert legitimacy onto another State, which the US would not do just to arrest one man in Russia.
>No, just put non-bullies in the government, retard.
The fuck does that even mean? Violence, "bullying" in your terms, is used to establish and regulate laws, rights, privileges, and protects citizens from local assholes. Please fucking use your brain to think things through. Your "nice government where there are no taxes and no one has to do anything" would fucking fall through and be replaced by whatever dictator dupes enough people into establishing another government.
>That's your own fault, man.
No, it's your inability to understand or think through a concept that makes this "discussion" the equivalent of talking to a brick wall.
>People should be nice to each other
>Rights don't exist
Yeah...

What do you want to kick my ass for?

>Personifying the state
My god you are spooked.

If I violate your bodily integrity by stabbing you that would hurt. If I violate the US's national integrity by seceding I hurt the feelings of autistics and the government. Clearly one is not like the other.

>The integrity of the state is not a spook
I strongly advise you actually read Stirner because it's a textbook spook.

>doesn't mean it doesn't exist
It doesn't though.

Ultimately what's actually happening is a bunch of people have gotten together to conspire to kill everyone that doesn't do as they say. No state actually really exists.

>but that is the state
No that's a bunch of dudes.

That's what I just did.

Government= spook
Taxes= not a spook.

Fucking Amerisharts must have lead in the water supply going by these replies.

The state that exists as an organization of people who can coerce you to do things, not a spook.

The state that exists for the sake of the state, to which you have a duty to serve, even at your own expense and are necessarily a component of, is a spook.