Slight correction, I live in Mississippi now, not in Louisiana :).

The citizens of Texas can win all the free and fair elections they want to elect federalist candidates to Congress, and it doesn’t matter because they’re only a very small minority of Congress.

There comes a point when democracy breaks down, because decisions for me in California are different than for you in Louisiana and tarran in Massachusetts and Stephen L in Colorado. Sometimes I may be able to convince my fellow Californians of a policy position (such as medical marijuana), but that doesn’t mean we won’t be completely overturned by the rest of the country.

When interests get too divergent, there comes a time where Democracy won’t fix anything. At that point, leaving the jurisdiction (so that LA, MA, or CO don’t have the ability to decide what we do in CA) may be the only option.

I don’t disagree with you on principle.

However I’m disagreeing with secession in this particular case. What Rick Perry (who’s not supported by a majority of Texans on this issue) is calling for secession over is basically the results of an election he did not like. Where was Rick Perry when George W. Bush expanded the Federal government? Where were the calls for secession then?

Secession, just like revolutionary acts in general, should be reserved for cases where there are other legal recourse against tyranny and not trotted when it suits the interests of a demagogue (like in this particular case).

Democracy is a sheep and two wolves sitting down to decide what is for dinner. Hence our founders established a Republic. A government based on the concept that the powers of government are derived through the consent of the governed. A government based on a constitution which enumerates those rights specifically granted by consent of the governed to the federal and state government and reserves all other rights to the people. The federal government overstepped it’s authority many years ago. The second amendment exists specifically to address the tyranny the founders knew could result from misapplication of democratic principles. If there were no danger of this happening, there would be no need for this amendment. So by definition, the constitution acknowledges the right of our citizens to rebel against the tyranny of an unjust ruling class, aka our entrenched politicians. Why else would there be the all out effort to shut down the single most effective tool we have for protecting our rights? Texas has every right to secede from the union. If you dispute that right, then you agree that men that died more than 150 years ago made your self determination moot.

The Mexican drug lords are shaping the marijuana debate. If drugs are legalized it will be because of their unruly determination in defending their market. Mexico just passed a bill decriminalizing possession of small amounts of drugs. This wouldn’t have occurred if people followed the law regulating their behavior. If the ruling Mafia has a choice between anarchy and allowing some freedom. It will pick freedom. The civil rights act was a result of people showing their raw power and determination in front of the State. The racist in Washington conceded so they wouldn’t be overthrown. If the English Barons didn’t stand up and fight King John we wouldn’t have the Magna Carta. If they can’t beat the people they join them.

“The calls for secession today are the same as the calls for secession in the Southern states in 1860 and 1861. Secession in both cases was brought up and actually acted on in 1860-61 over an election result the loser did not like. That’s a piss poor reason to secede, especially in a country that has free and fair elections. The remedy for that is win the next election.”

I disagree. The citizens of Texas can win all the free and fair elections they want to elect federalist candidates to Congress, and it doesn’t matter because they’re only a very small minority of Congress.

There comes a point when democracy breaks down, because decisions for me in California are different than for you in Louisiana and tarran in Massachusetts and Stephen L in Colorado. Sometimes I may be able to convince my fellow Californians of a policy position (such as medical marijuana), but that doesn’t mean we won’t be completely overturned by the rest of the country.

When interests get too divergent, there comes a time where Democracy won’t fix anything. At that point, leaving the jurisdiction (so that LA, MA, or CO don’t have the ability to decide what we do in CA) may be the only option.

“Whose the Party that stands up for Gun Rights?”

Certainly not the Republicanoids who support unconstitutional, unlibertarian gun control laws.

“Whose the Party that opposes Federally mandated seat belt laws, and drinking age laws?”

Certainly not the Republicanoids who support such laws.

“Name the Party in California who stood up to Nazi-like legislation banning smoking in all of public parks, beaches, and even in one own’s vehicle?”

Not the Republicans.

“Which Party today opposes reverse racism through affirmative action quotas?”

Not the Republicans, most certainly.

“And which Party is it that opposes the government’s right to come in and tell a property owner, what they can and cannot do in their own home?”

Certainly not the republicans, who support any number of laws that do just that–from marijuana to sodomy to tax laws.

I agree that the demonrats are no better. But the republicanoids are just as bad.

Next: I’ll explain the difference between its and it’s; and currently and presently.

I say create lobbies, infect the most powerful ones in the country, and buy politicians. Politicians need the security of knowing that they will have enough campaign contributions to be re-elected.

Politicians also need to know they have an audience. Libertarianism would need to slip into the power structure so the American herd can be whipped into a frenzy for the cause. Libertarianism needs to be their religion. Something they would make illogical arguments over as they cuss out statist (outside the power structure that doesn’t let libertarians in) wherever they find them and give their lives for. Let it be their opiate. Anybody disagrees needs to be compared to Hitler, racism, and all the evil forms of collectivism to shut them up. Treat them like Ron Paul.

Whose the Party that stands up for Gun Rights?

Whose the Party that opposes Federally mandated seat belt laws, and drinking age laws?

Name the Party in California who stood up to Nazi-like legislation banning smoking in all of public parks, beaches, and even in one own’s vehicle?

Which Party today opposes reverse racism through affirmative action quotas?

And which Party is it that opposes the government’s right to come in and tell a property owner, what they can and cannot do in their own home?

If you answered “Democrat Party USA,” you’d be dead wrong. And mostly likely dead too, cause, their eventual agenda is to eliminate all of their opponents within the United States to their agenda.

Guess that’s why they want to tell bar owners all over the United States that they can’t have a smoking section in their estabslishment.

Guess that’s why they’re now on to banning all fried foods in New York State.

Guess that’s why they are running off conservative and libertarian speakers from college campuses.

Guess that’s why they’re stealing my voting rights through massive fraud at the polls sponsored by ACORN, and allowing illegal aliens to vote.

My gosh, that’s “tolerance,” on par with Adolph Hitler.

The biggest problem with your article, other than the fact that secession in the United States was decided at a little place called Appomattox Courthouse in April 1865, is the fact that you’re comparing calls for secession today with the Revolutionary period.

The calls for secession today are the same as the calls for secession in the Southern states in 1860 and 1861. Secession in both cases was brought up and actually acted on in 1860-61 over an election result the loser did not like. That’s a piss poor reason to secede, especially in a country that has free and fair elections. The remedy for that is win the next election.

Where as when the Colonies seceded from Britain in 1776, they had no representation or other legal recourse to address their grievances, which ironically was their major grievance. Secession was the only alternative they had left before submitting to tyranny and more importantly, they tried to negotiate peace with Britain first, eg. The Olive Branch Petition.

As for the principle of secession itself, I support it in principle, but just not in this circumstance because there are other means of redressing grievances before ripping the country apart.

Get your facts straight. BATF is not in the Department of Homeland Security. Our gun laws are the weakest of any civilized nation.

The ATF may instigate raids over an unpaid $200.00 tax per rifle – raids that lead to the deaths of tens of women and children, but because they are not part of homeland security, there is no grievance. ;)

You know, I can’t understand how you can make such a fool of yourself so energetically. You are the laughingstock of the libertarian blogosphere. You must be aware of the contempt with which people universally greet your incoherent and insane statements, yet you continue to spew them out. I am now thinking that you aren’t only a moron, but suffering from some pathological need to get people to notice you, even if it is to make fun of you.

My question for you Mr “Freedom is about obedience to authority”, why do you do this to yourself? Is this the legacy you want to leave your kids?

Republican = Big Government Authoritarian Opportunists
(tolerate financial liberty, oppose social liberty)

Libertarian Party = Small Government Freedom-Advocating Ineffective Observers
(advocate liberty, oppose big government)

Big Government Authoritarian Opportunists tend to focus on who is “ruling” at the moment. That’s their currency. Authoritarian abuses always produce disenfranchised minorities. On rare occasions, those minorities discuss secession. Rarer still, they attempt it.