3 votes

I sent my father the link about the secession petitions and it didn't go so well.

How would you respond? I may have been hasty in my response but it's how I really felt in the moment.

Here is the conversation:

My father: Hmmm. let's see.
Missouri has an outlet to the sea down the Mississippi, and through the Illinois canal to lake Michigan, but a country without a seacoast is at a severe disadvantage.

Me: A country is even more at a disadvantage if the people aren’t free. I prefer not to sacrifice liberty for security. Those who do deserve neither.

My father: Except for that, Missouri is one of two states that has every resource needed for self subsistence.

Me: Does any country have the resources needed for self subsistence? Some people can survive on their own, but humans will always need to work together for the common good. This doesn’t need to occur under a tyrannical regime. If we’re dependent on thugs for survival we’re in sad sad shape.

My Father: The other is Washington which of course has abundant coastline considering the Olympic Peninsula. Washington would do will on its own, not just because of that, but because they also have an existing international border.

My Father: So who's going to muster the army to stop an invasion by foreign powers?

Me: That’s a sacrifice I feel is worth the risk. I’d rather be responsible for my own defense than be subservient to a tyrannical government that murders its own people.

My Father: The last thing I'd want is to be subject to some of the political idiots in Missouri without someone to keep them in check. This petition is just the prime example of the kind of extremism that will not be tolerated.

Me: If you can’t tolerate people with different beliefs from yours you’re going to cause yourself a lot of pain.

My father: Where will the states be when the U.S. government removes all its facilities.

Me: They’ll have to work hard to create their own. Again it’s worth the sacrifice. I don’t need protection from a group of sick sick individuals that only have their personal agenda in mind, yet they control all of our resources.

My father: How many communities are dependent upon things like military bases?

Me: They’ll be dissolved or state military will take them over. Not every town or community has to last indefinitely if it’s no longer beneficial. Towns go bust all of the time. It’s part of nature, and it’s worth the sacrifice to regain freedom

My father: The Dept. of Agriculture has a building right down the street from me that has a lot of employees.

Me: Get new jobs. Their jobs are freedom killers and a waste of resources. Keep eating your cancer causing genetically modified foods pushed on us by them. The dept. of agriculture itself is enough of a reason for me to want to secede.

My Father: Who's going to carry the mail?

Me: FedEX, UPS, etc… When there is a demand for a good or service, it will be met. Government doesn’t have to do it. FedEx and UPS are profitable and the USPS is bankrupt.

My Father: Who's going to come to people's assistance when something like the Joplin tornado happens?

Me: People.

My Father: Everyone wants the benefits, but doesn't want to pay for it.

Me: I don’t want the benefits. I can take care of myself. If you want benefits from a criminal gang, that’s your decision. I think it’s misguided.

My father: It will be a sad statement for any state that gets enough signatures for such an absurd, narrow viewed proposal to go forward with this.

Me: Under that premise, it’s a sad statement that the united states exists.

My Father: If you don't think a lot of this is driven by racists who don't like having a black president, and/or religious fanatics, then you're being naive.

Me: I’m not racist, racism is the opposite of what I believe, and I think it’s a great idea and sends exactly the kind of message I think needs to be sent. Racists see people as part of groups, libertarians see people as individuals.

My Father: And Grover Nordquist, who I saw on CBS this morning is just a jackass. He said Obama's campaign was based on saying Romney is, his words, "a poopy-head".
Nora O'Donnel called him on it, and said no one every called Romney that.
How do people like him get any influence other than to buy it? He's a despicable little weasel just like Reince Priebus.

Well let these people keep shooting their mouths off, and everyone, all who are already tired of all the bullshit, will realize how stupid they are, and tell them to fuck off.

Me: You must think I’m stupid, so tell me to fuck-off. It must be my DNA.

My Father: If someone approaches me to sign this petition, do you want to be there to see my response?

Me: I’m not afraid. I'm willing to stand up for what I believe is right.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

In this theoretical secession-happy world...

I bet state borders drawn ages ago would also come into question. If secession would be such a viable option, so then would state mergers. So your father's pondering of whether or not certain states have all that is necessary to survive on their own, becomes somewhat moot. For example, maybe Vermont and New Hampshire decide that not only will they secede from the union, but that they will form their own union. Then that resulting nation would have sea access via New Hampshire's coast, as well as Lake Champlain in Vermont.

Who is going to carry the

Who is going to carry the mail? Why Lysander Spooner of course!

Southern Agrarian

In response to the "Military Bases"

and it's the same economic principle for all government

Bastiat:
http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

II. THE DISBANDING OF TROOPS

It is the same with a people as it is with a man. If it wishes to give itself some gratification, it naturally considers whether it is worth what it costs. To a nation, security is the greatest of advantages. If, in order to obtain it, it is necessary to have an army of a hundred thousand men, I have nothing to say against it. It is an enjoyment bought by a sacrifice. Let me not be misunderstood upon the extent of my position. A member of the assembly proposes to disband a hundred thousand men, for the sake of relieving the tax-payers of a hundred millions.

If we confine ourselves to this answer - "The hundred millions of men, and these hundred millions of money, are indispensable to the national security: it is a sacrifice; but without this sacrifice, France would be torn by factions, or invaded by some foreign power," - I have nothing to object to this argument, which may be true or false in fact, but which theoretically contains nothing which militates against economy. The error begins when the sacrifice itself is said to be an advantage because it profits somebody.

Now I am very much mistaken if, the moment the author of the proposal has taken his seat, some orator will not rise and say - "Disband a hundred thousand men! do you know what you are saying? What will become of them? Where will they get a living? Don't you know that work is scarce everywhere? That every field is overstocked? Would you turn them out of doors to increase competition, and weigh upon the rate of wages? Just now, when it is a hard matter to live at all, it would be a pretty thing if the State must find bread for a hundred thousand individuals? Consider, besides, that the army consumes wine, clothing, arms - that it promotes the activity of manufactures in garrison towns - that it is, in short, the god-send of innumerable purveyors. Why, any one must tremble at the bare idea of doing away with this immense industrial movement."

This discourse, it is evident, concludes by voting the maintenance of a hundred thousand soldiers, for reasons drawn from the necessity of the service, and from economical considerations. It is these considerations only that I have to refute.

A hundred thousand men, costing the tax-payers a hundred millions of money, live and bring to the purveyors as much as a hundred millions can supply. This is that which is seen.

But, a hundred millions taken from the pockets of the tax-payers, cease to maintain these taxpayers and the purveyors, as far as a hundred minions reach. This is that which is not seen. Now make your calculations. Cast up, and tell me what profit there is for the masses?

I will tell you where the loss lies; and to simplify it, instead of speaking of a hundred thousand men and a million of money, it shall be of one man, and a thousand francs.

We will suppose that we are in the village of A. The recruiting sergeants go their round, and take off a man. The tax-gatherers go their round, and take off a thousand francs. The man and the sum of money are taken to Metz, and the latter is destined to support the former for a year without doing anything. If you consider Metz only, you are quite right; the measure is a very advantageous one: but if you look towards the village of A., you will judge very differently; for, unless you are very blind indeed, you will see that that village has lost a worker, and the thousand francs which would remunerate his labour, as well as the activity which, by the expenditure of those thousand francs, it would spread around it.

At first sight, there would seem to be some compensation. What took place at the village, now takes place at Metz, that is all. But the loss is to be estimated in this way: - At the village, a man dug and worked; he was a worker. At Metz, he turns to the right about, and to the left about; he is a soldier. The money and the circulation are the same in both cases; but in the one there were three hundred days of productive labour; in the other, there are three hundred days of unproductive labour, supposing, of course, that a part of the army is not indispensable to the public safety.

Now, suppose the disbanding to take place. You tell me there will be a surplus of a hundred thousand workers, that competition will be stimulated, and it will reduce the rate of wages. This is what you see.

But what you do not see is this. You do not see that to dismiss a hundred thousand soldiers is not to do away with a million of money, but to return it to the tax-payers. You do not see that to throw a hundred thousand workers on the market, is to throw into it, at the same moment, the hundred millions of money needed to pay for their labour; that, consequently, the same act which increases the supply of hands, increases also the demand; from which it follows, that your fear of a reduction of wages is unfounded. You do not see that, before the disbanding as well as after it, there are in the country a hundred millions of money corresponding with the hundred thousand men. That the whole difference consists in this: before the disbanding, the country gave the hundred millions to the hundred thousand men for doing nothing; and that after it, it pays them the same sum for working. You do not see, in short, that when a tax-payer gives his money either to a soldier in exchange for nothing, or to a worker in exchange for something, all the ultimate consequences of the circulation of this money are the same in the two cases; only, in the second case, the tax-payer receives something, in the former he receives nothing. The result is - a dead loss to the nation.

The sophism which I am here combating will not stand the test of progression, which is the touchstone of principles. If, when every compensation is made, and all interests are satisfied, there is a national profit in increasing the army, why not enroll under its banners the entire male population of the country?

Sounds to me like your Daddy has a bad case of white guilt.

I guess he's one of those equality warriors who's willing to sacrifice his liberties in order to atone for the "sins" of his ancestors. Puke.

who is going to keep the

who is going to keep the trains running on time? Mussolini, Mussolin, he is our man!

lawrence

Sigh

Nullification > Succession

Succession just doesn't have a chance in hell of succeeding.

We had less than 2% of the vote go 3rd party this year. If you're suggestion violent revolution a la the civil war, those are bad odds.

If you think the government will somehow legally succeed without bloodshed, you are in fact being naive. Look at it this way, states are currently begging for Federal Funds every shot they get. They may have disagreements, but they always get whacked down when the Feds threaten to cut the funding. If they can't even detach themselves from the Federal teat, what makes you think they're ready to take up arms?

Eric Hoffer

I realize secession has 0% of success

That's not the point. It's the fact that he has this negative perception of anyone that doesn't love Obama or think the federal government is the best thing since sliced bread. These petitions are meaningless anyway, because the only way to secede is to convince your state legislature and governor to sign on to it, or get enough signatures to get it on the ballot in your state. Neither of those will happen. However, it sends a powerful message that people are waking up, and they're fed up. All I did was send him the link to an article. These were his responses and all I did was to refute them.

This is where sales comes in

Honestly man, arguments like that aren't going to get you anywhere, your dad probably just thinks you're being childish.

I'd try and find points of agreement and work from there. Waking up is a slow process, starting with sort of thing isn't really going to get you anywhere.

Eric Hoffer

I know...

Your're right. My response was hasty, but I was just responding to his comments which I perceived as a direct attack on me.

Right off the bat

Your father's position seems to echo that of many who were brought up during the "war era" (i.e. from 1860 to today). Many can't envision groups of people peacefully and voluntarily disbanding the chains that bind them, let alone forming new societal structures based on peace and voluntarism. He seems to be worried that Missouri would constantly be at war with Kansas (and so on) without a gang of Federales to keep everyone in line.

Of course as Major General Smedley Butler said, "war is the health of the state". Now we can start a whole new discussion of whether state governments would wage war with each other.

Voluntarism, anyone?

Dont worry

If my dad were still alive and I had these conversations with him, he'dcall me an idiot, naive, gullible and everything else. Some people are just set in their ways.