Liberty & Union?

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by bill_torrens

Where our Northern friends delude themselves is in the belief that such cold-blooded and selfish behaviour is somehow an expression of democracy. And I'm afraid it doesn't matter how earnestly they wave their pieces of legal paper in our faces and protest that they were only after the pound of flesh which was their due: it still chills us to the bone, doesn't it?

Bill

Chilling, indeed.

Hal

[hawglips]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Hal,

In your post #41, you reply to my question, "What is self-government? What is the lowest common denominator of what you would call self-government?" with the following statement:

"One. One person would be the absolute smallest number I can think of."

I am then to assume that you consider one individual to be the perfect number for your concept of self-government? Or at least, the most desirable?

No. Unless you are a castaway alone on a Pacific island somewhere. In which case, one would be the optimal number.

One is just at the lowest end of the spectrum.

It could be any number, I suppose. Depending on a host of factors.

I wish to be perfectly clear on your meaning. Not a country, not a state or county, district, city, town, village or tribe, but just one person deciding for themselves what is right and what is wrong?
Sincerely,
Unionblue

In our republic of states, those states as currently constituted would seem to be the most logical political entity, at the present time. But there's no clear answer to your question, in my opinion.

For example, Singapore is about the size of Rhode Island, our smallest state, and yet, is a fully sovereign nation, and a very important one at that. It has only half the population of a single US city. Yet, it seems to be working for Singapore.

If California severed its ties with the US, they'd be one of the most economically powerful nations on earth. I'm sure any number of our individual states would as well.

It would certainly be silly to say a tiny country like Singapore can be a viable nation unto itself, but a huge state like Texas or California could not.

Hal

[hawglips]

[quote=cash]

Originally Posted by hawglips

When the government becomes destructive to the end of securing the natural rights of its citizens.

Regards,
Cash

In whose view? Those seeking to exercise those rights, or those seeking to deny them, i.e., the government?

Hal

[unionblue]

Hal,

Thank you for your reply in post#132.

So it is your view that a state (one of the states currently in the US) can be a viable nation, that is, this would be a fair example of a self-government entity, is that correct?

But, for example, what if part of that state did not wish to be part of that entity and it wished self-government? What do you feel the proper course of action of the original state should be?

Unionblue

[cash]

[quote=hawglips]

Originally Posted by cash

In whose view? Those seeking to exercise those rights, or those seeking to deny them, i.e., the government?

Hal

In the view of the People of the United States.

Regards,
Cash

[unionblue]

Dawna,

In reference to your post#124, liberty without union depends on the relationship between the principle and the alliance?

May I ask what you refer to when you use the word principle?

Unionblue

[dawna]

Neil:

I'm referring to the principle of liberty.

Dawna

[unionblue]

Dawna,

So I infer you meant to say liberty and union depends on the relationship between liberty and the alliance?

Unionblue

[bill_torrens]

Dear Neil,

My apologies for the delay in answering your post 121. Xmas shopping and hospital appointments got in the way.

I read your post with great interest, but I found some of your questions a bit on the cryptic side. Nevertheless, here is my best attempt to answer them.

Is liberty possible without union? A form of union?

I find this very cryptic. Do you mean that liberty isn’t sustainable unless a nation is a certain size in terms of population? If so, nations like Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein & Luxemburg appear to prove the contrary.

You (and Hal) have made clear that liberty should be chosen over union. But at what point is the 'critical mass' of numbers that no longer permits liberty?

As indicated above, I don’t accept that there is a “critical mass”.

Was it the inability of the Confederacy to truely unite that caused its downfall?

When I consider the number of Southern men who were absent from the ranks at the end of the war, I have to agree that there is truth in what you say.

Is determining one's nationality no longer a valid point?

It is the basis of all liberty.

Does not consent imply a loss of liberty?

I don’t understand you here. A government is built on the collective consent of the governed. The consent to be governed which the individual may give can be withdrawn at any time, under any circumstances. Therefore there is no permanent loss of liberty. I am only a British citizen for as long as I choose to be and as long as it is convenient to me. (The convenience element, if truth be told, is the important bit. You have to have a passport to travel the world. Otherwise, I would be perfectly happy to be stateless.)

Bill, old friend, what is perfect liberty?

An unattainable abstraction. But the fact that it is unattainable doesn’t mean that we should cease striving for it.

Regards,

Bill

[unionblue]

Dear Bill,

No problem about being late with a reply, especially for Christmas shopping!

As to your comment that I may feel that a nation's size might have something to do with it's ability to sustain liberty, no, that is not exactly my point.

My point is, liberty, whatever you think that concept is, is not sustainable in an environment of individuals, whether they live singularly on an island or clustered around a mall. Liberty only seems to be viable in groups of people.

My point concerning the failure of the Confederacy to become a nation has to do with it's inability to unite behind a common ideal or concept of liberty and self-government. Jefferson Davis was NOT lamneting the lack of troops in the armies when he made the statement that if the Confederacy failed as a nation, it should have written on it's tombstone, 'Died of a Theory.'

The very fact that the various Southern states would not consider the concept of national unity, or 'union' if you will, shows a built in timebomb for it's destruction. Alabama, Texas, Georgia and North Carolina threatened secession at various and critical times during the Civil War, thus dooming the entire concept of a Confederacy, even though it was in the fight for it very life. It seems a little bit of union might have preserved its liberty, if the various factions tearing at it could have truly rallied behind a central government bent on executing the goal of winning the war.

I also have trouble with your concept that being able to chose one's nationality is a viable concept for all liberty. How does one chose his nationality? He does not do so at birth. Are you saying that one can move to another country to change one's nationality? Does that insure liberty to the one who moves to a new nation?

Then you say a government is built on the collective consent of the governed. That the individual can withdraw his consent at any time, under any circumstances. From what I gather from your post, I can withdraw my consent, keep my liberty and move to another country to change my nationality which is the basis of all liberty, and all would be well. Now this concept I have no problem with.

The way I read this is, that if I withdraw my consent and declare my home no longer part of the US and nullify all national, state and city taxes within my home, problems will arise.

My problem is, if you withdraw your consent, even with others, and try to changes nationality without leaving the country, we begin to have those problems.

It is my strong belief that liberty cannot be obtained without a union of some sort. If we go to one extreme and do away with countries, courts, laws, law enforcement, we will simply revert to the rule of the strongest. If I have something a six-foot four bully wants and I don't want to give it to him, what happens to my liberty then? What if three or four men gang up on a free, liberty-loving person?

The history of the United States has many examples of states passing unfair and unjust laws that could only be over-turned by a strong, central government, that the 'playing field' could only be leveled from a federal level.

Frankly Bill, I think the only freedom humans have is a freedom of choice. We can chose a course of action and that is pretty much it. When we marry, we surrender part of our freedom and liberty. We we have children, we surrender even more liberty. In order to have a reasonable amount of safety and continuity, we surrender more of our liberty. 'No man is an island' is the phrase that keeps coming back to me. Every man's action has an impact on his fellows.

I know I am explaining this badly and I wish I could do better, but the concept that somehow liberty is somehow restricted with the union winning the war seems will-of-the-wisp with me. There is, in my own opinion, no such thing as perfect liberty, where we all can just have our own way. Striving for it, is indeed a worthy goal, but it is my opinion that in NO way, were the gentlemen of the South who led their section into war, were striving for anything even close to the concept of liberty or self-government.

Sincerely,
Unionblue