Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 1,841 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 341,163
Pageviews Today: 537,957Threads Today: 181Posts Today: 2,654
06:47 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
Message Subject MSNBC: Should Texas leave the union?
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
The first united States was a confederation of 13 indepenant soverign Nations. Texas is not unique in that place.

What many people don't seem to realize is that the full unmitigated power of a soverign State is far more capable of becomeing totalitarin than a confederation of such States could ever be.

Tyranny is not limited National Governments. Give a State full soverign power and it has the same ability of becoming totalitarian as any national government in that by being fully soverign it is but a Nation, Republic or otherwise, still a Nation.

The best setup perhaps would be one in which the City limits were as political firewalls, the Countries as another teir of political firewall, the State borders still another teir of political firewall, and all being firewalls from the unlimited potential abuses of a one world central government.

It is much the same as cheifdoms being a lower teir of kingdoms which are but a lower teir of empires which are but another teir of a general "consensus" world government.

The political question remains that of a balance of powers amongst the various entities. At the bottom tier is the individual and next up the family, after that possibly the extended family to tribe.

Should Texas leave the Union? That depends on whether it really is a union or has become as an organic whole. We all know that divorces can be a real bitch to go through for both parties. The forces of American Nationalism are such that the State's Rights as if they had agreed to retain all full soverignity are in fact the greatest internal enemy of any full blown Nationalist movement. But what is a State's Rights and State Soverignity movement but yet another form of Nationalism?

Would any state be so complaining if its people (resident "citizens") were taxed federally only 10% of what ever income tax that State decided to impose?

The very second the States surrendered their full soverignity to the federal entity in those powers enumerated to the federal central government in the US Consitution those States gave up their soverignty, passing it over to where they had agreed to live under the umbrella of the US Consitution. Things were remarkably different under the Articles of Confederation. And I am not purposing that we return to those Articles as the States of the USA would find very quickly that they needed to reunite in some part for their common defense.

The enemies of the Nation would love to see succession, the enemies of the republics of the USA would love to see it as well. But that does not presuppose that those powers not granted to the central government by the US Constitution should be assumed by it any more than those powers reserved to the People (individually and collectively) should be assumed by the State. The problem remains that the collective no matter its size is nearly always capable of destroying the individual's power base whenever it deems it necessary for the "greater good", the "collective good".

The effort of any government is to hold on to its power base and not allow a new collective makeup to be formed other than the ones it has learned how to control by controlling what is seen to be popular public opinion. What the real and honest public opinion really is is anybodies guess.
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for copyright violation:







GLP