Compulsory Attendance?

Ed Rasimus asks some serious questions about secession.

The use of force to maintain a relationship is never healthy.

Even if it is a long-standing affair.

18 responses to “Compulsory Attendance?

  1. If at first you don’t secede try, try again. To think not so long ago we would not even discuss this. Progress is being made for sure…

    • The presumption here is that you have to ask permission to separate yourself from something you never joined in the first place.

      Where will this eventually lead?

      To the dissolution of the illusion that is such a thing as a union of people just because.

      Either you are free or you are not and other people have no say in that except by method of force and all force must be met instantly with overwhelming force.

      Presumptions stop at the end of a gun barrel.

  2. Post Civil War II, things will be pulled back together into a somewhat de-centralized North American Republic. This only after various racial, ideological, economic, and cultural issues have been resolved. But to win Civil War II, we have to have one, two, three, many state secessions. Why? Heavy weapons, AFVs, and air units. National Guard’s got ’em.

  3. robroysimmons

    Mao was right, but with a caveat, the moral fiber must come first.

    • Yep power does flow from the barrel of the gun. We are just too fat dumb an scared to use ours. We continue to wait for someone or something to happen that will give us permission. Thats why we continue to talk about TSHTF because that is the permissive environment that makes it okay to nut up.

      Thats dangerous and might upset someone so we will just continue to expend words. Derailing conversations into countless spirals of marshmellow fluff.
      No one seems to want to actually discuss a cohesive strategy and how to apply it. I am not participating in Kerodins III congress or his Citadel project but I am glad to see him undertake them and wish him well in their outcomes. Its a plan and its action and even if I dont agree with the details of it at least someone is doing SOMETHING!

      • alan w. mullenax

        I concur. However, I’m completely supportive of Kerodin and view him as the only one in this community that has/is actually accomplishing something. That, and the fact that I agree with his views virtually one hundred percent.

  4. Mutant Swarm

    What does “DLTDHYITAOYWO” mean?

  5. “….take the federal debt, and apportion you your fair share….”
    I am not responsible for debts incurred by others, just as others are not responsible for debts I have incurred.

    Yes, it is just that simple.
    But not simple enough that simpletons all over the place cannot grasp it.

    Half of the population is an albatross around the necks of the other half.

    It’s past time to cut the dead weight and soar.

  6. All those federal highways and other infrastructure, military bases, federal property, etc., didn’t just get paid for out of thin air (well, actually it did, but that’s a different story), it was paid for with tax dollars that came from the citizens of the several states, to include the ones in which they are located. In other words, it doesn’t belong to the Fed Gov, it belongs to the People of the these United States.

    As long as we’re using divorce as an analogy…

    When you get a divorce, you split up the assets and the debts. And you don’t wait for the debts to be paid off before the judge hands down a divorce decree. You get your divorce and go on about your business and your share of the debt becomes your problem and you are free to do what you want with your share of the assets.

    I only have the one divorce from which to draw on for my understanding of the process. No doubt some of you are way ahead of me on that number, especially given what a cantankerous and opinionated bunch of A-holes most of you are.

    • “As for the morality of this, please, consult a divorce attorney on how both parties aren’t liable for debt that only one party rung up on a joint account.”

      There you go with the bullshit analogies again. In the marriage, both parties agreed to assume joint liabilities. I suppose you’ll say the same thing applies to a country, except you won’t be able to point to the marriage ceremony. Consent is an affirmative act.

      But never mind, since we agree about something. There ain’t gonna be state secession, there ain’t gonna be paying off the country’s liabilities, there ain’t gonna be a bunch of bloggers overwhelming the strongest military in history and there ain’t gonna be voting in a bunch of non-politicians to fix the mess.

      So what IS there gonna be after the SHTF?

      You’re stymied with that question because you don’t understand the nature of the mind and you can’t see anything except what’s already been. Me, I can answer the question with a single word: Dawn.

    • FIFTY wives?!?!? 236 years??? Lord, no. One ex-wife is one too many and ten years might as well have been a hundred. But under your plan I would have started with 13 wives and stayed married to the oldest, most decrepit ones for over two centuries. Sure I might have picked up a couple of newer hotter ones every few years (have you seen the contours on Hawaii???) but after awhile they all end up old and worn out and bitter, just like Massachusetts and New York, or fat and lazy like Mississippi. And apart from Maryland, I missed the part where we’re all Catholics and can’t get divorced.

      However, I think divorce is really not that apt a comparison here. More like leaving the girl you shacked up with for much longer than you should have whom you never really intended to marry. You settle things as best you can and if she’s really spiteful she might come after you in court, but once you leave, there’s not really much else she can do. But in this case, the courts no longer have jurisdiction because you’re living in another country. Sure, maybe she might come after you and try to murder you out of spite, maybe even bring her psychotic brothers with her, but you have friends too and now she’s on your turf.

      The analogy is more than a little rough around the edges, but no less so than the divorce analogy.

    • alan w. mullenax

      Only one problem. The secessionist just wants to walk away with no responsibility for any portion of any debt(s) and keep everything within their state boundary.

      I dunno. And I’m not gonna spend any time on the consideration.

      Ain’t gonna happen.

  7. You think the state’s and citizen’s taxes didn’t pay for those highways/military/fedgov etc. etc?

  8. “A fairly straightforward approach would be to take the federal debt, and apportion you your fair share, and once you buy out your slice, you’re out.”

    What ails you is obviously progressive. That’s scary and I hope you can find some help somewhere. Ghostsniper already addressed the simple–VERY simple–morality of this. IMO even that’s overkill in this case.

    Get this—CAN’T BE DONE. WON’T be done, not ever, no way, no how. Never mind that a family of four has an UNfair “share” approaching 1/4 million dollars; that doesn’t include lots and lots of unfunded liabilities. Those are incalculable, going into the hundreds of trillions of dollars.

    Do the math; IT CAN’T BE DONE. WON’T be done, not ever, no way, no how. Inflating FRNs doesn’t “do it” because then what’s being paid back isn’t what was borrowed.

    So we’re left with you offering an outright IMPOSSIBILITY as a “fairly straightforward approach.” Like I say, I hope you get help or that at least the progression stops. Sheesh.

  9. To nit pick some nuts and bolts others missed, the Constitution was a TREATY between 13 sovereign nations, later agreed to by populations in federal territories to form their own “nations.” So, the East European comparison actually works quite well.