All actions can be taken off the table by a military campaign. The point is that a majority of Americans would want the government to force secessionist states to remain a part of the union. That’s your problem. Public opinion.
Well, it will be sent to the representatives to sign. The individuals wouldn’t be involved in this process directly, it would be done by proxy through our representatives.
Well, that’s the problem, certain states would refuse to sign. At least until certain stipulations were met. Doing this at an individual level would be impossible. Or at least gaining universal consent would be. Someone’s not going to be satisfied no matter what.
But isn’t this just mob-rule democracy? As far as I can tell, there is no provision in the Constitution that would grant the federal government the authority to aggressively punish states that seceeded, and yet they did so anyway. What is the point of even having a written Constitution in the first place if the government can simply create new powers for itself based on “public opinion”?
The point is that if there’s a Constitution that says people should be able to secede then when/if people do try to secede and the majority tries to use force to stop them that the secessionists can say “hey, we’re supposed to be able to do this.” Otherwise, there are no rules at all.
Put it this way, the Constitution guarantees nothing. It’s always up for negotiation. But at least people know when the rules are being broken. If there are no rules, rules cannot be broken.
If the Constitution “guarantees nothing” then why even have one. To define rules? Do the rules even exist to be broken if you never agreed to them in the first place?
To some extent. I don’t remember anything saying that there wouldn’t be rules that would be enforced by the police and the courts.
I do know that there wouldn’t be a final arbiter.
Either way, I didn’t mean to derail the thread I just saw something I agreed with in someone else’s post and then Conza made a big deal about it. I think I’ll just leave this one for another day.
Regardless - you cannot say it protects private property rights, when it must violate them to exist. And that is what Constitutionalists / minarchists try to claim.
Here is a quote from from our overseer, Douglas H. Shulman, IRS Commissioner:
“The American people who play by the rules every day further expect the IRS to vigorously enforce the tax law. Rest assured, we are pursuing those trying to evade paying their taxes”. [emphasis added, of course]
Conza, I saw this picture of Hoppe that you posted on another thread, and then later read the above quote as I was preparing my Imperial Identification and Wealth Confiscation Form (#1040, the quote is from the inside cover). Libertarian clarity makes Mr. Shulman’s quip about pursuing people to make them pay for government services…well…it’s all so very clear now…
No, you asked “what was wrong?” in response to my ‘facepalming’ of your delusions.
I answered your question. Next time, don’t ask - if you don’t want an answer. Surely, you’re smart enough to understand what that answer is - as it has been explained to you numerous times, though it never sticks - due to your personal feelings / arbitrary emotional whim.