Secession: The Reasonable Option Everyone Resists | Tom Woods
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- The growing number of secession movements around the world gives rise to our topic: breaking away from current government structures that do so much harm to liberty, peace, and prosperity. Recorded at "Breaking Away: The Case for Secession"-the Mises Circle in Houston, Texas, on 24 January 2015.
Includes an introduction by Jeff Deist.
Music by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com).
More important in 2021 than it ever has been!
I just posted the same thing.
You beat me to this comment!
More relevant today than 5 years ago IMHO. Thank you Dr. Woods and Mises Institute. You're a beacon of reason in a sea of lunatics.
Even more so after last Friday.
The point on war at the beginning was brilliant. When Tom said "We need to go to war with Iraq", I actually had to take a moment to process it and realize that war is probably worse than secession.
I've been so desensitized (and probably others as well) to the word "war", to the point where I have no immediate reaction to the word. Unlike secession.
Brilliantly stated and presented. Bravo!
You want the individual states to become their own nations, So do you want to relinquish your right to cross statelines freely? Do you want to establish checkpoints and borders customs services alone state borders?
American Ancap Why do you want to relinquish your rights to live to work freely across different states?
American Ancap Why do you have such a crazy mind?
American Ancap You are too simple minded.
American Ancap Are you stupid?
I listen to people such as Tom Woods and understand what is Hope.
For freedom to truly exist in a country the states must have a choice either to stay or leave, the people must have the choice.
Nothing short of timeless and prophetic. He and others warned us for a long time, but we didn't take it seriously enough.
Yes we know Germany wanted to unite. What Tom Woods is saying is that its important to specify what you are uniting. Germany was a new player, behind the rest of Europe. A Western Europe that already had Empires, and had unified long before establishing permanent colonies. Germany was still a disjointed collection of quarrelsome Kingdoms and principalities that skirmished with one another. After Germany had failed to take over the world. The organised(fill in the blank) made it seem like a heroic but failed attempt at creating a world government. Americans, Wales and Franks believed this to be utter nonsense, because Germany was a nation that barely managed to unify itself.
Ha. Ive already heard this... And despite that I think im going to listen to it for a second time. Tom explained that there was a reporter in the audience which everyone knew was there to do a hit piece. So rather than out right naming him. Or his attitude and the propaganda he pushes, Tom decided to give a speech in which any quote he could possibly take would be harmful for his position. He is saying a lot of obvious stuff in this speech of course, but logic, and what is best for the people is not for the mainstream!!!
YA YA YA! Tom Woods is the best human being... I just eat up his words like yummy tortellini! :)
***** He is amazing like. And so so good at public speaking events. Cant wait to see him for real one day :)
NicosMind
Me too! :)
I just found this playlist, "Mises Brazil"-
Here's Tom's address- there's also great ones by Lew Rockwell, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Robert Murphy and Joe Salerno... a real treat!
ruclips.net/video/hHyXRWU3HsM/видео.html
One of the simplest starts would be making senators and congressmen work from their home states and be beholden to the people. Let them fear "storms" locally.
I like it. They want to force everyone else to work from home so can they
I find myself checking the publish date of a video since I want to stay current with current events. The points covered in this video need to be broken apart and repackaged in new videos. People have a tendency to say "been there, done that" but it's important to say these things to newly opened minds. Thanks Tom
Well done, Tom! This is so good that I had to watch it again, all these years later. Secession has never sounded better.
Secession isn’t necessary if we have nullification and interposition
@@realmclassic51 *why_not_both.meme*
Hoorah for secession, and for Tom Woods! NOTHING can stop an idea whose time has come.
I still don't understand why amicable divorce is not on the table! In fact, I think it's Woods that planted this seed in my head back in the Ron Paul days.
Good question. It's the only option in my mind. We need to just say "no hard feelings, you did fine, we just need to move onto something else." Like getting fired. We don't need to bring out the guillotine. That would just make the politicians push back even harder.
@@EssenceofPureFlavor unfortunately we tried that already and the north invaded us
Why is the divorce capital of the world so against having an amicable divorce? It's not a sign of failure! It's idiotic to think it's impossible! People and businesses do it all the time!
Bravo, Tom! Thanks for all you do for liberty!
Tom Woods I love you , you freaking rock mate! Very very inspiring and mind opening speech not only for the citizens of the USA but also here in Europe and indeed the rest of the world :-)
Lincoln ruined this idea, yet he's idolized.
Because history is written by the victors, and so he is identified with Moses instead of Hitler.
No, he conquered 37 democratically sovereign nations under a false claim that they were simply states of a single nation.
Sorry, but even the framers acknowledged the right of the states to secede -- in fact it was one of the conditinos for VA to enter the union. The fact that the south lost doesn't mean that it wasn't legal; it just means it failed. And the first secession movement was the American Revoultion, the second one was in the nearth east in the early 1800's over the Louisiana purchase, as one reason. NO ONE argued that those states didn't have a right to secede. Even Jefferson said the states had a rigt to secede in his 1803 inaugural address. You're the one who's wrong.
Clem Cornpone, so if two people were in a relationship and one of them wanted to use violence to prevent the other from leaving, would that be okay?
In your false dilemma, it's anyone's guess.
Tom is such a great speaker.
Too bad he misses the one fact that proves his argument-- i.e. that each state is a sovereign nation.
Would really love to see Tom debate Mark Levine on Secession. Tom would crush him like Horton crushed Crystal.
I would pay money to know who yelled out enthusiastically at the 05:33 mark of the video and know what they yelled! 😂 I love that I’m part of a movement that gets that excited over this kind of stuff!!
Tom you give such an informative, well thought out point of view. Your lectures have been on repeat for me for years
Switzerland is also a prime example of decentralization of governance.
FYI: In his essay Idea of a Private Law Society Hans Hoppe shows how to do it the nice & easy way!
I found the talk disappointing because there was nothing concrete, practical, or specific about how secession of the United States could come about in the modern day, how a divided America would work in the new system, or how smaller political units would bring about better results for their citizens. Instead, he speaks in the abstract about how smaller political units are more representative and therefore more conducive to freedom, and laments over and over again how seemingly radical ideas such as secession are dismissed out of hand by blinkered mainstream thought.
Secession is fine, but it's going to have to be done with arms, just as the framers realized it would have to be done. If you're not ready to even consider that, then it's just talk.
Not in the immediate future, because Congress buys the Lincoln Myth; besides the Congress wanted to secede in 1776, and they did, but the Crown used force to prevent it. Can't see that not happening with the current -- and Statist -- federal government, whose mentality is so far removed from anything that believes in any kind of limited government. The courts? What can they do. They have no force of arms, yet anyway; but their word is gospel, and the Congress will do whatever they say. Obama? You think he gives a damn about any court decision that he doesn't like? He just ignored yesterday's immigration ruling. Unfortunately, like in 1776 and 1861 it will take the force of arms to attempt it. And don't count on the mainstream conservative pundits like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin (He's the worst of them, by the way), etc. They're part of the establishment. They buy largely into the liberal mentality. I recommend you read "Media and Mythology," by Joseph Sobran to start. He explained it very well.
That would be nice, but sometimes that doesn't work, especially with these folks; they have nothing near the character/caliber of 18th Century Britain (sometimes I wonder why we seceded in the first place). There are times where war is legitimate and justified, and I think this would be one of those times; the Constitution is the least of our problems, IMO...and I don't think it's that great of a document anyway. I think it's part of the reason why we're in this mess. But the larger picture is that this is a conflict of two conflicting and contradictory philosophies: limited government and the all powerful state. They cannot co exist; one must survive and the other must perish.
Oh, that's entirely possible; it's just a matter of how that breakup would occur, peacefully or violently. I wouldn't oppose the breakup, either. But mention that to the mainstream conservative pundits, and they'll shrink on horror at the thought :-).
Ever hear that the pen is mightier than the sword? But only if your mind is stronger than your arm.
You want the individual states to become their own nations, So do you want to relinquish your right to cross statelines freely? Do you want to establish checkpoints and borders customs services alone state borders?
Whelp… this just popped up in my recommendation feed. Perfect timing.
SecedeNowUSA[.com] provides detailed information on secession, including the right to secede, reasons for secession and what the new country would look like.
Thanks to all people who have lended support to Dr. Woods and the Mises Institute here on this upload. We are going to win this culture war. Don't ever think that we won't. We have LOVE and JUSTICE on OUR SIDE (I hate that word "we"...) OK- EACH of US? Is that more precise? Bless you all. Don't give up.
+Marcadimus The Man You seem to be obsessed with homosexual fellatio. Keep the threats coming. Every one is being saved as a PDF, and all will be forwarded to your employer, Accera.
www.linkedin.com/pub/marc-faure/3a/b46/a08
You never should have joined LinkedIn. Your photograph will be APB'd. Have a wonderful life.
A bunch of diverse people have all been governed by one city . No title of nobility shall be given.
very interesting information here and I am a huge supporter of secession when our Central Government is totally unacceptable and crooked and is not in the best interest of the American people.
Good ideas are meaningless without good legal knowledge to defend them.
You don't say that the states are sovereign nations, therefore you're saying they CAN'T legally secede-- and vice-versa.
Quite the violent psycho there, eh?
Clem Cornpone killing children eh? You sound more like a radical islamist extremist than an actual patriot who understand freedom. if you are willing to violate the god given natural rights of people to force them into your ideology, then you are a violent psychopath. plain and simple.
Clem Cornpone wow....there's just no reasoning with a completely irrational person who has lost thier mind, and who is coming from a platform of emotions and feelings, rather than from a platform of logic and reason. no different than the social justice warrior crowd in that aspect.
This video is more relevant considering how divided this country has become.
Political boundaries should correspond exactly to private property boundaries.
I've actively searched for good arguments against Austrian economics for quite a while but have yet to find any. It's hard to even find bad arguments.
Time to relocate groups of people and let them run their own countries. I'm all for it.
"Atlas Drugged."
Your comment is 3 years old, but more relevant today then when you posted it. And it will keep getting more relevant as this country tears itself apart.
Excellent.
Second time hearing this speech. First time I heard it, it was audio only. Had to hear it again, not only to see Tom's expressions while speaking but also because I enjoyed it so much. Tom makes so much sense, and yet STILL the MSM reporter there wrote a hit piece. I would say AMAZING he did that, but I'm not really surprised. S.O.S right?
Here it is 2021 and this is front burner stuff.
So many great videos by the Mises Institute in 2015!
This is wrong. Secession is not re-drawing lines on a map; it means that the People can overrule their government. And it's THE LAW: i.e. consent of the governed.
And THAT is what drives both the sheep and the shepherds crazy.Lincoln claimed in his First Inaugural that "A [congressional] majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people."
Note the difference: this was not sovereignty of the People _themselves>-- which means that Lincoln held "freedom" to mean oligarchy, despite calling it "government of, by, and for the People."
(Did I mention he was certifiably insane, as well as a socopath?)
Tom Evans That would be "nullification", itself Constitutional.
@@whiff1962 ONLY because the Constitution is an international compact among the electorates of separate nation-states-- not a national charter establishing the federal government as supreme oligarchy, which is called "democratic" because they're ELECTED.
That's the forest everyone misses for the trees.
FACTS: 1776-- states established as 13 separate nations.
1781: States RETAIN their national sovereignty.
1783: states ACHIEVE their national sovereignty.
1787: each nation-state's electorate ESTABLISHED as its principal sovereign authority, while governments are delegated agents, and states REMAIN separate nations.
1861: Federal government mounts a coup of deception and mass-murder, falsely claiming single-nation status ever since.
That's American history in a nutshell: i.e. each state is STILL a separate nation by law.
Unfortunately the one historical example of significance in the American experience is the CSA which seceded to create a despotic slave based regime. Possibly if our experience included a secession based on a moral and just cause we would not be so biased against the concept.
The 13 Colonies, and Texas!
Obviously you have no clue. Southern succession was never about slavery. Yeah, I know, the north won and they get to write the history, no matter how incorrect.
I've listened to Woods podcasts, caught just about every video I could find on youtube with him speaking. He's one of the best speakers out there defending liberty, but there is just something about the atmosphere/tone of the speech that I didn't care for. I understand about the reporter, but I just feel it's one of his weaker speeches. If this was my first time hearing him speak I wouldn't be as energetic and engaged compared to other speeches he's gave.
Excellent presentation. Everytime one discusses the Civil War the opponents of the CSA argue that it was about slavery. When we know it was about two different forms of govt, and that Lincoln and the mercantilsts wanted federation of centralised power not indivudual rights. Today, more than ever with Obama's legacy of executive orders and Trump's., Lincolnian federalism continues to erode individual rights to self govt in an eerily Orwellian fashion.
Please update this talk for the post-Roe world. HIGHLY VALUABLE.
Just like always before, libertarians have once again predicted the future correctly and provided the solution
Time to Brexit.
Which passed today, by the way, 52 percent to 48; good for them.
TEXIT.
*"the West Coast would be quite happy as part of Canada."*
no thanks. i don't see the point in leaving one federal system for another. California is large enough and well-positioned enough to go it alone.
KEvron
Now, time for UK ( and other nations ) to leave NATO !!
TOM, LOVE YOUR PRESENTATIONS BUT ONE THING I NEVER READ OR HEAR ABOUT IS THE ACT OF 1871 AND HOW iT, PREDICTABLY, LEAD TO THE CURRENT INTRACTABLE CORPORATOCRACY THAT CURRENTLY IGNORES THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AND REWARDS ONLY ITSELF.
HOW DID THE STATES BECOME THE SAME INTRACTABLE CORPORATIONS?
USA INC. IS WHAT WE FIGHT.
This was a waste of half of an hour that I will never get back!! I don’t believe that this guy is trustworthy at all. So easy to attack MSM.
Colin Moriarty needs to watch this.
I believe most people would agree that individual state governments would better represent and more fairly represent it's constituents than the federal government. Our federal govt has little to no respect or regard for the individual tax payer.
Hooray for heresy!
Hoorah for the _Bonnie Blue Flag_ !!
Talk begins at 12:00
Secession would give us an opportunity to reorganize the parts of our country that are truly still our country if our country were reorganized and ran again by the American people as it was supposed to be our great aristocracy and these wonderful poet itions would all have to find someone else to bleed as leeches do. God Bless America
Thank you,Tom excellent video!
How many Republicans or Democrats would object to enlarging the holy and sacred "fixed" boundaries of the US
The union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the people in their state.
I just love it when Madeleine Low Beam is mentioned. 320 million people, and 40 million illegal aliens.
Just cause your legally separated, doesn't mean they can't screw with you.
Notice no one ever talks about the kids that died
Much like with Socialism, I see why the idea of secession has appeal on paper but don’t think it can function well in practice. Leaving aside the slavery issue with the Confederacy, spoiler alert: their secession documents are clear that feeling the institution of slavery was being threatened was why they chose to secede when they did and were hardly as Libertarian as some are suggesting, I’m not sure how it’s supposed to play out in practice. What is the limiting principle? If it’s all about people having the right to not live under a government that they don’t want to then how low does it go? A county? A city? A neighborhood? A block? Can I buy out a plot of land and declare that the government doesn’t have my consent to govern me and then do whatever I want on it? Can everybody do that? Are they going to put together some new governing document afterward and can we guarantee it will enshrine individual rights? You would have a case if the states had started as sovereign nations that came together through a contract like the European Union, but that ended when we moved from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution and recognize that we were newly freed non-sovereign colonies that came together to form a sustainable nation rather than an alliance of disparate ones with their own long separate histories. And as this comment section’s favorite bad guy apparently Lincoln put it, a government can’t function if anybody can just opt out of it at any time if something like say a duly held election not going their way. Even the father of the Constitution James Madison didn’t believe secession at will was a right, but like the whole of the founders believed people should understand that they have a right to revolution if there is a long trail of abuses perpetrated by the government on people’s natural rights. Certainly not the case with the Confederacy. Keep in mind I’m no SJW and believe in limiting all levels of government as much as feasibly possible. I just think a lot of people here are being too idealistic. I agree with Tom on a lot of economic things, I’m just having trouble with this.
Socialism is a rejection of false democracy and crony capitalism, while thinking them the Real McCoy.
Because everyone thinks the USA is a single nation supremely ruled by the federal government; when in reality it's an INTERNATIONAL union among the electorates of separate nation-states.
Libertarians claim secession is legal, but don't REFUTE the federal claim of single-nation status; and so they CONCEDE it.
It's just a wild goose-chase with their fancy degrees and circular talk, they can't give a straight answer.
Well if you have two people, but one person's say always overrules the other's, why would the second person stay in the group? Not a single Southern State voted for Lincoln. They were never going to win an election again. That's a pretty good reason for rebellion, considering the North was electing people considered VERY radical by the South. Imagine if the Left today elected AOC and the Republicans didn't even have a chance to defeat her, or any other candidate proposed.
@@admiralgree3873 Firstly, most Southern states actually left Lincoln’s name off the ballot to try and rig the election against him, which to my mind immediately invalidates any claims they had to being the real protectors of the American democratic process. It also makes it hard to tell how big the disparity was at the end of the day even if in fairness it’s of course more than likely Lincoln would have lost those stages anyway. Secondly, I don’t really care how paranoid the South was about Lincoln when the claims are easy to see aren’t true. He clearly wasn’t a radical and did not run as one. Actual radicals like Horace Greeley and Charles Sumner were consistently frustrated with Lincoln. Whether it be running on a platform of containing rather than ending slavery, not unilaterally ending slavery in every state with the Emancipation Proclamation which left the Union supporting border states exempt in favor of putting it through as a Constitutional Amendment or never fully coming around to granting full political suffrage to the freed slaves as he initially supporter the colonization project before moving on to limited suffrage. He also pushed for a much more conciliatory reconstruction than the radicals wanted. To me the better comparison would be the modern liberals freaking out over Donald Trump supposedly being a Fascist dictator in the making to the point of most of them refusing to recognize his election as legitimate and California threatening secession of toothlessly. That’s the shoe being on the other foot. Was that all justified?
My remaining problems with secession still stand in my mind. It was not the clear consensus view of the Founding Fathers as many pretend, it’s hard for me to see a real limiting principle that doesn’t fall apart down the line and frankly I can’t help but think of the saying “Why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” It’s not exactly equivocal, but any level of government can turn tyrannical and its hard to see the Southern states as acting that way to certain parts of the population. Whether the slaves or the potential republican voters, no matter how small their numbers, they worked to shut out. To me as a Libertarian it’s completely wrong to think of states as having rights as it is to seeing justice as having social aims rather than just protecting individual rights. Both ways of thinking lead to a collectivist mindsets. States at every level should be seen as having responsibilities, not rights. Too easily that can be made to be justification for states to turn into miniature mob rules to trample on the natural rights of individuals as happened during the Jim Crow days as opposed to protecting everybody’s rights the same. If a state government doesn’t respect Libertarian principles I should no more support it than a national government that doesn’t. This is not me trying to justify the modern Post-Progressive Era Administrative State. But I do think all levels need to be carefully orchestrated to check each other and ready to fight if need be. There isn’t ever going to be a perfect political system in which everything will work out for everybody in the long run so points of friction to my mind have to ultimately be accepted.
But of course that is all just me speaking for my own personal opinion.
Way to go Tom. Rip em!
Ah, man. They cut out his talk about how he lost his pants. LOL
Hear, hear! 👏👏
my kin fought and died in the Alamo" the Taylor brothers" I have blood ties to Texas! I will stand by her! I am a Volunteer from Tennessee 22yrs military 14 of which was with Special Forces. To hell with this liberal government I'm with Texas
Brilliant!!!
How about succession for the individual?
Tom...you should come to Oregon to speak on Greater Idaho!!
Totally agree secession will be the only way forward. As times get worse unless more things are given to the states to decide. It will end up in secession. As times get worse. Just hope their will come a time for a peaceful secession.
Everyone thinks the USA is a single nation supremely ruled by the federal government; when in reality it's an INTERNATIONAL union among the electorates of separate nation-states.
That is the ONE FACT on which history failed; and must be CORRECTED.
Democracy is CONSENT to government-- not choosing among its DICTATES.
2024 how safe is it to live in the United States.? Small State Texas taking precaution with other small states which are actually countries they're not States here in America we just call them that have joined together to protect the security of our nation at border. Something the big state is not doing.
Classical Athens he's using has a talking point. They were overrun by an invading army and became nothing but a footnote in history.
Someone should have told Lincoln all these facts.
+Green Man Lincoln knew! "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."Abraham Lincoln
Hmmm. I wonder why he had hundreds of thousands of Americans killed to preserve the US centralized government. Words not actions.
Here, Tom Woods is just saying that secession is a good idea, NOT that it's the law.
However it IS the law, and he should start there.
Didn't he state that the states have a right to secede and he quoted Tocqueville to back him up? He didn't explicitly say they were nations but it's sort of implied.
The world would have been different indeed without the unification of Germany, but how different would the world be without the British Empire bringing modern civilization to allow the technological advancement of lands like Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, India, South Africa, Canada, and even here in the US?
During the American Revolutionary War, centralization was necessary in the creation of a national Army. After the Revolution, the US existed under the Articles of Confederation which, due to its decentralized nature, was too weak to be effective, turning the states into individual sovereign "nations" incorporating different currencies, and was replaced by the Constitution to strengthen the general Government of a "more perfect Union."
In the case of the United States, secession in 1860/61 by the 11 delinquent states of the south which formed the pretended "confederate states" was by no means some grand libertarian revolution against centralization, and secession is something which, although not exclusively referred to in the Constitution, was opposed by numerous framers of it, such as James Madison himself, who stated to Hamilton that New York reserving a right to withdraw during the state's ratification of the Constitution "does not make New York a member of the new Union," and that a reservation of a right to secede made the Constitution a "temporary compact which is to be perceived as worse than a rejection."
The likes of Washington, Madison and Hamilton advocated for centralization under one Government to establish a single nation, as to avoid the perpetual border disputes among other similar conflicts which had seen the nations of Europe at ceaseless war with each other, and to better protect against foreign influence. Even Jefferson, the most notable advocate of the concept of "states rights" and decentralization, was the President whom, on a national level, outlawed the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade as well as strengthened the reach of the Federal Government with the purchase of the vast Louisiana Territory, a region even larger than the original United States itself.
I would be happy to debate about this with anyone.
Woods/Deist 2024
I prefer knowing that my US citizenship is not held at the whim of my state legislature.
23:50 where does the constitution do that?
Amen!
The speaker doesn't seem to understand that Jeffersonian America was a loose knit of States that were self governed. The federal government was created simply to maintain the common defence and insure that commerce between the states was fair.
Southerners wrote the original constitution of the U.S., and understood it. They also recognized the distortion of the Constitution as the Northern States became much more populated than the south.
When Lincoln invaded the south illegally to force them back into the Union, Lincolnism destroyed the power of the states, perverted the Constitution, and brought in a Federal system that destroyed government by the people.
Actually, I spoke too soon. The speaker is right on the money. Each state needs to take back it's sovereignty.
In the states are not sovereign the people in their state are.
Drawing the red line in the sand
Jaime Anderson What dream?
Jaime Anderson as prvateer1 asked, What Dream?
Jaime Anderson Von Mises was an idiot, too. Freedom isn't about good economics, it's about moral principle. Good economics is just the inevitable result OF freedom; Adam Smith explained that through his "invisible hand" principle.
+Tom Evans -- That is true, but only circumstantially true; for example, a society like like in The United States currently, that progressively over the last few centuries, has given more and more of its freedom and liberties away, in exchange for things like the illusion of security and safety from implied, assumed, and exaggerated threats; less adult responsibility to take on for oneself, via the government interfering more and more in peoples private lives and individual basic human rights; ambition robbing welfare and other similar handouts; economic irresponsibility, via the known incompetence of Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke and crew; and a number of others............
Well, the resulting society that things such as these enable, can only proceed in such a direction of paternal and over-bearing government for so long, until policies, markets, adult citizen accountability and personal responsibility, must change to reflect the societys needed adjustments .
And so, in such cases, as we are in now, our RESTORED freedom, will be the inevitable result of Good Economics(the needed changes in our flawed methods.)
Subliminally No, the USA was never a national republic, Lincoln's war ended freedom by suppressing the truth.
Freedom won't be restored until states can secede again.
Present
20:15
Bruh I wish we would be spending 3 trillion. Now it’s more like 5
Not anymore
Especially after last Tue!!
@@zg-it yes bro
What do you do about all the corrupt politicians inside of the seceded state?
Hang them.
Secession was the pastime of communist agitators during their 100 years of revolution export.
and of course British empire.
read about Secession attempts in Iran , all connected to British or soviet agitators and they proudly sat under the banners of those guys and took pictures .
some of them :
Azerbaijan People's Government and plans to join soviet union
kurdish republic of mahabad
Balochistan secession from iran and immediately joining pakistan.
Persian Socialist Soviet Republic and plans to join soviet union
Sheikh Khazal rebellion and plans to join whats to become iraq.
and you are telling me governments should just let them go , even though its all foreign agitation ,designed to weaken competetors and have nothing to do with freedom.
Shahab Mos - I guess it depends on your viewpoint. If you are a government which wields power over peoples lives and want's to limit the freedom that individuals have over their own lives for the advancement of state power, then you will certainly oppose the idea of succession.
However, if you are a victim of government policies that you disagree with then you are by definition being oppressed. So, the question is... whose "rights" should reign supreme? Does "might" make right, or their a higher moral principle to be considered?
@@kdanagger6894 i am no libertarian.
i would say political freedom if given to tribal people who does not understand citizenship and have few economic freedom ,will ends in a race of unfulfilled promises aka bread and circus , for example i was shocked that trump get half of the things he promised done ,it was unheard of ,many in iran loved to have trump as our president .
i prefer people to have economic freedom first ,then social freedom and finally political freedom .
" if you are a victim of government policies"
it is communists job to convince people they are victims.
Whoever is groaning in the back needs to shut up.
You are allowed to voluntarily leave a voluntary union.
you can leave the USA anytime you want and never return.
I reckon Tom could grow a pretty mean beard
I have a question.
So, it seems a lot of this is predicated upon one homogenous group that already clustered around each other breaking away from another homogenous group that clustered around each other. What happens when the groups are intermingled? If one secedes then are those that wanted to remain with the previous system now "required" to move and would that not be essentially a violation of the NAP?
I hope I got my question across clearly.
The USA is NOT a single nation-state.
There were THREE Unions known by that names: formed in 1776, 1781, and 1788.
The Constitution did NOT unite them as a single nation-state, but simply established the respective state ELECTORATES as their supreme national authorities, thus forming a NEW international union which was therefore "more perfect" than the one between the state LEGISLATURES.
Later, 19th-century charlatans claimed that the USA was always a SINGLE nation-state, federated among dependent states; rather than CON-federated among INDEPENDENT nation-states.
They said that the Constitution simply made this single nation-state " more perfect; as if they were all the same mysterious (and nameless) nation, which they simply called "The Union."
Today, of course, it's ADMITTED that the states were separate nations prior to the Constitution.
But they try to POLISH that turd by claiming that
1) the "more perfect union" was NATIONAL, while the previous ones were _international-- " and that
2) the Constitution UNITED the 13 independent nation-states, as a SINGLE nation of dependent states.
And this is utterly FALSE.
Again, the Constitution simply ENDED the Confederated Union of 1781, among the _delegates_ of each nation-state; and , and created a NEW international union among their _electorates" in 1788.
Congress proposed it, the state delegates presented it to their electorates, and the electorates RATIFIED it as the sovereign national authority over their respective nation-state.
State and federal governments were simply DELEGATED AGENTS.
This is basic history, I'm not making this stuff up.
The USA is NOT a single nation-state.
There were THREE Unions known by that names: formed in 1776, 1781, and 1788.
The Constitution did NOT unite them as a single nation-state, but simply established the respective state ELECTORATES as their supreme national authorities, thus forming a NEW international union which was therefore "more perfect" than the one between the state LEGISLATURES.
Later, 19th-century charlatans claimed that the USA was always a SINGLE nation-state, federated among dependent states; rather than CON-federated among INDEPENDENT nation-states.
They said that the Constitution simply made this single nation-state " more perfect; as if they were all the same mysterious (and nameless) nation, which they simply called "The Union."
Today, of course, it's ADMITTED that the states were separate nations prior to the Constitution.
But they try to POLISH that turd by claiming that
1) the "more perfect union" was NATIONAL, while the previous ones were _international-- " and that
2) the Constitution UNITED the 13 independent nation-states, as a SINGLE nation of dependent states.
And this is utterly FALSE.
Again, the Constitution simply ENDED the Confederated Union of 1781, among the _delegates_ of each nation-state; and , and created a NEW international union among their _electorates" in 1788.
Congress proposed it, the state delegates presented it to their electorates, and the electorates RATIFIED it as the sovereign national authority over their respective nation-state.
State and federal governments were simply DELEGATED AGENTS.
This is basic history, I'm not making this stuff up.
The USA is NOT a single nation-state.
There were THREE Unions known by that names: formed in 1776, 1781, and 1788.
The Constitution did NOT unite them as a single nation-state, but simply established the respective state ELECTORATES as their supreme national authorities, thus forming a NEW international union which was therefore "more perfect" than the one between the state LEGISLATURES.
Later, 19th-century charlatans claimed that the USA was always a SINGLE nation-state, federated among dependent states; rather than CON-federated among INDEPENDENT nation-states.
They said that the Constitution simply made this single nation-state " more perfect; as if they were all the same mysterious (and nameless) nation, which they simply called "The Union."
Today, of course, it's ADMITTED that the states were separate nations prior to the Constitution.
But they try to POLISH that turd by claiming that
1) the "more perfect union" was NATIONAL, while the previous ones were _international-- " and that
2) the Constitution UNITED the 13 independent nation-states, as a SINGLE nation of dependent states.
And this is utterly FALSE.
Again, the Constitution simply ENDED the Confederated Union of 1781, among the _delegates_ of each nation-state; and , and created a NEW international union among their _electorates" in 1788.
Congress proposed it, the state delegates presented it to their electorates, and the electorates RATIFIED it as the sovereign national authority over their respective nation-state.
State and federal governments were simply DELEGATED AGENTS.
This is basic history, I'm not making this stuff up.
The USA is NOT a single nation-state.
There were THREE Unions known by that names: formed in 1776, 1781, and 1788.
The Constitution did NOT unite them as a single nation-state, but simply established the respective state ELECTORATES as their supreme national authorities, thus forming a NEW international union which was therefore "more perfect" than the one between the state LEGISLATURES.
Later, 19th-century charlatans claimed that the USA was always a SINGLE nation-state, federated among dependent states; rather than CON-federated among INDEPENDENT nation-states.
They said that the Constitution simply made this single nation-state " more perfect; as if they were all the same mysterious (and nameless) nation, which they simply called "The Union."
Today, of course, it's ADMITTED that the states were separate nations prior to the Constitution.
But they try to POLISH that turd by claiming that
1) the "more perfect union" was NATIONAL, while the previous ones were _international-- " and that
2) the Constitution UNITED the 13 independent nation-states, as a SINGLE nation of dependent states.
And this is utterly FALSE.
Again, the Constitution simply ENDED the Confederated Union of 1781, among the _delegates_ of each nation-state; and , and created a NEW international union among their _electorates" in 1788.
Congress proposed it, the state delegates presented it to their electorates, and the electorates RATIFIED it as the sovereign national authority over their respective nation-state.
State and federal governments were simply DELEGATED AGENTS.
This is basic history, I'm not making this stuff up.
I think that they would not be required to leave, but to decide. When the U.S. purchased Alaska, the people living there were given two years to move back to Russia or become U.S. Citizens (automatically). Most Europeans went back, but the ones who stayed became Americans. I know that was not secession, but presumably, a similar rule would have applied.
Very interesting
Interessantes Video.
Inhalt
Rede (1/3 Punkten)
Qualität
Passt (2/3 Punkten)
Zusatzpunkte (maximal 3)
- Musik
Insgesamt 4 von 9 Punkten.
Is there a transcript of this?
Tom Tom Tom I have to break it to buddy but I've yet to meet one person local who's heard of the Mises institute in 10 yrs since I found it.
The powers are strong yo
I can't believe this guy is younger than me yet looks ten years older.
The CSA was right.
Yay heresy!
It makes sense evolutionary. Going to war, even unjust one, is good for a tribe. Splitting the tribe is bad.
Интернет Аристократ What tribe?
privateer1 American tribe. Nations are just mega-tribes.
+Интернет Аристократ Rubbish, and I'm not part of any group which contains communists or Muslims. Those are not part of my tribe, and being with them doesn't benefit me at all.
Tribes are made up of people related to each other. Americans come from many different countries.
Tony Midyett Most of those groups you describe are not Americans, and I hate to break it to you, but socialism and feminism are two heads on the same monster. You can't embrace socialism while rejecting feminism and vice versa.
I'd like to see a talk on HOW it could happen. I believe secession is possible and can be done peaceably, but how ? How about keeping our investments, social security etc ? What if a State secedes and then major businesses call us racist who want to reinstate slavery and pulls out of the State. Again, I believe secession is possible.
It's not any different than towns having different statutes. Most I've heard talk on the topic call it a "soft" secession where states nullify federal laws which is legal. More states just need to assert that right.
@@FrankZen "where states nullify federal laws which is legal"...false, wrong, incorrect
@@tedosmond413 explain
@@FrankZen "Thus, the federal courts have held that under the Constitution, federal law is controlling over state law, and the final power to determine whether federal laws are unconstitutional has been delegated to the federal courts. The courts therefore have held that the states do not have the power to nullify federal law."
@@tedosmond413 haha I guess of course the federal courts would say that!
That's because our states are not actually States the countries look at the at the borders of each one they're not bordered as States the borders this countries their individual countries that are united in the States of the Union. Again notice the word States is plural not state. The difference between the capitalization and the non pluralist is the countries together has states to the people being the state it's only Capital when it's the government.
Faulty premise supported by exaggeration and emotion. Not up to his usual standards of scholarship.
trevor dupuy Which premise was faulty? What was exaggerated?
Since I made my comment over a year ago, I had to review why I made my comment. I should have clarified - Wood's primary premise that decentralized government is superior to centralized government is valid and he does a good job of supporting it. However a secondary premise suggests that the political class (including conservatives) is united with the media in disagreeing with that premise and other issues, such as secession, are marred by faulty generalizations. There are a significant number of conservatives in the political class (Freedom Caucus in the House, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul in the Senate, to name a few) who are outspoken in their support of decentralized government and the media rarely takes them on because they know they would be embarrassed if they tried. Woods frequently exaggerates for effect, but his suggestion that only Libertarians are politically enlightened is an exaggeration too far. His Iraq war example is so badly distorted and exaggerated to the point it is counterproductive to his 3X5 card theme.
He's regurgitating the arguments in the book Breakdown of Nations by Leopold Kohr. He doesn't cite Kohr once.
It's a good book, but I haven't read it in 20 years. There are much better, more purely libertarian sources for this material, which I cite in the talk by name.
Kimono