re: Only empires are indivisible.

quote:

---

And it seems you're ok with tearing down statues of objectively important people because the loudest mob insists upon it.

---

Again, why was there a Stonewall Jackson statue in San Diego?

quote:

---

And your narrow focus on the Lost Causers and Unionists in Tennessee

---

No, I asked it because it is an example of a history that was obliterated by the same people putting up the statues. Is that okay in your mind?

Apparently the only thing you need to do to solidify a particular historical narrative is to put a statue down.

quote:

---

seem to ignore that this mob will one day seek to erase the achievements of those who have nothing to do with the Confederacy.

---

Well it is more interesting to me to figure out what in particular is their issue than it is to care about random-arse statues. For me, it fits in a broader category of anti-colonial feeling whose arguments the supporters of the Confederacy mimic. The language is identical. Yet in all of this, there isn't any actual history discussed, despite protestations that history is being destroyed by virtue of a statue put up in 1926.

If statues are proxies for culture, then that culture has already lost.

quote:

---

If for your purpose is to lord over other men and control their lives, yeah, that's pretty vain.

---

My purpose is to collect wealth for my family and loved ones. Being at the center of the empire is central to that objective. If that is my goal, then continuing the empire with all its seemingly disparate goals is a better option than the other ones I'm offered, which is some nebulous notion of freedom offered by people who don't really seem to be willing to fight for it. The other option is to give in to the overt authoritarian model. I'd rather the status quo than anything else.

Regardless, groups of men exerting power over one another is pretty standard for human relations. Why today should be any different I have no clue, because the material conditions of the world haven't changed.

quote:

---

Do states have the right to secede today?

---

Not according to the Fed Gov. In general, in international law, unilateral secession is not recognized by any government in the world, save for a few instances which are tied to specific geopolitical situations.

quote:

---

And I believe in the right to call you an inbred, ill-read moron.

---

And I support your right to be wrong about me.

quote:

---

Cultural authoritarianism. It's the idea that nothing can be celebrated or exalted unless it meets the definitions of the woke establishment, a group whose own ideals and virtues are constantly evolving in such a manner to where no historic figure can meet their standards. Do you think a society taught to hate its own culture, history and traditions is a good thing?

---

Which culture, history, and traditons are we celebrating? The one that held up one race as superior and the other as cattle? The one that tried to take its ball and go home as soon as the nation elects someone they don't agree with?

quote:

---

Regardless, groups of men exerting power over one another is pretty standard for human relations.

---

So you are good with the system as long as it doesn't disparately affect you or your family?

quote:

---

Not according to the Fed Gov. In general, in international law, unilateral secession is not recognized by any government in the world, save for a few instances which are tied to specific geopolitical situations.

---

Yet it has happened over all of mankind. Why do you think the US must be 50 states, or a specific area, or regions and it cannot change forever?

BTW, the FedGov is granted their powers from the states, the states can rescind that power anytime they so choose to.

It is simply a foolish and short-sighted belief that 545 people in a central location can make the best decisions for the ~330 million people in the US.

quote:

---

Do you think Blacks would have been better of being left in Africa or did it work out better for them being brought to this continent through the slave trade?

---

The colonial project enriched a remarkably small group of elite. In a vacuum, it would have been better for regular populations at both ends to have left one another alone. But the people who decide policy, i.e. the elite, had significant self-interest in the colonial project, and most of the European and later American population went along with it, even though the benefit to them was ultimately small. Why all these arguments tend to reinforce the decisions of that elite as 'good' is exceedingly curious, given that the wealth created barely trickled down to common people.

You and most people around the world did not gain a thing from the colonial project. Or rather, what you gained was exceedingly modest. In that respect, why would anyone support the colonial project?

quote:

---

So you are good with the system as long as it doesn't disparately affect you or your family?

---

I'm good with this system because my wealth is tied to it. That's not an obscure reason. US wealth is buttressed by the velocity of transactions done in dollars, which allows for more aggressive monetary policy by the central bank, which then requires an aggressive military policy to retain. I'm not really willing to lose that wealth, because the other options offered are either nonstarters or far more unappealing.

quote:

---

Yet it has happened over all of mankind.

---

Not since 1945. Unilateral secession has usually been followed by or has been part of a larger armed conflict.

quote:

---

Why do you think the US must be 50 states, or a specific area, or regions and it cannot change forever?

---

Well, being part of a centralized apparatus has been the trend of history for a long time. There are significant benefits to increased centralization. And regardless, the Fed Gov enforces this through several measures, from court cases to the strength of its military. All human affairs are ultimately governed by violence. That's reality and has been true of mankind since the Neolithic.

quote:

---

BTW, the FedGov is granted their powers from the states, the states can rescind that power anytime they so choose to.

---

Texas v White makes it clear that the FedGov does not support unilateral secession.

quote:

---

It is simply a foolish and short-sighted belief that 545 people in a central location can make the best decisions for the ~330 million people in the US.

---

They don't care about making the 'best' decision. They care about the fact that they are a centralized body making that decision. Centralized states are going to be stronger than decentralized states. Since in an anarchic world, the security of a state is never assured, states have strong incentives to continually centralize. I thought briefly that technological advances would change that, but it's clear now that those rules still apply.

quote:

---

Is it a "joke" if it isn't remotely humorous?

---

I swear, it’s got to be painful walking around all day with that stick jammed up your arse.

I think people are more readily willing to cooperate with you when you are not placing them in chains and herding them into boats on top of each other....but that's just me.

You can understand that someone put in that situation may develop certain resentments that they may pass onto their children in that respect.

Irrespective if it was another black guy that arranged it all.

quote:

---

Anyone who thinks the South was fighting for slavery is absolutely ignorant. The Corwin Amendment and common sense disprove that accusation as the vast majority of those who fought for the CSA did not own slaves.

---

I think the Southern States were fighting for slavery. And the second part of your statement - implying that soldiers only fight for ideas with which they agree - is absurd.

Defoe says that there were a hundred thousand country fellows in his time ready to fight to the death against popery, without knowing whether popery was a man or a horse.
...William Hazlett