Thread: Legally detaining American citizens indefinitely and without trial

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

While the slave trade in the North was illegal, Northerns were just as racist as Southerners. In fact, the Free Soil party was against slavery because of the plantation system it imposed which gave African-Americans "jobs" that were suppose to be for whites. They wanted to end slavery because they wanted to make land free for white labor. Abolitionists were generally hated in the North because they sought equality between whites and African-Americans. I think people do not really realize this: that there is a difference between being anti-slavery and abolitionist. The former was merely being against slavery, sometimes for racist reasons and the latter is being against slavery and for equality.

Alright but that's doesn't make northerners slave owners and it certainly doesn't mean the civil war was fought in order to overrule the constitution. Say what you want about the popularity of the abolitionist movement, Lincoln was an abolitionist.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Yes, but this brings us back to my original point, which is that states' rights and secession are not involved in the topic of this thread. This is a matter of personal rights.

Like it or not, states' rights are the forerunners to individual rights. True freedom is decentralization down to the individual/family level. But before we can get there, first we must decentralize to the state level.

Originally Posted by cmind

Like it or not, states' rights are the forerunners to individual rights. True freedom is decentralization down to the individual/family level. But before we can get there, first we must decentralize to the state level.

Can you explain the way personal rights are always increased by state powers and always decreased by federal powers? Because I thought the federal government proceeded to give people even more rights that the states seceded in order to avoid giving.

Originally Posted by cmind

true freedom is decentralization down to the individual/family level. But before we can get there, first we must decentralize to the state level.

YAY ANARCHY!o

Originally Posted by supernova

yay anarchy!

YAY IGNORANCE!Stool

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Alright but that's doesn't make northerners slave owners and it certainly doesn't mean the civil war was fought in order to overrule the constitution. Say what you want about the popularity of the abolitionist movement, Lincoln was an abolitionist.

No, Lincoln was anti-slavery. He thought blacks and whites could not coexist together because they are just too different in his mind. This why he supported the emigration to Lyberia for freed slaves.

Originally Posted by cmind

YAY IGNORANCE!Stool

Hyperbole aside, I'm not sure what "decentralization down to the individual/famiy level" is supposed to do for anyone.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Hyperbole aside, I'm not sure what "decentralization down to the individual/famiy level" is supposed to do for anyone.

Allow for a society based on voluntary interactions. Not perfect, but in the minds of some, better.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Allow for a society based on voluntary interactions. Not perfect, but in the minds of some, better.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're referring to, but doesn't that put a bit too much dependance on people being good-willed?

(I'm not arguing, just trying to understand)

Official Red Herring is officially red

Originally Posted by Supernova

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're referring to, but doesn't that put a bit too much dependance on people being good-willed?

(I'm not arguing, just trying to understand)

Well if not voluntaryism, the polar opposite would be coercion/force. Which is better, hoping people will be good, or assuming they aren't, and forcing them to comply with what is defined by someone as "good?"

Originally Posted by Supernova

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're referring to, but doesn't that put a bit too much dependance on people being good-willed?

(I'm not arguing, just trying to understand)

You're confusing anarchy with lawlessness. In fact, in a true voluntary society, the law would be much more effective than it is now, because it would be less prone to corruption. You're free to disagree with me, but that is what I believe. If you want to see why I believe this, I suggest you read up on some Libertarian/voluntaryist literature.

If you do want to argue, which I think is likely, there are other threads for that.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Can you explain the way personal rights are always increased by state powers and always decreased by federal powers? Because I thought the federal government proceeded to give people even more rights that the states seceded in order to avoid giving.

To be fair, he never said this.

States' rights are a midway point. Think of it as the difference between an independent Germany and world government. The more checks you have on this power, the better. The very word "federal" in government suggests not a nationalist government but a federation, something not to take away state power but simply to protect the existence of the states themselves. States protect individual rights because otherwise the federal government is the sole judge of the constitutionality of it's own laws. It is better to have one state doing something it shouldn't than a whole country. The first is also easier to remedy.

Actually, there is a tremendous amount of evidence to show that the war was not over slavery. I will not get into it here, as it would be so long no one would read it anyway, as I have seen in some of my older posts, but I encourage you to check it out if interested.

Originally Posted by Supernova

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're referring to, but doesn't that put a bit too much dependance on people being good-willed?

(I'm not arguing, just trying to understand)

No. If we have a democracy and in that democracy people decide to use taxes to pay for education then that means that a majority of the people want some of their money to be used to pay for education. So why can't we just get rid of the violent aspect of it? Why do we need to use force against the people who don't want to use their money for this?

In this way people could decide not to give any money to the military or other such programs and fund the things that they think are actually important.

If people aren't good willed then isn't it likely that people who have bad intentions will use the government to carry them out?

um........

Does anyone know the status of this bill? Like, if I join occupy this weekend, am I going to disappear forever?

Originally Posted by juroara

um........

Does anyone know the status of this bill? Like, if I join occupy this weekend, am I going to disappear forever?

You'll be fine unless you do anything hostile or terrorist-like. (Take, for instance, sitting peacefully in protest. That's hostile enough to be pepper-sprayed apparently.)

Originally Posted by Supernova

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not 100% sure I understand what you're referring to, but doesn't that put a bit too much dependance on people being good-willed?

(I'm not arguing, just trying to understand)

Not at all. There will still be bad people in the world just as there is now.

More news about the encroaching fascist police-state; The Pentagon Is Offering Free Military Hardware To Every Police Department In The US

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

More news about the encroaching fascist police-state; The Pentagon Is Offering Free Military Hardware To Every Police Department In The US

Yay. The sad thing is, people only worry when it impacts them directly... and by then it'll be too late. (Like SOPA; it must affect them for them to care.)

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

Yay. The sad thing is, people only worry when it impacts them directly... and by then it'll be too late. (Like SOPA; it must affect them for them to care.)

An appropriate quote:

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Very tenuous but it still gave me lulz and I wanted somewhere to put it.

The canada picture is from a gay pride parade. I know it was posted all in fun but you tend to harp on the US a lot xei, knowing full well that your own country equates activism with terrorism. We are all in this fascist shit storm together and it doesn't much matter what country you live in any longer.

The hell is wrong with you. You just called the US an emerging fascist police-state. This entire thread is about America. And you take offence at my post because it wasn't criticising a country other than America?

The internet called; you're a charade. Ha ha.

Xei, master of hyperbole.