States Petitioning to Secede from US

TheLostBoy said:
I was meaning more along the lines like, if all the 'people who think' were to gather en masse, quitting everything except changing the foundation of our society, marching on capitols (just a type of example), etc. all coordinated and with the same goal in mind for objectively better change - I think it could be done.
Has that ever happened fully as I'm thinking in history? Not that I'm aware of, very much agreeing with Anart in that way.
Click to expand...


I agree with your point. In fact, I used to tell my friends that the only citizens that don't have their own special-interest group are those of the majority who want just to live, and love, without political and other "official" group interference.

William James actually put this to words in his Will To Believe (linked elsewhere), in a sub section I call 'Social Coherence'.

Here's my premise: People tend to behave in accordance with their beliefs. If so, then in order for people to be persuaded to change their behavior, they need inducement to change their beliefs.

Here's some context from James:
Turn now from these wide questions of good to a certain class of questions of fact, questions concerning personal relations, states of mind between one man and another. Do you like me or not?--for example. Whether you do or not depends, in countless instances, on whether I meet you half-way, am willing to assume that you must like me, and show you trust and expectation. The previous faith on my part in your liking's existence is in such cases what makes your liking come. But if I stand aloof, and refuse to budge an inch until I have objective evidence, until you shall have done something apt, as the absolutists say, ad extorquendum assensum meum, ten to one your liking never comcs. How many women's hearts are vanquished by the mere sanguine insistence of some man that they must love him! He will not consent to the hypothesis that they cannot. The desire for a certain kind of truth here brings about that special truth's existence; and so it is in innumerable cases of other sorts. Who gains promotions, boons, appointments, but the man in whose life they are seen to play the part of live hypotheses, who discounts them, sacrifices other things for their sake before they have come, and takes risks for them in advance ?

His faith acts on the powers above him as a claim, and creates its own verification.

A social organism of any sort whatever, large or small, is what it is because each member proceeds to his own duty with a trust that the other members will simultaneously do theirs. Wherever a desired result is achieved by the co-operation of many independent persons, its existence as a fact is a pure consequence of the precursive faith in one another of those immediately concerned. A government, an army, a commercial system, a ship, a college, an athletic team, all exist on this condition, without which not only is nothing achieved, but nothing is even attempted.
Click to expand...

And the point, made by the following example, which I've come to adore:

A whole train of passengers (individually brave enough) will be looted by a few highwaymen, simply because the latter can count on one another, while each passenger fears that if he makes a movement of resistance, he will be shot before any one else backs him up. If we believed that the whole car-full would rise at once with us, we should each severally rise, and train-robbing would never even be attempted. There are, then, cases where a fact cannot come at all unless a preliminary faith exists in its coming.

And where faith in a fact can help create the fact, that would be an insane logic which should say that faith running ahead of scientific evidence is the 'lowest kind of immorality ' into which a thinking being can fall. Yet such is the logic by which our scientific absolutists pretend to regulate our lives!

In truths dependent on our personal action, then, faith based on desire is certainly a lawful and possibly an indispensable thing.
Click to expand...


It seems humanity has been divided and conquered so many times in so many different ways, humanity at large can not currently abide this "faith (in each other) based on desire (to shed the yoke on our necks) and probably won't until there's nothing left to lose. Fingers crossed.

As far as the petitions go, it could just as well be the kind of thing people will do to feel like they're doing something useful, while avoiding the real cause of the problems--failure to address pathological people in power and authoritarian followers, OSIT.
 
Thanks for that post, Buddy. You spelled out a lot of my thoughts with that.

I really liked the train example! *making mental note...* :)
 
Think twice. Look at all the Arab countries overthrowing their governments, and SUCCEEDING! Eygpt, Sryia, Libyia, simple as pie. Easy. And the Rebels come well equipped with democracy and a constitution in hand. It is just SO simple to govern! Everyone should. We should all seceed because its so simple to rule. North Dakota should definitely seceed. We have a $2 billion dollar surplus, and why should we share with slackers like yourselves
 
Janis Schmidt,
Please watch your language. You are supposed to have agreed to the Forum guidelines: www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9553.msg69187#msg69187
 
Janis Schmidt said:
We have a $2 billion dollar surplus, and why should we share with slackers like yourselves
Click to expand...

Assuming I'm one of the 'slackers' to which you refer, my response is a question: Because you're on the dole and for some reason can't seem to get any of it? If I could get some, I'd share it with you. Is that a good enough reason?

I sympathize with your plight as you describe it in your second post. You are really mad at the political system and your anger seems righteous, but that same system seems like a more appropriate target for caustic rhetoric. It might also be a bit cathartic. By any chance, do you write blog posts or articles for public consumption?
 
MK and Buddy--

I am truly sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities. I meant my comment as satirical. I did not intend to insult you. I was speaking like a North Dakotan who doesn't get it; and there are many. Actually, North Dakota did try to secede in the past, and some people are talking about it today because of all our oil dollars, which is destroying the western half of the state.

Janis Schmidt
_www.lakotaperspectives.com
 
Janis Schmidt said:
MK and Buddy--

I am truly sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities. I meant my comment as satirical. I did not intend to insult you. I was speaking like a North Dakotan who doesn't get it; and there are many. Actually, North Dakota did try to secede in the past, and some people are talking about it today because of all our oil dollars, which is destroying the western half of the state.

Janis Schmidt
_www.lakotaperspectives.com
Click to expand...

Hi Janis, it's not about "delicate sensibilities" it's about forum guidelines. You agreed to them upon signing up, so please re-read them at this point in time to avoid any further issues: http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=9553.msg69187#msg69187
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom