National Sovereignity

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

National Sovereignity

Post by Admiral Breetai » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:28 pm

SpaceWizard wrote:And Lincoln was the father of all tyrants and dictators; as Tolkien said, NO ONE can handle absolute power uncorrupted, regardless of character-- and Lincoln was certifiably insane, he's just been whitewashed by historical boot-lickers (who even laud him for his insanity as some "proof of courage," despite murdering over a million people no differently from Saddam Hussein, or any other imperialist who calls his invasion a "civil war."]
yeah Lincoln did some rather questionable things but his opposition wasn't any better, so I have a hard time fully vilifying the man though I know he was manic or schizo and a racist himself but the opposition held some rather questionable opinions on human property rights

and where so god damned stubborn about it they dessicated a man like Friggen Sherman to light up half the south east in a friggen bonfire to put a stop to it

SpaceWizard wrote: I think it's a "herding tendency" among unsuspecting groups, like we see with Global Warming ala The Emperor's Robe, i.e. most people are sheep-like, and tend to believe a nutball who acts like he knows what he's talking about (Stalin called this "Useful Idiot" syndrome) and uses logical fallacies or false information and claptrap which sounds like it could be true... and that they're fools if they DON'T believe it (like Wong used to say that anyone who believed that ST could beat SW, was being duped by the "Federation Cultists"). And so the cluless masses followed like a bunch of little Lemmings... right off the proverbial cliff.

And so, one bad apple can infect the whole barrel, just like a few nut-balls can harass and bully all the rest to pretend they see something just so they don't feel stupid. That's what Star Wars was really about, i.e. just two thugs could agitate the fall of a whole republic-- in fact, it was literally based on Lincoln, since they had one ruthless moral-relatavist politician running around talking out of both sides of his mouth all over the universe, and eventually agitating a war, in order to form the Grand Army of the Republic while calling the opposing alliance "rebels" when it's formed to stop them.
(You need a singing telegram to figure THAT one out?)

Similarly, Wong was one such a nutball, and along with his Darth-Apprentice Wayne Poe, thought that the bad guys in the movie weren't a moral lesson, but a lesson in "coolness--" i.e. it APPEALED to their way of thinking; so they similarly used strongarm-tactics and fulsome praise to beguile, bully, harass and intimidate anyone who didn't join their ranks and do as they're told-- much like any elitist political-group (and ironcially, Wong on his personal website says he takes pride in being called an elitist-- as if that means he's supeior to others in reality, other than simply deluding himself into thinking he's above common decency, like any cruel regime built on deluded supremacy.

But just as Khan found out on the Enteprise when he tried to uses such tactics to recruit the crew, even when a single champ stands firm against them-- rather than just either joining their ranks, or dismissing them as nutbars and giving up, like everyone else- then the bully-cowards don't know whethe to shit or go blind; just look at the case with DarkStar, where he fends them off single-handedly, leaving them to throw a temper-tantrum-- with Wong literally threatening legal action against him... just like Palpatine when he didn't get his way ("I AM the Senate!").

And so when EVERYONE from the ST crowd stands against them-- again like the whole Enterprise crew against Khan, no matter how he threatened them-- then they don't know whether to explode or IM-plode... so they do both (also like Khan on the Enterprise).
That's an interesting analogy or series of them
Khas wrote:[
Last I heard, 4chan sometimes works with the feds, like when identifying animal abusers.

And also, due to the CP, 7chan got shut down.
it being shut down for that does not surprise me and good riddance to bad refuse is all I can see as to 4chan and their cooperation with authorities they trolled a serial killer so hard he openly confessed on they're site even told them where the bodies are buried then screen capped it and handed it to the cops\

they help when it suits them but they have uniformly declared war on the US department of justice for protecting RIAA and are going after MPAA too

also seem to really hate Eric holder supposedly

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Another Blow to Hypermatter Fuel's Existence?

Post by User1601 » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:38 pm

Admiral Breetai wrote:
SpaceWizard wrote:And Lincoln was the father of all tyrants and dictators; as Tolkien said, NO ONE can handle absolute power uncorrupted, regardless of character-- and Lincoln was certifiably insane, he's just been whitewashed by historical boot-lickers (who even laud him for his insanity as some "proof of courage," despite murdering over a million people no differently from Saddam Hussein, or any other imperialist who calls his invasion a "civil war."]
yeah Lincoln did some rather questionable things but his opposition wasn't any better, so I have a hard time fully vilifying the man though I know he was manic or schizo and a racist himself but the opposition held some rather questionable opinions on human property rights
Waitaminute... you're ACTUALLY saying that national sovereignty can be denied-- even through outright lies about its existence, claiming it was always owned by the tyrant's own country, just like Saddam Hussein did about Kuwait-- and that it's ok to make Total War and conquer them, committing ruthless crimes against humanity, solely on the basis of some disagreement with their domestic policy-- when the real reason is that they don't pay TRIBUTE to the thug-nation?

I don't BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE you said that!

By that token, Saddam was RIGHT, because Kuwait didn't let women drive!
Ditto for the Marxist Proletarian arguments by which Stalin, Mao and the other guy murdered 150 million people, since they simply said they were doing it "to free the worker from evil capitalism."
Last edited by User1601 on Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Khas
Starship Captain
Posts: 1286
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Protoss Embassy to the Federation

Re: Another Blow to Hypermatter Fuel's Existence?

Post by Khas » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:48 pm

SpaceWizard wrote:
Admiral Breetai wrote:
SpaceWizard wrote:And Lincoln was the father of all tyrants and dictators; as Tolkien said, NO ONE can handle absolute power uncorrupted, regardless of character-- and Lincoln was certifiably insane, he's just been whitewashed by historical boot-lickers (who even laud him for his insanity as some "proof of courage," despite murdering over a million people no differently from Saddam Hussein, or any other imperialist who calls his invasion a "civil war."]
yeah Lincoln did some rather questionable things but his opposition wasn't any better, so I have a hard time fully vilifying the man though I know he was manic or schizo and a racist himself but the opposition held some rather questionable opinions on human property rights
Waitaminute... you're ACTUALLY saying that national sovereignty can be denied-- even through outright lies about its existence, claiming it was always owned by the tyrant's own country, just like Saddam Hussein did about Kuwait-- and that it's ok to make Total War and conquer them, committing ruthless crimes against humanity, solely on the basis of some disagreement with their domestic policy-- when the real reason is that they don't pay TRIBUTE to the thug-nation?

I don't BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE you said that!
Didn't the South secede from the North? As I recall, the Civil War was originally more about "The United States is vs. The United States are" then anything.

And there was good and bad on both sides in the Civil War. On the side of Good in the South, Robert E. Lee himself declared slavery to be a "moral and political evil", and only sided with the South because he felt he "Could not betray his homeland of Virginia". On the other hand, when dealing with atrocities committed by the North, Sherman's March comes to mind. That's not to say the South didn't commit atrocities as well, such as the fact that black Union officers were executed by Confederate soldiers simply because they were black. So no, neither side was fully "Good" nor "Bad". The war that came closest to that was World War II.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Another Blow to Hypermatter Fuel's Existence?

Post by Admiral Breetai » Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:50 pm

SpaceWizard wrote:

Waitaminute... you're ACTUALLY saying that national sovereignty can be denied-- even through outright lies about its existence, claiming it was always owned by the tyrant's own country, just like Saddam Hussein did about Kuwait-- and that it's ok to make Total War and conquer them, committing ruthless crimes against humanity, solely on the basis of some disagreement with their domestic policy-- when the real reason is that they don't pay TRIBUTE to the thug-nation?

I don't BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE you said that!
no, what I said was I have a hard time feeling bad for the southern states and the politicians, Buchanan was right what was being done by both sides was totally illegal as far as I'm concerned the only victims in that war where the immigrants that got duped into fighting for the Union and the southern non slave holders abolitionists and joe blow citizen that got completely fucked over by Sherman then constantly dicked by johnson
SpaceWizard wrote:By that token, Saddam was RIGHT, because Kuwait didn't let women drive!
Ditto for the Marxist Proletarian arguments by which Stalin, Mao and the other guy murdered 150 million people.
I'm not so sure that's a valid comparison in terms of long reaching ramifications Lincolns head got taken off and he more then likely never would of tried to stay in power and I don't think it was ever his intention to carry out the idiocy that johnson and his ilk did
Khas wrote:I once read a webcomic where 4chan fights the Twilight Fandom. It doesn't end well.
that's amusing

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Another Blow to Hypermatter Fuel's Existence?

Post by User1601 » Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:47 pm

Admiral Breetai wrote:
SpaceWizard wrote:

Waitaminute... you're ACTUALLY saying that national sovereignty can be denied-- even through outright lies about its existence, claiming it was always owned by the tyrant's own country, just like Saddam Hussein did about Kuwait-- and that it's ok to make Total War and conquer them, committing ruthless crimes against humanity, solely on the basis of some disagreement with their domestic policy-- when the real reason is that they don't pay TRIBUTE to the thug-nation?

I don't BELIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVE you said that!
no, what I said was I have a hard time feeling bad for the southern states and the politicians, Buchanan was right what was being done by both sides was totally illegal
Want some kool-aid with your cyanide?
Buchanan said that the SOUTH was acting illegaly... but he also said there was NOTHING THE UNION COULD LEGALLY DO ABOUT IT, since that was right out of the Constitutional Convention.

And this was half right: i.e. there was nothing the Union could do about secession: however the South was NOT acting illegally by seceding-- they couldn't be.
Contrary to what the ruling empire has told you all your life, the states were each indvidual sovereign nations from 1776 onward- and sovereign nations are NATIONALLY SOVEREIGN, i.e. there is NO higher law than the will of their ruling sovereign.

Try reading the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783-- as well as the Federalist Papers, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison's Report for the Virginia Assembly. They ALWAYS fully intended to remain each sovereign nations into themselves: the unions were always internatinoal associations between them... like NAFTA, NATO, the WFT, the UN etc.


Lincoln, meanwhile, revised history to claim the opposite-- as did Jackson, the murdering Indian-hater, and the other elite politicians who began crapping out lies around the mid 1820's in order to give themselves absolute power to do as they pleased in the name of "government by the People." In reality, the people of the colonies states ALWAYS INTENDED to be individual separate sovereign nations-- not a single one, as the despots later claimed.

(Next you'll say that "The American people own the country--" sure, they can do ANYTHING their government lets them ROTFLMAO)

People need to open their eyes for once, and stop believing everything that their supreme rulers feed them... with a shovel; we have the Intenet now, there's no further excuse for blindly swallowing whatever government force-feeds them; it started with lies, then Lincoln legislated his own version of the truth, destroying any press and jailing any reporter who told the facts; then once his regime suceeded by this brute-froce dictatorial censorship, the facts didn't matter no more

And it seems they stil don't: take the fucking red pill.

Then, you can begin unravelling the OTHER lies that followed from that atrocity... and realize that history doesn't occur in a vacuum like they claim, where your rulers are always right and good beneficent leaders, protecting you from evil empires all over the world and "making it safe for democracy." Rather, it's all connected... by the quest for MONEY, and power: look up "Murray Rothbard" as a start, he can be your "Yoda" to find the truth.

(Unfortunately for the majority, the sheep have their story and they're stickin' to it... that's the only explanation why they could have elected elephant-ears, since Dumbo-bama doesn't know his trunk from his tail... but then neither did the talking chimp before him, or the Deliverance-hillbilly before that).

In other words, the empire's sequicentennial is here, and so the end's been coming for that long; and I doubt it's going anywhere.. except the way of all empires.

Admiral Breetai
Starship Captain
Posts: 1813
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Another Blow to Hypermatter Fuel's Existence?

Post by Admiral Breetai » Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:06 am

SpaceWizard wrote:
Want some kool-aid with your cyanide?
Buchanan said that the SOUTH was acting illegaly... but he also said there was NOTHING THE UNION COULD LEGALLY DO ABOUT IT, since that was right out of the Constitutional Convention.
the problem with that is culturally and i think this is reflected in how men like Lincoln get into power- We're a country of reactionary defiant's The civil war came about more because the government I think reflected that more than anything else.

I wont say that's a positive or negative thing though. but so we're clear your in Lincolns place-you'd do nothing?
SpaceWizard wrote: And this was half right: i.e. there was nothing the Union could do about secession: however the South was NOT acting illegally by seceding-- they couldn't be.
Contrary to what the ruling empire has told you all your life, the states were each indvidual sovereign nations from 1776 onward- and sovereign nations are NATIONALLY SOVEREIGN, i.e. there is NO higher law than the will of their ruling sovereign.
while this may have been true on paper and maybe at the beginning Since about Jackson that simply hadn't been the case
SpaceWizard wrote:Try reading the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783-- as well as the Federalist Papers, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison's Report for the Virginia Assembly. They ALWAYS fully intended to remain each sovereign nations into themselves: the unions were always internatinoal associations between them... like NAFTA, NATO, the WFT, the UN etc.
true enough what was done was illegal, the alternative was i think more then the average northerner could handle or at least the politicians
SpaceWizard wrote:Lincoln, meanwhile, revised history to claim the opposite-- as did Jackson, the murdering Indian-hater, and the other elite politicians who began crapping out lies around the mid 1820's in order to give themselves absolute power to do as they pleased in the name of "government by the People." In reality, the people of the colonies states ALWAYS INTENDED to be individual separate sovereign nations-- not a single one, as the despots later claimed.
men like Jackson and Lincoln weren't elitists they came from the very bottom of society and forced their way into the power structure and took the reigns of power and revamped the elites and in Jacksons case pretty much crapped all over the very spirit of the constitution

in Lincolns case did a great evil to do a great good-I think that's the Richelieu motto
SpaceWizard wrote:(Next you'll say that "The American people own the country--" sure, they can do ANYTHING their government lets them ROTFLMAO)
if I believed that I'd have to give my house up to my local Indian tribe no simply that We are more a republic then a democracy in practice as evidence by the actions of men like Jackson and Lincoln..and FDR and that this is currently just as it did then cause a shit load of tension
SpaceWizard wrote: People need to open their eyes for once, and stop believing everything that their supreme rulers feed them... with a shovel; we have the Intenet now, there's no further excuse for blindly swallowing whatever government force-feeds them; it started with lies, then Lincoln legislated his own version of the truth, destroying any press and jailing any reporter who told the facts; then once his regime suceeded by this brute-froce dictatorial censorship, the facts didn't matter no more
your confusing our issues with SDN with a real life issue which has more to do with a fundamental lack of the average joe to do his home work on such matters and general apathy..or tendency to buy what's broadcasted in new media then anything else
SpaceWizard wrote:And it seems they stil don't: take the fucking red pill.
you obviously know allot but come on now..when you make remarks like this your coming off kinda batty
SpaceWizard wrote:Then, you can begin unravelling the OTHER lies that followed from that atrocity... and realize that history doesn't occur in a vacuum like they claim, where your rulers are always right and good beneficent leaders, protecting you from evil empires all over the world and "making it safe for democracy." Rather, it's all connected... by the quest for MONEY, and power: look up "Murray Rothbard" as a start, he can be your "Yoda" to find the truth.
fairly certain the average American does not think this way but suffers from the opposite which is a need to defy that which has been in authority or popular for a given amount of time near constantly..
SpaceWizard wrote: (Unfortunately for the majority, the sheep have their story and they're stickin' to it... that's the only explanation why they could have elected elephant-ears, since Dumbo-bama doesn't know his trunk from his tail... but then neither did the talking chimp before him, or the Deliverance-hillbilly before that).
sheep's a bit fucked up a term don't you think? give the average person some credit..give me more credit then that
SpaceWizard wrote:In other words, the empire's sequicentennial is here, and so the end's been coming for that long; and I doubt it's going anywhere.. except the way of all empires.
we'll see Dominant civilizations tend to take awhile to collapse any ways the British and Mongol empire being noted exceptions

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Another Blow to Hypermatter Fuel's Existence?

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:46 am

SpaceWizard wrote:Want some kool-aid with your cyanide?
SpaceWizard, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from suggestions like this. They're fairly inflammatory.

Also, I will be splitting this into "Other." It's really not about Star Trek and Star Wars at this point.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783-- as well as the Federalist Papers, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison's Report for the Virginia Assembly. They ALWAYS fully intended to remain each sovereign nations into themselves: the unions were always internatinoal associations between them... like NAFTA, NATO, the WFT, the UN etc.
If I may interject on the topic you are discussing:

Thomas Paine seems to be proposing America as a nation in the very same sense that Britain is a nation:
Common Sense, by Thomas Paine wrote:If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.
Here, he is comparing a congress to a king.
Common Sense wrote:It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e., that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relation ship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.
Here, he is saying that the English seem to think that the colonies are not part of a coherent whole. This is the only passage I could find where he is describing your position.
Common Sense wrote:Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain.
These "kingdoms," though "thickly planted," are typically larger than the colonies Paine is referring to as "America."1
Common Sense wrote:But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.
Here, again, we refer to the question of who will be the "king of America" - if we are to make of America a nation, of course.

Benjamin Franklin:
Every Body cries, a Union is absolutely necessary, but when they come to the Manner and Form of the Union, their weak Noddles are perfectly distracted.
In speaking to the constitutional convention, he said this:
We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.
And this:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
He seemed to think that a permanent union was what they were attempting to form:
Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
I find it odd that you suggest looking at the Federalist Papers, since they were an argument for a strong central government. First paragraph of No. 9, penned by Hamilton:
A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.
The paper goes on to say that the vaunted "confederate republic" doesn't seem to exist:
A distinction, more subtle than accurate, has been raised between a CONFEDERACY and a CONSOLIDATION of the States. The essential characteristic of the first is said to be, the restriction of its authority to the members in their collective capacities, without reaching to the individuals of whom they are composed. It is contended that the national council ought to have no concern with any object of internal administration. An exact equality of suffrage between the members has also been insisted upon as a leading feature of a confederate government. These positions are, in the main, arbitrary; they are supported neither by principle nor precedent. It has indeed happened, that governments of this kind have generally operated in the manner which the distinction taken notice of, supposes to be inherent in their nature; but there have been in most of them extensive exceptions to the practice, which serve to prove, as far as example will go, that there is no absolute rule on the subject. And it will be clearly shown in the course of this investigation that as far as the principle contended for has prevailed, it has been the cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government.

The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies," or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

In the Lycian confederacy, which consisted of twenty-three CITIES or republics, the largest were entitled to THREE votes in the COMMON COUNCIL, those of the middle class to TWO, and the smallest to ONE. The COMMON COUNCIL had the appointment of all the judges and magistrates of the respective CITIES. This was certainly the most, delicate species of interference in their internal administration; for if there be any thing that seems exclusively appropriated to the local jurisdictions, it is the appointment of their own officers. Yet Montesquieu, speaking of this association, says: "Were I to give a model of an excellent Confederate Republic, it would be that of Lycia." Thus we perceive that the distinctions insisted upon were not within the contemplation of this enlightened civilian; and we shall be led to conclude, that they are the novel refinements of an erroneous theory.
Madison closed No. 10, which shared a title, with this commentary:
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
The Federalist papers were, by and large, an argument against the Articles of Confederation, demanding a much stronger government and treatment of the United States as a single country rather than a collective of small countries bound into a league.

Sometimes referred to as the "anti-Federalist papers" are a range of similar documents offered against ratifying the then-new constitution. There existed at the very start of American history not a unified opinion that states were and should be individual sovereign nations, but instead tension between those who desired a stronger and those who desired a weaker federal government.

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Another Blow to Hypermatter Fuel's Existence?

Post by User1601 » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:18 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
SpaceWizard wrote:Want some kool-aid with your cyanide?
SpaceWizard, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from suggestions like this. They're fairly inflammatory.

Also, I will be splitting this into "Other." It's really not about Star Trek and Star Wars at this point.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783-- as well as the Federalist Papers, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison's Report for the Virginia Assembly. They ALWAYS fully intended to remain each sovereign nations into themselves: the unions were always internatinoal associations between them... like NAFTA, NATO, the WFT, the UN etc.
If I may interject on the topic you are discussing:

Thomas Paine seems to be proposing America as a nation in the very same sense that Britain is a nation:
Common Sense, by Thomas Paine wrote:If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.
Here, he is comparing a congress to a king.
Common Sense wrote:It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e., that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relation ship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.
Here, he is saying that the English seem to think that the colonies are not part of a coherent whole. This is the only passage I could find where he is describing your position.
Common Sense wrote:Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain.
These "kingdoms," though "thickly planted," are typically larger than the colonies Paine is referring to as "America."1
Common Sense wrote:But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.
Here, again, we refer to the question of who will be the "king of America" - if we are to make of America a nation, of course.

Benjamin Franklin:
Every Body cries, a Union is absolutely necessary, but when they come to the Manner and Form of the Union, their weak Noddles are perfectly distracted.
In speaking to the constitutional convention, he said this:
We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.
And this:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
He seemed to think that a permanent union was what they were attempting to form:
Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
I find it odd that you suggest looking at the Federalist Papers, since they were an argument for a strong central government. First paragraph of No. 9, penned by Hamilton:
A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.
The paper goes on to say that the vaunted "confederate republic" doesn't seem to exist:
A distinction, more subtle than accurate, has been raised between a CONFEDERACY and a CONSOLIDATION of the States. The essential characteristic of the first is said to be, the restriction of its authority to the members in their collective capacities, without reaching to the individuals of whom they are composed. It is contended that the national council ought to have no concern with any object of internal administration. An exact equality of suffrage between the members has also been insisted upon as a leading feature of a confederate government. These positions are, in the main, arbitrary; they are supported neither by principle nor precedent. It has indeed happened, that governments of this kind have generally operated in the manner which the distinction taken notice of, supposes to be inherent in their nature; but there have been in most of them extensive exceptions to the practice, which serve to prove, as far as example will go, that there is no absolute rule on the subject. And it will be clearly shown in the course of this investigation that as far as the principle contended for has prevailed, it has been the cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government.

The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies," or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

In the Lycian confederacy, which consisted of twenty-three CITIES or republics, the largest were entitled to THREE votes in the COMMON COUNCIL, those of the middle class to TWO, and the smallest to ONE. The COMMON COUNCIL had the appointment of all the judges and magistrates of the respective CITIES. This was certainly the most, delicate species of interference in their internal administration; for if there be any thing that seems exclusively appropriated to the local jurisdictions, it is the appointment of their own officers. Yet Montesquieu, speaking of this association, says: "Were I to give a model of an excellent Confederate Republic, it would be that of Lycia." Thus we perceive that the distinctions insisted upon were not within the contemplation of this enlightened civilian; and we shall be led to conclude, that they are the novel refinements of an erroneous theory.
Madison closed No. 10, which shared a title, with this commentary:
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
The Federalist papers were, by and large, an argument against the Articles of Confederation, demanding a much stronger government and treatment of the United States as a single country rather than a collective of small countries bound into a league.

Sometimes referred to as the "anti-Federalist papers" are a range of similar documents offered against ratifying the then-new constitution. There existed at the very start of American history not a unified opinion that states were and should be individual sovereign nations, but instead tension between those who desired a stronger and those who desired a weaker federal government.
The above simply shows a lack of comprehension to the original context of the states and their interactions between them.

A "stronger government" means NOTHING, if it's between separate soveregn nations-- which they always were; for as long as they remain sovereign nations, then all power can only be delegate to that general government.
American government has always been based on the principles enumerated by Vattel in ]The Law of Nations-- particularly BooK I, Chater I:
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

Such were formerly the cities of Greece; such are at present the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands, (13) and such the members of the Helvetic body.

§ 11. Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another.But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.

The law of nations is the law of sovereigns; free and independent states are moral persons, whose rights and obligations we are to establish in this treatise.
And so the "federal republic" among the states, recognized, preserved and maintained the national sovereignty of each via its People-- not its government; for its government, state or faderal, had no sovereignty: only the People did, and they simply delegated authority to their state and federal government as underlings.
And for that reason, they could take it back at will: as the Declaration of Independence states:(abridged some):

"We hold that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights: that to secure these rights, governments are established among men, deriving their just powers by consent of the governed; that whenever governments become destructive to these rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and elect new government..."

This clearly shows that the People are the supreme sovereigns of the indivdual state, which makes it a sovereign nation by definition-- particularly as defined by the Law of Nations:
§ 4. What are sovereign states.
Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State, Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws.
Not that the states were founded and and internationally recognized as free, sovereign and independent states.

As shown, the individual states never "passed under the domination of another," simply by uniting against Great Britain for their independence-- that much was expressly drawn in the various papers, that their intent was to form individual sovereign nations.

By this token, ANY military alliance between nations would force a merger between them, into a single nation--evern if they expressly intended otherwise.

As Vattel continues:
§ 5. States bound by unequal alliance.
We ought, therefore, to account as sovereign states those which have united themselves to another more powerful, by an unequal alliance, in which, as Aristotle says, to the more powerful is given more honour, and to the weaker, more assistance.

The conditions of those unequal alliances may be infinitely varied, But whatever they are, provided the inferior ally reserve to itself the sovereignty, or the right of governing its own body, it ought to be considered as an independent state, that keeps up an intercourse with others under the authority of the law of nations.

§ 6. Or by treaties of protection.
Consequently a weak state, which, in order to provide for its safety, places itself under the protection of a more powerful one, and engages, in return, to perform several offices equivalent to that protection, without however divesting itself of the right of government and sovereignty, — that state, I say, does not, on this account, cease to rank among the sovereigns who acknowledge no other law than that of nations.
And so, we see that the states never ceased to be anything but sovereign nations, simply by pacting with other states to achieve and maintain their common defense and sovereignty.


Naturally, such a claim would be obtuse beyond measure-- but it's the pointy-headed nonsense that Lincoln described as American history.
Consider his lies from his July 4, 1861 War Address to Congress:

Our States have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them, in the Union, by the Constitution – no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States, on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones, in, and by, the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "Free and Independent States"; but, even then, the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another, or of the Union; but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge, and their mutual action, before, at the time, and afterwards, abundantly show.
This is an outright LIE-- as the express statements of the Declaration itself prove beyond any doubt:
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Clearly, they sought for each state to be a sovereign nation unto itself-- NOT to form a single nation to which they would be subordinate states, as Vattel describes in section 11 above.
Nor was there any need to "declare their independence of one another, or of the Union," as Lincoln waffles above; for indeed no such dependence either existed in a national sense-- or indeed could exist, since this already existed with regard to Great Britain--while this "union" was obviously therefore less than a national association among them... and was never, conversely to Lincoln's claim, made otherwise: there it is, plain as day, big as life.

And consider how Lincoln has no shame:
The express plighting of faith, by each and all of the original thirteen, in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive.
The Articles of Confederation are where he puts his whole size-16 foot in his mouth, for they expressly contain the following in Article II:
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Note the word "retains" above-- i.e. they already had it, as far as they were concerned; and also note the term "delegates," as I also cover above regarding how the delegation of sovereign powers does NOT connote a surrender of sovereignty-- any more than any other treaty.

Thus this proves that Lincoln simply cherry-picked whatever he pleased, simply to commit an illegal and international coup d'etat among sovereign nations, no different from Saddam Hussein's invasion and conquest of Kuwait.

And this has been force-fed into people ever since, from snot-nosed youth onward-- via the Pledge of A-lie-gance, claiming that the USA is "one nation, indivisible."

Now, nations are indivisible by DEFINITION; so obviously the term "indivisible" is gratuitously placed in order to revise history, and pre-emptively indoctrinate the people to reject the notion in knee-jerk fashion so that they'll never get wise.

And apparently, IT'S WORKING.
Fortunately, maybe the internet will change things, by giving voice to jerks like me to bypass jerks like those in the media, academia and government; already the work is starting to turn, as Libertarians are beginning to get the clue about actual history.

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Another Blow to Hypermatter Fuel's Existence?

Post by User1601 » Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:19 pm

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
SpaceWizard wrote:Want some kool-aid with your cyanide?
SpaceWizard, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from suggestions like this. They're fairly inflammatory.

Also, I will be splitting this into "Other." It's really not about Star Trek and Star Wars at this point.
Try reading the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783-- as well as the Federalist Papers, the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and Madison's Report for the Virginia Assembly. They ALWAYS fully intended to remain each sovereign nations into themselves: the unions were always internatinoal associations between them... like NAFTA, NATO, the WFT, the UN etc.
If I may interject on the topic you are discussing:

Thomas Paine seems to be proposing America as a nation in the very same sense that Britain is a nation:
Common Sense, by Thomas Paine wrote:If the colony continue increasing, it will become necessary to augment the number of the representatives, and that the interest of every part of the colony may be attended to, it will be found best to divide the whole into convenient parts, each part sending its proper number; and that the elected might never form to themselves an interest separate from the electors, prudence will point out the propriety of having elections often; because as the elected might by that means return and mix again with the general body of the electors in a few months, their fidelity to the public will be secured by the prudent reflection of not making a rod for themselves. And as this frequent interchange will establish a common interest with every part of the community, they will mutually and naturally support each other, and on this (not on the unmeaning name of king) depends the strength of government, and the happiness of the governed.
Here, he is comparing a congress to a king.
Common Sense wrote:It hath lately been asserted in parliament, that the colonies have no relation to each other but through the parent country, i.e., that Pennsylvania and the Jerseys, and so on for the rest, are sister colonies by the way of England; this is certainly a very roundabout way of proving relation ship, but it is the nearest and only true way of proving enemyship, if I may so call it. France and Spain never were, nor perhaps ever will be our enemies as Americans, but as our being the subjects of Great Britain.
Here, he is saying that the English seem to think that the colonies are not part of a coherent whole. This is the only passage I could find where he is describing your position.
Common Sense wrote:Europe is too thickly planted with kingdoms to be long at peace, and whenever a war breaks out between England and any foreign power, the trade of America goes to ruin, because of her connection with Britain.
These "kingdoms," though "thickly planted," are typically larger than the colonies Paine is referring to as "America."1
Common Sense wrote:But where says some is the king of America? I'll tell you Friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal of Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honors, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the charter; let it be brought forth placed on the divine law, the word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other. But lest any ill use should afterwards arise, let the crown at the conclusion of the ceremony be demolished, and scattered among the people whose right it is.
Here, again, we refer to the question of who will be the "king of America" - if we are to make of America a nation, of course.

Benjamin Franklin:
Every Body cries, a Union is absolutely necessary, but when they come to the Manner and Form of the Union, their weak Noddles are perfectly distracted.
In speaking to the constitutional convention, he said this:
We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our Projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a Reproach and Bye word down to future Ages.
And this:
In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its faults, — if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of government but what may be a blessing to the people, if well administered; and I believe, farther, that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other.
He seemed to think that a permanent union was what they were attempting to form:
Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.
I find it odd that you suggest looking at the Federalist Papers, since they were an argument for a strong central government. First paragraph of No. 9, penned by Hamilton:
A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrast to the furious storms that are to succeed. If now and then intervals of felicity open to view, we behold them with a mixture of regret, arising from the reflection that the pleasing scenes before us are soon to be overwhelmed by the tempestuous waves of sedition and party rage. If momentary rays of glory break forth from the gloom, while they dazzle us with a transient and fleeting brilliancy, they at the same time admonish us to lament that the vices of government should pervert the direction and tarnish the lustre of those bright talents and exalted endowments for which the favored soils that produced them have been so justly celebrated.
The paper goes on to say that the vaunted "confederate republic" doesn't seem to exist:
A distinction, more subtle than accurate, has been raised between a CONFEDERACY and a CONSOLIDATION of the States. The essential characteristic of the first is said to be, the restriction of its authority to the members in their collective capacities, without reaching to the individuals of whom they are composed. It is contended that the national council ought to have no concern with any object of internal administration. An exact equality of suffrage between the members has also been insisted upon as a leading feature of a confederate government. These positions are, in the main, arbitrary; they are supported neither by principle nor precedent. It has indeed happened, that governments of this kind have generally operated in the manner which the distinction taken notice of, supposes to be inherent in their nature; but there have been in most of them extensive exceptions to the practice, which serve to prove, as far as example will go, that there is no absolute rule on the subject. And it will be clearly shown in the course of this investigation that as far as the principle contended for has prevailed, it has been the cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government.

The definition of a CONFEDERATE REPUBLIC seems simply to be "an assemblage of societies," or an association of two or more states into one state. The extent, modifications, and objects of the federal authority are mere matters of discretion. So long as the separate organization of the members be not abolished; so long as it exists, by a constitutional necessity, for local purposes; though it should be in perfect subordination to the general authority of the union, it would still be, in fact and in theory, an association of states, or a confederacy. The proposed Constitution, so far from implying an abolition of the State governments, makes them constituent parts of the national sovereignty, by allowing them a direct representation in the Senate, and leaves in their possession certain exclusive and very important portions of sovereign power. This fully corresponds, in every rational import of the terms, with the idea of a federal government.

In the Lycian confederacy, which consisted of twenty-three CITIES or republics, the largest were entitled to THREE votes in the COMMON COUNCIL, those of the middle class to TWO, and the smallest to ONE. The COMMON COUNCIL had the appointment of all the judges and magistrates of the respective CITIES. This was certainly the most, delicate species of interference in their internal administration; for if there be any thing that seems exclusively appropriated to the local jurisdictions, it is the appointment of their own officers. Yet Montesquieu, speaking of this association, says: "Were I to give a model of an excellent Confederate Republic, it would be that of Lycia." Thus we perceive that the distinctions insisted upon were not within the contemplation of this enlightened civilian; and we shall be led to conclude, that they are the novel refinements of an erroneous theory.
Madison closed No. 10, which shared a title, with this commentary:
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
The Federalist papers were, by and large, an argument against the Articles of Confederation, demanding a much stronger government and treatment of the United States as a single country rather than a collective of small countries bound into a league.

Sometimes referred to as the "anti-Federalist papers" are a range of similar documents offered against ratifying the then-new constitution. There existed at the very start of American history not a unified opinion that states were and should be individual sovereign nations, but instead tension between those who desired a stronger and those who desired a weaker federal government.
I'm afraid that above, simply shows a lack of comprehension to the most basic original context of the states and their interactions between them.

A "stronger government" means NOTHING, if it's between separate soveregn nations-- which the states always were; for as long as they remain sovereign nations, then all power can only be delegated to that general government-- not surrendered to it as a supreme sovereign nation over them.

From its first founding, sovereign American government has always been thus based on the principles enumerated by Vattel in The Law of Nations-- particularly BooK I, Chater I:

http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.

Such were formerly the cities of Greece; such are at present the Seven United Provinces of the Netherlands, (13) and such the members of the Helvetic body.

§ 11. Of a state that has passed under the dominion of another.But a people that has passed under the dominion of another is no longer a state, and can no longer avail itself directly of the law of nations. Such were the nations and kingdoms which the Romans rendered subject to their empire; the generality even of those whom they honoured with the name of friends and allies no longer formed real states. Within themselves they were governed by their own laws and magistrates; but without, they were in every thing obliged to follow the orders of Rome; they dared not of themselves either to make war or contract alliances; and could not treat with nations.

The law of nations is the law of sovereigns; free and independent states are moral persons, whose rights and obligations we are to establish in this treatise.
And so the "federal republic" among the states, recognized, preserved and maintained the national sovereignty of each via its People-- not its government; for its government, state or faderal, had no sovereignty: only the People did, and they simply delegated authority to their state and federal government as the People's underlings and servants.

And for that reason, the People of each state, being the ruling sovereigns of their respective nation, could simply could simply override and veto anything the government did; as the Declaration of Independence states:(abridged some):

"We hold that all men are endowed with certain inalienable rights: that to secure these rights, governments are established among men, deriving their just powers by consent of the governed; that whenever governments become destructive to these rights, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and elect new government..."

This clearly shows that the People are the supreme sovereigns of the indivdual state, which makes it a sovereign nation by definition-- particularly as defined by the Law of Nations:
§ 4. What are sovereign states.
Every nation that governs itself, under what form soever, without dependence on any foreign power, is a Sovereign State, Its rights are naturally the same as those of any other state. Such are the moral persons who live together in a natural society, subject to the law of nations. To give a nation a right to make an immediate figure in this grand society, it is sufficient that it be really sovereign and independent, that is, that it govern itself by its own authority and laws.
And the states were founded and and internationally recognized as free, sovereign and independent-- i.e. sovereign nations.

As shown, the individual states never "passed under the domination of another," simply by uniting against Great Britain for their independence-- that much was expressly drawn in the various papers, that their intent was to form individual sovereign nations.

As Vattel continues:
§ 5. States bound by unequal alliance.
We ought, therefore, to account as sovereign states those which have united themselves to another more powerful, by an unequal alliance, in which, as Aristotle says, to the more powerful is given more honour, and to the weaker, more assistance.

The conditions of those unequal alliances may be infinitely varied, But whatever they are, provided the inferior ally reserve to itself the sovereignty, or the right of governing its own body, it ought to be considered as an independent state, that keeps up an intercourse with others under the authority of the law of nations.

§ 6. Or by treaties of protection.
Consequently a weak state, which, in order to provide for its safety, places itself under the protection of a more powerful one, and engages, in return, to perform several offices equivalent to that protection, without however divesting itself of the right of government and sovereignty, — that state, I say, does not, on this account, cease to rank among the sovereigns who acknowledge no other law than that of nations.
And so, we see that the states never ceased to be anything but sovereign nations, simply by pacting with other states to achieve and maintain their common defense and sovereignty.


Naturally, such a claim would be obtuse beyond measure-- but it's the pointy-headed nonsense that Lincoln described as American history.
Consider his lies from his July 4, 1861 War Address to Congress:

Our States have neither more, nor less power, than that reserved to them, in the Union, by the Constitution – no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a State. The new ones only took the designation of States, on coming into the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones, in, and by, the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "Free and Independent States"; but, even then, the object plainly was not to declare their independence of one another, or of the Union; but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge, and their mutual action, before, at the time, and afterwards, abundantly show.
This is an outright LIE-- as the express statements of the Declaration itself prove beyond any doubt:
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Clearly, they sought for each state to be a sovereign nation unto itself-- NOT to form a single nation to which they would be subordinate states, as Vattel describes in section 11 above.
Nor was there any need to "declare their independence of one another, or of the Union," as Lincoln waffles above; for indeed no such dependence either existed in a national sense-- or indeed could exist, since this already existed with regard to Great Britain--while this "union" was obviously therefore less than a national association among them... and was never, conversely to Lincoln's claim, made otherwise: there it is, plain as day, big as life.

And consider how Lincoln has no shame:
The express plighting of faith, by each and all of the original thirteen, in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive.
The Articles of Confederation are where he puts his whole size-16 foot in his mouth, for they expressly contain the following in Article II:
Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Note the word "retains" above-- i.e. they already had it, as far as they were concerned; and also note the term "delegates," as I also cover above regarding how the delegation of sovereign powers does NOT connote a surrender of sovereignty-- any more than any other treaty.

Thus this proves that Lincoln simply cherry-picked whatever he pleased, simply to commit an illegal and international coup d'etat among sovereign nations, no different from Saddam Hussein's invasion and conquest of Kuwait.

And like all corrupt empires, this has been force-fed into its people ever since, from snot-nosed youth onward-- via the Pledge of A-lie-gance, claiming that the USA is "one nation, indivisible."

But this is where they trip themselves up: for nations are already "indivisible" by DEFINITION.
Thus obviously the term "indivisible" is gratuitously placed in order to revise history, and pre-emptively indoctrinate the people to reject the notion in knee-jerk fashion so that they'll never get wise-- i.e. they doth protest too much, to believe the protesting!

Fortunately, maybe the internet will change things, by giving voice to jerks like me to bypass jerks like those in the media, academia and government; already the work is starting to turn, as Libertarians are beginning to get the clue about actual history.

Unfortunately, however, they STILL believe that the Union was founded as a single nation; but as soon as they get with it, maybe Ron Paul and friends can actually make some progress overthrowing this rotten empire which pretends to be free, constitutionally-limited republic, simply because idiots can vote-- but not wield sovereign power either in the Union or the state.

Ain't gonna happen-- politics just don't work that way, and neither does the Constiution.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:26 am

Interesting read. I'm quite attached to the principle of a sovereign nation myself. It's by all means one of THE hot topics that matter a lot to North Americans and Europeans. The EU is a hell of a beast, a collection of nations so different and rich in culture that it's impossible to assemble them other than through lies and lack of democracy. When you see that the Soviet Union short circuited the Third Reich which clearly had ridiculous albeit hegemonic pretensions, yet failed for a certain number of reasons despite having managed to unite nations which, although quite different in numbers of ways, were not so different as if you'd compare one western European nation to an Eastern one, then you look at the Union of the North American States, which not only became possible with what looks like a very clever spin doctoring but also a very virgin ground (most States weren't exactly that much different enough, since fresh colonies)... and I can't remember what I wanted to say. :(
Anyway, keep posting guys.

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by User1601 » Wed Apr 06, 2011 4:39 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Interesting read. I'm quite attached to the principle of a sovereign nation myself. It's by all means one of THE hot topics that matter a lot to North Americans and Europeans.
Read it again: the states ARE sovereign nations, by law; the current regime is an illegal empire established through mass-murder and censorship.
The EU is a hell of a beast, a collection of nations so different and rich in culture that it's impossible to assemble them other than through lies and lack of democracy.
It could have something to do with the fact that it was the birthplace of the Inquisition, being rooted in adverse land-possession rather than freedom and democracy-- and that they maintained their borders chiefly through balance-of-power, more than the fact that the nations are free and independent. In contrast, the American states got along fine through voluntary pretext of their association... until someone decided to re-write history and deny it.
When you see that the Soviet Union short circuited the Third Reich
CAUSED it, more like-- along with American imperialism which caused the Soviet Union... American interventionism disguised as "humanitarian efforts to make the world safe for democracy," but which were simply purely for private gain of special-interests, and were so enabled by the Empire formed under the Lincoln administration over the intividual sovereign nation-states.
Before this, the states made clear at the Hartford Convention that they'd secede if the Union tried again to wage war for private gain-- i.e. that they wouldn't be dragged into war to expand anyone's empire. However the Lincoln-coup destroyed that fail-safe, creating an empire like Hamilton wanted all along; he had no problems with King George III, other than he he couldn't stand the competition.
which clearly had ridiculous albeit hegemonic pretensions, yet failed for a certain number of reasons despite having managed to unite nations which, although quite different in numbers of ways, were not so different as if you'd compare one western European nation to an Eastern one, then you look at the Union of the North American States, which not only became possible with what looks like a very clever spin doctoring but also a very virgin ground (most States weren't exactly that much different enough, since fresh colonies)... and I can't remember what I wanted to say. :(
The Third Reich-- as well as the Final Solution-- were expressly based on American precedent, as stated in Mein Kampf:
The struggle between federalism and centralization so shrewdly propagated by the Jews in 1919-20-21 and afterward, forced the National Socialist movement, though absolutely rejecting it, to take a position on its essential problems.

Should Germany be a federated or a unified state, and what for practical purposes must be understood by the two? To me the second seems the more important question, because it is not only fundamental to the understanding of the whole problem, but also because it is clarifying and possesses a conciliatory character.

What is a federated state?

By a federated state we understand a league of sovereign states which band together of their own free will, on the strength of their sovereignty; ceding to the totality that share of their particular sovereign rights which makes possible and guarantees the existence of the common federation.

In practice this theoretical formulation does not apply entirely to any of the federated states existing on earth today. Least of all to the American Union, where, as far as the overwhelming part of the individual states are concerned, there can be no question of any original sovereignty, but, on the contrary, many of them were sketched into the total area of the Union in the course of time, so to speak. Hence in the individual states of the American Union we have mostly to do with smaller and larger territories, formed for technical, administrative reasons, and, often marked out with a ruler, states which previously had not and could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that had formed the Union, on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states. The very extensive special rights granted, or rather assigned, to the individual territories are not only in keeping with the whole character of this federation of states, but above all with the size of its area, its spatial dimensions which approach the scope of a continent. And so, as far as the states of the American Union are concerned, we cannot speak of their state sovereignty, but only of their constitutionally established and guaranteed rights, or better, perhaps, privileges.

The above formulation is not fully and entirely applicable to Germany either.
Of course this is, as detailed above, a LIE; but it was a lie perpetuated and validated by the Amerikan regime during and post-Lincoln-- while the truth was likewise suppressed via totalitarian means and pressure; and it was likewise moot, i.e. regardless of the truth, the Empire had spoken... and the king can do no wrong.

But again, the author of "Mein Kampf" was not the first to make this claim... in fact he lifts his claims virtually verbatim from the architects of the bellum-era.

The term "Final Solution" likewise came originally from General William T. Sherman's planned disposal and actual treatment of the Native American population, which he called "The Final Solution to the Indian Problem."

Sound familiar?
And so the dots begin to connect, and we see a pattern.... a pattern of EMPIRE, and accordignlyh the inevitable result.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Apr 06, 2011 8:42 pm

SpaceWizard wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Interesting read. I'm quite attached to the principle of a sovereign nation myself. It's by all means one of THE hot topics that matter a lot to North Americans and Europeans.
Read it again: the states ARE sovereign nations, by law; the current regime is an illegal empire established through mass-murder and censorship.
Read again what? You didn't read what I wrote correctly in the first place. You literally reacted to something not even present in the piece you quoted.
The EU is a hell of a beast, a collection of nations so different and rich in culture that it's impossible to assemble them other than through lies and lack of democracy.
It could have something to do with the fact that it was the birthplace of the Inquisition, being rooted in adverse land-possession rather than freedom and democracy-- and that they maintained their borders chiefly through balance-of-power, more than the fact that the nations are free and independent. In contrast, the American states got along fine through voluntary pretext of their association... until someone decided to re-write history and deny it.
It always is a balance of power, no matter how you look at it. I don't see what the inquisition has to do with the EU either. The inquisition took many forms and was quite different from one country to another.

I won't disagree with the relation known between the Third Reich and the American example, and how Hitler didn't really want to actually do some research or even put the truth into his essay, it would have been totally counter productive. The same fantasy about the United States is also what drives the European Union, where in order to produce a tighter "federation" of regions (former nations collapsed into large regions, based on the lander model of Germany), everything is made even as much as possible, from education to all sorts of norms. Of course democracy went down the drain and it's clear that the EU is called to break apart, and this may literally influence the USA, which I know some states have clearly shown stronger wishes of secession in the very recent years.
I'll just add that based on the definition of democracy by J.J. Rousseau, a sum of fully sovereign states is going to be much more democratic than any federation whatsoever.

But again, the author of "Mein Kampf" was not the first to make this claim... in fact he lifts his claims virtually verbatim from the architects of the bellum-era.

The term "Final Solution" likewise came originally from General William T. Sherman's planned disposal and actual treatment of the Native American population, which he called "The Final Solution to the Indian Problem."

Sound familiar?
And so the dots begin to connect, and we see a pattern.... a pattern of EMPIRE, and accordignlyh the inevitable result.
That's even more solid since the original final solution about the Jews also involved moving them elsewhere, and Hitler's government even tried to strike a deal with an exchange of goods to achieve that.
Damn, bad painter and plagiarist. :)

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by User1601 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 12:09 am

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
SpaceWizard wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Interesting read. I'm quite attached to the principle of a sovereign nation myself. It's by all means one of THE hot topics that matter a lot to North Americans and Europeans.
Read it again: the states ARE sovereign nations, by law; the current regime is an illegal empire established through mass-murder and censorship.
Read again what? You didn't read what I wrote correctly in the first place. You literally reacted to something not even present in the piece you quoted.
So what did you mean by "a sovereign nation?"
That's even more solid since the original final solution about the Jews also involved moving them elsewhere, and Hitler's government even tried to strike a deal with an exchange of goods to achieve that.
Damn, bad painter and plagiarist. :)
Nice of you to give TRUE credit to the Amerikan empire for the original McCoy: first "moving them elsewhere" via the Trail of Tears (Jackson); then the empire (reich) by claiming national authority over the sovereign states, as well as Total War, unspeakable war-crimes and mass-murder under Marxist-pragmatism and proletarian strawman-arguments (Lincoln).; and then the Final Solution, i.e. deciding who was fit to live and die (Sherman).
Again: the pattern of empire: divide, conquer, and Play God under absolute rule.

So we see who started it; meanwhile Germany was merely a made a scapegoat by the victors, well-connected victims and hypocrites in order to absolve the rest, when in reality it was simply a victim of circumstance which the rest created-- but it all BEGAN right here, through lies, imperialism and censorship... as Walt Kelly's Pogo said, "We has met the enemy, and they is US."

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:59 am

SpaceWizard wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Read again what? You didn't read what I wrote correctly in the first place. You literally reacted to something not even present in the piece you quoted.
So what did you mean by "a sovereign nation?"
Err... sovereign nation, no? Like, um, sovereign.
What's the problem here? I'm making a comparison with the nations nowadays which have made lots of concessions on their powers in favour of federalism. This is what takes place in the EU, and in North America. You surely must know about North American Union, do you?
The government under Bush signed some documents about that, there had never been any referendum, and I'm not even sure how long it stayed in Congress. It's the kind of stuff that's done behind people's backs.

That's pretty much why dissenters from US states willing to take some distance with the government, and Quebec, are under such fire. They're progressively looking towards more autonomy, which is not really part of the plan, if you catch my drift.

User1601
Bridge Officer
Posts: 173
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: National Sovereignity

Post by User1601 » Thu Apr 07, 2011 3:50 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:Trouble is, on the paper, the existence of a constitution in the western world means the acknowledgment that a sovereign entity has been created.
Source?
The dictionary defines a constitution as "the system of fundamental principles according to which a nation, state, corporation, or the like, is governed," or "the document embodying these principles."

So "the like" here, would define the federal republic among the original 13 sovereign nations, as described by Vattel above regarding a perpetual confederacy in which each nation retains its full sovereignty, and all restrictions are thus 100% voluntary among them.

Likewise, there's no precedent for a Constitution forming a sovereign nation simply by virtue of the word itself, with no mention of forming a sovereign state; on the contrary, the Declaration of Independence expressly declares the colonies to be "Free and Independent states," while likwise the Paris Peace Treaty expressly recognizes them as such.

Accordingly, Madison likewise expressly rebukes the notion of the Constitution consolidating among these sovereign states into a single nation, writing in Federalist #39 that "the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution."

Likewise, Madison wrote in his 1800 Report on the Virginia Resolutions, that:
the term "states" ... means the people composing those political societies, in their highest sovereign capacity... in that sense the Constitution was submitted to the "states;" in that sense the "states" ratified it; and in that sense of the term "states," they are consequently parties to the compact from which the powers of the federal government result.... The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal, above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition.
And Madison was the chief author of the Constitution; clearly, "a people in their highest sovereign capacity" refers to a sovereign nation-- and accordingly, their supreme authority to dictate their state policy, both domestic and foreign with regard to ALL other states.

Finally, no state ever relinquished or transferred its national sovereignty, in the Constitution or elsewhere; nor is there any mention of creating a sovereign state of any kind, but only delegating powers to the Union via the Constitution. And hence, the Union only held sovereignty via the states-- it did not transfer any sovereignty to the people of the Union as a whole.

Rather, there is no such thing as "creating a sovereign entity," since the term "sovereign" applies soley to a living person or persons, who rules over the land associated with the nation in question; under the American system, these persons were simply the individual people of the state themselves, rather than some designated elite ruler (which Madison also makes clear in Federalist 39). And as stated in the Declaration of Independence. each individual citizen simply delegates authority to a subordinate government agent, by virtue of that citizen's inalienable God-given rights; the state is NOT some abstract corporate entity unto itself, but solely a direct representation of the individual citzen... and entirely subordinate thereto.

Accordingly, the Constitution does not name any sovereigns; indeed, the term "We the People of the United States" is a commonly misattributed semantic phrase, intended to refer to the states respectively rather than collectively, since-- as clearly shown in Article VII-- only the ratifications of nine or more states were required in order to establish the Constitution... and ONLY between those ratifying states.

Likewise, the phrase "We the People of the United States" would be meaningless in any other context; for since the states were individual popularly sovereign nations prior to the Constitution, then no such single "People of the United States" existed which held any sovereign national authority to so "ordain and establish" a Constitution among the individual states. Indeed, the Constitution was ratified only by popular vote by the people of each ratifying states-- not a mass vote of the aggregate population (which again, would have no validity anyway).

In short, claiming that "the People of the United States" authorized the Constitution as a single nation, to form a single nation, is like claiming that "a chicken laid the same egg it hatched from."

In reality, the Preamble of the Constution read "That the people of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia do ordain, declare and establish the following constitution for the government of ourselves and our posterity."

But since it only required the ratification of nine or more states, it wasn't known which states would ratify; and so naturally the phrase "We the People of the United States" was substituted, as a semantic generalization for those states which did ratify. (As it turned out, only 11 states ratified by the time of establishment in 1789).

So you're really pushing semantics, hanging your hat on a single word here (i.e. "Constitution"), based on an arbitrary claim with zero support... in addition to contradicting the EU's doing that very thing, as well as the wording of the Constitution itself, and all other evidence.
Last edited by User1601 on Fri Apr 08, 2011 1:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply