Stars and Bars

[mc ukrneal]

Ken, I agree that Spooner´s reasoning, if applied to the last consequences, would ultimately destroy any law whatsoever. But if an idea is dangerous, it doesn´t follow that it is also untrue. I have yet to see a solid refutation of Spooner --- and not from the point of view of the social usefulness and practicability of his ideas (they have none) but from the point of view of whether they are true or false.

You should really read my earlier post (which I think you may have skipped over). It addresses point I of the linked essay. Incidentally, there is little to refute as it is really an op-ed piece. In any case, continuing on...

Point II - voting is now universal, so not really worth pursuing now. In any case, he makes all sorts of assumptions and presumptions in this section about what people might have/could have meant by this. Not really very helpful.

Point III - It is highly likely that taxes were less transparent in those days. Today, there is a lot of information about where the money goes. Still, it could be better as he would probably stipulate a level of detail that is not available to all. But he seems to assumes all the worst possible uses of the money. Perhaps I should remind you this is the US and not Romania?

Point IV  - is nonsense. There was a whole methodology to the adoption of the Constitution (done by votes in each state, which is essentially the signing, but again it is not the type of contract he is trying to make it). If it had not been accepted, there would have been riots or something. Instead, we see a generally unified country going about it's business for 70-80 years before the Civil War

Point V - blah blah blah.

Point VI - more blah blah blah...did this guy get paid by the word?

Incidentally, I am now realizing that you claimed that this guy was right in everything he said. Therefore, as per your demand that the claimant prove his point, you should prove every point of his. Good luck. We expect it by tomorrow (since we KNOW you have thoroughly read it all).

PS: Oh, and we won't read any more of your posts until you  do! 

[Karl Henning]

The Confederate battle flag has an extra layer of hateful meaning for African-Americans. It was raised by Southern states in defiance of federal integration measures in the 1950s and '60s.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0624/Dixie-fading-Confederate-symbols-under-siege-across-South.-video

[Karl Henning]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0624/Dixie-fading-Confederate-symbols-under-siege-across-South.-video

Mississippi Sens. Roger Wicker and Thad Cochran, both Republicans, on Wednesday called for the Mississippi state flag to be changed. The Mississippi flag includes the Confederate battle flag.

[Karl Henning]

Interestingly, the present Mississippi state flag was only adopted in 1894;  and there was a 2001 referendum, to adopt a non-Confederate design in 2001.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Mississippi

[Ken B]

AS Karl found

The Confederate battle flag has an extra layer of hateful meaning for African-Americans. It was raised by Southern states in defiance of federal integration measures in the 1950s and '60s.

Yes, in some states including I believe SC. That is why I said that while it is not necessarily a symbol of bass-ackwardness, in this case it really is. It was meant as an upraised middle finger to the "meddling" civil rights movement. So it's actually less a symbol of slavery than of Jim Crow. Jim Crow should have no defenders.

There seems to be a mania now to remove anything linked to the Confederacy, like Gone with the Wind. That's a foolish reaction. But this flag was adopted, as the quote explains, to send a message. Lose it.

[Karl Henning]

There seems to be a mania now to remove anything linked to the Confederacy, like Gone with the Wind. That's a foolish reaction. But this flag was adopted, as the quote explains, to send a message. Lose it.

The broad brush would (not surprisingly) be the foolish reaction. The "Heritage, Not Hate" slogan is a tendentiously (and perhaps perniciously) broad brush, too.  Statues of the Confederate Army heroes, leave them stand, that is the history.  A bust of a KKK leader enshrined in the Tennessee State House, bring it down . . . install it in a Knox County Museum of Hate, maybe 

[Ken B]

Neal's missing citation is indeed about Texas. Texas v White
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096

Update. Neal, when you are finished with it you might want to hand Florestan his head back. I don't deny you earned it fair and square. Indeed you chopped him off at the knees, so there are probably other parts you can hand back.

[Karl Henning]

Neal's missing citation is indeed about Texas. Texas v White
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096

A most engaging read, thank you.

Particularly:

726 When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States.

Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest and subjugation.

Our conclusion therefore is, that Texas continued to be a State, and a State of the Union, notwithstanding the transactions to which we have referred. And this conclusion, in our judgment, is not in conflict with any act or declaration of any department of the National government, but entirely in accordance with the whole series of such acts and declarations since the first outbreak of the rebellion.

[mc ukrneal]

Neal's missing citation is indeed about Texas. Texas v White
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096

Update. Neal, when you are finished with it you might want to hand Florestan his head back. I don't deny you earned it fair and square. Indeed you chopped him off at the knees, so there are probably other parts you can hand back.

Thank you for the link. I just could not remember it. As to the other, at least I am learning about his nature/character!

[Florestan]

Incidentally, I am now realizing that you claimed that this guy was right in everything he said. Therefore, as per your demand that the claimant prove his point, you should prove every point of his.

He proved them himself. You might not be convinced. I am. And once again, it has nothing to do with usefulness or practicability. Government of the people, by the people, for the people is a fiction, in US no less than in Romania: socially useful and practical, but a fiction nonetheless.

PS: Oh, and we won't read any more of your posts until you  do! 

I don´t mind, actually. 

Neal's missing citation is indeed about Texas. Texas v White
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1134912565671891096


Update. Neal, when you are finished with it you might want to hand Florestan his head back. I don't deny you earned it fair and square. Indeed you chopped him off at the knees, so there are probably other parts you can hand back.

My, my, my...Symbolic annihilation. I must have struck some really sensitive chord. 

[Karl Henning]

My, my, my...Symbolic annihilation. I must have struck some really sensitive chord. 

Are we learning about his nature/character? 

[Florestan]

at least I am learning about his nature/character!

Great! What is it? I am really curious. 

[Florestan]

Are we learning about his nature/character? 

Hah!

[mc ukrneal]

He proved them himself. You might not be convinced. I am. And once again, it has nothing to do with usefulness or practicability. Government of the people, by the people, for the people is a fiction, in US no less than in Romania: socially useful and practical, but a fiction nonetheless.

No, I am not convinced at all. I AM convinced he was verbose.

If it's a fiction, then I am curious, what is your reality?

[mc ukrneal]

Great! What is it? I am really curious. 

Still learning...

[Ken B]

Great! What is it? I am really curious. 

My guess, and I admit it's only a guess, is that you are a Schubert fan.

[Florestan]

If it's a fiction, then I am curious, what is your reality?

My reality is that not a single one of the so-called representatives of the people can point to any single man or woman of that people and say "he or she personally nominated me to represent his or her interests; to him or her I am fully responsible and in case he or she believes I don´t act according to his or her interests, or because he or she simply so wishes, he or she can revoke my nomination at any time". My reality is that the so-called representatives of the people represent in fact nobody but themselves and their own interests. If you think otherwise, that´s fine with me: I am not the one to destroy other people´s dreams and illusions. 

Still learning...

I saw that coming. 

[Florestan]

My guess, and I admit it's only a guess, is that you are a Schubert fan.

How did you know? 

[Pat B]

Without even getting into the slavery aspect, Killer Mike made a very succinct summary of the Confederate flag: "You do not fly the flags of losers over the winners' country."

[ibanezmonster]

Without even getting into the slavery aspect, Killer Mike made a very succinct summary of the Confederate flag: "You do not fly the flags of losers over the winners' country."

"But in our minds, WE won the Civil War."