DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**gorbasevhuynani** · 08-29-2012, 10:31 PM

Preventing war is why I write this thread. There never needs to be a revolutionary war so long as the sovereign power of session is respected, which is grounded in the principle of consent of the governed.

Ensuing wars are only the result of denying this principle and power of sovereignty. As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable."

I can't agree with the first part of your post. Imagine a hypothetical country, a vast prairie which is irrigated by a central resevoir. The people in this resevoir decide they wish to secede from the rest of the country, this done they then turn round and say, " this water belongs to us, you our previous countrymen aren't entitled to any" Whats the prairie folk supposed to do ? respect the secession.....and then starve to death ?

Secondly ( and in relation to the American Civil War ) claims that the souths right to secede were founded on the principle of consent of the governed, do kind of run aground on the rock of Slavery. Wherein a fairly large number of people were governed ( ruled, owned - choose your term ) over a period of generations without any body seeking their consent. Anybody talking about the right to secede, consent of the governed etc etc who's trying to apply that to the south before the emancipation laws is operating one hell of a double standard if you ask me.

08-29-2012, 10:31 PM	#22
gorbasevhuynani Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 406 Senior Member	Preventing war is why I write this thread. There never needs to be a revolutionary war so long as the sovereign power of session is respected, which is grounded in the principle of consent of the governed. Ensuing wars are only the result of denying this principle and power of sovereignty. As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful evolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." I can't agree with the first part of your post. Imagine a hypothetical country, a vast prairie which is irrigated by a central resevoir. The people in this resevoir decide they wish to secede from the rest of the country, this done they then turn round and say, " this water belongs to us, you our previous countrymen aren't entitled to any" Whats the prairie folk supposed to do ? respect the secession.....and then starve to death ? Secondly ( and in relation to the American Civil War ) claims that the souths right to secede were founded on the principle of consent of the governed, do kind of run aground on the rock of Slavery. Wherein a fairly large number of people were governed ( ruled, owned - choose your term ) over a period of generations without any body seeking their consent. Anybody talking about the right to secede, consent of the governed etc etc who's trying to apply that to the south before the emancipation laws is operating one hell of a double standard if you ask me.
	Quote