/liberty/ - Liberty

everyone paying the same amoung of money every month

>>84548

>Is there any way it would be possible to fund this minimal government voluntarily?

Offer services in exchange for a fee.

I was thinking yesterday about how in a dollar democracy the rich have more votes.

Sales tax keeps the pocket change flowing. No opinions on other forms of tax other than taxation is a necessary evil. You're right about donations and there will be dry spells. I'm for a scaled tax where the rich pay more. Even though most revenue comes from the poor simply because there are more of them. There are studies shown that the rich hoard so its probably good for their mental health to take more.

>>84589

>its probably good for their mental health to take more.

<You've got money that you've been working for your whole life, i'll steal them so you won't go mad.

>>84548

>A sales tax, income tax, property tax, tariffs, all of the above, or some other option?

Imo taxation should be on a case-by-case basis, with protective tariffs being constant

>Is there any way it would be possible to fund this minimal government voluntarily?

The free election of representatives.

>>84955

>The Civil War had anything to do with tariffs, taxes, or representation.

When will this retarded meme die? It was slavery, all about slavery, and ONLY about slavery. I thought Southern schools were finally ceasing to teach the myth that it was anything other than a war over the so-called right of white men to own black slaves. The subject is closed and you lost.

>>84958

Oh, now we have socdems here, what's next? Liberals?

>>84960

I'm sure it was just a shitpost, anon

a fee based on how expensive it is to service you on average

this means paying firefighting tax on each property that can be reasonably expected to be responded to fast enough to matter and paying extra in tightly packed areas

but it means if you are way out in the woods then ambulance/firefighters really are not going to be able to get to you so you pay little to nothing

thats my 2 cents at least

>>85007

>Then why didn't the Corwin amendment end the war peacefully?

Because it denied to the slaveholding aristocracy the oligarchic tyranny they demanded. That's why they rebelled in the first place, because of the lawful election of a president, who happened to not be *theirs*.

>Why did the Confederate Constitution specifically ban protective tariffs, government public works projects

Because these things interfered with the profit of the slaveholding aristocracy.

>subsidies for businesses

It did not do this.

>Why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free southern slaves, and why was it preceded by two Confiscation Proclamations that treated slaves as contraband property?

Because the north, unlike the south, was not fighting for the institution of slavery or a slaveholding aristocracy, but the Union.

no income tax

no VAT

property tax and tariffs

>>85013

>A president who was promising to do a multitude of things they rightfully saw as unconstitutional.

There is nothing in the Constitution stating that slavery is to be permitted in the territories.

>And the north wanted them to prop up their industrialist aristocracy.

Free trade is good goy policy

>They were fighting for the union because they needed the south as a captive market and a source of revenue

Wrong. They fought for the Union because it was their country and their duty to defend it against unlawful treasonous rebellion

>tariff revenue

If money was the goal of the north then banning slavery was a poor way to go about it since it made the south far less economically valuable.

>>85013

The article you link literally uses the Cuckfederate Constitution to prove that the secession effort was explicitly an effort to preserve and protect slavery head and shoulders above any excuse about states' rights, tariffs, government spending, etc.

Are all Southerners this retarded?

>>85059

>And that was the only thing the south was mad about

The only thing (((they))) (the slaveholding aristocracy) were mad about was the diminishment of (((their))) power and wealth. Or even the non-expansion thereof.

>Never mind his promises to invade the south if they seceded

What, you mean supress a rebellion? That's his job

>jack up a tax they were paying most of already

If only there was some kind of congress they were represented in

>>>>/pol/ is that way

>>>/leftypol/

>The United States was never meant to be one country

t. historically illiterate

>secession was fully legal

Wrong. It is contradicted by the very Constitution itself.

>The Emancipation Proclamation was a war measure intended to weaken the south, prevent foreign interference, and give the union military an injection of fresh blood.

And how bout the 13th amendment?

>>85065

>The only thing (((they))) (the slaveholding aristocracy) were mad about was the diminishment of (((their))) power and wealth

The north was furious at the prospect of losing the goose that laid the golden eggs. Without southern tariff revenue, their industry and their empire would have been dead in the water.

>What, you mean supress a rebellion

His job according to the Constitution is to abide by the will of the sovereign states.

>If only there was some kind of congress they were represented in

They'd been fighting for decades to keep it down, and were sick and tired of the constant struggle.

>I love protectionist tariffs and huge, rent seeking corporations, but you're the one that needs to leave

lel

>t. historically illiterate

t. faggot

>It is contradicted by the very Constitution itself

t. faggot that hasn't read the Constitution

>And how bout the 13th amendment

It would have been impossible to make them slaves again, and very difficult to keep the remaining northern slaves in bondage.

>>85065

>t. historically illiterate

Nigga, those states were allowed to print their own currency and make treaties. What part of "state" do you not understand?

>>85069

>just ignore all the inconvient problems with this nonsense

What inconvenient arguments?

>When the states engage in active rebellion

It was only ever going to be as violent as Lincoln made it. His predecessor knew his fucking place and chose not to act.

>Not an argument

Says the guy who thinks "le happy merchant xd" is a valid criticism of an economic policy.

>Why was there opposition to it then

Because not everyone say it like that.

>>85059

>I can just ignore facts if they don't support my beliefs

Historical creationism. Disagree with the mountains of proof all you like, but when the Cuckfederates did more to rescind state autonomy than affirm it and made it illegal for their membership to outlaw slavery for themselves it kind of torpedoes the idea that it was over taxation and not their precious right to keep other human beings in bondage.

Your newspaper article is a cute effort at trying to look informed but it doesn't really work. The New Orleans Daily editorial means jack, diddly, and shit compared to every traitor state affirming in their declaration of secession that the white race is supreme and the natural position of the black man is as his servant.

This is why the statues need to not only be taken down, but smashed. Right in front of the tikki toddlers who shill for them.

>>85076

>This is why the statues need to not only be taken down, but smashed.

I would handle this differently. I would make them accept union statues too. I would like to see a statue of Sherman holding a firebrand in Atlanta.

>>85076

>traitor state

Wrong.

>affirming in their declaration of secession that the white race is supreme

Most white northerners wouldn't have disagreed with the supremacy bit. The New York draft riots were in large part motivated by the emancipation proclamation. And this completely glosses over the four states that only seceded after Lincoln raised an army to invade.

>This is why the statues need to not only be taken down, but smashed

Go jump off a helicopter.

>>85077

How about statues of William Anderson and Henry Wirz in New York?

>>85074

>arguments

I thought I said problems

>It was only ever going to be as violent as Lincoln made it.

Even if no shots were fired and the government capitulated, it was active rebellion.

>Because not everyone say it like that.

I know autism makes it hard, but do try to be articulate. Or better yet just stop being retarded altogether

>>85081

>Wrong

States committing treason, no I think that's the very definition of traitor state

>the four states that only seceded after Lincoln raised an army to invade.

Traitors showing their true colors by siding with traitors.

>>85081

>Wrong

Cherry-picking Jefferson sperging out because the Federalists were winning elections doesn't mean that the union was a compact the states were free to back out of at any time for any reason.

>Most white northerners wouldn't have disagreed

Pathetic whataboutism. The northern states weren't a multicultural society free of hate, but all of them except the border states realized it was a moral outrage and properly banned it even if they didn't recognize negro equality. Fair enough for their day. Meanwhile, the inbred hicks went so far as to codify it in the founding documents articulating their treason that they intended to keep slavery going in perpetuity because of white superiority. There is no fucking moral equivalency here.

>Go jump off a helicopter

History's on my side, sugartits. The statues are coming down with or without your permission all over the place. All you can do about it is post Pinochet memes and cry softly into your Stonewall Jackson dakimakura.

>How about statues of William Anderson and Henry Wirz in New York.

Losers don't get trophies.

>>85081

>William Anderson

Nothing wrong with that.

>Henry Wirz

I don't mind. Elmira had a higher death rate than Andersonville anyway, and the union forbade equal exchange of soldiers.

>>85098

>They were practicing the right of self determination

Individuals do not have that right against the whole.

>following the precedent set by the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration was a lawful secession not an unlawful act of treason.

>There was no treason

If we take the general, basic definition of treason, it was treason because it was betrayal. If we take the legal, constitutional definition of treason, it was treason because they levied war against the Union.

>>85117

>It had even less legal justification than the South's secession

It was lawful because the representatives of the people appointed by their provincial legislatures, equal to the parliament of Great Britain, voted to dissolve the compact which then existed between them. The states were and are inferior to the federal government, so they can not unilaterally secede.

>There was no betrayal.

<turning against your country isn't betrayal

>It talks about the states

The United States. The plural pronoun was a standard way of referring to the Union back then, our use of singular pronouns is a novelty.

>>85121

>The states were and are inferior to the federal government

They existed prior to and independent of the federal government, and created it to manage interstate commerce/international affairs.

>turning against your country isn't betrayal

The country turned on us first.

>our use of singular pronouns is a novelty

And you can't see what this implies about the intended nature of the union? I thought you were disingenuous, but I guess you're just a retard.

>>85126

>They existed prior to and independent of the federal government

But not prior to or independent of the Union

>created it to manage interstate commerce/international affairs.

They created it to preserve the Union, and in accordance with that mission delegated supreme authority to it.

>The country turned on us first.

Nobody turned against the south until it rebelled.

>And you can't see what this implies about the intended nature of the union?

They used it because it was grammatically correct. 'The United States' is plural. But it was a nationstate from the beginning

>>85098

>Then point to the part of the Constitution specifically banning secession

Don't have to. The SCOTUS, which is empowered to interpret the Constitution, has consistently held the ratification to have formed an indestructible union. The Cuckfederates themselves kept this provision as part of their Constitution just in case they had to put down their own revolt some day. Hypocrites who only cared at the end of the day about keeping a domesticated black underclass.

Consider also that the Constitution provides for the process for states to enter the union, but not to leave it. Kind of an important thing to leave out if the Founders were all gung-ho about the right of states to just pack up and leave.

The Articles of Confederation described the union as "perpetual." The Constitution's preamble curiously refers to "a more perfect union."

If that isn't enough, even Justice Scalia, the most adamant states' rights ideologue who ever sat on the bench in his generation, determined that the issue was resolved at Appomatox.

It's over. You lost. Get over it.

>They banned it because they saw slavery as taking jobs from honest, good fearing white folk. The basic human rights of slaves almost never came into the equation.

Making shit up and ignoring history, hm? Typical Cuckfederate. What is the abolition movement? What were the high stakes emotional debates even during the Revolutionary War about the place of slavery in the independent colonies? If it were truly about them negros takin' der jerbs, why didn't the great mass of Southerners who didn't own slaves not demand the same thing? Oh! Because they were lazy hicks who could at least take pride in not being black even if they were objectively worthless white trash in every sense of the word.

>Then where are all the glorious socialist Utopias?

You mean Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Australia, Switzerland, Holland, Canada, and the dozens of other countries that kick America's ass in happiness indices, human development, health care, education, and any number of other fields while still providing a generous social services and safety net? They're doing swell, thanks!

(Yes, I know they aren't hardcore "socialist" in the academic sense, but they're socialist enough for right-libertarians).

>another two go up on private land

Nobody cares. You want to build a shrine to failures and losers on your own land, knock yourself out, Cletus. Just don't get mad when the public asserts its right not to have its tax dollars and shared spaces go to the glorification of traitors and racists. You want to fly a nazi flag on your backyard flag poll? I don't care either. Point is that we aren't going to tolerate the glorification of people who betrayed the country to dehumanize and enslave other humans anymore.

>being able to make someone do something doesn't mean you should

We taught you that when we kicked your asses in the Civil War and ended slavery. We're teaching you now by taking down the statues. Lube up, faggot, it's only going to get worse for you in the coming years Trump or no.

>>85098

Don't really have to bother arguing what The Confederacy REALLY stood for or thought because when you do you are always talking about the political elite in power. Unless someone can convince me that the majority of slave states wasn't comprised of white farmers who owned no large plantations and were in direct competition with slave holders, and even more so, were willing to go to war to defend the rights of their rich, hated competitors.

>>85127

>But not prior to or independent of the Union

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/artconf.asp

Article II

<Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and Independence

>delegated supreme authority to it

In the areas of interstate commerce and international relations.

>Nobody turned against the south until it rebelled

Wrong.

>But it was a nationstate from the beginning

Ok, so you're disingenuous and a retard.

>>85133

>The SCOTUS, which is empowered to interpret the Constitution

Judicial review is unconstitutional and makes no sense given the opinions of the founding fathers. Why would they give 9 unelected lawyers with a lifetime tenure that much power?

>only cared at the end of the day about keeping a domesticated black underclass

There were other important issues in the south at the time, and the north didn't care about the right of slaves to be free at all.

>The Constitution's preamble curiously refers to "a more perfect union

Clearly setting it up as a new and better union. One that is not specifically perpetual.

>What is the abolition movement

The ones who wanted equal rights for blacks were a radical fringe element.

>Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland

<b-b-but muh nordic countries

>Australia

Gotta love getting arrested for looking at porn stars with small tits.

>Switzerland

Gold standard and isolationism.

>happiness indices

Vague and subjective.

>health care

American health care isn't a free market.

>education

Also not privatized in America.

>Yes, I know they aren't hardcore "socialist" in the academic sense

Many are on par with or freer than America in most respects.

>You want to fly a nazi flag on your backyard flag poll

Lincoln was Hitler's favorite president.

>kicked your asses

It took an industrial powerhouse of 21 million half a decade and multiple war crimes to conquer an agrarian nation of 9 million.

>>85134

>the majority of slave states wasn't comprised of white farmers who owned no large plantations and were in direct competition with slave holders

They were fighting to defend their homes from an invading army that had no qualms over robbing your family at gunpoint and burning your farm to the ground because you might in some way make a small contribution to the Southern war effort.

>>85138

>Judicial review is unconstitutional

HAHAHAHAHAHA

>Why would they give 9 unelected lawyers with a lifetime tenure that much power?

So they could do their damn jobs and reign as the law actually states and in recognition of the changing needs of society irrespective of what the idiot masses who know nothing of jurisprudence want. Judges should not be elected and shouldn't have their rulings put to a vote. They should dispassionately make decisions based on the letter of the law and the emergent needs that society has from that law rather than worry about whether or not something like recognizing gays as human will get them drummed out of office by morons.

>One that is not specifically perpetual

A more perfect union obviously isn't one that's going to more easily dissolved. That's just obtuse wishful thinking on part of secessionists.

>The ones who wanted equal rights for blacks were a radical fringe element

So what? They were fair enough for their day realizing that irrespective of racial equality or inequality it is WRONG TO OWN SLAVES. They didn't need to be 23rd century super egalitarians. Realizing that slavery had to be stopped, by force if necessary, is good enough and certainly makes them the moral and intellectual superiors of the people who rebelled specifically and sole sufficiently to maintain slavery.

>b-b-but muh Nordic countries

Problem? Stutter meme doesn't make it less true. These are countries with people that are better off where the government takes a much larger role assuring the basic needs of the people are guaranteed. Where people understand that taxation is not theft, but the price we pay for civilization. Where people know that positive liberty is every bit as important as negative liberty.

>Gotta love getting arrested for looking at porn stars with small tits.

Gotta love being bankrupted because you can't afford health care or are denied over a preexisting condition.

>Gold standard and isolationism

Social services and public welfare

>Vague and subjective

Try reading them

>American health care isn't a free market

Heeeeeeee…

>Also not privatized in America

And not in the countries that soundly trounce America either. In fact, it's even more regulated under public auspices.

>Many are on par with or freer than America in most respects.

True that… because they understand what positive liberties are and aren't afraid to levy taxes to support the common good and make sure people aren't fucked over by the free market.

>multiple war crimes

Traitors, particularly those who betray their nation to perpetuate slavery, get no mercy.

>They were fighting to defend their homes

No, they were fighting to keep the status-quo because even if a white dirt farmer was eating clay to survive at least he could tell himself at the end of the day he wasn't a nigger. He depended on the psychological comfort of white supremacy just as much as the slaveholders depended on it for status and money.

At any rate, it doesn't matter. The fought for evil. Fighting for evil is not a laudable or praise-worthy act. Ever.

>>85151

>That's a lot of disdain for the working class

I sympathize with the struggles of the working class to get by and have a fair shake. Doesn't mean I don't hold their backwards values system in total disgusted contempt. They need to be uplifted both economically and culturally or it would all be for nothing.

>the easiest/most ethical way to do that is let people with irreconcilable differences go their separate ways.

The easiest and most ethical way is not to start a war to keep other humans enslaved. Taxes and representation are negotiable. Human bondage is not. If the South hadn't been afraid that Lincoln and the Republicans would outlaw the spread of the slavery, they'd have grumbled and soldiered through the economic bullshit. It was slavery that caused the war. Everything else was a distant third reason.

>The existence of slavery isn't what they were mad about

I was referring to the abolitionists, so yes they were. You can try and take away from the justice of that cause by ascribing mercenary motives and screenposting questionable revisionism, but the rest of the world rightly judges the North to have had a de facto moral strength regardless of the ulterior motives.

>Wrong

Nope! 100% Correct! As your own link to the Cuckfederate Constitution proves, it wouldn't have happened without slavery. The South Carolinans didn't spend 20 pages explaining how unfair Yankee tariffs were and how great free trade is, they were affirming the right of whites to own black slaves by virtue of inherent superiority. This sentiment is repeated across the whole of the traitor movement. During the war, the Confederate central government only took autonomy from the states. They didn't care about federalism and taxes enough to secede. The secession was brought about because of slavery and the desire of the South to perpetuate it. Without that, there would not have been a Civil War. The tax issues would have been settled politically. The trade debates would have been something the public yawned about while Congressman screamed at each other. The idea that blacks would be free of their masters, though? Panic and rage.

>specifically said that his country isn't socialist

It's "socialist" enough for right-wingers in murrica to bitch and moan. Implementing the many successful social welfare policies as there here would result in endless cries of "socialism."

>Positive liberty is the idea that you have right to someone else's labor.

Nothing wrong with that. You have the right to another person's labor in a trial by jury. No reason that somebody should not have the right not to starve when there's enough food surplus that an insane amount of it is thrown away every day.

>American education spending has gone up without increases in quality.

So? Americans are too retarded to fund education properly, big shock. Other nations generously subsidize their school systems as a percentage of their GDP and NOT in a stupid fashion.

>They weren't traitors, slavery was far from the only issue at play, and you should kill yourself

They were rebel filth, slavery was the overriding and most important issue high above and exceeding all others, and you're the one shilling for a dead and buried cause loser.

>There were free blacks whom owned slaves themselves

And knew better than to act like the equal of a poor white. Love this argument about outliers. Next you'll say that just because there are alt-right fags it means that LGBT isn't an innately progressive movement

>there was nothing good about them at all and anyone who says otherwise is stupid and wrong

Yyyyyyyyep!

>>85138

>Article II

Independence in the Union, not independence from the Union. retard

>In the areas of interstate commerce and international relations.

Nope, in all things

<This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

>Wrong

It's true. The loyal states had a quarrel with traitors, not southerners.

>Ok, so you're disingenuous and a retard.

no u

>multiple war crimes

In times of war the laws fall silent.

>an agrarian nation

There was but one nation in the war.

>They were fighting to defend their homes from an invading army that had no qualms over robbing your family at gunpoint and burning your farm to the ground because you might in some way make a small contribution to the Southern war effort.

More like because the rich oligarch said so

>>85151

>irreconcilable differences

Funny how the irreconcilable differences vanished as soon as the slaveholding aristocrats lost their wealth and power.

>>85169

>those stupid proles don't know what they really want, so I'd better make their decisions for them

My point stands.

>don't look at the decades of clashes over the tariff rate including previous threats to secede, it's all about slavery and nothing else

>I was referring to the abolitionists, so yes they were

I was referring to the mainstream abolitionists of the sort you might find in the Republican party.

>by virtue of inherent superiority

The north wasn't disagreeing with the inherent superiority idea.

>Nothing wrong with that

Unless it's eebil white Southerners oppressing those poor black slaves.

>>85171

>Independence in the Union, not independence from the Union

Neck yourself faggot.

>Nope, in all things

Then why the tenth amendment? Anywhere that the federal government has not been specifically granted power, the states are left to decide for themselves.

>lol it's ok to shell civilians, burn farms to the ground, and put people's heads on pikes for suspected bushwhacking

>There was but one nation in the war

Wrong.

>More like because the rich oligarch said so

More like because Sherman didn't give a rat's ass what you thought of the war.

>Funny how the irreconcilable differences vanished as soon as the slaveholding aristocrats lost their wealth and power

Almost like killing 1 in 4 adult men, burning everything to the ground, and turning the entire economic system on its head means people worry more about survival than independence.

>>85133

tbh SCOTUS often contradicts itself. At one point, to publicly oppose conscription was not considered free speech. Basically they can misinterpret the constitution with impunity.

>Consider also that the Constitution provides for the process for states to enter the union, but not to leave it.

Most executive actions today are outside the scope of the enumerated powers, so the lack of mention should not be a barrier if we want to be consistent.

>Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Australia, Switzerland, Holland, Canada

None of these are socialist as evident by their high EFI. I can give you on education but not the other measures. Finland has one of the highest ranked suicide rates.

>>85193

Most of those countries are also dwarfed by America. Iceland in particular is so small they had to make an app to stop people from accidentally fucking a distant cousin.

>>85185

>Neck yourself faggot.

are you upset?

>Then why the tenth amendment?

Mainly to appease the antifederalists, but its function is to give all authority not granted to the federal government to the states, or to the people.

>>lol it's ok to shell civilians, burn farms to the ground, and put people's heads on pikes for suspected bushwhacking

Yes. Anything necessary to acheive victory is acceptable. Nothing is required of a general but victory.

>Sherman didn't give a rat's ass what you thought of the war.

>killing 1 in 4 adult men, burning everything to the ground, and turning the entire economic system on its head

It's like you think the whole war was one big march to the sea where supreme leader Sherman led the federals to kill and burn anything they came acrosss

>>85228

>but its function is to give all authority not granted to the federal government to the states, or to the people

Which includes secession, as it is discussed nowhere else in the Constitution.

>Yes. Anything necessary to acheive victory is acceptable

You are scum.

>It's like you think the whole war was one big march to the sea where supreme leader Sherman led the federals to kill and burn anything they came across

Because it was.

>>85228

>It's like you think the whole war was one big march to the sea where supreme leader Sherman led the federals to kill and burn anything they came acrosss

That's basically the modus of the Anaconda Plan.

>>85306

>Which includes secession, as it is discussed nowhere else in the Constitution

How would the federal government secede from the Union? How would the people do it? The tenth amendment describes powers held by three groups, the federal government, the states, and the people. If a power by its nature can only be held by one of those groups, it is not within the scope of the amendment.

>You are scum

No you

>it was

This has to be bait, or you're stupid as a nigger

>>85327

>How would the federal government secede from the Union

The federal government is the union.

>How would the people do it

You tell me.

>If a power by its nature can only be held by one of those groups

Since the states were previously fully sovereign, they retained much of their prior sovereignty under ratification, and it doesn't make sense for any of these other groups to have the power, secession is clearly reserved for the states.

>No you

You're the one who thinks war crimes are just fine.

>or you're stupid as a nigger

no u

>>85375

>The federal government is the union.

No, it is not. The Union is the joining of the several states together as one nationstate. The federal government is the government of this state.

>Since the states were previously fully sovereign, they retained much of their prior sovereignty under ratification

They did not retain any rights averse to the Constitution and a national republic. This includes secession, which belongs more to a league than a republic, and is contradicted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

>it doesn't make sense for any of these other groups to have the power, secession is clearly reserved for the states

It does not assign to the states any conceivable power whatsoever, but specifically that which is not assigned to the federal government, and which may also be assigned to the people. The power to secede is outside of that scope, this is not my opinion, this is fact. There would be no need for any mention of the federal government if the object was to grant omnipotence to the states. Furthermore, if by it the states are given powers which only they can physically possess, would it not follow that because the people are also mentioned they are granted the right to loot, destroy and rebel at will?

>>85428

>No, it is not

Yes it is.

>They did not retain any rights averse to the Constitution and a national republic

On the contrary, secession allows for the defense of the republic when the national government has been compromised.

>and is contradicted by the supremacy clause of the Constitution

Wrong.

>It does not assign to the states any conceivable power whatsoever

It doesn't assign anything to anyone, just explain that the states retain any power not specifically given to the federal government elsewhere in the document.

>if the object was to grant omnipotence to the states

The states aren't omnipotent, and I'm not saying they are.

>>85497

>Yes it is.

Not an argument

>secession allows for the defense of the republic

Treason is loyalty, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery…

>Wrong.

Not an argument

>It doesn't assign anything to anyone, just explain that the states retain any power not specifically given to the federal government elsewhere in the document

The amendment grants those powers it doesn't just recognize them.

>The states aren't omnipotent, and I'm not saying they are.

I like how you didn't even acknowledge my arguments. I guess they were stronger than I thought

>>85501

>Treason is loyalty, ignorance is strength, freedom is slavery

Protectionism is liberty and tyranny is freedom.

>The amendment grants those powers

No it fucking doesn't. No one was granted any powers anywhere except the federal government and everything they got was explained elsewhere.

>I guess they were stronger than I thought

You can interpret it that way if it makes you feel better.

>>85141

>>They were fighting to defend their homes

Pillaging and rape was a real thing. It probably has been in nearly every war. You don't have to go out of your way to deflect just to feel like you have something to win; When your government declares war you either fight it or fight the supposed enemy. Option C is get murdered/raped/robbed or all three.

>>85501

>Not an argument

You started with an assertion. Why would you want an argument in response?

a flat sales tax since it actually improves the effectiveness of the feedback mechanisms in the free market.

>>84548

Is OP still here?

>>85151

that graph is wrong

http://www.shankerinstitute.org/resource/publicschoolinginefficiency

Should those who don't pay voluntary taxes receive services?

>>85664

If they do not, how are these taxes in any way?

>>85656

PISA graph shows linear trend around the 490+ range, which shows diminishing marginal returns with expenditure at that point. It's funny how they try to fit a logarithmic trendline to it, and dare not post the R2 value.