Can states secede? There are three levels on which this question can be answered:

[General Geoff]

Sure. But if a hypothetical group of people decide to band together and live by standards that say women should be beaten, children raped, ugly people tortured, short people enslaved, and that every man must prove his manhood by raping and killing his mother, can we all agree that this is utterly evil?

I've met people who would say, "Sure--by MY standards, that's perfectly evil and horrible... but to people who grew up that way, it's just the normal way of doing things. To them it's virtuous, and we're twisted and evil for failing to rape babies."

They ARE factually correct. I don't see how that *must* mean they have a psychological problem. It merely means they can view the situation from a proverbial void of morality. That doesn't mean they LIVE in a void of morality. The human brain is capable of amazing things when left to the abstract. LIVING something is entirely different from IMAGINING it.

[headcase]

Sure. But if a hypothetical group of people decide to band together and live by standards that say women should be beaten, children raped, ugly people tortured, short people enslaved, and that every man must prove his manhood by raping and killing his mother, can we all agree that this is utterly evil?

I've met people who would say, "Sure--by MY standards, that's perfectly evil and horrible... but to people who grew up that way, it's just the normal way of doing things. To them it's virtuous, and we're twisted and evil for failing to rape babies."

So far, without exception, the people who reacted that way have consistently horrified me with a lack of moral sentiment. They're factually correct, maybe, but they've always turned out to have a (moral and/or psychological) screw loose. It's this quirk that I refer to as "relativism." A refusal ever to call something "wrong," without adding caveats that "wrong" is of course a matter of opinion.

To you. I'll say it again, your moral compass dictates what is evil, or acceptable to you. You claiming mental defect in someone whose moral compass points in a different direction is, or at least should be according to your own stated moral beliefs, morally wrong.

[Adam-12]

Again, morally right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder.

Yes. But anyone whose morality isn't passionately ingrained in the core of their being has a problem. If I moved to live among cannibals, I could probably coexist with them. A cannibal with a consistent moral code is easier to work with than a person whose morality is not firmly fixed.

What if the reality of your blanket question is that the group wanting to succeed peacefully is taking all the food? Or water? Or women? Or doctors? Medicine?

Are they stealing it, or is it theirs? My morality forbids me to steal, so if someone owns all the medicine and won't give me any, I'll call him a big fat jerk--but I won't steal from him. It's against my moral code. Better to die with self-respect than to live as a thief.

[Adam-12]

To you. I'll say it again, your moral compass dictates what is evil, or acceptable to you. You claiming mental defect in someone whose moral compass points in a different direction is, or at least should be according to your own stated moral beliefs, morally wrong.

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I can, and do, work with people who have different moral compasses. Hardly anyone has the same moral compass as me. Even fellow libertarians, fellow anarchists and members of my church have issues with my moral views.

It's having NO moral compass AT ALL--or having several to choose from, same thing--that makes a person psychologically defective.

A cannibal with a murderous moral code I can work with. I know he wants to kill and eat me, but I trust him to play by his rules at least. Once I learn his rules, I'll know what to do to survive. But a man with no fixed set of morals may do anything. He can't be trusted. His actions can't be predicted. It's hopeless.

When I say it's also a psychological defect, I'm stating an opinion about psychology, not morals. Most humans have some sort of moral code. We're wired for it. We can't handle it when our own minds are so inconsistent that we can't even trust ourselves. But the defect is lacking a moral compass, not having the wrong one. As far as I'm concerned, almost everyone has the wrong one.

[General Geoff]

A bit off topic, but this whole debate on morality just reminds me of Terminator 2.


"Jesus, you were gonna kill that guy!"
"Of course, I'm a terminator."
"Well, you're not a terminator anymore, ok? Got that? You just can't go around killing people!"
"Why?"
"Whaddya mean why? Because you can't!"
"Why?"
"...Because you just can't. Trust me on this."

[headcase]

I think we're misunderstanding each other. I can, and do, work with people who have different moral compasses. Hardly anyone has the same moral compass as me. Even fellow libertarians, fellow anarchists and members of my church have issues with my moral views.

It's having NO moral compass AT ALL--or having several to choose from, same thing--that makes a person psychologically defective.

A cannibal with a murderous moral code I can work with. I know he wants to kill and eat me, but I trust him to play by his rules at least. Once I learn his rules, I'll know what to do to survive. But a man with no fixed set of morals may do anything. He can't be trusted. His actions can't be predicted. It's hopeless.

When I say it's also a psychological defect, I'm stating an opinion about psychology, not morals. Most humans have some sort of moral code. We're wired for it. We can't handle it when our own minds are so inconsistent that we can't even trust ourselves. But the defect is lacking a moral compass, not having the wrong one. As far as I'm concerned, almost everyone has the wrong one.

The problem is that there are very few humans who have a set in stone moral code. Circumstances often dictate what your set moral code is. Most of us have a few core principles that we will refuse to consciously abandon, but the rest is up for constant tweaking as circumstance demands. Once again, it is you who are deciding the parameters of ones moral code. Humans, as a species, are unpredictable. It is one of the things that make us human. We constantly evaluate and reevaluate our surroundings and circumstances, and we adapt. The ability to adapt, includes one's morals. What may appear to you as a lack of a moral compass, may, in fact, be a manifestation of one. Just one you do not understand.

[GHogHarvester]

Great discussion with diverse viewpoints and no-one is locked and loaded yet.

I believe the founders intended that government attain no more power than was absolutely needed to fufill its function. We,the People, were and are to be the restrainer of government, not the converse. Many certainly feel that government has exceeded the authority we intended, myself included.

With full (and deserved) credit to the "5000 year leap", We, the People were required to be virtuous, foster religon in its many forms and have a duty to be well educated and informed. To do right by ourselves and others. The number of We, the People is reducing, day by day. This trend must be reversed for us to prosper as a Nation.

The advocacy of cessation is a terminal solution, one that should and must be preserved as an option, but only when no other solution is to be found AND the situation is intolerable. You need only look to the Civil War to realize its effects, brother against brother in battle. The concept of "winning" will at best be hollow.

If We the People, as a majority, believe that the Government we have elected have through greed, corruption or a lust for power devolved into tyranny, a tyranny that longer respond to Our voice, we are morally bound to free ourselves or else suffer its chains in silence. Freeing ourselves does not require violent revolt in any but the most dire of circumstances, but its potential must be omnipresent or tyranny becomes a certainty.

Should a majority of states elect to secede, then the will of We the People is clear and the federal government has no authority over them.

[Adam-12]

The problem is that there are very few humans who have a set in stone moral code.

Sure, it's a continuum. At one end we have fanatics with a rabid devotion to morality; at the other end we have sociopaths with no morality at all.

Circumstances often dictate what your set moral code is.

For most of us, that's seldom true. Our principles are relatively fixed. Different circumstances call for different decisions, but the decisions are still based on the same consistent principles.

Of course sometimes we just plain do bad things. Conscience bothers us to various degrees, with the sociopaths having no conscience at all.

Humans, as a species, are unpredictable. It is one of the things that make us human.

Some are more predictable than others, and some are more trustworthy than others.

What may appear to you as a lack of a moral compass, may, in fact, be a manifestation of one. Just one you do not understand.

It's a continuum. I'm not trying to separate people into two classes, the 100% fanatics and the 100% sociopaths. But sociopaths exist. I don't know whether what I refer to as "relativism" is really the same thing as psychopathy, but they're definitely related: every sociopath is a "relativist" in my terminology. But hopefully not every relativist is a sociopath.