A Conversation…

About my “Divorce” comment from an earlier post

Friend:  “Well, you just can’t do that. I mean, the Civil War proved you can’t do that.”

Me: “Sorry, all the Civil War (which wasn’t a civil war) proved was that you can make one group of people remain part of another group of people by force of arms.”

F: “That’s ridiculous.  It proved that the Union was right!”

M:  “Ok…  Let’s say that you were married to me and I’m an abusive husband.  You try to leave me.  I beat you down and make you stay.  Was I right?”

F: “You’re telling me you support slavery!”

M:  “What’s that got to do with it?  The motives for the South wanting to separate had nothing to do with their right to.  Not that slavery was the only reason they wanted to leave.  But let’s not fight your Public Schooling and leave it at that.”

F: “But… “

M:  “Nope… let me finish.  Let’s say you’re married to me again and you turn into a cheating whore.”

F: “I…”

M: “ Shh!  It’s just an example.  So you cheat and find yourself a new man.  You decide you want to marry him.  Do you have the right to leave or do I have the right to lock you up in the attic?

F: “I have to right to leave.  But…”

M: “So you’re ok with cheating?”

F: “NO!  It’s not right but…”

M: “No.  It’s not right, but if you want to destroy something to chase stupidity, you have that right.   So no matter how stupid the South’s reasons for leaving, the South had the right, when the two sides could no longer coexist together, to leave.

F: “Well… yes.  But…”

M: “Oh I know, the South went about it all wrong.  But the basic premises that two parties have the right to sever ties when it becomes impossible for one or both to maintain a beneficial stance in the relationship still stands.  That’s the entire premises of the Declaration of Independence.  Only force by one party or inactivity by the other can keep that relationship together.”

F (sensing an opening): “OK!  So how do you say when it’s not beneficial!  There’s no standard for that!”

M: “Sure there is.  There’re several.  Natural Law, the Constitution, and Human Rights.  Even if actions by a government are legal by civil law, if they are in violation of any of those three, a people, in this case a State or group of States can argue that it’s no longer morally/Constitutionally/ethically beneficial to belong to this country.

F: “What??? You sound like a religious nut!”

M: “Really?  So it would have been wrong for the North to say, ‘We can’t stand being associated with the moral and ethical outrage of slavery, we seek to dissolve our part in this union and make our own nation?’” 

F: “They would have never done that!”

M: “Surely not, they were making too much money off the South.  It would have been crapping in their own hat.  But, do you deny that it would have been morally justifiable for them to take that action?”

F: “No.”

M: “And if the South had fought that, which they wouldn’t… But if they had fought it and won, wouldn’t it be an outrage of Biblical proportion for them to saddle the North with Slavery?”

F: “Yes.”

M:  “So there ARE benchmarks.”

F: ”Yes.  But what makes you think we’ve reached that here in this country.”

M: “Well…  As I said, there is no compromise between Capitalism and Marxism. Marxism is a moral outrage created solely to place a few people on top of all others.   It and the free market are mutually exclusive.  If a State signed up for statehood with the idea of being in a free market, then they have grounds to leave.  The same right a wife has when she finds out that her husband no longer wishes to keep his zipper zipped when with other women.”

F: “But that’s just money.  If people get mad about money, they’ll never stay together.” 

M: “If you have one partner spending money like a drunken sailor in a whore house and one partner trying to save money, then that’s a sufficient reason to break the partnership.   That isn’t a small beef.  That’s two different world views.  They aren’t reconcilable. One or the other has to give up.   

F: “But they always spend too much.  That’s what governments do.”

M: “It’s not just about money.  It’s about control.  If you spend like a drunken sailor, you’re an idiot because you are endangering your future.  If I take YOUR money and spend it like a drunken sailor, that’s theft.  And if I write laws that say there’s nothing you can do about it, that’s theft at the point of gun.  Again… if we were married and I make you work and take your whole paycheck to blow it on my mistress, you have the right to make me stop or leave.”

F: “Maybe we can just get counseling?” *nervous laughter of a person losing an argument*

M: “I’d be all for that.  But tell me where the middle ground is?  On something like this, there just isn’t one.  You can’t tell a wife beater to dial the frequency of the beatings down to once a week.  Oh, and while your at it, can you only break less useful bones and maybe layoff the face?  Some things just have to stop totally in order for there to be progress.” 

F:  “Do you really think…”

M: “I hope not.  I really do.  But there are only two responses to tyranny.  Capitulation or Resistance.  And the type of resistance is limited because a good number of States in the country WANT the tyranny.  The only resistance left is “Divorce” since a civil war or out right rebellion would be immoral and unethical.”

F: “What? I thought you just said that it was, ‘OK?’”

M: “No… A State or States leaving is OK.  It’s called Self Determination.  A rebellion seeking the overthrown of DC is not.  Too may people want to live in this mess.  They should have to right to.  But I wouldn’t worry; the more likely response will be utter capitulation.  I mean, resistance may interfere with American Idol or CSI.”

F: “You know how to wreck a mood.  Why do I talk to you?”

I guess I’m now on a “Watch List” somewhere.  Where’s my Gadsden Flag T-Shirt.


0 Responses to “A Conversation…”

  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


Conservative, educated, understands history, distrusts government, distrusts politicians, dislikes pop-culture, and carries a firearm. In short, I'm what The Framers of The Constitution were counting on and everything your government wants you to fear most.

The only thing I don’t have to complain about is some GI taking up space in my living room. I’ll let you know about the Civil Courts if someone ever owes more than $20 to me. ---If you didn’t get that one; sue your Civics or US History Teacher.

Your shortcut to Acute Dyspepsia
Any Spelling, Grammatical, or Typographic errors are the result of my keyboard, public school Elementary education, or Secret Government Ninjas and not fault of the author and his flying through his posts at lunch time. If you see any errors, ping me and I will correct them. Ping me often enough, and I will make you my editor.
dantes firing range -A T- hotmail.com
Remove the spaces and convert the -AT- to... you know the drill. In VB Script that's: Value = replace (replace ("dantes firing range -A T- hotmail.com", " ",""), "-AT-", chr(64))

For The Record


%d bloggers like this: