Its easy to point to all kinds of disasters and genocides throughout history -- more actually due to accession than secession.
Look, I know you don't want people to escape people like you. You're a parasite. I got that. Just be aware that your parasitic nature entails dependence and if those upon which you depend are determined enough, they can and will simply cut you off and you will die. They don't need to attack you personally.
If that 30% was willing to accept the secession of 30% of the territory of the existing US by land value I don't see how their demand for self-determination is incompatible with notions of self-ownership as well as government by consent.
Indeed, I not only can, but do see how the 70% not wishing to secede would be imposing tyranny of the majority by denying such secession. They would be fair game.
Ah, a so your criteria for tyranny includes a decrease in tyranny over existing governments.
Thanks for playing, Troll.
What if 30% so intensely object to the present form of government that they advocate armed rebillion [militianews.com] toward the end that they might institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness?
Then those 30% would be proposing tyranny.
ynow... there is a moral to this tale: if businesses and individuals making money from software (libre) had properly funded it, putting some of the money that they saved from not purchasing proprietary software into the hands of those software teams, would we be talking about this now? in all probability, the answer is no. the reason is because those teams would be able to expand, take on more people, pay for security audits and so on which they would otherwise, as we have discovered, not be in a position to do.
so my take on this is that it is really really simple: businesses have received what they paid for, and got what they deserved.
i have been through this experience - directly - a number of times. i worked on samba - quietly - for three years. whilst the other members of the team were receiving shares from the Redhat and VA Linux IPOs, which they were able to sell and receive huge cash sums - i was busy reverse-engineering Windows NT Domains so that businesses world-wide could save billions of dollars.... and not one single one of those businesses called me up to say thank you, have some cash. as a result, about a year after terminating work on samba i was working on a building site as a common labourer.
it was the same story with the Exchange 5 reverse-engineering, which the Open Exchange Team mirrored (copied, minus the Copyright and Credits).
there is a moral to this tale: unlike proprietary software, which has a price tag commensurate with its perceived value, the process of even *offering* payment to individuals working on a software libre project that has been downloaded, usually from a completely different location (via a distro), is completely divorced from the developers actual efforts.
even in shops in rural districts, it is understood that if the door is unlocked and the shopkeeper not there, you help yourself, open the till, sort out your own correct change and walk out. but in the software libre world there is often not even that level of expectation! the software is quotes free quotes therefore it is monetarily zero cost therefore we should not have to pay, right? and businesses are pretty pathological about taking whatever they can get without paying for it.
so the short version is: there is a huge disconnect in software libre between service provision (the software) and paying for that service, and i really cannot see a solution here. perhaps this really should be bigger news: perhaps in this openssl vulnerability we have an opportunity to make that clear.
So I take it the charade of rule by law is supposed to stabilize things while the most corrupt among us increasingly centralize power and so marginalize the rest of us that we are demographically replaced by a new people?
Oh I forgot the clause in the Constitution that says yet another way it may be amended is by a majority vote of the Supreme Court!
So, now that the Supreme Court has wadded up the Constitution and tossed in on the trash heap of history -- essentially making everything a political fight at the Federal level -- when does someone in the military realize their oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution from all enemies both foreign and domestic basically requires them to nuke Washington DC?
If the animal products cross state lines, that is the point where the Interstate Commerce Clause kicks in -- not at the brewers who are selling inside the State to animal producers.
Very well -- so where is their authority to regulate animal feed that doesn't cross state lines?
If all it takes to avoid the expensive retooling is restricting the sale of the animal feed to within the State of origin, it seems that would provide an option a lot of these brewers would choose.
Somehow I suspect that the Feds don't _really_ care about the Constitution. Moreover, I suspect that puts me on their "watch" list.