Anti-secessionists: come at me, bros!

[Kasz216]

Mr Khan said:

Kasz216 said:

Mr Khan said:

Kasz216 said:

 

I would argue... you aren't... instead simply splitting things in regard to personal preference... which is generally the problem.   Your more or less picking which civil rights you view as valid. 

Using your logic, everyone is going to have their own opinion on the validity of such things.

Simply put, you don't think Texas should cede, because you feel like they would do things you don't like.  That's the bare bones truth of it.

The only "right" i take umbrage with are certain property rights (including guns, intellectual property, and certain issues of wealth transfer), otherwise i'm in favor of more rights, and not fewer, and feel that those secessionists would likely restrict certain lifestyle and belief rights, as state legislative evidence suggests

Even if that's so... that still completely proves my point.

You don't give a shit about property rights, therefore you don't consider the restriction of property rights a valid reason for leaving a country.  This stance is based soley on your own hangups and opinions.

 

I am cuirous though what you think about the big movement to leave that you left out.  Scotland leaving the UK.

I'd be against it, largely because it makes no sense and posts no real gains for the Scots. Belgium is the more interesting and complicated question.

And its not that i don't give a shit about property rights, it's just that i feel capitalism has helped put those rights outside the bonds of usefulness and into the realm of counter-productivity. Intellectual property rightsholders have too much leeway in the current system, and people have sums of money far too great for them to make any positive use out of.

It's all about utility at the end of the day.

Except

A) Those laws aren't capitalist laws... they're statist laws.  Capitalist laws would suggest the majority of them shouldn't exist because it distorts the marketplace.  Allowing only the minium amount required to keep markets running regularly.

B) Utility wise, again it would make sense for Texas to leave.  Texas has historically been a huge net payer to the government, believes it's having it's rights infringed by the government and has an economy so big it'd be one of the richest countries in the world.   Nor do i particularly see any evidence that there would be a huge backslide in other rights in regards to texas.  So economically and freedom wise they would advance.

Palestine on the otherhand would advance freedoms wise, but regress greatly on the economic front, since most palestinian buisness is kind of held up by Israel.  The areas that get ceeded back to Palestine?  They'd collapse from middle class to poor in no time flat.

Scotland... would be a less extreme version of the same.  They would advance quite a bit "human rights" wise compaired to the rest of the UK.  While economically hurt.

 

Your approach doesn't really seem utlitarian so much as again, your personal preference based more on personal opinion then specific data.