If there's one thing I am not, it's a tool. While i tend to get overinvested in left-wing causes for similar psychological reasons as i get over-invested in Nintendo and their successes or failures, i've done a lot of thinking to arrive at my conclusions, and have incorporated a broad array of philosophies to arrive at my end (some of whom, like Kant, were rather conservative in their era). The simple fact of the matter is that freedom and self-determination is a means to an end, and not an end itself, because freedom has no value, none, without happiness

The righteousness or wrongfulness of secession is all to do with what the client peoples intend to do once free. If they intend to do better things than their current rulers, it is justified. If they intend on doing worse things, not justified.

So then texas SHOULD be alowed to cede then if it wants.

In this case there is a fixed perspective on "better."

Honestly though, it all depends on what you mean by "worse" or "better".  I suspect our definitions of those two words are very different from one another in this context, just as earlier in the thread when you referenced "progress".  It's highly subjective, is it not?

I'm not referring necessarily to Jim Crow laws, as they were mostly terrible.   What about property rights, though?  Better yet, who are any of us to judge what is "better" or "worse" for someone else?  Seems very presumptuous to me.  I'm a strong believer in the idea that only you know what's best yourself, and that by the same token you cannot protect people from themselves.  It's not up to us, it is up to those people.  I take umbridge with the assertion that some far-off, distant governing body gets to decide what to do with people they've likely never spent a moment with, nor have any right to make decisions about.  It's just not at all how I see the world.

Which seems to be fixed soley around your personal opinioin.

California wants to be independent? They can't do that even if they wanted to. They're going bankrupt. Anyway, I don't like the idea of secession unless the union as a whole supports it. Tat being said, if any secession becomes hostile, wether it is treason or or justice depends on how history sees it and history is mostly defined and redefined by those who come out on top.

How far do you take secession, badgenome?

State, district, town, neigborhood, street, house?

Basically, yeah. Though i'm not suggesting that all government should match my opinion, but from my observations of history and modern politics, i think that i'm at least spitting in the right general direction.

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