United by force? The untold implications...

2011-04-14

This is certainly a hot emotional topic, but it is worth reviewing the American Cival war for just a moment to really see what happened and why the result of the American Civil War has repercussions even today, and in places like Libya.

The question of the War being a fight to free the African Americans was really only the proposed purpose in the last year of the war 1864. At the start of the war, in 1860 this was by no means the topic nor the reason for mounting conflict.

The United States of America was started as a union between several smaller nations. When we say the word "state" we don't think of a state as a country, but really that's what the word "state" means. Ask any friend you may have who studies international law and they will confirm this.

So let's rewind the clock, back to the founding of the USA in 1776. Several countries [aka states] decided it would be to their benefit to form an alliance together and become the United Countries of America, aka the USA.

Then, around 100 years later, there was a dispute. The main forum of the dispute that started the American civil war had to do with power and money. The north was industrializing, and this was creating a shift of power northwards and the south was being left behind.

After some back and forth, the south decided it wanted to separate from the union; along with a number of other states and form a CSA: Confederate States of America. In other words: a different partnership between the lower states than the northern ones.

How did the USA react? With guns. It said with its musket lines and its cannons: "You can't leave the Union, we are going to force you to be a part of the United States whether you want it or not"

This is a serious crime, you can't force someone, or in this case, a nation of people, to submit to ruler-ship? How does that make this country "by the people and for the people?" The fact that this fact is forgotten and never discussed is really concerning.

Because of our past, we know that even the slightest hint that a state would want to step out of the Union would be met with brutal force. Can we really be a democratic nation when the very fabric of the union itself is held together at gun point?

When the people in Libya rebel and want to oust their president, and he decides he wants to stay: and that everyone has to be forced to submit: there isn't really any difference at all to our country applying force to itself to retain cohesion either.

Does it really have to be this way? Is force the only glue that sticks people together? What would this world look like if instead of force, people used empathy and respect to form relationships?

Maybe we wouldn't need to spend 56% of our taxes on guns and bombs anymore, and we wouldn't have a need for further tax cuts.

People should be free to decide where they live, countries [collections of people] should be free, without risk of being attacked, to choose who they want to trade with and be allied to. And those people who have more than others, will need to learn how to share without covert intentions to in-debt and enslave other people.

If people were free to form their own communities and government when they were unhappy with the way their existing one is being run, the entire planet would be much more sane and in far less of a mess than it is today.

I for one would vote for Oregon to succeed, and I am sure many others would too; if we had the chance. A place where taxes would be applied locally rather than to wars we don't believe in, where environmental protection would mean something, and where human values like: equal access to health care and a living wage would be meaningful. How many people can say they voted for a new oil rig or a new nuclear power plant? We elect people, but then they just do whatever they want.

We can't fix these problems as 300 million people ruled by one puppet person, we can only fix this locally in our own communities. And to do that: we need the right to autonomy.