I wonder if the 3×5 card of Approved Opinion has a reverse, or if it’s left blank in order to leave space for taking notes from our wise overlords. Tom Woods takes on yet another proponent of this narrow spectrum between Charles Schumer and John McCain, this time from a Catholic blog written by Mark Shea.
In this piece, Woods quotes a friend who sent the article by Shea:
What I find really disturbing about this whole exchange is the absolute refusal to even consider the possibility of a peaceful secession from the Union, and how such a level of disdain and thinly veiled aggression is directed toward those who want to discuss the issue. There also seems to be a blame-the-victim psychology at work here, what with the language of a military suppression of secession being “richly deserved”. In the hypothetical scenario, it doesn’t even occur to them that it might be the United States who is the aggressor. No, it would be little Vermont, who apparently would be “asking for it” and would deserve whatever they get.
This enthusiastic support for military aggression, in the event a state seceded or nullified a federal edict, is something I mentioned briefly in a recent column at the Tenth Amendment Center. I wrote:
So common is this appeal to ”might make right” logic that I’m beginning to wonder if, rather than just a poor argument, it’s more of a veiled threat. As if to suggest that, were enough states to push back hard enough, the federal government would respond with force. As quick as these proponents of centralized power are to cite the most destructive and unnecessary war ever fought in the United States, I’m afraid they would cheer such a totalitarian exercise.
This is a point raised by conservatives and liberals alike, and as I suggested before, is quite disturbing. If anyone doubts the Left and Right aren’t all that different from one another, this example of both groups concurring that war on peaceful secessionists is legitimate should raise some questions.