[chimeracoder]

That's a very loaded (but easy) question.

In the United States, we fought an entire war over the question of whether or not a state had the authority to secede from the federal government (the Union). The seceding states lost that fight.

It would be very hard to argue that individuals have that right when the states do not.

You may wish that it were different, but the fact is that individuals do not have this right, according to virtually any constitutional interpretation since the mid-19th century.

[wyager]

>In the United States, we fought an entire war over the question of whether or not a state had the authority to secede from the federal government (the Union). The seceding states lost that fight.

So wars decide what is right and what is wrong?

[aidenn0]

It's not about right and wrong, it's about what you can and can't do. If you do something and the US decides to go to war with you over it, you are SOL.

Philosphers may claim you have a natural right to buy and consume drugs the US government considers illegal, since you aren't harming others; you can then scream about your natrual rights from prison all you want.

[ameister14]

That's a perfectly valid way to decide what is right and wrong. A couple hundred years ago they would call it an "appeal to God."

[lotsofmangos]

No, they decide who is left.

[baddox]

In the area that would become the United States, we also fought an entire war over the question of whether colonies had the authority to secede from their empire. The seceding colonies won that fight.

[naturalethic]

You forgot the prior war where they fought to secede and won.

[ameister14]

A revolution/secession is morally and legally wrong unless you win.