Jonathan Reed’s article decrying secessionist comments made by two Texas gubernatorial candidates was one of the most misguided things I have ever read in The Crimson White. While the author waffled between questioning secessionists’ methods and a nostalgic tribute to democratic theory, the overall effect of the article was to paint those that support Texas’ right to secede as petty radicals.

A few words in their defense: Reed says that secession is a “frightening concept” for Medina and Perry to have on the mind. What threat does a departing Texas pose to him? Have representatives from Texas hinted that they would do him any harm? Sure, the federal government wouldn’t have Texans’ tax dollars anymore, but residents of Texas would be proportionally richer. On second thought, maybe Reed is right. How dare Texans keep their own money at the expense some other state’s infrastructure or my future social security check?

I also think that if secessionists are “patriots who will defend their country until it disagrees with them,” that is not a bad thing. The measure of a government is the degree to which it serves its citizens. If a group of citizens is being abused by the government, why should they be forced to “support” it simply because a majority of other people approve of the abuse. Wrong doesn’t become right by receiving a higher vote count. Tyranny imposed by a majority vote is still unjust.

Both national parties have spent money hand over fist when they had the power to do so. Now increased taxes and more printed dollars will be necessary just to keep the nation afloat. Instead of suffering theft by taxation and theft by inflation, is it really so preposterous that Texans are considering withdrawing their support for such a system?

Eddie Lowe is a senior majoring in political science.