Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
haha I wanted to start a thread about this today. I think the cascadia movement stems from the feeling of oppression. There are no free places where one can go we are always subject to a government that is made of in a large part by a population that has no connection with the pacific northwest. I think a system with stronger state government would help bring balance that way people in the pacific northwest wouldn't feel like they are being forced to conform with a population that is not representative of their values.
However, I do support the idea of a separate country Cascadia and yes it should have a friendly border with the u.s. and canada
What Ideas do you have about it. Where the capital should be, exports, new coastal Cities, Transportation changes, etc
I would like to see a very decentralized government; Public transit via rail and ships, end capitalism, and sustainable development.
Cities would exist in areas where they could produce the adequate goods to support themselves locally. I do not think any new cities would form on the coast of Cascadia as it is a very rugged and dangerous coast. Development of towns and cities would likely occur along sheltered coasts like the inside passage, Puget sound, Columbia river, and other such areas.
Mass Transit would be key to the design of Cascadia. There would be no public road system; rail and barge would need to be the method of transportation. This would effect the way communities developed; towns and cities would be much more densely populated with large tracts of undeveloped that could be used to extract resources and practice agriculture.
Decentralized government, each district would have the ability to decide how it wanted to develop by popular vote. Districts would not have the ability to legislate against one another.
Clearly this is my ideal perception of what I would like Cascadia to be and may not be representative of others, but my main criteria that would determine if the Cascadia experiment were successful or not would be emphasis on sustainable communities.
I would like to see a very decentralized government; Public transit via rail and ships, end capitalism, and sustainable development.
Cities would exist in areas where they could produce the adequate goods to support themselves locally. I do not think any new cities would form on the coast of Cascadia as it is a very rugged and dangerous coast. Development of towns and cities would likely occur along sheltered coasts like the inside passage, Puget sound, Columbia river, and other such areas.
Mass Transit would be key to the design of Cascadia. There would be no public road system; rail and barge would need to be the method of transportation. This would effect the way communities developed; towns and cities would be much more densely populated with large tracts of undeveloped that could be used to extract resources and practice agriculture.
Decentralized government, each district would have the ability to decide how it wanted to develop by popular vote. Districts would not have the ability to legislate against one another.
Clearly this is my ideal perception of what I would like Cascadia to be and may not be representative of others, but my main criteria that would determine if the Cascadia experiment were successful or not would be emphasis on sustainable communities.
I understand with I Idea that you have but I have to disagree with some points. I agree with having better mass transit like a super fast train between Portland and vancouver, but you cant run a country in today's society without a road system, I imagine I vastly improved system though. Also I can Imagine cities form on the coast of southern oregon, Port cities or cities mainly formed for Mass tourism. But I do like how you said districts( or states) cannot have in decision for the next District(or state) over.
How about localized road systems. My problem with interstate system that we currently have is the enormous amount of energy that is consumed in simply maintaining them. I think that we would quickly adapt to a society with little to no public road.
I live in Juneau Alaska and there is no road in or out it is expensive to get cars in or out; our public transit is good and as a result a lot of people don't drive. I have lived in Washington State as well and can understand why it may be difficult to imagine a society without an extensive road system, but it is possible and does work. There is a book ecologica, if you have the time you should read, which discusses the implication of the car on society.
Oh I understand that it is possible but it would take decades and billions in public transit to make it so no one needs to use cars to easily get around. But transit does create alot of jobs too.
Thats what I think to but the urban center makes up majority of the population. I imagine Another coastal urban center would pop up if this actually happened. Its kinda funny thinking that Washington nor Oregon have a major city on the pacific coast
More likely Coos Bay, Oregon would drastically grow. It's the largest seawater port between San Francisco and Seattle. It'd take dredging the port to handle the big newer ships, but the bridge across the bay is still high enough to handle most of them.
Any other place doesn't make sense as they don't have the deep sea infrastructure in place. Dredging would only be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, vs. the billions it would take to build an entire port from scratch.
How do you envision cascadia? would it be more or less an industrialized sibling of the U.S. that is just politically autonomous or do you envision more radical change?
I wouldnt imagine Cascadia being much different than it is today other than having a stronger rail connection between the cities, and the balance of liberal cities and conservative rural would work together to help strengthen the urban cities while protecting the country side. The right to bear arms would stay in place because the northwest loves their guns, even in the liberal areas.
I also think there would be a strengthening of the inland empire portion of the country, which would be good for Spokane.
I could even see the country stretching as far east as western Idaho.
Granted the only way this country would happen is if our federal government gave more power to the states to the point that it made it easier for states to leave the country, which would be about the point the federal government began to fail.
As for the military bases, they would probably stay under US control seeing they would probably still provide the country with military safety as well as giving them a hold on the country if times ever became hostile.
As for military, Cascadia would probably have a small humanitarian military that was used in the time of need and for peaceful purposes.
See the movie , 'the mouse that roared' to see the outcome.
Cascadia would invade the US, lose and we would give them billions in foreign aid.
Why would Cascadia invade the US, as it stands now, most people there reflect an anti-war mindset.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
