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.
Try driving across the country and tell me you would love to see border patrols, checkpoints, and passport checks at each state border. Seriously, what idiot would think that it would be a good idea to be 50 counties rather than the powerhouse of the United States?
Try driving across the country and tell me you would love to see border patrols, checkpoints, and passport checks at each state border. Seriously, what idiot would think that it would be a good idea to be 50 counties rather than the powerhouse of the United States?
I asked you for evidence, not another question, I ask again: Can you show me evidence that it would be a terrible idea?
Man you are barking up the wrong tree with the borders and checkpoints arguments. I don't believe in borders, they are arbitrary lines drawn on a map by long dead people. Free people by definition can not be contained within borders. I hear people say how much freedom we have here, yet totally lack an understanding of the core principles of freedom. If this was truly a free country now, we would not have border fences and check points. The only way to argue against this paragraph is if you believe in authoritarian, top down, control... the opposite of freedom.
What evidence do you have that the country would split into 50 countries?.. that number seems rather high to me.
I asked you for evidence, not another question, I ask again: Can you show me evidence that it would be a terrible idea?
Man you are barking up the wrong tree with the borders and checkpoints arguments. I don't believe in borders, they are arbitrary lines drawn on a map by long dead people. Free people by definition can not be contained within borders. I hear people say how much freedom we have here, yet totally lack an understanding of the core principles of freedom. If this was truly a free country now, we would not have border fences and check points. The only way to argue against this paragraph is if you believe in authoritarian, top down, control... the opposite of freedom.
What evidence do you have that the country would split into 50 countries?.. that number seems rather high to me.
Seeing that there is no physical evidence because we have never been 50 countries....unless you count that time with some people thought they would leave the country and it started the Civil War.
Can you explain to me how it would be good to have 50 countries instead of the United States?
Your second part is confusing, there are no border checkpoints if you drive from one coast to the other in this country, but there would be if we were 50 countries. Are you saying we should be no country at all, just wild land that we roam freely around?
I asked you for evidence, not another question, I ask again: Can you show me evidence that it would be a terrible idea?
Man you are barking up the wrong tree with the borders and checkpoints arguments. I don't believe in borders, they are arbitrary lines drawn on a map by long dead people. Free people by definition can not be contained within borders. I hear people say how much freedom we have here, yet totally lack an understanding of the core principles of freedom. If this was truly a free country now, we would not have border fences and check points. The only way to argue against this paragraph is if you believe in authoritarian, top down, control... the opposite of freedom.
What evidence do you have that the country would split into 50 countries?.. that number seems rather high to me.
Sounds like the classic "new, improved, libertarian, playbook. Decentralizing the Fed is just the tip of the Libertarian playbook. Once that was done, the libertarians would complain about the states taking away personal freedoms. Then they would decentralize the state government.
Ultimately, there would be various libertarian fifedoms controlled by a few rich individuals and a whole lot of poor serfs labeled "personally irresponsible", wandering the countryside looking for charity.
Seeing that there is no physical evidence because we have never been 50 countries....unless you count that time with some people thought they would leave the country and it started the Civil War.
Can you explain to me how it would be good to have 50 countries instead of the United States?
Your second part is confusing, there are no border checkpoints if you drive from one coast to the other in this country, but there would be if we were 50 countries. Are you saying we should be no country at all, just wild land that we roam freely around?
I can not explain how it would be good to have 50 countries, as this is not what I am advocating. Why are you so hung up on the number 50?
Of course that paragraph confused you, you don't understand the core principles of freedom.
There are border checkpoints with Mexico and Canada. I am not advocating for no country, but free men travel freely, no checkpoints or fences needed. I could go deeper but that is a more philosophical discussion about role of government. (Don't even try to pull the terrorism or drug cards with border security, by the numbers you have almost no chance of dying from terrorism, and the drug war is a failed policy.)
Can I confirm that the only evidence you have that it would be a bad idea is the Civil war, in which some states tried to secede and were crushed by an authoritarian psychopath (Lincoln)?
(Yes the civil war was partially about slavery, but Lincoln had no interest in that, he only had an interest in power.)
I asked you for evidence, not another question, I ask again: Can you show me evidence that it would be a terrible idea?
Man you are barking up the wrong tree with the borders and checkpoints arguments. I don't believe in borders, they are arbitrary lines drawn on a map by long dead people. Free people by definition can not be contained within borders. I hear people say how much freedom we have here, yet totally lack an understanding of the core principles of freedom. If this was truly a free country now, we would not have border fences and check points. The only way to argue against this paragraph is if you believe in authoritarian, top down, control... the opposite of freedom.
What evidence do you have that the country would split into 50 countries?.. that number seems rather high to me.
Currently, the economies of the states are interwoven with one another, a web of interdependence developed over hundreds of years. The federal government has helped make the transactions and transport of goods between the states seamless and cohesive. By taking the federal government out of the equation, the inevitable conflicts that will arise between the states will escalate. An excellent example: water rights. What happens when Texas and Oklahoma start fighting over water?
Whether you believe in borders, or not is irrelevant. States do have borders. And when states begin developing stronger and more distinct identities (like whether a state allows abortions or not, whether a state has gun control or not, whether a state collects income tax or not, and on a host of other issues), those borders will matter. The only place where you have absolute freedom is the hermit on the deserted island scenario. As long as people live together, freedom is a balancing act. And borders play a role in that balancing act.
....Man you are barking up the wrong tree with the borders and checkpoints arguments. I don't believe in borders, they are arbitrary lines drawn on a map by long dead people. Free people by definition can not be contained within borders. I hear people say how much freedom we have here, yet totally lack an understanding of the core principles of freedom. If this was truly a free country now, we would not have border fences and check points. The only way to argue against this paragraph is if you believe in authoritarian, top down, control... the opposite of freedom....
Wait. I thought the core belief that freedom and liberty are derived through property rights. Property ownership and the complete freedom to do with it you wish is a core principle of libertarianism. So what you advocate is anarchism. Lets just make it clear that we are not arguing libertarianism as with freedom comes responsibility. What you advocate is freedom without responsibility. Big difference.
I can not explain how it would be good to have 50 countries, as this is not what I am advocating. Why are you so hung up on the number 50?
Of course that paragraph confused you, you don't understand the core principles of freedom.
There are border checkpoints with Mexico and Canada. I am not advocating for no country, but free men travel freely, no checkpoints or fences needed. I could go deeper but that is a more philosophical discussion about role of government. (Don't even try to pull the terrorism or drug cards with border security, by the numbers you have almost no chance of dying from terrorism, and the drug war is a failed policy.)
Can I confirm that the only evidence you have that it would be a bad idea is the Civil war, in which some states tried to secede and were crushed by an authoritarian psychopath (Lincoln)?
(Yes the civil war was partially about slavery, but Lincoln had no interest in that, he only had an interest in power.)
Yeah, good luck with that fantasy. I doubt countries are just gonna disappear cause you want to wander from border to border without a passport.
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.
