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.
I'm in favor if there being separate nations for both Left and Right. It's ludicrous that people with such opposite political agenda's fight over the same government.
The only way to have a nation of left, and a nation of right, would be to have voluntary government.
The truth is, there is no such thing as left and right. There are only differences of opinion. The so-called "left" is comprised of everyone from economic-moderates to communists. In fact, something like 7-11% of the population is effectively communist, which means they represent roughly 1/5th of the people who vote for Democrats.
The idea that the "left" or "right" is some monolithic group of like-minded individuals, simply isn't reality. And these divisions aren't merely from one state to another, the divisions run through neighborhoods, and families.
My uncle David is a far-right Christian conservative. My uncle Ricky is basically a hippie, and has been a die-hard supporter of Democrats since the 1970's(both have same parents).
My philosophy by most, would place me to the far right. And within my family, I'm probably closest politically to my Christian conservative uncle. But my niece is a flaming liberal, who called me a "CIS white male" when I challenged her on whether there is something inherently sexual about the female breast/nipple.
But to most conservatives, I'm an anti-American, anti-Constitution anarchist(which isn't quite true, but close).
If it was even remotely possible to separate every person who votes Republican into their own country, it wouldn't suddenly be a utopia. The Republican party consists of both libertarians and neoconservatives. Both of which absolutely despise each other.
And even then, over the long-term it would change nothing. Since the children of Republicans aren't necessarily Republicans. So it is at best a temporary solution, and really, it is no solution at all.
As long as we continue to pretend that government is legitimate, we will continue to be stuck in this unhappy marriage.
I have lived in Texas for 25 years and do you know how many times I've heard a real, live Texan talk in favor of secession? I'll let you guess....
The overwhelming majority of 27 million Texans are opposed to the idea of secession, and in fact, Texans tend to be a very patriotic bunch of folks when it comes to the USA.
Well, my uncle lives in the Dallas area, and he has long been an advocate of Texas secession. Studies have been done, and a quarter of Americans are in favor of their state seceding from the union.
Your idea that it is some tiny fringe minority is naive. A majority of Texas Republicans support secession, and nation-wide, a majority(53%) of people who self-identify as "tea-partiers" also support secession.
Texans don't hate "big government". We hate incompetent, expensive & inefficient government. We have this quaint idea that our CongressCritters & State employees actually work for us, not to enrich themselves.
We only let them meet in the Legislature on odd numbered years, for 140 Calendar Days. They get a grand total of $41,000 for a 2 year term. They get the job done efficiently (& to our satisfaction) or we throw the Bum/Bumess out and find a new Bum/Bumess.
Every State Agency/Program has to prove it's worth every 10 years with our Sunset Law.
What??? Your current and previous governors are laughing stock in the rest of the country.
Mexico would reclaim the land shortly after Texas left the Union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jwiley
They could try, but I think the result would be worse than the 1st time they tried as the Mexican army is a mess.
jwiley nailed it here. The Texas Rangers and National Guard would disable Mexico real quick and, probably take some more land as well as "ethnic cleanse" that land. People need to remember that Texans are armed to the teeth AND many of their kind are veterans as well as active duty so they'd know how to take care of business.
jwiley nailed it here. The Texas Rangers and National Guard would disable Mexico real quick and, probably take some more land as well as "ethnic cleanse" that land. People need to remember that Texans are armed to the teeth AND many of their kind are veterans as well as active duty so they'd know how to take care of business.
So you're in favor of ethnic cleansing. Well that's just wonderful.
What??? Your current and previous governors are laughing stock in the rest of the country.
Perry was/is an idiot, but Texas prospered during his watch. At least we don't re-elect drug-addled criminals like DC did. Look at your own clown show first.
What you are most-likely familiar with, is people talking about the life-expectancy of say, medieval Europe. There are multiple reasons why this is problematic. But the first one has to do with "child mortality".
As a general rule, if you live to ~15 or so, you aren't going to die of disease, or much of anything else, until you are much older. The people who die from disease are generally the very young, and the very old. Before vaccines and antibiotics, child mortality was much higher than it is today. There was probably a 15% chance that your baby wouldn't survive to its first birthday, and a 25% chance that your child wouldn't survive to its 15th birthday.
Somewhat ironically, the children of farmers had a much better chance of living to adulthood than the children of those who lived in cities. Because disease could spread rapidly in densely-packed urban populations. While people who lived in the countryside, far away from civilization, had almost no contact with most diseases.
In fact, most diseases, as you might know, are the result of "trade". The black plague actually originated in East Asia, and was brought to Europe by traders.
The reason the life-expectancy numbers are silly, is if one person dies shortly after birth, and another lives to be 79 years-old, then their two ages get averaged, pushing the life-expectancy down to ~40. Which is an accurate number, but paints a misleading picture of reality.
The truth is, if you lived to your 15th birthday, your life-expectancy, even thousands of years ago, would generally be into your 60's or 70's. A man wasn't "middle-aged" at 30.
As I tell people constantly, the only thing I would need if I went back in time, would be some antibiotics. What else is going to kill me? And I would likely be much healthier if I lived back then. I would probably eat healthier food, and get far more exercise.
Of course, I'm mainly focusing on pre-civilization. The actual question might instead be whether you can have civilization without a state. Many people believe civilization doesn't require a state, and that people would form civilization without government coercion. Some, like Murray Rothbard, believe that voluntary associations could even be superior to government, by creating a free-market that would be more-productive than our current over-regulated economy.
I tend to fall closer to you on this issue, I do not believe that you can have civilization without a coercive government. And without civilization, you cannot have technology(at least not on the level it currently is). And the furthest humanity would most-likely ever get from an organizational perspective without coercive government, would be somewhere around the Amish.
Would that be such a terrible thing?
Take a look at the ages of death of the US presidents. Until Gerald Ford, only two presidents had lived to be 90 years old, John Adams and Herbert Hoover. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._States_by_age
Most died in their 50s, 60s, and 70s (excluding those who were assassinated).
Since Ford, we have two living presidents in their 90s, plus he and Reagan died in their 90s. People just didn't live as long "back in the day".
Wrong-o! Pre-vaccines, almost everyone, ie, 100% minus a few outliers, got measles, mumps, chickenpox, Hib, rotavirus; significant numbers got diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), rubella, and many other diseases. The largest number of diphtheria cases was in 1921, when about half of people lived on farms. My own great-grands lost three kids in three weeks to diphtheria in the 1890s, living on a farm in northern Wisconsin. Diphtheria | Clinical Features | CDC
Don't bet on the healthier food. Food poisoning was common "back in the day" with no refrigeration.
The Amish have a coercive government in the form of their religion. The Amish have the same life expectancy as the rest of us. Contrary to popular opinion, they use medicine and vaccines, though not as much as the "English" as they call the rest of us. They also have a high rate of unusual genetic diseases due to much inbreeding, and a fairly high rate of farm accidents. Is life expectancy of an Amish person same as average in US? - Skeptics Stack Exchange
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.
