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.
The ones now holding every single statewide elective office and most of the seats in the assembly and state senate. Only they don't call themselves that, instead they define themselves as "Liberals", or even more likely, "Progressives." In the sci-fi scenario of an independant California, one of the very first things these Bolsheviks would do is void the Second Amendment and declare all firearms to be unlawful, and to start a massive state wide seizing of all guns. At least they would try, because this would be the spark that would ignite insurrection and civil war, as millions of Californians would refuse to surrender their guns.
Utter nonsense! For starters, there would be no second amendment to void because as an independent nation, the US second amendment, indeed the entire US constitution would be irrelevant as someone already mentioned. You do understand what independent and sovereign means right? As for the rest of your post, hyperbole.
Because the Federal District would be way too big. I'd like to have it similar to DC in size.
Anyway, California is not going to be carved up into different states. The idea is way too far fetched and silly. Carved it up the way you like it, i don't care. I'm having fun with this. Unless, of course, Californians are really serious about this.
Lets just carve OC out, let it be it's own State, and all will be fine by me.
Not really, Gaspar de Potola was a Spanish soldier, governor, and the leader of the first permanent settlement expedition to California in 1769. Several places in California named after him, including a pleasant little town in the mountains of Plumas County.
I think the answer is constantly being missed. Those people that want California to be split into different states and stay within the United States are always trying to find some perfect combination of Democratic/Republican,rural/city,mountains/valley,coast/inland split. Those few who have suggested making California its own country still are thinking that the new Californian government shall operate under the current rules of statehood (same constitution, same internal borders).
Once California is its own country, it can then then be split up into 5-7 states, leaving for the most part the existing counties intact(with a few changes). So, you would have to have 3 levels of government as a country; federal, state and county.
You would have to draft a new federal constitution for the new country, and each of the new states would create their own state constitution. Of course, this assumes that California would be a federal state. Other democratic forms it could take would be a centralized government like the United Kingdom (where local authorities are not co-sovereign), unlike the current US States, which share sovereignty with the federal government.
Once California was its own country, I do think we could persuade Southern Oregon counties to join the Northern Californian counties to form the State of Jefferson (I prefer the name Klamath) to increase the size of the new country somewhat. I think however that these southern counties of Oregon would only join California if they felt that their state (Klamath or Jefferson) could have a large amount of freedom (which might eliminate having the centralized France or UK model). Another area that might be willing to join California would be the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, but again, only if they felt they would get a better deal than staying with Nevada and the United States.
There is no reason why an independent California should end up like Greece. This is assuming again, that a country of California would still operate as it does today. With its own federal government having taxes going to it rather than the US, this would be be a huge boom to help pay for the enormous cost of infrastructure improvement that California desperately needs.
Yes, I understand how silly and nonsensical this sounds to some (maybe most), but if you are going to talk about an independent California you need to have a broader view of what that entails, and not just think of California operating under the same parameters as it does today.
It would be no superpower but would still be in the top 1/3 of countries in terms of size (about the size of Sweden) and in the top 15% in terms of population. It could potentially be a major player in world affairs. We could have free movement of people between California and other developed nations (like Canada and the United Kingdom) and we would finally be able to assert control of our own border with Mexico.
I understand the complication of getting the US to agree to this, but all I am saying is that if you are going to suggest California becoming independent, it requires a lot more thinking than what I have been reading online for the past ten years or so.
Last edited by JerCastle; 08-03-2012 at 04:17 AM..
Oh, one more thing. For those of you who think that millions will leave, think about this: California all over the world has an amazing status, much higher than the United States. Wherever I travel, I simply say I am from California and their eyes light up. Yes, perhaps some of this mystic is purely mythical, due to incomplete images from television, but if you consider California as a brand, it is one of most marketable and sellable brands in existence.
If an independent California had a 'Schengen like' freedom of movement agreement with other developed counties (developed being a key word), the amount of brain power from Europe and Canada and Japan/South Korea that could potentially want to move and work here would benefit the new country tremendously. Of course, if a Californian citizen wanted to work in London or Berlin or Tokyo they would no longer have to get an increasingly difficult visa in order to do that.
Last edited by JerCastle; 08-03-2012 at 04:18 AM..
I think the answer is constantly being missed. Those people that want California to be split into different states and stay within the United States are always trying to find some perfect combination of Democratic/Republican,rural/city,mountains/valley,coast/inland split. Those few who have suggested making California its own country still are thinking that the new Californian government shall operate under the current rules of statehood (same constitution, same internal borders).
Once California is its own country, it can then then be split up into 5-7 states, leaving for the most part the existing counties intact(with a few changes). So, you would have to have 3 levels of government as a country; federal, state and county.
You would have to draft a new federal constitution for the new country, and each of the new states would create their own state constitution. Of course, this assumes that California would be a federal state. Other democratic forms it could take would be a centralized government like the United Kingdom (where local authorities are not co-sovereign), unlike the current US States, which share sovereignty with the federal government.
Once California was its own country, I do think we could persuade Southern Oregon counties to join the Northern Californian counties to form the State of Jefferson (I prefer the name Klamath) to increase the size of the new country somewhat. I think however that these southern counties of Oregon would only join California if they felt that their state (Klamath or Jefferson) could have a large amount of freedom (which might eliminate having the centralized France or UK model). Another area that might be willing to join California would be the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe, but again, only if they felt they would get a better deal than staying with Nevada and the United States.
There is no reason why an independent California should end up like Greece. This is assuming again, that a country of California would still operate as it does today. With its own federal government having taxes going to it rather than the US, this would be be a huge boom to help pay for the enormous cost of infrastructure improvement that California desperately needs.
Yes, I understand how silly and nonsensical this sounds to some (maybe most), but if you are going to talk about an independent California you need to have a broader view of what that entails, and not just think of California operating under the same parameters as it does today.
It would be no superpower but would still be in the top 1/3 of countries in terms of size (about the size of Sweden) and in the top 15% in terms of population. It could potentially be a major player in world affairs. We could have free movement of people between California and other developed nations (like Canada and the United Kingdom) and we would finally be able to assert control of our own border with Mexico.
I understand the complication of getting the US to agree to this, but all I am saying is that if you are going to suggest California becoming independent, it requires a lot more thinking than what I have been reading online for the past ten years or so.
I think one reason you're not seeing much from those of us who have suggested an independent CA is because we also don't expect it to ever happen in our lifetime. It would be incredibly hard for CA to leave the US. Not impossible but hard. The vast majority of Californians are not taking the idea of secession seriously. CA politicians never play around with the idea either.
However if it were ever able to come to that, we know a new constitution would be drafted. Whether it would be a federation like the US, Mexico or France, or a unitary like Canada or the UK (France is a federation not a unitary system) will need to be determined. Our counties could become provinces. Or we could create regional provinces which contain counties within them.
Several neighboring states might think about joining. Oregon and Washington come to mind. If CA left, they would be largely isolated and despite their disdain for CA, actually have more in common with us than the rest of the US.
Then there's the issue of currency. Some secessionist suggest keeping the US dollar. Shouldn't be too hard, Ecuador's official currency is the US dollar. Perhaps the Euro? Having our own as a fledgling nation in this day and age wouldn't be too wise.
Canada is actually a federal state with a parliamentary form of government (with Queen Elizabeth as Head of State). France is definitely not a federation. Please supply me with some info to prove otherwise.
Anyway, I think it would be much better to not have places like Washington and Oregon join California. The reason goes back to what I said about brands.
An independent California with the southern counties of Oregon(Klamath or Jefferson) could be part of a California (Nevada side of Lake Tahoe as well). Beyond that, the risk is great that the rest of Oregon and Washington would not accept the California name as the name of the country. Here are the problems that causes:
1. A name like Pacifica would not be known anywhere in the world while California is already just as well known as the US.
2. Most likely, if California joined with a Oregon and Washington California would then indeed be split up into different states. Would any of them keep the name California (Like South California/Central California? In some ways, that is worse that losing the name altogether.
The only hope is that Oregon and Washington would be willing to join and come under the umbrella of the name California, knowing that it is beneficial to have that name instead of something like Pacifica. As things stand now, I seriously doubt would happen.
California can only grow so far without losing the name I think.
Last edited by JerCastle; 08-04-2012 at 03:36 AM..
Then there's the issue of currency. Some secessionist suggest keeping the US dollar. Shouldn't be too hard, Ecuador's official currency is the US dollar. Perhaps the Euro? Having our own as a fledgling nation in this day and age wouldn't be too wise.
Why do you think it's unwise to have our own currency? Having our own currency would allow California to maintain control over its own interest rate and if managed properly (like the German Deutsch Mark before the Euro or the Swiss Franc now) we could become one of the handful of reserve currencies. Look at the UK, its economy would be even worse off if it had joined the Euro. Since they kept the pound, they have been able to make their own internal adjustments to help their economy, which Spain and Italy have completely lost the ability to do.
When NYC contributes more to NYS finances than it receives, NYC residents talk of forming a new state. When NYC receives more than it gives to NYS finances the rest of the state talks about forming a new state that doesn't include NYC. Regardless of who's doing the talking, they pretend it isn't just about money but it is.
This thread is the same. It's making an argument for or against something based on a brief situation which has no easy solution. It's like a very dysfunctional family coming to the conclusion that everything will be solved if they had another child.
CA is what it is because it's a State of the U.S. If it had to provide for it's own defense and federal needs it wouldn't be the same economically and economics shapes political rhetoric.
The idea CA is too large to govern as a single State is silly. That's like saying India, Brazil, China or Russia are too large to govern as a single state.
Besides CA cannot become it's own state because the U.S. Congress (the other States) won't ever allow it unless it were in their best interest. It never will. CA guards a long coastline, gives the US improved access to the Pacific, etc.
Kansas could be a different arguement. It's landlocked and serves no national interest. Let's talk about Kansas independence.
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.
