Should the US break up into 3 or 4 smaller countries? (interstate, highway, Indiana)

[djacques]

Originally Posted by malamute

It's become like a very bad marriage. And don't we all think separation and divorce is better than staying in a rotten marriage? What do they call it in divorce? Irreconcilable differences.

Why on earth are liberals so loathe to the idea? I have not met a liberal yet that had anything but utter despise for the Southern states and it's people. And they hate Texas with a passion. And Arizona. A liberal easterner certainly does not feel any thing at all in common with someone from fly-over country.

I'm socially liberal and despise the South and I totally agree with you. I would say "Go in peace, the sooner the better!"

It was actually liberal anti-war Yankees who first pondered secession around 1814, even calling a secessionist convention.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by BruSan

You're still in denial mode thinking that your senators and congressmen are anything in the least influenced by what their constituents think.

They hire sociologists, psychologists, marketing experts and opinion pollsters to find out what you want to hear, and then they parrot that back to you to get elected, then they ignore you. If you question them on their voting record, they just resort to the "excuse of the day" and blow you off.

Originally Posted by malamute

It's not unpatriotic. First of all the Constitution allows for it. The states are not supposed to be bound together by force. It's far more democratic to allow each group to have their own self-rule.

It's actually very patriotic.

And yes it's hard to argue Self-Determination and Freedom of Choice and then say, "Secession is unpatriotic or undemocratic"

Originally Posted by malamute

The Conservative nation would be much ore like the US was intended to be, if anything it's the liberal states that have left the true union.

You assume too much.

From the ultra-conservative view, people would be more focused on the important things, which are family, self and community. Ideology tends to get lost in that environment to the extent that there no longer is a division between left/right.

Originally Posted by malamute

It's become like a very bad marriage. And don't we all think separation and divorce is better than staying in a rotten marriage? What do they call it in divorce? Irreconcilable differences.

I like your analogy.

Originally Posted by malamute

Why on earth are liberals so loathe to the idea?

Well, they can't argue that they should stay together "for the sake of the children," because that is a conservative argument.

Opposition to secession is very "conservative" and not at all liberal. Liberals should embrace secession, since it is largely a liberal value -- freedom of choice -- pro-choice.

I'm guessing liberals oppose secession because they're all for pooling resources so they can steal more from others.

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

All you separatist douche bags are free to go anywhere in the world that will accept you. But if you try to break up the union, expect to be crushed, just like the last time.

That would never happen. I think we can say with great certainty that you're not schooled in the fine arts of war, terrorism, counter-terrorism, insurgency, counter-insurgency or asymmetrical warfare.

Any State or group of States can secede any time they desire without suffering any military repercussions.

Can you answer these questions?

What is the greatest threat to the US?
What does the US need more than anything in the world?

A single 5 syllable word is the answer to both questions.

If a State seceded tomorrow, the only thing that would happen is the government would issue a brief statement say, "We are greatly disappointed by their decision."

Originally Posted by jwiley

I hate to tell some of you in the northeast that seperating the country by political divides is a recipe for disaster, you see while the financial markets and big tv networks and such are in the northeast those will become diluted when new countries form and new networks and new financial markets are set up in the new countries, meanwhile the highest concentration of natural resources are all in those areas that are mostly conservative. How long before new Yorkers and Californians are paying more for the food, oil & Gas, coal, and wood that all come from the rest of the country? Can you say export taxes? You think competing on the world market for those supplies is not going to cost you money? At the end of the day those that control the most resources and know how to utilize them while being in a free country will end up the wealthiest, and right now those would be mostly in conservative states.

Uh, I don't follow anything there.

The Laws of Economics are constantly at work/in play, so secession would not affect them.

A State that seceded and then promptly violated the Laws of Economics would collapse. The prices of all goods and services are determined by the Laws of Economics, not governments, and not people (and not unions either).

Coal, oil, natural gas, wood and food would all cost the same....perhaps even less. Your mistake is not seeing federal and State regulations as taxes in and of themselves, which drive up the prices of goods and services.

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

Would you have said the same thing about the Soviet Union 30 years ago? You understand that all empires since the beginning of time, no matter how big or strong they become, eventually fall?

The Soviet Union is a really poor example. In fact, the Soviet Union was neither an Empire nor a Superpower, but it was a Nuclear Power (which is not the same).

That all Empires eventually fail......yes, they do, you're right about that, and they all fail for the exact same reason.

Empires must expand constantly.

The second an Empire ceases to expand, it becomes stagnant, and when that happens it starts collapsing. The speed at which those events takes place varies over time for many different reasons, but suffice to say that in the modern era, those events occur faster in part due to communications.

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

I say let the Republicans have their theocracy.

And why would you say that?

There are effectively two brands of Republicans, just as there are two brands of Democrats.

An handful, a very small percentage, a very small number of Republicans proclaim themselves to be the "moral majority" even though they are a small minority.

Not all Democrats are Socialist/Communist.

In effect, you would actually have three groups, the religious right, the Republicans/Democrats, and then the Socialists/Communists.

Originally Posted by fireandice1000

I hate to say it but I agree with what you say and that's why I'm a hypersonic Libertarian who supports secession! Quite honestly, I don't think the Founding Fathers really wanted freedom for their subjects; I'm under the impression that they viewed the King of Britain as competition instead of an oppressor to some extent.

The Founding Fathers and the Framers of the Constitution are not the same people. George Clymer, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Morris, George Read, Roger Sherman and James Wilson are the only men who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution.

So, what, 6 out of 56 signers of the Declaration signed the Constitution or about 10%.

Originally Posted by squarian

Parliamentary democracy also produced Churchill, without whom Hitler and Mussolini would never have been defeated.

What? Churchill was an idiot. Without the US, Great Britain would now be the smallest province in the German Empire.

Originally Posted by squarian

And meanwhile, in the nearly 70 years - not twenty or twenty-five but seventy - since the end of the Second World War, European parliamentary democracy has produced the most stable and advanced form of human civilization ever known.

That is both irrelevant and disingenuous.

Please list those European countries that have populations on a par with the US.

If you cannot do that, then list those countries which have at least 200 Million people.

If you cannot do that, then lost those countries that have at least 100 Million people.

Since you cannot do any of the above, we'll just have to recognize that Germany has 83 Million people or about 25% of the US population.

21 European countries have populations the size of a major US city.

So you're going to compare the government of a city to the government of a country?

Originally Posted by squarian

And then there is the United States - a nation with a creaking, moribund, antiquated constitution which, for most of its first century of existence was little more than a banana republic, and which in recent times has proven almost permanently incapable of resolving its most pressing problems.

Irrelevant.

The purpose of the US Constitution is not to "resolve pressing problems" rather its function is to provide a framework for the proper government of a republic with a very large population.

The Constitution can be amended at any time.

Originally Posted by squarian

A nation which, more than a century after the utter catastrophic failure of its constitutional arrangements in civil war, still found its political structure struggling to resolve the great racial question which haunted it from its inception.

The US was never haunted by racial questions, and the purpose of a Constitution is to provide a framework for governing. It isn't like a bible where when you're feeling down you go read an "uplifting" piece of "scripture" or something.

Originally Posted by squarian

A nation which, thanks to a constitution designed to frustrate solutions rather than promote them, is still staggering haltingly toward a sensible system for the provision of healthcare to its people, more than a century since the issue was first seriously addressed by its leaders, and nearly 130 years since the first of those despised European states adopted a national insurance system.

Well, again you have totally missed the mark.

The function and purpose of the Constitution is no different from the by-laws of any organization or charter for any corporation. It provides a basic framework for government, specifically for a republic, and especially for a federal republic.

You fail to recognize the extraordinary insight and foresight displayed by those men.

They created a system for the smooth transition of government, without any wars for succession and without huge ideological shifts from left to right or right to left.

They succeeded where so many others had failed.

And if there are problems, then it is due solely to the fact that you have rejected the Constitution and refuse to abide by the principles it established.

Originally Posted by squarian

A nation with the least democratic national legislature in the Western World, the least democratic method of choosing its head of state, and the only Western democracy to routinely have the outcome of its national elections called into question by voting irregularities. A model to be emulated, indeed.

Still failing.

The US is a republic, which is a form of representative democracy that is structured around the federal system.

Federal
Confederal
Unitary

Those are the three systems.

The Unitary system under King George failed, as did the confederal system under the Articles of Confederation, but the federal system has survived in tact.

Just as I am a disciple of Plato, the Framers of the Constitution were also disciples of Plato. They had read Plato's Republic studying and dissecting it, just as they studied and dissected Critias, Timaeous and other works of Plato, as well as numerous philosophers of their time period.

And in spite of your claims, the outcomes of US elections are not "routinely called into question" by voting irregularities.

There was one election that was disputed, but in the end, when the New York Times and dozens of other newspapers and network news hand-counted every single stinking ballot in Florida, the winner was Bush, so the courts made the right decision.

Originally Posted by Dutchman01

En-mass? Really? If our congressmen and senators are not cooperating it's because our peoples are divided. It shouldn't be that hard to comprehend.

No, it's because elected officials are owned by Special Interest Groups, and elected officials are beholden to those Special Interest Groups, and answer to those Special Interest Groups instead of to the people.

Originally Posted by malamute

Yes -- and no amount of totalitarian government could really force those separate states to become one -- when the USSR dissolved, the natural states reformed.

Uh, that's a good point. I suppose to be more accurate you could say they formed along cultural lines -- and note that Belarussian and Ukranian are both Slavic languages, but they are not Russian.

Originally Posted by Dutchman01

Our legislators are "cooperating" with their constituents by representing their wants, needs, and desires.

I want to be taxed?

I need to be taxed?

I desire to be taxed?

Not in my wildest dreams.

Originally Posted by squarian

If Canada and the United States have been able to live peacefully with each other for two centuries....

What?

On which planet?

Canada was three separate colonies ruled by the British Empire until 1867 when Britain formally declared the three colonies to be one country -- Canada --- under rule of the British Empire.

It wasn't until 1982 --- just 30 years ago -- that Canada was granted Royal Assent.

Originally Posted by wolf213

Anyone who reads history, understands that when the USA was being formed, countries, were not necessarily called countries, they were called States, hence the name United "States" of America.

Correct.

The only official version of the Declaration of Independence is in the National Archives.

Note that it refers to the united States of America and not the United States of America.

The 13 States were united only in the sense that they wished independence from Britain, not in the sense of a one country with with 13 provinces.

Originally Posted by jwiley

Is Your State A Net Giver or Taker of Federal Taxes? | The Big Picture

For those that keep trying to say the conservative states are all broke, take a look at that map, you will find that there are plenty of liberal and conservative states getting much more money back from the government then they put in. Even California where those Washington where many IT companies are based take more then they give.

Thanks for the link.

One day, when I'm all bored and idiots stop screaming about Israel/Iran, I'll do a State-by-State study economically to show how each State would fare.

I did that for several States years ago, but it's outdated now.

Originally Posted by Dutchman01

Yes it is unpatriotic, even treasonous. That's kinda' the point. On this poll, on this forum, there are those who just don't feel all that faithful to washington. If you were to look at this country you would find we are just the tip of the iceberg. It's what one would expect for a nation with the deep divisions this one has.

If you think about it there is a reason the democratic party continues to rely on identity politics to win elections.

Yes, there is.

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

Funny how everyone thinks that these "new nations" would be broken down by the conservative/liberal dichotomy. That's silly.

Yes, it is.

Originally Posted by desertdetroiter

In any case, I'm not interested in breaking up the country. I see no reason for it, and even debating it or raising it as some sort of necessity going forward seems treasonous to me...or ay least unpatriotic to a large degree.

Do you not wish the best for everyone?

Do you not want the best for your children, your family, your friends, your community, or yourself?

What if the break-up of the US was the best thing that ever happened to you and yours?

Originally Posted by djacques

I didn't say we are six months away. But it wasn't the pathetic GDP that dissolved the USSR, it was nationalism and ideology.

No, it was economics actually.

Originally Posted by plwhit

At the time of the fall of the UUSR what was their GDP?

America is nowhere close to dissolving like the USSR....

GDP isn't relevant. What is relevant is whether or not people believe the government is serving their interests, and when they belief disappears.....

Originally Posted by Mayiask

I don't go so far as to say that the wars they fought in were necessarily justified (namely the 3 that served in Iraq.) but I will never say that what their service was in vain.

It was in vain.

Originally Posted by Mayiask

Why do you find it surprising that I will not trample on the things they fought for?

And pray tell, what exactly was I fighting for?

So President Bush could fix the mistake he made as CIA Director Bush giving power to Noriega during a coup?

Or to get you some oil?

I'd like to think I was fighting for a better world (that's what I tell myself anyway).

Originally Posted by Mayiask

Sorry you don't believe in this country and the people that make it up, as well as the people that came b4 us, to build it as much as I do.

I believe in the Great Pumpkin but it didn't bring me anything for Halloween.

I just can't see suffering in order to support an idea that was good but doesn't necessarily apply now.

Originally Posted by djacques

Nobody saw the USSR ceasing to exist six months before it did.

The CIA did.

Originally Posted by Mayiask

So, you're claiming that, somewhere, sometime, the US will cease to exist? Do you see that in the near future? Curious, because I really don't see it any time.

I really believe in this:

I'm not claiming the US will cease to exist.

What I'm claiming is that the US will alter its form or shape.

What happened when the British Empire disintegrated? Okay, so Britain lost all of its colonies, lost Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong and others.....but Britain is still around.

Suppose Texas decides to secede, the US will still be around, it will just be minus Texas.

Originally Posted by djacques

What did that "settle", exactly? Are you forgetting that the secessionists fired the first shots? Or do you think "I'll shoot you" is a legal argument?

That isn't true, exactly.

The CSA was negotiating compensation for US federal lands....mostly federal forts and military installations. The US refused to deal with the CSA.

Fort Sumter was not the first shots in the war. Sorry, that is historically inaccurate.

The Union sent a supply ship to Fort Sumter escorted by a frigate, and CSA batteries fired at the ship as it sailed down the coast about a week before action started at Fort Sumter.

Originally Posted by Dutchman01

Good for you. Personally, I don't owe any particular loyalty to washington these days. A bustup is inevitable. It's just a question of when and how violent.

Yes, it is. As time goes on and things continue to break-down, some States will come to the conclusion that they would be far better off without the USA and go their own separate way.

There will not be any military action, but there could be some civil unrest.

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

I take seriously the words I said in the Pledge of Allegiance as a kid,and that I now lead each month with our cub scout den:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I was in the Army 10 years and never once recited the idiotic Pledge nor did I ever hear it recited.

And I attended dozens and dozens of formal events.

The Pledge is worthless. The flag is just a piece of cloth. Real power is based on the Constitution, not some striped banner.

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

Thousands of people have died serving our country, and I find it treasonous to talk about breaking it up.

If the majority of people would benefit from it, then why would you oppose it? I guess it's that Liberal thing -- always trying to control people and tell them what to do.

Originally Posted by Fiddlehead

The bigger issue is the epidemic of intolerance that has swept our country, so that people think theirs is the only acceptable way to think.

Then get your Liberal friends to stop it.

Originally Posted by MiamiRob

well if you partition the US based on your poll the Conservative states especially in the South would become 3rd. world nations overnight.

No, they would not.

Mississippi would be very wealthy, thanks to the oil it has.

Originally Posted by MiamiRob

There is a reason Amazon or Apple or Microsoft aren't based in Mississippi or Alabama.

Yes, and the reason is called The Panama Canal.

There's no point in shipping semi-conductors from Asia through the Canal to the East Coast when you can just sit on the West Coast.

Breaking up is hard to do....

Mircea

[Randomstudent]

It is a terrible idea. It would almost certainly lower the standard of living for everyone since it would almost certainly create barrier to the free movement of labor, capital and goods. There would also be problems with currency as well. I mean maybe it could be mitigated by creating some sort of North American Schengen Area, with a free trade union, and a common currency, but then what would be the point. Furthermore when countries spit it usually causes a lot of displacement of people.

[squarian]

Originally Posted by djacques

It was actually liberal anti-war Yankees who first pondered secession around 1814, even calling a secessionist convention.

It's true that there were secessionist rumblings in New England during the War of 1812, but more because of the effect "Jemmy Madison's War" was having on maritime trade than anything to do with liberalism (as defined then or now). In fact, I'm not sure you could call New England in the early 19th c. "liberal" in any sense - it was still very much the realm of Cotton Mather and Congregationalism, blue laws and scarlet letters.

[Think4Yourself]

Squarian, facts will just bounce right off of them. They are immune to facts.

[djacques]

Originally Posted by squarian

It's true that there were secessionist rumblings in New England during the War of 1812, but more because of the effect "Jemmy Madison's War" was having on maritime trade than anything to do with liberalism (as defined then or now). In fact, I'm not sure you could call New England in the early 19th c. "liberal" in any sense - it was still very much the realm of Cotton Mather and Congregationalism, blue laws and scarlet letters.

I'd argue that peace and commerce are more in sync with liberal values than war and protectionism. Cotton Mather died in 1728. Early 19th century New England produced William Ellery Channing, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, Walt Whitman, William Lloyd Garrison, etc.

[malamute]

Originally Posted by wrcousert

Can you imagine the hassle it would be if you were a long haul truck driver? You might have to stop at 50 or more border check points on a typical trip. How is this a good thing?

Why would it be? It doesn't necessarily mean border check points -- maybe they would keep some NAFTA kind of deal like we now have with Mexico where the long haul truck drivers from Mexico are pretty much waved on through and free to travel throughout the USA.

There are weigh stations at state lines now, truck drivers are already expected to pull over and stop. Most likely states under one federal government would just have one border around them but not within them.

[bchris02]

I disagree that the US should break up but at the rate things are currently going its inevitable eventually. Liberals and conservatives are increasingly polarized and can't even live together anymore.

If America split, the liberal North would look like North Korea (communist, atheist) and the conservative South would look like Uganda (third world, [true] fundamentalist Christianity). Life would be hell for people on either side.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by wrcousert

Can you imagine the hassle it would be if you were a long haul truck driver? You might have to stop at 50 or more border check points on a typical trip. How is this a good thing?

Um, thay already do have to stop at each state line anyway. Today its as easy for a truck to cross the US Canada border as it is for them to cross a state line.


Weigh station - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[nicet4]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

No, that was never his goal.

It's impossible to talk about history to today's kids.

A more reasonable breakup would be along racial lines. We're already started with Detroit, Trenton, East Saint Louis, Oakland and etc, etc so make the break formal.

As blacks will vote for Obama and his left wing ideology in near unison it would make for a very coherent country. I know such a notion is silly, white liberals would never allow it preferring to keep black people as their serfs.

Animal Farm by Georgie Orwell. Where all animals are equal except some animals are more equal than others.