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.
Naw - you're focused on an indirect democracy.
We don' need no stinkin' democrazies.
I believe that the original contract stated that we were promised a "republican form" (no connection with the partisan political party).
A republican form is not synonymous with "a republic".
In plain English, the republican form of government is one in which the people are sovereign, served, not ruled, by government, composed of volunteers ("citizens") who step DOWN in status, become obligated to perform mandatory civic duties, and adhere to a higher standard of behavior.
That most Americans were fooled into believing they were "born citizens" (which would violate the 13th amendment), and are misled to claim to be citizens at every opportunity, is tragic and funny. Because all of the pertinent facts are in print, in the public record, available at any county courthouse law library - if only the people would bother to read their own laws.
Hmmmmmmm... What does citizenship have to do with slavery, and does that mean everyone was a slave before the civil war?..
How about the idea of limiting the federal gvt and giving more power to the states? The U S stays united and the states choose their destiny. Some states with social programs and some states with none or very little, some states with heavy regulation and states with very little or none. Some states pro life and some choice, some gay marriage and some against, some heavy taxation some with no tax or very little. Naw, forget that it is way too much freedom.
It's been a good run, folks, but it's time we split off. We fought off the British, we fought off the Nazis, we fought off the Commies, but now the enemy is a part of our selves. It will be a painful affair, but less painful than having corrupt men with a corrupt police force destroy us from the inside. The three branches of the United States government should be no more. They have failed us and it's time to take back their properties and money and sever their spying facilities.
please wait until I get done moving, should only be a few more weeks.
That essentially exist today, which is why the South is less educated, poorer and far less economically developed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Except for the fact that the majority of the country's GDP comes from blue states.
The majority of the country's GDP came from the present-day blue states even when New Yorkers were living in tenements and labor unions were being brutally broken up in the present-day blue states. That's because the North has structural economic factors that make it wealthier than the South, and that has always been the case no matter what the economic policies were in each region.
As for economic development, Mississippi, the poorest state, has a GDP per capita well within developed territory. It should be noted that one factor that stacks the deck in favor of blue state GDP is population - 48% of the US population lives in blue states, compared to 37% who live in red states. A better measure is GDP per capita, a regional comparison of which is shown below. Singapore and Hong Kong beat out any US region, and those two are much more hands-off on economic policy than any US state . If GDP per capita is your guide, it's clear that states should adopt the Alaskan model, which works great if you have a lot of oil lying around .
Quote:
Once again we have prefect historical and present day examples of the failure of your proposal.
At present, state innovation is very constrained by federal policy; if federal constraints were lifted and states diverged widely on economic policy you would see some real results come in. As it stands now the different states are much more alike on economic policy then different countries are, which is what you would expect with the sort of government structure we have. As for the failure of the proposal, I would think you blue staters would be gleeful about the prospect of no longer having to subsidize those uneducated, backward rednecks .
Besides, with public schools, school lunch programs, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, and unemployment insurance the South can hardly be said to have "little or no social welfare programs". Quite a few Southerners are actually on welfare right now, so your point about such a system being a proven failure in the present is not valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheHurricaneKid
It's been a good run, folks, but it's time we split off. We fought off the British, we fought off the Nazis, we fought off the Commies, but now the enemy is a part of our selves. It will be a painful affair, but less painful than having corrupt men with a corrupt police force destroy us from the inside. The three branches of the United States government should be no more. They have failed us and it's time to take back their properties and money and sever their spying facilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DauntlessDan
It seems that the only ones that would want to stay in the situation we are in and see it worsen (and it will over time) are the ones who are PRO big, intrusive, costly government and those who see this whole thing heading in the direction they want. Some people enjoy servitude. Some people want to be taken care of. Some people want government to force their ideals on others. They are ones that love controlling others, that can't stand to see others disagree with them because of their overly inflated egos. Talk of splitting between liberals and conservatives, progressives and non-progressives, takers and makers is met with accusations of "immature", "stupid", "naive" and "treasonous" amongst other things, by them. If our founding fathers had listened to such advice we never would have had a nation independent from Great Britain. "Write to your congress person", "complain to the government". Okay, I have done that. The problem is our government is part of the problem. Until it gets straightened out, if it ever does, we won't have anyone to satisfactorily represent us to the rest of society or the world.
I concur . While I would prefer to lose the authoritarianism and keep the union, a future with more than 50* independent republics would be far superior to a future under the status quo.
*Remember that territories such as Puerto Rico would likely become independent under such a plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goinback2011
The problem with disbanding is geographic. Look at a map and tell me how the Mississippi River region could be separated.
And don't tell me they could 'share'. The farthest point downstream controls everything upstream, making New Orleans one of the most strategic cities in the Nation. Miami is another strategic city.
How would it be managed? By a trade and navigation agreement, of the same kind that have existed throughout history. If a pair of countries like the United States and Britain could agree to mutual access of the river in 1783, surely a group of former American states could do the same thing in 2013. The possibility of a post-dissolution war is very remote in any case.
As an aside, what does everyone think about the prospect of NYC becoming city-state? Meaning splitting off from upstate New York and holding full sovereignty similar to Singapore. The prospect of the Republic of New York City is a fascinating one, although it's debatable whether it would function better, worse, or about the same. This article from the 2000's examines the idea. This article from last year examines Singapore's challenges as a city-state, which may be similar to the challenges an independent NYC would face.
That's because the North has structural economic factors that make it wealthier than the South,
Aaand those "structural economic factors" would be? Wouldn't have anything to do with economic policies bent upon a 100 year plus dependency on an ante-bellum model of agrarianism produced by a workforce living in conditions that would make a Northern tenement look like the French Riviera and an educational system that granted educational opportunity to even the lowest members of the economic strata.
Quote:
As for economic development, Mississippi, the poorest state, has a GDP per capita well within developed territory.
Now that's an impressive argument. Mississippi gets to rank alongside Greece! The comparison isn't with foreign countries but how it has faired with the rest of the freaking country! Your own map demonstrates that the economic policies and social order of the South has kept its economic development out of step with the rest of the nation. That is a indisputable fact.
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.
. If GDP per capita is your guide, it's clear that states should adopt the Alaskan model, which works great if you have a lot of oil lying around 
.
.
. While I would prefer to lose the authoritarianism and keep the union, a future with more than 50* independent republics would be far superior to a future under the status quo.
