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.
Some foreign (to the US) countries do use the USD. But they lose out on monetary policy and controls. For instance recessions and wars go from more difficult to impossible. Like Greece.
And also states cannot cover all the HC needs of their people without Federal supports, especially seniors. So right away that would be a major upset or impasse for that new country.
t's not like the government wouldn't react to that.
Uh-huh, and a benevolent government that supports self-determination, democracy and freedoms would do what, exactly?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 70Ford
How about diverting your water supply or adding tarriffs and taxes to your goods. It's not like they can do that, right?
Not legally, and not without international ramifications.
In a debate on international relations, international affairs and international law between you and soiled toilette paper, everyone would do quite well to bet on the soiled toilette paper to win the debate.
So, if Texas should secede, what would the US do? Mine the harbors to the ports around Texas?
Um, gosh, last time you tried something like that, you got sued and lost international court. I know that, but you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freightshaker
There is no state that wants to secede.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc
No state wants to secede.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
Yep, because no state is trying to secede, not even a little bit.
Perhaps not yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cry_havoc
Yes, there are a few wackos in every state who want this, but the VAST majority of the population regardless of political beliefs are very against this.
What exactly is "wacko" about wanting to increase prosperity for your community, city, county and State?
What is "wacko" about taking action that is in the best interest of your family, community and future generations in your State?
People are uninformed, ill-informed and mis-informed on the issues....education would eradicate that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55
If a State were to secede it would then have to provide its own Army, possibly Navy and border patrol.
Why?
Can you not see the absurdity of your position?
What, you thought the Iranian Army was going to sail across the oceans blue, hit the beach in Delaware and then march a few thousand miles inland to sack Iowa?
Is that what you thought?
If Canada doesn't need carrier battle groups, then why would Maine? or Michigan? or Utah?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvande55
It would lose out on highway subsidies and such. Few States would agree to that.
Gosh.....if you're not part of the US, then you aren't exactly paying "federal" excise tax on gasoline, right?
So, then, logically, why would the States not increase their State sales tax on gasoline so that it equals the amount no longer taken by the "federal" government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Even more important, what currency would they use?
Whatever currency they want. They could use Euros, Rubles, basket currencies, they can even print their own currency.
Iceland had less than 500,000 people, yet had its own independent currency, before adopting the Euro?
Exactly how daft are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
For instance states cannot afford HC.
Yes, they can.
If they operated a Free Market system and eliminated the monopolistic hospital cartels that illegally collude to illegally fix prices, and then made the anti-competitive anti-Free Market "Out-of-Network" clause illegal, and then refused to adopt the idiotic tax policies of the US, such as the changes in the 1954 IRS Tax Code and moved to pure health insurance based on risk-analysis instead of the stupid fee-for-service system you use, everyone would have affordable healthcare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
They cannot pay for the costs of Medicare, SS.
Prove it, if you can.
The only reasons you have Medicare, is due to the fact that you permitted the American Hospital Association to destroy the Free Market and gain monopoly control, and then had tax policies that were economically damaging, both of which combined to disenfranchise millions of Americans from healthcare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
Sure. But what currency would they use, and who and where would be the power to create new money?
Uh, Romania has 23 Million people and has its own currency.
Norway has 5 Million people and they have their own currency and have had for centuries.
I tell you what....the best thing here would be for you to buy one of those long-distance calling cards, and then call Norway and ask them to explain this 10th Grade stuff to you. Actually you could call the Norwegian Embassy in the MDW. Ask for the economics section. Yeah, large embassies and embassy missions have one.
All you people who say that states cannot possibly survive on their own or be viable as independent countries are, simply put, idiots.
Excellent.
You are incredibly gracious, as I have little time for morons who are narrow-minded, frightened, devoid of imagination and bereft of intelligence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
States are perfectly capable of fielding a military; seeing as the state's residents are already paying the taxes that fund the federal military, all that would have to be done is send that revenue to the state government instead of the federal government, and you suddenly have more than enough to field a military strong enough to protect the state.
I would not disagree, but I would point out the inherent hypocrisy in the Left-Wing's position, which is that they incessantly whine that the military budget can be cut, and that the US does not need a large military, or even a military at all, until someone mentions secession, at which time the Left starts screaming that you absolutely must have a military.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
That's aside from the fact that there are a few perfectly viable states that don't even have a standing army; most of these are dependent on other states or are geographically isolated, and most American states are in locations far more strategic than most of these countries, so I'd recommend funding and building up a military.
Those States on the coasts need a brown-water navy for any number of reasons, including economic reasons....to protect their legitimate commercial interests as defined under treaties (such as UNCLOS), in addition to providing for the safety of commercial and pleasure craft.
An air force consisting of a squadron of fighter planes, plus search/rescue and transport would be useful also.
A large standing army isn't necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
Iceland....
Well, that just shows you the level of sheer ignorance you have to deal with here.
Bigger is not always better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
When will you stop acting as if race and racism is what makes the world go round.
The Left never will, because it's the only thing they got.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patricius Maximus
... it's clear that there's a big chunk of the general public who at least have an interest in seceding.
The issue is education.
I've mentioned that before. The time isn't right yet.....but, soon enough it will be.
People need to be aware of alternatives, and a web-site with sourced and referenced data will do that.
For about half a dozen States, all they would need is a 9%-10% sales tax. That's it. No more federal taxes, no more State taxes, just a sales tax. They'd have all they have now, and more.....a better quality of life, for less.
There are few States that would not benefit in some way, if not through greater prosperity and wealth by higher disposable income, then through a slight increase in prosperity, couples with an even greater quality of life.
Secession is liberating...
Can anyone tell me how "holdings" would be transfered from a former state to a new nation-state?
I doubt it, since you don't even understand what a nation-State is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones
How would laws, contracts, holdings be "automatically" changed, lost, transfered or be divided?
International laws cover that.
A State that secedes is not liable for the debts owed by the successor State.
If Texas secedes, it is no longer responsible for the debts held by the United States. Texas is only responsible for the debts incurred through the bonds it sold.
Many States that secede will instantly find that the GDP of the State exceeds their debts.
So, yes, many States would have incredible borrowing power, much more borrowing power than the US. Furthermore, a currency issued by that State, would have greater value than the US Dollar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by randomparent
The uncertainty of continuing water rights will effectively quash any southwestern states harboring thoughts of secession.
Right up to the point they start building desalination plants.
Oh.....wait....can't do that.
If Arizona entered into agreement with Mexico to build nuclear power plants to operate electric intensive desalinization plants, the US would accuse Arizona of building nukes and try to attack.
If a State were to secede it would then have to provide its own Army, possibly Navy and border patrol. It would lose out on highway subsidies and such. Few States would agree to that.
Alaska already has its own Army, Navy, and Air Force. There are no federally funded highways in Alaska. There are a grand total of 7 highways in Alaska, and they are all State funded. Alaska also does business with 22 other nations, and has so many natural resources that the State does not need to impose any kind of tax on its citizens. However, nobody in Alaska has any intention of seceding from the Union.
Alaska already has its own Army, Navy, and Air Force. There are no federally funded highways in Alaska. There are a grand total of 7 highways in Alaska, and they are all State funded. Alaska also does business with 22 other nations, and has so many natural resources that the State does not need to impose any kind of tax on its citizens. However, nobody in Alaska has any intention of seceding from the Union.
Since I posted this morning there have been some interesting posts...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan
That I don't know tho IMHO the US dollar would still be used since it's already used in many other countries. If it works, why not?
I'm sure the United States Dollar would be used at first in all of the 50 new countries for reasons of convenience, forming the "dollar-zone" (like the eurozone). Eventually you'd probably see many if not most states create their own currencies in order to have more independence in monetary policy, perhaps with exchange rates pegged to other countries' currencies. Gold might become a common currency if more conventional arrangements prove unsatisfactory, particularly in the more conservative states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoonose
And also states cannot cover all the HC needs of their people without Federal supports, especially seniors. So right away that would be a major upset or impasse for that new country.
When you take into account the federal taxes the residents of each state pay already, it's not that big of a leap. To be sure, in new countries with high senior populations such as Arizona you'd see either tax hikes, spending cuts elsewhere, or lower benefits from the program; the necessary changes wouldn't be drastic, though. Conversely, states with low senior populations could either cut taxes, increase benefits, or use the extra money for other spending priorities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimuelojones
Can anyone tell me how "holdings" would be transfered from a former state to a new nation-state?
How would laws, contracts, holdings be "automatically" changed, lost, transfered or be divided?
Assuming a dissolution of the federal government (as opposed to a partial one), contracts and holdings involving the private sector would remain "as is", and the state government would inherit the federal government's position vis-a-vis the state government (e.g. national parks). Federal assets such as military hardware may be kept by the state that they happen to be in, or they may be divided in proportion to population. The latter was done during the Soviet breakup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KathrynAragon
Honestly, on this forum I hear more liberals suggesting that the South in general, and often Texas in particular, secede, than I hear real southerners and real Texans talking about it.
Given their hatred of the South, opinion of conservatives in general as being retrograde barbarians unworthy of association, and resentment at paying for red state moochers (where's all that empathy we hear about?), I would think they would be enthusiastic proponents of secession. Just think - the blue states could already have had single-payer health care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
Excellent.
You are incredibly gracious, as I have little time for morons who are narrow-minded, frightened, devoid of imagination and bereft of intelligence.
My hope is to get people's mental wheels turning by pointing out facts, examples, and correlations as it relates to small countries vs. large countries, the prospects of countries in the developed world similar to or smaller than most states, and the logistics of dissolving a federal union. Most people just can't make the leap from here to there, in terms of how it would actually work and be viable.
Quote:
Those States on the coasts need a brown-water navy for any number of reasons, including economic reasons....to protect their legitimate commercial interests as defined under treaties (such as UNCLOS), in addition to providing for the safety of commercial and pleasure craft.
An air force consisting of a squadron of fighter planes, plus search/rescue and transport would be useful also.
A large standing army isn't necessary.
I tend to agree. Most countries don't have a large standing army, but my point is that if one was wanted or needed there's no reason one couldn't be funded.
Quote:
Well, that just shows you the level of sheer ignorance you have to deal with here.
Bigger is not always better.
I emphatically agree; small size is in fact correlated to higher levels of development and wealth, so in general countries as small or smaller than U.S. states aren't just surviving, they're thriving. Small size isn't a ticket to instant prosperity, but there are certainly enough counterexamples to the argument that small size is a ticket to ruin to blow that theory out of the water.
There are many small countries smaller than most states that have no huge advantages (such as big-time oil) yet have a level of development comparable to or even exceeding the United States; furthermore, none of these prosperous small countries (mostly in Europe) have any trouble funding a government that provides services equal to or in excess of the United States. Even the smallest states such as Rhode Island and Delaware could prosper as independent countries if they played their cards right. Singapore provides a prime example of a thriving and prosperous independent city-state; Rhode Island and Delaware are sort of in-between Singapore and smaller European countries when it comes to population and area.
Prosperous small countries are usually friendly to business and open to international trade, and are resource-rich, a tax haven, or a trade hub. Each state after it becomes independent will naturally try to find their niche in the world economy; Delaware is already something of a tax haven, and they would probably run with that and take a page out of Liechtenstein's playbook - Rhode Island's path is less clear; it's situated on the coast and has a port, so they might try to attract international trade and investment. This is just speculation, though. The actual niches may look quite different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78
It will probably slowly turn more blue like Oregon has over the years. But it will be considered a battlefield state for a few more elections.
Meh. Colorado was much bluer in 2008 and 2012, in fact as blue as it has ever been in Presidential elections, but if you look at the PVI throughout history you will see that it's usually a red state but has bouts of blueishness. 2008 and 2012 are not really outside the historical range for Colorado; if the previous pattern holds, Colorado should revert to being red in 2016 and 2020, and this reversion may have begun last year. Of course, it could continue to trend Democratic, but we'll have to wait and see if the 2016 and 2020 results fit that trend. My point is that as of early 2014 it's too early to tell.
It is rather difficult to have an Interstate highway when there are not other States in which to connect those highways.
All of Alaska's highways are intrastate highways. Wikipedia got it wrong. They depict federal interstate highway signs for Alaska's highways, and that is not what they look like at all. This is what Alaska intrastate highway signs actually look like:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
I couldn't find any verification about a separate Army, Navy or Air Force.
Didn't Todd Palin belong to some Alaska secessionist group?
Yes, Alaska is one of those States with a State Defense Force. The Alaskan "Army" is actually only a Brigade in size. Alaska's Navy consists of a couple of gun boats armed with .50 cal. machine guns, based primarily in Valdez to protect the oil terminal. Alaska's Air Force is primarily cargo planes. As far as I know they do not have any aircraft capable of shooting anything, although I may be wrong about that.
Todd Palin was a member of the Alaska Independent Party, which is just the State version of the national Independent Party. They are no more secessionists than anyone in the national Independent Party.
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.
