talk of secession

[Shane Tuttle]

We live in an unprecedented participatory democracy. One man, one vote. If you won't participate then you can't bitch about the results.

1. I believe we live under a Republic. Also, if this were a one man, one vote, we wouldn't need an electoral college in place.

2. You are absolutely, positively, without a doubt WRONG. Just because someone doesn't vote, doesn't mean they lose the right to gripe. You have no supporting documentation to support your claim, do you?

 

[BryanP]

2. You are absolutely, positively, without a doubt WRONG. Just because someone doesn't vote, doesn't mean they lose the right to gripe. You have no supporting documentation to support your claim, do you?

If someone doesn't vote they do indeed still have the right to gripe. They also suck as a citizen and I have no interest in listening to them gripe.

 

[johnwilliamson062]

I love the 'if we just elect the republicans next time' responses. Republicans had an unbelievable amount of control from 1996 until at least 2004 and did absolutely nothing to turn this country from the self destructive path it was on. How can you believe they would turn it around now? I have seen naive local politicians head to Washington planning to turn things around and two years later they are hooked on the system and doing everything they can to protect it.
I want the documentation of how secession is legal. I can't break a contract just because I entered into it of free will. Telling me the South was going to let New England states secede without putting up a fight doesn't mean it is legal either. As proved 30 years down the road, they were in no shape to stop it. The constitution is mute on the point, and it is the only document that could set up a system for legal secession.

What if the southern cavalry units had been outfitted with lever action rifles at the beginning of the civil war... Wouldn't that be interesting.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If someone doesn't vote they do indeed still have the right to gripe. They also suck as a citizen and I have no interest in listening to them gripe.

Couldn't have said it better myself. In another life we used to say: Go see the Chaplain!

 

[hogdogs]

It is absolute fantasy to think a single state could become a nation. First off the place will need to convert from USD to their own concept of money. Then the rest of the world will need to recognize it and put a value on it. That is going to be a volatile situation for a long time. To avoid spending all the money you have to export as much as you import. No single state has the products to accomplish this.

As for the gun laws etc. being passed, they may fly for a while. But fed dollars will soon be removed.
Brent

 

[johnwilliamson062]

First off the place will need to convert from USD to their own concept of money.

There are many economies in the world that use US dollars. When I have travelled abroad I have had no trouble spending US dollars. I have not been to Europe and I have heard it is a problem in Europe. Several countries at one time or another have adopted US dollars as the de facto currency for periods of time when their own currency was unstable(Cuba in the mid to late 90's being a good example). Other countries have backed their currency with US dollars(Argentina did this in the late 90's I believe, and there are several still doing it).

If they wanted to make their own currency it would be very difficult, but the country could easily adopt a foreign currency without trouble and it eliminates a good part of the countries overhead related to currency controls/market. There is of course the downfall of not being able to implement those controls.

To avoid spending all the money you have to export as much as you import. No single state has the products to accomplish this.

The US in its entirety does not come close to doing that either. This would be a problem, but it would be a problem that would follow them from the US, not be created when they leave.

The real problems would be border patrol and national defense. Right now Kentucky and even Ohio's federal tax dollars subsidize programs like the border patrol which they basically don't use(Kentucky has no international border, but maybe Ohio has a few BP agents on lake Erie). I doubt Texas would want to fight the Mexican drug cartels on its own, even if the US did not directly attempt to pull it back into the union by force. Montana would be in a better position, but even they would have some trouble. On the other hand Texas would probably go for a little more extreme border protection policies than the nation in general(along with the other SW border states).

If the US sealed the border and cut off all trade that would obviously create huge short term problems. Probably long term, but at least short term. Of course, there would be pipelines the US would have trouble doing without. I believe a large amount of Texas's water supply flows from rivers which are outside its territory. Of course many would likely leave the state diminishing its water problems. Many many more problems. Again, Montana does not share many of these likely problems. It also doesn't have much of anything in general(Beautiful country aside).

Where is my explanation of how it is legal with citations? I would really like to know where people are getting that secession is legal. Not saying all other things considered in favor of secession a state should not secede simply b/c it is illegal. Rather it is one of those situations where you knowingly break the law and hope you get a way with it, in this case win, so you do not suffer the consequences.

Originally Posted by BryanP
They also suck as a citizen and I have no interest in listening to them gripe.

Well at least we all see to have found one thing to agree on

 

[hogdogs]

I was just naming a few problems... If texas, for instance, left the USA... you can bet the cash they have would be quickly devalued by the bad mouthing from the "union".
No state could quietly set up for an overnight divorce from the union. Infrastructure alone is a big part. But let texas try to divorce with so many refineries and watch the missiles fly. The Fed gub could never allow such a thing!
Brent

 

[johnwilliamson062]

The cash would be identical to US currency, there would be no way to devalue it without devaluing all the other currency. The US has not always been very happy about some other countries using it's currency on a large scale, but there is little they/we can do about it.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Texas isn't going to secede. I live in San Antonio and work at a nice university. Withdraw from the Union and a very large proportion of my students disappear. The economy here has a large military component. That vanishes. The same happens across the state. All the defense industries go away.

So I get to live in tent so someone can prattle about political theories?

Nope.

 

[Leif]

I really just don't understand the fringe gun culture element that seems fascinated with secession. What amuses me is that the states that frequently are bandied about as possible candidates for secession receive more federal funding than they pay in federal taxes (see http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html), and they do so largely at the expense of the states that many of the same people regard as unfree and full of sheeple. Go figure.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Regarding the state receiving federal dollars as a ratio of federal taxes, I think there needs to be some explanation as to what those received federal dollars are for and how they might benefit the nation vs. just the state and local populations.

Let me take North Dakota and Minnesota for a comparison, as I've spent time in both. Both states are heavily agricultural states, so they would be likely to get farm subsidies or other government dollars spent under our federal farm programs. North Dakota has two air force bases, Grand Forks and Minot. Minnesota has no air force bases. I'm guessing it costs quite a bit of money to run an Air Force base and this may be a big part of what tilts north dakota to being a "winner" vs. Minnesota being a "loser" state. That is just one example of where the federal government spends money. I'm guessing that there are others. But those Air Force bases are part of our national defense, and Minnesotans benefit from those bases even though they are in our neighboring state. Thus, I don't think this comparison carries all that much water other than being a political football that can be tossed around when necessary to help promote some political agenda or issue. Also, since Minnesota tends to have more wealthy people, I'm guessing that on average, our per capita federal income taxes are higher than North Dakotas. That doesn't mean our middle classes live much different lifestyles when comparing the two states. North Dakota has less strict gun control, but that point is only raised to make sure this has some gun related content.

 

[Leif]

I don't think that federal funding of military bases counts as state receipt of federal funding for the purposes of the cited study.

 

[OuTcAsT]

I really just don't understand the fringe gun culture element that seems fascinated with secession.

(Hmm, over a thousand posts on a firearms discussion forum and you are not part of the gun culture ? )

Speaking from over here on the "fringe" let's see if we can enlighten you.



I don't think it is so much a "fascination" as much as a reality check. Look around at the other events that are unfolding in addition to all this secession speculation, the social climate is changing rapidly. At some point, there is a possibility that things may turn into a state of "civil unrest"
for any number of reasons, just as there is a possibility that you could be a target of violent crime. This is one of the reasons that many of us own firearms correct ?

I think that just like any other self defense situation, awareness of what is going on around you is critical to your survival. Those of us who (whom?) are armed, and aware, may be forced to protect ourselves either personally, or collectively.

I can only hope that cooler heads will prevail, if not, I certainly want to be prepared to defend which ever side of the fence I happen to choose.

 

[Leif]

I said fringe gun culture, i.e., not the entire gun culture.

Reality is realizing that discussion of secession as a viable political option or alternative is nonsense and fantasy - that's your reality check.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Reality is realizing that discussion of secession as a viable political option or alternative is nonsense and fantasy - that's your reality check.

I will agree that any singular state, or even a small handful of states could not possibly expect to pull off such a move.

However, there are currently a large number of states that are flexing the "states rights" muscles. They are sending a strong message that other states are hearing, and following. Could this lead to a massive secession movement ? Who knows ? I don't think anyone honestly is advocating such a movement but it is encouraging to see so many states willing to tell .gov to pound sand

Lets speculate for a moment about the impact of...let's say 25 or 30 states making such a paradigm shift would cause ?
Sorta changes the fantasy a bit eh ?

 

[Leif]

... and yet, they're the same states receiving so much Federal funding. Somehow I don't find anything remotely encouraging about hollow chest-thumping about secessionist fantasies and threats by hypocrites and fringe elements, and I don't see the other states paying a whole lot of serious attention to their ramblings. More of in the vein of "are they nuts?" than "gee, we should pay close attention to that, they might be on to something."

 

[OuTcAsT]

and yet, they're the same states receiving so much Federal funding

And yet this seems to be such a strange concept ?

Let's say I have been paying you money since my birth, and you want to give me back some of it for my own use, should I say NO just because I don't like you, or we have different points of view ? Federal funding starts out in the pockets of folks in those same states. Should they refuse to take it back on principle ?

 

[Leif]

They absolutely should refuse on principle. The whole point of this discussion is about principle. On a further note, I certainly don't want my Federal tax dollars going to a state that thinks it should leave the country and form its own. Actually, I want my Federal tax dollars going to dragging their rebellious, secessionist selves back into the union, by any means necessary. What happened to all that talk about enemies foreign and domestic?

If some state is bound and determined to secede, then they should start making strides to cut all Federal ties, monetary included. Otherwise, what's the point?

It's like this silly line in the sand threads that crops up from time to time. The secessionists, if there are even that many of them (thank god there aren't), should practice what they preach or shut up. Otherwise, its just so much counterproductive nonsense.

 

[OuTcAsT]

What happened to all that talk about enemies foreign and domestic?

I think that's the point, the perceived enemy seems to be "domestic"

They absolutely should refuse on principle.

If some state is bound and determined to secede, then they should start making strides to cut all Federal ties, monetary included.

No doubt, but I think I would want to get as much of my read= States' money back as I could before preparing to Biotch-slap .gov back to it's senses.

Actually, I want my Federal tax dollars going to dragging their rebellious, secessionist selves back into the union, by any means necessary.

"Yankee" Huh ?

 

[Leif]

And people wonder why there aren't more blue state or black shooters?