Secession
Posted by Hiraghm 12 years, 4 months ago to Government
A radical proposal, I know, but I wake up, look at a Fox News talking head talking calmly about how "we" can't afford treatment anymore, how "we" must focus on "preventive healthcare"; I sit down at my computer to see a list of twitter posts, among which includes ZDNet articles on the feds arguing against tech company disclosing federal requests for data and Box announcing its federally-compliant initiative for healthcare organizations to share data in the "cloud".
So it no longer seems so radical.
However, there's no magical force-field to hide a valley from the outside world. The only way remaining to hope to protect the strikers from the looters is either secession, or to find some friendly place in the 3rd world which is difficult to access from the outside; say a South-American jungle (surrounded by socialistic nations) or high desert like Tibet (ditto).
Such a place within the U.S. would require a producer friendly State. Alaska might provide the potential for isolation, but for my taste the environment is too hostile. The high deserts of the west, or the Rocky Mountain regions might provide a Gulch-like valley. But, consider the States. Would Utah be able or willing to help shield such a place from federal intervention? Certainly not Colorado, sadly.
Texicans like to brag about their independence from the feds, but consider Austin, San Antonio and Houston, 3 hotbeds of socialist (looter/moocher) mentality within Texas. Worse, Texas is flooded with military bases. Remember Ft Sumter? There is no way to get a State to try to force U.S. military bases out of the State. But then, they don't have to. If they secede, they need to negotiate the same kind of treaty with the feds that foreign nations such as Germany have for our bases. It would be best, in that instance, for the State to have few federal installations.
Oklahoma has the advantage of having the Indian nations here; if the State could negotiate treaties with them, the chances for secession might be better. OK also has a mindset advantage; in the past two elections every county went Republican. So, secession might be easier to promote. Maybe.
But, I don't write Texas off. Texas has one really really big advantage. According to the terms of its joining the Union, Texas can split off into 5 (?) separate, sovereign States. Should it be possible to convince Texas to make the sacrifice, the child States could be "gerrymandered" around the federal installations, so that, while some States would contain the military bases, some, or at least one, would be free of such installations, and might also share a border with Mexico.
Once divided, one or more of the child States could then move to secede from the union, and be able to do so peacefully. Then it could, possibly, support the producers who might then flood the new nation.
It's an extreme longshot. But so was the American republic. And I don't see any other way remaining of restoring the supremacy of producers.
So it no longer seems so radical.
However, there's no magical force-field to hide a valley from the outside world. The only way remaining to hope to protect the strikers from the looters is either secession, or to find some friendly place in the 3rd world which is difficult to access from the outside; say a South-American jungle (surrounded by socialistic nations) or high desert like Tibet (ditto).
Such a place within the U.S. would require a producer friendly State. Alaska might provide the potential for isolation, but for my taste the environment is too hostile. The high deserts of the west, or the Rocky Mountain regions might provide a Gulch-like valley. But, consider the States. Would Utah be able or willing to help shield such a place from federal intervention? Certainly not Colorado, sadly.
Texicans like to brag about their independence from the feds, but consider Austin, San Antonio and Houston, 3 hotbeds of socialist (looter/moocher) mentality within Texas. Worse, Texas is flooded with military bases. Remember Ft Sumter? There is no way to get a State to try to force U.S. military bases out of the State. But then, they don't have to. If they secede, they need to negotiate the same kind of treaty with the feds that foreign nations such as Germany have for our bases. It would be best, in that instance, for the State to have few federal installations.
Oklahoma has the advantage of having the Indian nations here; if the State could negotiate treaties with them, the chances for secession might be better. OK also has a mindset advantage; in the past two elections every county went Republican. So, secession might be easier to promote. Maybe.
But, I don't write Texas off. Texas has one really really big advantage. According to the terms of its joining the Union, Texas can split off into 5 (?) separate, sovereign States. Should it be possible to convince Texas to make the sacrifice, the child States could be "gerrymandered" around the federal installations, so that, while some States would contain the military bases, some, or at least one, would be free of such installations, and might also share a border with Mexico.
Once divided, one or more of the child States could then move to secede from the union, and be able to do so peacefully. Then it could, possibly, support the producers who might then flood the new nation.
It's an extreme longshot. But so was the American republic. And I don't see any other way remaining of restoring the supremacy of producers.
"I can't help but wonder, given the current political climate... If a state (or 10) managed to secede from the US, would the US hold it liable for some portion of our current debt? Would the US turn over some portion of its military assets to such a state? Are there even enough free-thinking individuals around to take on the challenges a successful secession would require?
"I think the rest of us would be in big trouble if a state (or 10) seceded. We'd have to keep paying social security and pensions to residents of that new nation (or 10) without any tax revenue coming from it.
"Fodder for thought. Maybe it's time for the US to get out of debt and actually reserve funds for programs [or abolish them] rather than expecting future generations to pay for them..."
My brother pointed out that secession was ruled unconstitutional. He neglected to point out that secession by mutual consent is not unconstitutional, and that revolution is always an option.
1) If the rebel states successfully, and permanently, seceded, the US would try to hold the rebel states accountable for their portion of the national debt up til the time of secession. Good luck collecting.
2) Military assets? You kidding? Only if the commanders on scene revolted and came over.
3) No, we would probably get the same self-seeking idiots we had to begin with or a bunch of gangsters and thugs trying to rule by force. Only a determined and well armed populace, with no squeamishness about dealing sudden death can stop that scenario.
4) Social Security and pensions? To secessionists who want nothing to do with you? Not bloody likely. Besides, what a great savings.
5) Good luck, mate. The US getting out of debt by fiscal restraint is as likely as the moon being made of green cheese.
6) Secession is never by mutual consent. The losing entity won't let it happen and the new entity doesn't have the strength to tell them to go f**k off (at least for any length of time)
7) Revolution is the only option. And you better damn well win or there will be nothing left of what you cherished.
Bottom line: The majority rule system is broke, look at what is going on in that circus called Washington, DC. We would need to find a totally deserted island, unless you plan on some kind of litmus test quiz, because 'they' are everywhere. You can't get away from "them". And as long as "they" are here, we will never escape, or dump the current system for something that might have a chance of working fairly.
We've all heard the saying 'the straw that breaks the camel's back' but to think of it literally makes me ponder. If you start with a bare camel and put one piece of straw on at a time, It will take quite a long time for the camel to even notice that it is carrying anything. Then when it has a load it will not notice an additional piece of straw. Then finally when it's back is broken it will lie motionless on the ground because it is useless.
This is how our government will seduce it's subjects. We have noticed that the current regime has moved more onto the camels back and it has become more noticeable but I say that we should figure this thing out sooner than later so that we still have a good back to fight with instead of laying on the ground and eating whatever scraps are within reach of our tongue!
IMO, the time came and went for a rebellion after the Waco massacre. Whether due to incompetence or gov't malice, heads should have rolled all the way to the top. And we did nothing.
This is what the southern states did in the mid 1800s and that didn't work out so well. The Fed at that point became a major hypocrite in regards to words in its founding documents and decided even if the people decided it was time to break former bonds and form a more perfect union, who cares? I'm not sure the Fed would with absolute certainty react the same way today, but I have to think they probably would. If we do get a breakaway state forming their own country, I think it needs to be in coastal Texas simply because we're going to need a shipping port.
But, yeah, coastal is better than Mexican border. I know if Texas tried to secede, there'd be trouble. If Texas broke up, and the majority of the land area remained with the feds, one or more child States might then be able to escape the union without warfare. if more than one managed to escape, they could then re-form a new nation, together, which would require they share a border with one another.
We need d'Anconias in the military. To infiltrate the personnel offices and steer producers to certain, specific military bases.
THEN when secession comes, or exodus, we either would have those with military expertise *and* equipment on our side, or at least we'd delay military response as those people are replaced with those who would take the federal side.
Meanwhile, on the civilian side, the "chosen" State could work on modifying those State, county and local gov'ts to be as producer-friendly as the feds can allow, thus attracting producers. And agents provocateur could propagandize against the State, discouraging looters and moochers from moving in. In this case the chosen State wouldn't necessarily be one to secede, but possibly a base from where an exodus could begin.
As for individuals being able to escape... there've always been underground railroads. And really, all they have to do is cross the border into Mexico and escape from there.