Secession

[narwhalParticipant]

Secession is something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately. Of course, living in Texas, it’s not that an uncommon a topic. There’s a lot of state pride, we were an independent country at one time, and we often differ from the rest of the country on many issues.

I have a fondness for the idea, not because I dislike the US in any way, but because there would be some great long term benefits.

– The voting population doesn’t feel like it has a voice anymore. Reducing the size and thus population of your country would increase your voice.
– Many of our laws and government infrastructure are seen as unchangeable. This would be a good way of rethinking and making corrections were needed.
– Texas is economically independent in we may more in federal taxes then we are granted. This would mean we either reduce taxes or get better government benefits if we were separated.
– We would need a lot more jobs to fill roles currently filed by federal government, as well as industry jobs that are vital but outside of Texas.
– The military strategies would definitely change. A Texas military would be much more about defending the homeland by necessity.

Of course, there would be tremendous problems with secession, even if there was no ‘bad blood’ with other states.

A better solution would surely be a return to greater state rights. The federal government was never supposed to be as powerful with domestic laws as it currently is. Even then, many laws that are still made at the state level still seemed to be run at the federal level, such as marriage laws, abortion laws, education, law enforcement, and so on.

Of course, the chance of states regaining control seems less likely than secession.

Ok. Then do it.

[AttonParticipant]

I might be an Australian, but I’ll say it the US needs a lot more state rights.

A MGTOW is a man who is not a woman's bitch!

[MadmanParticipant 772]

Lincoln made secession impossible. I am reading a great book right now called The Real Lincoln. It talks about all the bad s~~~ he did as well as the good. Lincoln was the first president to use government to directly benefit his business buddies. He established crony capitalism and layed the foundation for too big to fail. He gave gov money to numerous failed endeavors and wasted tons of tax payer dollars.

Then he started a war and got many americans killed over what should have been their constitutional right to secede.

[narwhalParticipant]

I think times have changed so much since the time of Lincoln that it really doesn’t have much bearing. It’s hard to imagine that a war would be fought over secession in this day in age.

I think the biggest problems today would be diversity and infrastructure. Diversity in the sense that there are many in Texas who would be against it due to differing opinions, and would not be able to just move out of state. And infrastructure of government assets as well as business assets are all over the place. How you deal with that would be a nightmare.

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 24]

Being a Libertarian, I am for city states. All states/counties/cities should not be beholden to any others. This would solve many problems. Getting all the city states to go to war and spend insane amounts of money on it would almost never happen. People would get to live around people who have the same beliefs and ideologies/values as themselves. Diversity would be able to thrive instead of being used to divide and conquer by the Federal Government.

As you can see, Oligarchs do not want this. They want, and have, total control under the guise of Democracy, a form of government where nobody gets what they want, yet everybody has to pay for it.

[narwhalParticipant]

That seems a bit too far for my tastes. We get a lot of benefits from having a large infrastructure (in just about everything), and that would be hard to do in a city state structure. I honestly think that if the US where to breakup into separate nations, it would be in groups of states by geography, economy, and ideology.

And I would not want Texas to be completely separated from the US in military terms. There needs to be some opposing force to the remaining ‘super powers’ like Russia and China. Allinace would still need to be in place for defense, however, it would be extremely difficult to play in world politics with the military as we currently do now.

Ok. Then do it.

[TaxGuyParticipant]

Narwhal:

I’ve joked before that we should kick Texas out and replace them with Puerto Rico. Strike one was the oil bust in the 70’s. Strike two was the Savings & Loans implosion. Strike three was Enron. Hell, we’d still have 50 states and wouldn’t even have to change the flag. We’ve been waiting for you guys to stop threatening to secede and actually do it, so now your time is up!

Seriously though, I totally understand what you are saying. The states were supposed to have way more autonomy than what they have. When you live in a state with the amount of resources that Texas has you start to wonder why the feds can’t leave you the hell alone. And then to have someone in Washington DC explain to you how to protect your border?

I’m starting to think that I just want to buy an island and call it TaxGuyland, and I’LL secede.

Order the good wine

[Anonymous 24]

We have nukes, no need for anything else other than that for defense. If you mean offense to oppose Russia and China… Yea, I think we are fine without all the resources we spend mostly in the interest of Israel around the world…U.S. is not about defense… It is about f~~~ing around everywhere…The amount of money we spend on military nonsense is insane. We could have built a literal utopia for every man woman and child in the U.S. with what we have spent since WW2 f~~~ing around.

And the city states would be united, and would come together if invaded, which would never happen, so really you are talking about offense, not defense. In the Nuclear age, if every country had em, there would be peace. Instead what you see is the U.S./Israel committing genocide against nations who do not have nukes, even ones who kept their agreement in not getting them (Libya) and continually try to make other countries not get them either, because they do not want to be deterred from doing as they please.

[hmskl’dParticipant 6406]

I have some cousins living in Port Arthur area. Every few years i drive through for a brief visit. I’ve spent a bit of time in and around Beaumont. Always enjoy my visits to Texas and I begin my drive home by going east along southernmost Louisiana coast via highway 82/27 eventually working my way back up to interstate I10 and then exit north. I always look forward to that drive and totally love it no matter how many times I go that route. If Texas ever succeeds from union, I’ll still be a regular visitor.

[Silverstone the SecondParticipant]

People think change can come from legislation and politics. It can’t and it won’t. Protests don’t work, hearings don’t work. The only way is revolution. You’d think Americans of all f~~~ing people would know that as that is what founded our country. It’s bad, but it’s not bad enough for a revolution. Yet.

Feminism is a movement where opinions are presented as facts and emotions are presented as evidence.

[Anonymous 42]

Secession? Been there, done that!

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

One side wants to group everyone into a single world community with one government, one set of laws, one economy and one culture whereas the other side wants to break everything apart into the smallest possible political units.

Do you really believe your voice matters in either case?

[Anonymous 42]

Stargazer wrote:

One side wants to group everyone into a single world community with one government, one set of laws, one economy and one culture whereas the other side wants to break everything apart into the smallest possible political units.

Do you really believe your voice matters in either case?

Who gives a f~~~ if your voice doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter anyway! What matters is your ass being ruled by someone other than yourself! I’m happy being the tiny little piece that rolls away under his own objectives and motives!

F~~~ the monolithic whole! It’s slated to go down like the Titanic! It’s one big unit that breaks in half then sinks!

At least I’m not going to the bottom!

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Anonymous wrote:

Doc Fenderson wrote:

One side wants to group everyone into a single world community with one government, one set of laws, one economy and one culture whereas the other side wants to break everything apart into the smallest possible political units.

Do you really believe your voice matters in either case?

Who gives a f~~~ if your voice doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter anyway! What matters is your ass being ruled by someone other than yourself! I’m happy being the tiny little piece that rolls away under his own objectives and motives!

F~~~ the monolithic whole! It’s slated to go down like the Titanic! It’s one big unit that breaks in half then sinks!

At least I’m not going to the bottom!

So no, you don’t believe your voice matters either way… which means you’re being ruled by someone other than yourself no matter what you do.

I suggest that it’s easier for individuals to slip between the cracks when governments are bigger and less personal than when they’re tiny and local, the same as it is easier to be anonymous in a city of 10 million people than it is to be in a town of 5000.

So for those of us who simply want to be left alone, a globalized government would seem to be a better choice, no?

[53ClicksUpParticipant 1345]

There are only 3 things I want the Federal Government to do for me. 1. Maintain a nuclear deterrent, 2. Keep the sea lanes safe from pirates and open for commerce, 3. Maintain the Interstate highway system.

Beyond that the Federal Government can kiss my ass, because the states are quite capable of handling everything else for themselves.

The time has come for the United States to split in two as Pakistan and India had the sense to do with help from the Brits.

[Anonymous 42]

Stargazer wrote:

So for those of us who simply want to be left alone, a globalized government would seem to be a better choice, no?

No Doc, she’s all yours along with all the redundant taxation from so many competing progressive tiers of government, as usual it will only lead to more waste abuse and corruption. You can have my portion of one world government for all its worthlessness, I’d rather live in the forest and eat bugs!

[narwhalParticipant]

Stargazer wrote:

One side wants to group everyone into a single world community with one government, one set of laws, one economy and one culture whereas the other side wants to break everything apart into the smallest possible political units.

Do you really believe your voice matters in either case?

Mathematically speaking, no. However, I think a lot of people, who happen to think similarly to me, will believe…and that’s what matters. In other words, where people believe nothing can change, they suddenly believe that it can.

No, not everything is going to change, and not all of it for the better. But I can see there being hope.

As far as a bigger government being less concerned about individual behavior, I think the opposite is true. Besides the already mentioned taxes, do you think government could have as much say in our lives if they didn’t have the huge tax base? They tell us what we can and cannot say. They tell us who you can hire, and how you have to pay them. They tell you what you can do on your own property. The UN actually wants to increase control over your life.

Yes, you can hide amongst many, but does it really make a difference if the many are 600 million or 20 million?

Besides, this isn’t going to happen, it’s just a thought.

Ok. Then do it.

[Anonymous 24]

Someone send me mail when Doc says something that is anti-establishment.

They paying you well Doc?

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Anonymous wrote:

No Doc, she’s all yours along with all the redundant taxation from so many competing progressive tiers of government

Already the case and has been for thousands of years. Try getting your silk and saffron from the East back to Europe without paying a tax to every petty tyrant from Mumbai to Istanbul.

I’d rather live in the forest and eat bugs!

Yeah, and I’d rather have wings and fly like a bird. Sure, you’d like to live for free off the land as a sovereign but that’s just it… you can’t. You can pretend to… for a while…

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Anonymous wrote:

Someone send me mail when Doc says something that is anti-establishment.

It’s called reality, Joe, and like it or not, you’re soaking in it. The degree to which you deny it is evidence for your immaturity and wishful thinking.

You wanna go live in the dirt and eat bugs with Tower, free from governments, laws, currencies, interest, taxation and the global supply chain of resource extraction, labor, production and consumption? You may as well build a pillow fort in your parents’ basement and declare yourself emperor of “Never-Past-Bedtime Land”.

[Author]

Posts