If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Recent secession movements and why they're all doomed to failure   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 54
    More: Interesting, Baja Arizona, Pima County, nature preserve, mainers, county board, Western Maryland  
•       •       •

1222 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Sep 2013 at 9:23 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



54 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-25 09:23:11 AM
You mean there's a reason other than idiocy?
 
2013-09-25 09:30:45 AM
Joy's bill, which eventually failed, would have allowed the northern portion of the state to retain the name Maine, while the southern section would have been ordained Northern Massachusetts -- strange, considering the two states don't share a border.

I guess the author of TFA is unaware that Maine used to be part of Massachusetts, until it seceded to become a separate state in 1820.
 
2013-09-25 09:34:37 AM
A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.
 
2013-09-25 09:35:55 AM

Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.


Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.
 
2013-09-25 09:39:13 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.


I find that hilarious for some reason
 
2013-09-25 09:40:53 AM
Why is it always the rural parts (net takers) that want to secede from the city parts (net payers)? Live without our money for ten years, then we'll talk about secession.
 
2013-09-25 09:41:10 AM
State 1
State 2
State 3
The whole damn nation.
State 4
City 1

Kinda makes the rest seem unneeded when you write, "The whole damn nation."
 
2013-09-25 09:43:18 AM

somedude210: Wicked Chinchilla: Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.

I find that hilarious for some reason


Hilarious, but true. It comes down to that a State does not have legal recourse to leave the Union. If they so desire, it would have to be contested by force of arms.

We did have a whole civil war that included that point.
 
2013-09-25 09:44:07 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.

Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.


If they get international recognition as a legitimate country, I don't think that matters much.

Of course, international recognition might not be easy.  Just ask South Ossetia.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 09:44:47 AM

Wellon Dowd: Why is it always the rural parts (net takers) that want to secede from the city parts (net payers)? Live without our money for ten years, then we'll talk about secession.


A major reason is always taxes.  Of course they never grok that taxes are so low historically (they go off about corporate taxes with no understanding of how some of the biggest corps. have negative taxation) and what those taxes actually pay for.

Let them live in a republic with no taxes.  It'll be New Somalia in a couple of years.
 
2013-09-25 09:45:06 AM
So the adult answer to "I don't like the politics of my state" is "waaaa, I'll take my toys and go home. We're not friends anymore".
Christ, we've become of a nation of whiny douchebags that cannot play with others. I blame this on fast food, Nintendo and helicopter parents.
 
2013-09-25 09:45:48 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.

Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.


It will decide for itself if it's legal for itself to declare independence rather than be guided by some foreign nation/union's laws. I'm sure Britain felt that the Declaration of Independence by the American states was illegal. It's irrelevant.
 
2013-09-25 09:46:09 AM
Scotland and Catalonia both have about a 30% shot, I would say, over the next ten years. That's about a 50% chance one of them could succeed.

/wait, what is this article about again
//and South Ossetia/Abkhazia are 'seceding' just fine, comrade
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 09:46:11 AM

wxboy: Of course, international recognition might not be easy. Just ask South Ossetia.


or Petoria.
 
2013-09-25 09:46:54 AM
You want to know who really believes in hope and change? Secessionists. They truly believe in unicorns and rainbows, all they have to do is secede from the Union, murder anybody who they don't like or doesn't agree with them in the territory that they chose as their country, and everything will be peaches and creme.

Only problem is that if the US devolves into a revolution or civil war it won't be North Vs. South, it will be all these religious hard line nut balls vs. the US government and each other. A civil war in the US will look like farking Syria.
 
2013-09-25 09:46:59 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.

Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.

It will decide for itself if it's legal for itself to declare independence rather than be guided by some foreign nation/union's laws. I'm sure Britain felt that the Declaration of Independence by the American states was illegal. It's irrelevant.


It was. By definition, revolutions are illegal. :3

/STOP SPINNING
 
2013-09-25 09:48:10 AM

Summercat: Hilarious, but true. It comes down to that a State does not have legal recourse to leave the Union. If they so desire, it would have to be contested by force of arms.


No I know, I just find it hilarious that we have to have a law that specifically states "YOU CANNOT SECEDE FROM THE COUNTRY"
 
2013-09-25 09:50:29 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.

Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.

It will decide for itself if it's legal for itself to declare independence rather than be guided by some foreign nation/union's laws. I'm sure Britain felt that the Declaration of Independence by the American states was illegal. It's irrelevant.


Its pretty relevant when Obama or any given successor has the Marines go kill everyone.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2013-09-25 09:50:59 AM

Slaves2Darkness: You want to know who really believes in hope and change? Secessionists. They truly believe in unicorns and rainbows, all they have to do is secede from the Union, murder anybody who they don't like or doesn't agree with them in the territory that they chose as their country, and everything will be peaches and creme.

Only problem is that if the US devolves into a revolution or civil war it won't be North Vs. South, it will be all these religious hard line nut balls vs. the US government and each other. A civil war in the US will look like farking Syria.


And the religious nuts have been occupied themselves by collecting guns while everyone else was trying to learn and be decent citizens.  That's a problem.
 
2013-09-25 09:52:52 AM

Summercat: somedude210: Wicked Chinchilla: Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.

I find that hilarious for some reason

Hilarious, but true. It comes down to that a State does not have legal recourse to leave the Union. If they so desire, it would have to be contested by force of arms.

We did have a whole civil war that included that point.


That was about slavery.
 
2013-09-25 09:57:14 AM
C'mon Texas, try again.  We promise to let you go this time.  America would be a far better country for it.
 
2013-09-25 09:57:58 AM
Ultimately, the reason succession is dumb is because of the aftermath.

Ok, you've let Texas/Maine/Cascadia become it's own country, great! Welcome to a national stage where your currency is worthless, you border the largest and most powerful nation in the world which now hates you for leaving it and with undoubtedly impose ridiculous sanctions against you, has repossessed all of its federal assets during the separation including all military hardware for defense, hardware which is now on your border which, by the way, is completely closed to your citizens for being traitors to the rest of the country.

All the folks back in the US would be pissed, and most reasonable folk in your new country likely fled when the announcement was made to other states still in the US as they foresaw the issues that would arise. Similarly, all the succession nutjobs would have immediately flocked to your state with their guns, making your local economy both lacking any of the trained service and production level positions and having an abundance of volitile labor with no jobs for them to work. All this is before the major corporations decide to prey on your population by providing no pay for menial labor, and export all of their profits to their corporate headquarters in other, more stable nations.

On the international stage, any nation that is friendly with the US or dislikes giving their own people the option of succession will be ignoring you for as long as possible, with the only folks likely to give you any time of day being the states that, coincidentally, your new-found freedom loving folk absolutely hate (Latin nations, Middle Eastern Nations, China, etc).

Lets say you survive all this and want to raise taxes/support structures and all the things that these brave, tough secessionists hate to actually have a chance of not being a 3rd world nation. Well, your entire population is now likely armed and forming numerous fractured militias and you are likely going to face several whiskey rebellion scenarios before you are able to assert a state dominance. Should your nation not do so, welcome to Somalia 2.0, with dozens of tiny warlords fighting over the same territory.

After a few years of this, the US would likely decide to liberate the hell out of you, re-annex the territory with considerable prejudice, and lead your nation into a decade or five of painful reconstruction.

And that's assuming there are no wars between other nations beyond the US due to stupid policy or deliberate weakness.
 
2013-09-25 10:05:33 AM
It's weird that we fight for this to happen on the world stage all the time ("Give Palestine its own state!" "Go Balkanize yourself, Balkans!") but lose our minds when Northern California doesn't want to be associated with the rest of the state.
 
2013-09-25 10:06:37 AM
 
2013-09-25 10:07:00 AM

JollyMagistrate: Ultimately, the reason succession is dumb is because of the aftermath.

Ok, you've let Texas/Maine/Cascadia become it's own country, great! Welcome to a national stage where your currency is worthless, you border the largest and most powerful nation in the world which now hates you for leaving it and with undoubtedly impose ridiculous sanctions against you, has repossessed all of its federal assets during the separation including all military hardware for defense, hardware which is now on your border which, by the way, is completely closed to your citizens for being traitors to the rest of the country.

All the folks back in the US would be pissed, and most reasonable folk in your new country likely fled when the announcement was made to other states still in the US as they foresaw the issues that would arise. Similarly, all the succession nutjobs would have immediately flocked to your state with their guns, making your local economy both lacking any of the trained service and production level positions and having an abundance of volitile labor with no jobs for them to work. All this is before the major corporations decide to prey on your population by providing no pay for menial labor, and export all of their profits to their corporate headquarters in other, more stable nations.

On the international stage, any nation that is friendly with the US or dislikes giving their own people the option of succession will be ignoring you for as long as possible, with the only folks likely to give you any time of day being the states that, coincidentally, your new-found freedom loving folk absolutely hate (Latin nations, Middle Eastern Nations, China, etc).

Lets say you survive all this and want to raise taxes/support structures and all the things that these brave, tough secessionists hate to actually have a chance of not being a 3rd world nation. Well, your entire population is now likely armed and forming numerous fractured militias and you are likely going to face several ...


I say we let Texas secede and see how accurate your predictions are.
 
2013-09-25 10:16:50 AM

Ned Stark: Noam Chimpsky: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.

Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.

It will decide for itself if it's legal for itself to declare independence rather than be guided by some foreign nation/union's laws. I'm sure Britain felt that the Declaration of Independence by the American states was illegal. It's irrelevant.

Its pretty relevant when Obama or any given successor has the Marines go kill everyone.


That would be illegal. He'd need a super majority of congress to do anything about it. It's one thing to create an opposition to an independence movement when it enslaves people and its slave economy will kill the economy of the neighboring free states. Not to mention the moral motivation to stand against it. Quite another thing to force freedom loving people into a Union. You'd have to hate the fact that they will have too much freedom and will no longer be forced to abide by the desires of outsiders. Hard to get gung ho about killing people like that.

 
2013-09-25 10:17:30 AM
From the article: The nation itself was birthed by the rebellious spirit that often drives secession movements, though historians typically point out that the Revolutionary War was just that, a revolution, and not technically a move to secede from the British empire.

Except for the Declaration of Independence ya know
 
2013-09-25 10:19:37 AM

Barry Lyndon's Annuity Cheque: It's weird that we fight for this to happen on the world stage all the time ("Give Palestine its own state!" "Go Balkanize yourself, Balkans!") but lose our minds when Northern California doesn't want to be associated with the rest of the state.


That's not really the best comparison, since most of the "secession" proposals aren't really about secession from the US, but splitting from an existing state to form a new state that is still part of the country.

I do wonder if the U.S. would be able to prevent true secession by, say, Texas without making itself an international pariah in the process.
 
2013-09-25 10:31:28 AM

wxboy: I do wonder if the U.S. would be able to prevent true secession by, say, Texas without making itself an international pariah in the process.


Don't let Texas secede. Give Texas back to its rightful owners, Mexico.
 
2013-09-25 10:58:57 AM

JollyMagistrate: Ultimately, the reason succession is dumb is because of the aftermath.

Ok, you've let Texas/Maine/Cascadia become it's own country, great! Welcome to a national stage where your currency is worthless, you border the largest and most powerful nation in the world which now hates you for leaving it and with undoubtedly impose ridiculous sanctions against you, has repossessed all of its federal assets during the separation including all military hardware for defense, hardware which is now on your border which, by the way, is completely closed to your citizens for being traitors to the rest of the country.

All the folks back in the US would be pissed, and most reasonable folk in your new country likely fled when the announcement was made to other states still in the US as they foresaw the issues that would arise. Similarly, all the succession nutjobs would have immediately flocked to your state with their guns, making your local economy both lacking any of the trained service and production level positions and having an abundance of volitile labor with no jobs for them to work. All this is before the major corporations decide to prey on your population by providing no pay for menial labor, and export all of their profits to their corporate headquarters in other, more stable nations.

On the international stage, any nation that is friendly with the US or dislikes giving their own people the option of succession will be ignoring you for as long as possible, with the only folks likely to give you any time of day being the states that, coincidentally, your new-found freedom loving folk absolutely hate (Latin nations, Middle Eastern Nations, China, etc).

Lets say you survive all this and want to raise taxes/support structures and all the things that these brave, tough secessionists hate to actually have a chance of not being a 3rd world nation. Well, your entire population is now likely armed and forming numerous fractured militias and you are likely going to face several ...


You would also have to figure in the the people who didn't want it to happen. Lots of talk about Texas turning blue at some point. I would imagine if 30% of the state didn't want to to leave there might be some internal conflicts to add to the mix.
 
2013-09-25 10:59:44 AM
I hope a real, solid seccessionist movement does begin to garner steam.

Because I will change my middle name to "Tecumseh" as Step 1 in a reminder of "why this is a bad idea".
 
2013-09-25 11:13:22 AM

Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.

Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.


It's not a matter of "legality." It's a matter of whether the federal government is willing to let you get away with attempting it. The War of the Rebellion, 1861-1865, ought to have answered that question for good.
 
2013-09-25 11:37:37 AM

mksmith: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.

Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.

It's not a matter of "legality." It's a matter of whether the federal government is willing to let you get away with attempting it. The War of the Rebellion, 1861-1865, ought to have answered that question for good.


Except, in that instance, they went to war against a tentative nation trying to avoid freedom and independence. That is different than going to war against people who want more freedom and independence. There wouldn't be an appetite to kill freedom loving people who merely want to chart their own course, so your answer to your question isn't cut and dried. Hard to imagine the rallying cry to make war on them.
 
2013-09-25 11:58:24 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Summercat: somedude210: Wicked Chinchilla: Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.

I find that hilarious for some reason

Hilarious, but true. It comes down to that a State does not have legal recourse to leave the Union. If they so desire, it would have to be contested by force of arms.

We did have a whole civil war that included that point.

That was about slavery.


Primarily. It also did cover states rights, and while the underlying reason wasn't over the legality of succession, that certainly was also decided in the conflict.
 
2013-09-25 12:00:48 PM

Noam Chimpsky: mksmith: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.

Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.

It's not a matter of "legality." It's a matter of whether the federal government is willing to let you get away with attempting it. The War of the Rebellion, 1861-1865, ought to have answered that question for good.

Except, in that instance, they went to war against a tentative nation trying to avoid freedom and independence. That is different than going to war against people who want more freedom and independence. There wouldn't be an appetite to kill freedom loving people who merely want to chart their own course, so your answer to your question isn't cut and dried. Hard to imagine the rallying cry to make war on them.


"These secessionists want to fracture our country, shatter our economy, and piss on the memory of the soldiers, citizens, and taxpayers that built their infrastructure, protected their interests, and are responsible for their economic success. They are a selfish people who care more about themselves and getting what they want over the good of the nation that they would endanger the greatest country on earth."

It is incredibly easy to rally dislike against successions. The idea is really, really harmful for both countries involved and is simply not viable in the modern era. When per-industrial societies needed little aside from luxury goods for basic subsidence from their neighboring regions, succession wasn't really a big deal. Now, succession would cripple the value dollar, fracture our defense capabilities (as foreign governments might be able to build bases/support/puppet the new country), and would be essentially telling the rest of the US to fark off after the nation as a whole built everything they use, from their roadway systems to their financial infrastructure.
 
2013-09-25 12:08:19 PM
And the great  State of Superior is again snubbed.

/M-55 and north or    figh  eat a pasty and sell fudge.
 
2013-09-25 12:12:45 PM

JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: mksmith: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.

Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.

It's not a matter of "legality." It's a matter of whether the federal government is willing to let you get away with attempting it. The War of the Rebellion, 1861-1865, ought to have answered that question for good.

Except, in that instance, they went to war against a tentative nation trying to avoid freedom and independence. That is different than going to war against people who want more freedom and independence. There wouldn't be an appetite to kill freedom loving people who merely want to chart their own course, so your answer to your question isn't cut and dried. Hard to imagine the rallying cry to make war on them.

"These secessionists want to fracture our country, shatter our economy, and piss on the memory of the soldiers, citizens, and taxpayers that built their infrastructure, protected their interests, and are responsible for their economic success. They are a selfish people who care more about themselves and getting what they want over the good of the nation that they would endanger the greatest country on earth."

It is incredibly easy to rally dislike against successions. The idea is really, really harmful for both countries involved and is simply not viable in the modern era. When per-industrial societies needed little aside from luxury goods for basic subsidence from their neighboring regions, succession wasn't really a big deal. Now, succession would cripple the value dollar, fracture our defense capabilities (as foreign governments might be able to build bases/support/puppet the new country), and would be essentially telling the rest of the US to fark off after the nation as a whole built everything they use, from their roadway systems to their financial infrastruct ...


I'm sure that state did its share of all that. If Hawaii secedes, do we go in and kill all the Hawaiians?
 
2013-09-25 12:21:53 PM

Noam Chimpsky: JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: mksmith: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky:


I'm sure that state did its share of all that. If Hawaii secedes, do we go in and kill all the Hawaiians?

It isn't about share, it's about the damage. The state leaving would be crippled immediately, the state it is leaving would also be crippled financially.

Hawaii might (maybe) be a case where a potential option would exist given both it's history, geography, and population. But more likely than not if Hawaii were to declare itself independent tomorrow a few carriers would be parked outside within the day and several regiments of soldiers would enforce a brief martial law until the state government admitted it was being silly. No first world nation is going to allow a loss of sovereign territory in the era of globalization without either 1) Selling it off due to being insolvent or 2) having it forcibly seized by a rival power.

Succession in the US (especially the continental US) is a selfish and shortsighted act with no real positive for anyone but that petty, short-sighted guy who wants to pay no taxes and live alone in the woods. When he suddenly cant drive into town and buy a beer at the local bar as there is no currency, upkept roadways, or enforcement from crime and bandits he will also eventually change his tune. Or, even more likely, that's exactly what secessionist types want as they see their survivalist arsenals finally leveling the playing field that they have been a pawn in due to being uneducated, uninformed, and generally unskillful as far as complex society goes.
 
2013-09-25 12:51:44 PM

Noam Chimpsky: Ned Stark: Noam Chimpsky: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky: A state would just need to declare independence and form a national government. Congress doesn't have any say on a state's right to not belong to a friggin union.

Except States are not legally allowed to declare independence.

It will decide for itself if it's legal for itself to declare independence rather than be guided by some foreign nation/union's laws. I'm sure Britain felt that the Declaration of Independence by the American states was illegal. It's irrelevant.

Its pretty relevant when Obama or any given successor has the Marines go kill everyone.

That would be illegal. He'd need a super majority of congress to do anything about it. It's one thing to create an opposition to an independence movement when it enslaves people and its slave economy will kill the economy of the neighboring free states. Not to mention the moral motivation to stand against it. Quite another thing to force freedom loving people into a Union. You'd have to hate the fact that they will have too much freedom and will no longer be forced to abide by the desires of outsiders. Hard to get gung ho about killing people like that.


Illegal/wrong/bad etc etc. are a little beside the point. It would happen. Sure I'm pretty much on board with your assertion people probably ought to be able to peacefully go theirs seperate ways but no, shooting your way out is the only way out.
 
2013-09-25 01:00:46 PM
Could it be because the groups behind secession are fringe lunatics and are viewed as such by everyone else?
 
2013-09-25 01:10:54 PM
I just want the South to secede so I can say I married a foreigner.
 
2013-09-25 02:31:20 PM
Been there, done that.
pic.pilpix.com
 
2013-09-25 02:58:54 PM

JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: mksmith: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky:

I'm sure that state did its share of all that. If Hawaii secedes, do we go in and kill all the Hawaiians?

It isn't about share, it's about the damage. The state leaving would be crippled immediately, the state it is leaving would also be crippled financially.

Hawaii might (maybe) be a case where a potential option would exist given both it's history, geography, and population. But more likely than not if Hawaii were to declare itself independent tomorrow a few carriers would be parked outside within the day and several regiments of soldiers would enforce a brief martial law until the state government admitted it was being silly. No first world nation is going to allow a loss of sovereign territory in the era of globalization without either 1) Selling it off due to being insolvent or 2) having it forcibly seized by a rival power.

Succession in the US (especially the continental US) is a selfish and shortsighted act with no real positive for anyone but that petty, short-sighted guy who wants to pay no taxes and live alone in the woods.


Had there only been a couple of states who were opposed to slavery, and a military option was out of the question, it would have been righteous for them to secede rather than continue to belong to a slave nation/union. I hope you'd be opposed to the Union forcing those states to remain part of a slave nation.
 
2013-09-25 03:05:04 PM

Noam Chimpsky: JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: mksmith: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky:

I'm sure that state did its share of all that. If Hawaii secedes, do we go in and kill all the Hawaiians?

It isn't about share, it's about the damage. The state leaving would be crippled immediately, the state it is leaving would also be crippled financially.

Hawaii might (maybe) be a case where a potential option would exist given both it's history, geography, and population. But more likely than not if Hawaii were to declare itself independent tomorrow a few carriers would be parked outside within the day and several regiments of soldiers would enforce a brief martial law until the state government admitted it was being silly. No first world nation is going to allow a loss of sovereign territory in the era of globalization without either 1) Selling it off due to being insolvent or 2) having it forcibly seized by a rival power.

Succession in the US (especially the continental US) is a selfish and shortsighted act with no real positive for anyone but that petty, short-sighted guy who wants to pay no taxes and live alone in the woods.

Had there only been a couple of states who were opposed to slavery, and a military option was out of the question, it would have been righteous for them to secede rather than continue to belong to a slave nation/union. I hope you'd be opposed to the Union forcing those states to remain part of a slave nation.


Your point really has nothing at all to do with the point of present succession as that isn't the case at present.

Also, our nation has means to prevent such atrocities from occurring (constitution) and legal means to affect change (legislature).

AlsoAlso: geopolitical politics in the 1800s are very different from today and could allow for greater possibility of successful succession. Modern warfare, communication, and governance do not allow for it without invasion from a rival power or economic collapse of the primary nation

Had a state succeeding been entirely populated by polar bears that might mean something also! We can discuss apologist hypothetical until we are blue in the face, that doesn't make them true or their facts a reality.
 
2013-09-25 03:08:44 PM
There are so many successful states popping up in this thread.
/But did they secede and become successful after secession?
 
2013-09-25 03:19:40 PM
You all laugh now, but we'll see who's laughing when the great nation of The Republic of Stanfordia succeeds from the union! And none of you can have my Stanford fun bucks! They'll be valuable soon. Hail Stanfordia!
 
2013-09-25 03:28:55 PM

JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: mksmith: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky:

I'm sure that state did its share of all that. If Hawaii secedes, do we go in and kill all the Hawaiians?

It isn't about share, it's about the damage. The state leaving would be crippled immediately, the state it is leaving would also be crippled financially.

Hawaii might (maybe) be a case where a potential option would exist given both it's history, geography, and population. But more likely than not if Hawaii were to declare itself independent tomorrow a few carriers would be parked outside within the day and several regiments of soldiers would enforce a brief martial law until the state government admitted it was being silly. No first world nation is going to allow a loss of sovereign territory in the era of globalization without either 1) Selling it off due to being insolvent or 2) having it forcibly seized by a rival power.

Succession in the US (especially the continental US) is a selfish and shortsighted act with no real positive for anyone but that petty, short-sighted guy who wants to pay no taxes and live alone in the woods.

Had there only been a couple of states who were opposed to slavery, and a military option was out of the question, it would have been righteous for them to secede rather than continue to belong to a slave nation/union. I hope you'd be opposed to the Union forcing those states to remain part of a slave nation.

Your point really has nothing at all to do with the point of present succession as that isn't the case at present.

Also, our nation has means to prevent such atrocities from occurring (constitution) and legal means to affect change (legislature).


The point is to make you agree that there are righteous reasons for secession and then it makes the matter subjective. The point is that the people who desire independence might not agree with you on whether it makes sense, is a good idea, etc.

I think you used the word 'selfish'. The Colonists were selfish. Think of all the treasure England spent into building those colonies. Spilled their blood to make it safe from Indians and Frenchmen, Spaniards. It's just a shame that those colonists were so ungrateful.
 
2013-09-25 04:36:26 PM

Noam Chimpsky: JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: JollyMagistrate: Noam Chimpsky: mksmith: Wicked Chinchilla: Noam Chimpsky:

I'm sure that state did its share of all that. If Hawaii secedes, do we go in and kill all the Hawaiians?

It isn't about share, it's about the damage. The state leaving would be crippled immediately, the state it is leaving would also be crippled financially.

Hawaii might (maybe) be a case where a potential option would exist given both it's history, geography, and population. But more likely than not if Hawaii were to declare itself independent tomorrow a few carriers would be parked outside within the day and several regiments of soldiers would enforce a brief martial law until the state government admitted it was being silly. No first world nation is going to allow a loss of sovereign territory in the era of globalization without either 1) Selling it off due to being insolvent or 2) having it forcibly seized by a rival power.

Succession in the US (especially the continental US) is a selfish and shortsighted act with no real positive for anyone but that petty, short-sighted guy who wants to pay no taxes and live alone in the woods.

Had there only been a couple of states who were opposed to slavery, and a military option was out of the question, it would have been righteous for them to secede rather than continue to belong to a slave nation/union. I hope you'd be opposed to the Union forcing those states to remain part of a slave nation.

Your point really has nothing at all to do with the point of present succession as that isn't the case at present.

Also, our nation has means to prevent such atrocities from occurring (constitution) and legal means to affect change (legislature).

The point is to make you agree that there are righteous reasons for secession and then it makes the matter subjective. The point is that the people who desire independence might not agree with you on whether it makes sense, is a good idea, etc.
...



I never said they did agree with me, or that such rugged freedomists were even sane or existent. I'm pretty darn sure most folks who want succession have no idea what they are getting into and only are planning on doing so out of an ill thought out idea based upon misconceptions about their own taxation. The Colonists were selfish in the greater scale of things, but in the era they lived in it was both 1) possible to revolt and be successful and 2) they has massive financial incentive across their territories to do so. The leadership of the colonies both knew they had a realistic opportunity and a plan for how they would go about doing so successfully.

Neither of these are true now.

I'm not debating the past. I'm' talking about right now, right here, in 2013. Succession is not conceivably possible for a state in the US under current conditions, and those conditions aren't going to change anytime soon. In addition, those calling for succession (right here right now) are typically moonbats who haven't thought much more beyond cutting the IRS out of their Freedom Bunkers than how to form an actual nation, or if such is even possible or desirable for their goals.

There are no righteous reasons right here, in 2013, to succeed from the US and, even if you convinced yourself there were, there are no such reasons that couldn't be solved within the existant democratic process. Even if you convinced yourself that no such remedies existed, there is no possibility of pulling it off. Even if, for some insane reason, you did manage it, there is no conceivable way of such an action leading to anything but a lower quality of life for both nations.

It's a fantasy, and a silly one.
 
2013-09-25 06:00:56 PM
I'll note that the Articles of Confederation had no provision for its replacement. So, really, the 13 colonies successfully seceded from a voluntary relationship once before.
 
2013-09-25 06:47:58 PM

Slaves2Darkness: You want to know who really believes in hope and change? Secessionists. They truly believe in unicorns and rainbows, all they have to do is secede from the Union, murder anybody who they don't like or doesn't agree with them in the territory that they chose as their country, and everything will be peaches and creme.

Only problem is that if the US devolves into a revolution or civil war it won't be North Vs. South, it will be all these religious hard line nut balls vs. the US government and each other. A civil war in the US will look like farking Syria.


Hell, the LAST Civil War was pretty Syria-esque in border states and in the Union enclaves in Confederate territory:

farm3.staticflickr.com

Actual gravestone from Cades Cove, TN (which at the time was a Union enclave in Confederate-controlled Tennessee--surprisingly, a LOT of Appalachia wanted nothing to do with the Confederacy and wanted to be left alone)...and yes, the guy actually WAS murdered by a lynch mob out of North Carolina which had been conducting what would be referred to nowadays as Terror Raids on the community.

Said lynch mob was actually led by none other than the guy's son, at that...whom (ironically) didn't realise that the lynch mob planned the assassination of his father for having fought back AGAINST the Confederate terrorists.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report