An Amicable Separation/Decentralization/Secession (1 Viewer)

[Farb]

https://nationalfile.com/why-dont-w...d-divide-up-into-like-two-or-three-countries/

I find myself never agreeing with this looney tune but I think she is might be on to something. At the very minimum for a conversation. I heard this yesterday evening and have been thinking about a lot last night and today. Curious on others thoughts.
Why do we all have to share a federal government. The 2 sides are not just politically apart, but are different in their core values. I think this needs to be discussed before conflict actually boils to the top.
If we are honest, it is already simmering. This should be a like a divorce only with vast population migration to different areas.
We remain allies with defensive pacts and trade pacts but share not common government.
I get the first reaction is horror but if you think about it, it might be the only way...

What would it look like? What regions/states would go where?

 

[Farb]

Are there any countries that currently have something resembling what you're describing here? (That's not meant to be a backhanded "well then move")

I have been thinking long and hard about Poland!

I don't think so because I think this was what this country was suppose to be but we royally f'ed that up.

A country created on the foundation that government is and will always become corrupt and counter productive is what I think most people want. Most people in the West that is.

 

[coldseat]

I have been thinking long and hard about Poland!

I don't think so because I think this was what this country was suppose to be but we royally f'ed that up.

A country created on the foundation that government is and will always become corrupt and counter productive is what I think most people want. Most people in the West that is.

How can that possibly be a foundation for a functioning government/country? How would conspiracy theories not always rule the day in a society like that. We already see what it's done here in the US to the Republican party (who totally believe that now).

Also, what you're really describing is just anarchy.

 

[Farb]

To assume that when this split happens, nothing will change and everything will just hum along as normal is a false idea. After a divorce, everyone is forced to down size, sell assets and debts, change their spending habit, become more frugal.
To act like this has not been done before is ignoring history. Will it be a rough go, yes it will but it will better off in the long run.
Industry will develop and new companies will be created. There will be a hole that will be filled with something if you take away the government taxing every dime a person works for, business will flourish.
This idea that we need the federal government is lunacy. We have the most powerful economy in the world, are we happy as a nation? We are more unhappy now, with more convenience, comfort and wealth than at ANY TIME in history and yet, we, as citizens are still at each others throats because? The government?

It seem like most knee jerk reaction are for the concern of 'flyover' or poor states. You guys think the blue states will form a wonderful powerhouse. Would not that be better with not having to share the resources with us? Think about the social safety nets you all could provide. Guaranteed income for all, voting rights with no restrictions, freedom from religion, abortion when you guys think is right, equal rights, the list goes on and on. Think about how much we hold this new vision back.

I have not worked it all out and I am not smart enough too, but I think it might work and it would be a good solution because I am not sure there is another solution.

 

[MT15]

Farb, how about this solution: quit listening to and reading web sites and people who actually hate America? Who want it’s people to be at each other‘s throats for their own selfish reasons?

You and I have far more in common than you think, yet you want to just throw away the whole country? Because you think people like me are impossible to live with? You think that because you are choosing to consume some hard-core outrage porn, IMO.

Nobody will be better off if the US splits into two or more countries. To even think that is true is just sheer madness. Your taxes, for example, will NOT go down. They will most likely either go up, or you will just get used to a less affluent existence.

This is just irresponsible crazy talk.

 

[Farb]

Farb, how about this solution: quit listening to and reading web sites and people who actually hate America? Who want it’s people to be at each other‘s throats for their own selfish reasons?

You and I have far more in common than you think, yet you want to just throw away the whole country? Because you think people like me are impossible to live with? You think that because you are choosing to consume some hard-core outrage porn, IMO.

Nobody will be better off if the US splits into two or more countries. To even think that is true is just sheer madness. Your taxes, for example, will NOT go down. They will most likely either go up, or you will just get used to a less affluent existence.

This is just irresponsible crazy talk.

I have not heard anyone say anything like this besides Silverman and it got me thinking (I think a lot on the weekends...booze helps) so I don't think it was FOX or Tucker that got me thinking, it is just easier for you to dismiss if you think that and that is fine.

We all have lots in common, just now we all have more not in common than in common. We don't have core values in common any longer. That is the make or break. A marriage can't stay together if one person wants to be a swinger and the other wants to be monogamous for example. Two very different paths.

Better off than what? What makes us so 'well off' right now?
This might be fun exercise.

It is ok to discuss this, unfortunately I don't have the power to make this happen so it is just a hypothetical

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I have not heard anyone say anything like this besides Silverman and it got me thinking (I think a lot on the weekends...booze helps) so I don't think it was FOX or Tucker that got me thinking, it is just easier for you to dismiss if you think that and that is fine.

We all have lots in common, just now we all have more not in common than in common. We don't have core values in common any longer. That is the make or break. A marriage can't stay together if one person wants to be a swinger and the other wants to be monogamous for example. Two very different paths.

Better off than what? What makes us so 'well off' right now?
This might be fun exercise.

It is ok to discuss this, unfortunately I don't have the power to make this happen so it is just a hypothetical

In your estimation, what are the core values of each side?

 

[MT15]

I think we have far more in common than we don’t have in common. And yes, maybe you haven’t heard what Silverman said out of Tucker’s mouth, but what you have heard is a whole lot of divisive drivel that makes you think we don’t have much in common anymore. He revels in it, he specializes in it. He isn’t even logical about it, he just panders.

 

[Farb]

Why should we all stay together? We can start there

Safety in numbers?
Economy?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Why should we all stay together? We can start there

Safety in numbers?
Economy?

You brought up the topic and you said we no longer have core values in common. Why not start there by explaining the main differences in core values as you see them, and which groups tend to hold which values?

 

[Farb]

You brought up the topic and you said we no longer have core values in common. Why not start there by explaining the main differences in core values as you see them, and which groups tend to hold which values?

Oh, a fun game of gotcha! No thanks.
It is not hard, just go and look at any of the threads on the MCB and you can figure it out. It might be easier to list the core values we all share. That should be easy. Care to go first?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Oh, a fun game of gotcha! No thanks.
It is not hard, just go and look at any of the threads on the MCB and you can figure it out. It might be easier to list the core values we all share. That should be easy. Care to go first?

Silly me, thinking it would facilitate discussion if someone would elaborate on their thoughts in a thread they started.

 

[coldseat]

Oh, a fun game of gotcha! No thanks.
It is not hard, just go and look at any of the threads on the MCB and you can figure it out. It might be easier to list the core values we all share. That should be easy. Care to go first?

Democracy?

Opps, maybe not.

 

[JRad]

Why should we all stay together? We can start there

Safety in numbers?
Economy?

There's no route to a granular enough break. I wouldn't want to stay in red, but I just bought my house and would lose my arse if I had to move - who's paying for that? "Too bad" pretty much just means status quo. I can (and eventually plan to) move to a bluer part of the country, but that's on me to accomplish.

How about we accept that middle grounds exist, and not everyone has to have it their way? If you make that split, you still aren't going to have 100% agreement on anything. How many splits until everyone is happy?

 

[Farb]

There's no route to a granular enough break. I wouldn't want to stay in red, but I just bought my house and would lose my arse if I had to move - who's paying for that? "Too bad" pretty much just means status quo. I can (and eventually plan to) move to a bluer part of the country, but that's on me to accomplish.

How about we accept that middle grounds exist, and not everyone has to have it their way? If you make that split, you still aren't going to have 100% agreement on anything. How many splits until everyone is happy?

I get it and that is why this is thinking thread for me. There is no easy way and people will suffer financially, maybe. I will give you that is a huge unknown.

I think maybe a misconception is that these new states/countries will line up by party (red or blue) when it may be more by value and beliefs systems. Most people do not fall into the one side of the 2 party system. Most have a little bit of both. I think it depends on what you think a government should provide and how that government accomplished that. Some like big government and the feeling of security. Others want them and their families left alone.
I think instead of red and blue, maybe think more along the lines of government intervention on your life. A government where those elected are actually fearful of their electors and the electors have a severe mistrust of elected officials. The fact that our current government can be used to 'punish' or coerce someone's political enemies is probably something most would like to see do away with.

 

[J-DONK]

I get it and that is why this is thinking thread for me. There is no easy way and people will suffer financially, maybe. I will give you that is a huge unknown.

I think maybe a misconception is that these new states/countries will line up by party (red or blue) when it may be more by value and beliefs systems. Most people do not fall into the one side of the 2 party system. Most have a little bit of both. I think it depends on what you think a government should provide and how that government accomplished that. Some like big government and the feeling of security. Others want them and their families left alone.
I think instead of red and blue, maybe think more along the lines of government intervention on your life. A government where those elected are actually fearful of their electors and the electors have a severe mistrust of elected officials. The fact that our current government can be used to 'punish' or coerce someone's political enemies is probably something most would like to see do away with.

You know some of these succession movements are funded by foreign governments. It's unfeasible. You have 6-7 million registered Republicans in California which outnumbers a huge swath of the south. What happens to that huge number of Republicans? You expect some mass migration ala Pakistan/India? If we are talking mainly about current red states, you would immediately have funding problems. The vast majority of conservatives states are welfare queens. Would you really be ok with a lower standard of living, and less social programs? I would argue you need Florida, Texas, and Georgia to even have a shot at making this thing solvent. Good luck getting all the seniors in Florida to buy into less medicare, and smaller social security checks.

This entire statement is almost to vague to even comment on. How I interpret just one statement.

Some like big government and the feeling of security.

My interpretation is your alluding to the biggest source of government spending, and the sense of security some get from a large military.

Others want them and their families left alone.

I assume this is probably talking about minorities, and ending stop/frisk type policies.

I could see a conservative actually thinking the inverse.

 

[brandon]

I'm interested in some of the logistical discussions regarding the Christian ethno-state @Farb is suggesting.

What sorts of laws would be enacted in this sort of pseudo-theocratic state?

For example, I think it's pretty obvious that abortion would be illegal. But what about alcohol? Will these states go back to prohibition? And you might say that it would be "the will of the people," and vote on it, but what if the will of the people doesn't jive with the Bible? Like, are we also outlawing premarital sex? Adultery? Divorce? Will everyone be required to pay a 10% tithe to their local church? Which flavor of Christianity are we going to base this state on? Catholocism? Evangelical Christianity? Mainline Protestants?

And if you decide that all of these things should just be voted on, what happens when the people vote against something Biblical? Is it deemed unconstitutional (because the new country's constitution was founded on Christianity, after all)?

Is the goal to make the state politically "pure"? Does everyone in the state have to agree politically on every topic? "How much" Republican qualifies you to live in a Republican state/Democrat in a Democrat state? What if you're socially liberal and fiscally conservative, or vice versa? Do you have to find the state that fits your political belief system exactly?

And what about states like Arizona that are pretty purple at this point? Once a particular political ideology is established, is the other half of the state population there required to move out? Packed onto trains and forced to? Have to just live with it? What if the population for that state changes over time and the established political ideology no longer reflects the will of the people in that state? Is the country allowed to change its political ideology? If the state is established as a Christian state, is it allowed to evolve?

 

[MT15]

Tom Nichols has thoughts on the people who think succession is a good idea. It’s hard to disagree with him here.

 

[Farb]

He has some good points and some that completely unfounded. I dont think a civil war is a good idea at all, I prefer a decentralization if anything were to happen.