Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Sheb]

But then, why would anyone to break it up?

[misko27]

It's silly to compare the USA to the Balkan countries with their thousands of years of history, religious tension and all sorts even though we are using the term "Balkanization" but that's just because it means breaking up into lots of little countries. The USA is a young country - that tension just doesn't exist.

Look here, The process of a collapsing homogenous society is one that has few similarities through history. Homogenous is the key word, one I lacked till Onlyhestands commented. We are young. That is exactly the point. Why, why, why, would it ever break up?  There is, to use your phrase, no tension.
 
And that's why there would be war. Because in order for them to divide, things would have to be ALOT worse then they are now, substantially, and the only few things that could do so wouldn't end peacefully. The US would stick together not until it wasn't practical, but until there was no option.
 
It's far more likely the entire US state would be conquered, or descend into mass chaos, then any form of what you suggest. If nothing else, we are too damn stubborn to abandon ship until it's too late.

[Owlbread]

Look here, The process of a collapsing homogenous society is one that has few similarities through history. Homogenous is the key word, one I lacked till Onlyhestands commented. We are young. That is exactly the point. Why, why, why, would it ever break up?  There is, to use your phrase, no tension.
 
And that's why there would be war. Because in order for them to divide, things would have to be ALOT worse then they are now, substantially, and the only few things that could do so wouldn't end peacefully. The US would stick together not until it wasn't practical, but until there was no option.
 
It's far more likely the entire US state would be conquered, or descend into mass chaos, then any form of what you suggest. If nothing else, we are too damn stubborn to abandon ship until it's too late.

There is no indication that it would break up, I just think it should. At least partially. Not all divisions come from religious/ethnic/nationalistic tension, though most do.

[Frumple]

*scratches head* But... why? Most of the administrative benefits that could come from more regionalized government is already there in the states, due to, well, the states. And I don't know of any benefits beyond administrative easement due to dealing with a smaller area that would come from splitting up the federal government (E: And even that might not happen in a lot of areas due to a massive loss of resource/logistic access. In which case it'd be a lose/lose/lose, for the state, for the larger geopolitical region, for global politics in general).

[Owlbread]

*scratches head* But... why? Most of the administrative benefits that could come from more regionalized government is already there in the states, due to, well, the states. And I don't know of any benefits beyond administrative easement due to dealing with a smaller area that would come from splitting up the federal government (E: And even that might not happen in a lot of areas due to a massive loss of resource/logistic access. In which case it'd be a lose/lose/lose, for the state, for the larger geopolitical region, for global politics in general).

But you see, you are neglecting the idea that states might not become independent and stand alone, but rather join smaller unions like the union of British Columbia, Oregon, Washington.

I shall now quote wikipedia:

As measured only by the combination of present B.C., Washington, and Oregon statistics, Cascadia would be home to slightly more than 15 million people (15,105,870), and would have an economy generating more than $675 billion worth of goods and services annually.[2][3][4] This number would increase significantly if portions of Northern California, Idaho, and Southern Alaska were also included. Its largest city, Seattle, itself has an economy slightly smaller than Thailand, but larger than Colombia and Venezuela.[5]

There are several reasons why the Cascadia movement aims to foster connections and a sense of place within the Northwest region and strive towards independence. The main reasons stated by the movement include environmentalism, bioregionalism,[6] regional integration and urban planning, a dedication to open source, dynamic and associative governing models, an expansion of civil liberties, freedoms, digital privacy and a dissatisfaction with governments in the eastern part of the continent that continue to become more impersonal, secretive and non-representative, a strengthened social safety net, fiscal responsibility, and a strong devotion to human rights.[6]

According to Alexander Baretich, designer of the Doug flag, Cascadia is not necessarily about secession but is rather about survival of peak oil, global warming and other pending environmental and socioeconomic problems.

There are of course some states who may wish to stand alone - e.g. Vermont, or provinces like Quebec and Newfoundland in Canada. That is of course their own choice and they all have specific reasons for (possibly) seeking that - mostly cultural and historical.

My thoughts on why the USA should dissolve into smaller countries is that it would:

A) Break up a superpower that doesn't need to exist and may be doing more harm than good.
B) Give greater regional autonomy to neglected territories of the Americas that may have received a better standard of development had they been independent with such resources in Europe.
C) Shake up current ideals of American Nationalism which are some of the strongest and most influential on the planet, not necessarily for the better; "the greatest country in the world" is a powerful statement.
D) Allow the new countries to integrate more loosely under a multinational Union like the EU that could suit all the regions in different ways rather than the few.
E) Allow states to truly follow their own political allegiances without having to deal with any kind of federal government.

Of course, for this to work, all the big countries would have to break up too - which obviously isn't going to happen. Only in my utopia. I just think the world could do without the USA, China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Iran, France, the UK etc in their current forms.

[Frumple]

You'll note I didn't say that coalitions couldn't happen, or that I was focusing in on states going independent. Just that the only major benefit from breaking with federal control would be administrative easement, which by and large already exists due to state government. That point stands true even with coalitions. There's still a pretty tremendous loss of resource access and logistical efficiency involved with a larger area breaking off from the greater union. You'd be giving up a great deal to gain something you already have on most (most) non-odious subjects.

States in particular, I'll say I think you're pretty heavily overestimating the amount of weight the federal government has when it comes to general state development. It's really damn rare that fed influence is a net malus on a state (note: this is one of the reasons you really don't see meaningful independence movements in the states. On the net, we've generally got a pretty good thing going and everyone that's not harping on an unrelated political issue knows it.), and the amount of control they have over resources et al isn't exactly soul-crushing. If an area isn't developing well it's generally not federal interference that's causing it -- it's local, state, and regional level issues, which removing federal aid and logistic efficiency from is just going to worsen, not improve.

There's a point with the ideological issues, though. But that's not really a top-down thing; separation would only have minor effect if the impetus isn't coming from the bottom up (bioregionalism and related concepts is a grass roots thing first and foremost, and involves fundamental ideological shifts above and beyond anything else, not administrative rearrangements. Sudden balkanization is putting the cart before the horse in a tremendous way.). And if the impetus from the ground up was there, it'd already be happening -- the fed only does so much, and even if lots of folks complain a crapload about increasing state power or reducing fed influence, the bulk of local and particular regional control is still very much in the hands of the states themselves on most issues (and most of the issues that aren't are ones I'm pretty happy with local idiots not getting a say about, honestly.).

Point being that functionally there's just not really a benefit to separation in the states, not for states, not for larger regions. The Fed yoke really isn't particularly heavy, and is usually being used with a fair degree of effectiveness when it's used. Blame for local cockups is generally primarily on the shoulders of, well, the local cockups screwing things up. Areas that are going to be able to effectively wield regional government already are. And if they aren't, the support for that sort of thing just isn't there to a meaningful degree.

E: I do kinda' agree that there'd probably be some overall benefit on the global scale if we could break down superpowers a bit, and finish ending the American hyperpower, if we could figure out a way to do so without causing major instability. When relations don't dissolve into violence, multiple competing superpowers have tended to foster beneficial competition. When relations don't dissolve into violence, which hasn't happened too much

But... yeah. I'd say it's probably a better discussion for another thread, per'haps? Anything interesting in actual politics to re-rail with?

[misko27]

• But, You are jus timagining the curerent situation in Europe extended everywhere.
• You appear to have invented some oppressed regional minority. There aren't any. Go ask someone in "Cascadia" what the hell that is and tell me what they say.
• Joining Canada is silly.
• Allowing the states to make their own descisions is such a terrible idea I think it may be violence by neglect. Can you even IMAGINE THE DYSTOPIAN HELL-HOLE the south would dissolve into? CAN YOU COMPREHEND? can you live with that on your conscience? These people tried to ban Evolution. The only reason they didn't is because the Feds told them not to.
• The feds practically control most of the Infrastructure of the US. They own 92% of nevada. Why? Because it's nevada, it's empty and no one wants it. What would the independant state of Nevada do then huh? Not much. It's just desert.
• You appear to have a anti-american bias. You want to know what doesn't need to exist? Anything. Things often serve a purpose by their own existance. You, do you need to exist? Would anyone else die if you didn't? Do THEY need to exist? Does Anyone need to exist?

 
I wrote more but Frumple got me and I erased the irrelevant parts. So, Sequestration. Do you think it will come back and bite the republs in the ass, or will Obama look like a fear-monger?

[Onlyhestands]

Well I agree with he above 2 posters so I won't add on to that.
But where did you get the idea of a Vermont Secessionist movement? I'm a Vermonter, and I lived here for almost all of my life before hearing of such a thing. Very few people even know of it's existence, and even fewer take it seriously.
Yeah, there is some state pride in how we were briefly a quasi-independent country, but any sort of "Vermont Nationalism" died out around the exact same time the US recognized us as independent from NY and we joined as the 14th state.
We get along just fine as part of the USA, thank you every much. This shouldn't even be a question.

[Owlbread]

I will finish my balkanization chat to allow for tangible political discussion. I just want to qualify a few things; I haven't "invented" anything. All of these secession movements exist, but I make no pretensions that they are popular. I speak hypothetically. Finally, Misko seems to have misunderstood things here. I am not arguing for an independent state of nevada, but if there is some kind of union of neighbouring states that they could join - fine by me. I also only foresee union with Canada and Mexico as part of some kind of loose multinational union. I am not anti american, I am just biased against big, imperialist, nationalist great powers like the usa, china, india etc.

Perhaps these minor unions e.g. cascadia could be called commonwealths.

[Strife26]

I fully expect the tenish percent cut in military funding to hit my own personal life, and stuff's been getting stupid enough at late, whilst still having money. I mean, I'm sure that the military will eventually be able to adjust (and, to be honest, there's no reason why we shouldn't still be able to be the army with ninety percent of our budget, at least for now). Of course, in the short term, I'd rather see soldiers than contractors manning the gates, just because soldiers tend to be a fair bit more pleasant. Until I'm stuck doing it of course, then it'll be a terrible, terrible thing.

[Nadaka]

I fully expect the tenish percent cut in military funding to hit my own personal life, and stuff's been getting stupid enough at late, whilst still having money. I mean, I'm sure that the military will eventually be able to adjust (and, to be honest, there's no reason why we shouldn't still be able to be the army with ninety percent of our budget, at least for now). Of course, in the short term, I'd rather see soldiers than contractors manning the gates, just because soldiers tend to be a fair bit more pleasant. Until I'm stuck doing it of course, then it'll be a terrible, terrible thing.

Every thing I see with hard numbers is that its closer to a 2 or 3 percent cut.

[Descan]

I'd expect to have seen a whole lot more raging and grumbling if it was a full tenth.

Can you provide a source (or preferably two) of ten percent cut? :3

[Strife26]

Yeah, it was all over the most recent Army Times. I'll steal the copy from work today so that I can actually find the stories, because their website isn't the best. Here's a twenty second example.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2013/03/ap-pentagon-to-furlough-teachers-cut-commissary-time-030413/

[Scoops Novel]

Incidentally, can anyone link me to a poll on bay 12's demographics (in order to identify how we compare as a whole to boards like this)? One on travel would be nice too, as well as the porportion who are physically politically active. If not, I'll start them. Offtopic, one on any feelings of growing insularity on the web, in social networking and entrenched forums (which we're fairly light on, just to be clear) as opposed to the oft spoken before times of 2001 and prior, if i''m asking.

Edit: we have a search function, damned order of the stick forums. Check the edit time.

[Nadaka]

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=55496.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=66352.0
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=111694.msg3381733#msg3381733
http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=101522.0

we generally lean liberal.