NationStates Jolt Archive

What if we America implemented a type of neo-apartheid, dividing people not by race, but by political views. There would be separate, self-governing 'homelands,' where everyone would have the same ideology and could work together to implement their ideal government together, without having to fight and bicker among people who disagree. We could have several different homelands: libertarian, neoconservative, communist, anarchist, socialist, fascist, Nazi, conservative, liberal, etc. Each homeland would be sovereign, and could declare its independence if it wanted. However, there would be a few differences it would have from apartheid:

1)There would be no 'pass' laws;
2)People could travel between homelands undisturbed, and leave the country whenever they wanted


What do you think? Would it be good? Or bad?

Discuss.

Yes. Good idea. Do it.

The neoconservatives would invade the liberals. The libertarians would not intervene. The conservatives and libertarians would ally together. The communists and socialists would invade the libertarian/conservative alliance. The fascists and Nazis would ally with neocons.

That wouldn't work. The conservatives wouldn't have anyone to pay their taxes and they wouldn't have near as much economic stimulus.

We'll have societies invading, exerting control over, and generally attacking eachother! It won't solve problems, just create them!

dude, Red States and Blue States...aside from the freedom to secede, we've got that sort of system already :P.

as much as I despise many of those political groups, I honestly don't believe this would be a good idea. except for anarchists. let them go off and do their thing so I don't have to listen to them.

Political views change...

dude, Red States and Blue States...aside from the freedom to secede, we've got that sort of system already :P.

Not really. What about libertarians, genuine (not neo) conservatives, socialists, communists, etc.?

And there should be a huge 'neutral homeland,' for people who don't co-existing with opposing viewpoints. The 'homelands' would be mostly to satisfy extremists.

Not really. What about libertarians, genuine (not neo) conservatives, socialists, communists, etc.?
wait, are you implying there are American citizens who are neither baby-eating pot-smoking fag-loving liberals nor sleeze-ball Bible-thumping Coulter-humping conservatives? are you suggesting that there are political orientations other than "Bush Is A Chimp" and "Jesus Hates Ted Kenedy"?

that's just crazy talk.

that's just crazy talk.

It's true.

It's true.
heresy and treason! BURN HIM!

And there should be a huge 'neutral homeland,' for people who don't co-existing with opposing viewpoints. The 'homelands' would be mostly to satisfy extremists.
Where would New Anthrus be put in?

What if we America implemented a type of neo-apartheid, dividing people not by race, but by political views. There would be separate, self-governing 'homelands,' where everyone would have the same ideology and could work together to implement their ideal government together, without having to fight and bicker among people who disagree. We could have several different homelands: libertarian, neoconservative, communist, anarchist, socialist, fascist, Nazi, conservative, liberal, etc. Each homeland would be sovereign, and could declare its independence if it wanted. However, there would be a few differences it would have from apartheid:

1)There would be no 'pass' laws;
2)People could travel between homelands undisturbed, and leave the country whenever they wanted


What do you think? Would it be good? Or bad?

Discuss.
There are already some (not so) obvious shreds of "neo"-apartheid already existing in our nation, but encouraging such is an idiotic and disgusting idea. *Turns head, snaps, and walks away with attitude.*

You forgot to mention that the "homelands" set aside only 13% of South Africa for the "natives." (Sorry, don't have a link, as it was in yesterday's lecture from my "Resistance Movements in Colonial Africa" course, though I'm sure it's easy enough to look up.) As the Republicans control nearly everything on the federal level, I would assume that they would pull similar crap. I wouldn't put it past them, either. Therefore, I cannot support your proposal.

Well I was living in South Africa during apartheid and although I am white, it was horific having to watch what my non-white friends went through on a daily basis.

All homelands would be exactly the same size. It wouldn't play favorites, like apartheid in South Africa did.

We must all hang together, if we do not then we will surely hang seperately.

That wouldn't work. The conservatives wouldn't have anyone to pay their taxes and they wouldn't have near as much economic stimulus.


Actually, both (assuming 2) "homelands" would pick a tax rate that would fulfill the needs of the people. My impression of liberals is more help for the underprivileged therefore higher taxes to compensate for public generosity. My impression of conservatives is you work hard for your money, so you should keep it and not be forced to give it to someone who decides they don't want to work for their living therefore lower taxes to compensate the smaller government.

I think this idea is called "panarchy". It's where you have an assortment of states with no immigration or emmigration laws, but which otherwise have varied, fixed government styles, so people can go and live in whatever situation they want.

Calling it neo-apartheid, however, is going to make it very unpopular for obvious reasons.

What if we America implemented a type of neo-apartheid, dividing people not by race, but by political views. There would be separate, self-governing 'homelands,' where everyone would have the same ideology and could work together to implement their ideal government together, without having to fight and bicker among people who disagree. We could have several different homelands: libertarian, neoconservative, communist, anarchist, socialist, fascist, Nazi, conservative, liberal, etc. Each homeland would be sovereign, and could declare its independence if it wanted. However, there would be a few differences it would have from apartheid:

1)There would be no 'pass' laws;
2)People could travel between homelands undisturbed, and leave the country whenever they wanted


What do you think? Would it be good? Or bad?

Discuss.
Really, REALLY bad idea! :(

All homelands would be exactly the same size. It wouldn't play favorites, like apartheid in South Africa did.

Well, now I'm somewhat reassured, though I think anything with the word 'apartheid' in it is still suspicious. Nevertheless, the ability to "live" in the U.S. while forsaking its politics is quite tempting. :)

We had this before. It's called sectionalism. It led to the Civil War.

No thanks.


Also...
National parties is what Democracy is about. If sectionalism takes place, it becomes, effectively, temporary dominion of one nation over another, subject to change from year to year.

Also...
It's unconstitutional. People have the right to own property, and the government does not have the right to deprive them of it for their political views. Even with compensation. They are protected under the first amendment--freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and the press. If this happens at all, it would have to be a popular movement, with people moving about by choice. And they still would not be able to kick dissenters out, any more than someone can legally kick someone out of a neighborhood for having the wrong color skin.

All homelands would be exactly the same size. It wouldn't play favorites, like apartheid in South Africa did.

You can't actually believe that it would work out that perfectly?! Someone would walk in and try to take control.

This proposal seems to assume political ties > social/family ties. Interesting notion ..........

Actually, both (assuming 2) "homelands" would pick a tax rate that would fulfill the needs of the people. My impression of liberals is more help for the underprivileged therefore higher taxes to compensate for public generosity. My impression of conservatives is you work hard for your money, so you should keep it and not be forced to give it to someone who decides they don't want to work for their living therefore lower taxes to compensate the smaller government.

True but then you're going to create nationalism from this division. You'll have people who will be pro-national economy. In many people, thie pride will turn into racism. Who knows where that could lead. You can't have two places with different governments but have the same eonomy. The fact they will have their own tax rate is enough to believe each place would have a naturally-created economy.

Heck, why not give it a try?

Whats the worst that could happen?

One turns into a Facist Neo-Nazi state, the other turns into a Communist Paridise.

I'd say we should have one wise ruler who controls everything but lets people do what they want if they don't hurt anyone else. That unifies the nation.

I don't think I want to live in an area where everyone has the same(or similar) political views. It might get boring. Like everyone wearing khaki pants all the time. You know pants and politics are very similar.

I can see one fairly large reason why this idea wouldn't work: without question, the first thing that would be noticed would be in the 'Liberal' sections-as those are already fairly concentrated.
See, most of the raw materials, food, etc. that is consumed in what would end up being the "Liberal" or "Left" homelands is produced in areas that are overwhelmingly to the right politically.
At the same time, it doesn't take a whole lot to build industry when you get rid of all those restrictions, and a lot of the "Red STates" have the expertise to do so, and, lacking interference, many within would do so.
There goes your inter-zone trade.

Second thing, is that the folks who don't want to work for a living would be drawn like flies to the "Blue State" homelands, putting the strain, I guess, where it righfully belongs, on those who wish to be generous with the earnings of others.

Naturally, this condition would not be sustainable- If the Kennedys, Rockefellers, and others had to pay for Welfare on their own, they'd wind up doing much the same thing their forebears did, and use their wealth to take over the section they unwisely let slip from their iron grasp in the first place.
Likely U.N. action would be instituted to keep New York City and San Francisco fed.

If there is one thing Lefties and Righties agree on, it's an aversion to foreign armies on American Soil. (which, would likely be the case in a De Jure separation by Affiliation. Broken down by county, most of your 'blue states' are actually 'blue counties', in a sea of 'red'.)

Sounds fun.

...

But the anarchists would get somewhere like Montana, wouldn't they? :(

Recipe for disaster.

I believe its called Segregation! :rolleyes: