NationStates Jolt Archive

... do you think it should be allowed to do so?

Sure. Provided fair negotiation with all relevant parties, international recognition, and that secession will not abrogate any human rights (and I'm not picking on the South specifically for this, I think it's a relevant argument for any form of secession.)

Sure, what the hell. Keep the majority of the ignorant in the south and the slightly more intelligent in the north.

Nah. I don't want to memorize a bunch of new presidents.

Though if the taxes were lower, I might move there. :p Arkansas is nice, outside Little Rock.

Bad idea, IMO. Not only does it invalidate certain principles from the Civil War, it would also allow the South to regress by about 40 years. (Hello, segregation mk. II!)

That, and it would mean I would have to move. This isn't entirely a bad thing, granted, but it introduces complications I'd rather not deal with.

Sure, what the hell. Keep the majority of the ignorant in the south and the slightly more intelligent in the north.

I have a feeling that this type of comment and the "No, they should not be allowed to secede, we need to bring civilization to these savages" will be fairly prominent in this discussion.

Considering the South's track record in Presidential elections, I can't say I'm opposed to the idea.

Can we get California to leave too, just to even things out?

Why would they be leaving?

No. We don't need KKKia sharing our border.

I have a question: Why would the South want to secede?

Can we get California to leave too, just to even things out?
Say the word and we're out.

Say the word and we're out.
as always, take us with you?

I have a question: Why would the South want to secede?

Yeah, I mean they've got it good; they receive tons of money from the rest of the country for welfare and other benefits. They'd lose a lot of money if we weren't around to prop them up, and we'd save a lot of money.

Actually, maybe we should let them go and give everyone a tax cut or pay off some debt...

I have a question: Why would the South want to secede?

Good question. Looking at the '08 electoral map, it looks like the South is gaining population.. so if anything, people are defecting to the southern states.. kinda funny.

Yeah, I mean they've got it good; they receive tons of money from the rest of the country for welfare and other benefits. They'd lose a lot of money if we weren't around to prop them up, and we'd save a lot of money.

Actually, maybe we should let them go and give everyone a tax cut or pay off some debt...Great Scott! You've got it! The North should secede. You should start picking a new name now.

I suggest "Wishing We Were Canadian Land"

Yes, any state (or states) that wishes to secede should be allowed to do so. I, for one, would love to see an independent Republic of Minnesota.

If, as is proper, an ammendment is adopted to the Constitution, allowing for a means for secession and due process is followed, then yes. Although, I'd rather hope that Jesusland would be willing to allow lax visiting laws, as I have family that I'd miss, down south.

The North should secede.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/New_map_WEB.jpg

Now that seems a bit ignorant to me. If everyone in the south didn't work and were lazy bumpkins, why is it one of the fastest growing regions in the country? My family lives in the South, and are from the South, and all are hard working individuals! They are not ignorant, inbred bumpkins that the rest of the country thinks they are. Sure there are racists in the south, but then, there are racists everywhere.


Doesn't change the fact that the South's economy is a net-loss for Federal money.

Yeah, I mean they've got it good; they receive tons of money from the rest of the country for welfare and other benefits. They'd lose a lot of money if we weren't around to prop them up, and we'd save a lot of money.

Actually, maybe we should let them go and give everyone a tax cut or pay off some debt...

Now that seems a bit ignorant to me. If everyone in the south didn't work and were lazy bumpkins, why is it one of the fastest growing regions in the country? My family lives in the South, and are from the South, and all are hard working individuals! They are not ignorant, inbred bumpkins that the rest of the country thinks they are. Sure there are racists in the south, but then, there are racists everywhere.

Doesn't change the fact that the South's economy is a net-loss for Federal money.


How's that? Where did you find this information? Can you please post a link to where you found it?

How's that? Where did you find this information? Can you please post a link to where you found it?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/New_map_WEB.jpg

Absolutely not. I will not see Minnesota throw off the shackles of Washingtonian colonialism only to see it surrender its sovereignty to yet another imperial power.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/New_map_WEB.jpg

Like we'd let you in.

Now that seems a bit ignorant to me. If everyone in the south didn't work and were lazy bumpkins, why is it one of the fastest growing regions in the country? My family lives in the South, and are from the South, and all are hard working individuals! They are not ignorant, inbred bumpkins that the rest of the country thinks they are. Sure there are racists in the south, but then, there are racists everywhere.Low cost of living, lower wages.

How's that? Where did you find this information? Can you please post a link to where you found it?

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/62.html

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/New_map_WEB.jpg

Did you need to dig up that dead horse to beat it?

And as to the reason for the South seceding, it is from the demographic shift in favor of Democrats (young people), the sweeping victory of the Democrats in 2006, a decline in Republican membership (last I recall there's 50% of people calling themselves democrats to ~33% Republican), and a dearth of Southerners in the Democratic upper echelons.

Did you need to dig up that dead horse to beat it?

And as to the reason for the South seceding, it is from the demographic shift in favor of Democrats (young people), the sweeping victory of the Democrats in 2006, a decline in Republican membership (last I recall there's 50% of people calling themselves democrats to ~33% Republican), and a dearth of Southerners in the Democratic upper echelons.

That demographic shift isn't just in the north...it is in the south too. There was a sweep of Republicans back when Clinton was in office. There have been shifts in Democrat and Republican power since the two parties came to power. And when the South presents strong candidates, they will move up in the ranks.

Under your logic, the US would have broken up almost every ten years.

Yes. Any group of people has the right to seceed from a larger group, no matter the reason.

Would it be a good idea? Probably not.

Did you need to dig up that dead horse to beat it?

And as to the reason for the South seceding, it is from the demographic shift in favor of Democrats (young people), the sweeping victory of the Democrats in 2006, a decline in Republican membership (last I recall there's 50% of people calling themselves democrats to ~33% Republican), and a dearth of Southerners in the Democratic upper echelons.

John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Steny Hoyer, Lottie Shackleford (Vice-Chairperson of the DNC), Chris Van Hollen, Harry Reid, Terry McAullife, etc.

Need I go on?

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Lol minnesota is a major contributor, I am fairly suprized how big considering we are so family farm and mining hefty both of which have been loosing ground

That demographic shift isn't just in the north...it is in the south too. There was a sweep of Republicans back when Clinton was in office. There have been shifts in Democrat and Republican power since the two parties came to power. And when the South presents strong candidates, they will move up in the ranks.

Under your logic, the US would have broken up almost every ten years.

Do you know when the last electoral landslide of this magnitude occurred? When James Madison was still alive. Unless Madison was alive every decade, then my point still stands. And there is no way in hell that coastal Democrats would threaten their interests by giving Southerners more power. As for demographics, it may be that, yes, there might be some more support in the South among the young than before. But this would only serve to radicalize the older, more politically established people who are opposed to the Democrats.

given that i'm all for Quebec seceding, i go with yes.

i think that all of north america would have been better served economically and politically had it been a large number of separate countries. 'united' states don't really count because of the federal government. of course, given our tendency for wars and racism, that might have led to some real bitter nastiness.

Absolutely not. I will not see Minnesota throw off the shackles of Washingtonian colonialism only to see it surrender its sovereignty to yet another imperial power.

Actually, I agree.

Better to break it up even further.

Like we'd let you in.

I'm already here....

Did you need to dig up that dead horse to beat it?

No. But the thread and the post reminded me of it.

Lol minnesota is a major contributor, I am fairly suprized how big considering we are so family farm and mining hefty both of which have been loosing ground

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say a large part may have to do with desirability of said state for residents, and tourism. Look at the list: The trend seems that the states with desirable areas for residence and tourism get less than those that don't. Which means, those states likely tend to make a good deal more money than the other states.

Minnesota is a good state to live in, with above-par education, fairly cheap cost of living, and decent wages. Not to mention that we have a large tourism sector, as well, drawing in a good deal more money for the state. We are more self-sufficient than other states, in a sense.

With that said, it's no surprise that North Dakota is the #1 state(D.C. isn't a state). That place is pretty much literally a cesspool, and they have been trying for YEARS on how to get new residents to come there. If Florida is the Old-Folks-Home, ND is the graveyard.

Just to throw a spin in on this, Texas is the only state in the Union that if it seceeded, would it have enough military power and economical standing to become a seperate and relatively well operating country. Helps that 60% of the nations armed forces are there, as well as the biggest air force base in the country and army base in the world. :p

given that i'm all for Quebec seceding, i go with yes.

i think that all of north america would have been better served economically and politically had it been a large number of separate countries. 'united' states don't really count because of the federal government. of course, given our tendency for wars and racism, that might have led to some real bitter nastiness.

Do you know when the last electoral landslide of this magnitude occurred? When James Madison was still alive. Unless Madison was alive every decade, then my point still stands. And there is no way in hell that coastal Democrats would threaten their interests by giving Southerners more power. As for demographics, it may be that, yes, there might be some more support in the South among the young than before. But this would only serve to radicalize the older, more politically established people who are opposed to the Democrats.

How old were you during the Clinton years? What about the Reagan years? Kennedy years? FDR(Pre-WWII)? And practically every president before that without a majority of Congress? Honestly

I fail to see how any supporter of democracy can oppose a right to secession.

I fail to see how any supporter of democracy can oppose a right to secession.

What has that got to do with the U.S.? No matter how many times it gets said, we are not a true democracy. We are a Federated Republic, and part of what that means is that we don't play by "Majority wins" rules. We have a rulebook that everything has to occur within. If the rules can be changed, then things become different.

I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say a large part may have to do with desirability of said state for residents, and tourism. Look at the list: The trend seems that the states with desirable areas for residence and tourism get less than those that don't. Which means, those states likely tend to make a good deal more money than the other states.

Minnesota is a good state to live in, with above-par education, fairly cheap cost of living, and decent wages. Not to mention that we have a large tourism sector, as well, drawing in a good deal more money for the state. We are more self-sufficient than other states, in a sense.

With that said, it's no surprise that North Dakota is the #1 state(D.C. isn't a state). That place is pretty much literally a cesspool, and they have been trying for YEARS on how to get new residents to come there. If Florida is the Old-Folks-Home, ND is the graveyard.

I agree for the most part, maybe it comes from being in the middle to north where populations are so low but some of the dying mining towns up north kind of get to you after awhile

As for your suggestion it makes sense though I would then be suprised to see Arizona up higher, I dont know the stats but I know dozens of people that moved down there this year alone

Have you looked at the population of major urban areas in the South. The population of Atlanta and the percentage of that population that is African-American? Of other major cities? How many African-Americans live in the South, and how many in those urban areas probably own handguns? lol


Practically impossible, ROFL. I think its hilarious topic even to bring up, should be a joke.

Secession should never be permitted.


If we have to beat those disloyal, traitor scum again - the worse to them the better loved with me, as Shakespeare put it.

What has that got to do with the U.S.?

The fact that secession is probably illegal under the US Constitution is totally irrelevant to Greill's question as to whether it should be allowed.

If you accept that people have the right to collectively control their collective destinies, or even that societies work better when they have this power, then you must similarly accept that if a group of people within the larger whole want to secede, they also have that right. Otherwise an external power is imposing its will upon them, which is exactly what democracy is supposed to prevent.

The limitations of political rule - with regard to individual rights, for instance - are an entirely different subject.

The fact that secession is probably illegal under the US Constitution is totally irrelevant to Greill's question as to whether it should be allowed.

If you accept that people have the right to collectively control their collective destinies, or even that societies work better when they have this power, then you must similarly accept that if a group of people within the larger whole want to secede, they also have that right. Otherwise an external power is imposing its will upon them, which is exactly what democracy is supposed to prevent.

The limitations of political rule - with regard to individual rights, for instance - are an entirely different subject.

The problem with this is that secession ungoverned by controlled circumstances is, quite litterally, an invitation to anarchy. If a group can secede, should I be able to? If so, we have wholy embraced the destruction of the social contract. If not, the question of how to govern secession is not one of volition alone, but one of a controlled, civil volition.

Secession should never be permitted.

your (and others') position on this subject still mystifies me. on what possible ethical theory of politics is it better to, for example, bomb miami until they surrender rather than allow people the right to self-determination?

If a group can secede, should I be able to?

Yes... but not in the same way, no.

The reason is that eventually human society becomes irreducible; if you claimed, say, your house as the Republic of Kinda sensible people, you would still be living among others, and could still make decisions that could affect them, and over which they would deserve democratic rights.

Yes... but not in the same way, no.

The reason is that eventually human society becomes irreducible; if you claimed, say, your house as the Republic of Kinda sensible people, you would still be living among others, and could still make decisions that could affect them, and over which they would deserve democratic rights.

though possibly this could be arranged through some sort of 'international' assembly. functionally it amounts to the same thing, of course.

Yes... but not in the same way, no.

The reason is that eventually human society becomes irreducible; if you claimed, say, your house as the Republic of Kinda sensible people, you would still be living among others, and could still make decisions that could affect them, and over which they would deserve democratic rights.

So now we also find ourselves doing away with any possibility of secession at all. After all, the same truth applies to nations, and that would mean that, since we were all "neighbors" then we all deserve democratic rights over one another. So much for ever attaining autonomy.

... do you think it should be allowed to do so?It already did. Just moved away from the whole 'South' bit. Now it's called the upper class.

After all, the same truth applies to nations

Yes, but to a much lesser and more manageable degree.

Substantive disassociation is much easier on the international level - at least these days.

Edit: When was the last Western European war?

Let them leave? I think we should make them leave.

Let them leave? I think we should make them leave.Please don't. A mostly isolated country consisting of 50% loons with control of the world's strongest fighting force and biggest concentration of WMD, is already far more scary than most of us care to think about. I appreciate it must be hell living with the tossers, but imagine what'd happen if you didn't.

If I wanted to live on glass and breathe biotoxins and poison chemicals, I'd move into a petridish in one of your weapons labs.

How old were you during the Clinton years? What about the Reagan years? Kennedy years? FDR(Pre-WWII)? And practically every president before that without a majority of Congress? Honestly
evidently too young to know what the deuce you're talking about.

Nah. I don't want to memorize a bunch of new presidents.


http://www.wonko.info/bender/think.jpg

I agree for the most part, maybe it comes from being in the middle to north where populations are so low but some of the dying mining towns up north kind of get to you after awhile

As for your suggestion it makes sense though I would then be suprised to see Arizona up higher, I dont know the stats but I know dozens of people that moved down there this year alone

I just said it was a trend, not necessarily a fast and hard. Obviously, some states will need more money than provided, even with the trend. However, looking at the list, you seem a definite trend. In the receiving the least, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado, California, and New York are all big tourism states(Not terribly sure of New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusettes). Most are either fairly small with high population densities and upper income families or have large populations. And many are quite desirable for new residents.

The ones one lower list tend to be the opposite(Tend, there are other factors to this).

The reason why Minnesota ranks so high is likely due to a somewhat large population, somewhat high property taxes, a great deal of Tourism(My hometown of Detroit Lakes is pretty much supported entirely by this during the Summer-God Damn WeFest and 10k fest), with our lakes and such. Our farming sector is seeing a brighter future with Ethanol become high-demand. Not only that, but ranking quite high as far as education is concerned draws alot of new families here, and we have a good deal of natural resources.

Not to mention that we have hills and trees. Unlike the deserted wasteland that is North Dakota. I do believe they have 1 tree in the entire state. It's a very depressing state to live in, I hear, simply due to a lack of scenery.

evidently too young to know what the deuce you're talking about.

Evidently I'm to young to know what the deuce I was trying to point out. I have no idea what my point there had to do with what he said. I blame it on the pot.

What? Can't a social liberal get high once in a while?

I nominate Jeff Foxworthy for President of the New Southern Confederacy.

I nominate Jeff Foxworthy for President of the New Southern Confederacy.You know you're a redneck if your gun rack has a gun rack on it.

What's the difference between South America and the American South?

What's the difference between South America and the American South?

Communists.

Communists.

Damn Communist bastards. :mad:

Damn Communist bastards. :mad:

Oh, I forgot:

Catholics.

... do you think it should be allowed to do so?
For the sake of international relations and North American affairs, I don't think seccession, especially during this time, would be a good idea for everybody...particularly if things get ugly and blood is spilled.

Oh, I forgot:

Catholics.

*vomits*

Would California split?

We'd probably have Swarzennegar to the south and Villaraigosa to the North. :p

*vomits*

Would you rather have Baptists? What's more Southern baptists?

Would you rather have Baptists? What's more Southern baptists?

I'd rather be sober.

I'd rather be sober.

Think of it this way: Catholics have Sacramental wine. Baptists have grape juice.

YOU! Decide!

Think of it this way: Catholics have Sacramental wine. Baptists have grape juice.

YOU! Decide!

But Baptists also have mint juleps.

And the wine doesn't turn into blood. :p

But Baptists also have mint juleps.

Ah, however you would still be required to have sex with your cousin.

Evidently I'm to young to know what the deuce I was trying to point out. I have no idea what my point there had to do with what he said. I blame it on the pot.

What? Can't a social liberal get high once in a while?
In the spirit of the thread, I believe you should blame it on the communists, the Californians, the Quebecers, or, even, the deep Southerners.

EDIT Nay, I insist you blame it on them.

Ah, however you would still be required to have sex with your cousin.

For free?!

For free?!

Yes. But they aren't hot. To many years of inbreeding. Most likely have a hump of some sort. It's some sort of law.

Secession should never be permitted.

So the Thirteen Colonies should never have seceded from Great Britain?

Yes. But they aren't hot. To many years of inbreeding.

I'm assuming they're about as dead as a doorknob when it comes to intelligence, too...

There are just some things you look at and you think. "No, I don't want to hit that. Just way too dumb. I'd think too badly of myself after that."

Yes. But they aren't hot. To many years of inbreeding. Most likely have a hump of some sort. It's some sort of law.

But it's free.

your (and others') position on this subject still mystifies me. on what possible ethical theory of politics is it better to, for example, bomb miami until they surrender rather than allow people the right to self-determination?

QFT.

Why exactly are we seceding, again?

Secession? Javisst.

Sure. Provided fair negotiation with all relevant parties, international recognition, and that secession will not abrogate any human rights (and I'm not picking on the South specifically for this, I think it's a relevant argument for any form of secession.)
What he said.

I'm assuming they're about as dead as a doorknob when it comes to intelligence, too...

There are just some things you look at and you think. "No, I don't want to hit that. Just way too dumb. I'd think too badly of myself after that."

Been there, done that. True story, here:

While having a political discussion at work one day with a co-worker, we were talking about Communism. This hot girl we work with over heard this, and asked us "What's Communism?" I asked her if she meant it in the political sense or the ideaological sense, and she said "No, I've never I heard of Communism before. What is it?" Now, I could understand this from a 6th or 7th grader... this was a High School senior. That was definitely disheartening.

Or at a different job during a discussion about why black people have dark skin. I explained that it was due to a high melanin content in the skin, due to originating from an equatorial environment with high amounts of sun(Explaining also the purpose of melanin). She then said "That doesn't make sense. If I get a tan, and have a baby, it won't be black!" To which I figured trying to explain genetics would be a lost cause. Once again, from a High School Senior.

Man, some people are just stupid beyond belief.

But it's free.

True. However, being an American makes you de-facto sexy in Japan. And they are so much hotter over there.

Why exactly are we seceding, again?

He doesn't like the fact that Bush is one of the least liked Presidents in history.

Been there, done that. True story, here:

While having a political discussion at work one day with a co-worker, we were talking about Communism. This hot girl we work with over heard this, and asked us "What's Communism?" I asked her if she meant it in the political sense or the ideaological sense, and she said "No, I've never I heard of Communism before. What is it?" Now, I could understand this from a 6th or 7th grader... this was a High School senior. That was definitely disheartening.

Or at a different job during a discussion about why black people have dark skin. I explained that it was due to a high melanin content in the skin, due to originating from an equatorial environment with high amounts of sun(Explaining also the purpose of melanin). She then said "That doesn't make sense. If I get a tan, and have a baby, it won't be black!" To which I figured trying to explain genetics would be a lost cause. Once again, from a High School Senior.

Man, some people are just stupid beyond belief.

A coworker of mine told me she found out about who Saddam Hussein was a day after his execution. I proceeded to ask her where the war is currently...

and she didn't give me an answer! :D

Best part? College student...

STUPIDITY FTW!

He doesn't like the fact that Bush is one of the least liked Presidents in history.

Go talk to LBJ...

at least LBJ had Forrest Gump for a friend




*soooo sleep deprived...

hey, i chuckled a bit.

Secession should never be permitted.
Why not?

Go talk to LBJ...

at least LBJ had Forrest Gump for a friend




*soooo sleep deprived...

If everyone in the south didn't work and were lazy bumpkins, why is it one of the fastest growing regions in the country?

This depends. Is it internal growth (lots of babies), immigrant growth (border crossings which Texans hate), or is it people from other states that represent the majority of said growth?


My family lives in the South, and are from the South, and all are hard working individuals! They are not ignorant, inbred bumpkins that the rest of the country thinks they are. Sure there are racists in the south, but then, there are racists everywhere.

Nobody said anything about being lazy. But from a civil rights point of view, the South is somewhat backwards compared to the northern territories.

Let 'em go... largest concentration of negative tax revenue states is in the south.


But only if they take Texas with them...

How old were you during the Clinton years? What about the Reagan years? Kennedy years? FDR(Pre-WWII)? And practically every president before that without a majority of Congress? Honestly

This is like saying that Hurricane Katrina was nothing out of the ordinary, because we have hurricanes all the time. We've never before seen such a change in Congress of such a magnitude in more than 150+ years. The scale of this shift in power doesn't even have precedent in the 20th century.

Oh, I forgot:

Catholics.

I'm Catholic and I'm a southerner.

Yes. That way American politics will be somewhat less fucked up.

I'm Catholic and I'm a southerner.

An oxymoron. Kidding, it was a joke. Really, though, Catholicism is not very dominant in the South, only really being the majority in some larger cities.

Just took a trip to Florida. After seeing the Triangle Waffle House: JESUS IS LORD... you guys are free to go. Later.

Note to CSA: Please take Kansas with you when you leave. You guys can deal with Fred Phelps.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/New_map_WEB.jpg

:eek: :eek:


Why is Alaska part of Jesusland? :confused:

An oxymoron. Kidding, it was a joke. Really, though, Catholicism is not very dominant in the South, only really being the majority in some larger cities.

I know, I know, but not all Southerners are Bible-thumping Baptists.

... do you think it should be allowed to do so?Who (outside of a few historical reenactment types) would want to recreate the Confederate States these days? I'm all for the disillusion of the north American state, but replacing it with two new ones would solve nothing.

:eek: :eek:


Why is Alaska part of Jesusland? :confused:

The map is based on the 2004 election.

Sure, what the hell. Keep the majority of the ignorant in the south and the slightly more intelligent in the north.

doesnt this comment show your own ignorance? or maybe you are from the south and you were including yourself in your grouping.

Why is Alaska part of Jesusland? :confused:

the only time alaska has voted democrat on the presidential level was lbj's 1964 slaughter of goldwater, and they haven't had any democrats in either the house or the senate since 1981?

On one hand no, because I live there. The USA would be a much better to place to live in if it weren't for the south, but I live in the south. :(

Once I move though, I don't care.

Why do you ask Greill? Are you revolting?

I just said it was a trend, not necessarily a fast and hard. Obviously, some states will need more money than provided, even with the trend. However, looking at the list, you seem a definite trend. In the receiving the least, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado, California, and New York are all big tourism states(Not terribly sure of New Jersey, Illinois, and Massachusettes). Most are either fairly small with high population densities and upper income families or have large populations. And many are quite desirable for new residents.


Connecticut and New Hampshire are big tourist states? Since when? I could probably give you New Hampshire, but CT? No.

Why do you ask Greill? Are you revolting?You said it, Greill stinks on ice! :p

You said it, Greill stinks on ice! :p

+5 pts. for the Mel Brooks reference. :D

Doesn't change the fact that the South's economy is a net-loss for Federal money.
Did you bother to read the report? Looks to me that the worst states aren't Southern at all. In fact, only two of the top ten are Deep South states. Georgia has a ratio of 0.94, which beats a number of Northern States.

Yes. Then we can elect better presidents.

Just to throw a spin in on this, Texas is the only state in the Union that if it seceeded, would it have enough military power and economical standing to become a seperate and relatively well operating country. Helps that 60% of the nations armed forces are there, as well as the biggest air force base in the country and army base in the world. :p

Yeah but North Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming have The Entire MinuteMan III missiles in the US arsenal.

If they secede in the Next year, Bush wil leave and cheneny will be impeached becuase evrybody hates him.

if the south were to secceed i would turn north Cal into a communist state and leave south cal to south.

Why do people keep bringing this up? It won't happen, so why bother.

He doesn't like the fact that Bush is one of the least liked Presidents in history.

You think I like Bush's policies? I actually find them to be horrifically misguided. (Though I do not dislike him personally, which is more than I can say for the Gang of 535, save for Ron Paul.)

If you guys let them secede, make sure to take the nuclear weapons from them.

Connecticut and New Hampshire are big tourist states? Since when? I could probably give you New Hampshire, but CT? No.

Er... yeah, I screwed that up a bit, I know. New Hampshire I hear has a bit of tourism. CT, though, not sure what I was thinking. I do believe they have a somewhat large population of upper income, though?

Note to CSA: Please take Kansas with you when you leave. You guys can deal with Fred Phelps.

Hell. No. However, when we annex ND, we will use their missile pileup on the entire state. Fair?

If they want to secede, which is a heinous crime against the rule of law, then they need to win a war of secession, like the US did.

Either way it goes, the rule of law is maintained. If the rebels lose, the law is upheld and they are brought back into the fold. If they win, the fault is not with the law, but with the extraordinary circumstances, the loss in war, which prevented it from being executed.

Er... yeah, I screwed that up a bit, I know. New Hampshire I hear has a bit of tourism. CT, though, not sure what I was thinking. I do believe they have a somewhat large population of upper income, though?
New Hampshire gets all of the East Coast skiiers who can't/don't fly to Colorado, so decent tourism. CT has Mystic, old lyme, and a few other small towns that get some tourism, but not much.

CT is, however, one of the most densly populated states, and is the richest state in the US (with the richest county in the US)

If they want to secede, which is a heinous crime against the rule of law...

either the rule of law is founded on the principle of self-determination, or the rule of law is not worth having. to say otherwise is to say that it is right and good for stalin to do his stalining, and a heinous crime to oppose such.

either the rule of law is founded on the principle of self-determination, or the rule of law is not worth having. to say otherwise is to say that it is right and good for stalin to do his stalining, and a heinous crime to oppose such.Rabble-rouser!

Good rabble is obedient rabble. Rule of Law is how we discern between us humans and you rabble.

Don't have bread, you say? Have some cake then.

.... Is it just me or are there an overabundance of anarchist and anarchy related topics on the front page today?

either the rule of law is founded on the principle of self-determination, or the rule of law is not worth having. to say otherwise is to say that it is right and good for stalin to do his stalining, and a heinous crime to oppose such.

Once again, QFT.

Sure. Provided fair negotiation with all relevant parties, international recognition, and that secession will not abrogate any human rights (and I'm not picking on the South specifically for this, I think it's a relevant argument for any form of secession.)

From wikipedia on self-determination.


The principle of self-determination, often seen as a moral and legal right, is that every nation is entitled to a sovereign territorial state, and that every specifically identifiable population should choose which state it belongs to (for instance by plebiscite). It is commonly used to justify the aspirations of an ethnic group that self-identifies as a nation toward forming an independent sovereign state.


Self-determination is a right of any population. Yet its application can lead to attrition, guerrilla and war. See: the latest Balkan wars, the Kurdistan issue, the Suedtirol issue, the birth of East Timor, the dissolution of CCCP...

Anyway, if the former CSA were to proclaim secession from the USA following a UN-overviewed referendum with a clear response (I think that a qualified majority of -let's say- 66% or even 75% would be better), I think that it would be their right to do so, provided that there would be no ethnical cleansing or things like that.

You think I like Bush's policies? I actually find them to be horrifically misguided. (Though I do not dislike him personally, which is more than I can say for the Gang of 535, save for Ron Paul.)

Taking your voting orders from Rockwell himself, eh?

Seriously, Ron Paul is a gynecologist, ffs. If Royal gets elected, the G8 summits could be terribly awkward. Not to mention Ron Paul's political positions are boring. "OMG, like, let's bring back the gold standard." And what kind of libertarian supports bans on gay adoption, the pledge of allegiance, and immigration restriction, while being against free trade agreements? A sucky one, that's who. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

And on topic: If the South wants to leave, let them. But I think it would be a bad move. Places like Huntsville, Houston, Raleigh would have hard time existing without federal money. And they can't leave until after I've moved out of the south. Or at least until I've graduated. Having to go through check points on the way home for break is no thanks.

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html

Hm. I wonder how it would look if it separated military spending from other spending? A lot of military bases are in the South, and if military spending is included in these calculations, then that may account for a lot of the South's "extra" money. After all, spending a lot on Apache helicopters at Fort Bragg doesn't really benefit North Carolina all that much...

Er... yeah, I screwed that up a bit, I know. New Hampshire I hear has a bit of tourism. CT, though, not sure what I was thinking. I do believe they have a somewhat large population of upper income, though?

CT does have a decent tourism trade, at least in the area that I live in (Southeast CT), between Foxwoods, Mohegan Sun, Sailfest, the Sub Base, Subfest, Mystic Seaport, Mystic Aquarium, the people that come for the changing of the leaves.

Also, Mystic has a somewhat large concentration of professional people in it (doctors, lawyers, etc). I know this because they get a lot of mail.

Why not let every state secede?

Why not let every state secede?

Because too many people seem to think that the size (by whatever measure you like) of their country directly reflects the size of their dick.

Why not let every state secede?

Because Texas, California, and New York would gobble up a bunch of states near them, and eventually, we'd have the entire nation just recongeal into one. Or a few. Maybe Utah, Hawaii, and New Hampshire would opt to stay independent, but that's about it.

Because too many people seem to think that the size (by whatever measure you like) of their country directly reflects the size of their dick.

...

TAKE MEXICO AND CANADA NOW!

Because Texas, California, and New York would gobble up a bunch of states near them, and eventually, we'd have the entire nation just recongeal into one. Or a few. Maybe Utah, Hawaii, and New Hampshire would opt to stay independent, but that's about it.

I think it would be more likely that new unions would be formed by region and culture than by force. The constitution was signed only because Great Britain was threatening to reclaim the colonies, so many states had to make concessions to unite. Unfortunately smushing opposing cultures into one isn't such a great idea: The civil war, Iraq, etc.

If a single state attacked a neighbor than the surrounding states would more than likely retaliate for infringing their soverignty.

The only reason disbanding the union is infeasible is because it's like a polygamist trying to divorce all 50 wives at once.

Because Texas, California, and New York would gobble up a bunch of states near them

why?

why?

Because people have this bizarre fantasy that the US Constitution is the only thing that makes Americans behave in a semi-civilized fashion. Most people don't even know that their own state constitutions generally have better human rights protections than the US one. Not to say that some states wouldn't be worse about it than the US, but some would also be better.

Because people have this bizarre fantasy that the US Constitution is the only thing that makes Americans behave in a semi-civilized fashion.

Bill of Civil Rights *nod*

After the states split up and the confederacy reunites watch the 'white retiliation' for having to be friendly to blacks.

Most people don't even know that their own state constitutions generally have better human rights protections than the US one.

Legally they have to. A state can grant more rights than the constition, but it cannot infringe on those rights.

Also the midwest would become a breeding ground for Christian born terrorists who would lash out against the baby killing, bible hating, Northeast. Ah I love the taste of irony.

Bill of Civil Rights *nod*

After the states split up and the confederacy reunites watch the 'white retiliation' for having to be friendly to blacks.

Do you really think that? The South of 2007 is quite different from the South of 1861. Not to say that there isn't racism in the South (there damned sure is) but I doubt they'd see a return to Jim Crow and lynch mobs, regardless of how much some people may want it.

Legally they have to. A state can grant more rights than the constition, but it cannot infringe on those rights.

Actually, they could just leave it at what Uncle Sam says rather than ensuring additional protections.

Also the midwest would become a breeding ground for Christian born terrorists who would lash out against the baby killing, bible hating, Northeast. Ah I love the taste of irony.

How is that any different from now?

Taking your voting orders from Rockwell himself, eh?

I actually think he's an intelligent and honest man, who is more of a philosopher than any of the Beltway Bandits. (His latest book didn't tell about him doing drugs in college.)

Seriously, Ron Paul is a gynecologist, ffs.

And all the other politicians are lawyers. Gynecologists actually contribute something.

If Royal gets elected, the G8 summits could be terribly awkward.

If by "terribly awkward", you mean all the other people will have a stroke from his presence, then I'm all for it.

Not to mention Ron Paul's political positions are boring. "OMG, like, let's bring back the gold standard."

I'm getting excited just reading about bringing back the gold standard.

And what kind of libertarian supports bans on gay adoption, the pledge of allegiance, and immigration restriction, while being against free trade agreements? A sucky one, that's who. http://www.ontheissues.org/Ron_Paul.htm

The 'free' trade agreements are really just subsidies to big companies, harmonization (i.e. increase) of regulations, and the creation of super-national inspection agencies. They're really managed trade. The immigration restriction isn't necessarily opposed to libertarianism, since the public property that the government provides makes it more difficult to owners to associate using their private property. I guess he should back off of the pledge of allegiance and gay adoption, but overall he's better than the rest of the crooks in Washington.

And on topic: If the South wants to leave, let them. But I think it would be a bad move. Places like Huntsville, Houston, Raleigh would have hard time existing without federal money. And they can't leave until after I've moved out of the south. Or at least until I've graduated. Having to go through check points on the way home for break is no thanks.

We'd adapt for the better without the Federal ladle screwing everything up, since we'd be able to allocate resources through economics rather than political opportunism.

Legally they have to.

no they don't. state constitutions could be absolutely silent on the issue. they just aren't, and instead typically go farther.

I actually think he's an intelligent and honest man, who is more of a philosopher than any of the Beltway Bandits. (His latest book didn't tell about him doing drugs in college.)

He's hardly a philosopher. At the most he just found a slightly out of mainstream philosophy with a reasonably sized, but financial viable, base.

What's wrong with doing drugs in college? Would you care if a politician drank alcohol, smoked nicotine, or consumed caffeine?


And all the other politicians are lawyers. Gynecologists actually contribute something.

That might be true, but it doesn't stop it from being creepy.

If by "terribly awkward", you mean all the other people will have a stroke from his presence, then I'm all for it.

I mean terribly awkward because 2 out of 8 members could be female. He might slip into some old habits and start giving advice.

I'm getting excited just reading about bringing back the gold standard.

The chairman of the Econ department here is a senior member of the Mises Institute. I took his class on Money and Banking, and he's really big into returning to commodity backed currency. And after taking that class, I still can't see how state produced money is any worse than commodity based money; as long as the state money is not tied to politicians.

The 'free' trade agreements are really just subsidies to big companies, harmonization (i.e. increase) of regulations, and the creation of super-national inspection agencies. They're really managed trade. The immigration restriction isn't necessarily opposed to libertarianism, since the public property that the government provides makes it more difficult to owners to associate using their private property. I guess he should back off of the pledge of allegiance and gay adoption, but overall he's better than the rest of the crooks in Washington.

Well, there might be a degree of subsidization. But they still help lower barriers to trade. So from a free market point of view, they can't really be that bad.

We'd adapt for the better without the Federal ladle screwing everything up, since we'd be able to allocate resources through economics rather than political opportunism.

Well, I agree that federal money isn't a legitimate source of economic activity, especially because the majority goes into military production and research, but the fact of the matter is: for secession to happen it will need the supports of the politicians, the "elites", or both. The politicians like federal money for the obvious reasons, and the elites in the South, with a few exception here and there(Nashville, Atlanta, few others), are generally heavily dependent, indirectly in most cases(Lockheed), upon the federal government for their social positions. So the chances of either of these groups supporting secession and losing federal money is very slim.

Oh, and which part of the South are you from? I've lived the past few years in Huntsville.

I think it would be more likely that new unions would be formed by region and culture than by force. The constitution was signed only because Great Britain was threatening to reclaim the colonies, so many states had to make concessions to unite. Unfortunately smushing opposing cultures into one isn't such a great idea: The civil war, Iraq, etc.

Nations would be formed by region and culture - and economic interests. Think about it. California's right next to Nevada. Nevadan tourism consists of Las Vegas mainly, and California's going to want its hands on the money that comes from it. Nevada, at the same time, isn't going to want to have to deal with a bunch of international travelers. More paperwork? Or more tax money coming in from California? Nevada will more than gladly go along to get along.

If a single state attacked a neighbor than the surrounding states would more than likely retaliate for infringing their soverignty.

If California attempted to occupy Arizona, Arizona could call upon Texas for help, sure. It wouldn't just be for sovereignth reasons, though - I'm sure Texas would want to ensure Arizona's cooperation.

The only reason disbanding the union is infeasible is because it's like a polygamist trying to divorce all 50 wives at once.

Which may become legal in Utah if all states secede. That is, assuming they still allow divorce.

He's hardly a philosopher. At the most he just found a slightly out of mainstream philosophy with a reasonably sized, but financial viable, base.

You do realize that he's written works on political thought?

What's wrong with doing drugs in college? Would you care if a politician drank alcohol, smoked nicotine, or consumed caffeine?

I'm FOR legalizing drugs, just so you know, but I find it so trashy that he lets everyone know he did drugs, instead of just keeping quiet about it. I'd rather have a leader who's a cut above average than have a Joe Blow in charge.

That might be true, but it doesn't stop it from being creepy.

He's delivered thousands of babies. How is it creepy that he brings new life into this world?

I mean terribly awkward because 2 out of 8 members could be female. He might slip into some old habits and start giving advice.

Maybe he'll give them examinations too?

The chairman of the Econ department here is a senior member of the Mises Institute. I took his class on Money and Banking, and he's really big into returning to commodity backed currency. And after taking that class, I still can't see how state produced money is any worse than commodity based money; as long as the state money is not tied to politicians.

Ah, but the state money IS tied to politicians, since it becomes a part of the political, as opposed to economic, sphere. And the problem is that state money is always abused by politicians, who want a secretive method of taxation, and banks, who want to artificially suppress interest rates to make a bigger profit (which unfortunately discourages far-sightedness of savers.)

Well, there might be a degree of subsidization. But they still help lower barriers to trade. So from a free market point of view, they can't really be that bad.

But the modest reduction in tarriffs is outweighed by all the regulations, subsidies, and bureaucracy that are brought in. It would be better just to reduce all of our tariffs and subsidies unilaterally, like during the 19th century.

Well, I agree that federal money isn't a legitimate source of economic activity, especially because the majority goes into military production and research, but the fact of the matter is: for secession to happen it will need the supports of the politicians, the "elites", or both. The politicians like federal money for the obvious reasons, and the elites in the South, with a few exception here and there(Nashville, Atlanta, few others), are generally heavily dependent, indirectly in most cases(Lockheed), upon the federal government for their social positions. So the chances of either of these groups supporting secession and losing federal money is very slim.

But just because these elites won't support it, doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, seeing as how these people often ARE bad, it would be a good rule of thumb to want the opposite of what they want.

Oh, and which part of the South are you from? I've lived the past few years in Huntsville.

Texas, too.

The south will fall again.

You do realize that he's written works on political thought?

Yeah, I know. I haven't read any in detail, but I've looked through a couple of them and they seem to be a collection of Mises, Hayak, and Rothbard paraphrases.

I'm FOR legalizing drugs, just so you know, but I find it so trashy that he lets everyone know he did drugs, instead of just keeping quiet about it. I'd rather have a leader who's a cut above average than have a Joe Blow in charge.

Well, would you rather he be open about it or say "I never inhaled."

He's delivered thousands of babies. How is it creepy that he brings new life into this world?

This isn't a serious part of my issues with Ron Paul. It's more of an attempt at being humorous.

Maybe he'll give them examinations too?

If he ran on a platform of giving all female members of the G8 examinations, I would vote for him without a second thought.

Ah, but the state money IS tied to politicians, since it becomes a part of the political, as opposed to economic, sphere. And the problem is that state money is always abused by politicians, who want a secretive method of taxation, and banks, who want to artificially suppress interest rates to make a bigger profit (which unfortunately discourages far-sightedness of savers.)

But how can the money be tied to politicians if the central bank is given autonomy from the government? I think that even the most shortsighted banker realizes he can't keep interests drastically lower than the market rate without risking a massive kick in the financial ass at some point down the road. Even though, I guess some do basically ignore this fact, hence the housing bubble; among other things. But the market will eventually correct these disparities no matter how hard bankers try to keep interest artificially rates low.

But the modest reduction in tarriffs is outweighed by all the regulations, subsidies, and bureaucracy that are brought in. It would be better just to reduce all of our tariffs and subsidies unilaterally, like during the 19th century.

Sure, tariffs on most goods weren't drastically lowered. Well, most of the lowering happened before NAFTA through bilateral agreements. But it does help in solidifying these previous tariff reductions in a treaty which can't be easily changed by the shifting political climate. But the real "benefit" isn't necessarily in the decrease of tariffs on goods, but in the streamlining of capital markets.

But just because these elites won't support it, doesn't mean it's bad. In fact, seeing as how these people often ARE bad, it would be a good rule of thumb to want the opposite of what they want.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm all for giving as much power as possible to states. If states want to go their own way, then they should be able to. What I'm saying is that it just won't ever happen because the people with power in the south are just too entrenched in the federal system and will, in the foreseeable future, never want to leave the federal government. The only way for it to happen is if a new elite arises independent of the current one, one without any ties to the arms industry, or if secession is cause by a popular uprising - which will never happen.

Texas, too.

Oh, sorry, I should've clarified. Huntsville, Alabama. I didn't say Alabama because Huntsville is essentially a "yankee" enclave in the "Heart of Dixie."

Just to throw a spin in on this, Texas is the only state in the Union that if it seceeded, would it have enough military power and economical standing to become a seperate and relatively well operating country.

The same could be said of most other states as well.

Helps that 60% of the nations armed forces are there, as well as the biggest air force base in the country and army base in the world. :p

The biggest Air Force base in the country is in Florida.

Yeah, I know. I haven't read any in detail, but I've looked through a couple of them and they seem to be a collection of Mises, Hayak, and Rothbard paraphrases.

Oh, no. He has an acute understanding of the Constitution and of general libertarian theory and is quite well able to apply it.

Well, would you rather he be open about it or say "I never inhaled."

I'd rather he not talk about it, actually. I don't want him to tell me what his cruder habits are or might have been.

This isn't a serious part of my issues with Ron Paul. It's more of an attempt at being humorous.

What, you didn't see I was joking too? :P

If he ran on a platform of giving all female members of the G8 examinations, I would vote for him without a second thought.

Excellent! :D

But how can the money be tied to politicians if the central bank is given autonomy from the government? I think that even the most shortsighted banker realizes he can't keep interests drastically lower than the market rate without risking a massive kick in the financial ass at some point down the road. Even though, I guess some do basically ignore this fact, hence the housing bubble; among other things. But the market will eventually correct these disparities no matter how hard bankers try to keep interest artificially rates low.

But, see, the central banks aren't really completely isolated from the politicians. The politicians, if they don't get their way, will raise a hue and cry and threaten to take away that autonomy, such as by recording their meetings (which they don't do...) And bankers sure have tried to mess with interest rates- look at the state-allied 'free' banking system, replete with heavy currency inflation created by pyramiding state debt instruments. They can get away with it, and they will. And I'd rather not have these disparities in the first place than have the market be made to deal with it.

Sure, tariffs on most goods weren't drastically lowered. Well, most of the lowering happened before NAFTA through bilateral agreements. But it does help in solidifying these previous tariff reductions in a treaty which can't be easily changed by the shifting political climate. But the real "benefit" isn't necessarily in the decrease of tariffs on goods, but in the streamlining of capital markets.

But the treaty was moreso to boost up big business, big labor, big government cronyism than to free up trade. And if the capital markets had really been streamlined, capital would have poured into Mexico to raise their wages and keep them working there. Instead, because of barriers to entry caused by subsidies, regulations, and bureaucracy, Mexicans have to immigrate here to get better wages (they come to the capital since the capital can't come to them.)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm all for giving as much power as possible to states. If states want to go their own way, then they should be able to. What I'm saying is that it just won't ever happen because the people with power in the south are just too entrenched in the federal system and will, in the foreseeable future, never want to leave the federal government. The only way for it to happen is if a new elite arises independent of the current one, one without any ties to the arms industry, or if secession is cause by a popular uprising - which will never happen.

Well, I guess it is true, unfortunately. I guess what would need to happen first is a war of ideas- it's basically how history has always proceeded.

Oh, sorry, I should've clarified. Huntsville, Alabama. I didn't say Alabama because Huntsville is essentially a "yankee" enclave in the "Heart of Dixie."

Oh, alright. Sorry about the confusion.

Negatory :). The North will have to win (again)...

Negatory :). The North will have to win (again)...

Yankees better watch out for Josey Wales this time.

The same could be said of most other states as well.
There are countries smaller than any US state. Most US states could exist as independent countries; however, those of you without external borders or coastlines would be up the creek without a paddle if you seceded alone; that's potentially a very bad spot to be in, as you become dependent on US whim for external trade.

Any state seceding, if seceding peacably from a still-mostly-intact US, can expect to lose most of its military materials, incidentally, as these are considered property of the federal government.

A few would suffer pretty badly even with a coastline; South Carolina, for example, in spite of its ports, would probably suffer a bit more than its neighbors, especially in the long run over its educational establishment. (Compare with North Carolina, which has a better economy, much lower unemployment, a top-rate state university system, and a much more developed tech industry.)

One problem to consider is that even in an amicable parting of ways, many would choose to leave a state that seceded; this may include eventually a disproportionate number of the more educated individuals in poorer states if they're not careful.

The south will fall again.
QFT.

The trick is to curb their appetites and hedge their clutches a bit so the undeserving don't go down with them.

Er, would've replied sooner but I had papers to write and a conference to attend.

Oh, no. He has an acute understanding of the Constitution and of general libertarian theory and is quite well able to apply it.

Yeah, well, I just didn't find anything overly unique in his writings. He never really said anything that hasn't been said before. Maybe I'll given 'em a harder look.


I'd rather he not talk about it, actually. I don't want him to tell me what his cruder habits are or might have been.

The thing is that's just the way our politics work. If he hadn't said it, you would've seen a news article a few months from now that reads: "Obama a cocaine addict? University buddy tells all."

What, you didn't see I was joking too? :P

I thought so. But I wasn't 100% sure.


But, see, the central banks aren't really completely isolated from the politicians. The politicians, if they don't get their way, will raise a hue and cry and threaten to take away that autonomy, such as by recording their meetings (which they don't do...) And bankers sure have tried to mess with interest rates- look at the state-allied 'free' banking system, replete with heavy currency inflation created by pyramiding state debt instruments. They can get away with it, and they will. And I'd rather not have these disparities in the first place than have the market be made to deal with it

Really though, when's the last time you saw the central bank take an action that did anything other than try to decrease the "hidden tax"(AKA Inflation)?

And bankers will always try to manipulate to the market to their advantage. Why else do you think there were bank runs back in the day? Sure, they still do sneaky stuff, and it might even be more widespread -which I doubt- but the end result of the current system is that people's finances won't get wiped if the bankers take unethical action. Unlike in the old days when many people lost their life savings due to the actions of bankers.

But the treaty was moreso to boost up big business, big labor, big government cronyism than to free up trade. And if the capital markets had really been streamlined, capital would have poured into Mexico to raise their wages and keep them working there. Instead, because of barriers to entry caused by subsidies, regulations, and bureaucracy, Mexicans have to immigrate here to get better wages (they come to the capital since the capital can't come to them.)

Well, even if the treaty had only removed tariffs, big business would've profited. Any time restrictions are lowered, or an industry is deregulated, the ones who already have a large share of the market will benefit the most. I'm speaking in generalities, of course.

How did big labor benefit? I think it would be the opposite. Big labor was probably one of the parties that got hurt the most. If Ford or Chevy don't want to deal with the UAW, well, then they can just go build a factory in Chihuahua, Jalisco, or whatever.

Has governmental bureaucracy really increased that much since then? Maybe in Mexico where they needed people to handle the new inspection requirements, but I can't think of any other reason.

Actually, capital would've gone into Mexico, built a few factories, and improved the living conditions of the lucky few who got the new jobs. And it's been doing that. It'll take more than 13 years of higher investment to improve the conditions of an entire nation.

Well, Mexicans were migrating to the USA decades before the creation of NAFTA. Immigration did pick up because of the crisis in 1994, but there's evidence that NAFTA actually helped lessen the crisis.

In one area I will say that NAFTA did help speed Mexican emigration: Agriculture. NAFTA exposed Mexican agricultural markets to the artificially propped up American agricultural industry and put many farmers out of business. But this has more to do with the worthless and outdated agricultural subsidies than NAFTA.

Yeah, well, I just didn't find anything overly unique in his writings. He never really said anything that hasn't been said before. Maybe I'll given 'em a harder look.

It's kind of hard to say something massive and new when the libertarian party has been developed so much as is. But he gives it a new look and applies it to our times, so he really is a philosopher.

The thing is that's just the way our politics work. If he hadn't said it, you would've seen a news article a few months from now that reads: "Obama a cocaine addict? University buddy tells all."

I'd rather that, actually. He could say it was a stupid thing to do, and that he's moved on from that. That would give him more standing with me than if he were just a perfect little angel.

I thought so. But I wasn't 100% sure.

:D

Really though, when's the last time you saw the central bank take an action that did anything other than try to decrease the "hidden tax"(AKA Inflation)?

Well, there was the technological bust, where interest rates were, adjusted for inflation, negative. In fact, interest rates have been very low lately, which is all the more evidence that they're still up to their old tricks.

And bankers will always try to manipulate to the market to their advantage. Why else do you think there were bank runs back in the day? Sure, they still do sneaky stuff, and it might even be more widespread -which I doubt- but the end result of the current system is that people's finances won't get wiped if the bankers take unethical action. Unlike in the old days when many people lost their life savings due to the actions of bankers.

The reason those bankers took those actions was because the state was propping them up- the states allowed them to suspend specie payment, ban branch banking and thus allow them to redeem at only one place, and, with national banking post-bellum, use deposits at higher level banks as reserves and thus further protect themselves from the consumer. Without all of these tools, they would have been running a much tighter ship, because doing anything less would have meant financial death.

Well, even if the treaty had only removed tariffs, big business would've profited. Any time restrictions are lowered, or an industry is deregulated, the ones who already have a large share of the market will benefit the most. I'm speaking in generalities, of course.

That's not so. If you lower the fixed costs of doing business, such as lowering tarriffs, you can have a lower market share, and thus a lesser economy of scale, and still make money. But if you do create fixed costs through tariffs and regulation, you must be further along the economy of scale in order to stay in the industry. So, while all of these costs may lower the profit level of big business in one respect, they increase them long-term by precluding entry.

How did big labor benefit? I think it would be the opposite. Big labor was probably one of the parties that got hurt the most. If Ford or Chevy don't want to deal with the UAW, well, then they can just go build a factory in Chihuahua, Jalisco, or whatever.

Standardization of regulations, brought by the regional oversight departments. Now they don't have to worry about Mexicans "stealing" their jobs.

Has governmental bureaucracy really increased that much since then? Maybe in Mexico where they needed people to handle the new inspection requirements, but I can't think of any other reason.

I believe the harrassment has primarily been in Mexico, with the North America labor commission etc. The other two countries, already deep into regulation, probably weren't effected as much. But Sprint was harrassed at one point by one of the oversight commissions for closing an unprofitable division.

Actually, capital would've gone into Mexico, built a few factories, and improved the living conditions of the lucky few who got the new jobs. And it's been doing that. It'll take more than 13 years of higher investment to improve the conditions of an entire nation.

Oh, I'm not denying that NO capital went into Mexico (case in point: maquilladoras.) But if there were absolutely no barriers to trade, capital would have shifted to Mexico and I do not think we would have this massive immigration problem.

Well, Mexicans were migrating to the USA decades before the creation of NAFTA. Immigration did pick up because of the crisis in 1994, but there's evidence that NAFTA actually helped lessen the crisis.

NAFTA regulating the Mexican economy would make it all the more difficult for capital to transfer to Mexican labor, so Mexican labor has to come to the capital.

In one area I will say that NAFTA did help speed Mexican emigration: Agriculture. NAFTA exposed Mexican agricultural markets to the artificially propped up American agricultural industry and put many farmers out of business. But this has more to do with the worthless and outdated agricultural subsidies than NAFTA.

Yes, but NAFTA also gave sweetheart subsidies to US firms, so that would mean that where US firms beat Mexican firms not through competition but through political favors, Mexican workers had to come to the US when it would have been more economically rational for them to stay here. And if NAFTA was really for free trade, it would have gotten rid of those all, including agricultral, subsidies.

... do you think it should be allowed to do so?

No. It is actually illegal under Federal Law for a State to Secede (I believe its in the Constitution, but I know its in the US Code)

The south shall rise again. C'mon, this IS the age of viagra after all.

:D

Any state seceding, if seceding peacably from a still-mostly-intact US, can expect to lose most of its military materials, incidentally, as these are considered property of the federal government.

A few would suffer pretty badly even with a coastline; South Carolina, for example, in spite of its ports, would probably suffer a bit more than its neighbors, especially in the long run over its educational establishment. (Compare with North Carolina, which has a better economy, much lower unemployment, a top-rate state university system, and a much more developed tech industry.)


Very true. Portsmouth, Norfolk, and Virginia Beach (cities in Virginia) are basically Navy cities. If VA seceded, it would lose the US military bases and basically be screwed. S. Carolina and Florida also have heavy military presence (Army and Navy) so they'd be screwed too. North Carolina (where I live) could pssible pull it off, since it doesn't have so many military bases (it has a few) and it has a good economy. I don't know about Georgia though. However I do know that if all the coastal states seceded (the aforementioned ones) then the US would lose quite a bit-- not just land, but also military resources and the like, and it would cause the five seceded states to lose a lot.

However I wold like to see Texas, Alaska, and Hawaii let go, since two were independent countries before the USA came along... Well, Hawaii had been annexed already, but it would be cool to see something like the Republic of Hawaii or something...

The South will come again, but give it a few minutes to get it up again hon.

The South will come again, but give it a few minutes to get it up again hon.

See my previous post.

if the south left it would just be a big lose-lose situation