What problems is secession supposed to solve?

Let's say that a bunch of "red states" secede right now. How much should the union states charge breakaway states after they collapse economically and come asking for readmission to the union? How much should union states charge them for military protection? How large a tariff should be put on trade with these breakaway states? How much should the union states charge them for using their currency? Who's gonna take a New Hampshire dollar anyway? How much university tuition should the union states charge students from breakaway states? And what about food exports and imports? If I wanted to put more thought into it, I could probably come up with a dozen similar questions regarding matters that the people pushing secession have not likely thought through. As with the effort to split California in two, these movements smack of grandstanding by supposedly outraged politicians, supposedly outraged because in all likeliness they're exploiting everyday frustration and they couldn't care less about the underlying problems.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What problems is secession supposed to solve?

Let's say that a bunch of "red states" secede right now. How much should the union states charge breakaway states after they collapse economically and come asking for readmission to the union? How much should union states charge them for military protection? How large a tariff should be put on trade with these breakaway states? How much should the union states charge them for using their currency? Who's gonna take a New Hampshire dollar anyway? How much university tuition should the union states charge students from breakaway states? And what about food exports and imports? If I wanted to put more thought into it, I could probably come up with a dozen similar questions regarding matters that the people pushing secession have not likely thought through. As with the effort to split California in two, these movements smack of grandstanding by supposedly outraged politicians, supposedly outraged because in all likeliness they're exploiting everyday frustration and they couldn't care less about the underlying problems.

You're 100% right in general (I take issue with some of the points you've listed, but that is not relevant). There are a myriad of issues that a newly independent state would have to deal with. The right of secession, however, is vitally important.

Even so, no one is actually talking about secession in HCR-0006 (or the other similar bills in other state legislatures). Such legislation is meant to reassert the 10th amendment and reign in the national government.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
...these movements smack of grandstanding by supposedly outraged politicians, supposedly outraged because in all likeliness they're exploiting everyday frustration and they couldn't care less about the underlying problems.

This is exactly how I see it.

The problem with democracy is that the average joe's don't think through what they're acting on when . In a sense, democracy is the biggest exercise in group think.

For the record, I'm just an average joe. Some things, I shouldn't have any say in.

Forget the litany.

What problems is secession supposed to solve?

Reign in the national government how and why?

And why now?

Quote: Original post by slayemin

Quote: Original post by LessBread
...these movements smack of grandstanding by supposedly outraged politicians, supposedly outraged because in all likeliness they're exploiting everyday frustration and they couldn't care less about the underlying problems.

This is exactly how I see it.

The problem with democracy is that the average joe's don't think through what they're acting on when . In a sense, democracy is the biggest exercise in group think.

For the record, I'm just an average joe. Some things, I shouldn't have any say in.

[lol]

The Constitution is supposed to channel that and slow it down to produce more deliberative results... supposed to.

The other supposedly radical notion to fix things out here is to merge the two houses of the Legislature into one. I don't think that's a very good idea either. The problem as I see it, is that there aren't enough representatives, not that there are too many. This notion is very difficult for a lot of people to wrap their heads around. They seem to think that adding more representatives would reward the Legislature rather than punish it, but the last thing that Legislators want is to have to their power split into smaller pieces and given to other lawmakers. The bigger the pond, the smaller the fish in the pond, so to speak.

Quote: What problems is secession supposed to solve?

Secession should be used to free a state from an oppressive regime. I don't advocate secession for any state here in the US right now.

Quote: Reign in the national government how and why?

Why? The Federal Government has far overstepped its bounds: illegal wars, drug prohibition, domestic wiretaps, the list of reasons to reassert the 10th amendment is nigh endless.

How is a much trickier question. Obviously a strongly worded letter addressed to the Capitol and White House will likely accomplish nothing. The only way to really reign in the federal government would be a sympathetic Congress. So, it's really up to the people. State governments can posture and threaten as much as they like but due to the 17th amendment state governments have lost much power over the national government.

Quote: And why now?

Sadly much of this may be Republican reactionaries against the Obama administration rather than a true revival of Jeffersonian ideals. There is a growing libertarian grass roots presence that is applying pressure on state legislatures as well. Of course the huge growth in the Federal Government in the past eight years under Bush & co has energized such movements.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It seems to me that 600,000+ Americans died nearly 150 years ago deciding the question of secession. I don't know why neo-Confederates waste other people's time revisiting the issue. I'm glad to hear the measure died in committee. It smacks of make work for a wack job politician. And yes I know that New Hampshire wasn't part of the Confederacy, but those who talk up secession deserve the label.

I've heard out of the mouths of liberals that they would like to see us become more like Europe. Bill Maher commented that there is a movement in the US where 50% of the population wants to lead into a progressive country and the other 50% want to remain unchanged (actually he said the other 50% were fairy tale believing idiots but that's for another time).

I have no right to tell 50% of this country what direction to travel, but I feel there are enough people that love and appreciate the country as it is, that they could band together if the ideal was lost. I don't think it's so hard to fathom, if our ancestors seceeded from the ideals of the European region 200 years ago, why couldn't we do it again today? Do you think the decision to seceed from Britain was easy in the 18th century?

You mentioned some questions that weren't thought through from secessionists. Were those questions answered 200 years ago? A group of rag tags with no official military, no official navy, no currency, they decided they were going to fight the largest super power in the world. Why would they sign up for something like that? Because they were being taxed heavily, they weren't being listened to, and they wanted control of their own destiny.

In that matter, though the civil war was bitter and the south lost, I think it was still important to show that people would not bend over and take anything that the government threw at them. That people could feel strongly enough about certain things that they would fight to the death to defend them. That spirit doesn't die because we have the internet and a 50-star flag. History tells us that no country lasts forever. Don't be naive enough to think that another civil war couldn't happen in this century.

And no I am not advocating secession, but I think it is important to discuss it when it comes up and not dismiss it even when it seems irrational.

Quote: Original post by ChurchSkiz

Quote: Original post by LessBread
It seems to me that 600,000+ Americans died nearly 150 years ago deciding the question of secession. I don't know why neo-Confederates waste other people's time revisiting the issue. I'm glad to hear the measure died in committee. It smacks of make work for a wack job politician. And yes I know that New Hampshire wasn't part of the Confederacy, but those who talk up secession deserve the label.

I've heard out of the mouths of liberals that they would like to see us become more like Europe. Bill Maher commented that there is a movement in the US where 50% of the population wants to lead into a progressive country and the other 50% want to remain unchanged (actually he said the other 50% were fairy tale believing idiots but that's for another time).

I have no right to tell 50% of this country what direction to travel, but I feel there are enough people that love and appreciate the country as it is, that they could band together if the ideal was lost. I don't think it's so hard to fathom, if our ancestors seceeded from the ideals of the European region 200 years ago, why couldn't we do it again today? Do you think the decision to seceed from Britain was easy in the 18th century?

You mentioned some questions that weren't thought through from secessionists. Were those questions answered 200 years ago? A group of rag tags with no official military, no official navy, no currency, they decided they were going to fight the largest super power in the world. Why would they sign up for something like that? Because they were being taxed heavily, they weren't being listened to, and they wanted control of their own destiny.

In that matter, though the civil war was bitter and the south lost, I think it was still important to show that people would not bend over and take anything that the government threw at them. That people could feel strongly enough about certain things that they would fight to the death to defend them. That spirit doesn't die because we have the internet and a 50-star flag. History tells us that no country lasts forever. Don't be naive enough to think that another civil war couldn't happen in this century.

Personally, I subscribe more towards a libertarian philosophy of politics -- but not exactly the Ron Paul brand.
Considered pragmatically, if countries in Europe are solving a problem particularly well which America is struggling to deal with, what's wrong with looking towards European systems for ideas? Just because we might take some of their ideas doesn't compromise our national identity (In fact, national identity shouldn't even be a factor...but it is, and can't be ignored). I think a good place to start taking ideas is with health care reform (at least offer an alternative to expensive privatized, for-profit health care). Another good place would be with the public education system.

I sort of understand the idea behind secession though: Government is supposed to be by the people and for the people. When governments start to take on their own agendas (via political party interests), the interests of the people the government is supposed to serve and protect are side-lined. Here is some programmer art on how governments should be:




Figure 1. is what I feel to be the optimal power/influence distribution of governance for groups of people. Most of the power is put into the hands of local government, such as city halls. This is where most peoples' tax money should be distributed to so that they can get most direct benefit from their taxes. One step up, you've got the interests of the state/province which promotes things like education, transportation, etc. Higher up, you have the federal government which should have a minor role in the lives of a nations citizens. Beyond that, you've got a united world government (U.N.?) which is best left with little power.
In this model, democracy is actually an effective structure for making decisions. The citizen regains the power to influence their own life when there are fewer citizens voting at a very granular localized level.

Currently, this model seems to be inverted. The federal government has ballooned into this gargantuan bureaucracy which is supposed to do everything and slice bread. The cost vs. benefit ratio to the individual citizen is terrible. Federal bailouts for failing business enterprises? No way. Expanding imperialist agendas while bankrupting the nation? no way. Socializing medical care? Hm, no. We just need a low cost alternative to for-profit privatized medical care supported as a service by local taxes. Fig 2. shows the power vs. abstraction levels as it should be and as it currently seems to be. Local governance is quite powerless. Meanwhile, a national president is supposed to walk on water and save the world -- because only an omniscient god can wrap their head around the bureaucracy we've created and find a way to make it serve the needs of everyone. Totally impractical balance of power IMHO. Secession may look like an attractive alternative, but it's really just another way to run away from the problem while not actually solving anything.

Finally, with fig. 3, much like object oriented programming, different tiers of governance should inherit the traits of the tiers above them. If America is a member of the U.N. and the U.N. has a charter of basic human rights, we should adopt those values and supplement them with our constitutional values...as should every other member of the U.N. Since everything inherits values from the highest level of gov, it would be completely okay if the U.N. spent ten years doing nothing. It's better to be slow and sure than hasty and misguided.

Stop the debate: the matter has been decided: chuck norris is pro-secession!

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91103

slayemin: you are a sensible man indeed; or in other words, i concur.

You think that's bad?


Chuck Norris is advocating armed revolution.


No that's not a joke. How I wish it was.



Anyway, about the question of Secession: I don't think it should be allowed. Behind the rhetoric of true freedom etc, there's a real world concern: Blackmail. Any state in the union would be free to blackmail the federal government into getting what it wants.

Say the people in texas decide that they've had enough and they want homosexuality banned altogether, but the federal government says no. Hey feds, pass the law or we're leaving and taking all our oil with us. Then CA says pass that law and we'll be leaving, taking all your produce with us. Then every other state gets into the act and pretty soon we're at another civil war.

Allowing secession is just a plain bad idea.