By BILL POOVEY, Associated Press Writer

Wed Oct 3, 3:15 AM ET

 

 

 

CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. - In an unlikely marriage of desire to secede from the United States, two advocacy groups from opposite political traditions

Zombie Jesus, some people are detached.

The problem is that our government is so F'ed up that the only way to get away from it and start anew is to secede from the union or to have a full rebellion against the federal government. No election is going to change what is wrong with this country no matter which way you vote.

Could these States actually survive alone? I mean, I understand something like California seceding from the Union, since it is the third richest "nation" in the world, that kind of economy, not to mention location, could possibly trudge on their own, but some States are dependent on the Union to survive. It would be interesting to see how seessionists would deal with food import, foreign trade, etc. :D

What's that? The 19th century? The US should be proud/glad to stick together, in order to maintain strength. Secession is for weaklings only.

More likely to maintain the corruption and useless politics.

Could these States actually survive alone? I mean, I understand something like California seceding from the Union, since it is the third richest "nation" in the world, that kind of economy, not to mention location, could possibly trudge on their own, but some States are dependent on the Union to survive. It would be interesting to see how seessionists would deal with food import, foreign trade, etc. :D

 

 

Like you say, California could probably survive as well as Texas (oil) but everone else would fold up like a beach chair as soon as Federal funding was pulled.

Like you say, California could probably survive as well as Texas (oil) but everone else would fold up like a beach chair as soon as Federal funding was pulled.

The federal government doesn't pull its money out of thin air. It's reasonable that absent federal taxation on the citizenry, they could increase state and local governments to help fill in for, at least some, of that funding.

Some, yes, but most large scale projects (roads, schools, etc...) are funded by the government. Couple that with small population states (low tax income) that have zero natural resources and they would become third world dumps in under a decade.

Some, yes, but most large scale projects (roads, schools, etc...) are funded by the government.

They would still have governments.

 

Couple that with small population states (low tax income) that have zero natural resources and they would become third world dumps in under a decade.

Are you claiming that small population states with zero natural resources constitutes every state other than California and Texas?

Well, I don't know about that. If Iowa seceded from the Union, and kept all that it produced within its borders, we would still have food to eat, fuel to burn, and enough people to make it work.

Jefferson Davis for president!

 

uh, something everyone should remember is that CA and TX would also fold without the federal government. neither has, nor can afford, their own military, or any of the other federal services which they benefit from more than the rest of the states due to their respective sizes.

 

taks

I'm going to secede my backyard.

 

I'll call it...Awesomeland.

Some, yes, but most large scale projects (roads, schools, etc...) are funded by the government.

They would still have governments.

 

Hehe, I meant "are funded by the Federal government".

 

Are you claiming that small population states with zero natural resources constitutes every state other than California and Texas?

 

Pretty much. There are a few examples of resources but no population to speak of (Alaska) and of a high population but no resources (New York) but rare is the combination or resources and population in one place. The "South" could do it with agriculture? Nope, that didnt even work 142 years ago. The midwest with its manufacturing? Possibly. The giant void of nothingness strecthing E-W between Illinois and California? Good luck with that.

Well, the modern economy is not so dependent on natural resources as it once was. Local median incomes and per-capita GDP is probably the best measure of how well a state or region would do on its own. The Northeast would do pretty well by itself, as would the Pacific coast and parts of Texas & Florida. The rest of the country less so.

 

One interesting way to view the federal government is as a funnel of funds and resources from the parts of the country that are economically productive to the parts that aren't. Places where per capita income is high contribute more to the Feds in taxes than they get back in services. The opposite is true in less developed states-- they get most of the farm subsidies, military bases, federal highway aid, etc, but pay less in taxes because their incomes are lower. If the Northeast seceded, people in the South, Midwest, etc., would face either dramatic tax increases or large reductions in federal spending in their states. (Oddly enough, places who benefit the most from the federal government tend to elect politicians who want to reduce its size. Ungreatful bastards!)

I'm going to secede my backyard.

 

I'll call it...Awesomeland.

 

"Congrats! You Won!

 

What took the American rebels 10-15 years of rebellion, you are now able to pull it off in a simple post! Awesomeland is now an indepedent nation, now able to form its own military and stay aloff against evil American imperialism! You are now the founder of a micronation, a nation that is not recognized by anyone, but still is a nation, by virtue of self-determination!

 

You did it! Be proud of your hertiage, oh President of Awesomeland! For the people of Awesomeland will forever remember the great struggle you have made for indepedence! All I hope for is that you will be able to have a good economic and diplomatic policy to deal with other micronations, and that Awesomeland will one day succed in its goal of creating a new awesomer union."[/joke]

Edited October 3, 200718 yr by SilentScope001

And just think Aram, if you ever want to make improvements to Awesomeland just declare war on the US then surrender. The US will come in and build all new for you.

And just think Aram, if you ever want to make improvements to Awesomeland just declare war on the US then surrender. The US will come in and build all new for you.

 

They'd never be able to quell all the insurgency.

 

The South will rise again!

 

In 2007, only cowards who have no negotiating skills to work with those of different opinions would want to secede from a realitively fee country.

 

Those with guts *and* brains* would work within the country to change it - not take thier ball, and run away like wussies.

Could these States actually survive alone? I mean, I understand something like California seceding from the Union, since it is the third richest "nation" in the world, that kind of economy, not to mention location, could possibly trudge on their own, but some States are dependent on the Union to survive. It would be interesting to see how seessionists would deal with food import, foreign trade, etc. :D

 

 

Like you say, California could probably survive as well as Texas (oil) but everone else would fold up like a beach chair as soon as Federal funding was pulled.

 

I would like to say that alot of small nations in Europe are doing just fine, without any natural resources other than agriculture. My own country for one.

The biggest problem facing the states would probably be infrastructure and national identity - as internal struggles could also be a problem and perhaps further brake up the state.

I think a secession would be good for the political climate in the US, but not so good for the economic state. It would take an awful lot of balancing and rebuilding and.. well, politics to get everything in order. That would probably take a very long time, like 20 years or more.

 

An interesting idea though. I've always felt that the US is too grand a nation with a too culturally divided population to be efficiently controlled from one point of power, the government as it exists now.

In 2007, only cowards who have no negotiating skills to work with those of different opinions would want to secede from a realitively fee country.

 

Those with guts *and* brains* would work within the country to change it - not take thier ball, and run away like wussies.

 

The problem being is that when corruption is so pervasive and the beauracracy so convoluted the only logical recourse is to start with a clean slate. Elections won't change the US. No amount of protesting and marches will change anything of significance. The US will continue being the biggest self interested bully on the block and that will never change from within.

Sand you could always immigrate to Awesomeland. Aram may not offer you healthcare but at least there won't be corruption.