PDA

View Full Version : Do you think America will remain united as one country?




tangent4ronpaul
07-01-2013, 07:03 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/06/the-divided-states-of-america-in-25-charts/277303/?google_editors_picks=true

20% of the population do not think so.

What do you say?

-t

PSYOP
07-01-2013, 07:22 AM
Nope, I'm expecting the south to attempt succession in 20 years time if some form of Rubio immigration law passes.

Elias Graves
07-01-2013, 07:23 AM
I suspect it will remain one country. A third world one.

Nobexliberty
07-01-2013, 07:34 AM
Not sure, either it will be like modern europe or free but I think freedom will win at last.

QuickZ06
07-01-2013, 07:35 AM
Judging by what history tells us. Yes, we will fail like the rest of them.

Nic
07-01-2013, 07:39 AM
What's the time frame? I think we will go the way of the Soviet Union eventually, but I don't know if that happens in 5 years, 15 years, or 25 years. It depends, largely, on how long our masters can keep up the charade and prop up the dollar.

donnay
07-01-2013, 07:42 AM
That, to me, is good news because people, IMHO, are waking up. From what I read I am not hearing U.S.A chanting in the background--like some people are lead to believe.

tod evans
07-01-2013, 07:45 AM
I don't believe America is united right now.

brandon
07-01-2013, 07:46 AM
...forever? Nothing lasts forever. I think it will be united for the rest of my life time though.

TonySutton
07-01-2013, 08:21 AM
No, but I also think it will take at least 20 more years for the cracks to start crumble the foundation unless something very dramatic occurs, in which case it things will happen very quickly.

JK/SEA
07-01-2013, 08:25 AM
''Do you think America will remain united as one country?''

are we now?.....

Smart3
07-01-2013, 08:32 AM
The country is too large. Eventually there will be major independence movements.

JK/SEA
07-01-2013, 08:55 AM
The country is too large. Eventually there will be major independence movements.

hence the urgency for a stasi surveillance grid, and arming Barney Fife with LRADS and military hardware.

Zippyjuan
07-01-2013, 12:31 PM
I don't believe America is united right now.

I think the divides are more economic and political than geographical. I say no, we wont' break up.

JCDenton0451
07-01-2013, 12:45 PM
Is this a joke? Of course, the US will remain united. There is no real support for secession anywhere, and the government has the resources to mantain the union by force should a small group of rednecks in Texas or Georgia decide to rebel.

AuH20
07-01-2013, 12:47 PM
The only reason the states haven't seceded is that the Fed Gov is electronically creating currency and helping the states meet their enormous budget demands. When the dollar goes, the country will splinter.

Anti Federalist
07-01-2013, 12:51 PM
God damn, I hope not.

Occam's Banana
07-01-2013, 12:57 PM
Is this a joke? Of course, the US will remain united. There is no real support for secession anywhere, and the government has the resources to mantain the union by force should a small group of rednecks in Texas or Georgia decide to rebel.

Yeah, well, most people were saying exactly the same kinds of things back in the 1760s & early 1770s, too.

And they were right. Until suddenly, one day they weren't ...

Lucille
07-01-2013, 01:02 PM
I hope not, and pray it's a peaceful divorce.

What Keeps the States United?
Rethinking the American Union for the Twenty-First Century
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-keeps-the-states-united/


The American polity is beset by seemingly intractable problems: widespread, long-term unemployment; stagnating income; wealth increasingly concentrated among the few; trillion-dollar annual deficits; interminable wars.

Constitutional liberties, dating back in some instances to Magna Carta, are being jettisoned, ostensibly to protect against terrorism. Through the National Defense Authorization Act, Congress has empowered the president to imprison without charges or trial any American whom he decides, based on secret evidence, is a threat to national security. Barack Obama and his attorney general claim the president has the right to execute summarily anyone in the world—not excluding Americans—without due process of law. The Pentagon has been lending unmanned drones to local and state law enforcement agencies to spy on citizens without search warrants.

The 2008 election was viewed by many as a repudiation of torture and other dangers to civil liberties supported by George W. Bush. Five years later Obama seemingly has doubled down on policies that he had condemned. Despite voter angst, America’s political institutions keep serving up more of the same. Public disapproval of Congress has lately been as high as 90-95 percent. The system is widely seen as “broken.”

According to Rethinking American Union for the Twenty-First Century, edited by Donald Livingston, those seeking a cure for America’s political dysfunction should consider a rarely mentioned topic, that of size and scale. The thesis of this collection of essays is that American government has grown too large and too centralized to be compatible with free, effective, or truly representative politics. The authors agree on the unacceptability of top-down government as practiced in this country: having 435 House members, 100 senators, nine Supreme Court justices, and one president rule more than 300 million people in one-size-fits-all fashion. The authors share the belief, dating back to ancient Greece, that, to be genuinely self-governing, republics must be small in population and territory, i.e., wholly unlike America. They consider ways to devolve political power to smaller, more manageable units of government. With varying degrees of persuasiveness, the authors address philosophical, political, moral, and constitutional issues bearing on such a task.

Livingston, in a thoughtful essay, presents several possibilities...

"Whenever something is wrong, something is too big."
--Leopold Kohr (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer231.html)


Kohr tells us that "only relatively small bodies – though not the smallest, as we shall see – have stability. . . .Beyond a certain size, everything collapses or explodes." He adds that "the instability of the too large . . . is a destructive one. Instead of being stabilized by growth, its instability is emphasized by it." [Emphasis in original.] An economist of Austrian birth, and with a strong anarchist bent, Kohr was a great influence on E.F. Schumacher, best known for his book, Small Is Beautiful.

"Small is beautiful."
-E. F. Schumacher

"Small is beautiful, but it is also efficient."
--Nassim Taleb (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?396423-Good-article-in-WSJ-by-Paul-Backer-Taleb):


Experts in business and government are always talking about economies of scale. They say that increasing the size of projects and institutions brings costs savings. But the "efficient," when too large, isn't so efficient. Size produces visible benefits but also hidden risks; it increases exposure to the probability of large losses. Projects of $100 million seem rational, but they tend to have much higher percentage overruns than projects of, say, $10 million. Great size in itself, when it exceeds a certain threshold, produces fragility and can eradicate all the gains from economies of scale. To see how large things can be fragile, consider the difference between an elephant and a mouse: The former breaks a leg at the slightest fall, while the latter is unharmed by a drop several multiples of its height. This explains why we have so many more mice than elephants.

So we need to distribute decisions and projects across as many units as possible, which reinforces the system by spreading errors across a wider range of sources. In fact, I have argued that government decentralization would help to lower public deficits. A large part of these deficits comes from underestimating the costs of projects, and such underestimates are more severe in large, top-down governments. Compare the success of the bottom-up mechanism of canton-based decision making in Switzerland to the failures of authoritarian regimes in Soviet Russia and Baathist Iraq and Syria.

amy31416
07-01-2013, 01:08 PM
I don't know how long we'll stay "united," but when that changes, I hope I'm in the right place.

tod evans
07-01-2013, 01:09 PM
I don't know how long we'll stay "united," but when that changes, I hope I'm in the right place.

Folks living in cities have been warned, over and over...

I hope you're not one of "them"....

RickyJ
07-01-2013, 01:17 PM
United or not, and it clearly is not united even now, it is not a free nation anymore.

amy31416
07-01-2013, 01:19 PM
Folks living in cities have been warned, over and over...

I hope you're not one of "them"....

Got 15 acres out in the boonies, left the city over a year ago.

tod evans
07-01-2013, 01:19 PM
Got 15 acres out in the boonies, left the city over a year ago.

Smart move!

JCDenton0451
07-01-2013, 01:20 PM
Yeah, well, most people were saying exactly the same kinds of things back in the 1760s & early 1770s, too.

And they were right. Until suddenly, one day they weren't ...

The British government was separated by the Atlantic ocean and 18th century means of communication and trasportation didn't make its job easier. More importantly, Americans who fought against the British were motivated by Nationalism more so than Liberty. Won't happen in Texas...unless we're talking about Mexican nationalism. lol

Seriously, Texas is more likely to join Mexico, than exist as independent entity.

WM_in_MO
07-01-2013, 01:21 PM
God damn, I hope not.
Beat me to it.

kahless
07-01-2013, 01:26 PM
Americans for generations have been brainwashed into subservience and obedience to fairy tale America. The ones that have woken up are few and far between will cave at the first sign of opposition which could be as simple as using the race card tactic. The perception of any southern state doing so except for the south west would be unlikely.

The American Redoubt region and maybe NH there is some possibility. But what is more likely is hispanic majorities in the south west seeking independence where there is little to no history of allegiance, obedience and subservience.

heavenlyboy34
07-01-2013, 01:26 PM
The British government was separated by the Atlantic ocean and 18th century means of communication and trasportation didn't make its job easier. More importantly, Americans who fought against the British were motivated by Nationalism more so than Liberty. Won't happen in Texas...unless we're talking about Mexican nationalism. lol

Seriously, Texas is more likely to join Mexico, than exist as independent entity.
This!^^ There were a handful of mercenaries too, IIRC.

AuH20
07-01-2013, 01:32 PM
Americans for generations have been brainwashed into subservience and obedience to fairy tale America. The ones that have woken up are few and far between will cave at the first sign of opposition which could be as simple as using the race card tactic. The perception of any southern state doing so except for the south west would be unlikely.

The American Redoubt region and maybe NH there is some possibility. But what is more likely is hispanic majorities in the south west seeking independence where there is little to no history of allegiance, obedience and subservience.

When fairy tale America dies, behavior will finally change. Ultimately, the environment is the great sculptor of men's souls.

jbauer
07-01-2013, 01:57 PM
Yes we'll be one country, maybe by force but one country none the less. You miserable Northerns won't leave us Southerners alone.

heavenlyboy34
07-01-2013, 02:03 PM
Yes we'll be one country, maybe by force but one country none the less. You miserable Northerns won't leave us Southerners alone.Ain't that the truth! :P Damn Yankees.

Occam's Banana
07-01-2013, 02:25 PM
None of this militates against my point:


The British government was separated by the Atlantic ocean and 18th century means of communication and trasportation didn't make its job easier.

It is not a (logistical) question of Britain's situation vis-a-vis the American colonies in the latter half of the 1700s. It is a (psychological) question of the willingness of a sufficient number of the colonists to fight what almost everyone - including the colonists themselves - believed (not without reason) was a vastly superior military force, against which any successful rebellion would be extraordinarily difficult (if not impossible).


More importantly, Americans who fought against the British were motivated by Nationalism more so than Liberty.

What have motivations got to do with it? Revolutions are revolutions - whatever the motives behind them.


Won't happen in Texas...unless we're talking about Mexican nationalism. lol

Seriously, Texas is more likely to join Mexico, than exist as independent entity.
I don't understand what Texas has to do with it. :confused:

As a final note, I would add that violent revolution is NOT the only way in which over-large States can fail and fall apart. Indeed, I suspect (and hope) that that will be the case for America - with states and localities simply repudiating and turning their backs on an increasingly impotent & bloated federal apparatus (without a shot being fired) ...

anaconda
07-01-2013, 03:26 PM
I heard an interesting fellow on Coast to Coast A.M. a few years back speculate what would happen when the U.S. government was so bankrupt that it could not function. It couldn't even collect taxes or pay any bills. I believe he predicted four fairly independent territories. I'll see if I can find a link.

UPDATE: Here's a link but I don't think that this was the guy on C2C AM.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20081124/118512713.html

Maps here:

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/break-up-of-usa-into-six-parts.html

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/12/29/the-coming-collapse-of-the-united-states/

tod evans
07-01-2013, 03:47 PM
As a final note, I would add that violent revolution is NOT the only way in which over-large States can fail and fall apart. Indeed, I suspect (and hope) that that will be the case for America - with states and localities simply repudiating and turning their backs on an increasingly impotent & bloated federal apparatus (without a shot being fired) ...

About the time individual states decide to take action, I foresee a major rural/urban rearrangement of power...

Fed-gov is all that's keeping many cities afloat, take that away and things are going to get interesting.

WM_in_MO
07-01-2013, 03:50 PM
About the time individual states decide to take action, I foresee a major rural/urban rearrangement of power...

Fed-gov is all that's keeping many cities afloat, take that away and things are going to get interesting.

Even the smaller cities in the suburbs are suckling at the teat.

acptulsa
07-01-2013, 05:31 PM
I think the divides are more economic and political than geographical. I say no, we wont' break up.

Nonsense. If there's a factor that might prevent it, it's that both the east and west coasts are covered with populous states that Washington happily spoils, robbing the center of the nation shamelessly to make their fat bellies fatter. So, any effort to keep the extreme west and extreme east united will necessarily trod upon the heartland.

That said, political demographics are only part of the reason the Heartland is extremely restless. The Pioneer Spirit that prefers helping poor neighbors with their hands rather than trusting a government to do it by proxy is only part of the reason the Heartland is restless. The simple fact is that the Breadbasket of the World has been paying out the nose, and getting the bulk of the Monsanto Promotion Laws, and is the place it takes FEMA over a week to get to, and in a thousand ways is being and has been treated like a red-headed stepchild--for a very long time. And, yes, as a result there is an economic factor to the geography. Again, has been for a very long time.

Will we break up? If they keep up their divide and conquer tactics, and keep improving them as they have been, how can they fail to reap this bitter fruit?


Ain't that the truth! :P Damn Yankees.

You are so barking up the wrong tree. Do you really not see how addicted the 'Deep South' has become to the FedTeat? No, this will be more of an East-West divide. A simple and pure one if the San Andreas goes and Nevada becomes our new gateway to the Pacific.

James Madison
07-01-2013, 06:01 PM
Nonsense. If there's a factor that might prevent it, it's that both the east and west coasts are covered with populous states that Washington happily spoils, robbing the center of the nation shamelessly to make their fat bellies fatter. So, any effort to keep the extreme west and extreme east united will necessarily trod upon the heartland.

That said, political demographics are only part of the reason the Heartland is extremely restless. The Pioneer Spirit that prefers helping poor neighbors with their hands rather than trusting a government to do it by proxy is only part of the reason the Heartland is restless. The simple fact is that the Breadbasket of the World has been paying out the nose, and getting the bulk of the Monsanto Promotion Laws, and is the place it takes FEMA over a week to get to, and in a thousand ways is being and has been treated like a red-headed stepchild--for a very long time. And, yes, as a result there is an economic factor to the geography. Again, has been for a very long time.

Will we break up? If they keep up their divide and conquer tactics, and keep improving them as they have been, how can they fail to reap this bitter fruit?



You are so barking up the wrong tree. Do you really not see how addicted the 'Deep South' has become to the FedTeat? No, this will be more of an East-West divide. A simple and pure one if the San Andreas goes and Nevada becomes our new gateway to the Pacific.

I agree with this. Ron performed the best in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions.

Best case scenario would be secession and the formation of a new country stretching from Idaho in the west, east to the Dakotas, south to northern Texas, and northeast to Kentucky.

heavenlyboy34
07-01-2013, 06:04 PM
You are so barking up the wrong tree. Do you really not see how addicted the 'Deep South' has become to the FedTeat? No, this will be more of an East-West divide. A simple and pure one if the San Andreas goes and Nevada becomes our new gateway to the Pacific.
This is an excellent point. :) Thanks. ~hugs~ You've got to admit though, most of the serious exertion of tyranny emanates from DC outward.

heavenlyboy34
07-01-2013, 06:10 PM
I agree with this. Ron performed the best in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions.

Best case scenario would be secession and the formation of a new country stretching from Idaho in the west, east to the Dakotas, south to northern Texas, and northeast to Kentucky.
Excellent choice! :) Only problem is that doesn't provide access to the gulf of Mexico, which is useful for transporting goods across the Atlantic. :/ Include all of Texas and it should be okay.

Czolgosz
07-01-2013, 06:14 PM
Many people think they need permission to secede. If that isn't evidence of being a *willing* Subject, not sure what is.


1776 America and the DoI were a fluke.


Remains as-is.

heavenlyboy34
07-01-2013, 06:16 PM
Many people think they need permission to secede. If that isn't evidence of being a *willing* Subject, not sure what is.


1776 America and the DoI were a fluke.


Remains as-is.
Most of us aren't really prepared for a bloody revolution, sir. Unless you've got the military might behind you, your independence-declarin' is just blowing smoke.

pacelli
07-01-2013, 06:33 PM
The banisters, banksters, and shiesters funding and controlling the media and the votes in government have done a great job maintaining division in the US.

United we stand, Divided we fall.

The American nationals in this country need to stick together and adopt the spirit of 1775. That's how to get back to the legislative environment of 1776.

We the People are the final check & balance system when all others fail or are corrupted.

Czolgosz
07-01-2013, 06:39 PM
Most of us aren't really prepared for a bloody revolution, sir. Unless you've got the military might behind you, your independence-declarin' is just blowing smoke.

Agreed. America was a fluke.

Fox McCloud
07-01-2013, 06:40 PM
What time frame are we talking about? All empires and countries inevitably fall/fail/crumble/are replaced...one way or another.

In the next 100 years? Dunno...maybe. The next 1,000? Likely. The next 10,000? Guaranteed.

Christian Liberty
07-01-2013, 10:50 PM
I hope not...

gwax23
07-01-2013, 10:59 PM
I heard an interesting fellow on Coast to Coast A.M. a few years back speculate what would happen when the U.S. government was so bankrupt that it could not function. It couldn't even collect taxes or pay any bills. I believe he predicted four fairly independent territories. I'll see if I can find a link.

UPDATE: Here's a link but I don't think that this was the guy on C2C AM.

http://en.rian.ru/world/20081124/118512713.html

Maps here:

http://aangirfan.blogspot.com/2008/11/break-up-of-usa-into-six-parts.html

http://www.neatorama.com/2008/12/29/the-coming-collapse-of-the-united-states/

Interesting. I think the maps are a bit off. Especially with the south. Places like South Carolina or West Virginia would not remain in some new country dominated from New York or major North Eastern cities. I also doubt any of these splinter states would join the EU or be under Canadian influence, considering many of the breakaway nations would still have larger populations that Canada.