Secession

[Republicanguy]

What mad ideas, you are the one that believe in independence, good bye to Nevada, the naughty state with Western Shoshone nation becoming independent, so that is two nations in US borders. Then the South east, Louisiana, Mississippi, these places would not benefit from Independence.

Then Vermont, Rhode Island, they wouldn't either.

Arizona, and Tohono nation, so declaring from Mexico and Arizona, so issues with Mexico.

[CCTelander]

Bump.

[Republicanguy]

Funny, nobody wanted to actually imagine the new reality of the idea of independence. For one state, it is a nice idea, but if it creates divisions that has a serious affect on the world order of peace, then this is a poor idea.

[acptulsa]

Funny, nobody wanted to actually imagine the new reality of the idea of independence. For one state, it is a nice idea, but if it creates divisions that has a serious affect on the world order of peace, then this is a poor idea.

What world peace? You're old enough to remember world peace?

The U.S. govermnent trying to exhort the members of the military to attack their own home towns would cause the whole world to breathe a huge sigh of relief.

[Republicanguy]

No, for America's faults, America keeps our world intact. When I vouched for Paul years ago when he ran for office, I didn't see the bigger picture. Just like in 2011, the crowd member said, "no president!" On when did any empire withdraw from the world stage in history.

Ireland for example, needs a peaceful world, and who does it look to? America? The EU, even though the EU has no real military, may be someday it will. Who else? How does Ireland insulate itself from the world economy problems, the primary supply of crude is protected by America. A country like that can't right the wrongs of the world, or deal with unstable governments.

So it is either US, or EU or China, or India one day.

[Swordsmyth]

No, for America's faults, America keeps our world intact. When I vouched for Paul years ago when he ran for office, I didn't see the bigger picture. Just like in 2011, the crowd member said, "no president!" On when did any empire withdraw from the world stage in history.

Ireland for example, needs a peaceful world, and who does it look to? America? The EU, even though the EU has no real military, may be someday it will. Who else? How does Ireland insulate itself from the world economy problems, the primary supply of crude is protected by America. A country like that can't right the wrongs of the world, or deal with unstable governments.

So it is either US, or EU or China, or India one day.

You are a fool who thinks his assertions are facts and that the world can't function as it did for all of history.

[tfurrh]

I do not think there's a single issue that will ever spark a serious succession movement. I do think that splintering could happen only if a lasting economic hardship hits. People are crazier when they're hungry.

[Republicanguy]

You are a fool who thinks his assertions are facts and that the world can't function as it did for all of history.

No it is true, Ireland has benefited from the British empire's later years to America's, and then the EU. Small nations depend on the bigger powers to keep economies going.

Ireland has no capability to keep the sea lanes going or the crude oil flowing. That is what you quickly forget, you aren't someone that likes facts, only blind faith.

[Swordsmyth]

No it is true, Ireland has benefited from the British empire's later years to America's, and then the EU. Small nations depend on the bigger powers to keep economies going.

Ireland has no capability to keep the sea lanes going or the crude oil flowing. That is what you quickly forget, you aren't someone that likes facts, only blind faith.

The world can, did and would deal with those problems without world government or socialism.

You can't think, you only repeat what you are told to believe.

[Republicanguy]

No they can't. They didn't even have a navy functioning fifty years ago.

Iceland is a little more prepared due to their location. But they depend on Canada and America for defense, and a peaceful world.

There is no substitute for keeping the sea lanes, like Carter, Reagan did with the US navy.

[Republicanguy]

The world can, did and would deal with those problems without world government or socialism.

You can't think, you only repeat what you are told to believe.

Carter said we aren't a small republic, and he was correct. People were talking like you or Paul decades ago about having less of a role in the world. The world is interconnected. Just declaration of war clause was used two centuries ago before crude oil, it is anachronistic.

[Swordsmyth]

No they can't. They didn't even have a navy functioning fifty years ago.

Iceland is a little more prepared due to their location. But they depend on Canada and America for defense, and a peaceful world.

There is no substitute for keeping the sea lanes, like Carter, Reagan did with the US navy.

Carter said we aren't a small republic, and he was correct. People were talking like you or Paul decades ago about having less of a role in the world. The world is interconnected. Just declaration of war clause was used two centuries ago before crude oil, it is anachronistic.

The world can deal with those problems without world government, it always has.

I thought you claimed to be English?

Carter said we aren't a small republic

[Republicanguy]

Yes I live in England. But that is my point, even the Royal Navy couldn't do what America does. May be a coalition like in 1990.

[kahless]

I do not think there's a single issue that will ever spark a serious succession movement. I do think that splintering could happen only if a lasting economic hardship hits. People are crazier when they're hungry.

2nd Amendment - taking peoples guns.

I think a first step in a more realistic scenario would be for a group of states to form an alliance against federal government power in certain areas. Remain part of the union but deny the federal governments power under the alliance and do so on Constitutional grounds. For example the Constitution is pretty clear, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

The next step the alliance would also need to reject the power of the Supreme Court for their own Supreme Court. Otherwise activist liberal judges would just continue to overrule their power.

[Sonny Tufts]

I think a first step in a more realistic scenario would be for a group of states to form an alliance against federal government power in certain areas. Remain part of the union but deny the federal governments power under the alliance and do so on Constitutional grounds.

The Constitution prohibits a State from entering into any agreement or compact with another State without the consent of Congress (Art. I, Sec. 10, Clause 3).

The next step the alliance would also need to reject the power of the Supreme Court for their own Supreme Court.

Ignoring U.S. Supreme Court decisions didn't work following the 1954 school desegregation case, and there's no reason to think it would work today.

[A Son of Liberty]

Bunch of people in here who seem to be able to foretell the future. Kinda surprising that you're posting on an internet backwater forum given how rich you must obviously be.

The point in the OP was that there is no clear lane for the Liberty Movement in the current US/global political traffic pattern. Secessionism is one clear and unoccupied area where we could stake our flag.

The fact is, it will come. Sure as God made little green apples, it will come. If we're occupying the space when the moment arrives, we'll have the upper hand.

Think about that.

[Swordsmyth]

The Constitution prohibits a State from entering into any agreement or compact with another State without the consent of Congress (Art. I, Sec. 10, Clause 3).

It needn't be a formal agreement.

Ignoring U.S. Supreme Court decisions didn't work following the 1954 school desegregation case, and there's no reason to think it would work today.

It could have worked then and it could work now.

[Republicanguy]

It needn't be a formal agreement.




It could have worked then and it could work now.

How do you think it could work? You are religious plant, you have no clear head on the world, you want to shut down naughty Las Vegas, and send, Naughty Nevada on it's way, turning into a boomerang state, along with all the native nations, and the problems that will arise financially from independence. That is the problem with this.

I think the Native nations should be independent, but it isn't realistic, with the exception of may be two, Tohono and Western Shoshone. But by that happening, Tohono would cause a problem with Mexico and Arizona, then there is also the Navajo nation.

What would happen to Hawaii?

[Republicanguy]

Yeah, there is no possibility of independence, because any independence would cross into roads, businesses, and so on. Ontario could probably be independent, but that is in Canada.

Ideas from two centuries don't work for America today. And this is certainly one of them. In Northern Ireland there are three hundred border crossing points, that cross into farm land, fields, roads, homes, businesses. In Wales, separate from NI in many ways, faces the same problem, many entry points, that couldn't work as an independent state.

[Anti Federalist]

How do you think it could work? You are religious plant, you have no clear head on the world, you want to shut down naughty Las Vegas, and send, Naughty Nevada on it's way, turning into a boomerang state, along with all the native nations, and the problems that will arise financially from independence. That is the problem with this.

I think the Native nations should be independent, but it isn't realistic, with the exception of may be two, Tohono and Western Shoshone. But by that happening, Tohono would cause a problem with Mexico and Arizona, then there is also the Navajo nation.

What would happen to Hawaii?

What the $#@! are you babbling about?

Is English not your first language?

Or are you just a bot?

[Republicanguy]

I just put my question forward, based on an example with the UK. How could independence work out if a US state did leave?

May be Kansas could, it only has roads and fields for the west and south west, and north west border.

[Republicanguy]

What the $#@! are you babbling about?

Is English not your first language?

Or are you just a bot?

The problem with liberty ideas is they don't work in practice. I watched Ron Paul and Tom Woods, from some mises gathering from early 2015. Just dreamers.

[CCTelander]

The problem with liberty ideas is they don't work in practice. I watched Ron Paul and Tom Woods, from some mises gathering from early 2015. Just dreamers.

I'm sorry but this is, without a doubt, one of the most ignorant comments I've ever read here, and I've read a LOT of ignorant comments here in the last few years. You really need to educate yourself. Your view of the world is 180 degrees out of phase with actual reality.

[Republicanguy]

Yeah, and every country wants you packing. No.

All I'm stating independence doesn't work when the world interconnected. It leads to problems.

Too many think that like with energy resources there always an ideal quick fix, this is how Ron Paul lost his elections and didn't make any progress, only to people who want to believe they can live in a society, and world without much government it is gibberish.

I see their points, but it is selfishness really. Trying to live in 1919 all over again, take the best and leave the modern bad out of it. I think these people are misguided.

[CCTelander]

Yeah, and every country wants you packing. No.

All I'm stating independence doesn't work when the world interconnected. It leads to problems.

Too many think that like with energy resources there always an ideal quick fix, this is how Ron Paul lost his elections and didn't make any progress, only to people who want to believe they can live in a society, and world without much government it is gibberish.

I see their points, but it is selfishness really. Trying to live in 1919 all over again, take the best and leave the modern bad out of it. I think these people are misguided.

Being accused of "selfishness" by a guy who admits to suckling at the government teat, with money stolen at gun point from his fellow Englishmen, while all I want is to be left the $#@! alone to provide for myself and my loved ones without resort to such is really quite precious.

[TomtheTinker]

I support it, we are spread too thin.

[Republicanguy]

Being accused of "selfishness" by a guy who admits to suckling at the government teat, with money stolen at gun point from his fellow Englishmen, while all I want is to be left the $#@! alone to provide for myself and my loved ones without resort to such is really quite precious.

Everybody is a welfare loafer, some live a subsistence on the dole, others don't, some work part time, and claim the dole, some work full time, and have their parents, some claim housing and have a child.

There is no good or great, bud, wake up. We live in a world that is interconnected, some are successful, some aren't. There is no wishy washy perfect society, where everybody owns their own home, has two children and goes to church or a Mosque.

[Swordsmyth]

Everybody is a welfare loafer, some live a subsistence on the dole, others don't, some work part time, and claim the dole, some work full time, and have their parents, some claim housing and have a child.

There is no good or great, bud, wake up. We live in a world that is interconnected, some are successful, some aren't. There is no wishy washy perfect society, where everybody owns their own home, has two children and goes to church or a Mosque.

Loser slave is projecting.

[A Son of Liberty]

What does the world being interconnected, and the success of some people (or lack thereof), have to do with secessionism? The world is segmented currently into some 190 countries at the moment. Are you arguing that each of those should be merged into a single global government? What disruption do you envision by making some number more than 190 countries? How does the world become less connected, and how does that impact the success (or lack thereof) of some people?

I see no impact to the interconnectedness of the world, or the success of people, by creating more countries. Yes, the world is interconnected, but most people live their day-to-day lives within a few miles of their homes. They live among and interact with a very small number of other people. The VAST majority of their interaction with some "central authority" should be on those terms, then.

[Republicanguy]

What does the world being interconnected, and the success of some people (or lack thereof), have to do with secessionism? The world is segmented currently into some 190 countries at the moment. Are you arguing that each of those should be merged into a single global government? What disruption do you envision by making some number more than 190 countries? How does the world become less connected, and how does that impact the success (or lack thereof) of some people?

I see no impact to the interconnectedness of the world, or the success of people, by creating more countries. Yes, the world is interconnected, but most people live their day-to-day lives within a few miles of their homes. They live among and interact with a very small number of other people. The VAST majority of their interaction with some "central authority" should be on those terms, then.

First thing is the US is an exceptional country, as it maintains the peace, it keeps the sea lanes open. People like Ron Paul see the world in one dimensional thinking. An idealistic way. He is naive.

I am not suggesting his former republican party members were correct about the world and all things, but a world with a small power like America would be a different place than it is. 'I see no impact', you don't read history.

As for whether there will be a world government, unlikely. The UN is the current place for any type of government. It was created as a discussion organization. It hasn't really met the founders of the goals it was set out, but it isn't perfect. And probably never will be, especially since there are no elections for it, or direct say by any of us anywhere in the world.

Many on here can't seem to understand that if personnel were withdrawn and the US order of the world changed, it affect your lives in real ways. And mine too, living in the UK. Including the Irish on both sides of the border. Ireland aligns itself with the US, EU, it isn't a neutral country, and depends on the security of the EU, US, and the British to some extent.