Is that how you think Ukrainians should view Crimea?
Sure, they’re able to so say.
They almost certainly won’t so say and then it’s Civil War II but, sure, we can play hypotheticals for a while.
A debate assumes you have set out the basis for your opinion. You have not. You put forth a gigantic assumption and failed to define what the heck you were talking about, let alone the basis for it.
First step. Tell us what you are arguing. Then maybe a debate can come from that.
You might be right. I misread your original post as to be one of mild ignorance, as it requires holding some unusual principles to stand up to any scrutiny. And I’m still not sure you actually have a cohesive opinion here, since you’ve not really attempted to do anything but answer individual arguments in a half baked fashion.
Here are some concrete questions for you then:
Do you think the 13 colonies would have been better off if the Loyalists had prevailed?
Do you think California and/or Texas ought to secede?
If so, how should they deal with the substantial minority (the current majority) who do not wish to secede and/or are happy with the current central government?
The tyranny of the majority is a problem with Democracy in general and part of the motivation for famous quips with the message “Democracy is the least worst form of government”. Do you personally consider it a fatal flaw of democracy? And if so, what would be your alternative?
Democracies have different ways of electing representatives and appointing bureaucrats and executives. Are you personally unhappy just with the particular setup of the US, or with representative democracy in general.
This is the only one of the questions you posed that I have trouble dealing with. But it’s the biggest of them all and I don’t have a solution to suggest.
Peaceful secession questions/discussions never fail to get this forum riled up. And I don’t share those feelings in the least.
Post #1, #7, #9, #14 and #40 sum up my opinion and views fairly succinctly, I suggest if really actually interested you start there.
No idea what would have happened if the US had not won independence, but Britain in 2019 is doing pretty well, so don’t see why it would be any different.
If it gets to the point were the values held by the majority of one state are not held by the majority in the other 49, then yes I think it would be time to consider secession. I do not think it is at that point right now, but future national laws on abortion, gun control, immigrant handling, etc. could change that.
I see no basic problem with democracy, but when you have a large group always on the wrong side of important legislation, then I could see where it would problem- if everything your state citizens want is not allowed, then maybe you should look to independence.
For obviously various different reasons, in the recent past Czech Republic and Slovakia formed, Serbia and Croatia, Germany united, etc., some with war, some without, all doing well, so I don’t see any recent examples of such a thing occurring and in hindsight were disastrous and should not have been allowed to happen. You’ll probably need a passport to visit Disneyland, but other than that, life will go on for all, and many would be happier, and other than the GDP and passports, the rest of the US will not suffer, so don’t see why you would want to keep a state with people whose views you don’t share as a state.
I did read them and they meant nothing other than “we feel like it.” But that’s, as many have already said, not in any way comparable to the American revolution.
If something drastically changes in the future, as in your last post, then the comparison may be become legitimate. For the present, individual grievances are not the same as a nation-wide sensibility.
I will point out that a state can secede perfectly legally if they get the support of Congress, etc. So it’s no more 'traitorous" to think about seceding that it is to ask for a Constitutional amendment.
And the number of people in CA *seriously *wanting to leave the union is laughably tiny as a %. Most people that talk about it are joking.
SOME people in 1776 were saying that they wanted a representative government; certainly it was not yet universally understood that all people should have the right to participate in the government. (What percentage of residents of the UK had the franchise or any real representation, in the years before the Reform Bills? I’ve seen estimates that no more than ten percent of adult British males could vote before 1832, but you didn’t see successful revolution there.)
Something like one-third of residents of the colonies actually supported the aspirations of the founding fathers in the years immediately preceding 1776, versus two-thirds that either supported the Crown or were too timid|disinterested|whatever to express an opinion. I think rather more than one-third of modern Americans think it was a good idea, and that is the position that has developed over time.
Treason is not always evil. It is, however, always serious. You don’t commit treason unless you’re really dedicated to some ideal, more so than you are to your nation. George Washington was committed to the ideal that the people deserved a say in their government, and so he committed treason against Britain. Robert E. Lee was committed to the ideal that people were property, and so he committed treason against the United States, including Virginia. Washington’s ideal was a good one, and Lee’s ideal was an evil one, and so it is appropriate that we judge them differently.
If the South had won, I’m not sure we would be judging them differently, and am quite confident that large segments of the Confederate States would not. Heck, there are still sizable swathes where Lee remains a hero (says the graduate of Robert E. Lee High School, which is going to keep that name for the foreseeable future [no, I’m not happy about that]).
But that’s not what your OP asked about, you asked about 2019, and then when pushed made up a situation in 2039.
Why? Because there very rarely are geographical subdivisions you can create that keep the people whose views you share and exclude the ones you do.
The unification of Germany is of course not a relevant example, since it’s about unification, rather than dissolution, and the dissolution of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia show a lot of the troubles of dissolution. Your handwaving of actual bloody wars as not an issue since the countries are “doing well” now, is quite telling, and I notice you didn’t include the former Yugoslavian republics with the most issues.
If Wikipedia is to be believed, polls show Czechs and Slovaks are more positive to the dissolution now than they ever where, and there’s still not a majority in either country for the dissolution being positive, and all of the examples listed were states that had existed in some form in the recent past, with existing distinct national identity.
I’m sure there are Californians who consider themselves primarily Californian, but how large a percentage are they? How many current Californians were born in other states, how many Californian born Americans now live in other states. “So you’ll need a passport to visit Disneyland, big deal.” is a fairly glib way to describe the issues with deciding who is allowed to be a Californian Citizen and who doesn’t, who gets to keep their US citizenship and who loses it, and all the other issues that come with the dissolution of a federation of any sort.
Have you paid attention to Trump ending Obama era emission targets for cars, and how much trouble that is causing the car industry due to California’s stricter standards? That’s just a very small taste of the disruption of the integrated US economy if one of the major states secedes.
tl;dr
“Why not let anyone leave if they want to” is ridiculously naive because there’s rarely a solid majority that wants to leave.
“So 80% of the states get to decide what happens in the remaining 20%” is ridiculously naive since the same is likely to apply to the citizens of the seceding state, some large percentage of the citizens there make a huge decision in the face of opposition from the minority.
“Other dissolutions have gone just fine” requires ignoring actual war, repression of remaining minority population and general dissatisfication with the process and outcome.
Except, as i noted before, the CA movement to leave the Union is by democratic, not unilateral means, thus it isnt treason.
The OP is incorrect.
Just occurs to me that the OP is too recent to have read the unending and exhausting CalExit thread that popped up after the election. It was ostensibly a serious( sorta )vent fest/discussion of actual CA secession. Enjoy.
Damn, my mom graduated from the same school. That’s depressing. Either way, my middle name might be Lee, but I’ve always thought the man a fool.
I’ll add myself to the chorus that says the minority group of secessionists in these two states would fail if they got the stones or brain damage to actually try - and if you fail, you generally get to be a traitor and not a hero of a new country. It’s pretty easy math, and I’ll be among the group signing up to fight you if my side will take my decrepit old ass (unlikely at this late date). We’ve gone through that, and there’s really nothing to be gained by trying again at this point, much less for the idiotic reasons the secessionists have been presenting this time around.
Yes, the people who were seeking independence. Maybe I wasn’t clear. My point was that the people who were seeking independence for the American colonies in 1776 had a clear and articulated principle they were acting on; they wanted a representative government that they could vote on.
Nobody in California or Texas in 2019 could say they want to secede for the same reason. Because if they said they wanted to start a new nation so they could vote in elections, people would say “You morons. You can already do that.”
I’m not sure what this means. Is this thread about California wanting to secede, or about the other 49 kicking California out? Cause thats sort of what this sound like to me.
And we’re still waiting for an answer to Elvis’ question…
So basically you are saying California will be providing 90 per cent or so of the nations tax base.