Here’s a map of the 2012 election results by county, shaded by percentage won. Exactly where can you draw those peaceful secession lines?
In what possible ‘nation’ would no one disagree on any of these issues?
Did I say nobody would disagree? If so, when and where?
I’m not a central planner.
I presume that it would extremely difficult because it wouldn’t be popular, which seems to contradict your statement that people aren’t happy with the government.
And they should be unhappy with the government. That’s when government is at its best.
“A good diplomatic agreement is one with which all parties are equally dissatisfied.” -Georges Bidault
Then how would they cease to be “nationwide issues”?
Look, this “I’m not a central planner but everyone should secede” thing is logical nonsense, and I can’t help but think you know it. If the answer to every dispute is secession then eventually there’s no nations at all, as everyone has seceded into their own personal kingdom, and armed gangs will run amok enslaving the weak and it’s Mad Max everywhere.
If a few souls were mad about abortion being legal in the area, they might move a few miles up the road. Otherwise I don’t think such a scenario would merit them being called “issues”. I know people who dislike flip-flops. It’s not a nationwide issue.
Scary.
No, but I do encourage secession in many cases. I will not display the incalculable hubris it would take to pretend I know where the boundaries should be. It’s not a cure-all.
The question is whether it’s a cure-anything. There is no political division larger than perhaps a small neighborhood that you could define within the current United States that would not have people on opposite sides of major, serious national issues. Many households within the country have these types of divisions (on abortion, gun control, etc.)
If you can’t set the boundaries, can you even name a single issue that would lend itself to secession? Where setting aside a portion of the U.S. larger than a small neighborhood would end debate on that issue? I’m not aware of any state in the union that doesn’t have ongoing debate about abortion (witness the filibuster in Texas – the Texas legislature is certainly not of one mind on the issue).
Looking at history, it seems the only successful revolutions are those that have a goal. A revolution which is only aimed at ending the existing order leads to a void. And terrible things enter that void. Successful revolutions are those which start out knowing what it is they are seeking to create.
It doesn’t sound like it’s a cure anything.
The government as it is is vastly superior than whatever would replace it.
No it wouldn’t. Unless every human was his own country.
You don’t seem to understand the point. Texas could be partitioned into several jurisdictions. Jurisdictions more friendly to a certain way of life would attract likeminded individuals. The point isn’t to end debate. The point is to end continent-wide struggles and conflicts.
How would that end such struggles? When Europe was divided into hundreds of tiny states, it was far, far less peaceful than it is now.
What would stop strong men from using force to gain power in a hundred tiny fiefdoms?
And why would this work? Are people free now to move from country to country whenever they want to? Why would it be true if there were a bunch of smaller countries?
Because places like the Balkans are known for their peaceful history.
I could give you a long list of definite improvements to the system – but could offer no way to make their implementation politically possible.
That would take us in exactly the wrong direction. (The right one is the one that ends in a politically united world, very eventually.)
Well, the ladies did have an excuse for their votes not accomplishing anything. 