I can virtually guarantee that immigration from The New Confederacy to the United States will be significantly more difficult than immigrating from France to Germany currently is.
You’re trying to change the subject. You were arguing that an independent Louisiana probably wouldn’t do anything “too ridiculous,” but the ban on sodomy would come back in force, abortion would quickly be banned, a possible Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage in the U.S. would be ignored, and church-state separation would likely be weakened. So please explain what makes you think nothing “too ridiculous” would happen? Do you think marijuana would be totally or partially legalized, as it has in a bunch of Northern states but not Louisiana? Really Not All That Bright posted some other good examples.
But you’re proposing that the states would be independent countries, are you not?
I’m not for it. The majority, IMO, is frequently wrong. But how do you override a majority to do the right thing? And who decides what the right thing is? While I suspect all of us support gay marriage, most people don’t. My best answer is “supporting gay marriage doesn’t stop heterosexuals from marrying”, but if someone is an evangelical, what do you say? I honestly don’t know.
I am. I support personal responsibility and leaving people the fuck alone.
Nope. I have NYC on my bucket list of places to visit, and I can’t wait to do so, but I’ll never live there.
Pretty much none. But I’m not so vein as to think that only my freedoms are important.
-I’m not gay, but I think it’s absurd to deny gays the right to marry/adopt.
-I’m not into drugs (well, some occasional blow isn’t that bad), yet we’re putting drug users/dealers in jail for victimless crimes.
-I’m a tobacco smoker. If I frequent a restaurant owned by someone that doesn’t mind smoking and am served by someone that knows the detriments of second hand smoke (but, hypothetically, would continue to work in a smoking restaurant), well, that doesn’t matter, because the government knows better than all of us.
-Many cities (not NOLA, obviously) treat us all like children and forbid alcohol sales at certain times/days.
-Will post more as I think of them.
A Constitution that guarantees those rights and an independent judiciary. It’s not very complicated.
Left to their own devices, people usually don’t leave each other alone.
Some of your ideas here suggest otherwise. Also, it’s “vain.”
This is exactly what the constitution and the Supreme Court do. You really don’t understand the role of the federal government well enough to advocate dismantling it.
Drugs. Illegal.
Gay marriage. Illegal in most states.
They’re really doing a great job.
Becoming legal in a rapidly growing number of states, though. Just not that ones that got very interested in personal freedom last week.
So far the evidence suggests The Republic of Louisiana would be much worse.
The Federal Government has done this lots of times (not coincidentally, mostly in the South, and mostly with regards to taking-the-rights-of-black-people). Was it wrong for the Federal Government to end slavery, despite a majority of those in the Southern States that opposed it? Was it wrong for the “FedGov” to force the end of segregation and Jim Crow (again, in opposition to the majority in those states)?
As was said, an independent judiciary, based on the Constitution. That’s how it’s been done, and how it’s done now. There’s no way I think Texabamissippiana would do better, and lots of reasons to think that they’d do much, much worse at “defending freedom”.
I say “No problem. You don’t have to gay marry. You don’t have to attend a gay wedding. Your church doesn’t have to perform a gay wedding.”
Problem solved.
Unless, apparently, the majority of a state wants to take away some rights.
It’s an awesome place to visit. In a lot of ways, it’s a great place to live, too (so I’ve heard- I haven’t lived there)- but it’s not for everyone. But there’s a reason that millions and millions of people live there- and it ain’t that it’s “low on freedom”, or easy to mooch there.
I think your freedoms are important too. And the freedoms of the minorities of Louisianans and Texans and Alabamans. I don’t trust the state governments to protect those freedoms by themselves- they’ve shown themselves to be really, really awful at it.
They’ve got a way better track record than those states. And I think they’re moving in the right direction.
It was the Federal Government, in opposition to many of the states, that guaranteed freedom from tyranny and oppression for lots and lots of people. Has any state ever done that in opposition to the federal government?
Slavery illegal. Abortion rights protected. Voting rights protected. Racial, religious, sexist discrimination illegal. Right to privacy protected. Free speech, free press.
They’re doing as good a job as any government ever has. It’s not perfect, but it’s a hell of a lot better than the USSEC would be.
i just need to point out how hard your consecutive posts made me laugh.
that is all. (we need “like” buttons)
The reason that it’s easy to move from state to state is because the Privileges and Immunites Clauses of the U.S. Consitution guarantees freedom of movement and the right to travel between states, as well as the right to take up residence and become a citizen of another state. If a state secedes, those rights to freely travel to another state and take up residence and citizenship there all vanish. If Texas were to secede (and it ain’t happening, Texas secessionists both inside and outside of Texas), you wouldn’t be moving there, you’d be emigrating from Louisiana and immigrating to another country. With unemployment rates being what they are, I don’t anticipate the new nation of Texas will be granting large numbers of visas or naturalizing new Texas citizens anytime soon.
Secession is associated with slavery. People get angry because of this association when secession is brought up. It’s as simple as that.
And we’re hearing about it again after the re-election of a black president. What a crazy coincidence that is. I hasten to point out that I’m not suggesting BabaBooey is a racist. I do think it’s worth noting, though, that he seems OK with surrendering some of the liberties of other people (women, gays) so that he can have some greater economic freedom. Perhaps you’d like to consider a scenario where Louisianastan was likely to abolish some unpopular liberties you personally enjoy?
This thread reminds me of something a writer for National Review wrote about Ron Paul several months ago. I paraphrase, because I can’t remember the exact quote:
‘Ron Paul’s ideas consist of 85% sensible, rationally defensible ideas, and 15% pure fruitcakery. The problem is that neither he nor his supporters are able to tell which is which.’
Here you go. I figured I might enjoy looking that up because whenever we discuss Ron Paul, his supporters instruct everybody to ignore the crazy ideas (and the ones they don’t like).
Why, thank you! I didn’t know they archived the print articles online.
First off, I’m not opposed (in theory) at all to a state seceding peacefully, as long as it’s not done unilaterally. A state must bring a petition to the Federal legislature and if all the details can be worked out then the legislature adds a new amendment to the constitution and viola we have a seceded state.
It’ll never happen, of course, because the practical matters will get in the way. It’s highly unlikely that BabaBooey would want to secede once Louisiana takes on its share of the debt and then pays the Feds for whatever assets it has.
What I don’t understand is how the state became the final arbiter and became almost a deity to libertarians. Louisiana is allowed (encouraged!) to secede from the US but New Orleans would not be allowed to secede from Louisiana.
The US has never been a more free and liberal society than it is right now. At what point did we have more social freedom?
maybe i’m wrong about Ron Paul, but my take on that guy is that he is, finally, a politician who sticks to his principles. he is hardfuckingcore about sticking to what his political principles are–to the point he’d let the whole world burn into ash without stepping in.
on one hand, i respect that–on the other, HE CAN NEVER BE ANYONE’S PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE WILL DESTROY US.
again, maybe i’m wrong…