Maybe the audience would be more receptive to the idea of “secession = more freedom” if the history of secession and, later, “states rights” here in the US wasn’t all about preserving slavery or preserving Jim Crow or fringe groups of tax protesting cranks declaring themselves “sovereign citizens” and such. Secession here has, basically, always been about evil or stupid or crazy or all three.
Your definition of freedom is weird- especially considering that the vast majority of people in all of these states don’t appear to have any interest in secession.
Nope. No “freedoms” lost in the last several decades. Several “freedoms” granted or expanded.
No True Scotsman fallacy. Your brand of freedom is pretty different then mine, apparently.
No, you are.
LOL guy with a distorted understanding of “true freedom”. Just kidding.
Your ideal society sounds like an unpleasant, uncharitable place full of misery. That’s why I don’t support it.
my rebuttal would be the very fact you are free to rant on as you have about such treasonous actions without fear of reprisal is a fairly solid indication we live in a pretty free country.
you seem to be mixing the concepts of freedom and absolute unreliance on anyone-or-thing else in any capacity. we have a goddamn heap of freedom in this nation, but we have a huge overlapping set of awesome that requires cooperation. you want absolute freedom, go dig water wells in the dessert and live like The Hills Have Eyes. go off the grid. remove yourself from the equation.
the problem isn’t a lack of freedom, it’s a sense of entitlement to American comforts but a cry baby attitude about cooperation to have those things.
what you’re talking about has nothing to do with freedom.
I’m curious to know why you seem to think Oil will be the foundation of Gumbostan’s economy.
The only reason that Saudi Arabia and Russia and other nations have managed to garner a great deal of wealth from the oil they own is by having it drilled and processed by a state owned business. This means that profit from selling that oil on the open market goes right into the state coffers.
I don’t think you can call yourself a Libertarian if you think that the government should own the means of production…
I also don’t think you have thought this through very much.
Every federal dollar spent in LA (or your SEC) would suddenly disappear. Plus, you would have to be paying, probably substantially, for things like military bases that happen to be there. The US government is not going to just hand over the land and infrastructure for nothing.
In addition to this, they would have to suddenly create their own governmental infrastructure to administer things. This costs money. And as many have pointed out here, LA at least (and probably your original SEC) they receive more in FedGov funding than they pay in taxes.
How will they be a viable state with the framework of a 3rd world country in place, economy wise?
In addition, you seem to think that these nations, were they to secede, would become some sort of Libertopia. Given how the GOP have run things the last 12 years, I am pretty sure what we would rapidly see would be a Fundamentalist Christian version of Egypt, with the rich being VERY rich and holding all the cards, and the hoi poloi being screwed.
And what of it? This would not affect the non-seceding states in any meaningful way.
And what did we pay in federal taxes? How much did we contribute to this country considering that we get absolutely fucked in our oil production deal? Do you think that it’s reasonable to give us the $238B bill if we don’t actually owe that much? If you go out for dinner with a group of 5 and get a salad while everyone else gets filet mignon, are you cool with dividing the bill by 5 and paying it?
OH NO, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITHOUT OVERPAID FEDERAL WORKERS!?!?! Are you completely oblivious to the fact that, if LA were to secede, that we wouldn’t be paying federal taxes anymore?
Look at this thread again. I’ve never once implied that LA seceding alone would work. It would all have to start with TX, and if they did it, it would spread east to at least Alabama. Florida would be iffy, but I included them in all scenarios. So your 200 mile point would be moot.
Who said anything about customs? And it’s not like northerners never visit Canada, or south westerners never visit Mexico.
There may not be any “stuff” to deal with, at least nothing significant.
I didn’t bluster about except when others were essentially threatening LA. I would not support shutting down the river to free trade, just as I don’t currently support embargoes on Cuba or Iran.
What you’re overlooking in all of this is the entire point of the secession (in my hypothetical situation): economic/social freedom. Take all of the preconceptions that you have, and now add this hypothetical: the entire “United States of the South Eastern Conference” having NO corporate taxes (as opposed to the 15-35% federal corporate tax levels + whatever the state adds on to that), LA having no drug laws (a legit Hamsterdam), plus everything else New Orleans has to offer currently. Gay marriage is also allowed. I know the entire scenario is iffy, but NOLA is a very laissez-faire city (drugs/gay marriage) and the USotSEC would certainly be a fiscally conservative conglomerate.
WRONG! Absolutely incorrect! It would be incredibly intelligent! I live in Chicago, but I still feel as if it would be a fantastic idea for those states to secede (Given they take their share of national debt).
That’s fantastic. Before I make my point on the issue, do you support those states’ decisions to legalize gay marriage and recreational marijuana?
Those 50,000 federal "moochers: are your own citizens. They are now out of work. Not paying federal taxes isn’t going to take care of those lost jobs.
Your corporations pay no taxes - so who’s going to pay for their “protection” from crime and enemies abroad? The workers?
Your rants and other like yours boil down to “I want to be the boss - what’s mine is mine - screw everyone else if they don’t have it must be their own fault”.
You guys sing this tune until something unexpected befalls you - then you’ll be looking for help, like normal human beings.
Here’s a revealing exchange:
What if my hypothetical new country not only allowed said free speech, but allowed even MORE personal freedom?
Huh? How does ending the war on drugs, ending the war in the ME, drastically lowering taxes, drastically cutting entitlements (say, raising the SS 3 or 4 years, delivering basic food needs to the under privileged as opposed food stamps, having those collecting unemployment work clean-up type jobs), and allowing true social freedom (no blue laws, gay marriage/adoption allowed, pro-choice, etc…) = “unreliance”?
Huh? Are you saying that my desire to be left alone = entitlement?
Everything I’ve mentioned is exactly what freedom is about. Too many politicians and Americans use it as a fucking buzzword without considering the benefits/downsides of true freedom.
I didn’t realize that government jobs were the only kind of jobs out there. I suspect that you believe politicians when they say that they “created” jobs, amiright?
And the employers, yes. I support the fair tax.
Wanting to be left alone != wanting to be “the boss”.
Not really. I have no problem with tax dollars going towards helping those in tough situations, so long as those people receiving said benefits dedicate themselves towards getting out of the tough situation. Do you disagree that there is quite a bit of entitlement abuse?
I would gladly take a more reasonable tax rate if it meant never getting any entitlement money from the government, although, as I already said, I’m not 100% against entitlements so long as the person is trying to help themselves.
Sez you. I’m a Louisiana boy, a proud LSU alumni, and I’d be terrified to live in the Nation of Louisiana- what makes you think they’d allow abortion to be legal? Or homosexuality? Or keep religion and state separate? From my understanding of Louisiana’s (and neighboring states’) electorate, these freedoms would be very much in doubt. But you’re SURE you know what freedom is all about. Let me ask you this- what, personally, have you experienced with regards to loss of freedom?
I fucked up. Sorry. The claim that LA’s share is $238B based on population is still a bullshit way of determining what we would “owe.” And the whole thing is moot as, as I’ve said before, I never once claimed LA would be alone in seceding.
I think the problem here is your perception that the moochers are the norm and the majority. I’m not here to change your mind, but it’s just not so. I think if you look at the figures, that even if we stopped welfare in it’s tracks it is a mere pittance compared to corporate welfare. (Breaks to oil companies, farms, etc.)
Tell me you’re bringing those subsidies to an end first and maybe we can talk.
Is this a hypothetical, or do you think it would actually do so? Because when I hear about a republic of Louisiana, I wonder who Bobby Jindal would appoint as Witchmaster General.
because you want to be left alone AND keep having your lifestyle, your state’s resources and all of that is a by-product of being part of america, for the good and the bad.
you have this attitude you can walk away with everything that you have in your hands and keep it and keep having it that way–infrastructure, interstate programs and commerce, but all that was achieved through union, not by unilateral, un-reliant “Louisiana did it all for themselves” self-creation like you’re some island unto yourself. you also have an askew sense of fiduciary resources and allocation–you think you can 1. kill all government jobs 2. not tax much 3. refill all those lost jobs without 4. welfare programs and 5. still have money to feed the needy (of which you just ensured you’d have PLEANTY of while 6. not accounting for disabilities and 7. cutting a major source of retirement income to your elderly population–all while creating a needlessly more complex inter-state trade system with who-knows-what tariffs, taxes, embargoes and what all else–because keep in mind you’d only be a nation unto thyself by absolute inconsolable differences with the US of A (and presumably other seceded nations), meaning trade might be a little hostile and complex. all of this in spite of your idea that your red state WANTS more liberties (hint: they don’t. they HATE IT), so you would have a civil schism on par with Libya and other hell holes.
all i can say is i’m glad you are not in any position to make such a thing actually happen and if you guys ever do break off, godspeed. you’ll need it. but as i said before, you can experiment with absolute freedom. move to some plot of land, go off the grid. see how that fits ya. the thing is, i don’t think that is what you want. what you want is to live in America–only where you get to have your cake and eat it too. that’s why i said what you speak of is not freedom. it’s just a pipedream of everythingyouwantallatonce.
Oops. I’m an alumnus. I haven’t yet achieved multiple-personhood (though it’s on my list).
I wonder how long it would take for a post-secessionist head of state to admit that.
For the 10th time, I don’t think LA would do it alone.
The point I’m trying to make is, if all states went solo, who gives a shit if LA made abortion or homosexuality illegal? It’s very easy to move from state to state. If LA did outlaw each of those, it would hurt the state. Are you not familiar with Decadence Fest? It’s about choices. One federal government is making the decisions for all the states, with marginal differences among those states. I say let the states go all out in deciding how they are run. Look at our presidents and the men running against them over the past 12 years. There’s very little difference between Bush, Obama, Romney, and McCain. And these people are making decisions that the entire nation is affected by. People in California and people in Texas are very different. Ditto for Tennessee and New York. Ditto for Florida and Massachusetts. So why not let each of those states run themselves the way they want to (based on whom the citizens of the state select) and give people more choices on how they want to live?