Secession: The Left Wanted it, and Now the Right does.

[mRx 16]

Back when big bad Bush was POTUS, the Left was all about States' Rights and reducing Federal authority over the States, and even talk of secession, but now that there's a Blue Man in the Big House, secession is treason and anarchy according to the Left.

I think secession isn't really a bad idea. The People would have a nice hedge against the dominant "majority rules"-- the Right could do their thing, and the Left theirs, and the people would cast their vote by choosing which governance to reside under.

Most interesting, it would create a sort of "market" for government. The better government would obviously attract more constituents, while the more hegemonic government would lose constituents, and therefore tax dollars. This would compel the governments to act in the best interest of their denizens.

Sure there are disadvantages to this, but what are your guys' thoughts?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

The "market" for governments will only exist if each nation that arises out of the USA has a liberal (or lenient, if the word 'liberal' gives you heartburn) immigration policy towards residents of the other nations.

In reality, that will likely not happen. In reality, some parts of the country are significantly more insular (and dare I say, less tolerant) than others.

You'll end up with a fragmented nation, with no real market for governments.

That said, I'd still be for it. I think an eastern seaboard nation from New England to Maryland would do quite well.

[Wei&Shu(Joe) 2]

Back when big bad Bush was POTUS, the Left was all about States' Rights and reducing Federal authority over the States, and even talk of secession, but now that there's a Blue Man in the Big House, secession is treason and anarchy according to the Left.

I think secession isn't really a bad idea. The People would have a nice hedge against the dominant "majority rules"-- the Right could do their thing, and the Left theirs, and the people would cast their vote by choosing which governance to reside under.

Most interesting, it would create a sort of "market" for government. The better government would obviously attract more constituents, while the more hegemonic government would lose constituents, and therefore tax dollars. This would compel the governments to act in the best interest of their denizens.

Sure there are disadvantages to this, but what are your guys' thoughts?

Your kidding, right?

[luckytxn 2,264]

I agree we had a good laugh left when the Socialists didn't get their way and started the succession talk and said go ahead. Now one state has started that talk because of a election coming up for Governor and the left is now crying foul. It is usual with the Socialists though to play the victim card when they are able. Political correctness is a one way street with them and please don't say anything bad about Obama the Socialist or they will bleat loudly like good little sheep.

[mRx 16]

The "market" for governments will only exist if each nation that arises out of the USA has a liberal (or lenient, if the word 'liberal' gives you heartburn) immigration policy towards residents of the other nations.

In reality, that will likely not happen. In reality, some parts of the country are significantly more insular (and dare I say, less tolerant) than others.

You'll end up with a fragmented nation, with no real market for governments.

That said, I'd still be for it. I think an eastern seaboard nation from New England to Maryland would do quite well.

I think the immigration issue wouldn't be too much of a problem, considering each governed territory would probably need it's own currency. And inflation would be very noticable among the individual currencies. Less people, less tax revenue. They'd figure it out.

But I'd still see the necessity of a central government, to solve such disputes amongst states.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

But I'd still see the necessity of a central government, to solve such disputes amongst states.

Why? The eastern seaboard nation can deal with the dixie nation the same way it would deal with France or Mexico. Same mechanisms.

[Niels Bohr 72]

This is what George Washington warned about in his second term when Hamilton (Federalist) and Jefferson (Democrat-Republic = Democrat) was recruiting members into their party.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This is what George Washington warned about in his second term when Hamilton (Federalist) and Jefferson (Democrat-Republic = Democrat) was recruiting members into their party.

George W. knew Matt would start this thread on VJ?

[mRx 16]

But I'd still see the necessity of a central government, to solve such disputes amongst states.

Why? The eastern seaboard nation can deal with the dixie nation the same way it would deal with France or Mexico. Same mechanisms.

Yeah, you're probably right. Also, if there was a central government, they'd try to snatch up central power, just like the first time.