| Would you support states seceding from the Union? |
(04-23-2014, 03:17 PM)The Union of Free Individuals Wrote: I'm sorry to hear that it's only political in nature. I just have to say though, that as an American, I support independence wherever it may be. Would you support one or more states seceding from the USA?
Strolling punster from Canada
Eat o' teh eye pie is teh one!
First member and Procrastinator in Chief of the ice creamists movement
For me it would depend on whether or not they are on the continent, how many goods they provide, and their reasons for secceding.
(Disclaimer: Slavery is, was, and will always be bad. This may seem like an odd thing to say out oft he blue, but I'm going to talk about the American Civil War, and I want this point made abundantly clear, without breaking the flow of what I actually want to say. Furthermore civil rights is good. So is Equal Opportunity, In fact, I would go for just running wildly down the path of equal opportunity, so long as we don't enforce Equal Results, because really, that's basically totalitarian socialism.)
Short answer yes, and I would see such an act as a sign that the country can no longer provide what the states require. Long answer, I'm a Federalist, (go ahead and Google that one, it's an ancient political philosophy, from a more civilized age) and I would far prefer to see the Federal government restore enough rights to the states that they would not feel the need to succeed. This is after all the principle of having a Federal Government, essentially being a strong consortium between independent States. (That's why, what would essentially be provinces in other countries are called states, a word that means nation). Now, before the American Civil War (or The War Between The State, The War of Northern Aggression, The War With The Confederacy, The War of Secession, take your pick from the names), people referred to the U.S. as "The United States Are" and after the Civil War (Et. Al.) people referred to the US as "The United States Is" The difference between the two, being that the importance is placed upon the Federal government, rather then the state governments. To me, this precedence to the federal government is counter to the reason for the American Revolution, which was to throw off the shackles of a centralized government. Anyway that's my two cents, and oooh, holy carp! Politics in the TSP forums!! craaazyyyyy.... (G-E, That was before my time. I apologize if I implied that America supported independence, which, really we haven't for a while now. Our modern foreign policies are hegemonic at best, and draconian at worst.)
"Liberty is the Gate and the Key to Prosperity"
My threads: Philosophers Corner The Ice-creamist Movement for Peaceful Unification of Desserts
Ahhh! A new thread! its so large and has crazy ramblings in it oh wait those are mine.
"Liberty is the Gate and the Key to Prosperity"
My threads: Philosophers Corner The Ice-creamist Movement for Peaceful Unification of Desserts
I replied in the other thread, but I guess I might as well in this one, too. These days the United States actually does seem to support independence to a fault, even if it is to the detriment of a country in question itself. Just look at the Arab Spring. We were willin' to trade in the devil we knew for one that we didn't.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific
(04-25-2014, 12:15 AM)The Union of Free Individuals Wrote: Long answer, I'm a Federalist, (go ahead and Google that one, it's an ancient political philosophy, from a more civilized age). Indeed - it goes back to the Roman foederati, although their system was not federal in the modern sense. I think our views are quite similar. The UK is a working federation, which is in turn part of the EU. The main problem from a Scottish perspective is the dominance within the UK of England, which is by far the largest and most populous of the member states. Since the start of this century we have our own parliament, which has been strengthened once already, and to which the main UK parties are explicitly prepared to allot further powers. I don't think we have adequately explored the possibilities of devolution. Your original reply seemed to indicate that you supported independence regardless of the situation, which if taken to extremes would lead us to a world full of uncoordinated micro nations. That's an interesting model, but given the scale of current human activities, I think we need to be moving in the other direction and searching for an effective world government. I think the Scots have more in common with the rest of the UK than we have cause to differ, so I would like to see the union reformed and moving forward, rather than breaking up.
Strolling punster from Canada
Eat o' teh eye pie is teh one!
First member and Procrastinator in Chief of the ice creamists movement
Ah, so I stand by my claim that I support independence regardless of situation, because I see it as a sign that the government of an area has over burdened their populace. I therefore see wanting to be independent a sign of government error, usually through some manner of totalitarianism. However, I would add that if the reasons for wanting independence were ministered to, thus making it unnecessary, it would no longer be a worthwhile issue. In short, I support independence as at least a bargaining chip against oppressive government, and if it fails to work that way, then it might work by truly seperating a sub state from it's state, so at least if they have an oppressive government then, it will be their own fault, and not forced upon them. Which is basically what independence is, the right to make your own choices, and suffer the consequences of them yourself, without anyone else to blame, no foreign power to sweep in and make it all better, no "Them" to force the fault of your decisions on to, no safety net to catch you when you screw up. And no one to hog the glory when you succeed. No one to say that all you did was because they let you do it. No one to say that you owe everything you have to the king, for everything you are is on his land. In my opinion, modern American society has lost touch with that concept. We drive on government roads, more then half of all employment is for the government, and they are both the number one debtor and lender in the U.S. When we look at that, how can we call ourselves free, when we are totally dependent on the government. It makes me laugh when the Republicans (the American Right Wing Political Party [closest in views to your Tories}) say things like "We have to defend freedom from socialist governments", because we are already a socialist government, and getting more so with every law.
Now on to the topic of world government! Over the years there has been a whole lot of theorizing on how it could work and what form it would take. Lets look at some, and see where they break down, and if their salvageable. Star Trek: The Federation, well, that seems good and simple, the few times that we see earth everyone is happy, there are no reports of humans killing each other or anything else bad... seems perfect, which begs the question, what changed from our time? The answer, is the holy grail of modern science, Free Energy in the form of Warp Cores, an end to poverty and hunger through replicators, unlimited living room through the power of spaceflight and every other planet being exactly like earth because in the future probability will cease to be a thing. Basically an absence of reason for conflict, which is what governments seek to prevent. In short, Pure Fantasy, at least for now. Not Acceptable: Impossible in Modern Times. Well now, all is not lost, there's been lots of other Ideas for Utopic world governments, lets look at a few more. The Communist Manifesto. Didn't expect to see that here did you? But if you have, it's probably because you have read it. Basically its tenets are, people should share everything equally, by force, that this will end hunger and poverty and everyone will live in a land of happy egalitarian bliss forever and ever, the end. Beautiful idea, rubbish in practice. Because you see, the profit drive, the urge to collect is so engrained into human nature that any law meant to stamp it out must be enforced viciously. In reality, you go from happy egalitarianism into brutal police state, pretty much as soon as someone says "What? No! the teeming masses may NOT have all my stuff!". Not Acceptable: Leads to Brutal Police State Totalitarianism. Also, Communism=Bad. If nothing else, the Cold War has engrained this in our political conscience. Still reading? Haven't broken out the torches and pitchforks yet? Alright then! Lets move on to; The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.(By R. A. Heinlein if your interested in some Libertarian Sci-Fi for further reading.) But wait, this one is complicated! for in the book there is not one world order, but two! Lets look first at the one that is less focused upon, really only being mentioned as a backdrop for the story. TMIAHM; Earths Government. Basically, the nations of earth have vested all their rights in the universes equivalent of the UN. Basically now being ruled by moralistic, corrupt busybodies, who have instituted regulations in to everything, setting the entire planet on a 1700 calorie diet, regulating all enterprises, in general being bureaucratic. In fact this seems to be the perfect time to drop a quote, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C. S. Lewis Anyhow, basically the world is run by people who believe so strongly that they are doing right, that they are blinded to any negative consequences of their actions. Not Acceptable: A more subtle tyranny, made by people who are relentless in doing what they think is right. TMISAHM: The post revolution government of the Moon. Founded on total libertarianism, with no public enterprise whatsoever, is a lot like the wild wild west. Seems to work well for about half a generation before succumbing to corruption, and hunger for power leads to the government taking more and more of a role in people lives, leading ultimately to a situation arguably worse then when the Moon was a prison colony, and eerily similar to the Earth Government, albeit with a few more civil liberties then Earth. Not Acceptable: To short term, and too easily corrupted, a government should be a stabilizing force, not a chaotic one. Well, if at first you fail to find a perfect solution with no unintended consequences, try again! 1984. What? It's a world government! Well alright, three world governments in a constant state of war, against both each other in a conventional war, and the class warfare that is the preferred tactic of socialism. Basically, life sucks, the rich are under constant surveillance and the poor are kept passive through drugs and brainwashing. Doublethink is the order of the day, and Uber-Nationalism Reigns Supreme. Oh yeah and your probably gonna be killed by your own country simulating an attack on your city to boost morale. Its that kind of world. Not acceptable: Forever war and a massive state controls everything, stomping on individual freedom, forever. These represent ideas of world government from across the political spectrum, so lets see what we learned. Yipes, that was pretty much all depressing, the only thing that offered a good solution was star trek, and that one's not even possible! Yet! But now, lets think, with this bank of knowledge of the dangers of world governments, lets see if we can craft one that avoids the pitfalls these others have fallen into. First, it must be possible with our modern technology, no magic dilithium polarity reversion, no useful spaceflight, no fantasy. Second, it must be enforceable without resorting to a police state. Third, the government must not have absolute power, or else we'll get "tyranny for our own good". Fourth, the government must be stable, and not succumb to corruption. Fifth, there must not be constant conflict. War or class war must not be sanctioned by a world government. Well now that's a lot of requirements, and I'm sure that you can think of quite a few more, nowadays distopia and utopia novels are a dime a dozen, but I've stuck with these "old" ones, because instead of the modern books, made solely to entertain and sell copies, they all had at their heart the goal of education about the concept of utopia and world government. I think it's about time we listen to all of them, and start thinking about how we can have one world order, without falling to the depths that the societies in these works have. I think the answer is a federation. No not the star trek one, a real federation. Every country, left rule it's own state in peace, with a small, but powerful federal government to resolve disputes between them.
"Liberty is the Gate and the Key to Prosperity"
My threads: Philosophers Corner The Ice-creamist Movement for Peaceful Unification of Desserts
No, I wouldn't. If the US falls, every state will fall as an independent country.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
Probably not every state. Texas and California would probably do reasonably well as independent countries.
The Third Imperium
Journalist, South Pacific Independent News Network (SPINN) Provost, Magisterium Sergeant, East Pacific Sovereign Army Journalist, East Pacific News Service Foreign Affairs Minister, The West Pacific
It is the way of large things to fracture, and small things to unite. We had a good thing going when we were a group of united states, but now that we consider ourselves a single nation, a collapse is inevitable, the question is, will it hold together long enough for us to never see it fall, or are we closer to the precipice of civil war and balkanization then we think. Or will we recognize the folly of a massive central government, and reclaim rights for the people and the states? Only time will tell, and time is a lazy jerk who only moves at one second per second.
"Liberty is the Gate and the Key to Prosperity"
My threads: Philosophers Corner The Ice-creamist Movement for Peaceful Unification of Desserts |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Quotes| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |