8 ms·

States cannot legally secede unilaterally, and there's a no chance in hell Congress would approve. Unless you're willing to form a militia against the US Army t

States cannot legally secede unilaterally, and there's a no chance in hell Congress would approve. Unless you're willing to form a militia against the US Army that surely would be sent in--which, ironically for California, is more difficult because of the stricter gun control. (Reason had a great headline yesterday--something like, "Trump's election makes liberals realize appeal of limited government.")

fixxer 10y ago
What about Florida? Can we dump Florida? ;)
- reddytowns 10y ago
  Florida is leaving us anyway. In 2030, the average IQ of what used to be Florida is bound to increase due to all the dolphins and whales swimming about.
nitwit005 10y ago
I'm not sure the law matters all that much. I'm a bit doubtful the modern day US military would be genuinely willing to use violence to retain a state that tried to leave peacefully and democratically. Also, California already has a militia. We just call it the "National Guard" these days.
- relics443 10y ago
  Except the National Guard could be called into federal duty by the president, which would most certainly happen in such a scenario. Additionally, their equipment is federal property, and they have to recompense the federal army for certain fungible items they use.
Hyperborian 10y ago
On the other hand, a very significant number of military bases (packed full of military weapons and equipment) are in California, and thanks to California's out-sized population a major portion of the current active military are native Californians. That's not even taking in to account National Guard units and such. California would take a very significant chunk of the US military with it if it left the union, and there are native Californians (who, if they backed California, could cause many problems) in key positions throughout the rest of the military as well. Form a militia? That's ridiculous. California would be a global military power right out the gate, and a nuclear one at that.
- kinghajj 10y ago
  > California would take a very significant chunk of the US military with it if it left the union Perhaps, but remember militaries train discipline and chain of command for a reason. > a very significant number of military bases (packed full of military weapons and equipment) are in California > California would be a global military power right out the gate, and a nuclear one at that. If there were a serious rebellion, those would be the first targets. Thousands--even tens of thousands--of lost military and civilian lives would be a small price to pay in the US govt's eyes than to let a new nuclear power spring up on its doorstep.
  - Hyperborian 10y ago
    > Perhaps, but remember militaries train discipline and chain of command for a reason. Indeed, and that's why its so significant that Californians make up such a large portion of the military. They bring that modern world class military training with them. Without that body of already experienced and trained people, a real military would be essentially impossible for years, even decades. > If there were a serious rebellion, those would be the first targets. Thousands--even tens of thousands--of lost military and civilian lives would be a small price to pay in the US govt's eyes than to let a new nuclear power spring up on its doorstep. If it actually reached that point, Californians would probably be just as ready for that. Regardless, though, my point was that it's not so cut and dried as was suggested. The scenario would not be the full might of the US military against defenseless California, it would in essence be a gutted US military in total disarray against a cobbled together smaller portion of the US military.
    - relics443 10y ago
      Do you actually think that active duty service members would secede along with their home state? Or that the military would allow it?
      - Hyperborian 10y ago
        Ah, yes, if only the British had responded to the American rebellion by "not allowing it", then the US would have never existed. That sounds reasonable.
flukus 10y ago
Most secessionist movements don't have a legal path to do it, that doesn't mean they have to be done violently.
wahern 10y ago
Republicans would be happy to see California leave, as it would ensure their control of the House of Representatives for the foreseeable future; maybe the presidency. They'd probably even agree to a sweet-heart free-trade deal. And I don't think people appreciate how deep the disdain is in many parts of the country for liberal, Democratic politics in general, and California in particular. New England and some Midwestern states would fight it tooth and nail as it would leave them, culturally and politically, with substantially diminished power. America was always an uneasy balance between the North's industrial and merchant ethos and the Southern plantation culture that emphasizes fixed social identity. The problem is that as income inequality, immobility, and non-European immigration has grown, the Southern plantation culture is predominating. It's even infected the more progressive Northern culture by emphasizing identity politics. Race doesn't "exist", but racism exists, and it's easier to conceptualize and identify racism by classifying people according to "race", such that both perpetrators and victims will naturally self-classify. Likewise, as overt prejudice against various groups has moved into the public sphere in a way that permits it to be challenged, self-classification has grown stronger. Identity politics has always existed, but in Northern political culture it was much less consequential and more fluid. Change came fast and there was less time for pathological patterns to set in. In plantation culture social identity is more fundamental to how power is structured, brokered, and perceived; and obsession with avoiding change means pathological patterns are more likely to set in. This is why, despite racism towards blacks being alive and well in the North, Northerners have historically be more accommodating to power sharing; whereas in the Deep South despite blacks nearing 40% in some states they're still grossly disenfranchised politically, not just economically. This election is further proof that Southern political culture is spreading like a virus. In most of the U.S. identity is used to exclude and antagonize; in California identity is still largely an inclusive concept (i.e. diversity is still largely seen as an empowering phenomenon, even by poor whites, or at worst a neutral phenomenon). I'd rather not wait to see California go the way of much of the rest of the country. I grew up in the Deep South, and have lived and worked in the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and Chicagoland. I'd be happy to see California secede (with my family along with it), especially if both Oregon and Washington came along for the ride given the strong economic, legal, and political similarities. Though, that's even more unlikely than California seceding alone. My only hesitation would be leaving behind some other Northern states. The South and rural areas would be almost universally ecstatic to see California go, at least in the abstract. (Some rural white Californians notwithstanding.) I'm also not oblivious to the fact that the current movement, such as it is, is a peculiarly techie phenomenon and a product of a particular tech-focused worldview I do not share despite my career. But I've thought for years that a California secession would make a ton of sense politically and culturally. The first time I came out here over 15 years ago it felt like a different country; it still feels that way.

fixxer 10y ago

What about Florida? Can we dump Florida? ;)

reddytowns 10y ago
Florida is leaving us anyway. In 2030, the average IQ of what used to be Florida is bound to increase due to all the dolphins and whales swimming about.

nitwit005 10y ago

I'm not sure the law matters all that much. I'm a bit doubtful the modern day US military would be genuinely willing to use violence to retain a state that tried to leave peacefully and democratically. Also, California already has a militia. We just call it the "National Guard" these days.

relics443 10y ago
Except the National Guard could be called into federal duty by the president, which would most certainly happen in such a scenario. Additionally, their equipment is federal property, and they have to recompense the federal army for certain fungible items they use.

Hyperborian 10y ago

On the other hand, a very significant number of military bases (packed full of military weapons and equipment) are in California, and thanks to California's out-sized population a major portion of the current active military are native Californians. That's not even taking in to account National Guard units and such. California would take a very significant chunk of the US military with it if it left the union, and there are native Californians (who, if they backed California, could cause many problems) in key positions throughout the rest of the military as well. Form a militia? That's ridiculous. California would be a global military power right out the gate, and a nuclear one at that.

kinghajj 10y ago
> California would take a very significant chunk of the US military with it if it left the union Perhaps, but remember militaries train discipline and chain of command for a reason. > a very significant number of military bases (packed full of military weapons and equipment) are in California > California would be a global military power right out the gate, and a nuclear one at that. If there were a serious rebellion, those would be the first targets. Thousands--even tens of thousands--of lost military and civilian lives would be a small price to pay in the US govt's eyes than to let a new nuclear power spring up on its doorstep.
- Hyperborian 10y ago
  > Perhaps, but remember militaries train discipline and chain of command for a reason. Indeed, and that's why its so significant that Californians make up such a large portion of the military. They bring that modern world class military training with them. Without that body of already experienced and trained people, a real military would be essentially impossible for years, even decades. > If there were a serious rebellion, those would be the first targets. Thousands--even tens of thousands--of lost military and civilian lives would be a small price to pay in the US govt's eyes than to let a new nuclear power spring up on its doorstep. If it actually reached that point, Californians would probably be just as ready for that. Regardless, though, my point was that it's not so cut and dried as was suggested. The scenario would not be the full might of the US military against defenseless California, it would in essence be a gutted US military in total disarray against a cobbled together smaller portion of the US military.
  - relics443 10y ago
    Do you actually think that active duty service members would secede along with their home state? Or that the military would allow it?
    - Hyperborian 10y ago
      Ah, yes, if only the British had responded to the American rebellion by "not allowing it", then the US would have never existed. That sounds reasonable.

flukus 10y ago

Most secessionist movements don't have a legal path to do it, that doesn't mean they have to be done violently.

wahern 10y ago

Republicans would be happy to see California leave, as it would ensure their control of the House of Representatives for the foreseeable future; maybe the presidency. They'd probably even agree to a sweet-heart free-trade deal. And I don't think people appreciate how deep the disdain is in many parts of the country for liberal, Democratic politics in general, and California in particular. New England and some Midwestern states would fight it tooth and nail as it would leave them, culturally and politically, with substantially diminished power. America was always an uneasy balance between the North's industrial and merchant ethos and the Southern plantation culture that emphasizes fixed social identity. The problem is that as income inequality, immobility, and non-European immigration has grown, the Southern plantation culture is predominating. It's even infected the more progressive Northern culture by emphasizing identity politics. Race doesn't "exist", but racism exists, and it's easier to conceptualize and identify racism by classifying people according to "race", such that both perpetrators and victims will naturally self-classify. Likewise, as overt prejudice against various groups has moved into the public sphere in a way that permits it to be challenged, self-classification has grown stronger. Identity politics has always existed, but in Northern political culture it was much less consequential and more fluid. Change came fast and there was less time for pathological patterns to set in. In plantation culture social identity is more fundamental to how power is structured, brokered, and perceived; and obsession with avoiding change means pathological patterns are more likely to set in. This is why, despite racism towards blacks being alive and well in the North, Northerners have historically be more accommodating to power sharing; whereas in the Deep South despite blacks nearing 40% in some states they're still grossly disenfranchised politically, not just economically. This election is further proof that Southern political culture is spreading like a virus. In most of the U.S. identity is used to exclude and antagonize; in California identity is still largely an inclusive concept (i.e. diversity is still largely seen as an empowering phenomenon, even by poor whites, or at worst a neutral phenomenon). I'd rather not wait to see California go the way of much of the rest of the country. I grew up in the Deep South, and have lived and worked in the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and Chicagoland. I'd be happy to see California secede (with my family along with it), especially if both Oregon and Washington came along for the ride given the strong economic, legal, and political similarities. Though, that's even more unlikely than California seceding alone. My only hesitation would be leaving behind some other Northern states. The South and rural areas would be almost universally ecstatic to see California go, at least in the abstract. (Some rural white Californians notwithstanding.) I'm also not oblivious to the fact that the current movement, such as it is, is a peculiarly techie phenomenon and a product of a particular tech-focused worldview I do not share despite my career. But I've thought for years that a California secession would make a ton of sense politically and culturally. The first time I came out here over 15 years ago it felt like a different country; it still feels that way.