6 ms·
Secessionists formally launch quest for California's independence
- blackflame7000 10y agoSuccession is the long term solution to a short term problem. The irony of California wanting to be segregated from opposing opinions alone should be alarming enough to send everyones hypocricy meter into a tizzy. These people are exactly who SNL was addressing in their Bubble skit. https://youtu.be/vKOb-kmOgpI https://youtu.be/vKOb-kmOgpI
- flukus 10y agoIs it really a short term problem? For a long time there has been a growing gulf between various regions of the USA. Some of them would probably be much closer to a European style social democracy by now if they were separated.
- stanleydrew 10y ago> The irony of California wanting to be segregated from opposing opinions... This probably isn't the primary drive behind the secession movement. Not wanting to pay federal taxes to a government that you don't feel represents your interests (see the CA popular vote difference for president) is probably more important.
- msandford 10y agoBut I thought the Obama election settled that Texans who wanted to do the exact same thing were racists!
- CalChris 10y agoMore Federal taxes for less Federal spending and substantially less Federal representation. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-states-are-givers-and-which-are-takers/361668/ http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/which-st... Take a look back at the Base Realignment and Closures of the 90s and 2000s. California was gutted. The Bay Area was dotted with bases, pretty much all gone. Mississippi lost one, in 2006. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_Realignment_and_Closure
- blackflame7000 10y agoThis is a good point that I overlooked and I know my home city of San Diego was effected by this as well. However, despite these closings, the Military still contributes greatly to California's economy and that revenue would have to be made up. By the numbers I highly doubt these secessionists are also proponents of defense spending.
- blackflame7000 10y agoIt would be one thing if California had a history of reasonable public finance policy but the argument looses weight when you consider how much money California is wasting on the Crony Express. You can't be the arbiter of fiscal responsibility while simultaneously building the equivalent of the Springfield monorail.
- ardit33 10y agoDo you think High Speed Rail is a stupid idea, or just the implementation is wasteful/corrupt? I am asking this as I am traveling from NYC to Boston via train, and it takes almost 4hrs on a french made train, while if it was in France, it would have taken only 1.5 hrs to 2hrs max. In one thing the US is behind the rest of the developed world, fast train travel is one of them.
- blackflame7000 10y agoThe biggest problem is that the Santa Monica Mountains block the high speed rail from connecting to LA. The closest they can get is Burbank. Having lived in LA for college, I can tell you that the time it takes to get from say Santa Monica to Burbank is often more than it takes to fly to San Francisco from LAX. I'm not kidding. Flight Time: https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=LAX;t=SFO;d=2016-12-06;r=2016-12-10;q=lax+to+san+francisco+flight+time https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=LAX;t=SFO;d=2016-12... Traffic Time from Santa Monica to Burbank alone: https://www.google.com/search?q=santa+monica+to+burbank&btnG= https://www.google.com/search?q=santa+monica+to+burbank&btnG... The plan fully acknowledges this short coming and responds with nothing more than a shoulder shrug to the glaring problem. Now consider the costs of the train compared to that of a flight, when you have factored in LA's terrible public transportation and suddenly flights are clearly more economical. Even worse is that California only has less than 50% of the funding for the project secured and that is without cost overruns. Jerry Brown is hoping to put enough sunk cost into the rail line that we are forced to build the entire thing much to the benefit of the select few land owners in the central california. I'm all for improved public transportation but the whole thing is a giant scam taking advantage of Californians affinity for the environment and ignorance of bond measures.I have yet to hear a convincing argument on why people would take the train when they could be in SF by the time the get to the train station.
- orthecreedence 10y agoYes, those are the stated reasons for the cause, but why is the idea getting so much attention at the moment? My guess is there are a lot of people angry that Trump got elected who are resorting to useless hail-marys like petitioning the electoral college to vote for their candidate or for California to secede. Given a few months, the secession movement will hopefully crawl back into the hole it came out of once the anti-Trump crowd runs out of a bit of steam.
- darawk 10y agoThere is a pretty big difference between not wanting to see opposing opinions and not wanting to be governed by opposing opinions. It makes sense to compose governments from ideologically aligned people. It does not make sense to compose debate about those ideologies from aligned people.
- blackflame7000 10y agoWell the irony is that it is California's own senator, Boxer, pushing to eliminate the Electoral College which was designed for the sole purpose of stopping states like California from dominating the legislative agenda. The fact is that California gets its voice heard so much more than say Nebraska that its hypocritical for California to start complaining in a rare instance where they didn't get their way.
- mehwoot 10y agoThe irony of California wanting to be segregated from opposing opinions alone should be alarming enough to send everyones hypocricy meter into a tizzy. If you try reading the article before commenting you'll see they've been planning for two years and it's about California not getting back what it pays in Tax.
- nolepointer 10y agoI totally support this. Take Oregon and Washington, too.
- elihu 10y agoThere's about 39 million Californians, about 7 million Washingtonions and about 4 million Oregonians. As an Oregonian, the idea is kind of appealing but I'm not very comfortable with the idea of being politically dominated by California.
- nolepointer 10y ago>I'm not very comfortable with the idea of being politically dominated by California That's how many Americans feel when the presidential election rolls around.
- pizza 10y agoMany Californians feel like their votes are useless in comparison to the number of electoral votes the tiny states get.
- nolepointer 10y agoCalifornia is one of the 50 states and yet the candidate who wins it (obviously a Democrat) is already a fifth of the way to winning the presidency.
- unclenoriega 10y agoI think your phrasing makes this sound worse than it is. The candidate is a 5th of the way toward winning, but has a 10th of the electoral votes. And California has more than a 10th of the US population, so I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make.
- elihu 10y ago...and yet candidates don't usually waste any time or effort campaigning in California or North Dakota because they aren't one of about a dozen persuadable swing states. In one sense the electoral votes per person ratio is a sensible way to measure political clout, but if a state is outright ignored and isn't taking part in the political conversation then that clout isn't translating into meaningful influence.
- trendia 10y agoIf California secedes, it will no longer be in the US' best interest to give them water for free. Who knows what the price will be!
- ohwello 10y agoThey stop giving us water, we stop giving them food. Agriculture is 2% of the state GDP, 20% of the US food supply, and 80% of state water use.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago20% in terms of dollars, perhaps. Not in terms of calories. The rest of the US could live just fine without out-of-season artichokes or whatever. Water is rather more important. You can live a long time on a plain diet (especially if you have vitamins available). Without the water, things in California would get very, very ugly, very, very quickly. ] Also: what are you planning to do if (or maybe "when" would be better) Mexico decides that it wants to take back its former territory (i.e., all of California)?
- ohwello 10y agoEven in drought, California has a lot of water. Imported water is only necessary so long as we irrigate the central valley. We wouldn't need it just for residential use. I think an independent California would have a good relationship with Mexico. Though I'm interested in why you think we wouldn't.
- dllthomas 10y agoDesirable land, no longer defended by the US military, and a fair number of their citizens here. I'm not sure I agree that it'd happen, but I can see some reasons.
- mjfl 10y agoOh no, the US will starve relying on the enormous strip of super fertile land between Texas and Idaho.
- Animats 10y agoNot going to happen. Can't secede. See "American Civil War". But read "Ecotopia" and "Ecotopia Emerging".
- brightball 10y agoI wasn't aware the legality of secession was ever officially ruled on. It was supposed to be part of the Jefferson Davis trial, but that never happened due to the full pardon of the entire south.
- likpok 10y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White Arguably SCOTUS has ruled that you can't secede, and that the South did not in fact secede.
- msandford 10y agoSometimes multiple wars are fought for roughly the same reason. The Scots have rebelled against England more than once, and they may still vote their way out due to brexit. Supposing that people are willing to accept defeat now due to historical reasons is empirically inadvisable.
- krapp 10y agoAny state willing to secede would no longer recognize the authority of the US government, or the Constitution, so that's a moot point. It was treason for the US to secede from Great Britain, but we did it anyway. It's not a question of "can" or "can't," but whether or not a state is willing to fight another civil war.
- koheripbal 10y agoIt's also a question of whether the borders of a state breaking away remain valid. While the cities of LA and SF might support secession, the rural residents occupying the remaining 98% of the actual territory in California would want to stay.
- hyperliner 10y agoFunny thing is that these people were making fun of Texas' efforts a while back.
- msandford 10y agoYes because in-group is in and out-group is out. Remember if the in group wants to do it, it's for the most righteous and pure reasons possible and everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. But if the out group does? It's because of their baser motivations.
- god_bless_texas 10y agoTexas has the resources to do it. We're largely separate from the nationwide power grid, have plenty of petroleum and resources to trade. I'm not a fan of Texas' secession dreams in spite of my username, but considering the basic resources that California lacks I can't imagine their secession being a good idea.
- SwellJoe 10y agoWhat does California lack? I think I can see a pretty good case for either Texas or California to be able to stand alone. (Not that I'm really on board with either secessionist movement, but I've lived in Texas and California, and, both are huge states with huge economies, and they both produce a lot of food and have tons of resources, both natural and human.)
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoOh, good point about the power grid. For years, California has been moving their power plants to other states so that the other states get the pollution. That would come back to bite them if they seceded.
- mwfunk 10y ago"These people"? Who? People who live in California? There's a lot of people who live in California. They have lots of different opinions about lots of things. The LA Times? People who live in LA? People who back Calexit? Who are "these people" of whom you speak? If you find yourself thinking in terms of "these people" and "those people", some propagandist somewhere has defeated you and everyone should feel bad about that.
- jaxomlotus 10y agoYou know I was about to mock this as ridiculous and not worth any media attention, but then I stopped to realize I mocked the notion of a Trump presidency as ridiculous too. I don't think there is any policitcal scenario that can be deemed far-fetched anymore in this alternate timeline we branched into.
- internaut 10y agoIn my 'conspiracy' timeline, Patri Friedman convinced Thiel to back Trump in order to turn California into a seastead. The more you know... It all makes sense now.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- carsongross 10y agoThere is nothing ridiculous about either. Peaceful secession is the only humane way forward and the sooner people starting thinking about it seriously, the better for all of us.
- candiodari 10y agoAnd what if, say, next election, again someone you don't like gets elected ? Bay area secession ?
- carsongross 10y agoOf course any idea can be reduced to absurdity but, as a general concept, I have no problem with city-states and free cities and would be very happy to see them revived as a widespread form of sovereignty.
- ende 10y agoFederalism is a perfectly good system for distributing sovereignty within a shared security arrangement so as to avoid the wars that naturally erupt between perfectly soverign states. Unfortunately we have spent the past 100 years eroding local and state sovereignty by treating national politics as the only place where meaningful government happens. Devolution is a much saner path than sessesion.
- magoghm 10y agoWouldn't it be enough to just make use of the tenth amendment to reduce the scope of the federal government?
- clock_tower 10y agoAs in, "states' rights"? You racist!
- SwellJoe 10y agoWould it? How many pot growers and dispensaries were raided before the Obama administration directed more reserved behavior. The federal government kinda does what it wants, and rarely do the (federal) courts agree with states on where the limits of federal power lie. I'm not saying that's always a bad thing. In Texas, for instance, the federal government knocked down numerous anti-abortion laws as unconstitutional, and I support that federal encroachment on behalf of individuals (because Texas is run by petty tyrants, when it comes to women and minorities). But, I suspect the answer is "no, it wouldn't be enough to just make use of the tenth amendment", particularly when the president is Trump. I doubt anything will be sacred under president Trump. We've entered a new era that is pretty much entirely unpredictable.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoThe Tenth Amendment has been ignored for a very long time. It's not just Trump. The courts have decided that the commerce clause gives the Federal government almost unlimited power. (See Wickard v. Filburn for one of the most outrageous examples.)
- vonnik 10y agoThis is a deeply stupid and un-American idea, which will harm the US and help its enemies while distracting Americans themselves from the work they have to do to take back their country. As campaigns like this occupy our headlines, we are already losing on other fronts: Russia Deploys New Missiles to the Baltic Sea Region http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/21/world/europe/ap-eu-russia-military.html http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/11/21/world/europe/ap-e... We'll see a lot more erosion of our influence over the next few years while Trump's clown car rolls over US civil liberties. We have to focus. Secession is not the answer. Finally, I'd simply point out to the "Yes California" people that large parts of California a) don't want to break away from the US (including but not limited to much of northern and eastern CA) and therefore b) would be perfectly within their rights to secede from the new nation state in an infinity of recursively splintering secessions that will finally be reduced to one dumb guy who cuts off his nose to grant it independence (and to spite his face).
- stanleydrew 10y agoWhen is there ever unanimity behind any separationist movement? Reductio ad absurdum doesn't work too well here. By your logic, the colonies shouldn't have declared independence from Britain since it wasn't unanimous.
- vonnik 10y agoActually, reductio ad absurdum is precisely why self-determination is problematic, because it raises the question of where you draw the line between a nation that initiates its own sovereignty and a bunch of wackos who don't like taxes (all too common in this country). Secessionist movements typically underestimate the costs of separation. Like the UK post-Brexit, no one knows how an independent CA would relate to the rump US. Would it enjoy the free movement of goods, services and people? I doubt it. There is almost no basis to consider Californians as a separate people, which is usually what drives self-determination. I live in CA. We do not share a common language or religion or history distinct from our neighbors.
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago> By your logic, the colonies shouldn't have declared independence from Britain since it wasn't unanimous. And what's wrong with that scenario? It worked perfectly fine for Canada and Australia, without all that violence that became the trade-mark of the new republic.
- spitfire 10y agoSo Cascadia is actually happening? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movement%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_%28independence_movem...
- grizzles 10y agoI doubt that the outrage from Democrats over Trump will be able to sustain the time frame necessary to make this a reality. On the other hand, Republicans have historically been more supportive of secession than democrats. They might have a slim chance by linking up with Republican led secession movements in other states / prospective city states.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- gedy 10y agoI find it ironic that many of the folks who feel this way are also seem to be those who lean (heavily) towards the federal government being the go-to solution for most/all issues. Maybe this is a good reminder that doesn't just apply when the government is aligned with your personal interests and beliefs?
- ende 10y agoExactly. Everybody wants to rule the world, and the minute they can't they want an enclave.
- orthecreedence 10y agoI am a Californian. I do not support secession. I think it's stupid, and the people who support it are short-sighted. The movement got a lot of attention after Trump got elected, which to me, smells of a bunch of whiny babies who are stamping their feet because they didn't get their way (disclosure: I did not vote for Trump, nor am I happy he won). Not only that, but I have a vague recollection of this being tried before. Exactly what makes secessionists think they can build an army large enough to beat the US military? Oh, ok. They want to vote themselves out of the union. Guess what, it doesn't work that way. And the second the US military comes by to put us all back in our place, the people crowing for secession are going to run with their tails between their legs. Also, how are we going to build a militia with all of our strict gun laws?? If our economy is so much bigger and worth more representation than everyone else's, let's quit whining and start flexing that muscle more...many regulations we enact here have the ability to force companies across the nation to adopt them. We have the amount of representation we have because of the US constitution. If that's a problem, either change the constitution or find other ways to exert power. Secession is going to be a lot more expensive in the long run.
- flukus 10y agoSecession does not require war. Look at your northern neighbors, or even several states which broke away from their parent states.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoWho did our northern neighbors secede from? (I presume you mean Canada.) Not from the US. Who did the states that broke away from parent states secede from? Not from the US. Secession from the US may well require war. If not that, it's going to require following a recognized constitutional process (which I'm pretty sure there isn't one). Barring that, it's at least going to require congressional approval, not vetoed by the President. Good luck getting that. California passing a referendum? Yeah, that and $6 will get you coffee at Starbucks.
- flukus 10y ago
- taneq 10y ago> "Is there anything of yours that we could keep as a memento of this visit?" > "Take California." - The Propellerheads ('Take California')
- misnamed 10y agoLet's play this out: CA secedes and suddenly there is no hope of blues winning elections in the US for the foreseeable future. So suddenly CA is a nation surrounded almost entirely by a Republican-run United States with all that goes with that. Sounds like a bad situation for everyone involved.
- flukus 10y agoThe north east would very quickly have their own independence movement.
- niftich 10y agoIntriguing idea. Let's talk logistics. Almost 46% of the land area of the state of California is owned by the US Federal Government through some agency (BLM, National Park Service, DoD, etc) [1], including several key military bases, like Naval Base San Diego, home of the US Pacific Fleet. Furthermore, federally recognized Indian Tribes are domestic dependent nations of the United States and as such tribal authority on Indian land isn't granted by the states in which they appear to be in [2]. The US Government also owns the territorial sea of California further out than 3 nautical miles from the baseline on the shore [3]. These, among others, are issues that would have to be settled. [1] http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf [2] https://books.google.com/books?id=IHKXAAAAMAAJ https://books.google.com/books?id=IHKXAAAAMAAJ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_Lands_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submerged_Lands_Act
- hyperliner 10y agoLet's assume for a second that this could happen. Then, assuming no foreign alliances, the US could simply conquer California back. CA has the largest contingent of military personnel by state (about 190k) but not per capita. The size of the brave population is actually small compared to the population of the free and it's likely most of them will swear allegiance to the US. And it's not like all of the sudden a lot of free people from the large, typically peaceful cities in CA will all of the sudden find the courage to fight. Historically, outside of the military and rural areas, CA is not known to be a land of fighters (like, say, Texans). Source: http://ijr.com/2015/02/251918-data-shows-highest-numbers-united-states-military-come/ http://ijr.com/2015/02/251918-data-shows-highest-numbers-uni... Nomenclature: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner
- throwaway4891a 10y agoThings to consider: - Product safety - Electrical device standards - Radio spectrum allocation - Education - Disaster response - Vices: alcohol, marijuana, tobacco - Medical and medicine research & regulation - Intellectual property - Food inspection / standards - Environmental standards - Chemical safety - Prisons - Courts - Mining - Agriculture - Highways and transportation - Aviation licensing / safety / incident investigation - Defense - Trade deals / bargaining leverage - Bank regulations - Securities regulations - Currency - Military - On and on... Conclusion: pipe-dream