5 ms·

An American Secession? It’s Not That Far-Fetched

6 points by hncurious 5y ago

jschveibinz 5y ago
Ah, these articles make for great entertainment. Now for the facts: 1. The federal government is California’s largest industry like most states, with about 2.5 million employees 2. California is strategically important to U.S. security. The U.S. military directly owns or controls a significant portion of the southern California coastline. On top of that, the defense department uses central California for military testing and the federal government in general owns or controls much of the mountainous areas in the north and east (Note: that’s where the water comes from) 3. Texas is home to the 2 largest Army posts, many of the U.S. largest defense contractors, and the U.S. space industry. All of it is dependent on federal spending. 4. Texas is part of the U.S. breadbasket, and is a major global energy supplier. In short, neither Texas nor California can secede from the U.S. without an immediate and overwhelming federal response. They are both way too valuable to the health and security of the country. It would be over before it started.
- nomorecommas 5y ago
  Did you intend these to be read as arguments in favor of secession? Because that's how I read them.
- syki 5y ago
  It is possible that they can succeed without such a response. There are examples in history where regions are given the opportunity to secede if they vote to do so and have done so peacefully. There are also examples where regions have been forced to remain within a country. We don’t know that the federal government would necessarily have the will or mandate to use force to keep a state within the union. It depends on the circumstances and political climate. What is clear is that the Union is fragile and imbalances in governance are unsustainable. The 50 Democratic senators represent far more people than the Republican senators.
- pezzana 5y ago
  > The federal government is California’s largest industry like most states, with about 2.5 million employees What's your source?
- jschveibinz 5y ago
  Source: https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/this-is-how-many-people-work-for-the-government-in-california/article_9e0ed820-7fd2-5593-b548-a06c6967bab3.html https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/this-is-how-many-...
joelbondurant 5y ago
[dead]
chiefalchemist 5y ago
The solution is simple and not at all new...stop making the structure so top heavy. The infatuation with making the Federal gov larger and larger, more and more powerful...is great for corporations and corruption...but increasingly it sucks for the rest of us. Centralization was effective to get out of the Great Depression. It was again effective post WW II when economies of scale worked well. But now? We're a long way from that. We need agility and flexibility. Trying to force feed the square peg of 20th Century one size fits all into 21st Century dynamics round hole isn't working. I'm not suggesting the fed gov be dissolved. Only that we stop overlying on it and stop feeding it (i.e., taxes).
- nomorecommas 5y ago
  > I'm not suggesting the fed gov be dissolved. Why not though?
  - chiefalchemist 5y ago
    Because it is a union. And there are things (e.g., a reasonable defense) that make sense. The idea is relatively sound. But the current execution is 20+ yrs out of style.
    - nomorecommas 5y ago
      I used to think like that too. See you in 20 years or so, if the "union" lasts that long.
      - chiefalchemist 5y ago
        It might not. And perhaps that's the intention? That is, we see what is not working, and we double down again and again on that same dysfunctional "solution". On top of that the nature of the context has changed. The 20th Century was about efficiency and massive scale. On the other hand, the 21st Century requires iteration and agility. Yet we insist on using a 20th Century tool for a 21st Century job. That's not working. But, again, perhaps that's the intention. The Union weakens. Central command gets stronger. And our basic rights and liberty disolve - slowly but surely.

6 points by hncurious 5y ago

Ah, these articles make for great entertainment. Now for the facts: 1. The federal government is California’s largest industry like most states, with about 2.5 million employees 2. California is strategically important to U.S. security. The U.S. military directly owns or controls a significant portion of the southern California coastline. On top of that, the defense department uses central California for military testing and the federal government in general owns or controls much of the mountainous areas in the north and east (Note: that’s where the water comes from) 3. Texas is home to the 2 largest Army posts, many of the U.S. largest defense contractors, and the U.S. space industry. All of it is dependent on federal spending. 4. Texas is part of the U.S. breadbasket, and is a major global energy supplier. In short, neither Texas nor California can secede from the U.S. without an immediate and overwhelming federal response. They are both way too valuable to the health and security of the country. It would be over before it started.

nomorecommas 5y ago
Did you intend these to be read as arguments in favor of secession? Because that's how I read them.
syki 5y ago
It is possible that they can succeed without such a response. There are examples in history where regions are given the opportunity to secede if they vote to do so and have done so peacefully. There are also examples where regions have been forced to remain within a country. We don’t know that the federal government would necessarily have the will or mandate to use force to keep a state within the union. It depends on the circumstances and political climate. What is clear is that the Union is fragile and imbalances in governance are unsustainable. The 50 Democratic senators represent far more people than the Republican senators.
pezzana 5y ago
> The federal government is California’s largest industry like most states, with about 2.5 million employees What's your source?
jschveibinz 5y ago
Source: https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/this-is-how-many-people-work-for-the-government-in-california/article_9e0ed820-7fd2-5593-b548-a06c6967bab3.html https://www.thecentersquare.com/california/this-is-how-many-...

joelbondurant 5y ago

[dead]

chiefalchemist 5y ago

The solution is simple and not at all new...stop making the structure so top heavy. The infatuation with making the Federal gov larger and larger, more and more powerful...is great for corporations and corruption...but increasingly it sucks for the rest of us. Centralization was effective to get out of the Great Depression. It was again effective post WW II when economies of scale worked well. But now? We're a long way from that. We need agility and flexibility. Trying to force feed the square peg of 20th Century one size fits all into 21st Century dynamics round hole isn't working. I'm not suggesting the fed gov be dissolved. Only that we stop overlying on it and stop feeding it (i.e., taxes).

nomorecommas 5y ago
> I'm not suggesting the fed gov be dissolved. Why not though?
- chiefalchemist 5y ago
  Because it is a union. And there are things (e.g., a reasonable defense) that make sense. The idea is relatively sound. But the current execution is 20+ yrs out of style.
  - nomorecommas 5y ago
    I used to think like that too. See you in 20 years or so, if the "union" lasts that long.
    - chiefalchemist 5y ago
      It might not. And perhaps that's the intention? That is, we see what is not working, and we double down again and again on that same dysfunctional "solution". On top of that the nature of the context has changed. The 20th Century was about efficiency and massive scale. On the other hand, the 21st Century requires iteration and agility. Yet we insist on using a 20th Century tool for a 21st Century job. That's not working. But, again, perhaps that's the intention. The Union weakens. Central command gets stronger. And our basic rights and liberty disolve - slowly but surely.