4 ms·

> Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political u

> Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political unanimity. The biggest changes to the system only came after a civil war. > No system is perfect. The founding fathers did as good a job as they could at the time, but no system can work well without fundamental rethinking forever. Why not rethink it, then? I understand that there was a civil war before, but doesn't secession make way more sense now? If only the Democratic states participate, then the necessary consensus to make serious changes (e.g. European-style parliamentary democracy) would be much easier; the Republicans would maybe also tolerate it, given that it would allow them to introduce the laws that they wanted to. How are you going to keep your country together with the way things are currently going?

dragonwriter 4y ago
> I understand that there was a civil war before, but doesn't secession make way more sense now? No, it doesn't. The idea that basic human rights are of subordinate priority to sovereignty and something that we will just agree to disagree on has less currency now than in the 1860s; secession as a means of handling this kind of disagreement made much more sense then than now, and it didn't make a lot then, either.
- heartbeats 4y ago
  So what's the strategy then? To be blunt, it doesn't seem to me like the US and human rights are going to have the best possible relationship in the next 10-20 years. Wouldn't it be better then to cut away from it?
StewardMcOy 4y ago
I basically agree with everything dragonwriter said, but I'd like to add. > How are you going to keep your country together with the way things are currently going? I can't dismiss the possibility that this may come to another civil war, but it would be catastrophic. It's not just that war is bad. The world's largest superpower and nuclear power going to war with itself will end poorly for the entire world. If a civil war between somewhat equal forces breaks out, the sides will not restrain themselves. It's imperative that another civil war is prevented if at all possible. Luckily, I don't think it's inevitable. As divided as we are, all sides still see themselves first and foremost as Americans. Even those who fly Confederate flags virtue signal all the time about how proud they are to be American. This is not Scotland or Catalonia, where there's a distinct national identity. Even those whose identities are wrapped up in the states in which they live still consider themselves foremost American. And that's why, even though some may call to secede from Republican states, I don't think it will go anywhere. We have family and friends in those states. We don't want to abandon them to state governments that will treat them as inferior citizens based on race, sex, etc. It would be like Germany volunteering to be split into east and west following WWII.
- heartbeats 4y ago
  Why would it need a civil war? It could be done peacefully. Grant that people wouldn't want to abandon their friends (on both sides!), but surely nobody would feel it worthwhile to fight a war over people in other states having the right to vote?
  - StewardMcOy 4y ago
    It could not be done peacefully. Any secession in the US will result in civil war. The two possible exceptions to this are Hawaii and Texas, since both have somewhat legitimate, but still legally controversial, justifications for secession. But depending on circumstances, it could be a quick, unbalanced war. The US has the largest, most powerful military in the world, and that's only possible because of the union of all 50 states. The military has a huge interest in keeping the union together, and no group of states can hope to stand up to its might. Active-duty service members from seceding states will not be universally for secession, but you can guarantee nearly every service member from other states will be against it. Even among those who support it, a good number will follow orders to suppress it. In such a scenario, the only defense seceding states have is the threat of nuclear warfare. The case for Scottish independence would be similarly dangerous if Scotland were not willing to abandon their nuclear weapons. US states seceding cannot do the same because they would be immediately conquered by the nuclear states. Speaking of, if secession did succeed, we'd be left with 2 nuclear states antagonistic to each other sharing borders. It would be India-Pakistan, but with many, many more nukes. A bad situation all around. But again, I don't think there's a popular case for secession. It's not like e.g. the people of California hate the people of Tennessee and no longer want to be in a political union with them. There is a lot of hated between political groups, but the borders of that hatred are not state borders. Liberal voters in California hate those running and supporting the government in Tennessee (and vice-versa), but they don't hate the liberal voters in Nashville, Tennessee's capital. The split is mostly urban-rural, not state vs. state. It creates a situation where we may hate those living only a few km away, but sympathize with the plight of our fellow American thousands of km away. And again, a lot of those people are our friends and family. We don't want to just abandon them. > surely nobody would feel it worthwhile to fight a war over people in other states having the right to vote? The US civil war was fought in part by those who felt those being enslaved in other states was an injustice. Modern war is much more catastrophic, but starting civil wars for the rights of our fellow citizens in other states is an American tradition. For all the reasons I hope there won't be war, this is the one thing that makes me fearful another war might start.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> I understand that there was a civil war before, but doesn't secession make way more sense now? No, it doesn't. The idea that basic human rights are of subordinate priority to sovereignty and something that we will just agree to disagree on has less currency now than in the 1860s; secession as a means of handling this kind of disagreement made much more sense then than now, and it didn't make a lot then, either.

heartbeats 4y ago
So what's the strategy then? To be blunt, it doesn't seem to me like the US and human rights are going to have the best possible relationship in the next 10-20 years. Wouldn't it be better then to cut away from it?

StewardMcOy 4y ago

I basically agree with everything dragonwriter said, but I'd like to add. > How are you going to keep your country together with the way things are currently going? I can't dismiss the possibility that this may come to another civil war, but it would be catastrophic. It's not just that war is bad. The world's largest superpower and nuclear power going to war with itself will end poorly for the entire world. If a civil war between somewhat equal forces breaks out, the sides will not restrain themselves. It's imperative that another civil war is prevented if at all possible. Luckily, I don't think it's inevitable. As divided as we are, all sides still see themselves first and foremost as Americans. Even those who fly Confederate flags virtue signal all the time about how proud they are to be American. This is not Scotland or Catalonia, where there's a distinct national identity. Even those whose identities are wrapped up in the states in which they live still consider themselves foremost American. And that's why, even though some may call to secede from Republican states, I don't think it will go anywhere. We have family and friends in those states. We don't want to abandon them to state governments that will treat them as inferior citizens based on race, sex, etc. It would be like Germany volunteering to be split into east and west following WWII.

heartbeats 4y ago
Why would it need a civil war? It could be done peacefully. Grant that people wouldn't want to abandon their friends (on both sides!), but surely nobody would feel it worthwhile to fight a war over people in other states having the right to vote?
- StewardMcOy 4y ago
  It could not be done peacefully. Any secession in the US will result in civil war. The two possible exceptions to this are Hawaii and Texas, since both have somewhat legitimate, but still legally controversial, justifications for secession. But depending on circumstances, it could be a quick, unbalanced war. The US has the largest, most powerful military in the world, and that's only possible because of the union of all 50 states. The military has a huge interest in keeping the union together, and no group of states can hope to stand up to its might. Active-duty service members from seceding states will not be universally for secession, but you can guarantee nearly every service member from other states will be against it. Even among those who support it, a good number will follow orders to suppress it. In such a scenario, the only defense seceding states have is the threat of nuclear warfare. The case for Scottish independence would be similarly dangerous if Scotland were not willing to abandon their nuclear weapons. US states seceding cannot do the same because they would be immediately conquered by the nuclear states. Speaking of, if secession did succeed, we'd be left with 2 nuclear states antagonistic to each other sharing borders. It would be India-Pakistan, but with many, many more nukes. A bad situation all around. But again, I don't think there's a popular case for secession. It's not like e.g. the people of California hate the people of Tennessee and no longer want to be in a political union with them. There is a lot of hated between political groups, but the borders of that hatred are not state borders. Liberal voters in California hate those running and supporting the government in Tennessee (and vice-versa), but they don't hate the liberal voters in Nashville, Tennessee's capital. The split is mostly urban-rural, not state vs. state. It creates a situation where we may hate those living only a few km away, but sympathize with the plight of our fellow American thousands of km away. And again, a lot of those people are our friends and family. We don't want to just abandon them. > surely nobody would feel it worthwhile to fight a war over people in other states having the right to vote? The US civil war was fought in part by those who felt those being enslaved in other states was an injustice. Modern war is much more catastrophic, but starting civil wars for the rights of our fellow citizens in other states is an American tradition. For all the reasons I hope there won't be war, this is the one thing that makes me fearful another war might start.