Thread: California Republic

California secession hasn't happened, and it is not going to. There is no way the federal government will let a state secede without a war, and California doesn't want that.

I mean we could just stick it on a petition and vote for it. I bet Californians would. And the rest of the U.S. needs CA more than CA needs the U.S. San Francisco and LA raise a pretty significant amount of revenue. As it is, we're kind of held back by the rest of the nation. We generate the most revenue and contribute the most for the country, but then it takes 5 california voters to match one voter from Wyoming because of a disproportionate elector distribution.

I'm not sure if I support a secession, but I do support talking about, even threatening one. We've been politically disempowered, and we have a lot of weight to swing around. It's time we started leveraging for some demands.

Here's a thought: normally California wouldn't be permitted to secede, but the party in power -- and the extreme right wing minority that currently controls it -- holds an almost historic disregard for the state ... they seem to already feel that California isn't part of the union. This might be the one perfect moment, politically, where secession might succeed... which would, of course, be very bad for the U.S., perhaps even existentially bad, because if CA leaves, other "donor" states, like NY, might follow suit fairly quickly.

So who knows? A secession vote right now might yield truly unique results; if anything, such a vote might make for an nteresting first crisis for the Trump Presidency.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Here's a thought: normally California wouldn't be permitted to secede, but the party in power -- and the extreme right wing minority that currently controls it -- holds an almost historic disregard for the state ... they seem to already feel that California isn't part of the union. This might be the one perfect moment, politically, where secession might succeed... which would, of course, be very bad for the U.S., perhaps even existentially bad, because if CA leaves, other "donor" states, like NY, might follow suit fairly quickly.

So who knows? A secession vote right now might yield truly unique results; if anything, such a vote might make for an nteresting first crisis for the Trump Presidency.

Legislatures and the state senate would never dare on their own, so we'll have to wait until at least 2018 to get it on the ballot. By that time, it would likely be the Trump administration's 14th crisis. Besides that, I agree. It would allow Californians to put their money where their mouth is regarding actually resisting Trump rather than putting up token resistance like that silly TV boycott on inauguration night.

I also agree that it would likely cause a domino effect with the pacific northwest and new england following suit. There would also be very little way to stop it. The U.S. cannot afford another civil war. Their position as a global super power is precarious as it is. They cannot simultaneously continue to amass troops on the Russian border while also engaging in a domestic conflict. The state of North Dakota practically bankrupted itself on a few thousand natives protecting our drinking water.

I don't want California to secede. I love the whole USA. This is just my way of saying "He is not my prez".

C'mon it'll be fun. We can start a new country with beer and hookers.

[inflammatory mode on]

California seceding would be great! And it would follow the trend from Europe towards countries and regions loosening their ties with whatever is binding them (Brexit, and other exits from the EU to come, and the moves towards secession of Catalonia, and Northern Italy, and Scotland, and the inevitable Belgian split-up).

Just think of a North America consisting of dozens of independent nations. And it might not stop there: counties could secede from their states, and cities from their counties, and so on. That would actually be a move towards a truly free world, where the distance from the ruler to the ruled could be made arbitrarily small - and hence less oppression would result.

But who are we kidding. The US Civil War was fought to prevent states seceding, and it would surely be brought on again, should any state, let alone counties, choose to secede. The USA is inherently dictatorial and oppressive - and perpetually in denial about it (the word "democracy" has a great deal of responsibility for that denial).

[inflammatory mode off]

Originally Posted by Voldmer

[inflammatory mode on]
But who are we kidding. The US Civil War was fought to prevent states seceding, and it would surely be brought on again, should any state, let alone counties, choose to secede. The USA is inherently dictatorial and oppressive - and perpetually in denial about it (the word "democracy" has a great deal of responsibility for that denial).

Wow... is that opinion prevalent in your country? If so, then the misinformation industry must be alive and well over there.

Sure, we do some amazingly bad or stupid things (a symptom of an actual democracy, BTW) but the U.S. is decidedly not dictatorial or oppressive on a national scale, and its system of laws and democracy is absolutely, even literally (considering the Constitution and Declaration of Independence) not inherently dictatorial and oppressive. Yes, the vote is suppressed occasionally, in just a few southern states, and we've got an eternal problem with race relations, and the right wing media loves to complain and propagandize (to their own profit) about losing their freedoms, but we're among the freest nations on earth, if not the most free.

In fact, it's the other way around. Our system of capitalist democracy has taken us so far from dictatorship that nobody is in charge, and people are so free to do and say what they wish, that our government has been in a state of barely controlled chaos for decades (since the 1970's, when -- again contrary to the right wing rewrite machine -- the last real vestiges of federal overreach vaporized). If nothing else, oppressive dictatorships are very orderly places, and the United states is by no means orderly!

Oh, and we're actually not officially a democracy, BTW, but a republic (which explains why the electoral college exists), so at least your note about our misuse of the word "democracy" has merit; except you may have that backward as well: our obsession with democracy -- i.e., with polls, with doing exactly what the voters want rather than what is right, our congressmen spending their entire terms campaigning rather than governing, etc -- has eclipsed any notion of that republic, any notion of representatives working together to what is right for the nation, rather than for their re-election bids. So the word "democracy," in its elevation to preeminence in our political lexicon, has indeed dome some real damage; only not from denial, but from misuse. For instance, Bush's adventure in Iraq was more a result of playing with democracy than anything else -- his people convinced (aka, terrified) the voters to a point where Congress was obliged to allow Bush his invasion (that same propaganda engine was very helpful in getting Trump elected, BTW).

Now, I may be in denial Voldmer, like I guess all 320 million of us would necessarily have to be, but I don't think so. I like to think I've kept my eyes open and have done my best to wade toward the truth through the propaganda and internet garbage that has fueled the current misconceptions about this country -- from both sides. If I'm in denial, I am doing it based on actual facts, history, and experience (I, for instance, am not oppressed and my life choices are my own), so if I'm denying, I can back those denials with truth.

The ascension of Trump to the presidency will be the first real test of our system since the Nixon administration in the '70's. Hopefully that system will survive him, and I won't be taking back my words -- or saying something like "As of January 2017 we were not dictatorial or oppressive" -- but I'm still betting on the system and the people who are responsible for it (all of its citizens)... it's going to be a challenge, though.

[Inflammatory mode off]

There are pros and cons to actually seceding, but the pros to threatening a secession heavily outweigh the cons. Granted, much like Brexit, there is the off-chance of our bluff being called, in which case we may actually be forced to follow through with it.

And while I agree that the gap between "ruler" and "ruled" or rather citizen and representative should be small, the world is large and people should have collective input on a large scale as well as a small. In the past, I've advocated to restructure government so we elect local representatives to elect county/city reps to elect state reps to elect national reps to elect global reps. This bottom up style of republic would solve a lot of systemic issues with democracy being a dictatorship by the majority, and solve some of its propaganda problems, but that's a tangent for a different thread. Going back on topic, oligarchs, banking cartels, international corporations, etc, actually prefer a planet with divided political systems. They can exploit policy differences to play different governments against each other and get themselves the best tax havens, lowest wages, etc. But they like these countries to remain economically dependent on each other.

Hypothetically, if California actually seceded, it could be a disaster. Congress would go full retard, stagnant wages combined with inflation would cause living conditions in the rest of the country to plummet to third world levels, everything would get privatized, environmental devastation would accelerate. I think Californians should actually attempt to secede in the opposite way, not be excluding ourselves from policy decisions, but by obtaining monetary sovereignty, by forming a dual-economy, a secondary currency that only works in California for things grown and produced in the state itself.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Wow... is that opinion prevalent in your country? If so, then the misinformation industry must be alive and well over there.

Denmark is exactly like the USA in this respect, and also in Denmark does the average person not at all understand that s/he is labouring under a dictatorial system. Incidentally, if you think I am US-bashing, you misunderstood me. What I say about the US here goes for virtually every western nation.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Sure, we do some amazingly bad or stupid things (a symptom of an actual democracy, BTW) but the U.S. is decidedly not dictatorial or oppressive on a national scale, and its system of laws and democracy is absolutely, even literally (considering the Constitution and Declaration of Independence) not inherently dictatorial and oppressive. Yes, the vote is suppressed occasionally, in just a few southern states, and we've got an eternal problem with race relations, and the right wing media loves to complain and propagandize (to their own profit) about losing their freedoms, but we're among the freest nations on earth, if not the most free.

I believe the Declaration of Independence is rather good, but the constitution is obviously not, since it stipulates a formal system of oppression - albeit a rather "nice" one with certain "rights" for the ruled; i.e. certain limitations to the oppression. I agree that the USA is one of the freest nations on Earth, but that does not mean it is not dictatorial.

Originally Posted by Sageous

In fact, it's the other way around. Our system of capitalist democracy has taken us so far from dictatorship that nobody is in charge, and people are so free to do and say what they wish, that our government has been in a state of barely controlled chaos for decades (since the 1970's, when -- again contrary to the right wing rewrite machine -- the last real vestiges of federal overreach vaporized). If nothing else, oppressive dictatorships are very orderly places, and the United states is by no means orderly!

Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of the move from a one-person-is-the-ruler-of-all dictatorship towards the capitalist democracy, which the US is. But, apparently unlike you, I realise that dictatorships come in many flavours.

You are clearly held in a safe grasp by the same belief that most other people in the world are held by: the belief that a democracy by its very nature cannot be a dictatorship. You see no dictatorship, because the people in power can be (and often are) thrown out in favour of others - at the hands of the majority of the people (actually: voters). However, the system itself is the dictator, and this system is NEVER up for re-election; it wins by default every time (this is something that should be thought about for some time, before being reacted to). Maybe I should spell it out in some further detail: the president may be ousted, but another one will take his/her place. The whole leadership of government may be discarded, but another leadership will automatically enter in its place. There is no way, except for another revolution, to get rid of the institution of government. And it is the government which does the dictation; the government is the dictator.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Oh, and we're actually not officially a democracy, BTW, but a republic

The USA is is a democratic republic, and the states (through their representatives) get to vote on legislation.

Originally Posted by Original Poster

Hypothetically, if California actually seceded, it could be a disaster. Congress would go full retard

If what it has been doing for the past centuries is not full retard, then I don't think I want to see full retard.

Okay, if I understand you correctly, Voldmer, all governments are, by the fact of their existence, dictatorships.

I suppose if you stretched the concept far enough, that could be true; helluva worldview, but true. So that means our civilization can exist either under dictatorships or in a state of anarchy -- curious choice. Since I doubt we're mature enough as a species to survive anarchy, I guess I have to maintain denial and hope we can make do with the dictatorship of a democratic republic.

Originally Posted by Sageous

Okay, if I understand you correctly, Voldmer, all governments are, by the fact of their existence, dictatorships.

Yes, you apparently understood it entirely correctly. I would add, just to prevent confusion, that I don't believe governments necessarily must be dictatorships; at present they just happen to be.

Originally Posted by Sageous

I suppose if you stretched the concept far enough, that could be true; helluva worldview, but true. So that means our civilization can exist either under dictatorships or in a state of anarchy -- curious choice. Since I doubt we're mature enough as a species to survive anarchy, I guess I have to maintain denial and hope we can make do with the dictatorship of a democratic republic.

Fair enough; it's a choice. But let me again add that I would not consider a government dictatorial, if it limited its jurisdiction to the property of its voluntary members. I.e. if the government would let those people alone, who wished to stay ungoverned by it (provided of course that they abstain from transgressing against those, who are voluntarily ruled by the government and therefore fairly and squarely under its protection).

I vote San Antonio secedes from Texas. Austin can maybe join us BUT THATS IT

If Kevin O'Leary becomes Canada's prime minister can British Columbia join as well?