Debate Now I'm Leaving! Who Is With Me?

[Statistikhengst]

Of course. Who would not be interested in creating a state that would reflect what they believe to be the best form of governance?
The only reason to not represent would be that you disagree with the original charter.

So do you agree with the rough outline of a new charter as proposed in the OP? If not, what would you change? That is the purpose of the process of course, to agree on what will go into that new charter.

In general, yes. I would prefer something added to preserve the 14th amendments inclusion of protections to the states level as well for protected rights.
Many of the people here really like to ignore the fact that the founders actually did not create a government that recognized inalienable rights as they were fine with the states violating your rights all day long. I think that protections at all levels of government needs to be hard coded into the government from the start for enumerated rights – we STILL have yet to complete that in this nation.

 

[Foxfyre]

The probability of the government declaring war on the seceding states as it did before is indeed a real possibility. That England declared war on its rebelling American colonies is a reality.

The first American citizens were willing to risk their property and everything they had including their very lives in order to have the freedom to live as they chose.

So part of the debate will almost certainly be whether those of us who are willing to secede are willing to fight for the right to do that? Or have we become such wimps that we are abdicating all power to the existing government and have give up our rights rather than to risk what we have?

 

[FA_Q2]

I am sorry. In your poll, I don't see "pineapple". Maybe there was a software failure??



Now, as to the actual, uhm, declaration of Independence, have you decided if your blessed stretch of territory has enough firepower to defend itself, should the USA not necessarily like seeing Cowtown, Kansas secede?

I move for a Gandhi like resistance – simply refuse to participate until we are allowed our own governance.
Are you ready and willing to obliterate those who are willing to live in peace?

Are you talking about military firepower alone? Or are you including other kinds of passive resistance, like, oh, say, refusing to pay taxes. That sort of thing.

Which of course brings us to the question of whether or not a sovereign country would be allowed to use infrastructure without paying their fair share of the maintenance and repair.

And how about mineral rights and the use of water that belongs to the US?

Just wondering how this would be handled.

When you secede, those ties are dissolved. End of story – the US will have no claim over them. The US would, by extension, not be up keeping anything in the new borders. The new populous would have to pay taxes to the new government to create new infrastructure (and maintain anything that survived the secession). Successfully doing so requires a very large population though. There is little the nation could do if a million people simply refused to be part of America anymore. If it was a thousand there would be a jail cell and new ‘settlers’ in the aria to deal with the problem.

The nature of a hypothetical though is to assume that the secession is successful. You and I know full well that this is not going to happen – that does not detract from the thought experiment that fox has come up with.

PS – thanks for the thread fox – it has been a long time since I had a good discussion with you and I miss some of those old threads

 

[FA_Q2]

dblack interested

 

[FA_Q2]

I am sorry. In your poll, I don't see "pineapple". Maybe there was a software failure??



Now, as to the actual, uhm, declaration of Independence, have you decided if your blessed stretch of territory has enough firepower to defend itself, should the USA not necessarily like seeing Cowtown, Kansas secede?

I move for a Gandhi like resistance – simply refuse to participate until we are allowed our own governance.
Are you ready and willing to obliterate those who are willing to live in peace?

Are you talking about military firepower alone? Or are you including other kinds of passive resistance, like, oh, say, refusing to pay taxes. That sort of thing.

Which of course brings us to the question of whether or not a sovereign country would be allowed to use infrastructure without paying their fair share of the maintenance and repair.

And how about mineral rights and the use of water that belongs to the US?

Just wondering how this would be handled.

When the original revolutionaries seceded from England, they didn't worry about what belonged to England. I suspect a lot of modern revolutionaries would figure they had paid for whatever the new nation would claim as its own.

True. This is usually acheived by war and the spoils of victory.

But the fledgling USA enlisted the help of the Germans and the French in order to separate itself from the Crown of England. Mebbe Mexico could help the Breadbasket States of America.

No, that would be a hostile resistance. The civil war of 200 years ago is not possible if we are talking about a fledging new nation without the destruction of the original.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I do think that if you are planning to secede, it is good to send an Emissary to the former Republic to which you once belonged. Someone with gravitas, someone with Kansas deep in his bones.... someone with... well... I think you can find a name.

Also, in order to spare a nasty and costly war, perhaps a trade between the fledgling Breadbasket States of America (BSA) and the former Republic known as the USA, something like giving us all your brightest and most brilliant and we give you Idaho.

The BasketCase States of America will need more than to just send an emissary. They will need to go with the ability to broker a trade deal and a peace treaty. Now given that the Congress has decided that it can veto trade deals and peace treaties made by the potus you are actually going to need an entire delegation so that you are adequately represented to the members of Congress. Oh, and don't forget the slush fund to pay off the lobbyists, etc.

Just the initial cost of this mission is likely to bankrupt the fledgling BasketCase States of America. Do they have enough in the way of "foreign currency" to purchase the necessary dollars to even afford to say in the DC hotels?

 

[Statistikhengst]

The probability of the government declaring war on the seceding states as it did before is indeed a real possibility. That England declared war on its rebelling American colonies is a reality.

The first American citizens were willing to risk their property and everything they had including their very lives in order to have the freedom to live as they chose.

So part of the debate will almost certainly be whether those of us who are willing to secede are willing to fight for the right to do that? Or have we become such wimps that we are abdicating all power to the existing government and have give up our rights rather than to risk what we have?

Very well put.

I guess we Breakbasketers will just have to decide if it's worth it.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I am sorry. In your poll, I don't see "pineapple". Maybe there was a software failure??



Now, as to the actual, uhm, declaration of Independence, have you decided if your blessed stretch of territory has enough firepower to defend itself, should the USA not necessarily like seeing Cowtown, Kansas secede?

I move for a Gandhi like resistance – simply refuse to participate until we are allowed our own governance.
Are you ready and willing to obliterate those who are willing to live in peace?

Are you talking about military firepower alone? Or are you including other kinds of passive resistance, like, oh, say, refusing to pay taxes. That sort of thing.

Which of course brings us to the question of whether or not a sovereign country would be allowed to use infrastructure without paying their fair share of the maintenance and repair.

And how about mineral rights and the use of water that belongs to the US?

Just wondering how this would be handled.

When you secede, those ties are dissolved. End of story – the US will have no claim over them. The US would, by extension, not be up keeping anything in the new borders. The new populous would have to pay taxes to the new government to create new infrastructure (and maintain anything that survived the secession). Successfully doing so requires a very large population though. There is little the nation could do if a million people simply refused to be part of America anymore. If it was a thousand there would be a jail cell and new ‘settlers’ in the aria to deal with the problem.

The nature of a hypothetical though is to assume that the secession is successful. You and I know full well that this is not going to happen – that does not detract from the thought experiment that fox has come up with.

PS – thanks for the thread fox – it has been a long time since I had a good discussion with you and I miss some of those old threads

Indeed, kudos to Fox for starting a very interesting discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course. Who would not be interested in creating a state that would reflect what they believe to be the best form of governance?
The only reason to not represent would be that you disagree with the original charter.

So do you agree with the rough outline of a new charter as proposed in the OP? If not, what would you change? That is the purpose of the process of course, to agree on what will go into that new charter.

In general, yes. I would prefer something added to preserve the 14th amendments inclusion of protections to the states level as well for protected rights.
Many of the people here really like to ignore the fact that the founders actually did not create a government that recognized inalienable rights as they were fine with the states violating your rights all day long. I think that protections at all levels of government needs to be hard coded into the government from the start for enumerated rights – we STILL have yet to complete that in this nation.

The central government should have no power whatsoever to treat any person, group, entity, demographic, etc. any differently than any other. And it would be charged to be 100% egalitarian and recognize and defend the unalienable rights of all.

But. . . if you do not allow the people to then form whatever sorts of society they wish to have, they have no freedom at all. Freedom must allow the ability to be wrong as well as right, to do it badly if that is the choice. To put the central government in charge of 'right and wrong' and 'good and bad' is to give total power to a tiny minority who may or may not have the best interests of all at heart.

The Founders trusted people given ability to live free to make mistakes but correct them, and to eventually get it right. Do we trust people enough to release them from totalitarian authority?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Will all these tiny parcels be cut off form the outside world? Or do you plan to negotiate contracts with the US in order to have telephone, electricity, cell, etc?

How about clothing and other necessities? Will you negotiate trade contracts to buy from the US or produce everything yourself?

Sorry to be so pragmatic but I'm sure you already have your plans in place.

 

[westwall]

Might I suggest you choose a better tract of land first. You need access to the sea so that your "country" can't be strangled before it even gets a chance to begin.

Yes, indeed, starting landlocked is not exactly the brightest of tactical moves. Somewhere with a nice coastline is prolly good.

I recommend Vancouver.

Not Florida though cuz quite a lot of the shore line will soon be under water.

It will? When?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I do think that if you are planning to secede, it is good to send an Emissary to the former Republic to which you once belonged. Someone with gravitas, someone with Kansas deep in his bones.... someone with... well... I think you can find a name.

Also, in order to spare a nasty and costly war, perhaps a trade between the fledgling Breadbasket States of America (BSA) and the former Republic known as the USA, something like giving us all your brightest and most brilliant and we give you Idaho.

The BasketCase States of America will need more than to just send an emissary. They will need to go with the ability to broker a trade deal and a peace treaty. Now given that the Congress has decided that it can veto trade deals and peace treaties made by the potus you are actually going to need an entire delegation so that you are adequately represented to the members of Congress. Oh, and don't forget the slush fund to pay off the lobbyists, etc.

Just the initial cost of this mission is likely to bankrupt the fledgling BasketCase States of America. Do they have enough in the way of "foreign currency" to purchase the necessary dollars to even afford to say in the DC hotels?

Very true.

All negotiations start with the promise of trading one thing for another. What would the BCSA have to trade to the USA?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I am sorry. In your poll, I don't see "pineapple". Maybe there was a software failure??



Now, as to the actual, uhm, declaration of Independence, have you decided if your blessed stretch of territory has enough firepower to defend itself, should the USA not necessarily like seeing Cowtown, Kansas secede?

I move for a Gandhi like resistance – simply refuse to participate until we are allowed our own governance.
Are you ready and willing to obliterate those who are willing to live in peace?

Are you talking about military firepower alone? Or are you including other kinds of passive resistance, like, oh, say, refusing to pay taxes. That sort of thing.

Which of course brings us to the question of whether or not a sovereign country would be allowed to use infrastructure without paying their fair share of the maintenance and repair.

And how about mineral rights and the use of water that belongs to the US?

Just wondering how this would be handled.

When the original revolutionaries seceded from England, they didn't worry about what belonged to England. I suspect a lot of modern revolutionaries would figure they had paid for whatever the new nation would claim as its own.

True. This is usually acheived by war and the spoils of victory.

But the fledgling USA enlisted the help of the Germans and the French in order to separate itself from the Crown of England. Mebbe Mexico could help the Breadbasket States of America.

Not Mexico. They would lose more than they would gain. Germany and France saw siding with the USA back then as a way to hurt Britain.

So in today's world it is going to be nations like Russia, North Korea and Iran who would offer military assistance to the BasketCase States of America since they already have a beef with the USA.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Might I suggest you choose a better tract of land first. You need access to the sea so that your "country" can't be strangled before it even gets a chance to begin.

Yes, indeed, starting landlocked is not exactly the brightest of tactical moves. Somewhere with a nice coastline is prolly good.

I recommend Vancouver.

Not Florida though cuz quite a lot of the shore line will soon be under water.

It will? When?

Let's stay on topic, shall we?

If you want to discuss climate change, we actually have an Environment Forum for that purpose.

Thanks.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The probability of the government declaring war on the seceding states as it did before is indeed a real possibility. That England declared war on its rebelling American colonies is a reality.

The first American citizens were willing to risk their property and everything they had including their very lives in order to have the freedom to live as they chose.

So part of the debate will almost certainly be whether those of us who are willing to secede are willing to fight for the right to do that? Or have we become such wimps that we are abdicating all power to the existing government and have give up our rights rather than to risk what we have?

Will the secessionists be willing to fight alongside Russians, North Koreans and Iranians against the USA?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I do think that if you are planning to secede, it is good to send an Emissary to the former Republic to which you once belonged. Someone with gravitas, someone with Kansas deep in his bones.... someone with... well... I think you can find a name.

Also, in order to spare a nasty and costly war, perhaps a trade between the fledgling Breadbasket States of America (BSA) and the former Republic known as the USA, something like giving us all your brightest and most brilliant and we give you Idaho.

The BasketCase States of America will need more than to just send an emissary. They will need to go with the ability to broker a trade deal and a peace treaty. Now given that the Congress has decided that it can veto trade deals and peace treaties made by the potus you are actually going to need an entire delegation so that you are adequately represented to the members of Congress. Oh, and don't forget the slush fund to pay off the lobbyists, etc.

Just the initial cost of this mission is likely to bankrupt the fledgling BasketCase States of America. Do they have enough in the way of "foreign currency" to purchase the necessary dollars to even afford to say in the DC hotels?

Very true.

All negotiations start with the promise of trading one thing for another. What would the BCSA have to trade to the USA?

Excellent question. Right now the areas proposed by the OP are all net recipients of Federal tax dollars. They will be starting in a tax hole without those funds right from the outset. Going to be embarrassing for the BCSA to crawl back to the USA begging for a handout given that they just told it where to shove it's Constitution and government.

 

[westwall]

Might I suggest you choose a better tract of land first. You need access to the sea so that your "country" can't be strangled before it even gets a chance to begin.

Yes, indeed, starting landlocked is not exactly the brightest of tactical moves. Somewhere with a nice coastline is prolly good.

I recommend Vancouver.

Not Florida though cuz quite a lot of the shore line will soon be under water.

It will? When?

Let's stay on topic, shall we?

If you want to discuss climate change, we actually have an Environment Forum for that purpose.

Thanks.

Hey bucko, you brought it up not me. Stay on topic yourself.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Of course. Who would not be interested in creating a state that would reflect what they believe to be the best form of governance?
The only reason to not represent would be that you disagree with the original charter.

So do you agree with the rough outline of a new charter as proposed in the OP? If not, what would you change? That is the purpose of the process of course, to agree on what will go into that new charter.

In general, yes. I would prefer something added to preserve the 14th amendments inclusion of protections to the states level as well for protected rights.
Many of the people here really like to ignore the fact that the founders actually did not create a government that recognized inalienable rights as they were fine with the states violating your rights all day long. I think that protections at all levels of government needs to be hard coded into the government from the start for enumerated rights – we STILL have yet to complete that in this nation.

The central government should have no power whatsoever to treat any person, group, entity, demographic, etc. any differently than any other. And it would be charged to be 100% egalitarian and recognize and defend the unalienable rights of all.

But. . . if you do not allow the people to then form whatever sorts of society they wish to have, they have no freedom at all. Freedom must allow the ability to be wrong as well as right, to do it badly if that is the choice. To put the central government in charge of 'right and wrong' and 'good and bad' is to give total power to a tiny minority who may or may not have the best interests of all at heart.

The Founders trusted people given ability to live free to make mistakes but correct them, and to eventually get it right. Do we trust people enough to release them from totalitarian authority?

So, there would be no law enforcement?

How would you stop the strong from preying on the weak? What about the lazy guy down the road who steals from the garden of the industrious neighbor?

Little Red Hen and the Grasshopper v. the Ant come to mind.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I do think that if you are planning to secede, it is good to send an Emissary to the former Republic to which you once belonged. Someone with gravitas, someone with Kansas deep in his bones.... someone with... well... I think you can find a name.

Also, in order to spare a nasty and costly war, perhaps a trade between the fledgling Breadbasket States of America (BSA) and the former Republic known as the USA, something like giving us all your brightest and most brilliant and we give you Idaho.

The BasketCase States of America will need more than to just send an emissary. They will need to go with the ability to broker a trade deal and a peace treaty. Now given that the Congress has decided that it can veto trade deals and peace treaties made by the potus you are actually going to need an entire delegation so that you are adequately represented to the members of Congress. Oh, and don't forget the slush fund to pay off the lobbyists, etc.

Just the initial cost of this mission is likely to bankrupt the fledgling BasketCase States of America. Do they have enough in the way of "foreign currency" to purchase the necessary dollars to even afford to say in the DC hotels?

Very true.

All negotiations start with the promise of trading one thing for another. What would the BCSA have to trade to the USA?

Excellent question. Right now the areas proposed by the OP are all net recipients of Federal tax dollars. They will be starting in a tax hole without those funds right from the outset. Going to be embarrassing for the BCSA to crawl back to the USA begging for a handout given that they just told it where to shove it's Constitution and government.

Which is why we're still supporting Texass and other red states that don't earn their own keep.

Foxfyre? Solutions?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Might I suggest you choose a better tract of land first. You need access to the sea so that your "country" can't be strangled before it even gets a chance to begin.

Yes, indeed, starting landlocked is not exactly the brightest of tactical moves. Somewhere with a nice coastline is prolly good.

I recommend Vancouver.

Not Florida though cuz quite a lot of the shore line will soon be under water.

It will? When?

Let's stay on topic, shall we?

If you want to discuss climate change, we actually have an Environment Forum for that purpose.

Thanks.

Hey bucko, you brought it up not me. Stay on topic yourself.

Nope. I was on topic.

I was talking about appropriate places for these tiny countries.

Water is a necessity but too much or too little and - well, we all know how that would go.

The US would be giving foreign aid and sending CARE packages.