PostHeaderIcon More Secession Ideas

Troy has an interesting piece entitled, “I’m Sorry, So Sorry…,” in which he revisits the idea of breaking America into separate autonomous regions. Only, now he is suggesting it be done by consensus with those advocating different social systems free to choose to live where their preference prevails:

My solution? Let every group have what it wants by dividing the country into several autonomous regions, each free to choose the type of governmental/economic/social system it prefers. For sure, this would cause some dislocations since many would find themselves in a region that does not conform to their preferences. No problem. Leave them free to either:

  • Willingly abide by the decisions of the majority in that region, or,
  • Remove themselves to a different region, more suited to their tastes.

After all, we are a very mobile people.

Such freedom of choice and movement should remain open to any and all for a predetermined period after the division. However, after this period of choice has expired, each region should then be free to establish its own processes and rules for immigration. I suggest this last restriction in the absolute belief that those who choose poorly would soon want to flee to the protection of others who chose more wisely.

Sorry but when one chooses a system, one must choose ALL of that system. After all, would not any and every system be great if we could only choose its best attributes and be immune to its failings?

Is this not a form of the very thinking that has gotten the USA to the state of collapse?

This sounds great to me; but I see a few hidden flaws. Let’s say we break it into three pieces:

  1. A socialist system, where the Politically Correct activists regulate moral behavior.
  2. A corporatist system, where the Piously Correct activists regulate moral behavior.
  3. A laissez faire capitalist system, where individual moral behavior is unregulated.

It would seem to me that few businesses that actually produced wealth would wish to stay in the socialist paradise (1), and would move to (3) where I would be. This would devastate the welfare state, for lack of a source of funds to redistribute to all the lazy whiners demanding their benefits. This might cause them to wish to invade (3) to re-enslave some producers.

Then, both (1) and (2) would require heavy enforcement mechanisms to force their citizens to “do the right thing.” This would drive all the dopers and criminals into (3) where they wouldn’t have enforcers breathing down their necks every moment of the day. This would force the cooperative citizens of (3) to hire more cops than they would otherwise need, and penal facilities that they probably had not planned for.

I am willing to kick the idea around; but it seems fraught with a lot of unintended consequences, and I suspect it would evolve into civil war eventually anyway. ◄Dave►

4 Responses to “More Secession Ideas”

  • Troy says:

    In my mind, the fact that systems 1 and 2 would eventually fail is a given. That they would generate the wherewithal to overwhelm system 3 is another matter. I think they would cling to their nonsense systems so long as to render them virtually helpless.

    I also think it is a given that the several systems would eventually end up as one again.

    If you remember from our previous discussions, what I really advocate most is educating the population. Not training them for a job, actually educating them. I can think of no better way to expose the fools to a healthy dose of reality than to let them try to live in their fantasy worlds for a while.

    I also assume that the people in system 3 would impose strict and meaningful rules on the survivors of systems 1 and 2 when they let them back in.

    As to the notion of civil war… does my idea offer a shorter path to that than the path we are currently on?

  • What we really need to do is decentralize, not secede.

    At the global level we need a government regulating things like nuclear weapons and large scale environmental damage.

    At the national level we need things like the constitution, enough military organization to not be picked off a state at a time, and some form of approved currency to ease trade.

    On the state level we should put most of what the federal government does now. Continue this shift on down through county and city.

    I think it is incorrect that the locale with the most corporatism would take all the business. I live in an interesting city. In the past 15 years, I’ve only seen one business that was not locally owned come into the city. It was a Taco Bell. They posted a guard there 24 hours a day. They left within six months after all of the damage done to the building by the populace.

    Corporations don’t hold any power not given to them by their customers. The socialists would tariff them, and the laissez faire would reject them. All three would adapt to new business models with varying strengths and weaknesses. It wouldn’t really be three groups of course, it would be a thousand grey areas in between.

  • Troy says:

    Even though I did not state as much, I assumed my “autonomous regions” would still exist as a commonwealth for those areas where it makes sense (such as a combined military to fight off common foes). Why there needs to be a constitution, a taxing authority, or a voting system at the commonwealth level is beyond me. Indeed, I would not want that, especially the taxing part. How then, you ask, is it to be funded? By voluntary contributions from the autonomous regions, each of which should own (and command) its own military, much as was done in colonial times. And, the rule that one gets what one is willing to pay for should apply.

    I don’t propose that the region with the most corporatism would dominate (not even sure what that means). What I do propose is that the region with the most freedom, for individuals and the marketplace, would tend to flourish while those with the least would tend to wither. But, don’t take my word for it – just review a bit of history.

    The last thing we need is a federal power that regulates anything.

  • So what is the ideal size of a governing body?

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links
Other Sandboxes
T-Speak

Please also join us here. ◄Dave►