#Calexit: Will California secede with Trump win?

[ajax]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli ... /93528334/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Half of the country might be celebrating Donald Trump's victory, but others are talking about seceding from the United States.

Are they being sore losers or opportunists? For some people in California, and other western states that went blue for Hillary Clinton, the road forward is clear: Cut their losses and make a go of it without the rest of the country.

Read the rest by clicking the above link. Secession, nullification are good things. Go for it Cali !

Here's to hoping Trump wouldn't pull a Lincoln and bomb the $hit out of you.

[Silver]

Good-bye and good riddance.

[skmo]

While some might have the reaction of:

Cuckoo.gif (610.08 KiB) Viewed 3932 times

I'm going to be more like:

Sound of music goodbye.jpg (72.34 KiB) Viewed 3932 times

And as I said in the Canada discussion, don't let the door hit you as you go: I'll be slamming it behind you. HARD.

[ajax]

I'd be celebrating, not because I want them to leave, but because it would be a legitimate exercise in local sovereignty.

[Benjamin_LK]

I would say sure, go ahead. Take it all with you. Let us know the big bunch of quitters that you are. It's like those far-right guys threatening secession over Obama getting elected. IDIOTS.

[Durzan]

I'd be celebrating, not because I want them to leave, but because it would be a legitimate exercise in local sovereignty.

True Dat.

[gkearney]

Not likely at all but consider what would happen if they did. First they would likely pull out Oregon and Washington with them as they go. This means the United State would loose its whole west coast and with it direct access to the Pacific Ocean. So you would loose not only the major ports of LA, Long Beach, Oakland, San Fransisco, Portland and Seattle but the major naval installations at San Diego, Alameda, and Bangor, Washington as well. So we are really going to walk away from those kind of resources? I really doubt it.

[bbsion]

I think California will secede by natural disaster. They will exit by earthquake.

[Durzan]

Eh, We still have control over the Panama Canal and Hawaii. Not that big of a deal. Plus, we'd likely make treaties with the newly independent Western Democratic Republic.

[ajax]

Not likely at all but consider what would happen if they did. First they would likely pull out Oregon and Washington with them as they go. This means the United State would loose its whole west coast and with it direct access to the Pacific Ocean. So you would loose not only the major ports of LA, Long Beach, Oakland, San Fransisco, Portland and Seattle but the major naval installations at San Diego, Alameda, and Bangor, Washington as well. So we are really going to walk away from those kind of resources? I really doubt it.

This depends on the attitudes of the people being seceded from. Can they let others go peacefully, or will they fight over resources? Don't see why people couldn't just continue to peacefully cooperate economically.

[SouEu]

I sure hope so. California is a scourge and curse upon the rest of the country.

[markharr]

So now they care about states rights.

[ebenezerarise]

Never gonna happen. That means everyone in California would have to get a job.

[markharr]

[Robin Hood]

Is it not the case that the only state which has the explicit right to secede is Texas?

[Serragon]

Not likely at all but consider what would happen if they did. First they would likely pull out Oregon and Washington with them as they go. This means the United State would loose its whole west coast and with it direct access to the Pacific Ocean. So you would loose not only the major ports of LA, Long Beach, Oakland, San Fransisco, Portland and Seattle but the major naval installations at San Diego, Alameda, and Bangor, Washington as well. So we are really going to walk away from those kind of resources? I really doubt it.

This depends on the attitudes of the people being seceded from. Can they let others go peacefully, or will they fight over resources? Don't see why people couldn't just continue to peacefully cooperate economically.

Would these states be willing to let counties secede from them as well? There would be many counties that would remain part of the US. Essentially it would be the urban centers seceding while the rest of the states remained.

[ajax]

I don't see why not. There are many examples of independent city states in history.

[ajax]

Secession Is a Solution for Deep Political Division
https://fee.org/articles/secession-is-a ... -division/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sometimes in a relationship you just need to go your separate ways. Sometimes it gets to the point where you lose the joy that brought you together and maintaining the relationship becomes a hellish ordeal. If you try to duke it out for too long resentment builds. Resentment will eventually turn to hate. At this point, when just sheer momentum is holding you together and nothing more, all you experience is pain.

It’s not you, it’s me.

This situation is as true for romantic relationships as it is for all others. But the most enduring relationship, one that conventional wisdom doesn’t even allow us to question, is the political one that binds us to everyone else around us.

Except by great effort and expense, we don’t typically get to choose our partners in a political relationship. We are born into it. There’s no courtship, no taking into account of our personal preferences. It just is.

And like a romantic relationship gone sour, this forced betrothal to the hundreds of millions around us is the principal cause of society’s problems. Unable to go our separate ways from people we don’t like or who we don’t agree with, resentment builds. And as we see particularly with the current election, that resentment eventually turns into hate.

It is surprising how civil people are to one another when they are not bound to them.

The market is a prime example of this. With people free to interact socially or economically, or not, with those around them we see a relatively peaceful, civil, and courteous environment. If I don’t like you or the way you do business then I don’t have to associate with you (modern “civil rights” laws notwithstanding). We’re polite to each other (hopefully), we part ways, and we go back to being happy.

Contrast this with politics.

Why One Ruler for All?

Political ideas often go right to the core of people. Many hold their political ideas as a key part of their identity and as such they are extremely important to them. But in politics you are prevented from solely interacting with, and building a community with people who have similar values and political ideas. We are forced to hear and live under ideas that we may find repulsive or even inhuman.

The slavers were forced to live under the same roof as the abolitionists, the pro-lifers with the pro-choicers, the Left with the Right, the Trump crazies with the Clinton lunatics, individualists with collectivists, the pro-liberty people with everyone else, and the list goes on and on.

But why?

Why do we need to submit to people and ideas that go against our own convictions?

Sometimes you just need to say, “Hey, you’re a good person and I wish you the best, but I just feel like I need to go my own way. It’s not you, it’s me.”

Think of how much more peaceful the world would be if we were allowed to make this decision for ourselves. Think if every region, state, city, and individual were allowed the freedom to build or be a part of a society based around their own values and those of like-minded people. The animosity that builds as a result of having to tolerate and accept the ideas which we perceive as wrong or harmful would largely disappear. You would still not like people, and their ideas might still bother you, but you wouldn’t have to live with them, and you wouldn’t be subject to their political force.

In a word, what I am describing is secession: the severing of political ties to an entity or group that you no longer wish to be associated with. This is an idea that everyone should be able to get behind. But for some reason it is considered so far beyond conventional political discourse, beyond the Overton Window, that it isn’t even thought of.

In spite of this, we do have historical examples that school teaches us to look favorably upon. Namely, the American Revolution, Texas Revolution, The Hartford Convention, and the proposed Abolitionist Secession prior to the Civil War. Our most modern example (though perhaps not looked upon favorably by the establishment) is the secession of the UK from the European Union.

These attempted and successful secession movements were simply groups of people no longer satisfied with the existing political order and wishing to go their separate ways. And though the term “secession” has been tainted since the Southern States’ fateful attempt to leave the Union, we need to understand that the term merely denotes the innocuous idea of people building a political and economic order that is more in line with their values.

Denial and Disgust

This election is sufficient to show us the necessity of the principle of secession. The amount of hostility around the candidates and their supporters is bringing the political order to the breaking point. There is going to be more opposition, denial, and disgust than we have ever seen since perhaps the Election of 1860. And we all know how that one ended.

But is it so crazy to think that maybe people should be allowed to set up political and governance systems that are more in tune with what they hold dear? What is the point of forcibly binding together people who never see eye to eye on anything, and who have a relationship that is increasingly spilling over into pure and open hatred?

Like a romantic relationship whose time has come, maybe the time has come to at least discuss a divorce of some of our political relationships. 320 million people is a political love-entanglement gone way too far.

Cut out the things we don’t like. Remove the things that cause us pain and go from there. This is how most of us try to live every other area of our lives.

Let’s try it for politics.

[ajax]

Is it not the case that the only state which has the explicit right to secede is Texas?

It's a natural right. "When in the course of human events..."

[Robin Hood]

Is it not the case that the only state which has the explicit right to secede is Texas?

It's a natural right. "When in the course of human events..."

I think I read somewhere that the provision for Texas to secede is actually written into the states constitution, and that it is the only state that has this explicit, as opposed to implicit, right.
Is this true?

[skmo]

Is it not the case that the only state which has the explicit right to secede is Texas?

It's a natural right. "When in the course of human events..."

I think I read somewhere that the provision for Texas to secede is actually written into the states constitution, and that it is the only state that has this explicit, as opposed to implicit, right.
Is this true?

In terms of written directions, Texas can split itself into 4 or 5 different states, but there's nothing that specifically says Texas can leave. It's a lovely story Texicans like to tell ("Since we were the only sovereign country, we have the right to secede in the constitution") but it's not so.

It's like the claim that Texas is the only state that can fly its flag at the same height as the U.S. Flag. If they're on the same pole, the Texas Flag should be lower. On separate poles, the flags may fly at the same height, but the Texas Flag should be to the right, just as with all other states.

[Alaris]

Cali needs its Fed like a meth addict needs tylenol. Sores are showing Cali but we all know why you would never leave us. Keep up your ways and your comeuppins will come due.

[skmo]

I think I read somewhere that the provision for Texas to (blah, blah, blah, as Texicans like to brag.)

Reminds me of a joke. Texas rancher was visiting a farmer in Colorado. The Colorado farmer was showing him around some of his operation.

CO: This is my new tractor. It'll do all we need with plenty of power left over.
TX: You call that a tractor, son? Shoot, down in Texas, we got us Go-Karts that're bigger'n that!

They walk a little ways

CO: This is my new silo. I can store a whole winter's worth of grain for my animals.
TX: You call that a silo, son? Shoot, down in Texas, we got us phone booths that're bigger'n that!

Walking a little more

CO: This is my new barn. I can hold a whole season's worth of hay in it.
TX: You call that a barn, son? Shoot, down in Texas, we got us outhouses that're bigger'n that!
CO: I bet you do. No doubt you need 'em that big.

[gkearney]

Eh, We still have control over the Panama Canal and Hawaii. Not that big of a deal. Plus, we'd likely make treaties with the newly independent Western Democratic Republic.

While we do still control those locations they do little good for shipping. For that you need rail links to the west coast the newly independent "Western Democratic Republic" could likely extract a pound of flesh for access to their ports. And remember that California Washington and Oregon are more than capable of being self sufficient in food and could with their western ports trade with Asia for other items. This would but producers in the interior of the west is a very difficult spot.

[Robin Hood]

Is it not the case that the only state which has the explicit right to secede is Texas?

It's a natural right. "When in the course of human events..."

I think I read somewhere that the provision for Texas to secede is actually written into the states constitution, and that it is the only state that has this explicit, as opposed to implicit, right.
Is this true?

In terms of written directions, Texas can split itself into 4 or 5 different states, but there's nothing that specifically says Texas can leave. It's a lovely story Texicans like to tell ("Since we were the only sovereign country, we have the right to secede in the constitution") but it's not so.

It's like the claim that Texas is the only state that can fly its flag at the same height as the U.S. Flag. If they're on the same pole, the Texas Flag should be lower. On separate poles, the flags may fly at the same height, but the Texas Flag should be to the right, just as with all other states.

And you guys accuse us of weird pomp and ceremony rules! ;)