Does The U.S. Need To Split?

84rules News & Commentary Blog ^ | April 9, 2010 | 84rules

[84rules]

Many of us out in the blogosphere have been pondering this question for over a year. Imagine our surprise to find an article by Dr. Walter Williams that actually took on the issue!

Does The U.S. Need To Split?
84rules
April 9, 2010

[little jeremiah]

And the fact that the entire government is going to go bankrupt (IMO) there wno’t be any money to continue with unocontsitutional activity. 80% of what the fedgov does is directly in opposition to the Constitution.

[little jeremiah]

Note my comment above - without money, the fedgov cannot continue to give unconstitutional bennies.

The sooner the better it happens, say I. So people will have to go through some pain to get there. The pain’s gonna happen no matter what. The universe’s Tough Love. It’s needed.

[LibertyRocks]

Wow - didn’t know this was being openly discussed...
I haven’t read enough yet, but how in the world would we “Split” when we are interspersed as we are? I’m guessing if it’s a “traditional split” like back during the Civil War with those wanting Obama & the Dems up North - I would need to go South (I’m in Wisconsin!!!).

[Wissa]

The Tenth Amendment and original intent are the solution to hammering the Feds back within the bounds of the Constitution, and the budget will provide the incentive, if the loss of freedom has not.

And if half the population is opposed to strictly following the Tenth Amendment and original intent? I'm not seeing much of a general outcry in the population for getting rid of Social Security.

[LibertyRocks]

That’s an EXCELLENT explanation! I was thinking the same...

[Wissa]

The 'fight' as you put it has been going on for nearly 200 years. Ben Franklin said "A Republic, if we can keep it."

The only way to shorten the fight is to give in. I'm not wuitting.

Suit yourself. I'd prefer having a solution over having a fight.

[Smokin' Joe]

If 75% of those currently serving feel that way, and I'd guess a majority of veterans as well, why split the country, as so many seem to feel is a good (imho, ill conceived) idea?

It has been tried, it cost much--immeasureably more than can be stated--and did little good save to end an institution which was failing of its own accord. The evils it imposed may be far greater.

Instead, reinstate the Republic.My ancestors fought for the Confederacy, and I cannot condone the idea of secession except as a final resort.

We have always had those present who do not agree with our way of life, our belief in individual rights invites their presence, our prosperity ensures it, our security guarantees it.

A majority of the population is against the current socialist leanings of our own government. Stop that, stop the handouts, and how many would want to keep the fruit of their labors? How many would want the freedom to decide how they spend their earnings and not have that imposed upon them?

While it remains possible, we need to peacefully remove as many Socialists from power and turn this around, not tear it down.

If it becomes no longer possible, then, and only then should other options receive serious consideration.

[LibertyRocks]

I should say, reading through the thread I’m not convinced there is not remedy available to us still, without any need for a split at this time.

[Smokin' Joe]

I'd prefer having a solution over having a fight.

There is no solution. Only a struggle. You can no more eliminate the concept of despotism from the human psyche than you can the concept of freedom. Why do you think "Eternal vigillance is the price of Liberty?"

[TexasRepublic]

“I’d prefer two USA’s (one being an actual Conservative one) to the current situation.”

Suppose that the USA did split into two parts, one conservative and the other liberal. Do you think for a moment that liberals wouldn’t next try to undermine the conservative part? I promise, they would. They won’t stop until they own everything. A nonproductive parasite can only exist as long as it feeds off a succession of fresh hosts.

[LibertyRocks]

A very strong, and convincing argument, Joe. I too, do not think now is the time for this action. There is remedy still available to us I believe...

[Wissa]

I should say, reading through the thread I’m not convinced there is not remedy available to us still, without any need for a split at this time.

I'd agree with that, but I think there's value into opening the discussion now and giving people time to think through whether it might not be the ideal outcome. Otherwise it could lead to a civil war instead of an amicable divorce.

[84rules]

A majority of the population is against the current socialist leanings of our own government. Stop that, stop the handouts, and how many would want to keep the fruit of their labors? How many would want the freedom to decide how they spend their earnings and not have that imposed upon them? While it remains possible, we need to peacefully remove as many Socialists from power and turn this around, not tear it down. If it becomes no longer possible, then, and only then should other options receive serious consideration.

I completely agree with all of this. But I don't think it will be possible if the Dems get their way and manage to make any of their agenda permanent. Already, many so-called "Conservatives" are surrendering on the idea of repealing Obamacare. If that continues, then it won't matter what the majority of the population wants because the politicians (of both major parties) in D.C. won't do anything to implement the will of the people.

When that kind of environment exists in D.C., a split becomes a necessity. I am not yet advocating such a split (I am simply encouraging a public debate on the issue), but if it were to happen tomorrow, I see no reason to give my loyalty to those currently sitting in D.C.

[84rules]

Suppose that the USA did split into two parts, one conservative and the other liberal. Do you think for a moment that liberals wouldn’t next try to undermine the conservative part?

If the Conservative part were the states that actually produced things like oil, gas and food, the libs wouldn't have the means necessary to do any undermining. For example, what if all the Gulf Coast states seceded? Where would the rest of the states get their gasoline and fuel oil from? (Most of the U.S. refining capacity is in those states. Hell, even if only Texas seceded, it would be a disaster for the other 49.) What if most of the farming states seceded? Where would cities like New York get enough food to feed themselves? (New York City only has a three day supply of food if the food shipments suddenly stopped.)

[Wissa]

Suppose that the USA did split into two parts, one conservative and the other liberal. Do you think for a moment that liberals wouldn’t next try to undermine the conservative part? I promise, they would. They won’t stop until they own everything. A nonproductive parasite can only exist as long as it feeds off a succession of fresh hosts.

I don't think your approach of continuing to keep the existing parasite within our body is preferable to isolating and excising it.

[TexasRepublic]

“I don’t think your approach of continuing to keep the existing parasite within our body is preferable to isolating and excising it.”

I understand, but you must consider the practical consequences of trying to physically excise the parasites when half a state is filled with them. We are a nation of 300 million people. Forcibly relocating half (or even a quarter) of them would result in one of the largest social upheavals in world history. Are you ready to do that? We are in big trouble, either way.

[Wissa]

I understand, but you must consider the practical consequences of trying to physically excise the parasites when half a state is filled with them. We are a nation of 300 million people. Forcibly relocating half (or even a quarter) of them would result in one of the largest social upheavals in world history. Are you ready to do that? We are in big trouble, either way.

If there's a voluntary geographic division of the country there wouldn't be a need for forcibly removing anybody. Conservatives will voluntarilly pack up and move out of the liberal area if they find themselves on the wrong side of the line, and people that value their Social Security check more than freedom will voluntarilly relocate to the liberal side.

It wouldn't matter to me where they drew the boundaries. I'd be moving to the land of freedom. If it was decided to put Texas into the liberal area, would you stick with it because you like the geography, or would you pack up and move elsewhere to regroup where the Conservatives are?

[Richard Kimball]

I'm a Texan til the day I die.

[Wissa]

I'm a Texan til the day I die.

I'm a libertarian/conservative til the day I die. I don't define myself by my mailing address.

[TexasRepublic]

I’d say that a majority of people in either camp would not voluntarily leave, for a variety of reasons.