Posted on 04/05/2010 5:15:07 PM PDT by Kaslin
Ten years ago I asked the following question in a column titled "It's Time To Part Company":
"If one group of people prefers government control and management of people's lives and another prefers liberty and a desire to be left alone, should they be required to fight, antagonize one another, risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences or should they be able to peaceably part company and go their separate ways?"
The problem that our nation faces is very much like a marriage where one partner has broken, and has no intention of keeping, the marital vows. Of course, the marriage can remain intact and one party tries to impose his will on the other and engage in the deviousness of one-upmanship. Rather than submission by one party or domestic violence, a more peaceable alternative is separation.
I believe we are nearing a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative. Just as in a marriage, where vows are broken, our human rights protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution have been grossly violated by a government instituted to protect them.
The Democrat-controlled Washington is simply an escalation of a process that has been in full stride for at least two decades. There is no evidence that Americans who are responsible for and support constitutional abrogation have any intention of mending their ways.
You say, "Williams, what do you mean by constitutional abrogation?" Let's look at just some of the magnitude of the violations.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
First somebody needs to come up with a way to keep ‘them’ from slithering into our country when their ratholes get worse and then we can start planning.
Upon reading this article, I agree its probably best that we part way and split into 2 or more Federations, if either side refuses to go back to strictly limited and highly spartan constitutional Federal government.
We simply cannot live together like this!
We will never agree on how to run all theses aspects of our diverse 300 million lives, nor will we agree even whether or not to attempt to run them from the government!
We have to split ways before this becomes a matter of blood shed. A house divided against itself cannot stand, so let us move out into separate houses!
Let us divorce ourselves from the oppressive central authority which we can never agree on.
We can each have our own way in our own lands and leave each other alone.
Yes. I prefer that to an inevitable CWII.
“First somebody needs to come up with a way to keep ‘them’ from slithering into our country when their ratholes get worse and then we can start planning.”
It’s called immigration, education, and Constitutional limits.
We must be sure to teach our children how to respect each others rights, and of the necessity of limited government to do the same.
I have been saying this for years. Split the US, allow the liberal fascists to relocate to their coastal urban enclaves, taking all the freeloaders and the US debt along with them. The remaining 95% of the US will become a new Free America with a restored Constitution, minus the Supreme Court, with all judges elected, minus the Income Tax Amendment, minus the anchor baby provision of the 14th Amendment, minus the “well-regulated militia” language of the 2nd amendment, minus the interstate commerce clause, minus anything that would give liberal fascists a toehold. Social Security, Medicare, and other socialist laws since FDR repealed. No Federal Reserve, no national debt, flat tax, no deductions, no withholding, no business taxes, no capital gains tax, no power of Congress to change tax laws without a 2/3 vote of the people, term limits. Absolute maximum total of all state, local, federal taxes, fees, charges, or other money transfers to government: 20% of GDP. In one fell swoop all of the necessary reforms to reduce government power cold be enacted.
If that were to happen, we would need a way to ensure progressivism never reared it’s ugly head again.
Agreed. By eliminating taxpayer subsidies to colleges, universities, and other institutions, marxists would lose their home base. By eliminating 75% of the government, they would lose another home base. By electing all judges, they would lose lifetime tenure for marxist activists. The 2/3 vote requirement to change tax laws + the Total Maximum of all taxes would prevent them from funding themselves. Probably need to add 2/3 vote requirement to issue government debt. I’ve even thought about special tax rates for liberals. After all, turnabout is fair play. They have special rates for “the rich”.
Similarly, California east of the coastal range is very conservative. The liberal part of California is a strip averaging about 20 miles wide along the coast. New York outside of NYC and the Hudson Valley up to Albany , and the coast of Lake Ontario (Buffalo , Rochester) is also conservative. The same for the Great Lakes states and Pennsylvania. Once you get away from the big cities, America is conservative. Look at the red/blue map of the 2004 election and they control about 5% of the land area. Don’t give them any more than they control now.
Absolutely agree that thinking in terms of splitting by states is way too generous. The liberal fascists control a very small fraction of the total land area. You have to have contiguous areas, though, which means they lose interior cities like Boulder and Austin, maybe even Sacramento. We would lose places like San Diego and Orange County.
In general, there is no need to kick out any bad states, as long as they do not have power over the other states. We do not want a new overpowered central government; we need a weak association.
The current group of 50 states would work fine if the central gov't would follow the constitution as it was originally written.
adapt=adopt Which actually should say “continue with” in place of adopt.
> If we were to split along ideological lines, with
> liberals on one side, and conservatives on the other, The
> liberals would move into the conservative side and start
> the whole process over again.... and in the long haul,
> complete loss of capitalism in favor of socialism would
> result.
This is exactly what happened to New Hampshire.
“What will the “liberals” do? “
Who cares, If they want a socialist utopia/hell let them live in it.
“Who knows, but most likely they will come under a dictatorship.”
Serves them justice if you ask me, we just need a strong border to help keep the idiots in the hell of their own creation, either that or a strong Constitution and education system to teach new comers and our children how to actually respect each others rights, using the liberal dictatorships as a constant reminder of why you don’t go down “the dark path” of socialism.
Technically we could do this with a simply limited federal government, as the State Controls the relevant factors, the State Constitution and the education system, as well as who can vote. At least under the original Constitutional setup.
We would deal with liberal flooding by denying out of state immigrates the right to vote until they passed a civics course in respecting other peoples rights, or something like that.
Friday was written in 1980, not 1960. It had California political correctness pegged pretty well, but not much detail for the other areas. I do recall Chicago-style corruption being the norm in the new central nation called “Chicago”, though. I haven’t re-read Friday in a decade or so.
The main obstacles are the Ponzi schemes known as Social Security and Medicare. Many Conservatives have had so much taken from us over the 30 or 40 years of our careers to fund this idiocy that we can’t afford to retire without it. How would we allocate the liability for providing this ? How would we allocate responsibility for the national debt ? These things require Federal taxes to pay for because they are Federal obligations, and that tax burden dwarfs the tax benefits of moving to one state or another. FDR planned this disaster with malice aforethought, but he planned it well. Short of a slow unwinding of federal powers, or an explosive collapse, we are stuck — an amicable separation is not possible.
The main obstacles are the Ponzi schemes known as Social Security and Medicare. Many Conservatives have had so much taken from us over the 30 or 40 years of our careers to fund this idiocy that we can’t afford to retire without it. How would we allocate the liability for providing this ? How would we allocate responsibility for the national debt ? These things require Federal taxes to pay for because they are Federal obligations, and that tax burden dwarfs the tax benefits of moving to one state or another. FDR planned this disaster with malice aforethought, but he planned it well. Short of a slow unwinding of federal powers, or an explosive collapse, we are stuck — an amicable separation is not possible.
Precisely
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.