The "United States" is not a real country

Don't confuse country with nation. Nation means people, country means sovereign state: id est, a political entity with sovereignity over a certain territory. Countries need not be nations, they just happen to be that in many cases.

Families don't have the authority a state has.

No, it's not about shared anything other than being under the same political sovereign entity. you're talking about a nation.

 

You're just making this up as you go along, it seems.

Country
-a state or nation: What European countries have you visited?
-the people of a district, state, or nation: The whole country backed the president in his decision.
-the land of one's birth or citizenship.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/country?s=t&path=/​

So, according to the dictionary, the distinction between a country and nation is pretty much without a difference, and it says nothing about a "sovereign" or "authority". It also references "the people" and "land", both of which would imply some relation to things like culture and geography. This begs the question, then, how does a "country" come into existence? Where does it derive its legitimacy as a construct? The obvious answer is that it comes from shared meaning between the individuals who comprise the country, not some mythical "sovereign" who lords over them.

What is the "state", anyway? Just a bunch of people who have claimed a violent monopoly on law and justice. What gives them the right to claim "sovereignty" over people who have never consented to their rule? A magical voting ritual?

I've already demonstrated that you're the one who doesn't know what they're talking about. A "country" has nothing to do with a "political sovereign entity" (whatever the hell that is), it is about shared culture and geography. Without shared culture and geography between people, a "country" loses its meaning and legitimacy.

 

There are no such things as "blue states" and "red states". It is merely the winner-take-all electoral system that gives you that false impression.

Minnesota has the highest ration of taxes paid to taxes received. In the 2012 election 45% of Minnesota voters voted "red". In Mississippi and Georgia about 45% of voters voted "blue". In New York and California, nearly 40% of voters went "red". About the same percentage of Alabama and Louisiana voters went "blue".

The whole tired "red state, blue state" story is merely meant to make you think that there are actual differences in the two parties. It is a wildly successful ruse that keeps the cheerleaders riled up.

 

The dictionary reflects the common understanding of the word, which isn't necessarily the correct one. Tell me, if country, nation, and state are the same thing, what does nation-state mean? state-state? See, the reason nation and country are commonly understood as synonymous is because most western countries are based on nations: nation-states. But if you look at germany pre-unification you see a nation without a united state, and if you look at the ottoman empire you see a country with several nations. Before the rise of nationalism in the late 18th century, nations were pretty much ignored a la austria and ottomans. Hence the term 'nation-state' to distinguish between the older often multicultural countries based on feudal ties and the newer countries based on the nations, like Germany and Italy. Also, you do know that 'sovereign' is also an adjective don't you?

A state is a sovereign political entity. Again, note that sovereign is an adjective, meaning that it is the de jure highest authority. And yes, it's just a group of people who claimed a monopoly on force.

No, it seriously is not, read above.

 

O.K., I'm confused. You refer to a "U.S." naval presence. If there are 50 separate self governed states, they wouldn't be the "U.S." anymore. Also, who would command these naval forces? An admiral from Virginia? New Jersey? What if the captain of a vessel from Oregon didn't want to take orders from a superior officer from another state? What if the commander of a carrier group decided he wanted to go home and take his whole force with him? Who makes the shoot/don't shoot decisions? Not criticizing-just respectfully curious.
Enjoy!

 

I stipulated that under my compromise scenario, the states would enter into a free trade agreement and a mutual defense pact, so there would still be a "United" States, just much more narrow in its focus than the previous iteration.

It would operate much the same as it does now.

 

If you're just going to make things up as you go along, I see no reason to debate you.

 

O.K., I see some logic in that. But to one of my questions. If D.C. is shut down, would there still be a president/commander in chief to make the shoot/don't shoot decisions?
Enjoy!

 

The details of the mutual defense pact would be up to the several states. They could arrange it however they liked. I suspect they would maintain the present structure of the federal government, just with a much more narrow focus.

 

Sooooo let me summarize:

You are unsatisfied with Democrats and the majority of America supporting their policies.

Your solution:

Let the conservative states secede, abolish the federal government, and keep a free trade / defense pact between the 50 states?



Dude if you don't like our country get the hell out.

 

I already made my case. Whatever, continue in verbal ignorance.

 

Don't you mean distort and spin?

I am unsatisfied with Democrats and Republicans in Washington DC, as are most sane people.

Obama only got about 61 million votes in 2012. The remaining 152 million eligible voters either voted for Romney (58 million) or didn't vote at all (94 million). In other words, Obama only received 29% support from the electorate, not even close to a "majority". In the future, try basing your views on the facts instead of MSNBC talking points, okay?

So you have no substantive objection to my plan.

Why don't you make me?

Says the guy trying to ignore the dictionary definition of a word because it disproves his fallacious use of terminology.

 

No.

Yes, but most sane people aren't thinking about an armed rebellion or complete secession of half the states in the country.

Is this a joke? In what world to 94 million Americans who didn't vote, get their vote counted? Only in the hearts of a bitter individual. Like I said, if you and the other 94 million don't like the way things are going, you are free to get the hell out. In this country, you VOTE your politicians in or vote them out. If you don't like it and don't exercise your citizen right / duty to vote, don't complain about it.

Oh, I do. 50 state-countries will make the USA a poor man's Europeon Union. California may have the 8th largest economy in the world, but would make it a 2nd tier country.

You are free to stick around and be bitter, but don't (*)(*)(*)(*) up the country for the rest of us.

 

Well that's all your "summary" amounted to, was a bunch of spin and distortions.

I said nothing about an armed rebellion.

It's not a "complete secession" if they retain a free trade agreement and a mutual defense pact. They would still be "United" States, just with a more narrow focus than the previous iteration.

Irrelevant. You claimed that the "majority" support the agenda of Democrats, but their candidate for President only received 29% support from the electorate in 2012. That's not even close to a "majority". In fact, the majority either opposed his agenda or refused to sanction it. I know you would like to ignore the vote of NO CONFIDENCE that 94 million Americans cast in 2012, but in a republic, where the consent of the governed forms the basis for all legitimate government, they still count.

I'm also free to stay here and try to change the system for the better. Get used to it, because I'm not going anywhere...

I'll complain about whatever I want. Your attempt to silence me is as pathetic as it is futile.

There is nothing substantive about these empty assertions.

You're the one who is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up the country, and I will continue to utilize non-violent forms of resistance and civil disobedience, my free speech included, to obstruct and subvert your regressive and coercive ideology. Good luck trying to stop me...

 

No spin. What is the point of this thread?

You're right.. I'm generalizing conservatives that continue to fantasize over "taking back" their country.

They would be 50 different countries with a free trade agreement and a mutual defense pact. A more narrow focus doesn't benefit this country in any way. "State's rights" is such a tired, inefficient concept.

The 94 million Americans who did not vote are irrelevant. They didn't vote! Their objections become irrelevant when they don't exercise their citizen right to the political process.

Try to obstruct the system. We are waiting for conservatives to finally die off. Their stronghold on the country is waning.

Complain all you want. Vote at the polls or vote with your feet.

There ABSOLUTELY is. What benefit will this country receive by transforming itself into 50 separate state-nations?

Conservatism is regressive. Progressives are the ones that fight for justice and equal rights for American citizens. Progressives fight to protect our planet. Progressives fight to keep education secular. You are the regressive one.

 

You think it would be better without natios/states? Watch the Mad Max trilogy, that would be the world without any governments.

 

And as people learn that there people willing to pay a lot more than that while they themselves don't have to pay anything, the free rider problem would cause the whole thing to fall apart.

 

So then a state could have an open foreign immigration policy and every other state would have to allow in the immigrants they bring to their "country".

 

With a central Federal government in charge?

Seriously, you gave a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) non-answer to a legitimate question.

 

To espouse political beliefs and opinions, or did you forget which subforum you were in?

Like I've been saying, your objections to my beliefs are just misrepresentations and strawmen. You have nothing substantive.

Yes, they all agree that trade and travel between them will be free and that they will pledge to mutually defend each other. It sounds like they're a "country" to me.

I disagree. And what do you mean by "this country"? What are you even talking about when you say that?

Actually, the tendency to centralize power with a nominal government entity is the tired and inefficient concept, one that has been used all throughout human history to rent-seek and otherwise exploit the hard work others. Relatively speaking, socioeconomic decentralization, which is what "state's rights" is fundamentally about, is quite the novel concept. What made the American revolution so unique was its emphasis on decentralizing power and removing the veil of mystique that government agents and officials have hid behind for centuries. Unfortunately, so-called "progressives" like Woodrow Wilson decided to reverse this trend of decentralization by embracing ancient practices like FIAT money and central banking, both of which predate the federal government.

They are irrelevant? I thought they were human beings with natural rights to life and liberty. I guess that's the difference between Marxists and libertarians. Anyway, you claimed that Obama was supported by the majority, but only 29% of the electorate voted for him, which means that 71% of the electorate refused to sanction him or his policies. That doesn't even include all the minors, prisoners, and felons, who are forcefully excluded from your precious election ritual.

I'm a libertarian, and we're just getting started...

Not like I need your permission.

I will use all non-violent means at my disposal to oppose regressive ideologies like yours that rely on coercion and intimidation to achieve subjective moral ends.

I guess you think if you use all caps and repeat your opinion over and over again, that somehow it will give your opinion the appearance of substance.

 

Actually, the "free rider" problem comes from massive centralized government that acts as an agent of wealth redistribution.

 

I left the details out for a purpose. I am merely providing a rough outline for pursuing a long term decentralization of power. Ultimately, though, I would like to see "borders" shift and reemerge in a more organic fashion. A lot of the conflicts and problems people around the world face is due to arbitrary lines in the sand that were drawn by some politician or military officer.

 

ditto, and for as much as I pay, think a universal health insurance would be reasonable to get in return

 

This post should be titled "How to Decimate Standard Authoritarian Responses".

 

No. No it doesn't, and if you think it does, then you don't know enough about economics to have an opinion worthy of consideration.