Obviously, Texas. It's big enough, has several large cities, and has an economy that could sustain independence.
I also think Florida could. The tourism industry would continue to thrive if they did not enact ridiculous entry requirements.
I do not think California could survive, primarily because of water issues.
I also have my doubts about New York. If the state of New York became an independent nation, the financial markets for the USA would move out of NYC. This would be a blow to New York's economy.
Any state that gets more from the Feds than they send in wouldn't survive! So while many states think they'll be fine, suddenly money they would get for construction, national parks, health care, etc would be in trouble.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 10:09:05 AM
I also have my doubts about New York. If the state of New York became an independent nation, the financial markets for the USA would move out of NYC. This would be a blow to New York's economy.
More than just the financial markets. The influence of NYC as a whole is national, not statewide–it is the
de facto capital of the U.S. in many non-governmental aspects (and with its financial weight, inevitably some governmental ones as well). In fact, the states that are left behind would be apt to suffer at least as much as the state that it takes with it. The U.S. as a whole could survive, but the Northeast region would be dealt a serious blow (and other Northeastern states would likely move to secede along with New York to avoid economic ruin).
I think if New York seceded, it would become more like an autonomous "federal district" that would continue to have great influence on the surrounding country.
Texas is a little below the median in terms of "dependency on federal benefits": https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/. So #Texit could be viable. It also has the population and scale of economy that most other states do not.
The comparisons on that page are interesting... goes against some of the stereotypes and assumptions many have about which states benefit from government spending.
The 3 most likely places are 1. Texas (only 1% of Texans believe or support secession and independence), 2. Cascadia (the Pacific NW region of WA state, Oregon, northern ID, parts of northern CA and extending into British Columbia of Canada), and 3. Hawaii (once a kingdom under the native Hawaiian people until US annexation in 1898). Then there's Alaska (by itself away from the lower 48), Vermont (the "second republic" movement (VT wasn't part of the US from 1777 to 1791) and Puerto Rico (despite the majority voted for statehood in 2012, the commonwealth is broke from their fiscal crisis).
And the other 3 youngest members (statehood admission) of the USA: the Dakotas with the micronation Republic of Lakotah claimed Oglala Sioux reservation land also in Neb., Wyo. and Mont., the Indian Territory of Oklahoma which was sovereign from 1838 to 1907 statehood: the Cherokee, Chickashaw, Choctaw, Muskogee and Seminole Nations, as well moderate-sized tribal nations of Osage, Shawnee, and Lenni-Lenape or Delaware in the eastern half of OK, and Aztlan or "El Norte" in Arizona, New Mexico (ironic name) and southern Colorado with portions of California, if Mexico doesn't reclaimed the land in what's known as "La Reconquista" of Hispanic, Latino and Chicano peoples in the last half a century, by political power and demographically near majority growth.
Probably any state could "survive." It's surprising just how many tiny countries there are out there.
But many of these states would probably become dictatorships. Some pretty much already are.
(It is possible for a state to be its own dictatorship. Democracy really didn't come to the Deep South until the Voting Rights Act was passed, so I'd say those states were practically dictatorships before then.)
Quote from: bandit957 on June 24, 2016, 12:01:21 PM
Probably any state could "survive." It's surprising just how many tiny countries there are out there.
In it's current condition, Illinois could not. Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri, and Iowa would stand a far better chance.
Survive in what sense, is the obvious question. A basket case like Haiti? A poorer country, struggling to avoid de facto rule by drug lords, like Mexico?
California would do fine on its own. Their water needs are primarily for agriculture, and could be reduced greatly by different choice of crops. And being a separate country wouldn't stop California from buying water from the Colorado River etc. if it needed to. It's really the inland west that has the greatest water crisis. They have little agricultural use that could possibly change, they've been depending on well water from diminishing aquifers for many decades already yet don't have the political will to stop unsustainable water system hookups.
Quote from: Brandon on June 24, 2016, 12:30:47 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on June 24, 2016, 12:01:21 PM
Probably any state could "survive." It's surprising just how many tiny countries there are out there.
In it's current condition, Illinois could not. Wisconsin, Indiana, Michigan, Kentucky, Missouri, and Iowa would stand a far better chance.
I think all those states would have trouble, including Illinois. Minnesota though would have a very good chance.
But there are much smaller countries than Iowa out there.
New York would do just fine on its own too. It's an international banking and business center now, and would remain so. Sort of an American version of Switzerland. It would still be one of the world's great ports, and still have some agriculture and manufacturing and tourism.
Does anyone really think that if Iowa, for example, seceded that their economic ties with the rest of the country, would suddenly disappear? Of course not.
To put it another way, Canada is a sovereign nation, but the close business, economic, language, and cultural ties all make them extremely close to the United States (Quebec notwithstanding, which you may recall came very close to a Quexit back in the 90s).
Being a soverign nation does not make you isolationist....
In the 1990s and 2000s, I almost caused a "Kexit".
Didn't Texas beg to become a state so someone would pay their debts?
Texas is still a taker state (gets $1.09 for every $1.00 it spends), so I don't see why it would leave.
https://mises.org/blog/which-states-rely-most-federal-spending
Quote from: US71 on June 24, 2016, 01:41:36 PM
Didn't Texas beg to become a state so someone would pay their debts?
Um, yes, as a matter of fact, they did.
Quote from: Brandon on June 24, 2016, 03:12:40 PM
Quote from: US71 on June 24, 2016, 01:41:36 PM
Didn't Texas beg to become a state so someone would pay their debts?
Um, yes, as a matter of fact, they did.
And now they keep talking about wanting to secede?
Big question is what happens to federal debt in case state choose to leave. Do they take their fair share of that debt? And what is "fair" - proportional to population, area, assets, GDP?
a year worth of income in debt (and US federal debt is about 100% GDP) on top of about 15% in state and local government is enough to crush such a newborn without rock solid credit rating backed by huge military power.
Silly talk as we approach 240 years of independence. It was tried before, the first seven of which formed a combine. Four more joined and two more had parallel governments on both sides. The experiment ended with more than 620,000 dead and 500,000 injured or maimed out of a total population of 30 million. It was a very long time ago and no one alive today lived through it. It is considered by many as the first modern war. It should not be repeated despite having a huge flag of the Army of Northern Virginia flying on a very tall pole on northbound Interstate 75 in middle Georgia with a billboard next to it with the advertisement "#Secede."
what about Florida? and the small, yet numerous neo-confederate movements in the South/SE US? It has been 150 years since the Civil War, however southern cultural identity, political differences and regional histories makes the South different from the North. In the 1980s, the Conch Republic of Key West and the Florida keys made headlines when they "officially" seceded from the union.
Should a state wish to secede, I wonder how many of their people would suddenly realize they now need passports to leave their 'country' to visit a neighboring state.
I wonder how many will blame the TSA for a false sense of security at airports, failing to realize the TSA is an American security force, and not involved in their little country. (It's common for Americans to go to another country and complain about the TSA security agents there...whom have nothing to do with the TSA.)
Quote from: Desert Man on June 24, 2016, 05:10:09 PM
what about Florida? and the small, yet numerous neo-confederate movements in the South/SE US? It has been 150 years since the Civil War, however southern cultural identity, political differences and regional histories makes the South different from the North. In the 1980s, the Conch Republic of Key West and the Florida keys made headlines when they "officially" seceded from the union.
Look up history of conch republic..
None. The costs of
- Establishing a military and border controls
- Establishing diplomatic and trade relations with other countries
- Changeover to a new currency
- Assumption of that state's portion of the national debt
- Lost economic production due to new trade barriers with other states
Would all be enough to immediately drain even the wealthiest state's coffers.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2016, 05:43:58 PM
Should a state wish to secede, I wonder how many of their people would suddenly realize they now need passports to leave their 'country' to visit a neighboring state.
I wonder how many will blame the TSA for a false sense of security at airports, failing to realize the TSA is an American security force, and not involved in their little country. (It's common for Americans to go to another country and complain about the TSA security agents there...whom have nothing to do with the TSA.)
Well.. An interesting fact.
I happened to talk to a high school kid who mentioned an interesting situation in their class:
At some point teacher asked how many students were in NYC (which is 3 hour drive from us, or $70 Greyhound round-trip) - and about half of the class never went there.
How many of you did fly? - just that kid.
Which basically tells me that if things come to popular vote, there will be A LOT of people who don't care about travel - since they don't travel themselves.
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 24, 2016, 05:54:22 PM
None. The costs of
- Establishing a military and border controls
- Establishing diplomatic and trade relations with other countries
- Changeover to a new currency
- Assumption of that state's portion of the national debt
- Lost economic production due to new trade barriers with other states
Would all be enough to immediately drain even the wealthiest state's coffers.
Military - state can claim a "fair share" of existing military. Or, better, seize whatever is on their territory (think WA or ND getting 30% of US nuclear weapons)
Changeover to a new currency can be extremely profitable, depending on what happens with existing US dollars in the state.
Being smartass can end up with no federal debt obligations.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 24, 2016, 01:49:37 PM
Texas is still a taker state (gets $1.09 for every $1.00 it spends), so I don't see why it would leave.
https://mises.org/blog/which-states-rely-most-federal-spending
Interestingly in direct contradiction to the video I posted up-thread.
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 24, 2016, 05:54:22 PM
None. The costs of
- Establishing a military and border controls
- Establishing diplomatic and trade relations with other countries
- Changeover to a new currency
- Assumption of that state's portion of the national debt
- Lost economic production due to new trade barriers with other states
Would all be enough to immediately drain even the wealthiest state's coffers.
A related problem to your #4-if it's not immediately on a body of water, the 'state' has to transport its goods across an international border to a port.
It depends what kind of treaties they make with the United States or the other states if the U.S. is disolved. Quite possible to have a treaty guaranteeing free transport of goods to and from port.
Schwarzenegger once said in a speech here that Ohio and California are the only states that could survive on their own.
Quote from: kphoger on June 24, 2016, 07:31:59 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 24, 2016, 01:49:37 PM
Texas is still a taker state (gets $1.09 for every $1.00 it spends), so I don't see why it would leave.
https://mises.org/blog/which-states-rely-most-federal-spending
Interestingly in direct contradiction to the video I posted up-thread.
Note the caveat in the article after posting the figures. Our federal government itself takes in about $1.00 for ever 80 cents it pays in taxes. Therefore, Texas and California (at about $1.18 listed) are most certainly net contributors to the federal coffers.
Though I will say this: If you ever want to know what technologically advanced oil production can do for a state, look at North Dakota as net contributor. As recently as 11 years ago, ND was very much a welfare queen.
Quote from: kalvado on June 24, 2016, 06:10:21 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 24, 2016, 05:43:58 PM
Should a state wish to secede, I wonder how many of their people would suddenly realize they now need passports to leave their 'country' to visit a neighboring state.
I wonder how many will blame the TSA for a false sense of security at airports, failing to realize the TSA is an American security force, and not involved in their little country. (It's common for Americans to go to another country and complain about the TSA security agents there...whom have nothing to do with the TSA.)
Well.. An interesting fact.
I happened to talk to a high school kid who mentioned an interesting situation in their class:
At some point teacher asked how many students were in NYC (which is 3 hour drive from us, or $70 Greyhound round-trip) - and about half of the class never went there.
How many of you did fly? - just that kid.
Which basically tells me that if things come to popular vote, there will be A LOT of people who don't care about travel - since they don't travel themselves.
I lived no more than 2 hours from NYC my entire life, but was never up there until after college.
A large percentage of those living in NJ work in PA or NY. It's not just travelling...it can be simple commuting that's affected.
Off the top of my head just Florida since they pretty much have all the water resources to supply irrigation and farming. They actually mine the hell out of phosphate so there is actually a mineral resource that pretty much ensures trade aside from farm products. I would like to say Texas also but the water rights get dicey at best. Alaska and Hawaii would be possibilities also but neither has the tax payer base to be first world.
Quote from: bandit957 on June 24, 2016, 12:01:21 PM
(It is possible for a state to be its own dictatorship. Democracy really didn't come to the Deep South until the Voting Rights Act was passed, so I'd say those states were practically dictatorships before then.)
Alabama still pretty much is a "dictatorship", since we haven't had a Democrat governor since the Republicans went conservative...
Not that I think it'll ever happen, but if California were to go its own way, the water situation would likely be addressed by massive desalinization. While extremely expensive, California is also a relatively "high tax" state; the per capita cost of a delsalinization plant would be at least absorbable (if not easily so). If such a plant could be located in more brackish waters such as upper Suisun Bay or elsewhere in the Delta, the byproducts/waste could be lessened. (OK, we can sell it as "sea salt" to Whole Foods, Sprouts, and other such specialty food stores!)
Quote from: sparker on June 25, 2016, 01:10:40 AM
Not that I think it'll ever happen, but if California were to go its own way, the water situation would likely be addressed by massive desalinization. While extremely expensive, California is also a relatively "high tax" state; the per capita cost of a delsalinization plant would be at least absorbable (if not easily so). If such a plant could be located in more brackish waters such as upper Suisun Bay or elsewhere in the Delta, the byproducts/waste could be lessened. (OK, we can sell it as "sea salt" to Whole Foods, Sprouts, and other such specialty food stores!)
The problem would be that everything is would be tied to exporting crops out of San Joaquin Valley. That means that more and more water going to be diverted to agriculture than it would even be now. The rest of the state is largely white collar and companies won't want to stick around if they are getting crazy high (higher than today) taxes to pay for farms outside cities. I love those signs in San Joaquin Valley that insinuate that more "dams" need to be built and not high speed rail....it's like the farmers don't get it that the water sources in the mountains are pretty much tapped out.
I was considering that desalinization would serve as an alternate means to supply general-purpose water, not specifically agriculture. It's probably a political/economic certainty that agricultural interests, especially in the Valley, would request (more likely demand) a share of any desalinized water more or less in proportion to current allocations; a facility located at or near an agricultural base of operations (i.e., my suggestion of a Suisun/Delta location) would probably prompt growers to push for direct output into the waterway system serving their places of operation. Thus, the locations of desalinization facilities will need to be reconsidered -- if any locations more conducive to urban distribution could be found, environmental issues, not to mention the NIMBY factor, would almost certainly come into play. OK, I've prattled on enough here -- the bottom line is that while technically possible, implementing broad-based desalinization in California won't be simple by any means!
Quote from: sparker on June 25, 2016, 03:44:52 PM
OK, I've prattled on enough here -- the bottom line is that while technically possible, implementing broad-based desalinization in California won't be simple by any means!
If the desalinization process is powered by nuclear power, it could be done very well even in or near L.A. or San Francisco, because they have zero emissions.
The intake for such a plant and especially the outflowing brine should probably be on the open ocean (and definitely not in San Francisco Bay).
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 10:09:05 AM
Obviously, Texas. It's big enough, has several large cities, and has an economy that could sustain independence.
Better to just cede Texas back to Mexico.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 24, 2016, 10:09:05 AM
I also think Florida could. The tourism industry would continue to thrive if they did not enact ridiculous entry requirements.
I doubt it, given the large population of elderly people. Especially if Social Security, Medicare and Medicare Part D (which are funded by federal taxes collected nationwide) are turned-off. Given Florida's love of low taxes, I doubt that the state would want to impose a Florida version of FICA and payroll taxes on all workers from Pensacola to Key West.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 10:51:31 PM
Off the top of my head just Florida since they pretty much have all the water resources to supply irrigation and farming.
Not if half of the state ends up under seawater due to climate change.
To show the affects of climate change, go back to news stories from the early 2000's and 1990's. Many of them stated our coastal regions would be under water by now. 15 or 20 years later, and there's absolutely no change. Some of them still try saying in just 10 or 20 years there's gonna be major changes. Don't count on it.
I don't know about NY as an independent country, but NYC as it's own state could work. Maybe if we weren't sending all our $ to Albany, we could finally finish the 2 Av Subway line. 😝
XT1585
Quote from: kalvado on June 24, 2016, 06:16:53 PM
Military - state can claim a "fair share" of existing military. Or, better, seize whatever is on their territory (think WA or ND getting 30% of US nuclear weapons)
Changeover to a new currency can be extremely profitable, depending on what happens with existing US dollars in the state.
Being smartass can end up with no federal debt obligations.
Which means Kentucky could claim Fort Knox's gold and enact a gold standard currency.
Quote from: xcellntbuy on June 24, 2016, 05:03:56 PM
Silly talk as we approach 240 years of independence. It was tried before, the first seven of which formed a combine. Four more joined and two more had parallel governments on both sides. The experiment ended with more than 620,000 dead and 500,000 injured or maimed out of a total population of 30 million. It was a very long time ago and no one alive today lived through it. It is considered by many as the first modern war. It should not be repeated despite having a huge flag of the Army of Northern Virginia flying on a very tall pole on northbound Interstate 75 in middle Georgia with a billboard next to it with the advertisement "#Secede."
Surely to God the federal government would not be so stupid as to again go to war to keep a state that no longer wanted to be a part of the Union. I still contend that the Civil War was a mistake. The federal government should have let the Confederate states go. Why keep someone in a relationship that does not want to be in a relationship?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on June 25, 2016, 04:50:27 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 24, 2016, 10:51:31 PM
Off the top of my head just Florida since they pretty much have all the water resources to supply irrigation and farming.
Not if half of the state ends up under seawater due to climate change.
Last I checked Key West, Miami and the Everglades are still there. :meh: I've been hearing that horror story my entire life...besides if you have a good look on US 27 in Highlands County there is shoreline sand dunes at 170 feet above sea level. Some point not too long ago geologically it must have been warmer...hell the Keys were a coral reef.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 25, 2016, 05:44:12 PM
To show the affects of climate change, go back to news stories from the early 2000's and 1990's. Many of them stated our coastal regions would be under water by now. 15 or 20 years later, and there's absolutely no change. Some of them still try saying in just 10 or 20 years there's gonna be major changes. Don't count on it.
Exactly, come get me when the 2012 style disasters are well underway.
CA has more of a chance being partitioned into 3 or 4 new smaller states than secession from the US. There would be the states of CA proper (capital: Sacramento) with state boundaries north of Ukiah and Yuba City, and south of Stockton and San Jose. Then there's Central CA (possible capital: Fresno) with it's state line north of Delano and Paso Robles. Southern CA (most likely capital: San Bernardino, not even the 10th largest in the region). And the remainder Jefferson (the region's largest city either Chico or Redding, 100,000 plus each). The former state of CA could have 2 new counties I know of: Northern L.A. and Eastern Riverside (county seats either Lancaster or Palmdale, and Indio or Palm Springs). The San Fernando Valley attempted secession from L.A. in the early 2000s, so how about another US city with over a million residents?
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 09:32:30 PM
I don't know about NY as an independent country, but NYC as it's own state could work. Maybe if we weren't sending all our $ to Albany, we could finally finish the 2 Av Subway line. 😝
XT1585
Hate to break it to you, but the MTA is a financial black hole fueled by corruption. If anything, the subway line would take even LONGER if you were an independent state. Meanwhile, upstate, we can't even keep our roads from deteriorating because the state is spending all its money on things like the LaGuardia rebuild, and things like uber are illegal here because the NYC taxi lobby doesn't want the competition, our exit numbers are still sequential because of you guys, and our speed limit still just 65. It was even a huge battle just to get electric bikes.
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2016, 10:25:01 PM
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 09:32:30 PM
I don't know about NY as an independent country, but NYC as it's own state could work. Maybe if we weren't sending all our $ to Albany, we could finally finish the 2 Av Subway line. 😝
XT1585
Hate to break it to you, but the MTA is a financial black hole fueled by corruption. If anything, the subway line would take even LONGER if you were an independent state. Meanwhile, upstate, we can't even keep our roads from deteriorating because the state is spending all its money on things like the LaGuardia rebuild, and things like uber are illegal here because the NYC taxi lobby doesn't want the competition, our exit numbers are still sequential because of you guys, and our speed limit still just 65. It was even a huge battle just to get electric bikes.
Electric bikes are still illegal here. Not that that stops anyone. And as I recall at least part of IH 95 still has mile based junction numbers
XT1585
Blame Count for the LaGuardia rebuild. And the MTA would be a cluster spork regardless.
XT1585
Coumo. Goddam Otto correct.
XT1585
http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11852940/uber-subprime-auto-loans-drivers-xchange also Uber is a plague. You can have it.
XT1585
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 25, 2016, 12:45:09 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on June 24, 2016, 12:01:21 PM
(It is possible for a state to be its own dictatorship. Democracy really didn't come to the Deep South until the Voting Rights Act was passed, so I'd say those states were practically dictatorships before then.)
Alabama still pretty much is a "dictatorship", since we haven't had a Democrat governor since the Republicans went conservative...
How is that a dictatorship?
Quote from: dvferyance on June 25, 2016, 10:50:44 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 25, 2016, 12:45:09 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on June 24, 2016, 12:01:21 PM
(It is possible for a state to be its own dictatorship. Democracy really didn't come to the Deep South until the Voting Rights Act was passed, so I'd say those states were practically dictatorships before then.)
Alabama still pretty much is a "dictatorship", since we haven't had a Democrat governor since the Republicans went conservative...
How is that a dictatorship?
At the very least it's a one party system here now for the most part. Dictatorship is probably the wrong word to use, but it was almost midnight when I wrote that and I was rather tired.
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 10:37:01 PM
Quote from: vdeane on June 25, 2016, 10:25:01 PM
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on June 25, 2016, 09:32:30 PM
I don't know about NY as an independent country, but NYC as it's own state could work. Maybe if we weren't sending all our $ to Albany, we could finally finish the 2 Av Subway line. 😝
XT1585
Hate to break it to you, but the MTA is a financial black hole fueled by corruption. If anything, the subway line would take even LONGER if you were an independent state. Meanwhile, upstate, we can't even keep our roads from deteriorating because the state is spending all its money on things like the LaGuardia rebuild, and things like uber are illegal here because the NYC taxi lobby doesn't want the competition, our exit numbers are still sequential because of you guys, and our speed limit still just 65. It was even a huge battle just to get electric bikes.
Electric bikes are still illegal here. Not that that stops anyone. And as I recall at least part of IH 95 still has mile based junction numbers
XT1585
But notice how so few other roads in the state have mile-based numbers and how we're not allowed to convert because of NYC/LI interests in remaining sequential. Heck, there was a half hearted project to replace the mile-based numbers on I-95 with sequential until the 2009 MUTCD came out.
And, of course, stuff like the LaGuardia rebuilt isn't just because of Cuomo; I remember when upstate taxpayers were on the hook for a football stadium in Manhattan.
And the downstate effect on our laws is quite large; it's not just electric bikes (which are only still illegal in NYC as part of a compromise with the technophobic idiots who think they're motorcycles) and Uber (and, while Uber has its issues, the main thing keeping it illegal in NY is the power of the NYC taxi lobby). They're just what I came up with on the top of my head, being recent.
A state could theoretically survive as a nation while still being part of the United States...
If Texas did secede, a good chunk of the rest of the US would do cartwheels.
The idea that this or that state is a donor or donee in terms of federal taxes is apocryphal. There are dozen of measures, all inaccurate. The federal government is not a good buy for any state, of course.
As to the original question, pretty much any state could survive as a country. Why not? Every state produces a product that it can sell at a fair price to those that want or need it.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 26, 2016, 09:50:59 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 25, 2016, 10:50:44 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 25, 2016, 12:45:09 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on June 24, 2016, 12:01:21 PM
(It is possible for a state to be its own dictatorship. Democracy really didn't come to the Deep South until the Voting Rights Act was passed, so I'd say those states were practically dictatorships before then.)
Alabama still pretty much is a "dictatorship", since we haven't had a Democrat governor since the Republicans went conservative...
How is that a dictatorship?
At the very least it's a one party system here now for the most part. Dictatorship is probably the wrong word to use, but it was almost midnight when I wrote that and I was rather tired.
There are plenty of one-party states in the US, Illinois being rather notable.
Quote from: Brandon on June 27, 2016, 10:42:22 AM
There are plenty of one-party states in the US, Illinois being rather notable.
How is Illinois one-party? One party controls the governorship, but another party controls the legislature.
America certainly has counties that are one-party when they don't need to be. Around here, for instance, one party might win with only 55% of the vote in county commissioner elections, but they win all the commissioner seats, because they won't adopt a fair system that allocates seats proportionally.
Quote from: bandit957 on June 28, 2016, 01:16:17 AMAmerica certainly has counties that are one-party when they don't need to be. Around here, for instance, one party might win with only 55% of the vote in county commissioner elections, but they win all the commissioner seats, because they won't adopt a fair system that allocates seats proportionally.
Oh, all of the districts are probably equal. They're just gerrymandered to the point where the opposing party doesn't have a say.
Perhaps. Or perhaps 55% of the people feel one way, evenly distributed. Not enough information to know.
Of course, so-called "proportional representation" has nothing whatsoever to do with democracy.
Then again, as we've seen across the pond, those people that would want to secede from the US would be doing it only to show a point but don't actually want to secede. When they actually do secede, people will be surprised that so many voted to secede and they didn't think it would happen. Then, they will start wavering on this whole secession idea, and will want to rejoin the union.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 28, 2016, 06:29:04 AMThen again, as we've seen across the pond
Either the US media is really awful (though ours has been heavily biased to spinning this for Remain with few exceptions) or you haven't actually looked.
Quotethose people that would want to secede from the US would be doing it only to show a point but don't actually want to secede.
Only 1-2% of the 52% of Leave voters have voters regret - it's been extensively polled. The regret is coming from the 96% of Remain voters who are actively angry (many demanding a re-run - in which case, can England play Iceland again?) that we have the wrong sort of electorate (as many people did in 2015, and with Corbyn's election as leader of the Labour party).
QuoteWhen they actually do secede, people will be surprised that so many voted to secede and they didn't think it would happen.
Surely, unlike the UK vote, the State seceding wouldn't use their employees and taxpayers money not specifically earmarked for campaigning to produce a leaflet for every household on the stay side? And the Governor wouldn't be the actively-involved figurehead of the stay camp? While it wasn't as bad as in 1975, the establishment were almost all on one side of this, the media spin (save a couple of newspapers and a news magazine) had a pro-EU bias (though, to be fair to the TV channels, their coverage did get more balanced on the news programmes once everyone was in campaign mode, and the BBC even tried a little on the topical comedy TV shows to bring in a sensible Leaver a couple of times for some balance).
Leave were massive underdogs throughout the campaign, because it was all set up against them - the timing chosen to maximise turnout, turning lukewarm Remain support into votes, done with as short notice as possible, and suddenly, so that the Leave camp were on the back foot at the start of the race, etc. Should a secession movement come to a vote in a state, then there would surely have to be an expectation that there was a good chance of secession winning. Case in point - the Scottish referendum had the Scottish government siding for independence, and an expectation that Yes could win it else they wouldn't have called it (just as it is expected by some that they won't call a second one). This referendum was, like the AV one, designed as a way of not changing anything while pretending to have done so to fulfil a promise.
Leave was polling 10 points behind at the start of the week according to one poll that Fleet Street and Salford proclaimed from the rooftops. On the day itself, when I suggested that 8/1 for Leave to win was very good odds as the polls look close on an online forum, I was shouted down and people were saying 60-40 Remain. The private exit polling that bankers did suggested Remain. Even when Newcastle's result came in lower than expected for Remain, the mood was still very much Remain is going to win it, just not by 10+ points. Farage (who was a prominent Leaver not part of the official campaign) conceded defeat (with no right to do so) twice during the first couple of hours of the night. Boris was alleged to have said on the tube that he didn't think Leave had quite won. Then Sunderland happened and the mood slightly shifted that Leave weren't out yet. Swansea at just before 2am meant cautious optimism and it was another hour before it was sensible to suggest that Leave had definitely had it (and another hour after that when it was actually called).
The people whose job it is to know saw it as too close to call/narrow Remain victory. The media was implying, and the man on the street expecting a fairly large Remain win. Almost all Leave voters, myself included (who had read the people saying too-close to call), felt that Remain would probably pip it. Especially when you add in the conspiracy theories that quite a few people believed they were going to rig it for Remain (from more sensible stuff with evidence like people who didn't have the right to vote in this referendum being given voting cards telling them where to go and what their number was, through to the bonkers idea that pencil marks would be rubbed out so use a pen). For 97% of Leave voters it was a pleasant surprise (we'll say a similar amount weren't surprised to those who regretted their vote, making about 3% total) to find out that Leave won. It wasn't expected as we'd been told to expect something different.
It was the same with the 2015 General Election - they did targeted exit polls that could be meaningfully relied on (they couldn't for this, so they didn't bother doing one), and everyone was expecting the announcement at 10.01 of a prediction of a hung parliament. No. Not even too close to call a result - we had voted for a small Conservative majority. As results were starting to trickle in, Conservative pundits were happily surprised, others didn't think it was at all true (one vowing to eat their hat if it was true, because he was adamant that it wasn't). Journalists had promised to streak a couple of days before the vote if the unlikely thing happened found themselves having to do it. Our polling still isn't right, but somehow we trust it too much.
QuoteThen, they will start wavering on this whole secession idea, and will want to rejoin the union.
Nonsense - all the seeking to not Leave are ardent Remainers. Even those with regret aren't seeking to not do what was decided.
If everything you say English Si is accurate, then some of the media in the US is definitely exaggerating some of the complaints and worries people have as a result of the vote.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on June 28, 2016, 06:29:04 AM
Then again, as we've seen across the pond, those people that would want to secede from the US would be doing it only to show a point but don't actually want to secede. When they actually do secede, people will be surprised that so many voted to secede and they didn't think it would happen. Then, they will start wavering on this whole secession idea, and will want to rejoin the union.
And if the USA's central federal government starts becoming too overbearing, there is a process in the USA's 1787 Constitution that allows the states to fight back - a process in Article V (amending process) that allows the legislatures of two-thirds of the states to call a convention for the purpose of officially proposing amendments that would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states (as with any other amendment), completely bypassing Congress.
Does the EU have such a process where the member countries can 'fight back' if the EU's central government gets too overbearing?
Mike
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 28, 2016, 02:59:30 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on June 28, 2016, 01:16:17 AMAmerica certainly has counties that are one-party when they don't need to be. Around here, for instance, one party might win with only 55% of the vote in county commissioner elections, but they win all the commissioner seats, because they won't adopt a fair system that allocates seats proportionally.
Oh, all of the districts are probably equal. They're just gerrymandered to the point where the opposing party doesn't have a say.
In Kentucky, county commissioners represent districts but are elected countywide, if the county has adopted a commissioner form of government. However, if the county adopts a magistrate form of government, magistrates are elected from individual districts that are made up of voting precincts that are formed by geographic boundaries. While the districts have to be roughly equal in population, the precincts themselves do not have to be roughly equal in population. Which resulted in a situation in a county where I worked years ago with three magistrates where one of them represented about half the county, geographically speaking.
I'm not sure what Tim's advocating here unless it's some sort of parliamentary system.
The US media is extremely pro-Remain as well. They've been explaining the decision to leave as a result of "stupid/racist" voters who wouldn't listen to the "experts"; claims that the leave voters are all regretting their vote and that searches for "what is the EU" spiked after the vote results were announced are all over the place, as well as claims that the stock market is in free fall and that the pound is dirt cheap and that Britain's economy is going to implode and that Russia will soon rule over all of Europe.
Unfortunately, my summation of how the media is covering this isn't even the tiniest bit exaggerated.
Quote from: vdeane on June 28, 2016, 01:08:27 PM
The US media is extremely pro-Remain as well. They've been explaining the decision to leave as a result of "stupid/racist" voters who wouldn't listen to the "experts"; claims that the leave voters are all regretting their vote and that searches for "what is the EU" spiked after the vote results were announced are all over the place, as well as claims that the stock market is in free fall and that the pound is dirt cheap and that Britain's economy is going to implode and that Russia will soon rule over all of Europe.
Unfortunately, my summation of how the media is covering this isn't even the tiniest bit exaggerated.
They also dismiss the results by the Remain voters being elderly and afraid of change. I don't know if that's true or not but, last time I checked, elderly people matter too, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to disregard their opinions.
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2016, 01:34:22 PM
They also dismiss the results by the Remain voters being elderly and afraid of change. I don't know if that's true or not but, last time I checked, elderly people matter too, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to disregard their opinions.
We were talking about this today...I think it's because this decision will take several years to implement, several more years for the full effects to be known and will have ramifications for decades down the road (and perhaps permanently so long as there's an E.U.). It's not that the votes of anyone, regardless of age, don't matter - but to put it bluntly, many of the majority who voted Leave will be dead by the time it takes full effect, while the majority who voted Remain will be stuck with a decision they didn't want. I believe the numbers were something like 66% of people under 35 voted Remain, while 59% of people over 55 voted Leave.
That said, voter turnout was much lower among younger people, so it could also be argued that they don't care as much? I know I don't have enough expertise to have an opinion, but it's an interesting topic...
Quote from: DTComposer on June 28, 2016, 06:50:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2016, 01:34:22 PM
They also dismiss the results by the Remain voters being elderly and afraid of change. I don't know if that's true or not but, last time I checked, elderly people matter too, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to disregard their opinions.
We were talking about this today...I think it's because this decision will take several years to implement, several more years for the full effects to be known and will have ramifications for decades down the road (and perhaps permanently so long as there's an E.U.). It's not that the votes of anyone, regardless of age, don't matter - but to put it bluntly, many of the majority who voted Leave will be dead by the time it takes full effect, while the majority who voted Remain will be stuck with a decision they didn't want. I believe the numbers were something like 66% of people under 35 voted Remain, while 59% of people over 55 voted Leave.
That said, voter turnout was much lower among younger people, so it could also be argued that they don't care as much? I know I don't have enough expertise to have an opinion, but it's an interesting topic...
But that's just another way of saying older folks' votes don't matter as much because they won't live as long. Just different words.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 28, 2016, 05:46:45 AM
Perhaps. Or perhaps 55% of the people feel one way, evenly distributed. Not enough information to know.
The northern half of the county supports one party, the southern half supports another. But only the southern half is heard, despite having fewer people.
My top 3 candidates:
1) Texas
2) Hawaii
3) Alaska
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2016, 07:02:09 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 28, 2016, 06:50:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2016, 01:34:22 PM
They also dismiss the results by the Remain voters being elderly and afraid of change. I don't know if that's true or not but, last time I checked, elderly people matter too, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to disregard their opinions.
We were talking about this today...I think it's because this decision will take several years to implement, several more years for the full effects to be known and will have ramifications for decades down the road (and perhaps permanently so long as there's an E.U.). It's not that the votes of anyone, regardless of age, don't matter - but to put it bluntly, many of the majority who voted Leave will be dead by the time it takes full effect, while the majority who voted Remain will be stuck with a decision they didn't want. I believe the numbers were something like 66% of people under 35 voted Remain, while 59% of people over 55 voted Leave.
That said, voter turnout was much lower among younger people, so it could also be argued that they don't care as much? I know I don't have enough expertise to have an opinion, but it's an interesting topic...
But that's just another way of saying older folks' votes don't matter as much because they won't live as long. Just different words.
You're right, and that was the crux of my other discussion - we were trying to find an analogy - it's like five people are living in a house, and everyone votes on what color to paint the house, and three people vote purple and two vote green, so it gets painted purple, but two of the people voting purple are moving out next month, and the one of the people who will replace them would have picked green. Except that you can't repaint the house.
It's not a great analogy, and I struggle with it (I am not among the younger demographic, FWIW). The best I could think was this: if I was older, and had an adult grandchild, I would hope I had the integrity to sit down with them, have a good conversation about the pros and cons of both sides, and say "well,
you're the one who will have to live with it. What do
you want?" And if I felt their arguments and rationales were well thought out (and not caught up in the hysteria both sides seem to have displayed), then I would vote to support what they wanted.
I say that, but would I really do that? Does this mean my opinion or vote doesn't matter? Or does it mean I want younger generations to feel they had a voice in shaping the world they (and not me) will live in?
Quote from: DTComposer on June 28, 2016, 11:54:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2016, 07:02:09 PM
Quote from: DTComposer on June 28, 2016, 06:50:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 28, 2016, 01:34:22 PM
They also dismiss the results by the Remain voters being elderly and afraid of change. I don't know if that's true or not but, last time I checked, elderly people matter too, so I'm not sure why I'm supposed to disregard their opinions.
We were talking about this today...I think it's because this decision will take several years to implement, several more years for the full effects to be known and will have ramifications for decades down the road (and perhaps permanently so long as there's an E.U.). It's not that the votes of anyone, regardless of age, don't matter - but to put it bluntly, many of the majority who voted Leave will be dead by the time it takes full effect, while the majority who voted Remain will be stuck with a decision they didn't want. I believe the numbers were something like 66% of people under 35 voted Remain, while 59% of people over 55 voted Leave.
That said, voter turnout was much lower among younger people, so it could also be argued that they don't care as much? I know I don't have enough expertise to have an opinion, but it's an interesting topic...
But that's just another way of saying older folks' votes don't matter as much because they won't live as long. Just different words.
You're right, and that was the crux of my other discussion - we were trying to find an analogy - it's like five people are living in a house, and everyone votes on what color to paint the house, and three people vote purple and two vote green, so it gets painted purple, but two of the people voting purple are moving out next month, and the one of the people who will replace them would have picked green. Except that you can't repaint the house.
It's not a great analogy, and I struggle with it (I am not among the younger demographic, FWIW). The best I could think was this: if I was older, and had an adult grandchild, I would hope I had the integrity to sit down with them, have a good conversation about the pros and cons of both sides, and say "well, you're the one who will have to live with it. What do you want?" And if I felt their arguments and rationales were well thought out (and not caught up in the hysteria both sides seem to have displayed), then I would vote to support what they wanted.
I say that, but would I really do that? Does this mean my opinion or vote doesn't matter? Or does it mean I want younger generations to feel they had a voice in shaping the world they (and not me) will live in?
And then you find out your grandson didn't vote because he had a lunch date. And doesn't explain why he couldn't vote in the other 15 hours available.
by the way.. There was (and still is, as I just read) a fairly interesting movement - Free State Project. Idea was to bring people supporting certain idea - "liberty-oriented", as they call it - into a single state; and take over control of state government. They believe that if the group of 10-20 thousand people moved into the state gets 100% voter turnout between them, they can just outvote locals. They selected NH, state with 1.3 million population, with direct ocean access and access to Canada border, and "strong liberty spirit".
Big plan is basically to reject "if state does this, federal government funds that" type of deals in favor of local decision making. So far they got 18 out of 400 seats in state legislature during past elections..
Not a true secession, but interesting idea nonetheless.
Surprised they got that many. What they may not have expected is that in New Hampshire, along with neighboring Vermont, the "locals" still play heavily into local and regional politics because both states still adhere to "Town Meeting".
Quote from: US 41 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:49 PM
My top 3 candidates:
1) Texas
2) Hawaii
3) Alaska
I really would put Hawaii last. Tourism comprises 25% of its economy. Divested of the passport/visa free relationship and familiar culture, it is in competition with 2 dozen other places. Many of which have workers that earn 3rd world wages.
The military, which comprises 10% of the population, is nearly 15% of the economy. The USA really has no need of a military base in the middle of the Pacific.
The rest is agriculture and fishing. Again in competition with places where people make 3rd world wages. Absent a tariff free relationship with the USA, that is done.
The state's only real resource is the weather. Full of rich people (highest %age of millionaires of any state) who have so much money they don't care to pay confiscatory taxes to support a welfare state. In return, of course, for the ease of travel, protection of US laws, and everything else that goes with being a state. Absent that, many of these people would opt for places like Florida or California, while others would look towards the Carribbean.
Quote from: froggie on June 29, 2016, 10:51:47 AM
Surprised they got that many. What they may not have expected is that in New Hampshire, along with neighboring Vermont, the "locals" still play heavily into local and regional politics because both states still adhere to "Town Meeting".
My impression is that FSP actually counts on local support in NH. You know, "live free or die" type of things..
Quote from: SP Cook on June 29, 2016, 11:14:56 AM
The USA really has no need of a military base in the middle of the Pacific.
So I'm guessing that you don't view places like North Korea and China a direct threat to the US. I'd be very nervous not having a military base in Hawaii.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 29, 2016, 11:14:56 AM
Quote from: US 41 on June 28, 2016, 10:09:49 PM
My top 3 candidates:
1) Texas
2) Hawaii
3) Alaska
I really would put Hawaii last. Tourism comprises 25% of its economy. Divested of the passport/visa free relationship and familiar culture, it is in competition with 2 dozen other places. Many of which have workers that earn 3rd world wages.
The military, which comprises 10% of the population, is nearly 15% of the economy. The USA really has no need of a military base in the middle of the Pacific.
The rest is agriculture and fishing. Again in competition with places where people make 3rd world wages. Absent a tariff free relationship with the USA, that is done.
The state's only real resource is the weather. Full of rich people (highest %age of millionaires of any state) who have so much money they don't care to pay confiscatory taxes to support a welfare state. In return, of course, for the ease of travel, protection of US laws, and everything else that goes with being a state. Absent that, many of these people would opt for places like Florida or California, while others would look towards the Carribbean.
It depends a lot on the relations between independent Hawaii and the remaining United States. Visas aren't required for visitors between a lot of friendly countries. Hawaii would continue to get a lot of tourists from the mainland US because it's a short flight and English is the dominant language. And a lot of tourists come from Japan, too, which would presumably continue to come to independent Hawaii.
Of course military and naval bases in the Pacific are very valuable to the US. They're that much closer to hot spots in east Asia and the middle east, especially now that the US no longer has bases in the Philippines. I expect independent Hawaii would negotiate a treaty for defense including continuing basing rights for the US military.
Hawaii might continue use of the US dollar as their currency. It works for Panama and some other countries.
Hawaii was an independent country until the US annexed it in the 1800s...
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 29, 2016, 01:19:06 PM
Hawaii was an independent country until the US annexed it in the 1800s...
Sort of... the kingdom of the whole group of islands wasn't established until after Western contact. It wasn't so much a matter of whether it would stay independent as a matter of which Western power would annex them and whether the royal family would get a friendly buyout or be overthrown by force.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 26, 2016, 09:50:59 AM
Quote from: dvferyance on June 25, 2016, 10:50:44 PM
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 25, 2016, 12:45:09 AM
Quote from: bandit957 on June 24, 2016, 12:01:21 PM
(It is possible for a state to be its own dictatorship. Democracy really didn't come to the Deep South until the Voting Rights Act was passed, so I'd say those states were practically dictatorships before then.)
Alabama still pretty much is a "dictatorship", since we haven't had a Democrat governor since the Republicans went conservative...
How is that a dictatorship?
At the very least it's a one party system here now for the most part. Dictatorship is probably the wrong word to use, but it was almost midnight when I wrote that and I was rather tired.
There are plenty of states that are one party both Republican and Democrat.
Quote from: sparker on June 25, 2016, 01:10:40 AM
Not that I think it'll ever happen, but if California were to go its own way, the water situation would likely be addressed by massive desalinization. While extremely expensive, California is also a relatively "high tax" state; the per capita cost of a delsalinization plant would be at least absorbable (if not easily so). If such a plant could be located in more brackish waters such as upper Suisun Bay or elsewhere in the Delta, the byproducts/waste could be lessened. (OK, we can sell it as "sea salt" to Whole Foods, Sprouts, and other such specialty food stores!)
California tried to say the same stuff in the Six California proposal back in 2014 but in reality that got thrown out because of ethical issues with the petitioners for the Six California's. Two Solano county was at an odd position its a product of 1850's gerrymandering between Sacramento and Bay Area economic interests to get the State Capitol in Benicia. Two Sacramento and Solano counties would still benefit from separation via North California because all the other states like Jefferson, San Joaquin, Silicon Valley, West California and South California would still have to comply with Drought emergency policies made in Sacramento even though the state split up.
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 24, 2016, 05:54:22 PM
None. The costs of
- Establishing a military and border controls
- Establishing diplomatic and trade relations with other countries
- Changeover to a new currency
- Assumption of that state's portion of the national debt
- Lost economic production due to new trade barriers with other states
Would all be enough to immediately drain even the wealthiest state's coffers.
Most every state could survive if it seceded. Trade has already been established, no need for new currency, who said anything about assuming debt, and refer back to trade already established - but your main point - military - not sure what a military would even be needed for. When was the last time any state needed military intervention for something? The LA riots?
What the real question should be is;
Which states could survive all by themselvesNo more 49 other states, therefore no more trade with them. All resources from those other states are no longer available to you. You now need to look to the rest of the world for what you lack - which means you need to bring something of serious value to the world's bargaining table. So NOW which states have what it takes to be a player?
New York has the banks
Michigan has the cars
Illinois has the planes
Texas has the oil
What else?
Wow, you make it sound like any state that seceded would face a full Cuba-style embargo from the US!
Quote from: vdeane on July 22, 2016, 03:46:23 PMWow, you make it sound like any state that seceded would face a full Cuba-style embargo from the US!
#ProjectFear starting early! Its proponents better watch out as it's just as likely to alienate people and get them to leave the union (thinking Scotland Independence strong negative reaction to such tactics as well as Brexit)
Quote from: vdeane on July 22, 2016, 03:46:23 PM
Wow, you make it sound like any state that seceded would face a full Cuba-style embargo from the US!
Well there is case history of that not going so well in the States. Funny, I thought someone would have brought up the British Empire post WWII as an example for this thread. Almost everyone completely forgets that was actually a thing.
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 21, 2016, 11:58:23 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 24, 2016, 05:54:22 PM
None. The costs of
- Establishing a military and border controls
- Establishing diplomatic and trade relations with other countries
- Changeover to a new currency
- Assumption of that state's portion of the national debt
- Lost economic production due to new trade barriers with other states
Would all be enough to immediately drain even the wealthiest state's coffers.
Most every state could survive if it seceded. Trade has already been established, no need for new currency, who said anything about assuming debt, and refer back to trade already established - but your main point - military - not sure what a military would even be needed for. When was the last time any state needed military intervention for something? The LA riots?
What the real question should be is;
Which states could survive all by themselves
No more 49 other states, therefore no more trade with them. All resources from those other states are no longer available to you. You now need to look to the rest of the world for what you lack - which means you need to bring something of serious value to the world's bargaining table. So NOW which states have what it takes to be a player?
New York has the banks
Michigan has the cars
Illinois has the planes
Texas has the oil
What else?
California has the app tech companies and Biotech industry?
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 21, 2016, 11:58:23 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 24, 2016, 05:54:22 PM
None. The costs of
- Establishing a military and border controls
- Establishing diplomatic and trade relations with other countries
- Changeover to a new currency
- Assumption of that state's portion of the national debt
- Lost economic production due to new trade barriers with other states
Would all be enough to immediately drain even the wealthiest state's coffers.
Most every state could survive if it seceded. Trade has already been established, no need for new currency, who said anything about assuming debt, and refer back to trade already established - but your main point - military - not sure what a military would even be needed for. When was the last time any state needed military intervention for something? The LA riots?
What the real question should be is;
Which states could survive all by themselves
No more 49 other states, therefore no more trade with them. All resources from those other states are no longer available to you. You now need to look to the rest of the world for what you lack - which means you need to bring something of serious value to the world's bargaining table. So NOW which states have what it takes to be a player?
New York has the banks
Michigan has the cars
Illinois has the planes
Texas has the oil
What else?
If you think IL has planes, DE would be the most successful one since it has everything else...
Quote from: kalvado on July 23, 2016, 06:18:46 PM
Quote from: 8.Lug on July 21, 2016, 11:58:23 PM
Quote from: Thing 342 on June 24, 2016, 05:54:22 PM
None. The costs of
- Establishing a military and border controls
- Establishing diplomatic and trade relations with other countries
- Changeover to a new currency
- Assumption of that state's portion of the national debt
- Lost economic production due to new trade barriers with other states
Would all be enough to immediately drain even the wealthiest state's coffers.
Most every state could survive if it seceded. Trade has already been established, no need for new currency, who said anything about assuming debt, and refer back to trade already established - but your main point - military - not sure what a military would even be needed for. When was the last time any state needed military intervention for something? The LA riots?
What the real question should be is;
Which states could survive all by themselves
No more 49 other states, therefore no more trade with them. All resources from those other states are no longer available to you. You now need to look to the rest of the world for what you lack - which means you need to bring something of serious value to the world's bargaining table. So NOW which states have what it takes to be a player?
New York has the banks
Michigan has the cars
Illinois has the planes
Texas has the oil
What else?
If you think IL has planes, DE would be the most successful one since it has everything else...
After all, there's a building there that is the legal address for 285,000 businesses. Heck, it's the tax dodge for both Trump and Clinton.
Wilmington has 1.09 major corporations for each 1 of their residents. :coffee:
Quote from: bing101 on July 23, 2016, 06:10:33 PM
California has the app tech companies and Biotech industry?
Let's try entertainment...
iPhone