http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/06/04/...in2881111.shtml

I've had the idea rolling in my head for a while. I say go for it.

Such separatist movements are an abdication of responsibility. They don't like their present national government, so they're trying to leave, rather than work harder to fix them.

I tend to agree with you on this case, but sometimes, separation is justified when one part of a nation is just unable to get along with the rest.

But the world-wide tendency seems to go towards unity rather than separation. I hope it continues in this direction.

It wasn't until recently that I even considered the idea of secession from the federal government. But after having done a little research, I think it might have some long term success. I think people are growing more tiresome and weary of the US govt, everyday, and if and when attempts to fix the system fail, peaceful secession might become a good "exit" strategy. Certainly an armed revolution in the US is to say the least impossible, the federal government is too powerful. However built into the constitution, are several possible strategies for reform before revolution. I, like many others, believe that there are still several of these possibilities for effective reform remaining.

Dismantling the republic is the last step, not the first. But as the federal government grows into a giant monster, perhaps the best we can do is hide in our states, reforming local government, and bring about the kind of America we all deserve.

Well that kinda involves more effort than Vermont can reasonably give by itself. You would need multiple states working on this together. Hell, they couldn't even get enough states for a convention to force the Federal Government to have a balanced budget.

Besides at what point do you think it's acceptable to leave? At what point for you does it not become an abdication of responsibility?



Anyways it doesn't really matter. I don't really see Vermont making it on their own. There probably very few states that could.

Yes, that's the nature of democracy. A democratic society has obligations for both the majority and minority opinion holders. Minorities have a responsibility to participate in their system, to attempt to change the minds of their opposition, and to accept the majority until such time as they are capable of convincing them.

It can be damn hard to convince the rest that you're right, and it can take a damn long time, but dissent and debate are vital to the success of a civil society. Separation and secession are an abandonment of that responsibility and a blow to that civil society. At its heart, its motivation is nothing but laziness, an unwillingness to take on the challenge, and instead excusing oneself from the discussion to get one's own way.

Never.

With the events in the past decade or so, we can look to Yugoslavia to see examples of segregation and succession.

The racial communities, religious ideals and economic considerations all support a kind of seperatism from a typically biased system which historically hadn't made much progress since it's inception over 230 years ago. We still have yet to have either a black or female president (not to mention latino or oriental). Corporate executives and even upper management tends to be from the elitist groups of well-to-do Noreasterners from Harvard, Yale and pepper it with some from UCLA/USC. Our public officials are only now starting to represent the actual groups they represent (being of a homosexual preference or socialist or even Islamic followers).

Yet the idea that seperation should occur turns my stomach. I can see it breaking down into dozens and hundreds of minor divisions based upon current issues or whatever ideas are popular at the time. Should the south again cede from the Union? After all, the hispanic population alone might feel it is more there nation than ours. If this becomes not only a trend but a regular practice, we will find ourselves breaking our social structure back down into minor parts... akin to city-states (or in the worst-case scenario - tribes).

Ha! It is far easier to become complacent with the current status quo than to move for a measure that would require all kinds of effort in order to separate themselves from any union and ESPECIALLY the Estados de Unidad. It's motivation may be short-sighted and even a bit ignorant but falls well short of being unwilling to seek change. It is certainly brave and novel. It doesn't excuse anything... more to the point, it may be bringing the focus back to the issues at hand (mainly the reasons why they seek to secede). Again, if they were as lazy as you assume, it would have been something closer to apathy.

No, apathy and laziness are different phenomena. The lazy person has an aspiration, but is not willing to achieve it, or to cut corners in its pursuit. The apathetic person does not care enough to have a goal.

You're assuming the majority are even making the decisions. Often times that's not the case. It's often the lobbyists and corporations who are influencing what decisions are made.

It's not always a matter of my opinion versus your opinion issue. It's sometimes a my opinion versus your lobbyists and corporate donations. It's a matter of stopping the abuse of the system. Claiming the ones who choose secession are the ones excusing themselves from the discussion isn't entirely honest. Some of the others have already excused themselves without doing so.


In the end the states still have a greater responsibility to it's people.

Macedonia was able to claim independence peacefully and keep good relations with Belgrade and the others.

Yeah the last time seperation occurred in our own country...didn't go so well. I'd rather that kind of bloodshed be avoided(well all bloodshed really). However if it were successful I doubt there would be a downward spiral and degrade that far.

It's the majority of voters that determine a country's course, to differentiate from citizens or potential voters. Lobbyists have a great capacity to influence those voters (or are themselves representatives), but they do not actually run a democratic government except in oversimplified cynical analyses.

The rise of lobbyist influence (largely due to the phenomenon Rancer pointed out, apathy) is simply another challenge which must be confronted by the citizens of a healthy society. It is certainly not a good excuse for separatism.

The apathetic aren't so much of a problem, because they don't care about the results. Separatism is a much worse social ill, as its followers are citizens who reject the decisions of their government, but are refusing to work for positive change. The apathetic get what they deserve, but separatists just make things worse for everybody.

Ultimately, the "people" and the "state" are not separate entities, especially in constitutionally democratic nations. The responsibility in the system is of the people to each other, all other entities are artificial constructions of the people themselves.

The major problem with successful independence movements is not that they always cause violence between nations (though they often do). The big loss is of the input and participation of the separated groups within each other's society and government, they increase artificial divisions and the perception of differences among people, and weaken civil society by weakening or even eliminating elements in the diversity of opinion and thought; as well as encouraging similar laziness among other groups.

Lobbyist influence was more to the fact driven by organizations (read "corporations" or special-interest groups) which are trying to get favourable conditions. You are aware of what they try to achieve and probably some of their methods. Even some of the polling data or statistics they provide are supportive of their positions while the congress member's staff has neither the inclination nor the commitment to seek out opposing stances. They certainly are not going to call Mr. Regular Joe constituent and ask his thoughts. Unless of course he is contributing thousands and thousands of dollars to his past/current campaigns.

While I agree that it is a kind of social ill and support that it might seem an easier way out; it is a much better option that a revolution. But I definitely state that breaking away from the existing system and setting up your own to replace what is missing is not lazy nor is it a lack of effort/determination in working for positive changes.

Touche. Yet it wasn't a totally pain free process and the U.N. peacekeeping force had to be employed in parts of Yugoslavia which were not so benevolent. Albanians even now do not want to change their current flag over to some new, yet-to-be-designed symbol (according to a recent N.P.R. broadcast this past week) which will represent all ethnicities.


* * * * * * * * * *


Again, I'm against it because if Vermont does it, then a state like Texas will certainly want to do so. And/or California. And all the wealthier states of the Union that feel the wealth they pay into a federal government is better off spent on their own infrastructure. I could see Oklahoma having even greater problems with interstate highways if three of the top 5 tax-based states leave the U.S. of A.

I don't really even want to see a county secede. Yet if the current state and federal governments choose to ignore the health/sanitation/educational needs of it's poorer districts or counties (like Starr County, Texas) where the sewer systems are so poor that human waste makes it above ground or they can not bring in quality teachers or provide clean drinking water -- can anyone blame them for wanting to break away after feeling abandoned by their supposed "representatives" in government??? Not ironically, this county is one of the few that supported John Kerry in the last presidential election. Some that have visited depressed areas have supposedly indicated that it's not much different from being in a 3rd-world country.

It is far easier to give up on a community because of it's low-end property valuation or the number of illegal immigrants present. Which puts the actual taxpaying percentage at a very low figure. Which means even less representation since they do not have a lobbyist group and are already placing a burden upon public healtcare, welfare and other human services. There is something wrong with the existing system if things like this occur in a country claiming to be the "biggest" or "best" superpower (tier-one economic nation or whatever moniker your prefer).

And don't simply state that those people living in that community can just pick up and move somewhere better. If they pitched a tent in your local neighbourhood, everyone would complain about them driving property values down... not to mention the housing associations set up just to focus on preserving those values above all others.

It's an interpretation issue. Producer organizations and other special interest groups have been competing for influence since the invention of the trade guild, if not before. The establishment of democratic systems was a tremendous blow to their political power, however. It has been only recently with the increase of political apathy (decrease of voter awareness and activism) that has allowed corporate lobbying to expand its influence to the present level, as voters are no longer the watchdogs they used to be.

No, it's much worse. Revolution keeps the marketplace of ideas whole, whereas separation divides and limits discourse. Separation slows down progress in one of the two successor states, revolution speeds it up. For the United States, the Civil War was a Revolution that eliminated Slavery and strengthened the Central Government, a result infinitely preferrable to allowing the parties to separate, lengthening the life of American Slavery and trading a strong whole nation for two weak ones.

Your statement lacks a rationale.

So how do you motivate the apathetic?

I'm not sure that you want to. Apathy is often a good sign of stupidity.

Back more in line with the topic at hand...

Some citizenry of Quebec wants to secede from Canada. The same for Scotland wanting to break from Great Britain; but more to the point from England. The example of the Civil War (which was more a war of secession than revolution) is good in that it was the agriculturally-based southern states wanting to depart from the industrially-oriented north.

Ideas are there regardless of the nature of the separation. Sure, it made the country better as a result by staying unified as a nation versus breaking into narrowly focused subdivisions. Yes, slavery was abolished while the civil rights were no better in the north. Even working conditions in the Noreast were sometimes as harsh/dangerous/cruel as what was experienced by some slaves. Let us not forget about the child labour issues existing there as well during such times.

Vermont could break away from the U.S. of A., Washington D.C. and the influenced satellite of Puerto Rico. The federal government could then choose to remove all federal agencies... their support and funding... not to mention the properties owned by it and any military equipment. There wouldn't be any federal protections or penal system to house convicted criminals. No FBI to pursue kidnappers or work bank robberies. No shared information from CIA or NSA which could prove vital. No U.S. Game Wardens, no Border Guards (no great loss unless the Canadians immigrate en masse) nor any DEA to deal with drug-related crime.

These are things Vermont would have to be able to do on it's own. There are many things already in place like state educational districts and human services. But everything the U.S. government chooses to withdraw would have to be handled... thus the quote "that breaking away from the existing system and setting up your own to replace what is missing is not lazy". Au contrare, it means more work will be required.

And while most everyone could probably state that it would be a negative result to see a successful breakaway of Vermont from the Union... saying it won't result in any positive changes would be a judgmental bias. Vermont's economy could improve greatly. The money spent on the national budget might instead go to bolster their economy and improve the very state agencies that they have. They might even be able to field a better military man for man or piece by piece than their currenty National Guards or active armed service personnel. It might hurt the U.S. as a whole or could possibly even improve things. The chance, however small, exists. Anyone would be hard pressed to effectively measure all the minuses and pluses even if you were dealing just with measure-able quantities like dollar bills.

Let's face it, if Social Security fails, they would be better off at some point to "jump ship" than to throw money into a system that won't support the future retirees. I'm betting that it won't be able to pay 50% of the expected benefits due to me or even 10-20% of what most members here will be due (with guessing the average age is about half of mine). Changing the Social Security Administration is like changing the Catholic Church as a whole into anything other than what it is. That isn't apathy... it is realizing most politicians see the SSA as the "third rail of politics... touch it and you die". It's not stupidity to avoid spending effort on something that can't happen. So if a state wants to secede based upon government inefficiencies, corruption and near-sighted lawmaking to satisfy corporations or special interest groups... they certainly have good reason.

Just for the hell of it. What states do you think have the best chances of surviving on their based on their economy, natural resources and infrastructure.

California...

Then maybe Texas and New York. But definitely California.

California is a definite. I'd say Texas is probably a definite too. Michigan stands a good chance and so does Florida.

My state of Pennsylvania wouldn't do too bad, either. We have the agriculture in the center of the state, the industry in Pittsburgh, and the big city in Philadelphia.

I was thinking of adding Pennsylvania, but I wasn't too sure about their steel industry.

Yeah, I really didn't consider Florida as much because of the elderly/latino populations. They seem self-sufficient until the hurricane season... but eh, Japan does okay with monsoons.